Dec 13, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-12-13 5:00 PM

meeting for December 13th. This will be our work session. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a full quorum here and I will call us to order at 5 0 6 and our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items and does anybody have anything on the minutes? We'll move on to the consent agenda. Any questions on the first item A? Flat, Den Energy Center. No questions? On the flat. Item B. Any questions on item B? Nothing on item B. How about item C? Nothing? Okay. I've got a question. Okay. Julie, item C. D irt Whisperer. It's the Dirt Whisperer LLC Audra Heights edition preliminary class. Yes sir. On phase one I was curious, you know, is there kind of a tree requirement as I drove down that down this down the road on Bayfield Road. It doesn't seem to be a lot of trees there or it just seems like concrete all the way through but when the rest of the neighborhood, you know, you have real pretty lots, large lots, but you hit that that section right there where they built all those are they duplexes or townhouses? The phase one I believe is duplexes. So chapter 13 does have requirements for street trees for single-family residential . I don't know specifically on that project how those street trees were installed or where they were installed so I'm not real sure on that phase one. Okay I was just curious do they go back because they doesn't seem to be a whole lot it just seems like a lot of concrete. You have the rest of neighborhood that's really nice and you drive back down into that Bayfield Street and it just hits you like this doesn't belong here. I know that phase two they will be required to comply with all sub chapter 13 requirements in terms of I believe there's a street tree required for every certain number of feet or for every lot in a single-family residential area and and then they'd also have to comply with all tree preservation requirements too. Okay and also if you look at phase one it's got like a lot 18 a and b but on phase two you have just numbers. Is that I guess I was are they each building is going to just have one lot is that the way normally? Yes sir phase two is actually a townhome product that's what they're intending and so on a townhome each each individual townhome is on its own lot and then they would and then you know the the building they can have eight attached so each individual townhome will be on its own lot and that's also why they're actually doing an alley for this phase as well so there won't be any any front-end parking it will be alleys. Is that the stage question? Yeah I would just I guess how it's my concern was okay so phase one and I guess I'm just trying to compare both phases you know and see what how much difference is gonna be and one of the things I want to make sure is as far as trees and cover that kind of vegetation I would like to see a lot make make sure that that is implemented because that other site look I would I was it just it's just an eyesore. Sure and I think phase two will actually look different from phase one because of that alley because it won't have those driveways in the front so I think it'll probably look a little different from this cheap street than phase one does. Okay and one more thing what about the the the I've noticed in that phase one there's a lot of parking on the on the along the road on the inside of the street so is there I know that there's a requirement how do you determine I guess I'm just trying to it seems like that maybe there's not enough parking because from what I understand and I was talking to a couple of residents a lot of that is for student house it's considered there's a lot of students living there and they're not being sold it's just they're just being rented to students so you have a lot of parking on the street is there any way of compared I'm just trying to figure out it doesn't look really well and it's hard for people when you're driving you have to kind of pull over to the side because all this street is just covered with cars. I'm looking at Richard because I know this isn't we're actually working on that looking at addressing that now through a multitude of issues associated with that part part of that although this is an NR6 you have NR6 has reduced setback of 10 feet which really pushes out the house so it's with a one car garage so it's kind of hard to get really more than two maybe three spots to begin with coupled with narrow right away so once you start cramming all that in and you have a family with or even students with three four or five cars it fills up quick but we are looking at that item and how to address that right right now and you'll see that I think it was in the next couple months as part of the DDC update. Anybody else on item C? Item D is going to move down to items for individual consideration so we'll go on to four which is going to be the planning and zoning Commission calendar we had a couple changes I think we talked about at last meeting and we're going to come back. And what changed for February and March instead of second and fourth it's first and third. February and March. Anybody else have a question or a conflict on the calendar? Okay item B. B. Haley. All right this item is a site plan for two multi-tenant buildings in Razor Ranch. So the request is for approval of a site plan like I said for two multi-tenant buildings to be located on lot 6R and 7R of block A of the town center. You see on the map here the property is outlined in yellow it's a little over three acres located at the southwest corner of University and Heritage Trail so that would be in front of the Wynko Foods if you're familiar with the area. This particular parcel is a zoned South RR2 district so that's that primarily retail commercial restaurant type uses that we've seen over the past few months. If you remember site plans for Razor Ranch are all required to comply with the architectural and landscape standards outlined in the overlay district and with their site plan they're required to submit not not just the site plan itself but also a landscape plan and building elevations for consideration. The overlay also outlines criteria for approval so the P&Z shall approve a site plan if it substantially compl ies with the concept and schematic plan, if it provides a compatible arrangement of buildings and uses and doesn't adversely affect any neighboring properties, if it provides for safe and adequate circulation of traffic and if it complies with all sections of the overlay. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair . How are we supposed to know if it provides a compatible arrangement of buildings and land use that would not adversely affect the joint neighborhoods if we don't know specifically what's going to be going in there all we know is they're gonna make this? The intent I believe in the overlays referring to areas outside of Razor Ranch so would this particular piece of Razor affect anything outside of the overlay? In this case it's not really touching anything outside the overlay. So regardless of what's going to go in these buildings? I think the assumption is everything commercial within Razor would kind of be compatible by nature. So looking at their site plan into here as I mentioned it's two separate lots so on lot 6 R we have about 8800 square feet of building and then lot 7R has about 8700 square feet and these will just be a mixture of commercial uses I would imagine retail restaurant things of that nature. It requires a minimum of 108 parking spaces they're providing 132 if you remember there's no parking maximum at Razor so they can provide those extra spaces and then access to the site rather than being directly from University or Heritage Trail will be from these internal streets. Looking at their landscaping they're proposing a total 29% landscaping overall 37.5% tree canopy for the site. I 've kind of done two different colors here so the lighter green color is actually existing landscaping that was installed prior to this development so all of that will be maintained in place to provide screening and street trees along University and Heritage Trail and then what is in the darker green is the new internal landscaping for the site in the parking lot. And then in blue here there is a plaza area being provided just over 2,000 square feet will have trees and some shaded seating by means of tables and benches. Looking at the buildings proposed lot 6R these are the elevations so mixture of materials the typical stone and ephas materials with the neutral color palette. Lot 7R very similar elevation and materials being proposed there. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan we found it to be compliant with all of the regulations within the overlay and found that it met those criteria for approval that we discussed. So I can stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith. On the entrances you had on, do you want to go back to that slide real quick? On the site plan, yeah. So they're entering either off of those two side roads off of University, am I correct? Yes sir. Either of those, do we know either of those, are those going to be, are those going to have access to the west bound turn? Does that make sense? If you're on the north side of Razor Ranch or sometimes there's areas where you get inlet you can only go westbound you can't cross away. Let me see if that shows up. I mean you can kind of see on the aerial here there will be east-west connectivity here on the south side of the lots. People trying to get back on University is my big question. Yeah so there would there would be there's a signal here currently. Let's go all the way down there. Yeah so that road will connect there and then there is an intent for a signal at Heritage Trail. Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you Haley. Thank you. And item 4C is an item that I have a conflict of interest in. I have a partnership interest in that so I'm going to need to recuse myself both here at work session and in the public meeting. So I'm going to turn it over to the vice chair. Thank you chair. Let him leave. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Thank you vice chair. What I think he said 4C I don't see a 4C on my agenda. Did we move something? Yeah there's an agenda change from the consent agenda item 3D. Okay we pulled 3D. Okay. Yeah. Did not realize that. Thank you very much. Julie the floor is yours. All right so this is one you might be familiar with. The preliminary plat for Evers Way was approved in September of this year. This is now coming back with the final plat. There are some conditions that stack requests that we put on the approval and that's why it's being pulled for individual consideration. So I know those are in your backup but I'll just talk talk through them briefly. First that the civil engineering construction plan for West Hercules Lane and all public infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed development must be approved before this plat is filed. If any utility easement locations need to be modified as a result of these construction plans that the DRC that it could be approved at the staff level prior to filing. So that that's the first condition. The second is that they have to obtain a text dot permit to allow access in and improvements to North Locust Street prior to plat filing and that a traffic the traffic impact analysis that's been submitted must be approved before the plat is filed. So those would be the three conditions that staff is requesting on this approval and I 'll stand for any questions. So any questions? Commissioner Smith. Thank you Vice Chair. What are the reasonings behind the conditions you just briefly give especially on like that sounds like the permit for the for a text dot sounds like a pretty pretty expensive condition to put on the developer. It would be required regardless. They are whenever someone ties into a text dot road they have to obtain that that permit so instead of holding up the final plat the approval of that final plat we've gone ahead that and requested that that be a condition of filing so that they can move forward with the approval and then get those those expensive permits and those expensive engineering plans completed between that gap between the approval and the filing of the plat. Okay. Just wondering I just don't why why I ended up on the consent agenda instead of rather ending up on the items for an individual consideration before then but just if that's normal why wasn't on there the first place. Well it should have been on the individual consideration from the beginning so because there are conditions associated with it it would have to be considered independently. Julie I have one question just for a procedural standpoint we approve the plat so they can proceed but nothing is filed with the city for actual construction so these conditions are met. Yes sir. And who verifies these conditions are met before it gets filed what's the procedure there? Staff would verify so they already have they already have two two permits in one or two projects in one being the civil engineering plans that are being reviewed and that's in association with the West Hercules Lane as well as the utility improvements and improvements associated with this plat. They've already they will begin working on that text dot permit shortly and then they 've already submitted for that traffic impact analysis and they're working through the review of that now so so those projects would have to be complete and that would be monitored by staff both planning and engineering. And traditionally are these done after a plat is approved or is this just a time and issue like can they talk to text not before P&Z approves a plat? Certainly yes that typically what happened before is all of this stuff was was was required to be done prior to bringing it for approval and so what we're trying to do is help expedite it in a way and so rather than requiring all of this and having the plat even though it meets all the all the material requirements of the code sort of sit in limbo we're trying to get it through at least through the approval phase to assist with trying to secure any financing and then address some of these permit related issues as a condition since there's that two -year gap. Any other questions? Thank you Vice Chair. Then I guess just for clarification as we're voting on this we'll approve it the plat with staff's conditions do we need to restate them? I mean I know they're written on the plat so. Okay very good thank you. Thank you Julie and we will call the chair back in. We'll move us to our public hearing section. We have one change on item A the date certain on that's been moved from the 10th to the 24th so we'll do look for a motion on that we'll open it look for a motion to continue to date certain leave open B C and D have all been withdrawn so we will not even open those items tonight and that will move us to item C excuse me E and we'll call on Julie Wyatt for that presentation. All right so this public hearing item is for some lots in our downtown area it is a replat of several lots within a block area and this is for redevelopment on a site and I will stand for any questions. Commissioner Beck. Thank You Chair. I'm assuming that lots four five and six are is that the old Denrick Chronicle building? Yes sir. Okay so I'm assuming that'll be torn down and then these lots will accommodate? It is my understanding yes that there's gonna be some sort of redevelopment on those sites. Any other questions on this item? Okay. Let's see F? Julie are you gonna do F and G kind of concurrent like we did? I am. That's a lucky guess. All right so we are taking two items concurrently the Z 17 12 and S 176 because they are a part of one project the Mingo Road Apart ments. So first Z 1712 is a request to rezone the subject property from neighborhood residential three to neighborhood residential 12 mixed use 12 NRMU 12 and that's that Z 1712 the second request is a specific use permit to allow a multifamily residential use. To orient you the subject property is located north of Mingo Road it is just just west of Boyd on southwest of Boy d and it's near the TWU campus. TWU campus is off to the west here. Under current zoning the subject property has an is NR3 district and they are proposing to extend the existing adjacent NRMU 12 so to look like this. The criteria for approval and rezoning cases are in subchapter 3 of the Denton Development Code. First does it conform to the future land use element of the Denton Plan 2030 and then second does the proposed rezoning facilitate the provision of adequate infrastructure. First we'll look at the future land use element. This is in a neighborhood university compatibility area. The intent of this area is to provide compatible housing and services to serve not only the universities but also the nearby neighborhoods. The code the Denton Plan 2030 talks about how current enrollment as well as future enrollment is going to require going to need additional housing within these areas and services and so these these areas surrounding these neighborhood neighborhood I mean these areas surrounding the campuses are intended to provide that housing and the necessary services for the student population as well as the nearby neighborhoods. Staff has determined that the proposed NRMU 12 does meet the future land use designation. NRMU 12 has moderate density housing as well as some small scale commercial uses that really fit the bill for the neighborhood university compatibility area because it does provide additional housing as well as some of those services but at that smaller scale where it can be compatible with residential. When we look at the public facilities first water and sewer there is water and sewer nearby on Mingo there probably will be extensions required of those at Platting and that will be something that will be determined by our engineering department at Platting. Impact fees would be assessed at building permit as well. Mingo Road is currently developed as a two-lane undivided road. On the mobility plan it is classified as a secondary arterial. Typically secondary arterials are a four lane divided road with five foot sidewalks and it's currently not developed according to those secondary arterial standards. At Platting some additional dedications and improvements such as sidewalks would be required. We look at the compatibility of the area with the surrounding development and zoning pattern. We see that the location of the site as well as the adjacent development pattern suggests that it's unlikely to develop with single-family residential uses. So if we just look take a look at the site first of all it is it is accessed on M ingo Road so it's only access is on a secondary arterial and those adjacent neighborhoods are developed in such a way that there's no vehicular access to this site so it's really cut off from those neighborhoods. So it wouldn't this is unlikely to develop develop with its own just single-family neighborhood in this location. When we look at what the proposed zoning is as I said before it's intended to be compatible with residential areas. It's supposed to be placed near there so it can provide those day-to-day services and those different housing types those moderate density housing types. So it has the the limitations on the scale and development that that would make it compatible. Any development on this site because of the way it's situated would require buffers if it wasn't a single-family use. An NRMU 12 is a logical extension of the existing NRMU 12 to the west and also this this lot is an infill lot and our Dent Plan 2030 talks about infill development it talks about how we want these these sites to be developed and to provide additional housing for for the city. So this this meets that criteria within the Dent Plan 2030. So based upon this criteria staff recommends approval of the zoning case because it's consistent with the with Dent Plan 2030 as well as it does encourage that infill development but at a scale that's compatible with the surrounding zoning and development pattern. Do y'all have any questions on the zoning? Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. On the availability given an overlay if we want to I can't remember and we've had in a couple things in the past we're doing rezoning or during the zoning process I can't remember if our NRMU 12 were allowed to say we want to put an overlay on this saying you can't use this certain usage and requirement for foliage and everything else on there. Can we do that NRMU 12? I do believe the residential mixed-use protection overlay does apply to the NRMU 12 zoning district because this is in let me get my code just to verify. I seem to always be wrong when I try to quote it from memory so it's best just to check. Yes that would that residential the mixed-use residential protection overlay would be applicable in this instance. Yes sir. Do we have a timeline on they're saying it's a primary that said you said primary or secondary arterial? Secondary. Is there a timeline on four-lane expansion? I talked to engineering and I don't believe any any improvements for that entire segment of the road is are imminent but with the development they would be required to at least do things like put in sidewalks. The so the question I was gonna have next was then that next door location is I think it's Primrose it's a senior center community you they if you you can't see it on that picture if you zoom in on that in their entrance right next to which obviously that's a multifamily development that entrance there has the I don't know what you call them and I'm not the engineer they have the breakaway where you can turn in right so you can you can if they're turning into the development they can divert away from the through traffic to turn into the development. Is there a way or anything we can do to be able to make sure that gets done during this process if it 's something like we're not gonna expand mingo yet we have no plans for it. Is there a way for us as a planning is under commission be able to make that a requirement you feel like it's necessary? That is typically something that's looked at at the platting phase and that is determined on on the infrastructure available and the trips generation generated by the use. I'm not sure. I just want and you can see on the neighborhood ride-ins that there's a lot of folks are worried about traffic and she will say that you know we're there's gonna be the ability for us to say you have to have that diversion off of the 33 traffic so the people going into the apartment complex get out of the way everyone is just trying to drive down mingo makes easier for us but that works thank you. You know the only question I have is we have a number of cards in opposition but on the notification map there's nothing on our backup. Will we be able to get those posted before meeting or during meeting presentation? I have I have them map on on the presentation so I'll that will hopefully illustrate where that opposition is. So we'll look at the specific use permit next and what they're proposing so they're proposing 48 two-bedroom units with outdoor recreation space. Two-story buildings is the maximum they 're proposing. They're also they're also site plan reflects that the that the buildings are set back from the residential so you could see in this location here and in this location here those buildings are set back from those residential areas. They will also have to meet all landscape buffer requirements and street tree requirements along bingo and their buildings are proposed to have masonry and stone accents and here are the conceptual elevations of their of their proposed multi-family this this would face mingo and then and then there would be stairs and entry from the rear. The criteria for approval for a specific use permit is essentially a compatibility analysis to to ensure that the proposed use conforms to and is is fits in within the area and the character of the area that it is proposed to go. We look at whether the use would impede the orderly development of the surrounding property. We look at the parking the generation of traffic and access. We look at nuisance prevention whether there's adequate landscaping and screening and whether the the buildings are architecturally compatible with the surrounding area. So we looked at what they're proposing staff. Staff determined that they are consistent with the Denton plan 2030. First of all it's consistent with the future land use element because it does provide that that housing to accommodate the the increase in student population as well as the population within the city of Denton and it also meets the goal to develop our infill sites to to to grow our in interior of our city as well as is our our areas outside and on the fringe of our city. It provides in the needed housing near the TWU campus. There would not be any direct vehicular access to adjacent neighborhoods so the traffic impacts within those adjacent neighborhoods would be minimal as a result of this request. It is on a DCTA connect route. Commissioner Beck. Concerned thank you chair concerning that one issue now will DCA DCTA be obligated to create some kind of offset when they stop their bus are they gonna do we know if they're gonna put a bus stop right there well if you will be the bus stop is actually it's it 's on the adjacent property but so the DCTA stop is okay it's about in this location so when when the sidewalks are are constructed it will connect this and then it will allow residents to win the sidewalk so the developer be doing the sidewalks in front of their development but we won't have it do we have sidewalk down from the Primrose area do we okay okay so there will be sidewalk then all the way that was yes I'm good thank you they're proposing only two-story buildings with increased side side setbacks to ensure compatibility with the nearby residential properties and they must also meet all dent development code requirements for things like screening parking lot screening lighting street trees and tree canopy so all of those requirements would have to be met public notification was sent out and we we sent 26 200 foot notices and 73 500 foot notices we've received four in opposition within the 200 foot boundary so we've received opposition from these property owners and then one in favor the opposition we've received is 6% we did the calculation earlier today staff does propose conditions on the approval that it must that a full site plan must be submitted to the city and reviewed for compliance with dent development code requirements and we recommend the approval of the request because it's consistent with the dent development I'm sorry the dent and plan 2030 not only in terms of the future land use but also in terms of infill development and then it would provide moderate density housing designed to minimize impacts on the nearby single-family homes and I will stand for any questions Commissioner Roselle on a slide previously you said that they're proposing two-story buildings are it doesn't sound like there's a condition to be held to these elevations could they after we approve an SUP build within the MRM MRMU 12 height they're not being held to these today no it is a condition that could be placed on it but no they're not they would have to meet the NRMU 12 this is just speculation or hypothetical this two-story building option okay Commissioner Sullivan the same ones but drainage was an issue I'm assuming that this is all going to drain away from the existing homeowners is that just to make sure that they're covered they will have to meet all requirements for drainage and that that includes not impacting your adjacent properties so I'm currently they're proposing to actually provide detention in this area to to increase the separation between the multifamily use and the single- family residential development Commissioner Sanchez just out of curiosity it's a neighborhood university compatibility so you're looking that probably students will probably use that quite a bit the population will probably primarily be students is there any way the distance of discussing and I don't know if that would even be possible a bike trail or something to help students get to the university because I a lot of students when they when they 're that close they're gonna ride their bikes and and mingle is a very dangerous especially if you're gonna have students riding bikes up and down mingle as narrow as it is I mean is there something that can be done for something like that I 'm it's certainly certainly something we could look at and we could look at that bike look at the bike plan and see what what what future infrastructure is proposed for mingle road that was something that staff looked at because there are some some gaps in the pedestrian facilities in this area and I measured it and it is about a mile walk from this property to the university when you kind of one or weave through the street so it's about a mile walk that's why the DCT a bus stop factored so much into our analysis because we wanted to see where that went and if that would provide an alternative transportation for those for those students so so yes it right now I don't think there are any additional improvements contemplated for the the length of mingle row but I know it's something that is in our bike plan to to more fully complete our bike paths and then and then but to provide that DCTA will at least provide an alternate mode of transportation for those students commissioner Smith thank you chair was the athlete could be present tonight do you know he is here good perfect and then the can you expound upon the landscape buffer requirements you mentioned a second ago what are those you said they they have to you know they have to abide by it but what are they exactly so the landscape buffer is a is a type B buffer which is a 10-foot buffer requiring five evergreen and deciduous trees and 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet so that's a typical 10 feet high 10 feet away from building 10 feet from the property line back toward the buildings the proposed buildings and it would have to be maintained by the property no height no higher requirement like that just commissioner Sullivan so the DCTA is is really servicing the say that was a senior citizen area yes to the south I guess or west or wherever no plans for DCTA to have student services I mean if that's gonna be for student housing see I mean I don't know how far a walk that is from that location down to the other location but I'm just wondering I don't know what their separation is for their stops I don't know if they have a metric that they use to separate for their stops but if you look at the route that route four takes it actually goes to the TWU area so it really it really includes that entire section of town and then and then it goes toward that deep TWU area okay thank you Commissioner Sanchez you have a lot of old oak trees there probably what I could see from the road there was I could see five or six really old but I would call old old growth and it looks like they're gonna maintain them is that is that correct what I can see there are some existing trees now if they cut any of those what I call old growth what what do they have to do to replace that or what's the mitigation for that they would have to meet all tree preservation requirements so on any given site there is a certain percentage that they have to that they have to maintain and then any anything that they cut down that is anything that they cut down between what they have to maintain and and what they're proposing they would then have to mitigate for either by planting on site or by paying I believe it's a hundred and twenty a hundred and twenty five dollars per caliber inch that they cut down so they would either have to pay into the tree fund or they would have to plant on site I believe they are citing their building to maintain some of those existing trees because they are nice beautiful trees on the site beautiful post-office yeah Commissioner Beck thank you chair some of my questions I'm gonna direct at the developer when he comes in but just maybe one you can answer this open space view up near the north side you've got open space in the two corners there is that a fixed condition or is it subject to some development in the future well forty eight so it's four acres and they are proposing NRMU 12 which is a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre so the maximum number of apartments that they can put on the side are 48 so they've maxed out what they can this plan maxes out their density so any additional density or anything would have to pursue a rezoning okay okay we've mentioned how this is gonna appeal to the students so I'm gonna assume that these are not necessary family- friendly apartments that this are we talking about possible SROs here which I don't have a problem this is a good place for you know we always talked about where you got to put those there but this is a good place for it but just just out of curiosity and I could probably ask the developer this later would it be better for okay one last thing again on your site plan here where it talks about proposed attention on the backside of the East units so that's going to gather water pretty much for the most of the area or just on that side drainage will drainage from that detention pond I'm assuming will go towards Mingo they'll have to make sure that they drain it in accordance with our our requirements and that will this is conceptual at this point they'll they'll have to ensure that all those calculations and all their drainage is not negatively impacting those adjacent property okay good just some comments in relation to what you know some of the other commissioners stated to on the road that is an issue and just for the record wanted to throw out some suggestions that part of Mingo there is on a curvature or if you're coming from northeast heading southwest yeah you're not going to see as much ahead of you at this point with those apartments or the means of ingress and as you would if you were coming from the square so we need to do some cautionary things there and I'm thinking maybe without a lot of expense a flashing yellow light and some warning signs that you're coming up on an intersection that could be a possible problem which they definitely go the other thing would be when coming out of the apartments the problem if somebody's barreling down Mingo 50 miles an hour heading towards the square and then someone just casually pulls out of the apartments it seems like and I don't know if this had fallen a developer of the city when they when they do their streets but if we could have a merging line as they pull out where it wouldn't be a part of Mingo until about maybe 100 200 feet up the road just again just a thought to throw out there for the city and in the developer because this is going to be an issue that if we 're dealing with students especially and I've seen people come down Mingo you know help scalpers so just something to throw out there for consideration thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair okay on that same note you talk about the developers required to do street improvement so you've mentioned sidewalks is there anything else required so I know Commissioner Smith mentioned the deaccelerator deacceleration lane obviously that's not a required thing it could be a plating it could be a plating it hasn't gotten that far in the in the assessment of the infrastructure needs of the area in relationship to the use so as it moves forward our traffic engineers our engineering department will review this and and and look at the information that the applicant provides and determine what what infrastructure requirements would be required on Mingo Road if additional improvements would be required something like turn lanes or or right turn lanes so okay so that's an engineering discussion and decision I'm sorry that's an engineering discussion and decision typically there yes okay thanks any other questions on the SUP thank you Julie we'll wrap up our work session so at 550 I 'll close our work session and we'll reconvene in council chambers at 630 thank you good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission meeting for December the 13th 2017 this meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 630 and our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flag I will take us to our agenda item number two and chair would entertain a motion for our minutes Commissioner Smith okay Commissioner Ellis second okay we have a first and a second for approval any comments or questions seeing none I'll call for a vote on board motion is going to carry five to zero with two abstain that will take us to our consent agenda we do have one item item D which is FP 17 - 0 0 3 1 that's going to move down to our items for individual consideration and it will become item 4 C so our consent agenda will be items a B and C Commissioner Rizel I move to approve the consent agenda okay Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion or questions seeing none I'll call for a vote on board motion is going to carry seven to zero we'll move us to our items for individual consideration item a will be our calendar 2018 I assume we don't have any presentation on this no no what I'll just give just for just to put on the record and for those watching we typically meet second and fourth Tuesday I'm sorry Wednesday of each month for the for the months of February and March they'll be the first and third Wednesday this is a to it to address the conflict with with spring break making sure we have a quorum okay great thank you for the clarification on the calendar Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I will move to approve the 2018 planning and zoning Commission calendar great Commissioner Sullivan second that motion okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on board that motion carries seven zero that will move us to item B should be SP 17 - 0053 and call on Haley for presentation good evening this is a site plan for two multi-tenant retail buildings and the razor ranch development so the request is for approval of a site plan for two multi-tenant buildings that would be constructed and within the South RR to district on lot 6r and 7r the properties outlined on the map in yellow it's approximately three acres comprised of two lots located at the southwest corner of a University Drive and Heritage Trail intersection as I mentioned before it is within the South RR to district of the razor ranch overlay site plans for properties within this district are subject to the architecture and landscape standards that are outlined in exhibit C 1 and D 1 of the overlay district each site plan is required to include the following items the site plan the landscape plan and the building elevations the razor ranch overlay outlines the criteria for approval so a P&Z the P&Z will approve the site plan if it substantially complies with the concept and schematic plan that was approved by council for the overlay if it provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and uses it wouldn't adversely affect any properties outside the overlay if it provides for safe and adequate circulation of vehicular traffic and if it complies with all the standards outlined in the overlay to look at this in a little more detail you see here it is two separate lots as I indicated lot 6r is building with total about 8800 square feet and then lot 7r about 8700 square feet so just over 17,000 square feet total both buildings would be for mixed retail and commercial uses approximately three tenants per building a total of 108 parking spaces is required for these because there's no parking maximum within razor ranch they're proposing 132 spaces and access to the site would come from an internal north-south and an internal east-west drive no direct access off of University or Heritage Trail for these buildings looking at the landscape plan a total of 29% landscaping 37 % tree canopy on the site the area in light green is existing landscaping that's already installed along University and Heritage Trail that will all be maintained to provide the parking lot screening and consistency of street trees and site design across the frontage of the property the darker green color is all the new landscaping that would be provided internal to the parking lot and around the buildings the area in blue is the plaza area so just over 2,000 square feet of common area for pedestrians that will include some trees and some shaded seating look at the building elevations for lot 6r mixture of materials stone if is with neutral color palette as called for by the overlay lot 7r very similar in style to 6r staff is recommending approval of the site plan we found it to be compliant with all the regulations within the razor-grab wrench overlay district and the criteria for approval and I can stand for any questions commissioner back thank you chair Haley on the parking issue they it's a hundred and eight minimum they requested 24 more which we're always concerned about all the parking that's created and then never used can you go back to the site plan and were these 24 extra parking spaces going in a specific area are they evenly dispersed throughout no that would just be dispersed across both lots and there is a landscaping requirement for internal parking lot islands the equivalent of every 15 spaces so adequate landscaping to shade and help control stormwater in the parking lot okay thank you you said it was mr. Sanchez we have a 37% territory canopy you said yes what's the maximum that you can go if you can you go more than 37% or and what's a maximum minimum is there okay is that something that's set who sets that for any building site well within the overlay each each parcels required to have that 20% so overall this site is providing a 17% extra tree canopy above what is required okay that's minimum okay any other questions for Haley thank you this is a item for individual consideration it's not a public hearing but there if there is anyone who would like to speak on this item or the applicant please come forward at this time seeing none the chair would entertain a motion or open the floor for discussion Commissioner Smith a motion to approve SP 17 - 0 0 5 3 Commissioner Sullivan second the motion we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none call for a vote on board that motion is going to carry 7-0 we'll move us to item 4 C I have a conflict of interest on this property I have a partnership interest in this particular project and so I'm going to recuse myself and I'll turn it over to vice chair Roselle thank you chair for item 4 C on FP 17 0 0 3 I'll call Julie Wyatt presentation good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting a final plot for consideration Evers way typically these are seen on the consent agenda however due to some condition conditions that staff is recommending this has been moved to the individual consideration it is a final plot that it's in conformance with the preliminary plot that was approved in September of this year there are three conditions that staff is recommending first that civil engine civil engineering construction plans for West Hercules Lane and all public infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed development must be approved prior to the prior approved before the plat is filed if any utility easement locations need to be modified as a result of the final civil engineering plans DRC approval shall be required so staff level approval would be required a text-up permit would be to allow access and improvements to North Locust Street must be obtained before prior to the plat filing and also a traffic impact analysis must be approved before the plat is filed that traffic impact analysis has been submitted to the city and is currently under review so I'll stand for any questions we do have one Commissioner Smith thank you vice chair Julia the applicant been agreeable to the conditions proposed they've been discussed with an agreeable to yes no other questions so just for clarification in your agenda this is item 3d it's been moved to individual consideration and now 4c it's FP 1700 31 it's not a public hearing but you're more than welcome to speak if anyone wants to speak on this you can step forward see none the vice chair will open this for a discussion and or motion looks like we have a motion by Commissioner Smith motion to approve SP FP 17 - 3 0 0 3 1 with the acceptance of city staffs conditions Commissioner Sullivan I second that motion seven a first and the second vote on the board motion passes six to zero with one recusal that's it for the individual consideration we'll call the chair back in for the public hearing that will move us on to our public hearing section this evening I'm going to open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 2 6 and I believe this item is going to be continued the chair would entertain a motion for a date certain of January 24th Commissioner Roselle I move to postpone agenda items Z 17 00 26 to a date certain of January 24th 2018 okay Commissioner Smith second that motion okay we have a first and a second to continue to a date certain and we will leave this item open so it will not have to be renoticed any further discussion on this item seeing none call for a vote on board motion is going to carry seven to zero our item B has been withdrawn our item C has been withdrawn our item D has been withdrawn and that will move us to our item E and I'll call on Julie Wyatt and I will open the public hearing for FR 17 - 0 0 2 0 B this is a public hearing for a final replat of previously platted property the subject property is located in our downtown area on south of East Hickory Street is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of a couple of the lots on the property that the applicant is here if you have any questions and I'll stand for any questions as well any questions for Julie thank you Julie thank you this is a public hearing anyone that would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time I do not have any cards requesting to speak again this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this item seeing none close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or emotion Commissioner Beck moved to approve FR 17 0 0 2 0 B okay Commissioner Smith second that motion okay we have a first and a second for approval any further discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board motions going to carry seven zero we'll move us to item F open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 1 2 we'll call on Julie white for presentation all right good evening Julie before you get started are you going to present both of these items at this in the SCP and then we'll just do separate votes are we open them yes sir yes sir so this is there are two separate items we're gonna go over but we'll do one presentation just in interest of time and then and then there will have to be two separate votes it is because it's all one project so that's why we're gonna take it at the same time so right now we're gonna go over Z 17 12 and s 17 6 the mingo road apartments so as you stated there are two requests first there is a rezoning the applicant is proposing to re zone the property from neighborhood residential 3 to neighborhood residential mixed-use 12 they're also requesting a specific use permit to allow a multifamily residential use the subject property is an approximately a four acre tract located on the north side of mingo road about 150 feet southwest of Boyd Street this is within the vicinity of the TWU campus you can probably see the TWU golf courses in this location here so on the left here we've got what the existing zoning is at the subject property does have an NR 3 zoning district they are proposing to rezone to NRM U 12 which would extend that existing NRM U 12 to the west of this that's located west of the subject property the criteria for approval for rezoning or in is in subchapter 3 of the Dent on Development Code first is the use does the proposed zoning district conform to the future land use element of the Denton plan 2030 and then second does it facilitate the adequate provision of public infrastructure so we'll take the future land use element first per the Denton plan 2030 the future land use designation of the property is neighborhood university compatibility the intent of this area is to provide compatible housing and service and services that serve both the both of our universities as well as the surrounding neighborhood so if you look at the enrollment the current enrollment plus the enrollment projections of our of our universities within the city of Denton there is how their housing needs to accommodate that and and so this neighborhood university compatibility area is intended to accommodate that and try to provide compatible forms and uses not only to provide for that additional housing but also so that integrates well within those surrounding neighborhoods staff looked at the neighborhood university compatibility area and determined that NRMU 12 is appropriate for this future land use designation because it does both of those both of the housing and then also provides some small-scale commercial uses which could provide services for those populations the code also talks about the adequate provision of public facilities for a rezoning so when we we look at the area there is water in that sewer along Mingo Road however extensions of both of those may be required at plat ting and that would be something that would be determined during that that stage of development it is located on Mingo Road which is a secondary arterial under current conditions Mingo Road is a two-lane undivided road secondary arterials per the Denton Development Code are typically required to be four lane divided roads with five foot sidewalks on either side so it 's not currently built to the ultimate secondary arterial standard it is my understanding from engineering currently there aren't any projects that are or any capital improvement projects that are intended to widen Mingo at this time however with the development they would be required to dedicate right-of -way and do any public infrastructure improvements associated with the development we also looked at the compatibility of the request with the surrounding zoning districts so when we look at at the existing development pattern as well as the location of the site on that primary arterial staff is determined it's it's really unlikely to develop with single-family residential uses you know access is only taken from that Mingo Road roadway as well as those those single-family neighborhoods plus the the the age-limited multifamily development to the West kind of isolate this this this piece of property so that there's not vehicular access to those adjacent neighborhoods it's built out around them neighborhood or NRM U12 is intended for these types of areas it's intended to be near to residential areas and to be compatible compatible with residential neighborhoods it provides some some different housing types as well as some commercial services some small-scale commercial development so it's intended to be near residential areas that will be required the way that the site is configured it backs up to adjacent properties so the buff ers will be required I believe we talked in the work session that would be a 10-foot landscape buffer require a certain number of trees and shr ubs to be planted between any use on this site and those single-family residential neighborhoods NRM U12 is a logical extension of that existing neighborhood residential neighborhood residential mixed-use 12 adjacent to the subject property it's also kind of a lot an appropriate transition from this dr2 and DCG which is closer to TWU as you're transitioning toward that single -family residential neighborhood so it's a logical transition as well the subject property is also an infill development the the debt and plan 2030 calls for infill development it calls for these types of parcels that are within our city to provide some different housing types and different services so that we can maintain compact growth so based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends approval of this request because it is consistent with the with the future land use element as well as the goals and objectives of the dent and plan 2030 and it also encourages infill development in a way that is compatible with the surrounding zoning and development pattern and that concludes the zoning portion of the presentation if anybody has any questions otherwise I'll just move forward with the specific use permit commissioner back thank you chair Julie we all I think most of commissioners mentioned in the work session we're concerned about mingo Road in the traffic issue that may arise and the fact that it is considered a second arterial could you share with us for the sake of the audience why this development was considered okay to go ahead with without the widening of mingo at this time well we're gonna be adding some traffic to it albeit not a lot but still within the city of Denton how our roads network typically develops is that as as development on a roadway comes forward right of way right of way dedication is is is determined at platting and then any additional roadway perimeter improvements are determined at platting mingo is kind of an interesting case because it's an existing road so as the city develops as there are future improvements to our roadway network that will be something that would be considered but right now there aren't any planned improvements for mingo Road now this development would be required to dedicate right of way for future any future widening projects on mingo Road they would also be required to to construct any sidewalks so as as the as the network as the roadway continues to to develop they would that would be that piece of pedestrian facilities that they would that they would put in so it's just one more piece that will continue creating those connections so there's nothing planned right now but this but this one would be required to have some improvements to the road okay but we're likely not to see any widening of mingo is a second arterial meeting the criteria of second arter ial and we see a lot more development along mingo unless there is some other mechanism that that creates that that such as like a capital improvement project okay okay all right thank you sure Commissioner Smith thank you chair during discussion of approval for the zoning can we can we limit the height that the height in our m12 is 12 at 65 feet are we able to to approve landing that height at all the the height limit of NRM u12 is 40 feet and yes you could put a condition on either the SUP or the zoning case that could limit the height so yes sir when I already be 12 he's that's 40 feet in it 65 is what I 'll say maximum building I had 65 feet no you're fine I just wanted to make sure I didn't say wrong no NRM u12 sport 40 feet it's 40 but you could you could restrict that is you could restrict that or does it is it says says right here in our in our backup it says maximum building height 65 feet then I apologize I was incorrect in the backup yes it is 40 feet further I apologize never mind yes thank you thank you for pointing that out all right so any other questions no questions on this part all right presentation all right so now we'll talk about the specific use permit and what they're proposing on the site so they are proposing a specific use permit for multifamily developments they are their proposal is 48 two-bedroom units with some outdoor recreation they are proposing two- story buildings buildings would be set back from the single-family residential per their site plan so if we could just take a look at their site plan they are proposing some detention areas on the east as well as the northern side so they're pulling those buildings back away from the single-family residential areas they're also they would be required to meet the landscape buffers in the code and that is depicted on this on this site plan as well as street trees along mingo road they're also proposing some masonry and stone accents and you can see here the conceptual elevations this is what would be presenting toward mingo road it would also have street trees along the frontage of it and then here is the rear elevation so the criteria for approval for specific use permits are in sub chapter 6 of the debt and development code and it is essentially a compatibility analysis between the surrounding property and then the proposed use what we look at is typically what would the specific use impede the normal or orderly development of the surrounding vacant property with the parking and generation of traffic and access how would that work within that the greater context of the site and the in the area what what types of nuisances with the proposed use create and what what mechanisms could prevent that nuisances is there adequate landscaping and screening and is the architecture compatible with the surrounding property when we looked at their proposal we determined it is compatible with this with the adjacent properties for the following reasons first it's consistent with the dent plan 2030 future land use element and also the goal of the future of the didn't plan 2030 to develop infill sites so the didn't plan 2030 once that kind of compact growth and these types of infill sites where you could get some different housing types meet that requirement it would also provide needed housing near a TWU campus and that that meets that future land use designation as well the way the site is is is set out within the surrounding development there's no direct vehicular access to adjacent neighborhoods so it would limit any traffic impacts within those those adjacent neighborhoods it is on a DCTA connect route so it would provide alternate roads modes of transportation for the the residents there are proposed two -story buildings with increased side setbacks and that increases the compatibility with the nearby residential development and additionally the use must meet all dent and development code requirements for screening parking lighting street trees and tree canopy public notification was sent out we've received four four letters in opposition within the 200 foot boundary and you can see they're depicted here and read and that is 6% we've received one in favor and that is this property right here staff proposes the condition on the specific use permit that it is required to ensure that they must submit a full site plan to ensure that it does comply with all dent and development code requirements for those those items such as site design landscaping parking and building design so based upon the criteria for approval and the proposed condition staff recommends approval of the request because it is consistent with the dent plan 2030 and it also provides moderate density housing designed to minimize impacts to nearby single-family homes to create a compatible form within an infill area and I will stand for any questions got several questions Commissioner Smith make sure deacceleration lanes along M ingo the owners of course we put on to the engineer the applicant to construct those is there anything that would treat as a trip generation that would trigger the city making that a requirement correct yes it would be based upon their based upon the road the the in their proposal the types of trips that their proposal would generate that may require additional turn lanes either left turn lanes right turn lanes some sort of system improvements within that area so that is something that they'll be determined at platting once a little more detailed information has been provided to the city thank you sure Commissioner Sullivan thank you Judy what is the the screening that's going to be going specifically on the north and east boundaries what is the screening requirements yes they would be required to put in that 10- foot landscape buffer which includes five evergreen and deciduous trees and 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet okay so there's no wall or anything just landscaping the didn't develop a code doesn't require a wall okay and it looks like on the map that from the one set of apartments proposed apartments on the east side that it's 70 feet from the north boundary and then 40 35 feet from the east boundary is that am I reading that right yes it's set back fairly far now this is conceptual at this exact understand so but I think from the letters that that I saw here the concern was rain one ought runoff you know water runoff that's not going into their property traffic and which I'm assuming is more on m ingo and just I'm sure just looking in the backyard at an apartment but when we're looking at these distances and the landscaping requirements you know am I right to assume that that sort of mitigates some of those issues that it's not going to be an apartment right up to the on the boundary line that they're going to be able to somebody in the second floor look down on to them it was part of a staffs analysis that those increased setbacks did increase the compatibility with those adjacent residential properties because it minim izes those visual impacts of the of the proposed apartment buildings okay thank you sure Commissioner back thank you chair couple questions for Julie monkey back on Commissioner Sullivan's comments would it be safe to assume that the fact that we're coming in and developing or the applicant is going to develop this property that drainage would actually improve as a result that because now they've got to meet requirements that weren't in place back when the current owner was there that there were conditions there that contribute to poor drainage on owners property but now that the developers coming in they've got to ensure that we're not going to increase that or we're not going to add to that is that right they would have to make sure they're not negatively impact those adjacent properties okay also you pointed out that one of the conditions that have to be met for an SUP is that adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odors fumes dust noise and vibration so my question is who and how is this determined what source do you use to measure this is somebody going out checking routinely here in terms of the those types of nuisance those are typically nuisances we see with more intense uses not residential uses something like a an industrial use or maybe a even a more intense commercial use staff doesn't anticipate that that dust or fumes or noise or vibration that is inconsistent with what's what what a residential use would would produce is is going to be likely at this this site so we're not anticipating that a nuisance of that sort would be present here but if a resident nearby were to consider that such nuisance were going on they could call the city and y'all would respond to that certainly okay okay thank you Commissioner Sanchez when we're looking at the the old the trees there's quite a few older trees there and my concern is and you mentioned it earlier you go by caliper but is there a difference you consider trees a one that's eight inch DBH as opposed to one that would be like 30 inch DBH I mean that would have a lot more value even though it's there may they may will be oaks but the older the tree the more value it has because there's less of those kind of trees so is there anything in the in the plan that states okay the older tree will get three points well the same type of tree but at eight inch only gets one do you consider that at all the the way our tree code is written it's in sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code and it does differentiate between tree sizes and also the some species of trees so there are there would be preservation requirements for protected trees versus let me there are protected trees there are also secondary trees and then there there are quality tree and quality tree stands so the size of the excuse me the size and species of the tree would determine that classification and there are different preservation requirements for each type so so depending on how those trees are classified as they get to that platting stage then they'll come up with their tree preservation plan at that point they would have to meet all of those sub chapter 13 requirements and one more question we talked about it's in the neighborhood university compatibility and we were my concern is you know if we're gonna provide housing for students what about by a lot of used bikes I know there is will be a bus route through there but there's a lot of students that also ride bikes and that would be a concern for me is that eventually we need to provide some safety because that road is very narrow and we don't want students to get hit driving to school or riding to school is there I know you mentioned something a future plan for route bike rights routes in that area well the city of Denton does have a bike plan that they are currently implementing and so there are different routes that will connect different bike routes within the city in order to connect residential areas with those nodes of education and employment so as that bike plan continues to be constructed that that bike network will just fill out more and provide more connections in terms of when when mingo would either get a bike lane or what is proposed for that I don't have that information with me I don't know when that would come about but I know that the city is looking at completing that network Commissioner Roselle thank you chair Julie was there any neighborhood meeting regarding this the applicant host a neighborhood meeting they did have a neighborhood meeting they had a neighborhood meeting over the summer I wasn't able to attend that was a City Council night but the applicant is here so they could probably give you more information about what transpired at the meeting okay perfect thank you sure Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Julie going back to road concerns traffic impact analysis is it required it wouldn't be required in this instance because it meet that doesn't meet those thresholds this the Denton Development Code has thresholds when that traffic impact analysis would be required and this based upon the trip generation manuals based upon the the eighth edition of the Institute of Transportation engineers trip generation manual the proposed use would generate 320 daily vehicle trips and 33 evening peak hour trips the Denton Development Code requires that any use over a thousand vehicle trips per day or 100 peak hour trips would require a TI a because this one doesn't doesn't breach that threshold then it wouldn't be required in this instance so if engineering is going to determine if road improvements are necessary they just making that decision amongst themselves or they would look at those trips generation it had generated and how they're dispersed in the area so so it would it would be based upon that not necessarily a full TI a there may be I mean there could it doesn't meet the threshold of a TI a but if it did get to that point where they thought they needed it that is something that the applicant could discuss with engineering to ensure that the applicant or that the site is adequately served okay thank you sure any other questions for Julie thank you Julie this is a public hearing I do have one card wishing to speak Lawrence Hall Dorf speaking in support hello I'm Lawrence Holder 2415 North Elm Street Julie if you could help me put the slide on okay hold up it's good news you [ Pause ] [ Pause ] [ Pause ] >> I apologize for that. [ Pause ] Okay, as shown for the card that I turned in, I am Lawrence Holdworth, the engineer on this project representing Flumer -Rometti, the developer, and Amanda Austin, the owner of the property. We actually held two neighborhood meetings. They were held on 6/20 and 8/03. And both of those, we went for the first one to see what the neighborhood concerns were, and then we came back in 8/ 3 to kind of show them what we were at that time. So we took a concept plan to them, and then we came back showing them what we planned to do to address those concerns. The concerns that were addressed by the residents was the increase in traffic on Mingo Road, the exasperation of the existing drainage issues. So the increase in traffic on Mingo Road, as discussed earlier, Mingo Road is a secondary arterial, and it is going to be addressed for future improvement. And the exasperation of existing drainage issues, per the D ENT development code, we have to, as discussed earlier, not allow any additional negative impacts off-site. So we do plan to take our drainage into detention. We plan to take all that drainage down south, splitting it to the current drainage pattern, east and west, because we are actually on a divide right there. So we do not plan to take any drainage to the east and very limited drainage to the north, less flow than what is currently going to those directions now. The loss of privacy for residents back in the development, our buildings, as shown, are pulled far away from the property line, much further than what is actually required. The site plan actually is 44 feet away from the east property line, 35 feet being what is required per the height building setback, a 10-foot buffer along the north and the east is required as well. So we are pulling those buildings a little bit further back , providing a detention pond between the two so it's a nice green area, and then providing additional green space along the north side. The preservation of existing trees, we, through our site plan, we were able to pull the buildings in such a way that we were able to preserve the majority of all the existing trees on the site, way more than what is required. The required tree preservation at this time is about 25%, not about, it is 25% of quality trees. We are preserving more than 50%, I'm hoping to zoom in on that number here as soon as we get to that point. The additional residents are concerns, so we received a few letters, or at least one letter, that was requesting additional concerns. Noise and traffic congestion increased, the noise off of M ingo Road, as my understanding on that. Our buildings, the building, the landscaping, as well as the open space, should be able to mitigate that noise and that traffic volume noise from Mingo Street. So we're not just open clearing and providing a parking lot where noise would just be able to bounce and ricochet all the way back to those residents. Traffic congestion, again, it is a secondary arterial that has not been developed to its maximum potential. So as soon as it is developed at that time, we will be able to, it will be able to handle the traffic. Again, our site is only taking 320 trips, way under the thousand trips, and it's almost compatible with the trips that would be from single family residential that would be installed in this location, or constructed in this location as well. We have a willingness to work with the city engineer and with the traffic engineers. If any improvements are required, turn lanes, acceleration lanes, or anything of those natures are determined to be required, we will be working with them during the plotting process to provide those if required, and to determine if they are required. Property value decrease was another concern. We did a quick analysis just by grabbing a random home further north, and I can show you the slides as we get down to that point, further north on budding a development, the apartments that were built in 2005 or 2015, sorry. And to show that the apartments, even though they were built, the property values had decreased during the recession and then have been slowly increasing since then. And when that apartment complex was constructed, there was no negative impacts that were foreseen. Now we aren't a realty agent, so we can't determine whether or not there actually will be a decrease. However, it is our best judgment that property decrease is not going to be an issue. Request for turn lanes on Mingo, again that is being addressed at the planning process. We have more than a willingness to address deceleration lanes and turn lanes during the planning process. The request for walls are barriers between development and adjacent residents. There are currently fences out there now. There are currently trees along the buffer line. We are only removing the shrubbery that is not consistent or conducive to the buffer to be able to provide the required trees and shrubs for the development code. So we are trying to preserve all the trees and desired foliage in the buffer. Walls and barriers, at this time we have been discussing and we have been discussing with the city staff internally with the developer as well to provide, potentially provide a wall there. But at this time it is not required per the DDC. And we are hoping to look at the feasibility of that during the site plan and planning process. Again, this is actually a response. I just went ahead and wrote it out. I'll skip this because I already just said it. Additional site enhancements. Our buildings will have a very nice facade on them. They will look, they will present well from the street as well as from internally. We are providing a lot of open space and a detention between the building and the property owners as opposed to trying to provide that detention internally. We gave that as a buffer between the buildings and the residents. It is designed to be a pedestrian oriented development by providing connectivity internally, sidewalks and recreational areas as well as open space for pedestrian use . We are showing at this time and would like to present on the site plan as well bicycle racks, the community bicycle racks. I'm not sure if a lot of people are going to post those, but we are for the community bicycle racks at this time. And as well as covered bicycle racks or providing a storage facility for those. So we understand that some of the residents may be coming from the school and therefore will be riding their bike. And so we want to provide a safe and secure location for those bikes. The outdoor recreational area such as like a dog park or a ultimate frisbee area, something along those lines on the inside internal of our site. Our lot coverage currently is 38 percent. The inverse of that is 62 percent landscape. The maximum lot coverage is 60 percent or 40 percent required landscape. We are showing 62 percent landscape on our site. We are almost doubling our landscape requirement. So our site is in itself half the size that is required per the coverage requirement. So we are really trying to maximize that green space, that open feeling, that outdoor kind of pedestrian oriented development. We are limiting our structures to the two stories, to under the 40 feet, two story structures. That way we aren't proposing to go four story, three story thing along those lines where the abutting residents will fear that somebody that high can actually peer down into their backyards and into their home. So with the setback, with the buffers, with the trees and everything else along that comes with that, we will not be able to easily peer into neighbors backyards. The preservation of the majority of the existing on site trees. Again, I'm hoping to zoom to that. I went ahead and pulled up or put on here the landscape plan as well. Preserving at least 50 percent of the trees. I can't remember the exact number. Just left my mind where I stepped up here. Willingness to provide an eight foot sidewalk along Mingo Street. We have discussed this with the city staff and with the residents that we would like to increase right now. Secondary tier requires a five foot sidewalk. We would like to increase that five foot to an eight foot. By increasing that, it provides a wider area for pedestrians as well as accessibility for a bicycle for passing pedestrians. So we would like to or we would like to work with the city to provide an eight foot sidewalk if we are able to. Again, the concept plan that was shown with Julie's presentation and then the landscape number. So I can zoom in and see if it's any clear. And I can't get far enough in. It's at least 50 percent. If not more, again, 25 percent is required. So here is the notification map that had the neighborhood concerns. And we took 1509 Creek Avenue, just randomly grabbed their site and looked up on DCAD to see property values and looking past back the past nine years. Past the recession, there has been a steady increase in property value, even though the development to the west was constructed in 2002 and the apartment complexes, which would be abutting their property, was built in 2015. So we responsibly believe that a multifamily residential will not negatively impact this area. That is my presentation at this time. If you have any questions. Got a couple of questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. The proposed use is for student housing, correct? It was suggested that it was student housing. I guess really the question I have is that whenever you talk to a developer, as I'm bringing in student housing, they're envisioning creating apartment complexes that have a one to one ratio of bathroom to bedroom. You know, if it's a four bedroom, four bedroom apartment, it's going to have four bathrooms or maybe two bathrooms. But it's designed to where you can have individual units inside the apartment unit itself. Is the design of these apartment complexes proposed to be designed to be marketable towards students or is it going to be apartment complexes that will probably be students because of proximity to the university, but not going to be designed necessarily targeting them? More of the latter. We, of course, welcome the student population to rent from these apartments or rent these apartments, but they are not specifically designed to go directly after those students. It is a two bedroom unit. I don't know the exact bathroom to bedroom count. My understanding is that it is at this time still being finalized. It is going to be one bathroom for two bedrooms, but that can vary depending on what floor or the ultimate layout. But again, we are trying to welcome the students, but we're not going specifically for them. So it could be a mix of student and family use. Absolutely, sir. Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Holder for your presentation. And let me compliment you on your development. I like a lot of things that you're going to do that you're planning on doing the preservation of trees. Possibility of widening the sidewalk for both pedestrian and bike. On that one particular thing, are you just considering that eight foot width just in front of your development or would you be willing to work with the city to take it all the way down to Roodale? Take the eight foot sidewalk or the existing sidewalk to replace the existing sidewalk that's in front of the development to the well or add to it. That would be something that we would have to. And I wasn't trying to get you. I was just curious whether that was thought evidently it wasn't something you're just looking at in front of your development. Okay, good. That's her. And you did indicate these were two stories. So we're not that's not going to change. Okay, story is not going to change from the two story. We are maximizing the unit count at this time. So we do not have the additional units to go vertically or horizontally. We cannot expand the buildings at this time we may be able to make the square footage slightly bigger, but we cannot make, unless we eliminate one building and stack it on top of the other at this point which we, there 's no reason to do. And we do not propose that at this time. And that's very appealing because that that lower high takes that concern away from the residents that should be able to look in, considering you got a, I think a 44 foot distance between the property and there's the issue with offense and privacy fence mentioned those apartments up on university, where it hasn't affected property values there they do have a six foot high masonry fence all the way around. I realize that in homeowners there had some fences of their own to now we're driving down boy and seminal and notice there are some six foot would privacy fences in the backyard, but that's an older development there's still a lot of chain lead fence four foot high. So, that aspect of the privacy is lost. Now, the areas that are going to back up to these houses on both boy and sem inal are going to be the open spaces and detention area so not necessarily a lot of people out there but would you be willing to work with the homeowners as far as upgrading their fence a little bit to afford a little bit more privacy is that a possibility. Yes, so at the time of these neighborhood means one that concern was brought up and we had expressed with residents that we would work with them to improve their existing fence, if it does not meet that requirement the six foot height or privacy fence if they are accepting of that we're not going to force that upon them. We have discussed with staff and will be discussing with staff, the buffer alternative to provide a fence as opposed to the shrubs, which in my opinion, would be better for this kind of a development but not as foliage in the appealing. Either or we will be adhering to the development code on that so we don't plan to create additional buffer we feel as though we have provided enough mitigation for that by pulling our buildings away and providing the required buffer, so we would just be putting the buffer to a buffer that has a fence and then would require think it's five trees or four trees every hundred feet then at that point. So, fence. It's okay. Well, and we'll discuss that moving forward so we are looking at hopefully trying to provide a fence we have been talking with the developer about that providing a fence but at this time we have not finalized that decision. But we will be working with them we have expressed my agree the tree buffer would be good it diminishes it but I think the thing with most homeowners going to be the top side it 's out of mind so if there's that visuals still there. If you do have a chain link fence and the tree barrier just doesn't quite do the trick you would be willing to work with them and erect a price for privacy. Yes sir. How would they approach you, how would they go about approaching you. That is a very good question. That was one of those things where we believe that we would be able to approach that person at that time saying, your fence appears to not be a privacy fence would you like to for us to upgrade that. And if that doesn't happen, then we know that they would be more than if they are opposed to this they would be more than apt to approaching us. Okay, so at that time we would, oh okay you, you would like us to improve that. So either or. And both, I think is how we plan to do that we actually didn't write anything down at this time is how to do that. That's a very good logistic question that I'm not really thought about. Okay, I'm glad to raise it there. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Okay, Julie. One of the questions is, they haven't met the threshold you said as far as traffic. What if later on once the bit, and that's going to be, I guess that that analysis has been done prior to building the apartments. What about, say, a few months later, and, and the traffic gets pretty heavy. And then the residents in that neighborhood then petition the city to do a re analysis of the, of the traffic. Make sure I understand your question so your question is that if trap anticipated traffic is actually higher once the, once the multifamily was built. Yes, what a new analysis of that traffic impact. People really feel that it's impact the traffic has increased, and therefore it's impacting, you know, the area , could they go back to the city and say, hey, now we, you know, we really feel that it's a lot worse and what you had told us. And then the city re analysis, re analysis re analyze that and then have the city do something. I'm not aware of a mechanism by which a new analysis of the traffic could be done in terms of this development. However, the city or traffic engineer and our engineering department as a whole is looking at all of the traffic within the city and seeing what improvements can be made to our infrastructure so it might be part of a larger discussion about the greater network, but in terms of with this project, I don't. I don't know of a mechanism that there are a reevaluation could happen. I was just curious you know sometimes people, you know, we make analysis and they're not correct. And so sometimes we have to go back and re look at it revisit it. And that's all that was my question. If, if what the analysis that has been done. It doesn't pan out, then what do we do the residents have a way to go back to the city engineers, or maybe even just as a group, they can go back to the city. The neighborhood can go back hate. Could you read evaluate the traffic here. I would always encourage residents to communicate with the city about what's going on in their neighborhood so I think that's a good thing to do. Go back to the city and see. Let us know where the issue areas are so that as plans move forward, those can be addressed. Yes, sir. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item is welcome to come down at this time I don't have any cards. If you do choose to come speak if you'll fill out a card for us after you speak will be fine. So come on down and give us your name and address and then just fill out a card before you leave this evening. My name is James Vicki I live at 1510 Seminole Avenue I'm north and center of the property that's being proposed for the change. I must say that I was pleasantly surprised with the redo of the design from the one that I saw in August, they did manage to pull the property away they gave us homeowners, a little bit more space to breathe. I do have a few concerns, and one is, like, Mr. Beck said here, most of us have four foot chain link fences so while the trees are beautiful, I think the fence would would offer us a little bit more privacy people from keep people from walking on to our property easily jumping the fence doing whatever you know just in case we want to keep honest people honest I suppose. Another issue that I have is, I don't know if you guys can see it now, but on the northern end, they have set of dumpsters. And I was concerned my wife and I are concerned that this is a dumpster been for 48 apartments and it's 10 feet from my house and I would like, if possible for the developer to consider moving that maybe somewhere further on to their property. Instead of on mine and my neighbors, you know the summertime I would be concerned about the smells. Another issue that wasn't mentioned. I think is of importance to is that even though there's green space on the northern end of their property. I'm wondering what the lighting situation would be like. Right now we all enjoy very dark backyards which is which is nice . I'm wondering if they might be able to address or, or the concern of lighting up the backyards a little bit too much. If they do have lighting back there whatsoever. A couple questions for you. Commissioner Alice. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for bringing your concerns up I think my question might be for staff I had the same thought you did with regard to the dumpsters and their location and the conceptual plan. And I believe this is to be addressed at site pant plan approval if I am correct. Excellent so that is to be brought up then and will hopefully be addressed because I agree I don't like the location of it at all. It's very close. The question has been removed so that's. Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair, Julie, could you come up and kind of explain the city of the requirements about lighting and something like this to allow changes concerns. So chapter 13 outlines the requirements for lighting at the property line light may may not measure more than one half foot candle of illumination, unless it's a pedestrian area in that back property, the northern property line wouldn't be a pedestrian area so they couldn't measure more than one half foot candle and it would also have to be shielded for upward diffusion to minimize that as well. Okay, thank you. I guess I should say a photo metric plan is reviewed at building permits to ensure that that is the requirements met right we'll be looking at in greater detail later. Thanks. Commissioner result you have a question I don't know if it 'd be for staff or. Yeah, it's for Julie thanks chair. Can you help us with this process a little bit is there a way to put in a request to have these dual dumpsters already address a plot or is it going to be on us that when a plaque comes back. We bring it up and correct it at that time is there any way to be proactive in that filing or or us just encourage the applicant to make that change when bringing to plot what can we do to, because that is a less than ideal location. Certainly, so if the, if the SUP if the zoning and SUP are approved by Council, then a plot would be approved by the planning and zoning Commission, but the dumpster location wouldn't be reflected on that plot so and then the site plan and building permit would be staff level approved so you wouldn't necessarily see that dumpster location so if that is something that you wanted to add as a condition that or, you know, bring that up as a condition it certainly serves that purpose. If that's a condition it's certainly something that you could address at this time, but there wouldn't be a future opportunity to discuss that that location, other than it staff approved at staff level. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, chair. So you said dumpsters in the location, but commercial commercial properties and their dumpsters users, next to that but a residential users own property. Their DDC code for that or is there. They would just have to meet buffer requirements. What's the buffer requirements we know that that well if I believe the commercial against single family residential is the 15 foot landscape buffer so it would be that landscape buffer and then I think six trees and a certain number of shrubs of 15 of landscape buffer so it's something that we could as we go to vote on this EP. We could say it's a 15 we think that it should be 30 or something like that. You could certainly address that location and in some form. Yes, more or less just want to know what it was now I want to say let's do 15 and it's all it's already 15. Right now it's 10 right now they have it at 10. Okay. Commissioner Alice. Thank you at this point I think my questions for the applicant. Regarding this dumpster location. Is there another location that it could be on the site plan for the applicant, you address your question to the applicant. Yeah, I'm assuming that perhaps it's here because that's where it made sense to you as, is there another location it could go. So the dumpster can be located anywhere on site as long as it has adequate access for waste management so a dumpster that is believe it's 14 foot by 22 feet dual dumpster has to have 50 feet of clearance behind it so the way that we reason why we placed it where we did, which actually is, is 10 feet off of the property line was because the waste management would be able to work its way up through grab that dumpster come back through and then loop back back around I guess I can use the mouse as opposed to my fingers. So to come up, it would hit that dumpster come back and then would come back out the site. So we could locate that somewhere else as long as the 50 foot and the 50 foot would be roughly see if that's so many foot it'd be roughly about down to here. So as we rotate that you have to keep in mind that that the dumpster itself is not the only part that has to rotate you have to have that access or else waste management will not accept that. So we could relocate it out into the middle of somewhere or pull it off but I mean now you're talking additional concrete additional pavement for something of just providing the dumpster. This dumpster here is in close proximity, close enough proximity to the apartments that we felt that it was viable to to locate it there. We typically do not like to try to put dumpsters in the front of the development as you have to screen that from the right of way so as traffic drives along the road you do not want to be able to look into as you're driving your car look into a development see dumpster. We understand that we do have to provide gates doors were not to prevent those dumpster from being readily seeable but being honest they're not always closed. So, we do like to screen those. We typically try to put them behind building or towards the back of a development. So that is the reason for this, this SCP putting it in the back of the development. During the site plan phase we will be locking that down. And I understand typically that is where you'd have it but that is where we have our current residents of single family property so it is less than ideal if it was something that was this commissioners pleasure to want to to change and make it conditional upon approval today would that be something that you would entertain. We would definitely entertain relocating the dumpster and working with city staff to to do that. We will have to look at possible locations for that again we are trying to preserve the trees preserve the atmosphere for that open space. Playground kind of area in the middle between the buildings . So we don't want to locate it in the middle of the property we're trying to avoid that so we could try to put it down in the West property line or towards the West, hearing to the fire lane radius on a 20 foot. You're getting. We've been willing to look into relocating it where we're ultimately will go it looks as though we have to do some geometric changing to the roads into the parking in order to to fit that somewhere else. But we are more than willing to to look in to that, for sure. The question on the trash bins that all gets reviewed by the solid waste department at ultimately they're going to be the ones that are going to say we can get trucks in. And I don't know if the commission would be willing to to give staff development review committee staff like we do a lot of other things. I think the concern has been raised by the residents I think obviously commission responded to it it's a concern that we could just say we had over to to DRC as it gets through the moves through planning and site plan for that to be addressed and taken care of and not try to put something on arbitrarily that then solid waste doesn't work . So I think that's one of the things that it has to come back possibly and just put it in your good hands that it's a concern has been noted and we need to address it and and handling staff level and all the places where that would take place. It can be handled at staff level or the S.U.P. Yes sir. Okay. So that the condition could be a certain number of feet from existing residents, so that they could use that as a guideline to say if it's 30 foot easement or, you know, from existing residents that way. They've got the latitude to put it anywhere along that arc. You know where the truck would be going anyway to get in and out of the apartment complex. So by giving a minimum footage from existing residents within allow them more lee way to put it someplace and at the same time, make it go pathetic with waste management. That's the solution. If the commission wanted to structure some sort of condition in that way that that certainly could be something you could a way to approach the issue. Yes sir. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, I just wanted to say, I agree with Jim basically, I hate to tie their hands. I think if we start putting all these, what do you call it, just if we start tying your hands, then we don't really know what's going on up there until you start taking measurements and figuring out, let you all figure it out. And I think that would be the best. That's the way I feel. I don't want to tie anybody's hands and then we end up with a bigger problem than we have right now. As, because you also have to, like you said, consider the tenants, how far they have to walk. There's a big, a much bigger picture than just moving a dumpster. There's a lot of other considerations which we probably haven't even discussed here today. As far as I'm concerned, I think that's just leave it up to you all to figure it out. Seeing questions at this time. Thank you, Julie. This is a public hearing. Anyone who wants to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. We have some cards that were handed in. Make sure I get the right item. We had Bernie Carr, 1717 Boy Street was opposed, mostly in regards to rainwater runoff. We also had Nancy Jordan, 805 Windsor was opposed to the request, no reason given. We have James Adams, 1518 Seminole, opposed request. Too many apartments were in it already, traffic. We have Mary Richter, 1502 Pertain Street, in favor of request. That's all the cards that we have on this item. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion in regards to, this will be the, I believe, rezone only. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I think this would apply to rezone only. I like this development. I think it does a lot of positive things that reduces the idea of apartments being near residential settings. What I want to just bring out as a matter of public record is really for the staff, engineering on the road, the concern about Mingo Road down the road. I realize that a lot is not going to change real quick the way we'd like it. We're not going to see a four-lane Mingo Road anytime soon. But as I mentioned in the work session, there is a curvature along Mingo there that you've got a shorter visual of the means of ingress and egress for the apartments as you're heading southwest, I guess it is, towards the square. So something for the staff to consider, something cheap too , would be a flashing yellow light with a sign warning that they're approaching such an area and just serve as a caution. Another suggestion would be to provide a, I think some of them call it an accelerator lane, I call it an emerging lane where when people pull out of the apartments heading again southwest towards the square, there would be a lane juxtaposed next to the existing Mingo Road where they would have time to gradually build up speed and fit in to offset the possibility of somebody barreling down Mingo Road about 50, 60 mile an hour, which will happen some of the times. And creating a problem. So it's an issue that as this thing progresses and moves forward, I would like to hopefully, you know, just, you know, for the record, point out that we do have an issue with Mingo and hope that there are some ideas and plans ahead to deal with this. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Make a motion. Can I make a motion at this point, you certainly. Okay, I'd like to make a motion to accept agenda item z 17 dash 0012 to approve to approve it. Yes. You have any conditions for the conditions already. They automatically are included right. Any conditions. There's no conditions with this approved zoning clean as is . Okay. Commissioner Smith. I second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on board. The motion is going to pass seven zero. On to our next item. I'm going to open the public hearing for item G s 17 dash 0006 and call on Julie assumed since we've already done the presentation will just say that's the presentation and move on to anyone who would like to speak on this item. I'm going to handle that. I provided the presentation prior to so if there's any other questions I'll be happy to answer them for the SUV. Otherwise, thank you for clarifying. This is a public hearing, anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time I did have some cards on this as well. Okay, so I have one coming forward. I have the same speakers are same card submitters. Bernie car 1717 Boyd was opposed. Have James Adams 1518 seminal opposed. Mr. 15 or two pertains street in favor and same reasons given on each is what was given the previous item. And this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward this time. Seeing none of close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. So there's been some discussion on our consensus about making an amendment for the condition in regards to the dumpster. So, my understanding there's some that are thinking certain footage away from the single family property. There are some, just to clarify I guess what legal and what Jim has mentioned some saying, do we need to put a condition in there stating, let the city staff discuss that and then bring it back to us at plotting what is the was the discussion on that and how should we proceed there. And that was gonna be my comment is, you wouldn't have to place a condition for staff to address site plan issues, we 're going to see it anyways and have a discussion. Correct. Okay, make sure it just as a point of order in the staff recommendation. There is a condition, and it talks about a full site plan submittals will be required so that might be something that would make the commission feel well that staff has to review that. So, thank you, Chair. Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair, I just want to thank everybody came down tonight speak officially the residents in the area appreciate your input. And I realized that there were more pose and there were for it and the fact that we so far have voted to approve the zone change I want you to take heart in the fact that we do so with the idea in mind that this, this particular development is probably going to be the most amenable to that area I think it's standpointed out that track the land is not going to be so to developers going to build single family home so these apartments, the way they're designed with the preserving trees, the set backs and everything, I think we're going to meet your needs not going to devalue property, and we're going to watch it closely as it moves forward to this thing does have to go into city council be approved so this is not the last step. But if it gets passed into, then when it when they bring it back to us for site plan. That's when we'll start scrutin izing things like the dumpster and everything we have your concerns in mind, and we'll move this thing forward with those considerations in mind. So, with that, somebody's already going to make a motion to move. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve as as 17 dash six, accepting the city staffs conditions. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you, Chair. I am going to second this but I also wanted to agree with Commissioner Be cks points. It's, it's invaluable for citizens come down and fill out cards and talk and be here late nights with us and so I thank you for coming out. We did receive a letter from Marie Butler I don't think she 's here tonight, but we did receive her letter, all of us did and take that consideration as well and so hopefully the commission has been entirely thoughtful on this I think it is a good project. It is like Commissioner Beck said the most amenable, and it seems as though from from the presentations tonight that the developer tried more than than others to reach out to citizens with neighborhood meetings and actually take that feedback and change their design which I think is is unusual and appreciated so with that I'm going to second this and hope the project is a great fit for that neighborhood. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval with the staff condition attached to that approval. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Just just wanted to basically get our record to say I do support this I think it makes sense for this particular track of land. I do appreciate the developer having the neighborhood meetings the two that you've had already and my hope is that as the project moves forward, that you continue the discussion with the community I think that that is invaluable to to us as a city to continue that so thank you . I'm like a comment, I'm going to support this as well and I know there's some concerns about traffic and based on the traffic criteria manual that we've talked about this evening. I think we're less than a third of what is even the trigger for TIA so certainly my opinion, I doubt there 'll be any improvements made out of me go because of that, it doesn't even, even third of what even would be required to even study the area so my assumption is that we vote on this is the mingo will stay the way it is based on the size of the complex because it's, although for you all as a neighborhood is a large complex from what's been there in comparison to 200 or 300 or greater size unit that may come before us it is a fairly small compact multifamily site, two story versus three or four even taller on some of the other ones that do come before us so I know it is going to be different than what you're accustomed to looking at, but it is fairly small in size into comparison to a lot of the units that are complexes that come before us so with that I 'm going to support the motion. Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, I would like to say, I'm also going to support it, and I appreciate what the builders doing the meetings he's had. I think that that goes a long way with with the neighbors. And so I just want to say that I'm going to support it. Any other comments. Okay, we have a first and a second for approval with staff condition and call for a vote on the board. Motion is going to carry seven to zero. Thank you all for coming out this evening. That will move us to our final item on our agenda tonight, our project matrix. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I was not at last meeting and my item here coordinate with rezoning committee to align future land use to zoning map. It says see memo dated November 29. Is there a way I can get that memo is that in the agenda from last time or. Absolutely, we'll make sure it's email to you tomorrow. Okay, perfect. The only other thing I had is, I had an item , a long time ago and it's actually still here it's second to the last but sidewalks. And I kind of want to follow up on. There are some streets in town that needs sidewalks. What is the per se I would like to know what the procedure is I'm thinking specifically of scripture. There's a lot of traffic there from the apartment complex and one about to go in and there's no sidewalk. It seems like dangerous. I just didn't know the process of the city looking proactively. If there's not a capital improvement for that road, if there is other opportunities to seek adding some safety precautions to roadways, if there's a way I could get some more information about that, I'd be really helpful. What I'll do is for the for the next meeting. I'll prepare a memo for you both on addressing scripture and then just overall how sidewalks are required. That'd be great. Thank you. Commissioner back. Thank you, Chair. Something that I brought up way back. I don't even think it 's on the matrix anymore but I think it got. It was a good idea at the time and then it became taboo but any chance of addressing eliminating the parking minimums for commercial developments. Plus is to that for both the developer and citizens and didn't not sure why. All of a sudden, it took on the boogie man row but leaving it up to the developer to determine how many parking places they need instead of requiring a minimum would open up a lot of space and some of these larger developments where we could put some green spaces or some smaller commercial interest a little kiosk stuff like that. Is there a chance of getting that put back on the matrix for consideration. As a matter of fact, yeah. I mean, yes, we're looking there there was a commission request where we're currently working on a memo with respect to all parking. I think that's going to be the single again it's multifac eted because they're so it's it's really I was called the silent regulator because you can't really do anything unless you have parking. Right. And you almost hold people hostage with what they can do even really better their property. And so we're looking at that now and sort of everything related to that. And then I think you'll see that as part of the as part of the DDC update. Is like the big development areas where you get the big box stores and raise a ranch shows a bunch of this where you've got all this parking and most of the time that you know there's a large percentage is just not you may have a Christmas and the special days but that's just a lot of wasted space. And that's a cost to the developer to that you know surprisingly I'd be, you know, see eliminated I know most of the time I'm tagging on calls for developers but this is one that could be eliminated so good I'm glad it's back on and look forward to hearing what you have to say about it. Thank you. I'm going to tag on before I recognize commissioners. Will that parking memo also address maximums as well. It's bringing up that the whole discussion is to whether whether or not part we should really still consider parking maximums. Or whether that should be you know most of the time you see it for really a specific at least what I'm familiar with a specific area. So whether or not we want to discourage discourage car vehicular traffic and promote more of a pedestrian environment around around the campus or within downtown, then yes maybe it makes sense to put parking maximums in, but to do it citywide, maybe not. Commissioner Sanchez. I also wanted to address the parking. You know there seems like there's a lot of right around the downtown area there seems to be a lot of new apartments in those streets, you just already can get through. I'm sorry. Once it gets finalized I'll make sure that it's it's sent to the board or the commission I'm sorry to look at engineering is is in the process of updating their, their transportation criteria manual. And then also looking at just sort of differently looking at context sensitive corridors is kind of a term that's used where it may incorporate a lot of different things. And so that that's sort of in the works now. But as it's getting finalized I'll make sure that it's that everyone here has a copy of that. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. You just mentioned it. I think feel like the last four or five commission meetings we've had something bike related has come up anytime there's any type of multifamily of budding any type of single family, or any type of multifamily development at all, bikes are brought up, we keep talking and hearing city staff talk about the bike mobility plan is there any way we don't necessarily have a presentation on it, but something just kind of as an addendum a memo some of it we can we can add it to the city plan. Just as an addendum a memo some of it we can we can include the next backup we keep on file so we can just see what the city's bike mobility plan is for the future so we just have it to reference for future projects. I will I will make sure that it again that's included with. I'll just, I'll do another it'll probably just be a simple little cover memo but I'll make sure everybody everybody has that prior to the next meeting just just so you have it . Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to add one as well. There's several months about traffic with projects. And I think it'd probably be helpful for all of us as commission ers maybe in work session to have some background from staff about at what point is it a development's responsibility to do improvements. A lot of these questions were still going to have to deal with a lot of that with the public but I think as a commission it would help us all understand. Well at this point, the developer has to do something otherwise. This is city's responsibility and they are the ones that take care of it it's not even a developer issue that's even to be considered for our discussion time I think it would probably save our commission to have that background long term. Certainly I will, I will get together with with with us this is the city engineer and try to come up with that, come up with a sort of a presentation, there's a, there's been a lot of things in a lot of changes over the last couple of weeks and one of them is really just that sort of bringing all of this together. I mean we have a mobility plan we have a bike plan and you know what are what are the current capacities on the road and what's going to trigger where it's going to affect the level of service so we're really sort of looking at this more a little bit more comprehensively so we're not up here guessing and trying to figure out what what's best we we have we should know and have the data to support it and so that's where we 're working now to sort of bring all that stuff together. Anybody else. At 810 I will close our meeting this evening. Thank you all for coming out.