Feb 21, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-02-21 4:00 PM

meeting for February 21st 2018. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present. Now we'll call us to order at 4 0 5. Our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items. Does anybody have a question on the minutes? Any changes? Okay, how about the consent agenda? Okay, that's Shandrin. Shandrin, will you come forward? We 've got a question on the consent agenda item A. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Hi Shandrin. Hey just real quick clarification. It's divided in two. Is it one development and they're platting it? There's one owner for the two lots. Okay. But they're currently developing only one lot at this time. And that's the one we heard I think right when we did the rezone there I think? I can't recall the rezoning request at this moment but it's likely that that's you only heard that portion. Okay and it's lot one is the one they're developing or lot two? The applicant is actually here. Do you mind answering that question? It's it's it's lot one block A. Okay, okay. That's effectively what I thought but I just want to clarify. Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody else have a question on this item? Mr. Sanchez? Okay. Just kind of an announcement for both here in our work session and for our public meeting at 630. The item for individual consideration, the criteria manual changes for drainage and transportation. Those have been delayed and will be coming back for work session and and then presentation and voting on for March the 7th. That will take us to public hearings section. Item A, that'd be Ron. Thank you chair, members of the Commission. This item is for a rezoning of a property located on University Drive about 1,500 feet west of I-35. The proposed zoning is to go from NR2, neighborhood residential 2, to RCCD, regional center commercial downtown of approximately 88.7 acres. It's the old former location of the Selwyn school site. So the property owner has obtained or acquired the property and is looking to rezone as such. The future land use map as shown identifies the area of as of having two future land designation. One is business innovation, which business innovation is intended to develop large track well-planned corporate employment park type developments with supporting uses such as retail, hotels, and residential units. Primary uses include office, research, development, and light manufacturing. The property also has a future land use designation of industrial commerce, which is further south or the southern portion of the property. And that industrial commerce is intended to be predominantly for both high or heavy and light manufacturing with wholesale and distribution uses as well. So this slide here illustrates what the proposed zoning is. Obviously currently it's NR2. NR2 is primarily a residential zoning district which allows two units per acre. The proposed zoning RCCD allows for more mixed-use type uses, which is consistent with the future land use designation of business innovation. Hey Ron, can you go back to that slide ? Was there an opportunity to reach out to I guess what might be a separate property owner for the little piece of NR2 that's going to be left out to see if they wanted to be rezoned also? We asked the applicant and I'll leave that to the applicant to respond to. We weren't able to get that property owner to come forward. Thank you. Just a quick compatibility research of the area. To the north west is NR2, single-family. There's an established development there, large lot development. To the north east is RCCD with commercial and industrial uses along I-35 just east of the railroad tracks. To the east and south is primarily undeveloped with ICE, industrial center employment. And then to the west is ICG, primarily office building, the Westgate Business Park. It's supposed to be here but the aerial didn't pick it up so that's the general location. There's also gas well on the western boundary right here. It's also important to note that there is also a gas well within the subject site itself. So in this general location. Commissioner Beck . Thank you Chair. ICG states that it's an area where they can build professional offices and I think this RCCD pretty much says the same thing. I think what this is it's zone ICG but there are professional offices currently. This is more of an existing use is what's on the ground currently. Okay. So I'll double check if ICG permits offices but this slide here was to illustrate that the Den Wise realtor office building is here and there are some offices in this general vicinity to west. Okay we didn't have anything to compare RCCD with ICG so can you just roughly briefly tell us what can be built on ICG? Sure I can do it. I don't have it with me but we can go get right now. So ICG is your your heaviest industrial or heaviest dense intensity type land or zoning district. ICG permits you know heavy manufacturing with an SUP. There's light manufacturing that's permitted. We have well warehouse retail that's permitted with this SUP. As far as offices it's also permitted in ICG. Offices are permitted in the ICG. Retail is permitted as long as it's part of a gas station or quick vehicle service use. Let's see here motels are not or hotels are not permitted. Obviously a lot of the residential uses are not permitted in ICG. Okay thank you. So staff did an analysis of course of the zoning request and it is a large piece of property. It's currently planted as lot one of the Selwyn School addition. NR2 current zoning district is not consistent or is inconsistent with the future land use primarily because it 's residential zoning. However the RCCD is a more suitable more appropriate zoning district that's consistent with the future land use designation and again it allows for the intent of the business innovation which is mixed use development, offices, retail and that sort. Also any future development that is to be built south or east of the development or even west will have to be comply with that is with the buffering and screening requirements of the DDC. So here's the RCCD. I went through this really quickly. Professional offices are permitted. Research facilities, light manufacturing, retail warehouse with a limitation of trade school is also permitted. Multi-family is permitted with a specific use permit or if it's part of a mixed use development. So you can see that these uses as it is compared to a business innovation it fits with what the future land use designation is stating should be. So with that staff is also looking at the mobility plan in the in regards of where this development will access will be accessed and that's primarily on University Drive 380. As we all know 380 is a primary arterial. It's a six lane with a 135 foot right away. It will have the capacity to handle any development that comes into this development as far as mixed use development or that sort of type of uses. Staff did send out notification. This was first published back in November of last year and as you all know this item has been continued for some time and the reason for that is the applicant had made several attempts to meet with the razor company. The razor company received the notice and submitted a response in opposition and that because they own primarily most of the area approximately 60% they are going to trigger or require that the City Council have in favor of this rezoning would have to have a super majority. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. I noticed on the notification from razor that they were opposed to it but there is no reason. Do we know? I have not had the opportunity to talk to the razor company but I do know that the applicant has had maybe one or two meetings with the representative and they may be able to provide that information to the Commission during the public hearing. Commissioner Beck. Thanks Chair. To answer that I did personally call the guy on this and his concern is that he didn't feel this zoning was going to be appropriate for all the industrial uses in there. In fact he was sure that nobody would want to come into the ICE areas next to it because of the type of development he wanted to do. So that's I'm not gonna speak for him and I said he actually said he saw a concept plan from the developer. I said oh well that's more than we've got and would he be willing to share that and he said he would. Said he'd send me an email on it and I invited him to come to the public meeting and I he forgot there was even gonna be a public meeting night even though he received the deal so I don't know what's gonna go on there but he just felt like the zoning wasn't appropriate for that area. Basically that's it. That it was gonna have a negative impact on their property that is something differently. For what it's worth. Okay. With staff's analysis staff is recommending approval of the zoning change request as it conforms with the criteria with in the DDC as well as the DEM plan 2030. Commissioner Rozelle. Thank you Chair. First of all that's the first time I've seen the new sign. It looks good. It looks bigger and more established so much bigger. That's a good thing so well done on that. I haven't turned out to see that sign so that's awesome. More to the point there was at one point a deed or title restriction on this land to be a school or revert back to didn't ISD if someone lost it. Has that been resolved or is that even a matter that we should. I don't think that's something we can consider. I mean if you want further clarification the applicant may be able to fill you in but as far as the zoning. Yeah data restrictions don't. That's nothing that we would address at this commission. Thanks. Good question. Commissioner Back. Thank you Chair. On our backup material on I guess it's first page at the bottom it says there's an existing 10-inch public sewer main on the property which cannot be encroached upon by trees or buildings. Can you show us on the map where that is because it didn't give any indication where. Yeah I don't have a good map that showed that. Let me go back to the area. You can get us in the ballpark. Yeah here we go. I believe the sewer line comes south here and then heads west in this general vicinity makes its way up and then over again in this direction. So it's probably so the area I'm sorry to cut you off there the the area that we're talking about if there's an existing I mean sewer line then there has to be an easement they just can't build or plant trees within that easement. Okay okay. Got you. Thank you. Any other questions for Ron? Okay thank you. We'll move us to item B. Haley. All right this is case Z 18 -1 the Razor Ranch Marketplace residential development. As just an overview the entire area outlined in black is the 410 acres that compr ise the Razor Ranch Overlay District. That's been in place since 2007. The subject property is a subset of that it's the area outlined here in yellow and it 's about 40 acres just north of the Walmart and Academy that exists at the Razor Ranch Marketplace. The request before us tonight is to consider an amendment to the overlay district standards to provide development standards and criteria for residential development within that 40 acres. It's just a little bit more background Razor Ranch is comprised of two general areas the north side of 380 being the marketplace the southern side being the south campus that consists of the town center and other mixed-use development. Within the marketplace it's further subdivided into three general areas. RR2 being the area located at Bonnie Bray and 380. RR3 being some of the larger bigger box stores on the I'm sorry on the western side of the property . Both of those areas have standards that have been in place since roughly 2010. That's exhibit C D and E of the overlay itself and then the third area would be the residential so the area that we're looking at tonight which up to this point has had no development standards put in place for it. This 40 acres has a split zoning about 16 acres on the north side is zoned in R3 the remaining 24 acres is zoned in our MU 12. To kind of delve into what they presented the standards that they're proposed were provided in your backup but in general what they're proposing for the NR 3 area they're proposing to limit the permitted uses to single-family detached dwellings. The NRMU 12 portion they would allow single-family attached single-family or town homes or what they call big houses. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Okay on that note big houses since that's the first time I've heard that term and I know it's defined later on. Do we have any of those in the city currently? No it's a unique use that Razor defined in the overlay. It's essentially multifamily that would look like a large home from the outside is what that would boil down to. So that is their definition? Yes it's correct. I believe it's a concept they saw in another part of the country the developer did and he just thought it would be a unique idea if they could find a place to incorporate it they just wanted to make that available. Understood okay thank you. I do want to point out here on what was appendix one to the standards they provided the area shaded in gray is within the NRMU 12 zoning district they're proposing to develop that under the standards for NR3 so that single-family abut single-family since there is an existing subdivision to the north. So the single-family homes would be in the area that's NR3 plus this it's roughly three and a half to four acres that's NRMU 12. Within the entire area they would request that amenity and amenity center and then accessory structures be permitted throughout for the residents. Commissioner back. Thank you chair. Is there going to be a distinct barrier between NRMU 12 and the NR3? No sir I believe they have a concept plan that they are willing to share tonight during the public hearing but from what I've seen other than a street there wouldn't be any physical separation there. Okay thanks. So exhibit C4 which was provided really breaks down all of the development standards they're proposing so I just wanted to hit some of the high points of that. They're providing standards for site design architecture landscaping parking all the major components of a residential development. One of the key features on the southern side they are trying to create more of an urban feel so you'll notice some reduced setbacks are proposed for these townhomes to make it more compact and walkable. They are requiring a high amount of architectural diversity so it wouldn't you know no more than so many of the houses could look the same within a certain spacing. A lot of architectural details are required and changes in building materials. They do have a minimum of 80% masonry proposed for all elevations and to be consistent with the rest of the overlay you know they're really encouraging the stone materials and the neutral color palette that's found throughout the rest of Razor Ranch and I did want to point out before the meeting they... Commissioner Sanchez. You mentioned that the reduced setbacks would allow buildings to be brought closer to the street. Is that a special consideration we're giving to them on this to allow them to bring the buildings closer? Would we allow that any place else? Yeah it would be unique to the overlay district and to these standards. Within NRMU 12 there are I believe it's a six foot six foot side yards ten foot front yard city wide within the overlay they're they're wishing to create more unique standards for themselves to create that urban environment that they 're going for. But that would be unique to this 40 acres. So I provided you a copy of this revised exhibit or appendix two that was provided to me shortly before the meeting. What they were clarifying on this the only change is that a green space has been called out throughout the center of the property. They wanted to clarify that attached single-family wouldn't be encroaching into that in our three zoning district that would actually be green space in the center of the property. So looking at this a little more broadly the future land use for the area is moderate residential so that's the four to twelve units per acre promotes a mixture of housing types to provide a transition between commercial areas and establish single-family neighborhoods. In general this proposal does provide that they're providing a and actually a very stark transition from commercial to townhomes or more dense residential to single -family to make it more compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. So staff did find that the proposed design and development standards are consistent with both the base zoning and with the remainder of the razor ranch overlay district. Their design and development standards are much stricter than what the city has in place citywide in the DDC for single-family development. It does conform with the density and the overall character that's promoted by that future land use designation of moderate residential and it is providing a logical transition as I mentioned. So going from the the large commercial development at the market marketplace to more dense residential and then slowly into that detached single-family under NR3. Notifications were sent about the request. I received no response forms to that. What I did receive were several inquiries and I made copies of those email exchanges and provided those to you so that you could see the types of questions that had been raised by the community. Haley on on the emails that were sent I just was reading through those there's really no opinion expressed in any of them so they don't say where they're for it against it. Exactly yeah so yes as I said you know no formal responses just some general inquiries but I just wanted to make you all aware of the type of feedback that we had received for this. So with that staff is recommending approval of the request because of its compatibility and consistency with the denim plan. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Haley I had a question with the document itself with regard to the fencing. It does mention in their fencing for the single-family sites it does not mention anything about fencing standards for the multifam side. Some was confused. For the town home side is that what you're inqu iring about? Right. Within the overlay district itself when when the marketplace was created it calls for a fence to be provided between the commercial development and this area so that's already provided. It's already accounted for. Okay very good thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. I think whenever we get to site plan if we get this approved is probably a better question but just looking at this looking at the site map itself is moat was there do they give any indication of what their mobility plan was going to be for that? Is Augusta going to continue through? What's the accessibility roadwise into there? Certainly. Like I said I believe they'll have the concept plan available this evening at the public hearing but Augusta my understanding is that it would continue through and then there would be kind of a split here and with a couple of separate roads going this way. I think they're planning alleyways for the town homes to have rear garage access and then I believe it is one point of entry off of Bonnie Bray as well. Okay got it. So they're gonna be your net though? Yes. One other thing there's that pond that's on the south side of the NRMU 12 zoning area. Is there any ESA issues? No that's actually a detention pond designed specifically for this area of Razor Ranch. Thank you. Commissioner Bet. Thank you Chair. I'm glad you asked that question. That was part of my question. So parking on streets and I mean if we you said we had a 10- foot setback from the street is that correct? Under NRMU 12 elsewhere in the city there would be a front yard setback I believe it's 10 feet. Okay. Is it from the street or the right-of-way? It'd be from the right-of-way so you'll have this difference between the back of the curb, the grass strip, sidewalk, and the right-of-way and then 10 feet. Okay. And what they're proposing you know that they reference a zero foot setback but they are proposing sidewalks along all the streets that would meet city standards so there would be sidewalk and landscaping. Some street parking is going to be allowed? My understanding they have written in a provision in here that would preclude parking on the streets necessarily but they are proposing some parking at the end of each row of homes kind of a little designated a few extra parking spaces for guests. Okay. You mentioned alleyways for the townhome so are they garage entrances gonna be in the back then of the townhome? For the townhomes I believe so. Okay so that would probably remove a lot of car parking out in front of houses. Okay great. Thank you. I'm sorry Haley. Go ahead. Couldn't get away that quick. Maybe I'm confusing this with another property but this is all along 35. Are there any gas wells? There is I don't know if I have an aerial that is... There is a gas well north of here off of actually two gas well sites north of here on Windsor and then there's the one that's within the southern campus of Razor Ranch. But nothing that triggered special notice? No sir. Not within this. There's a third one I think just north of Windsor. Yeah that is correct and I think there is it's hard to see on here there's another one I think that's it. Okay thank you. Thank you. Move us to items. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. So to be clear what we're voting on here is not specific criteria just the fact that what exactly is it we're gonna be voting on? Because we're not seeing any specific criteria but we're gonna vote to... It's the criteria that are provided here or what I called it in your backup let me see what name. Yes it's exhibit six in your backup it's exhibit C4 as well as the the language amendments to the overlay district itself where they needed to provide references to it. So we have site standards they're in a certain area of the DDC and we're approving that for them. Yes sub chapter seven section 15 is the razor ranch overlay district so they've provided a few language tweaks in there to refer to this exhibit that is what you were provided tonight. Thank you. And Haley will the site plan come back to? Yes yeah plotting and site plan for this development will come back to PNZ. That's it. Thank you Haley. Item C as on our agenda is postponed indefinitely. Item D is marked on our agenda has been postponed to March 7th so we will open that continue it and leave open. Item E will be opened it 'll be continued to March 21st and leave open and then we will have Debra and do you want to stick with the agenda and have Ron do his presentation and you come up and do all of your ESA? Yes. Okay. And item F will be covered in our next work session report but before that we will have a presentation from Ron as our going on into our work session reports on the public outreach efforts. Good evening chair members of the Commission. I don't know if I'm excited or scared to make this presentation because there's a lot of information here . I know you guys didn't get a backup we were in working on this even today to share with you our plans for our DVC update public engagement plan that is to start the process of getting public input. We started one module but we'll get to the rest and I'll have that in my presentation. So just quick background you know we we approved our den plan 2030 part of that plan is a future land use designation a land use element a number of other things associated with development in the city which calls for an update to our DDC and our DDC to be consistent with our den plan 2030 needs to be updated so that's what we're doing with with this project. Our main goal here is to assist development and redevelopment that meets that city vision. Through the input that we receive through various stakeholders and interviews we've come up with four I'm sorry these focus themes was common themes and that is to focus on customer service build a stronger foundation tailor our development standards that are more context and to a specific area create new alternatives to provide flexibility and lastly coordinate efforts throughout the city and as you see a lot of our development code updates are coming there as an example that's part of the effort of coordinating our efforts when we bring forward more code amendments that's the goal. So we are looking at a code amendment proposal that will have eight chapters currently we have 24 sub chapters let me clarify sub chapters they are they being the consultants are proposing that they be grouped into eight sub chapters and those sub chapters are listed here in an effort to review this in a more succ inct manner they've even grouped it even more and developed modules so the first module is the zoning districts the overlay in historic districts and the use regulations this was presented and made available in the fall of last year it's currently on our website we've received comments already from the general public and we continue to receive input from them. The update will also include a zoning map update as we look at a new zoning list of districts our zoning map has to be reflected of that so we will also need to update our zoning map and that is quite an effort and I'll get into that a little bit more as to how we're gonna get through that. The first effort and you all the three that are listed here are part of this DDC update advisory committee it's made up of three council members and three planning zoning commissioners Larry Mar gie and Andrew you're on the planning zoning commission a component of this and this committee is charged to be the first reviewers of any drafts that will come out so when Clarion comes up with or comes out with their module 2 the committee will be the first to look at it of course staff will have an opportunity to review it get it revise it and get it back to you all but the committee's responsibility is to review the drafts and also help guide the process. We also have a technical team that will assist in the facilitation of the code update of course we are we've got we have Clarion Scott McDonald development director development services director as well as Richard myself and the other staff members here will be part of that team to facilitate getting information to the committee facilitating the public open houses the workshops hopefully ultimately to City Council and planning zoning Commission for consideration. So here we go so fall of 2017 we again I mentioned module one was presented we had a we had open house in June public meeting one was in September and then November we had a follow-up meeting in November 13 on November 13th. The week of March 5th coming up module 2 will be available for the general public staff is in the process of reviewing it now and the council consultants will be revising it once they provide us with their revisions based on our comments March 5th will be the date that we will make it available. Of course in that during that week March 7th the committee is going to have their first meeting to look over module 2 in that same day we will have a public meeting on having an opportunity for the general public to come and provide input and that will be held during the early afternoon. March 7th is a P&Z date that's unfortunately the date we were we have so in the early afternoon we'll have a public meeting and then later that evening will be P&Z so it'll be a full day for the planning zoning Commissioners that are on the committee. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair so the advisory committee us three were meeting that morning? In the morning yes. Okay thanks. Busy day. Lock out your whole day. Lunch and dinner. The next day which is the Thursday March 8th we will hold stakeholder meetings with special groups both internally and externally that will happen in the morning and the afternoon and then that afternoon them the the between 11 and 1 we're proposing to have an open house again another opportunity for the general public to come if they were not able to make it that evening of March 7th there's there's an opportunity to come on March 8th so all this information I know some of you are jotting things down are looking at your calendar we will make available to you all this is a draft we are still working on this and the reason why we're presenting this to you today is really to get your input to give you an opportunity to let us know if you have any other ideas or if there's ways we can improve this and I felt to mention that earlier. All right so that's module two module three will happen in about two weeks after that March 19th we will make public the the draft of module three which is the development standards similar situation the consultants will be here on March 21 st which is again a P&Z date the whole day blocked out for Larry Andrew and Mar gie stakeholder meetings and open house as shown here. Roughly the week of March 26 which is the week after we are hoping to have the proposed zoning map available and this is a lot of work being done right now to basically take our current zoning make it fit within our proposed zoning districts that's consistent with our future land use designation so it's it's a lot of different things going in now this is a proposed zoning map and this is going to affect a lot of people and that's that's something that we are also going to address as part of this public engagement effort. Early May after all the public input in open houses we're hoping to have a consolidated public draft available for everyone to look at this will be based on input we receive the revisions made by the consultants and hopefully a draft that will then receive additional input and something that will then take forward to the committee through the committee to the P&Z and City Council. Ron question for you on that slide you go back on the proposed zoning map is this essentially going to be like a sea-wide rezoning? Yes sir. Okay so just like what we did 2002. Now a lot of the zoning so just really quick background on that currently we have I want to say 26 zoning districts we're going to go down to 14 so there will be some combined some eliminated some added so it's it's a comprehensive zoning map update. Just to follow up on that if I recall just so I'm familiar and public can be familiar you can't downzone a property without the owners consent is that correct? I honestly I don't know the answer to that question. Down zoning without the owners consent. If you do a city-wide rezoning you can't go from for example an NR4 to an NR2 without the owners consent. So the minimum with their proposed rezoning you at least stay with the zoning you have or you bump up to a higher classification that's the closest to what you currently have you can't go down so it's always going to be stay or up rather than down. Okay thanks for the clarification. I know that was a huge or that was a lot of issues many years ago. Right and again it's gonna be very difficult to make that definition because a lot of the zone districts you know what's considered down zoning so we 'll I've noted that and and we'll make sure that we bring that up as a topic for discussion. Okay thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Based on the fact that there's gonna be a lot of changes what kind of response are you getting from in these public meetings? I mean are you getting a lot of input or is it just a few people showing up? We had I go back to the slide because the first the only public meeting we've had is module one which is which is the big one right which has the zoning district. We held several ones as you can see here overhead the council chamber and there were about 30 to 40 people honestly that showed up and then we've also received comments online. I don't have a list but not a high input if I if I can be frank so yes I mean roughly each of these means we've had maybe 40 people. Margie you may have attended a couple of them or one of them. Yeah. Do you consider that pretty representative? I mean I wish we had more. Yeah that's what I'm saying to make changes as major as what you're talking about it doesn't seem like you're getting a whole lot of public input. And we're gonna we're gonna continue to reach out as much as we can and really rely on people to help us. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. If I could add that to to your point Commissioner Sanchez all these efforts and we'll go through them and they've added even more I think ability for the public to make comments. I think this is tough to get the entire city involved in because it's pretty intense to read code and a lot of people don't care a lot of people don't understand it. So honestly the very first meeting in when we had I think we had 37 people or something like that at that meeting you know that 's pretty good because some people are paying attention and then I know there's been comments made online because you can go on on on the code website and look at those comments. As well I think adding the the what we did last time where we met them in the building on Hickory is that what you're proposing for those stakeholder meetings where people signed up for the time to have the one-on-one? Yeah. Is that what you're yeah and that that seemed well received you know where people went in handful at a time kind of a roundtable discussion. So yeah I think you're not gonna get the majority of the city involved in this and I don't know that you want the majority of the city involved in this because just some of them I mean are just not gonna have any input because it's just not anything of interest to them but I think I think the city's doing a good job in trying to reach out and get the word out for sure. Commissioner San chez. Yeah I'm not saying they're not I know it's people tend to be apathetic on a lot of issues when you try to get them involved and then afterwards they complain but you know the point here is you make a big effort and if they don't show up it's their fault but you want to make that big effort to try to bring them in. Right and again. Making sure it's in the paper. Yes. You know making sure that there's every form of communication that's all I'm saying. That's a big issue I think. We do appreciate that and that's why again why we're here we're trying to get it as early as possible to let people know that it's coming and so hopefully through this process not only will we hear ideas from you but maybe if people are watching they can give us ideas on how to reach out to as many people as possible. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair and to help you along to echo what Commissioner Ellis said one of the best ways that we helped I know and maybe some others did too is we got out there on social media and made the public aware and a lot of the people that are on these social media websites are stakeholders and everything so I think we connected with the right people the fact that we only had 37 just kind of you know the interest in something like this so I think the people that need to be there were there you know maybe one or two weren't but I think the word got out well enough to the people that needed to hear so to allay your concern there I just wanted to share that with you. Again as you know social media of course and then of course a dedicated website that's going to be important because that 's where we can post a lot of the information and again offer an opportunity for people to provide comments input so we have a dedicated website den code 2030.com we'll have the zoning map available there existing and propose all the uses that's associated with each again provide opportunities for people to provide comments what we'll do is we'll take those comments put them in an Excel spreadsheet and just keep track of these so that we can show and adjust those comments in an orderly fashion and of course upcoming workshops and public hearings that are scheduled so the information will be there on our website this is obviously one of my zoning case I just want to just illustrate what we'll potentially see it we'll have an existing and a propose and we'll we'll talk to each property owner if need be to show with show them what we are proposing and we'll get their comment and document all that information for for all the committee and the Pinsley and City Council to consider okay so that's the modules module two and three March 5th March 19th busy weeks the maps the 21st right the map the learning map is a is a big deal because it affects everyone one way or another if zone appropriately what we 're proposing is sending out letters and we have approximately 40,000 properties or parcels in the city and we are going to send out what their zoning is going to be instructions to access information on the website have have opportunities for them to find out what's going on with their property email DTV newspaper we already talked about press releases you know everything that we can think of you know special in city newsletter going out social media everything that we we normally do as far as public outreach Commissioner Smith make sure 40,000 letters yeah in the past whenever you chair whenever you guys did the the last citywide rezone believe it or not that was even before my time is there gonna be a public was gonna be a public forum for this whenever it comes to come back to us for we this the map we're gonna have to vote on it right and a public and a public hearing correct correct just saying that just to ask this then so there's the chance that of the 40,000 maybe that don't like their their rezoning that we'll be hearing from them as well yes get your get your caffeine ready boys Commissioner Ellis thank you Jeff Ron at one time when we started this right there was an end of our second module to meeting we put together a citizen names of citizens that we had provided and then that's when everything came to a screeching halt I think somebody from staff reached out to these people who's and they agreed to be on this committee and the committee absolutely never met have we thought about engaging that group again we did and I think it was there was a transition in staff and when that happened that idea is not part of our public outreach we will have a lot of public outreach so those individuals will still be participating but not at the level as they would as part of that okay so not part of any kind of steering committee have we made sure that we have those people on a list though I mean because those were those were good involved names I know that we've all provided and I've certainly been questioned like hey they contacted me once and never again so right again it was during that transition and we do have them are we our list continues to grow and we continue to make sure that it's updated and we will use that as part of our public outreach well and we may want to I don't know who did the reaching out the first time but you know perhaps somebody from staff needs to reach out again to just say that the steering committee is not going to happen okay but we want them involved in this process and to please you know stay engaged I mean I think I think we owe them that we we we called them ourselves personally and then staff sent out and got the yes we want to be on the committee and then silence and so I think they at least deserve some kind of an explanation and and maybe a way to to stay involved in it great no thank you for that and we'll certainly do that Commissioner Smith nature sorry I know how much jokes and everything else but not not not so I finally sunk in I actually want to ask some serious questions the timeline between the mailing and the public hearing you think what's the what's the the time they're gonna have of notification till the public hearing till till till the ad till the vote on the DTC comes back to us at planning I think our standard is 12 days for public here so yes is there anything I know you guys have a lot of a lot of great things you guys doing email blast put them on the TV a dedicated website all that is there anything else that we can from a commission standpoint help you guys do excuse me preempt ively to assist that even offering ways that they can contact us be I'm speaking for myself not for that they can contact commissioners they can contact whoever they feel like is their representative to be able to answer questions because I feel like that just the same 12 days between you get a letter that and we 've seen it we've had we've had cases that herb you know deals that come before us that they come to say I just came here and I had a bunch of questions and now they've all been answered for me being here so just to save people time and save yes so so beating ourselves before we get to a public hearing we're gonna we're gonna have a lot of public outreach workshops and open houses so this notice that I'm sure these letters are for a public open house of workout so that's one we will have to re-notice them again so these are different than the actual for the public hearing so they'll be mailing and then they'll be a notice then they'll be 12 days and then it'll be okay yes you're saying we're gonna send out 40,000 notices and 12 days later we're gonna have no they'll they 'll know already in advance but then per our requirement we would have to notice them again for the public hearing sure but the opportunities other than just that first time this will be this will be several times thank you appreciate it good question though so what we're proposing is to have public open houses and workshops by council districts just to help concentrate you know our efforts we'll have four stations available and you know it's manned our staffed with our staff members that is to go over all the details as to the type of zoning that is proposed the uses that are under that zoning district and any comments again we're trying to get their input and the goal is to fill out these common cards enter into an Excel spreadsheet and keep track of all the input that we have so when we get to PNZ and City Council that we'll have a better idea of what we've heard so here's another list of dates and so don't get scared this is this is where it gets a little crazy so for the zoning map this is the the 40,000 letters that we're gonna be sending out we're gonna be advertising or letting them know that if you're in district one your date to come to an open house is March 26 it's just not too far away that's just around the corner location we haven't yet determined but we're gonna try to identify it within that zoning district no I'm sorry Zorn district council district district 2 that Thursday we'll have a week where we will have the staff available at our office then services to come in and speak to us individually if they want to if they weren't able to make the March I'm sorry the the first one or the second one on March April sorry April 9th will be district 3 district 4 would be that Thursday and then a citywide on a Saturday again opportunity for people to come that weren't able to come they can come between 9 and 12 on Saturday this is what staffs proposing obviously we'd like to hear from the Commission Commissioner Smith thank you chair is there any way we can include in that and that notification I'm sorry the initial notice uh-huh mailout include general basic district map I have a lot of people that I know that don't know what district they're in council district yeah what council district they're in so is there any way we can include you can't obviously go by letter by letter and say hey you're in district 2 but include a map well idea the idea no you're right I mean depending on how we say we want to say all at one time we need to make sure actual sheet in there they're familiar with what district they're in because they'll see this these dates and they want to make sure they attend that district meeting because it would be geared towards that specific area that makes sense thank you if we want to waste the paper even just point into the link on the website that has the map on there that they can do that too okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Ron are you sending us this presentation yes thank you this is a draft as it can be like I said we've been working on it all week and we want to make sure we incorporate what you you've told us and so when we get updated we'll make sure to send it to you well I met this particular one with the dates on it just so all of us okay perfect so any thoughts on these dates having it on a Monday for one a second one on a Thursday just splitting it up as we've proposed is there any comments or any questions Commissioner Beck I'm concerned and it may be that not many people turn up again except those who are really interested but on a 6 to 8 p.m. how many people are going to be there to answer questions for the public there will be at least eight staff members okay okay okay all right thank you Richard might be there maybe maybe Larry you can be there too and help us out we talked about individual stakeholder meetings you know we're gonna try to reach out to these individual groups again we want to hear from as many people as possible this is our list do you all see any or you see anything missing or do you have any groups that you think should be added that we can reach out to to make sure that we have everyone's input if you if you think of something later you can always email email myself or Richard or Scott all right so here are the public hearings Tim this is where this is where now I've got one I thought of okay commissioner Smith the chair rotary or Kiwanis or Lions Clubs okay the next slide is a busy slide I apologize but as we get through the public workshops and public open houses talking about the zoning map and any opportunity to talk about even the modules we're gonna get the PNZ and City Council familiar and brought up to speed now the commission I'm sorry the committee will have some insights but the plan the rest of the planning zoning Commission is going to hear for at least as a group the first time on April 17th an introduction joint meeting with the City Council and the planning zoning Commission following that will be April 18th and that is a PNZ date I'm sorry that's not a PNZ day that's not a PNZ day it's actually a Wednesday that's not a PNZ that will have the special work session with with PNZ and the hope there's that's all we're going to be talking about is module one as a commission Ron's got a question yes sir and looking at the whole calendar here with the special work sessions and the number of ordinances that we're going to have to be reviewing how early will we get that information prior to these meetings to have more than four or five days to review three or four ordinance I hope at least two several weeks yeah minimum two weeks if not more right Commissioner Ellis thank you chair isn't module one as it's going to be presented ready now it is we are like I said we are still reviewing receiving input always the idea is that the consultants will take that and maybe change it a little bit I already know that on the website there's already a major change that is already proposed so the version that you'll get will most likely be a different one yeah okay yeah I'd like to piggyback on Commissioner Ellis's point if the modules are ready or modules are ready now and you're receiving comment is there a reason why we can't get those now and be part of that we come in and hopefully speed the process up sure sure we can do that I think that'd be beneficial that I will speak for anybody else I know me and reading it like I said module one it's on the website module two will be available March 6 and then March 19 with module 3 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair okay so clarify module one with as far as what okay last I heard we were moving forward with what was presented last so you're saying that now went back and got reviewed again would you say move forward you mean what obviously it wasn't approved but as far as I mean we had vetted it twice and had page turn you know committee and then we had several public input on it and so then I thought we were then we were I thought gonna bring it to full PNZ at that point so so no so module one's been redone since the committee saw them sort of okay what happened was you may recall there were there were mixed-use districts and then there were mixed-use corridor districts and a lot of it seemed to be repetitive and so what we thought was given where engineering starting to go with with their criteria manual on these context-sensitive corridors rather than have specific corridor zoning districts where we get into zoning changes because one thing may not work and what we thought was once we get into landscape streetscape identify those corridors as part of a as part of the plan and if that's how we want to set the streetscape do that as part of a as a separate section of the code rather than a whole separate zoning district and so whatever whatever criteria would be required based on that street type that would be the requirement rather than specific to the zoning and so it's just sort of refining I don't think you'll see any major changes other than sort of refining and actually reducing again the number of number of districts okay yeah because that's my concern if because it doesn't look like we're seeing that as a committee again according to your plan we're starting with module 2 so that's my concern is how how much changed between what we started last year on one right now that's about the extent of it there might be some use changes as we you know progress but right now that's that's the extent of it are you bring up a good point I think that first meeting on on March 7th where we're gonna introduce module 2 we might bring because the City Council members would not have been presented it to them as well so we might include that as part of that discussion on March 7th commissioner Roselle thank you chair the this can you wonder that you're that you're on the slide that I wanted to see about the Advisory Committee this is the Advisory Committee on March 7th when we meet next meeting as a full Advisory Committee are we still gonna meet separately like we did previously where there's three of us meeting and then three of them or we all six going to meet it's my understanding the committee is made up of all six that would be most helpful to meet that way thank you I just broke this up by okay go back to that scary slide special work session which is an off P&Z dedicated just for module one following that work session we'll have a work session with City Council talk about module one and so on and so forth June 5th we'll have a recap meeting to go over it again with the City Council and P&Z proposing June 27th that looks about like three weeks to bring it forward and that will be where Tim you were talking about noticing this is the public hearing and this is we have to legally notice property owners because they they are going to be affected and again that is scheduled tentatively preliminarily June 27th about less than a month we will take it to City Council so July 17 is the date Commissioner Ellis thank you chair this is just the DDC rewrite or is the zone map change in incorporated in this as well everything everything Commissioner Smith and I come to Commissioner Rosalene thank you chair more of just a little logistical issue I guess the if others there's one councilwoman McGarry who's on the the advisory committee she is not opting for reelection so what's gonna happen how does how does what happens on that but if there's somebody who's on there now it's not gonna be on it after the election I'm gonna either turn that to Richard or I can try to attempt I know that Scott McDonald is planning on having a similar presentation City Council in that I'm no real address that yeah yeah that will have to be addressed that's a good observation just want to ask thank you Commissioner Roseau sorry I almost forgot anyways on July 17th potentially the entire DDC would be implemented with that let me rephrase that these zoning changes that we've talked about the zoning map changes yes would those be adopted July 17th or those that would happen earlier as a dry 17th for all of it implementation that that's that's our plan is to do everything at one time and at that time all property owners and didn't if this goes through would switch zoning that night if not that night maybe 14 days later just per standard requirements I got you but generally in that same time frame okay thanks oh yeah we're done any other questions so what we'll do is we'll put together this plan that we've just presented we're taking it to City Council with the same intent we will then distribute the dates to everyone on the commission so you'll have that moving forward just want to make sure that that was our next step and make sure everyone's okay with having a separate meeting just specifically dedicated to the DDC piece at midnight correct okay Larry's got his calendar book to raise all right thank you all thank you Ron our next item will be to continue on with our work session on the ESA rewrite and I think the interest of time is let's take a quick break and get food while Deborah's getting set up and come back as quickly as we can so we can go all the way up to 630 if necessary so I will call a recess at 512 for break for food and then we'll reconvene as soon as possible and then call us back into session our work session at 522 it has to call on Deborah for presentation of our ESA ordinance vegetation we're back in session okay good evening Commission my name is Deborah Vera with environmental services we are back to resume our conversation on the proposed amendment to sub chapter 17 I would like my goal for for this work session is just to go over some definitions that the Commission asked me to to revise and to include and I have provided those in this presentation I believe Commissioner Roselle have some questions about zoning and upland habitat I have created a map and the analysis for for him and I have provided responses for every single public comment response I have I will pull them up step is available to go one by one if that's the desire of the Commission or specific questions that you may have I also have available the previous presentation just in case we wanted to revisit that last time we spoke Commissioner Sanchez asked us to be to provide a more clear definition of what upland habitat is there was some confusion about the 10 acres and being contiguous versus being remnants so we did a small tweak and pretty much we are proposing to define it as a continuous areas 10 acres or larger of cross timber habitat okay is that clear does that meet your expectations for me it's fine I think it's more it's clear because now we're talking about a 10 acre area you know as opposed to the first one it makes you wonder if it 's remnants inside of 10 acres in 10 acres this will make it sure it's 10 acres and above chairman strange as goes to provide a definition of why wetland is this is pretty much we had a discussion over what we thought it was a wetland but this is a more formalized definition we are proposing to include this in sub chapter 17 as well as on sub chapter 23 where all the definitions are okay will it also be in the criteria manual correct we did the analysis of what overland habitat are left in the city on the left hand side you will see the entire city what we did we grouped the zoning district by those that are completely residential those are in green then you will see in red those zoning districts that are all commercial where residential users are not allowed and then we have a mixed of zoning district that they could allow both either rest single-family duplex or multifamily and we codified those as a yellow then we analyze how much open habitat are in those three categories either residential mixed use or commercial district 7% of the open habitat is within zoning district that will allow only some sort of commercial 48% is within district that will allow residential and 45% is within zoning district that could allow both residential or commercial at this point because those zoning district allows both activities we will not know how those as districts or parcel will be developed until we have a proposal. Staff received some comments from from some of the of the commissioners I have been trying to send responses back however I was not able to finish all of them there was a question about the city's jurisdiction to regulate floodplain in the ETJ floodplain E SA this is a copy of section 551.002 of the Texas Local Government Code that talks about the protection of streams and watershed by home municipalities the reason that give us that protection is for the protections of water supply for any municipality in this case will be Ray Roberts and Lake Louisville. Provide the protection for off and may police any watersheds and it is that authority is given not only within the city limits but also inside the municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction. There was also a question about what a structure is and this is a straight from sub chapter 23 is any edifice or any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together which require location on in or above the ground of which is attached to something having a location on in or above the ground. I believe Commissioner Sullivan have a question about swimming pools so if they were able to be allowed in the ESA because it's not considered a structure then they would be able to do that. So I'm going to switch now and I apologize to the list of public comments. So staff went went back and provide answers for every single public comment some of them staff have modified or proposing new language to address those comments. There are at least 20 instances in in in this list where staff is proposing to modify the code or the proposed language to address or to make it more clear in those instances where the first attempt was not clear enough or there were some questions about it. I don't know if you want me to go over those or how do you want it to proceed? Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. I don't know the answer to that question just yet because it would be whatever the Commission wants but with regard to where it's noted that you'll be adding or changing is that something as we vote on tonight that we would have to say is a condition of what we're recommending or have you already made these changes that are noted here? Well I have not made the changes yet because I would need a recommendation to go ahead but what we can do is because I have the sessions that they pertain to we can if the Commission is ready to move into a motion we can provide the list and say as amended in section such and such and then we will incorporate those changes and it would be verb atim of what is under the respond column. And just maybe to jump on what you're saying I believe you could you could approve the the changes in whole or you can take them item by item like that there remains a discretion of the Council of the Commission. Commissioner Roselle. Thank you Chair. So very helpful to have the responses here and I appreciate that looks like a lot of work so I appreciate that. On number eight legal counsel's researching procedural options I know we talked about this extensively if the alternative ESA should appropriately come through the P&Z as a zoning case is there an update on legal's opinion? So I think Mr. Beck you brought the same the same question and so let me see if I can if I can address that succinctly. As I mentioned previously just making sure what we're clear with that this pertains to alternative ESA plans because the designation of an ESA the determination of an ESA that appeal process is still being presented through zoning Board of Adjustment and the rationale behind that is because the determination of an ESA kind of limits staff to review the parameters of some whatever federal regulations they review and that's how they determine if it is or is not. Now the planning portion just like this Commission is charged with it's charged with planning and zoning and so it's permitted to be reviewed under this board under the City Council's ultimate authority to determine all things planning and zoning. They've delegated that to this Commission and therefore it would be an appropriate venue for that review. Whether it's more appropriate than Zoning Board of Adjustment that's what it 's counseled to decide but it is it is an appropriate venue at P&Z for sure. I think that makes sense thanks. No I can clarify further if us attorneys have way of talking. Well there was and maybe chair or Commissioner Beck can refresh my memory there was concern about the historical political aspect of individuals coming before the Commission to do an alternative ESA just because it seems as a public venue to kind of get cloudy sometimes or it seems to be a straightforward mitigation type requirement in most cases and so I believe Mr. Allison from the public was here and spoke about this about it not needing to come before zoning public hearing item and I was wondering if if that is under our purview to determine the route in which an alternative ESA gets approved or does it have to legally it has to come to P&Z and then to City Council. Well again the Hatch in this way the P&Z has the full authority to review alternative ESA plans so maybe I'll be clear that way it does have the full authority to do that and that story has been delegated by the City Council. Currently the way it's written this council is charged with reviewing those any amendment to that would have to ultimately be approved by City Council. So if the Commission wanted to find an alternative route to file an alternative ESA that would be separate from this ESA rewrite or repeal that would be a different item that we need to bring to council separately from this? Not necessarily no you could you could it could be a part of the ESA rewrite or you could approve it as is and then maybe revisit it later. But in either case it would be an amendment that would have to be approved by City Council. Okay that makes much more sense thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair and correct me if I'm wrong Victor but what you were telling me a while ago too that if it stays in the domain of P&Z then it takes just a simple majority to approve an AESA? At this level correct. Right but if it goes to ZBA it requires a super majority. It items going before ZBA or that's regulated by state statute and state statute requires a majority. Okay so personally I'd like to see it stay in our domain but I would think developers probably would too because it's an advantage to them that they don't have to fight a super majority versus just a basic majority. Correct. That's just and and to make that conversation complete there is a super majority requirement if it's denied by this board but nonetheless yes. I'd like to comment on item 8 I think the discussion is good I'd like to see it stay before P&Z. One of the concerns I have is it is somewhat of a nebulous standard to me it's subjective. It is not like we have in a lot of our other entrances that if you want to take out X number of caliper inches and canopy certain grass or whatever you have to do two to one or whatever and you do that and it's good it is a subjective process as I recall of trying to find a balance to satisfy staff to then bring it versus if you want to take out one tree you must provide four. I don't recall there being a very specific guidelines that if you want to do that or need to do that in your project this is what you do. Is it in my along the lines of the current and proposed procedure? The we for the first time we are adding criteria for approving an alternative ASA plan and I might be able to pull that language from the previous presentation. I believe providing in some instances for example when somebody is removing a repair and buffer and they don 't have nothing else to mitigate another repair and buffer to mitigate and might go to a upland habitat and say well we will preserve above and beyond what we are required to mitigate for the for the repair and buffer. We try to what I call find a common currency between the two because there are different habitats different functions and so on but I believe that my recommendation always be you start working with what you have on your property. So in those instances because sometimes that the habitats are so different and sometimes the habitat that you have is not upland habitat you don't have trees you may have water related and so on. So establishing a specific quota in those instances is kind of hard. That's why staff left that open without not defining. However if that's something that you would like to be more specific and make a motion to include that we can certainly take that and move it forward to City Council. But the reason why we didn't specify quotas for for for mitigation is because sometimes you have to be a little bit flexible and creative depending on what you got on your property. Sure understand that completely and appreciate that in the cases where we don't have that where it is all upland or it's all water and you need to the street or whatever it seems like those we could define it that if you're doing it in this type of environmental area here's what you have to do if it's in that type of environmental area that's what you have to do and then to your point it totally changes the character of the area well then those are the gray areas that we leave the staff to say you know what this is an out-of-the-box situation and we'll figure it out because I know in the past we've had projects coming on I don't know how long people may have taken to put together a plan and what they've spent to try to work something just to come here go yeah don't like it and I don't know that that's served us well as a commission I think as a city we should have a very defined process just like we do on so many other things across our ordinances that if you want to do this certain size streets or certain size sidewalks and all those types of things it's very defined what you have to do but in these instances it's not and I think it puts us into a lot of questionable areas and it creates a lot of additional time expense that could be very clearly outlined that in these cases it's this this and this and if it's an outlier to your point we got to figure something else out so I think that would be something good for us to talk about in public session to maybe add that to motion we get to that this evening Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I guess my opinion and get Deborah's opinion I mean I guess the goal of ESA's are not for them not to be disturbed right and so I don't know that we want to make it easy with an alternative ESA plan so that we get into that they're always being converted in some way so I guess I can understand why why staff doesn't have super specific things to do for an alternative ESA because every site's different every sites gonna have something different on it and it would I would think have to be a collaborative effort with the development and the environmental services department I mean that's how I look at it so I don't know help help me to I guess see it different if sure let's talk about I appreciate the comment I guess how I would see it and maybe respond to your comment is we have areas in this exact code that talks about if you have utility improvements and those types of things that are necessary part to serve is very defined you have to re vegetate it and put it back pretty close to the natural state it's defined and I that's where I'm going is we can do it in that instance but we can't do it in other places and it makes it very subjective and it becomes a political issue versus a very defined hey if you need to it's not saying you can take the whole thing out but I think it should be somewhat defined that it makes it more of a workable and and probable determination of if you have to put up street or a utility or whatever through there this is what you need to do to be able to do it and becomes more of an administrative like when we do plaques comes before us here the criteria you need to meet them if you meet them it's proof versus the you know spend a lot of time and effort and we may or may not like it and not agree to it so that would be my thought process on that may be different than other commissioners but that's mine on that particular issue Commissioner Ellis thank you okay so so you said it's defined yeah if it gets disturbed to put in a sewer or whatever but you're putting it back you're not really taking it out permanently yeah well I think what the ordinance says is that it has to be contiguous I believe was what the ordinance says is if you have to do for Oberlin habitat that's that would be the case it needs to be contiguous to the other environment you can't just say that well I'm gonna put it over there it has to be like a utility road or something else yeah you have to put it back and it has to be part of the existing the essay area and so that's what this my thought about it is to try to work up make it more workable and more defined that you can look at it and decide you know this is a something that's worth the time in the effort to do or it's a pass on the front end rather than six months and tens of thousands of dollars later Commissioner Ellis thank you chair and I and I bet I understand too but when someone comes in with their development they don't they don 't necessarily know what percentage of an ESA maybe they're going to affect by because of this road the way it's coming in and what they're gonna affect and take out I don't know if staff could come up with it with a defined you know this is what you have to do because every it all varies right I mean site by site project by project I mean I don't know how you would come to those specifics of you know without doing it on a case-by-case basis well that was my recommend or just thrown out for discussion since we're in work session is that you do within the environmental type area so if you have upland habitat you have to do it and restore it to like an upland habitat type if it's a rip arian buffer whatever those are that those are defined within and then went to your point if it's something else that you have a little bitty piece and that 's right in the middle of a road and it is no longer going to be there then that's the gray area that staff comes in says okay you had a wetland hole here and the road goes right through the middle of it and it goes away so you don't believe it and you're gonna go do something else and work out with staff to maybe plant trees and an open space or whatever the case may be those become the gray areas rather than it there's no real standards of how do you mitigate and do something different on in each individual environmental area commissioner Ellis thank you do we need to define them when a alternative ESA is needed then yeah I'm confused because what yours you know again going back to my original point was you really don't ever want to disturb them I mean the goal is to not disturb them because they serve a role in protecting our water supply and whatnot air quality etc so the goal is not necessarily to remove them and if you do end up putting a road to just mimic that somewhere else doesn't necessarily work with the way an environmental sensitive area works and you can't just remake it over in another corner so again getting to back to my point of I don't know if we could come up with those specifics and serve every site properly okay Commissioner Sanchez one of the things I think we leave out when we talk about habitat is basically fragmentation you know and I think that's a big part when you're talking about it an urban urban situation all our habitat is really fragmented so to think that you're gonna save something you know you're gonna create a lot of habitat based on little spot here little spot here little spot there I mean we learned that you know all you're creating is actually a sinkhole you know species that are really endangered I'm gonna use those habitats because they're too small for us to utilize so I guess my question is I kind of find this especially in an urban situation kind of hard to talk about you're saving something because you're fra actually it's all fragmented anyway so you're not really doing a whole lot of good you might have ten acres but then if you go into those ten acres and you fragment that those ten acres you've reduced it and if there's nothing else around you're not doing a whole heck of a lot of good and the same thing happens with your your riparian areas you know if you just have a segment of Creek within this when we're talking about the urban urban areas you're not doing a whole lot of good by just creating a small little area protecting small area so I just I think we really have to visit it and spend more time and understand what fragment what effects you're having in an urban development urban urban situation and how fragmentation actually affects our our habitat or doesn't even you know what happens to a habitat once it becomes frag mented when you're talking about 10 15 acres you're not really providing habitat for a species it's already fragmented so it's a discussion that I don't really understand why we would even get into it you might have a little pond here or a little wet site here but if there's nothing close to it any species that that's going to exist there over time is going to fizzle out and those are that's why we protect those those sensitive areas because they're supposed to provide habitat for you know more sensitive species so it's it's I don't know if that even makes sense but I know we talked a lot about fragments when I was working in the biology that was a real concern is fragmentation and so this whole habitat here is fragmented and so spending so much time on these little areas doesn't really do a whole heck of a lot for for those species that you're trying to protect Commissioner Beck thank you chair I'm not sure I totally agree with the committee and mr. Sanchez is a position on frag mentation I mean if we're when we're talking about upland habitat we're talking about a contiguous 10 acres that's a lot of land a lot of species can survive there and some of the species that utilize that area are transitional anyway birds for instance they'll feed on what praise there so we probably need to take a closer look I wouldn't I wouldn't set that example in stone I would dispute it and we can take a look at it and see if there is something to it but to Commissioner strength chairman training strangers just clear clarify some for me if you would sir are you concerned about those areas when we go in and develop a piece of a parcel of land where there isn't ESA I don't have a problem I think we're going to disrupt the land a little bit to put in the sewage line or utility line because we can restore that area I think satisfactorily it what becomes a problem I think to Commissioner Ellis is concerned is when you go in actually remove a chunk of land that you can't restore because you put a large building on there is that is that the dispute you're having the conflict you're having with alternate ESA is that it does limit some types of development especially when you get into you know bigger footprints does that make any sense was that sure okay your question makes perfect sense and and my point in the whole thing from a couple weeks ago and still tonight is it 's a subjective process we've had them come before us before and it's always a list of well we they wanted this and we asked them for this and this and this and this there's not a description per se that you go in and say if you have to do something in a riparian whatever it is you have to recreate you know the same amount or twice as much or whatever that it's a defined process it's always seems to be an arbitrage arbitrary negotiation back and forth to try to get it and then it comes here and then it gets voted on and we decide whether we liked the deal that was made or not versus it's a really straightforward process like so many other things are that if you are going to go into that area if you need to for whatever the reason is as a property owner that there is a process for you to be able to do that under these circumstances and to meet these criteria and it's a more defined type of process and those are my concerns as I read the ordinance there's a there's a number of gray areas and that's one of them it's a very subjective it's not that it says if there are 50 of these it's this it's significant what's significant two blades one salamander I mean I don't know what significant means and so as I read the ordinance those are the things that that pop off the page and I go well first we should set here the standards and you meet the standards or not and then everybody knows what they are versus you really don't know and it's a subjective process and that's just a concern that I I have and it's along the same lines commissioner back view of it these are probably the areas that we need to discuss specifically I don't think we're going to have a hard time for talking about you know a couple of square feet and a salamander to lizards or anything like that I think we're talking about large areas because the more we lose natural ecosystems the more we really lose as a community preserving them if you call it fragmentation okay but let's take a look and see if that fragmentation does benefit us in significant ways does benefit the natural elements in that animals grass the whole combined thing yes it's probably going to be subjective I agree but I think we as a commission do that we've got the staff we've got people of authority that can come in and help us answer some of those gray areas and that's something we should debate it at those times and and then when we have the public hearing you know we can set those forth and we can hear the complaints like we usually do and weigh them against the authoritative information that we've been presented well I would agree into to some regard there's a number of different environmental areas there's a upland habitat and I think it 's very easy to identify that then there are the other ones which are rip arian buffers and water-related habitat and I think Commissioner Sanchez has a great point I know I've said that a new numerous times when we've had these presentations before is we may turn down a project and so we don't want an ESA disturbed being a riparian buffer or whatever and you pull up the city map and there's streets running all through it all around the whole area and I look at it and I go I don't understand why it's okay to do it in a thousand places in our city but this one place it's not and we're gonna deny somebody the ability to develop their property because we don't want to put another road through an ESA but there's a thousand of them already done throughout our city that to me is where I have a concern when I start reading these and I know people looking and I don't understand where that guy's coming from that's where it doesn't make sense to me is that we have done it a number of places all over but for some reason in this particular instance we're going to be subjective and say no you can't do it and I think that's where if we're going to update the code it's 15 years I guess since it's been done maybe it's another 15 years before it gets done again I'd like to see it be good because if this is going to be the next 15 years it should be really straightforward and everybody should be able to pick it up and read it and say here's what you have to do if you're going to have a piece of property that has an ESA in the city of Denton if you're going to develop it or you're going to add on to your house or what are the whatever the instance is that you know straightforward and eliminate the subjective part and we may have a philosophical difference about that and that's okay we've done that in this Commission a ton of time that's great when we can all agree and it's 7-0 but it doesn't have to be that way so that's just my point of view and looking at this and what some of my concerns are and I don't disagree with you and I know you want to get in here and I'll let you Commissioner Beck thank you and I agree with you that because of things we've done in the past it's made things tougher now I think the overall sentiment here should be if we knew now if we knew then what we know now we probably wouldn't have done a lot of these things and I think what staff and some of us are trying to do is trying to correct it before it's too late saying well we've already screwed this up you know let's it's gonna affect this so why stop us from developing because we can't because it's not really gonna hurt anything we've done in the past I think we just need to make a stronger effort to preserve what we've got left significant areas and I think the alternative ESA tries to do that I think we can be fair and not over judgmental have philosophical differences but I want to base it on the facts I want to base it on the science and I think you know when we've got that kind of information before us I think we make sound decisions that benefit everybody I do think developers are smart enough to figure out how to utilize these natural areas to their benefit and make it the value it's not always going to be easy but you know I've always said if we send a man to the moon we ought to be able to develop commercial and residential areas that coexist with us what's there already okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I think be going back to my point of each site being specific I don't think we really know what's there in an ESA I don't think it's possible to do what you're wanting I understand wanting that logic all lined up and so there are no surprises but I don't think I don't think it's known what's on that particular site to be able to come up with all of those so is it the process I mean is it the process of how it goes and to where it goes to public hearing and then it possible turns into a political issue is is that something that maybe we should look at that would help things I just don't think that we can define what it is you would like to find I really don't think that I don't think that's what this chapter of the code it does I think I think this chapter defines what ESA is and tries to define a way that if someone has to disturb it and again that's not what the first mode is it's to protect it but if it needs to be disturbed there is an alternative way we can do that but I don't think it can be specifically defined I just don't think that's possible until the sites there and it gets assessed and and then it has to get worked out you know you know in the best way it can with the the subject matter experts so I just don't think what you want I just don't think it can be done I don't think with all the knowledge that Deborah and all in that department have I just don't think they could come up with every possibility on every site for an ESA so maybe what we need to be looking at is is a process maybe the process isn't fair perhaps so those are my thoughts well I would share with you and I appreciate what you're saying and and I think the the ordinance is specific that if it's shown on their city staff comes out and does a free assessment and they will tell you what your you have it you don't and what type and what are the requirements of it so it can be defined fairly easily and that's a service that the city offers free of charge I believe utilized it before for neighbors and friends and said hey call Deborah ever come out and look and she'd go you don't have anything here go ahead or you do and so I think that part works and I don't have a problem I think it's a great thing that the city offers once it's determined though that's where it goes off process wise for me of being very subjective and turning into an issue that how do you once different it's not a this is what you do that's just mine it may just be me but that's my concern with my perspective and background when I read it because it's not really as I said before it's real easy when everybody throws the word developer those guys just they'll pay for it it's really the it's the property owner who has the designation on their property who bears the expense and we can put developer on it all day long but it's the property owner they pay taxes on it and all those types of things and that's where my concern is is how far are we going in there and doing that and what remedies the property owners have to do what they want to with their property for the public good but yet at what expense to private individuals and that's just my thought and Commissioner Sanchez and anybody else's I just want it you know I think what we're talking about it's when you talk about habitat large areas we're not talking about larger is this only applies to city limits right we're not talking about outside yes for the flood plenty I say it applies in the ATJ just when you were talking about upland habitat that only applies to within the city limits right that's what I'm saying you don't have these big big areas of upland habitat within the city limits and so and that's going to be developed over time so all I 'm saying is you create a lot of fragmentation and in the process you're you said well there's birds yeah there's generalist animals out there you know what we would call generalist but the ones you want to protect the habitat for is for those that aren't generalist the ones that require those type of habitats and those are the species that aren't going to I'm going to invade these small areas they need large second large peat parcels of land to exist so what you're doing is yeah you're you're protecting small areas but you're just protecting it for the generalist which they can survive anywhere so what I see is you almost have to look at this as excuse me you have to look at the within the city limits much different than you look at the you know outside where you have what's the word I want well not lake bottoms but outside the city you know where you have large parcels of land that that gets treated a whole lot different than within this and I think we're trying to apply what we would apply out there and we have large parcels of open land we 're trying to apply that inside the city limits and it doesn't work because you're not going to get the same effects and and that's what we're trying to do I don't we should provide leave some of the habitat and well it's not habitat we could leave something like large require more trees require more things like that but you're still not gonna you're still not gonna create upland habitat all you're gonna do is protect certain areas upland habitat is different than just trees you have to have certain type of grasses that's when you talk about upland habitat you're talking about certain types of grasses you 're talking about and you don't have it just because you know it's just not creating it not in an urban environment you were trying to go through here and I 'll get back on topic and I'm probably the worst culprit of all so we'll make sure we go well we can go over line by line or you can actually highlight the points that you want to revisit is completely up to you let me recognize Commissioner O'Zell they sure I was gonna linger on this just one more moment as much as I would like to progress there's two things that's one to respond to and add my two cents to it I think it's a good conversation I don't know ultimately how it gets taken into consideration because it 's your else's point it does seem like an ambiguous task to try to define but the two things that I wanted to note is one Christianer back so we should make every effort to preserve environmentally sensitive areas I wholeheartedly agree I go back to the fact that it seems like staff wants to protect at different values depending on use and I don't know if that's communicating a good message to the citizens to say commercial property don't have to keep this much habitat residents you can keep this much habitat if we're about ag nostically looking at protecting ESA's which seems to be your your contention I'm still going back to the fact that doesn't seem like the city and the way they 're writing this is saying we're gonna protect them regardless of use because depending on what use a developer or property owner wants to do with that we protect habitats differently which still kind of again a second time I've put on this gives me a little friction so that's one thing the other thing Christian else you said it's not possible to do this we can 't define it there's nowhere in code to do that in regards to an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan but it looks like in 3517 1b it's the exact place to do it that's that's where we we would do all these things one says mitigation goals are obtained by creating expanding or improving environmentally sensitive areas and a chair's point let's define that let's define mitigation goal if we're looking to obtain it here let's define it and and we've we 've seen I've seen enough projects and I think the city's pricing of projects so we can start aggregately looking at processes we know that in Buc-E's on the riparian buffer what was good enough for P&Z was X we know that the Commission although split approved some level of definition and so it does seem possible if it was the Commission's intent to actually define these things if there's I'm not gonna spitball on all of them but if there's 50 foot of riparian buffer you're taking away mitigate it with a percent of this there's to say that it can't be done there's no there's not in code to do that might be a little short-sighted to what I'm actually reading and the potential of the Commission to actually define it commissioner Ellis thank you chair okay first of all I never said there's nowhere in the code to do that that I don't know you misheard me or certainly I did not say that I said it would be very difficult to think of everything because every site and what it's ESA on that particular site is doing has and whatnot I didn't say there was nowhere to do that I said it would be incredibly difficult to do that because I don't think we could come up with or they could come up with every scenario that's why I think the process of looking at each site if we're gonna have a section that it gets looked at see what it has see what it I think this is a compromise with regard to your point with commercial and residential and in its percentage different it's to try to make the project work so we don't we always allow for more development on a commercial site there's way more of the site used up on a commercial development than there is on a residential site so we do that all the time in city development and so I think this is if you tried to do the same thing you're not going to get a commercial project done so you do have to have a smaller percentage there with regard to I think that is what the third yeah it's to be able to get it done or the commercial sites not gonna happen so I think that's just a real-life scenario that's just the way it is and and so I think that staff's way of trying to to compromise because in the end that's what this should be it shouldn't be us versus them kind of thing it's not that the developers are evil because they want to disrupt an ESA but you know subject matter experts on ESA which is not me and probably none of us sitting here maybe you're by long you know we have to go with what what they are saying needs protection with what the developers need to get it done and come up with a compromise and to me that's what an AESA is for whether or not the process needs to be changed so it doesn't get to that heated point so that it can get to that compromise because again I just don't know they've worked on this for 13 months they could probably go back and work on it for 26 more and they're not gonna be able to define the perfect scenario for every site when we're gonna disturb the one of these areas that's just my real quick chair Commissioner Oso thanks all good points thank you my point to the commercial residential let's just reduce residential it just seems odd to me the developer buys these property there's trees on it and then based on what they plan to use the the land for the city says we we value those trees differently so I'm not I understand your your perspective and I think the cities I think I get the development requirements for commercial it just seems odd to me that based on use we value the trees differently that's how it's communicated to me whether that's the intention I'm not maybe it's not that's how it's being communicated so I'm all for doing like I would prefer to reduce the residential requirement to make it equal then try I'm not advocating to raise commercial per se it's just odd to me that there's there's a difference to begin with maybe I'm the only one that's fine but that's where that's where my contention is with that I'm gonna move us forward on your list and since we're just going to it the next one I had a question on is number 22 and the response which I appreciate is in regards to what the Parks Department will accept as far as the essays and and it kind of gets back to the similar issue that well I know I've talked about before is that if anyone should champion the essays whether they be upland habitat or any of these areas it should be the city and it should be if it's public policy the city should be bearing the responsibility rather than we keep coming to individual property owners and the response here is that parks may not want it because it's got too much ESA on it and that's the concern that I have that we have with these discussions I understand the concern about preserving these things the city doesn't want to buy them parks doesn't want them but we make private individuals do it and that's where I go off the rail and go I don't get it and so I appreciate the response and it affirms the concern and the one of the points of view I have with these is that if we as a city are going to mandate these things then we should make it the public policy should be publicly wrong we're having to do them in parks up in habitat and we're booming parks and all these other things rather than keep coming to developers ie private property owners and so you guys have to do it but we aren't so that's my comment on 22 I don't know if anybody has any other ones on the list commissioner Beck thank you chair if I could and I don't mean step on anybody's toes here but if we can unless there's something else in here as far as their responses to the comments I didn't see anything that I could disagree with that we could move forward with but I would like to give mr. Allison a chance because this group DCDA provided about two -thirds of the questions here and give him an opportunity to explain to us any responses here he feels need correction or something like that because when our last PNC meeting he raised the question that he didn't feel like he got any adequate response from the city and I'd like to give him an opportunity to see if there's a need for something that could change my mind as far as all these responses go and anybody else here on the Commission does that seem reasonable on my I think we would definitely be doing that during our public meeting okay absolutely okay I thought we'd give him a shot here in the work session if we have time if we don't if we have time yeah I have a if you don't have any other I have a few other ones on the ordinance itself like say I didn't mean step anybody's toes okay does anybody else have a question on the public comments section so we can at least get through this one and I appreciate city staff taking the time to go through and give the responses I think it's helpful and it's a good example for us to set for everybody else what we ask them to do so thank you for that anybody else on public comments on the ordinance itself I think you've addressed this question that I had in section 35 17.5 D I appreciate the definition of the wet land and look forward to having that there's a there's another just a few words later it says significant stands and I just had a question of you know what what is what's the determination of significant significant is more than 50% more than 50% and we can definitely substitute the word significant for 50% if that's something that you would like I think it's great to quantify it so we know what it what it is I would appreciate the clarification I have a second note and I think I made comment on a couple weeks ago how is the general public or the professional communities supposed to be able to find this information and be able to incorporate it for example like in a typical phase one report I called the company that does phase ones for me and I asked what's the process you go through because we're reviewing this with an ESA and it needs to be transparent that everybody can look at because a need a phase one report is an environmental report it's a commonly you're not going to get a loan without a phase one report and it's a it's an environmental report on every piece of property that's that's up for sale or contemplating be purchased lenders require them people rely on those and close transactions based on is there environmental issue or not and the concern I have is how can people be notified of our city of dent criteria that may be different than for example the wetlands inventories and some of the typical places that all of these people go to and say that our property doesn't have it but because of our definition or what we call it doesn't show up until you've already purchased the property and then and I have an assessment and we got an ESA or whatever on it so I don't know how that gets done okay the ESA layers are available online as a part of the city interactive map that's where we provide them and accessible to the public so in that way they can zoom in zoom out and these days everything goes digital so we have that that that that information available to the public in that way most of the time when a development happens they come to us as a pretty design meeting in the in the plan popular it's too late use it by then you've already done your phase one report and you're moving on and that's where I'm trying it needs to get into something that's an indis in my opinion it needs to be something that's in an industry standard that everybody that's in the business knows how to do it versus well if you're doing it in the city of Denton you have to go to our GSI map click on this labor and click these things to be able to find it versus what they typically are going to which are all of the federal state type things to pull all of these reports that if you use the federal and the state guidelines it shows up if you use the city guidelines and those city guidelines are different than the state or the federal guidelines it doesn't show up that's what my point was a couple weeks ago and it's still today is how do people find out what our definitions of these things are in the trade areas that they go to find this information versus if you don't do business in the city of Denton you don't know um when they're doing a phase one they usually contact the city as a part of it and that is an open record request and that open record requests are actually sent out through multiple departments ours included so in those instances if we have something we will be able to have to be able to inform them but yeah we most of the time we get open record requests on a regular basis for that and that's for the purpose of conducting phase one assessments when I called the company that does these I asked them here's what we're doing how do you guys find this out the comment that came back is that as part of a phase one typically these things are not under the ASTM requirements they get done as a courtesy to go to a municipality go on the GIS website do an open records request it's not in the database at the state or the federal level that those things are incorporated I don't have as much of an issue with it if it's kind of the same thing I keep coming back if it's transparent everybody knows it's buyer- aware but if you don't until you've already purchased a property and come in for a pre-development meeting or whatever and ask the question you never know if you're not doing pre-development if you're buying an existing property it doesn't come for pre-development it's just a arms-length transaction trade property to property and you have a whatever on it so that's where I think there needs to be some mechanism that's why I've asked about the map where do you find them at where is the map and everybody can know about the map either it's somehow tied in with the state or the federal maps that these people go to to produce the reports so I think that's a process whole that we need to address in this ordinance that it becomes very straightforward and clear that that's what you have so that was one item I had Commissioner Oselle out of curiosity you know this process is there a way to submit maps to these regulatory bodies do you know what the mechanism might be to make these available I know the maps that are in these and how they're the guidelines and that's where they go to get the information but I have no idea how it is handled the next question I had was down in 37 17 .7 the three I made some comments about the standards for Phil and just the note I have is our standards still says it if the lot has has got 50 cubic yards or less so my question again is if you have 50 yards of fill placed on the lot outside of the floodplain so if you have a lot that has floodplain on it you build your gravel road or your poor your driveway or build your house your barn or whatever you've exceeded your 50 yards of fill allowed on a lot or 300 per acre whatever that's greater you then are not allowed to go in and do any improvements at the end of the job cleaning up and doing your final grades and all the things that you do at the end of the project in in those areas if that fill is outside the undeveloped floodplain boundaries that does not count this is within the floodplain itself well I'm not trying to quibble with it but it says it's prohibited unless the fill on any lot it doesn't that's what my point last time is if it says it's in the floodplain then it's straightforward it says unless the fill on any lot it's not saying whether it's in or out it just says if it's on it so if you put over 50 yards of fill on the lot you can't then go in and do any work inside your you can't do 50 cubic yards or 300 cubic feet depending on the area in the floodplain because you've already exceeded the amount specified in the ordinance before a says the following are standards to fill in the undeveloped floodplain so do you want us to incorporate that into item number a as well to make it clear that is if the if the field does not happen within the boundaries of the floodplain does not count towards your limit yeah maybe just kind of the the rules of reading statutes or codes is that that first sentence would explain the scope of the following ABCD so this would apply for a fill in undeveloped floodplains it's defined there I guess what they were saying is if you want to repeat that in some sections a it 's clear just want to make sure it's clear so I'm fine with it if it's by the way ordinance they're drawn I'm good the last one I had was a question was on 3g it says shall be located as far as possible versus just outside of ESA okay it's the question or comment I had on item 51 on the comment list we what we have proposed is just to clean up that even further and then we substitute that language to say item C that the the G it is now item C because we simplify that and it says field to raise elevation for building sites shall not result in point flows high runoff velocities and or significant changes in the drainage pattern that may cause erosion and loss of vegetation in environmental sensitive area located downstream of the field so what we have done based on public comment we have revised that section we simplify it and made it more shorter and also be a specific the item the original item G it was very broad stated so what we're trying to do is just to make sure that when you are if you are so that they say that's you know you are fine but just take in consideration how your drainage patterns are and so else in that way you are not concentrating flows and things like that so in high velocities they're established by the drainage criteria manual six cubic feet per second so we already have some parameters define what high velocities are and so forth so item G have been further revised and I believe is reflected in response for comment 51 in the ordinance that we have this has been revised or the no no no if the Commission approves the revisions that we made on on comment 51 then then tired added in here correct okay one between the ordinance and I didn't understand the process that we go to each of these to change the ordinance yeah so we made 20 changes per the public input to make it more clear and then the last one I have is on 17.11 a it's back to what I was concerned about other earlier is the amendment procedure outlined is a flexible discretionary process and then that 's where I keep coming back and would like to see somehow and make me may not get there to define what it is and take so much of it from being discretionary to here are the guidelines that you have to me and those were all the comments that I had on the ordinance I don't know if anybody else has any we're getting short on time I had a couple of Commissioner Ellis thank you chair with regard to an alternative ESA I know we haven't had any requests come before us in my almost two years sitting here so how many have you had in the last five years curious five years I would say problem alternative ESA plans probably we have a total ten multiple years so there have been some that have been started but not finished Buckeyes is one of them that started the process but didn't finish it so but yeah approved in the books I will say 10 I had a couple other questions do we have I know you gave some percentages do we have a number like of the number of acres parcels larger than 10 acres of upland habitat do we have 200 acres 2000 acres designations of those would have a quantity so we have a we're dealing with a X number the of upland habitat 10 acres or larger how many of those do we have what's the total number acreage wise that we have total upland we have approximately 1800 acres 1800 1800 okay that's pretty significant amount good upland habitat only applies within the city limits so that's strictly within city limits okay and that's upland right okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair this question for illegal Victor if we can get to consensus here a motion if we agree to the rewrite can we say as per staff notes on this document because I think it would be very difficult subject to correct subject to the notes as presented as presented in the responses okay excellent and just the the 1800 number that I gave you none of those sides have been field assessed okay this is just what the map is showing like you mentioned before sometimes we go to the side and the ESA doesn't meet the criteria species composition and so on so just this is just a preliminary number of what the map is showing at this point yeah thanks for the clarification and and that's some of my concern and it kind of goes to Commissioner Ellis's point is when it shows up on a mat there may be people that choose to go through the process and there may be people that look and go it has the essay on it that's with it it is passed so the designation itself if you know to go look for it where to go find it is a concern because you know you have an issue to deal with and how you're going to deal with it and what is it what's involved with it so I know we've run late we have a lot of do you have a comment we have a lot of people this evening in here and I'm sure we'll have some more in there so it does anybody else have a comment before we close 628 we'll close work session and reconvene as quickly as we can in council chambers good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission meeting for February 21st 2018 this meeting has duly and been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 640 apologize we're running a little late with work session our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the US and Texas flag and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible the next order of business on our agenda this evening will be to consider the planning and zoning Commission meeting minute meeting minutes for February the 7th 2018 Commissioner Beck I move we approve the minutes okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I will second okay we have a first and a second for approval as is any discussion seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board motion is going to carry five to zero with one recuse that will take us to our consent agenda and chair would entertain a motion on the consent agenda Commissioner Smith thank you chair motion approved okay Commissioner Rossell second 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 six to zero our items for individual consideration if you missed our announcement and work session those have been moved to March the 7th and we will hear both of the drainage and transportation criteria updates at that time with that we will move on to our public hearings for this evening at this time I'm going to open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 2 5 C and I will call on Ron to give this presentation thank you chair members of the Commission this item is for a rezoning change from an NR to neighborhood residential to zoning district to an RCC D regional center commercial downtown for approximately 88 point seven acres generally located just south of US 3a University Drive and possibly 1,500 feet west of I 35 this is the former Selwyn school site that was purchased by the current property owner shown on the future land use map the subject site has two designations business innovation which is intended to be large track large development for office or employment type parks with supporting uses such as retail hotels and residential primary uses include office research development and light manufacturing it also has industrial commerce shown on the southern portion of the subject site intended for predominantly light and heavy industrial uses with wholesale and distribution distribution use as well this illustration or this slide shows that the existing zoning is NR - primarily residential again two units per acre and the proposed is our CCD which allows for a number of different uses for compatibility the area to the northwest contains single family and is zone NR - to the northeast is our CCD that currently has commercial and industrial just east of the railroad tracks to the east and south of the subject site is zone ICE that's shown here as currently undeveloped while to the west it's zone ICG that contains professional offices West Gate business park and gas well production the one gas well is shown in this general area it's also important to note that the subject site also contains a gas well which is located in this general area staff had now analyzed the subject request and properties platted as one which would create an opportunity for large-scale development again NR - is not consistent with the future land use as it would only permit single-family residential dwelling units while our CCD is a little bit more consistent in that it promotes mixed-use development which is what the future land use calls out for and again important to note that any future development that comes to the site will have to comply with buffering and screening requirements as earlier mentioned the RC CD allows for a number of different uses those include offices administrative and research facilities light manufacturing with the limitation some retail wareh ousing as well with a limitation a school and multifamily with a specific use permit or part of a mix use development mobility of the area primarily is primary arterial with University to the north it is a improved widened roadway which has six lanes approximately 135 feet of right away the subject proposal for regional center commercial of the downtown would accommodate I would be accommodated by the capacity that the that University Drive currently has there was notification sent out started out in November and as mentioned the work session this item has been postponed several times the reason for that is the applicant requested it'd be postponed to have the opportunity to talk to the razor company that owns a majority of the property adjacent to the subject site night notices were sent out to public to property owners that is within 200 feet and then 12 to property owners are residents within 500 feet we did receive a response to the turner foot legal notice this was from the razor company and their property representation is shown here in red in calculation it was calculated and it represents 61% of the property within 200 feet which means that the City Council will have to have a super majority in order to approve this in favor of this rezoning request staff recommends approval of this rezoning change zoning change request that is as it conforms with the criteria outlined in the DDC then development code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 10 plan 2030 that concludes my presentation I will be happy to answer any questions the application is also here if you have questions for her I have a question for you Ron yes sir just for not only P&Z but for those here and those who may be watching will you talk about what the approval standards will be since this is gonna have a super majority because of the 60% opposition whether for this board and if it moves on to City Council sure what we're seeking from P&Z planning zone Commission as a recommendation if it were that you recommend approval the City Council will still have to have a super majority the opposition of 61% which is more than 20% triggers that super majority at City Council great thank you very much for the clarification any question any other questions for Ron okay thank you sir okay before I call on the next person I was remiss and drawing anybody who's here or watching online to a couple of changes in our public hearing section this evening we have item C if you're here for that that's been postponed indefinitely and then we are going to be seeking a continuance for item D which is Eric Schmidt representing Marvin Jeffries that's gonna go to March the 7th and then item E is going to be Owens Ranch is going to be requested to be continued to March 21st so do want to let anybody know who may have missed or didn't pick up a copy of the agenda that those items are for us this evening to be moved so do want to let you know that so you don't sit here through all of the meeting this evening to find your item not going to be heard with that announcement we'll move on to our first card on item 5a first person I have here is Randy Rivera at 111 Hillside Drive in support good evening chairman commissioners my name is Randy Rivera Milan planner with GNA consultants we're located at 111 Hillside Drive in Louisville Texas and I am here tonight on behalf of volunteer enterprises to present our request for the zoning change application for volunteer Hills the subject property Ron did a great presentation and we've enjoyed working with staff and the zoning request came about really at the beginning of probably the late summer of last year as a result of discussions with the ED the economic development department trying to you know encourage corporate style corporate campus with a mix two setting style development and they thought that this location would be appropriate and that was an encouragement to proceed forward with a zoning change tonight and we're excited to finally be here in front of you after another with some postponements and I appreciate that and I hope I can clarify any questions that you may have subject property is 1,500 feet away from the 35 and 380 intersection it's a general aerial I think we all know where that is located just some drone photos showing the property it's a beautiful beautiful property the school building that burned was located right here and that happened as you all know probably 2012 so this is looking to the south southwest and you can see the pond which is a great attribute a great environmental feature on the property that we would want to preserve and so this is the the hill which is the top part where the school campus used to be this is looking to the other one was southeast sorry this is the southwest and again I wanted to get a good view of the sense of the what this hilltop represent it's it's kind of remarkable when you're out there looking at the views off in the distance to the south and there's oh there's about 40 feet of fall from the top of this hill to the to that pond so that's just a great attribute you know when we are going to start working on a design for this it's something that we're excited to work around and to be able to incorporate in the layout and of course the airport and the industrial uses are off to the southwest and then another view looking east as a sunrise TWU 380 going under 35 just kind of what it entails the trees around the campus and the rest of its virtually treeless in the area that we're proposing to develop Ron did great job talking about the split land use designations on the property and again as we 're tying in with the business innovation and industrial commerce our zoning change is compatible and compliant with the land use plan and as you can see this yellow was kind of isolated on the south side of 380 and buffered by these industrial uses and again that's for two acre I'm sorry for two lots per acre right now and again that's just not an appropriate use for for this property and that's why we're before you tonight also asking for that zoning change I think a question came up about this piece here during the work session if that could also be included and I'll touch on I'll touch on that in just a minute in just a second all right so an aerial just and I want to show you know when we anytime before we get started on design we go out there we look at the property we look at all the do all the research look at all the GIS data that's out there and all the maps and government requirements and things and this property does have a significant amount of floodplain that the lake itself is about 10 acres but when you look at just this area and the gas well site here that encompasses about 35 acres of land that can't be developed and I think some of this does fall into the ESA maps that you'll have that need you know environmental protection needs to happen to preserve these habitats and that's it's critical and so that's something like you know yes it's it's almost like it's a constraint on the property but what we like to do is turn those constraints into amenities or opportunities to create something really cool and you know people enjoy walking and jogging around lakes and ponds and stuff like that so we want to turn it into an amenity and a very attractive feature for the development it is platted as lot one of the cell one school addition and so the area in red is all the encumbrances all the easements I did not include the sewer easement we talked about that in the work session because we're you know we would maybe be able to put parking over that but no no landscaping or no structures so I felt like that could still be considered developable but there's a pipeline easement along the west side and then this is a floodplain easement here that was established with this plat and then you have utility easements up along 380 so there's some things that we need to work around okay so you know when we go out here and I talked about the hill being a great attribute there's a total of 54 feet a fall from this is the hill the top of the ridge the highest point of the ridge and the ridge extends down to here where the school the campus was but there's overall from this point down there's 54 feet I think it's actually down to this point and so you know when it's slated to be industrial commerce on the land use map we're looking at that and you know I know it's zoned art in our two and we're next to industrial uses and then the municipal airports just to our south and but but really when you're dealing with a large industrial distribution centers warehouses and things like that they need land that's that doesn't have this much terrain relief on it so the sites not very conducive for those type of big large box warehouse developments because of the terrain and we don't want to scrape the whole hill and cut it all down we want to be able to work with it and so we felt like the site isn't conducive for that but it would be it's a very attractive site for an office campus setting for retail restaurant opportunities and even some urban residential and so we've had some visionary processes with our team and volunteer hills you know we're going to try to capitalize on corporate campuses and I'll show you in a bubble plan kind of where we want to locate those but a live-work-play environment and these corporations that are moving they want to provide they want to be in cool places that their that can that their employees can also work in close proximity to where to where to start to live in close proximity to where they work and we've seen that we're working on some over in Flower Mound and we see that all across the metroplex definitely in Frisco and Irving and places like that grapevine you know there are urban residential developments going in next to campus style corporate headquarters and things like that because people want to they do want to be able to live and work in close proximity and then on their breaks go out and enjoy the amenities and maybe picnic down by the pond and you know I know that a lot of our workers today they're getting out of college and they still want it they want to be connected they want Wi-Fi everywhere they go and you know and so they but they want to be in nature they want to be outside but they want to be close to inside and in the air conditioning and still connected on Wi-Fi and so that's an important feature that we would incorporate into the design is establishing these corporate campuses around the pond area with amenities and pockets of gathering spaces for employees to go to for breaks and things like that quality of life elements are essential in the success of mixed-use developments and it's exactly what employers are looking for to bring their businesses to a certain location and the site and its location is also it's it's the Western gateway into the city and it's a critical piece as we're coming into from a rural developed from a rural area into the developed area of the city you know what is this gateway what is it gonna look like how do we gonna establish this to show that you know didn't it's not it's not just big box warehouse but hey there's you go in there and there's some pretty cool things to do and it's not just your typical run-of-the-mill industrial and urban residential is a key component I talked about that and again it would be we'd want to be sensitive let me go ahead and go to the bubble plan too so here's our early our earliest kind of design and kind of spatial planning is what we were at what we have done up to this point you know working with our features on the property the floodplain the pond and the gas pad and then how you know how can we save the hill and then we have this 1500 feet of frontage along you know a regional arterial that brings in you know regional traffic into the city of Denton from the West and so how you know where could should these uses be located and they all need to be integrated in a way that there's a connection and that's a the central spot the hills in the perfect spot you know as to be the central node where everything comes together all the different uses and so of course retail restaurant up along 380 to get to capture visibility from the motorist and the patrons along that roadway and to draw them into the site and then of course the corporate campus I have it really either way urban residential corporate campus these two can switch we just this is just kind of our thought process at this time and I wanted to share that with you but what's important is to be sensitive to the neighboring uses and we know that this is land use for ICE or industrial and so we would propose a hundred foot setback if we if there are urban residential components along this western boundary and then there's a significant buffer you know on any of the industrial stuff to the south that's down here that the razor family has that owns the property and could potentially develop into an industrial project and so the gathering spot I you know that again that's that's that's critical to bring this together and integrate everything but the industrial would be I'm sorry the residential would be limited and we would come back with an SUP before you before anything moves forward on the residential piece and we would address the sensitivity the dense screening along the west and south line right here the setback and the black dotted line represents the trail and the connectivity you know in the amenity of that trail that could be used by employees and also residents and then even patrons from the restaurant retail area and so this is where we are right now it's a very early stages of design I know that we have a long way to go with all the city processes as end users come online and SUP for residential we'd have to do preliminary platting site planning final platting and all that and so I know there's a lot of things to do and so this morning to address the opposition that was submitted from our neighbor we did need a little bit more time to reach out to him I know that everybody's just kind of busy and there was some phone tag ging going on but we were finally able to get in contact with him my engineer talked to him this morning and he did express that his concern there was there 's really two pieces to it and it's to protect his the land that he's responsible for you know along the the east the south and the west since it is zoned for industrial you know anytime okay I'll wrap up okay and so in order to address that we do want to be highly sensitive to if this was to develop as industrial the burden of the buffering and the screening would be on the residential and we could incorporate that into the SUP the second issue was the pond itself the you know I think the best word I guess I could say is making sure the pond is working correctly because I think it's causing some erosion downstream onto his property and so we'd have to do a full-blown drainage analysis to establish the 100-year floodplain I don't think this is a studied floodplain so we'd have to go through that with our hydrologist to make sure that the pond is we would want to use it as a detention facility as well so we have to make sure that that pond is working correctly and not creating any anything downstream that could damage the the properties to the south of us and so we would go through that that process to make sure that the pond is is working like the way it's supposed to so he doesn't incur any damage but that's I believe that is the conclusion so I'm here for any questions if you have a couple questions for you sir Commissioner Smith thank you sure Rami your last name again Rivera Rivera it's rare the corporate campus and residential split what size of acreages were those I know that's all conceptual and hypothetical and nothing solid but could you get estimate for me yes I can I mean if this green area is about 35 acres I think I could say that again these could be swapped right so we're not getting the next question I was gonna ask because that was a possibility to be swiped yes it is yes but this area I believe this would probably about 25 acres or 20 to 25 and this would be you know maybe 18 or so so you feel like in your professional recommendation that's enough room to do both of those types of developments oh yes it's really impactful and make it make it worth yes your your time financially is as well as a increase in taxes for the city oh yes sir I do and a good example of this is Cyrus waters in Ir ving it's kind of South Coppell but it's actually in the city limits of Ir ving and it is a brand new mixed-use development by Billingsley and it's up next there's you know around the airport DFW there's so many industrial boxes down there and they've done a really good job of making it complementary to having the urban residential next to the industrial it looks really good but they've got a lot of corporate office that's corporate campus yes it makes you corporate campus gotcha yes sir awesome what what type of what type of corporate campuses do you think we would be attracted to that this area specifically I know that when we talked to the ED department they there 's a shortage of you know campus you know kind of class a campus type of settings okay and so not a specific corporation but not a specific corporation but we want corporates headquarters to be relocated more of a more less I guess industrial type corporations but more office type professional corporations you know I'm trying to I have a picture I thought I had a picture so what I do back up in here okay yes these kind of campuses right here I think some of these are in Westlake great vine has some really good corporate campuses but things along those lines great thank you Commissioner Beck thank you chair thank you mr. Vera for your presentation and you kind of clarified something up for me that was aware of coming into it obviously there's not a specific corporate entity that's coming in here building this is strictly room place for corporate employees to live that's right this is once we are as able to get the zoning we can go out and target those and show them that look there's an opportunity here to have this environment to be to attract them and it 's my understanding that you're gonna keep that pond and not invade that repair that ESA there that is actually gonna enhance it to serve your purposes okay very good I like to hear that what would your response be to the one complain ant and I don't know if he's here and I hope he is and hope steps up and talks to it but his concern that this type of project this time of development would hurt potential customers from utilizing the area he owns the ICE how would you argue that well I do I do understand that that's a concern of his and I would tell him and I believe my engineer told him that this morning that the burden of the buffering we can put on to the residential through the SCP process and so that way you know because I know he he'll go out there and try to target industrial users and they'll say oh my goodness the city's require me to do all this buffering because I'm next to apartments or whatever it is you know and then he we if we are able to say no this SCP was approved they address the buffer and the masonry walls there the live screens there since they've got it on their property you won't have to put it on theirs on the industrial property and I know this exists throughout the town or throughout the city on the the apartments that just got approved even south of here next to Peterbilt you know I think that there's some residential adjacency next to industrial on a project that he I think that he worked on but I understand it and if I was in his shoes I'd be saying the same thing you know that he is saying just to make sure that that the viability of him being able to target industrial users is still there and that it's not diminishing any value and I think the best way to do that is to put the screening requirements on to the residential user so it's your understanding his focus is mainly on that little southwest quadrant in there that's I'm still in like the eastern yes sir that that's my understanding because this is a significant buffer and even this is floodplain too so he's got adequate separation so if this were to right now it's in our - but if right if it was to be rez oned to an industrial then this buffer would already be in place for the residential very good thank you commissioner Sanchez excuse me you mentioned that his second concern was that there was some erosion contributes erosion problems there it doesn't matter who would own the property they'd have to fix it right I mean if it's what if the zoning didn't change and whatever was put in there the erosion issue would still be a concern for them well so it doesn't really affect the zoning or what changing the zoning because it that has to be addressed either way owns a property so going through the development process and all the permitting and designing we would be able to evaluate the pond and figure out why you know if the release of that pond is causing that erosion we can fix that you know if when we do develop it and we do this study with a hydrologist and I think maybe the point source is to define so it's creating that erosion you know as it goes down there and if we create that discharge to be done in the right way we can minimize it and and and fix it I mean that that's it would take a study by hard our hydrologist to determine what's really going on there yeah I guess my point was it doesn't make a difference who owns a property what how they develop it it's gonna have to be addressed and you guys are addressing it yes so so that's that's what I was getting that so that's that's not a point of commission Roselle next year mr. if you switch the corporate campus in the urban residential with that that would play into the ability to provide the buffer through the SUP process correct well well if we put the urban residential on this side if there's already adequate buffer naturally okay what I would have more and getting at is is the opposition concerned if the corporate campus was on the western side of the property about the buffering between those type of uses was that talked about at all can you clarify your question so I understand that if the urban residential is on the west side of property you can go through the SUP process to establish barriers I'm curious is if there's a response to the opposition if the corporate campus and the residential was switched there would not be a buffer in place between the two uses of ICE and the corporate campus yeah it wouldn't really be necessary if they're they're more compatible okay yes thanks any other questions for the applicant thank you for your comments I have one other card wishing to speak on this item Philip a Baker PO box 2424 in opposition Baker excuse me Philip Baker PO box 2424 dead in Texas I'm supposed to say you're good okay I'm vice president of the razor company I represent razor investments and we own 130 acres around selling school selling schools originally part of all the land we own we gave that land to them 40 years ago so we're well familiar with that all that land and I'm not just concerned about the 10 acres on the southwest corner of that property I'm concerned about the 130 acres that surrounded its own industrial or industrial employment center it's not identified on there but the employment centers on the right side it wasn't highlighted there is floodplain there but it's not been studied so it's an it's unknown exactly how much would have to be in that stream as far as the pond goes it's an unengineered unstud ied and I can tell you why it's doesn't work right because they didn't build a dam on it there's no spillway the water goes in and it comes out in the same place and it spills down to the south it's it's just a some mess we've done some preliminary work the Army Corps of Engineers has told us they would just as soon see it go away and the stream put back in place like it was before I got dam med up by selling school with that pond so it's hardly an amenity to us or probably to anybody else and if it breaks it's going to be a big mess that's not why I'm here though my understanding is that the applicant or the zoning application would allow for retail restaurants and multifamily and I think the big issue is the multifamily and I'll explain that now I don't inherently oppose the restaurant or retail along the strip along University it's it would probably work there if you if you go down and look south and quick trip you'll see Northern Tool going in you'll see a couple other businesses that's that could easily happen there and would be an addition a positive thing I think the restaurants be okay I doubt that they would be successful because there 's so much of that kind of activity over on raise a ranch in the town center it's it's probably unlikely there but it's it's something somebody could take a risk for if they wanted to and I wouldn't object I think the pattern for that is already established there because of the church to the West and what was their old that the building that's now a building an office building it was there the home for the pastor that was built that was why it's originally there but that strip was sort of established there and so it's it's logical and fair that that would continue maybe all the way to the railroad the multif amily is the problem we just closed on 45 acres to United States cold storage they're building a major facility just off Jim Crystal those kinds of businesses don't want to be around residential of any kind and to give you an example when we before we closed on that deal they wanted assurances that we would not allow that on the 50 acres adjacent and we deed restricted it so it can't target when they came in we deed restricted 80 acres they don't want to be around residential now that zoning change I brought up was brought up the south of here if there was a separation like precision Boulevard some kind of land feature that separated that land from the industrial then I probably be wouldn't object to it because a roadway that goes somewhere a river whatever but that buffer proposed up there is not a buffer at all it's not it's nonsense that it's going to do anything to discourage to allow an industrial user to come in there so I'm sort of stuck here you you cover the 40 or 50 acres with high density residential then that's going to screw the rest of that 130 acres there so what am I faced with coming and asking you to rezone industrial land I'm not going to do it that's industrial land the pattern has already been established the only reason that isn't industrials because of selling school the patterns already there it's industrial land or employment center land the corporate campus I'm not inherently opposed to but I don't think that's what's going on here I think that's just just there as an option but I don't think it's what we're talking about we're talking about residential high density and I think it's going to turn off industrial users so it's a choice if we want that to be industrial out there and that's what 's been established by the city in their 2030 plan I don't think the fact pattern of the land that was south of there east of pack are and we also incident ally just for your information we heavily deed restricted that so that there would never be any conflict between the corporate and that use that was established there by this body are not by this book by the City Council so anyway that's if you have any questions all happy to answer I think I think that's a summary I'm not totally like the retail the restaurant I think I think that would be acceptable along that strip but not the residential the corporate and I think the lake is probably either gonna go away it's hardly an amenity it's gonna take a lot of study and it's it's it's a problem it was an engineer and that's some questions for you I had some questions in the bed you brought up the property down by Peterbilt because that's what I was gonna ask you about you were here before us a few months ago and I believe it was a it's not identical but it's a similar project where you've got a lot of topography you got a big lake and the point you made before us was because of those natural features that property really won't be able to be developed into industrial then you ask us to make that apartments essentially so can you explain the differences to why it's okay there but it's not okay here with some of the very same types of features and zoning there is the there is the lake we think the lake needs to go away and will eventually go away it wasn't engineered it wasn't designed as a lake it basically some amateurs dug a hole in the ground and filled it with water there is a topography issue but there's no natural land features like we're bringing in we're building a 1.5 million dollar roadway that's going to separate that land over there it's not it's not as integral it's not as integrated into this as this piece is this this is part of a whole piece of land over there there's no natural features now yes you say the lake but the stream has got to be dealt with but I think the lake is going to go away the topography is an issue I don't know that it's of the great magnitude that it can't be dealt with in land the cold storage had a topography issue too and they're dealing with it it's not as severe as that but but there's no separation there's no roadway and I think that's the big distinction is that this is this is this is this is our land this is theirs right in the middle of it we surround it so that's the difference you know if you want to rezone all that multifamily out there I guess we'll go for it and I don't think that's the right thing I don't think that's what this city wants it's established already as industrial land and I don't want to sound I don't think I'm being hypocritical here I think there is a distinction between that land and the land we're over there by Packard we're separating it all off by building a road way well I can't speak to any other person's point of view but mine at least in my opinion in looking at this and I hear what your concerns are what I see in this particular site is a large area to the south of it that's either floodplain or Lake and where the lake stays or not well they'll have to have some type of detention feature there so there'll be some buffer there on the far west side of it I don't know how wide that strip is it was in red that's in an eas ement there was a large strip there was a large strip and I don't know if we can pull that slide back up but there's a very large strip I would guess it's at least 50 feet if not more right there on the west side there's nothing there that's just land to you too there's an easement there and maybe the there is a there is a gas pipeline that goes to that well site in the southeast corner that's what you're talking about you don't see it on the ground surface wise well they can't build a so it's effectively a buffer it's 50 feet wide I'd ask the engineer to please approach and you can give it give that answer to us on the record yes there's there's a portion of the sanitary sewer eas ement that comes in you know the one that goes east to west here and it goes within this easement but I think this is actually 30 30 feet wide 33 I believe so yes sir continues on west there is a easement for that was that was put on this plot so I was assuming the sewer easement was their sewer line was in that eas ement they may go to the building to the north I don't know but my point to you sir is there is an easement there that although it may not be a 50-foot right away like a road it is somewhat already pre-established there so there is somewhat of a buffer and really the only piece that then is of question is the little bitty southern portion there so that was the reason for my question to you this seems very similar to some of the very same things that you brought before us a few months ago with buffers topography and and you know it was the best use of the property and I'm not trying to pin you down hypocritical but I was asking for an explanation as to why this piece is so inherently different in your view while the other one that has very similar things was okay it's configured differently and it's also separated by a roadway well and that's my that's not that isn't here done here there's not segregated I don't think the easement qualifies in that magnitude of separation okay that's my opinion okay a roadway separates you you've got on the other side of the street you have residential and well my point is if it stays multifamily more than likely it'll have the 30-foot easement and will probably some type of parking lot and fire ingress to address and there'll be a pretty substantial buffer between any multifamily to anything that's to the West is and if if they happen to flip the two and put the corporate campus on the West and the residential on the East then it's even a lesser issue so those were just two questions that I ask I appreciate your answer and I've got a number of people that have some other question to Commissioner back thank you chair mr. Baker thank you for coming down I'm glad to put the face with the name actually chairman strange went directly to my concern the fact that y'all had wanted to build the multifamily just south of there your comment was that none of your customers that want to build an ICE would want to be anywhere near residential in roadway or not that's not gonna be that big of a divider that puts them in close proximity to residential so I would tend to agree with Chairman strange that this this isn't that dissimilar but is it in your opinion that this like there's no way this lake this pond can be engineered to be stable do it have to be it would have to probably be rebuilt okay I we haven't thought of any taking any action yes but the water the drains the water streams into it and comes out at the east end and it floods down south across our land has caused damage to our land in erosion somehow that stream has to be dealt with we haven't considered any action because it was owned by someone school and and quite frankly I have to keep reminding myself that it was about charity and that's how we got into this mess of the land being configured like it is because the family was mr. razor was more interested in charitable good to sell in school than they was in and concerned about his land and so and and and even after they got into some financial trouble and they approached us about it was originally a gift of 125 acres it's only about 80 acres now I think and they got into trouble and approached us and we bought back 50 acres and here again 50 acres all in the floodplain and we paid a damn good penny for it so it was I keep reminding myself that was about charity not about industrial development so that's how we ended up with that 10 acres is that we basically that we took whatever they wanted to give up but I guess my question is in the concern here that you've expressed if the applicant can show us that that thing can be engineered to meet your concerns the safety of it you know I can that be removed from the equation then I would I mean I don't have any objection to the lake per se it's a bit it it's just a problem and if it stays there it stays there I assume that that the proper authorities would look after the city when in its own oversight and approvals would make sure that it's dealt with properly I mean we we're not we don't have anything contemplated except I don 't see anything happening till it's dealt with in a proper fashion and it never has been I don't know that it will be so in school the reason it's like that because I don't think there was any concern given when they wanted to plant it and they basically gave up all that land that's all in a drainage easement and I think they just surrendered it without really much thought study or anything else and I certainly would have never done it but so it's it's it's really a colossal mess really in my opinion even for the future of industrial development out there I'm not sure how we're gonna do it at this moment I could tell you how we would deal with that because of the problems that exist and but we do we are holding it for industrial development in our land the 130 acres around it and so that's what we want to try to do for economic development here in the city so you know if there was a way to do this and it didn't harm any cause any harm I wouldn't be opposed to it but corporations don't typical and mine wasn't a piece of cake either down there but the roadway was the big factor it separated it in their minds separate enough that it wouldn 't cause any problems and it was off to the side it wasn't surrounded so I think there was distinguishing features and I'm not trying to pick hairs Commissioner chairman's difference of opinion yeah so all right thank you sir I have a number of questions so I appreciate your patience and kinder to answer them Commissioner Smith thank you chair mr. Baker you said Colt storage was moving in where exactly on Jim Crystal they're on the south side of the southeast corner of the rail spur and Jim Crystal so Jim Crystal in the western you said or no Jim Crystal in the rail spur they need rail access they they they're gonna bring in so we could see that up on the screen be that it's a big panel we're in is that it's further south yeah can you bring that up I think that's good yes all right east of that there's a rail spur that goes north and south it's about so right near the area 84 lumber or hundred yards from Western they're right along the rail spur 50 acres they're adjacent to pack car okay okay and see where you are it's a rectangular site I see where you are sure okay so I think that makes my point it's it's not adjacent to this property in question no certainly no it's pretty it's pretty far out no that that is I was just making the reference to those businesses would not locate adjacent to this project okay that business that's the that's the they wouldn't share a boundary line with that business sure that was the issue with target it wasn't about target didn't have a problem in the area they didn't want to share a boundary with it of any kind a roadways not a boundary line okay it's a separate understood understood now it's it's currently zoned as in our two correct yes now it's done out of just you know Mr. R ager's Mr. Rager's charity for the first element school I understand that yeah so if the if the applicant decided to scrap this project and move forward with let's say out of 88 at eight point seven acres so there's about 35 or so that's actually usable land and want to scrap it and build you know in our two standards so they can build what 70 homes would you guys be on board for a single -family development out there too no it's what it's zoned right now it's it's fine to go right is that what in our two is that's what an R2 is last time unchecked well if they have it by right then that's the way it is I wouldn't like it I wouldn't participate in any kind of approval process but and I think the city would make a mistake in it so it's a choice this city has and I'm not sure this would be the first one if it was but I don't think it belongs there I don't I certainly think we need single-family homes and I appreciate things like drill sites and homes and other things that in fact we we 've participated in buying some back to make residential property work sure because we made some mistakes I think the point I'm trying to try to make there mr. Baker's I think that that a change in the zoning probably would make more sense here than then it would just leaving as is just because I could live with a corporate campus if you're gonna rezone it for corporate campus but not the residential component I don't see what that has to do with the corporate campus understood so the corporate campus is not in my opinion incompatible it's it's not what I would not but but that's okay what I think doesn't need but it sure it will work it's just like the United States Treasury Reserve Center that's not technically industrial but if you know what's going on out there it works police have a shooting range out there I'm working with them to help expand that it's not industrial but it works I think the corporate campus idea opposed to that I am opposed to the residential nothing I agree with you partially there that possibly and this is still in the zoning stages here we're not in plenary platter slight plan the the the I think the idea that I would I would want to communicate to the applicant would be to flip it that if the residential is closer closer to that 35 380 intersection there it's closer to the sites as you've already mentioned or northern tool is and it's further away from the industrial and it's all floodplain on the other side of that that it's not going to be developed so it seems like that would be more amenable but I think that's all I had for now I actually had a question for the applicant okay quick quick there's two things you mentioned that you were going to address the the southwest corner the southwest corner you what was going to happen oh in regards the comment or the question in work session was since it's a remaining piece I'm not sure how many acres it is I think half of its in the floodplain but since it's a remaining piece of NR to zoning have we reached out to that the neighbor in order to be brought into this zoning correct and we haven't had that that type of discussion with mr. Baker yeah okay and have you had the same as similar assessment of the pond that mr. Baker's given us and that it's and and what you guys would probably have to do to actually make that well my engineers have looked at it and we drove out there there's I mean it does the pond the water does release over here on this east side and it goes under the gas well road and under just a little metal cul vert okay so it does really confine how it's leaving the pond and if it wasn't engineered when the school came in they just someone else just did it you know we have to we have as an engineers we sign our name on these documents saying that we you know that we design in accordance with state law we have to make sure that it will be engineered and corrected so you will you're willing to make that correction yes I do the work that's needed for okay yes that's all I have thank you ma'am commissioner Sanchez just to clarify that ten acres isn't it it was part of the 50 we bought back it's the only part that isn't in the floodplain but it's surrounded by flesh here so it's not in the floodplain yes sir well I just I wanted to the applicant I just I guess I just want to address upon that big ten acres it's just nobody can just go out there and make a hole in the ground it has to be engineered by and probably the conservation service you know built a lot of these points back in you know the 50 60 70s so I would think that if you probably look at the history that was probably built by the soil conservation service do you believe you think it was that pond yeah no it wasn't built by the soil conservation service I personally think the headmaster went and got five buddies and granted a bucket a backhoe and they went and dug it okay that's how I think it came about I'm just thinking ponds that big or lake it's almost the size of a lake he says ten acres it's pretty good size so you just can't do it and and now that you mentioned about the side spiel I know the soil conservation service when they build ponds that's what that's where their spillway would be they build the dam they wouldn't put a drain in the front they would put a drain on the side so it would drain off the side that's what makes me think the soil conservation might have might have built that you may look with soil conservation service and see if they have plans on that and see what they did I bet I bet they might they might have been the ones that built that it was built by selling school back when they first opened the school back in the early 60s but they might they might have been so they would sponsor by them but the actual contractors and and the plans were might have been might have been built by the so might have been developed by the soil conservation service maybe it was I wouldn't know because I wasn't here then but but the water doesn't the water does come in where it goes out right at the east end it's there's no spillway on it my understanding and I've seen it yeah well I'll say some of the ponds that we saw that I've seen them build they actually spill off to the side and and and what it that pond probably was built it to because there's probably a lot of water running off that I appreciate you bringing this up we're gonna do zoning okay we'll have to come back I appreciate you bringing that up and I've got another question Commissioner Ellis thank you sure this is for mr. Baker mr. Baker thanks for sharing your thoughts and helping us try to understand your opposition you mentioned the word harm in in one of your statements this causing harm could you elaborate on what you mean by that statement well the the land around it is we own is close to 130 acres and if if it's rezoned for now the the residential is that the really the part that bothers me worries me then if we can't locate industrial users next to that because that's a problem then what do we do with it what are we forced to do with it I hope that doesn't happen I mean we want to market it and we are for industrial use that's what the city has got it under their 2030 plan we've never objected to that that whole corridor in there has been that way for for a long time so I don't think anybody anticipated selling school going away but I don't want to I don't want to we don't want to thwart I mean I don't want to stand in the way of the guys development if it works and it's good for the city and it makes sense and it doesn't do any harm now and the harm there is would be created if something happens and there's damage collateral damage if we if we can't get the topography or whatever we need to do in there because of this then what then that's land that never goes on the tax rolls it's in ag use now and so I'm not I'm not opposed to his development I'm opposed to anything that's gonna interfere with the economic activity that's that's been in plans for a long time unless there's some compelling reason I mean if there's a compelling reason then yeah we have to look at it but I don't I don't think there is here the corporate campus I think works I think the retail and the restaurants along University is fine I think that would work whether it works economically is another question but that's not an issue here we're not we're talking about zoning I think that's established and should be allowed there and and the corporate campus thing would probably be fine the issue is I mean we are dealing with zoning and our two does not make any sense for this piece of property no it doesn't and I agree with that and the request is our CCD which does make sense for this piece of property it does I understand what you're saying and and and I voted against your zoning request because your request was changing it that it was already z oned industrial and this particular request that you were making was putting this piece of property in the middle of all of that industrial which to me did not make sense this it's NR to now that makes no sense our CCD does and especially I know you're talking about no major road buffer or anything but I mean the fact that it's right there off of 380 and would be developed however it's going to be developed within our CCD and in its land uses makes sense and I don't I don't believe it harms your ability to continue to market your land and I have no doubt that you'll get creative if you find that you can 't market it a certain way so you'll give us the same zoning on the rest of our land out there I would take a zoning change one at a time as I always do and give it my complete well I think there was some compelling reasons to differentiate that from the zoning change that you disagreed with which I understand and and as I told the mayor if that land looked and looked like Peterbilt and the land that Peterbilt owns and Tetra Pak and WNCO and United States cold storage we wouldn't have been having that discussion I would have never come before you because we saw it as industrial but we couldn't interest anybody in it so if it sits there and it's not going to be good to us or the city or anybody economically then maybe you need to rethink it we thought there was some different fact patterns there and that's why if if I'm wrong about this then I'm wrong I 'm not sure I've talked to my engineers and I'm not opposed I don't know what all's in that zoning I'm not opposed to like I said the corporate campus or the retail in the right place I just think the housing is in this particular stuck in the middle of it is a mistake but that's my opinion I don't want to hurt the city overall I want to do what's good and best for the city and if that's what you think is right then that's the way it should be I have a final question for you and this will be the last one at least what's on the board I know you're in the in the development business and land management business I guess a question to me is to to pose to you you have some valid concerns but I don't understand with your background and what you do is why there hasn't been a discussion between you and the applicant to go talk about these things and work all this out behind the scenes in private and come to us instead of the public back and forth that's been delayed I don't remember how many times to have conversations we were told to address these things and yet there's talk with engineers this morning and talk tonight and it seems to me that as big a deal as this is and as big a deal as the properties are around you the two you guys would have got together and had several meetings and said how do we find something that works for all parties and come to this body with some type of a compromise or we've worked this out we'd like to see the corporate campus on the West and the multifamily on the East and now we support it those guys gave something and we worked it out and came here so can you answer that well I'll try my best chairman their engineer just contacted me a day ago and I just returned the call today so I've been like many of you busy and I just took a day or two before I got back to them but I just got contacted with any concerns they have and they wanted to know how I felt well prior to this all I got was the zoning change notice because we own the adjacent property I didn't know what they were going after I didn't know I didn't look up the zoning change I didn't know all what was intended so I thought I did what any reasonable person would do I just protested saying all right this will get to the bottom of it rather than willy-nilly just say no big deal so if you look at my protest it was blank I had nothing to offer because I didn't know what was going on so I that's why I objected then subsequent to that the applicant did show me a concept plan and it showed a lot of multifamily so that's why I protested so I'm not inherently opposed to that I don't think the factors are in place that separate this from what we did on the other part of the east side of the property so if those facts existed I wouldn't be here tonight talking to you because if they were the same it wouldn't it would be the same result in my opinion okay well let me pose another question and I appreciate your answer yes this board has purview and we do zoning cases to do overlays and restrict uses and things and zoning and this has been delayed a number of times and I understand your concern and I don't know if there's a possibility for you and the applicant to ask for a continuance on this for two weeks or 30 days to go get together so you know what if you guys will put the corporate campus on the west side you know what I'm golden with the multifamily on the east side it comes back to us under a zoning with an overlay and restrictions on it your properties protected they have some surety of what they're gonna do you guys work all this out and we can go you know what private individuals got together work this out you guys can agree with it it meets the city code who are we to say no I wouldn't say no that chairman I I would contact our engineers Kim Lee Horn and ask them what's the best way for us to deal with this and ask them for their advice and consultation I haven't I haven't weighed in I know one's weighed in with me on this you know I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I was just looking at the record we've had it I think it's been continued two or three times before I wasn't aware of that mr. chairman I don't know any of the details but I can tell you this if the if the consultants told me this is the best way this will work I'm not gonna stand in the way of that I don't want to stand in the way of his development or anybody else's but it needs to make sense it doesn't need to be just carving out a hole out of the middle of the piece and saying this will work you know what that's what I'm worried about sure so you know if if it if I wish no harm on anyone I don't I'm no expert on all the zoning issues but I want at the end of the day yes do I want what's good for us you bet I do that's what I'm paid to do but I also as a coal already that I need to also worry about what's in the best interest of this city and everybody else I don't want to cause any harm to my neighbors or anybody else but if if if I just don't do anything and in 10 acres screws up 150 that I 'm a sorry person for not paying attention and that's what I worry about I'm honestly yes I worry about what I'm supposed to worry about but I also have a bigger need or a bigger requirement is to make sure it works good for this city because if the city screwed then we're all screwed understand so we understand that completely sitting on this Commission appreciate very much the time that you come before us and all the answers and patience that you've given to answer Commission I've got a final question for the applicant thank you sir yes sir y'all continued this a number of times and I think we just had some conversations maybe there's an opportunity to address all the concerns and come back before us with a hopefully a consensus that if y'all will do corporate over here and multifamily over here that their interest is protected there are large stakeholder in the city and I understand the position that they're in with the chairdableness of Selwyn and how that's gone south and all those types of things is there some time crunch that you're under that gosh we really need to have this done the next two weeks or can this be come back in a couple weeks or 30 days with hopefully a consensus and looks like we're gonna get it looks like my yes I think he's gonna get a card but yeah you're right we have and with all due respect Phil and the razor family are the most impacted by what we do absolutely and so we definitely we want to incorporate what concerns that they have and try to address them in the plan as much as we can but we you know our thought was that they are significantly buffered by the natural features so the impact is minimal if there's a way that we could integrate our layout and our design with theirs and I think the concept plan that he's referring to is one way before I got involved so it's it's it's not the one that we're working on right now I think ever it wants to say something so let me let him talk before I think we may have another card wishing to speak on this item so public hearing is anybody here that would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time give us your name and address ever at Newland 84 85 Jim Crystal Road Denton Texas 76 207 pardon for dress I came from baseball practice at Denton Calvary which all approved at SUP for so we'll have baseball practice indoors tonight not with that 30 degrees outside so thank you for that we've tried I love your idea we've tried my seller my client Fred Nichols who is in the crowd has talked to Phil about this apparently mr. Baker didn't recall that there's been boy smells left and we have hit a stonewall every time that we've tried so I love your idea of a continuance but I'm afraid we'd just be reinventing the wheel and we'd be back on the same hamster wheel of call no return call no return call no return okay well since we can 't do what we like to do in these situations is let the parties that are affected go and work it out and come back to us and go hey we've come to an agreement what do you guys say it makes it really easy on us is there a concern if we did an overlay that does it tie you down too much to put the corporate campus on the west side and the multifamily on the east address what their concerns are again that's a concept plan flipping them is and this is a zoning case you know I mean we'll get the outside plan we have no problem flipping them you know the market will partly dictate that I don't think we do engineering wise yeah we don't we don't have your problem flip-flopping them the only concern that that I have trying to help in this situation trying to manage your project is when we take action and we do that it's done and we don 't want to create a burden that here in two minutes of discussion sure put an overlay on this property line and everything west of that is this and everything east of that is this and then two or three months from now you do your site plan you know what this doesn't work so that's the only hesitation that I would have in offering that this evening to try to move this forward and get you all at least before us for a vote the only trade-off for us is if we bring a corporate campus in the benefit for that for the city and if we flip-flop it then the corporate campus doesn't overlook the lake and it kind of loses some of the draw because the way that hill sits and the way we have it with the corporate campus on this side executive suites looking out over walking trails over that lake and there is a company that we are courting that Denton is courting and everybody says long shot we're still in the running and I believe Denton's best place in America so I think they're coming I may be crazy I may not but I think sitting sitting with an executive that's thinking about moving his company to Denton on that hill overlooking the lake so that 's the only reason why I'd want to keep the way we have it with corporate on the east east and the multifamily on the west yes sir yes sir okay I have some other questions if you'll stand Commissioner Ellis and I'll let you take the floor thank you it's really a response to him but hello everyone how are you good well I like where you were going with this I mean the bottom line is this is a zoning case and the zoning request makes sense and they can't move forward with really their plan until they have the zoning and can sell it and before they could really agree to flip-flopping anything hopefully what can happen is maybe we can move this along to City Council and you can continue the conversation maybe he can pull his opposition between now and when City Council has to vote on it I don't know that but but maybe if you know if we can vote on this and get it moved they can maybe continue and and and and move things along that would be mine my comments okay thank you perfect Commissioner Rose lle thank you chair I echo Commissioner Ellis's point this is a rezone case to R CCD which makes sense the multifamily is gonna come back as an SUP anyways we'll we'll see how it fits then but I wouldn't be it doesn't seem like it's impossible but I wouldn't be in favor of trying to encourage a re-engagement offline to delay the project anymore okay any other questions for ever okay this thank you this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion Commissioner Smith thank you chair I think that uh mr. Rivera I wouldn't looked at Cypress Waters while we've been sitting here and I think that that based off if you're saying that's what we're kind of looking at here as for the conceptual side of it on being as close to DFW as that location is I think that this fits for what we want being between the convention center being very close to the Dent Enterprise Airport and is the seventh busiest airport in the state this project makes sense and so I full-heartedly a motion to approve Z 1725 C Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I will be seconding that motion but before I do it I feel obliged to say couple things one as a tender of so in school and oddly enough a resident of so in school for a time this project always as it's been percolating around the place it's always been personal to me to see what's gonna happen with the property and so seen that come to fruition actually progress happening property I'm super excited about and I'm hopeful that whatever secret company might be cordon comes through so be interested to see what happens with that the other thing is there was a Denton High grad a merchant Marine who passed away several years ago who earned his Eagle Scout while doing an ecological study on that pond at Selwyn and so to hear disparaging words about the pond about five guys going out and digging with a bucket not a fan of I don't know what happens to the lake going forward but it's been a staple to a lot of lives a lot of trail runs and everything there so that's why I say I feel like I owe it to him to at least say that he worked really hard on that pond and it was a cool lake for me when I lived there so with all that I second this okay we have a first and a second for approval any further discussion I have a quick comment and we'll call for a vote my only offering of one to offer it up for continuous was just to give the parties an opportunity to work that out understand the backstory that that sound like is not going to be possible so we with that I don't have any problems supporting this motion and voting for it this evening and with that I will call for a vote on the board the motion carries six to zero for approval that will move us to our item B and I will open the public hearing for z 18 - 0 0 0 1 a and I will call on Haley for presentation all right good evening this is case z 18 1 for the razor ranch marketplace residential development a little bit of overview the property is part of the larger 410 acre razor ranch overlay that's shown outlined in black on the map the overlay has been in place since approximately 2007 this 40 acres on the north side has always had the split zoning in place that would call it to be residential at some point the request before you tonight is to take that necessary next step of developing and approving standards for that development to occur within that 40 acres just to look at razor ranch in a little bit of a high-level overview two major areas north of 380 is the marketplace development and on the south side is the south campus where the town center and conventions that are located breaking the marketplace down a little bit further we have the rr2 area where a lot of the smaller residential earth's restaurant and retail components are in place we have the rr3 area where some of the bigger box stores are located those collectively have had development standards in place since about 2010 the remainder of the marketplace is this 40 acres of residential development on the north side for which no designer development standards have yet been approved looking at this 40 acres it's split as I mentioned before approximately 16 acres on the north side are zoned in our three so that's three and a half dwelling units per acre roughly the 24 acres on the south side are zoned in our emu 12 so that's our neighborhood residential mixed-use district allowing up to 12 units an acre so looking at what has been proposed tonight there were two exhibits included with the development standards that were provided to you the first of those kind of shows what what the zoning is and where those would be in place on the property within the portion zoned in our three as well as within the gray area that shaded on the map single-family dwellings are proposed within the NRM u12 district the proposed permitted uses would be traditional detached single family attached single-family or town homes and a concept that Razor has adopted called big houses which is essentially a multif amily product that would look like a large house from the outside other uses that would be proposed that could occur anywhere within the development would be an amenity center for the residents and accessory structures for the residents such as garages or storage buildings exhibit C4 which was the the bulk of the document provided to you is the specific site design standards for this development so it outlines site design architecture landsca ping parking other guidelines such as fencing for the entire development just to hit a few of the highlights they are proposing a more compact urban walk able design on the south side so you notice some proposed reduced setbacks for the town homes that would be in the southern portion of the property shown on the map the north side as I mentioned we detached single-family there is an amen ity center proposed on along Bonnie Bray and then in the updated version of this appendix that was provided to you tonight they did provide some more details on where the proposed green space within the development would be which is the hatched area kind of in the middle some of the other key features that I wanted to point out were the amount of architectural diversity required within these standards there's a lot of call for changes in building materials changes in facades throughout the development to ensure a high quality visually interesting product there is an 80% minimum masonry requirement proposed and they are in keeping with the building materials and color palette of the rest of razor ranch just to back out a little bit and look at what this area is intended for by our future land use plan it is called out as moderate residential so that's kind of our transitional zone it proposes between 4 and 12 units per acre on average with a mixture of housing types that is you know really critical for areas such as this where you're transitioning between existing single- family and commercial development as to some of staff's other considerations we found that the overall design that they're proposing for this area is consistent with the zoning and consistent with the rest of razor ranch we found that the standards they're proposing for the single-family products are overall much stricter and provide a lot more clarity in the type of design that's intended here than the citywide single-family standards to the overall density and product that they're proposing conforms with our future land use designation for the area and it does provide that logical transition between the intense commercial use south of here at the marketplace and those established single-family neighborhoods to the north notices were sent about the request we received no formal statements for or against this proposal and staff is recommending approval of the request because we did find it compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the goals and objectives of our Denton plan 2030 and with that I could stand for any questions any questions for Haley thank you and I believe the applicant is here if you all had any questions this is a public hearing I do have two cards to speak on this item first card I have is Greg Edwards at 1621 Amanda court in support and believe you'll be the applicant my name is Greg Edwards I'm a civil engineer our firm is Greg Edwards engineering services we're located 1621 Amanda court pond or Texas we're working with KB partners to try to facilitate you know the civil aspect of this once once it goes on we're working on preliminary plats and those kind of things right now first step is to get through the development standards Charles Harjes architects have been working on that and we really appreciate their work on that and think that they're coming up with the standards that will indicate that this is going to be a quality development and our our clients are committed to the quality of this product and I think Haley indicated that there were some questions about the site plan we do have a preliminary site plan that's available to look at we're doing some things this is a very long and narrow site it's it's very challenging you know I really appreciate Daniel and and and their their first approach to this and and what we 've got right now is very similar to what they they had we're committed to the residential buffers even in the NRMU 12 area to keep the single-family up against the existing single-family development we're committed to the central open space we're committed to the amenity center basically the things that we've been doing and trying to get access from the back of the commercial central area to the west and tweaking some buildings and and we're still working with those and trying to come up with some we do have some challenging clients they want three more feet in the building pads and so we're working on those kind of things and trying to make all those things kind of line up but H aley do you want to This is the concept plan that kind of the progress print one of the things that we've done is kind of tweaked the building so that we could have some some building baths up against Bonnie Bray and then with the big house concept we've got the large facades along the entry corridor coming through which is basically the the concept that started out originally we've got the amenity center in the northeast corner we've got kind of a separate access to the the single-family area for the prime for most of it and then yeah challenge how do you get access to the other single-family and make that feel like a neighborhood and but I think that's that's kind of what we 've done the the owners are have lived in these types of communities and they want it to be a high-scale area we've got some you know three four bedroom units on there so we're anticipating that there'll be maybe some extra cars so they want to put a lot of parking in this thing so that those residents will be able to have children there and part and this is kind of what we're coming up with and and still tweaking it and if you have any questions be glad to try to answer those and Daniel was here from Hodges architect to address any questions you have about the building materials and stuff do you have question Commissioner Beck thank you chair thank you mr. for your presentation here and if I'm looking at this conceptual plan right are we seeing essentially three means of ingress and egress into this area on the west off of Bonnie Bray and it looks like south maybe there's a road coming in yes but there's not a straight through road there's going to be some diversion going through the community yeah we feel the primary access is going to be on Bonnie Bray we have had discussions with the staff about on the very west potentially gating that area to limit the cut-through traffic that wants to go to the mall we do have an access out of the back of the commercial area so hopefully the residents will be able to get in and in and out and hopefully not have a whole lot of cut- through traffic to this area okay any and just out of curiosity what is this little looks like a walking path that comes down between the fifth and sixth house and kind of curves around and then goes into the basically there's a large drainage area that goes out of the existing single-family residential area to the north and basically we're carrying that in and that flow will have to go through a box culvert and into the region area the regional detention area for razor ranch that's south okay all right thank you Commissioner Sanchez yeah I was wondering about that big house concept is that pretty much like a one single house with multiple doors for apartments is that how it works I've seen something like that here in Denton on I think it's on Strickland and so I was just trying to figure out what that big house concept was can you do to find it for me but what it looks like the big you said there's a big house is it yeah you're building some big houses oh the big house concept is is basically we in a in a building we want to make it look like a single home rather than apartment kind of units or townhome units it's an idea of trying to get get that you know as a I think Daniel might be better at explaining that but the big house concept is is we've got you know a big big unit and you'd like to come on up I have your there 's a next card and you may can you give us your name and address and chime in as well Daniel you work with Hodges architecture 136 42 Omega in Dallas the big house essentially we take individual townhomes and try to make them look like one house that's really all it is some of them some of the units here might look like individual townhomes some of them might be one big house that looks like it has a couple of entries to it thank you question I guess I was just trying to visualize it so I guess I have to see it I was just saying like I've seen something on Strickland and I thought me on here and then and I thought maybe that's what you were talking about but looks this it looks a little sounds a little bit different so when you say a multiple several townhomes put together okay I've never seen anything you can see any of these in these groups of groups of townhomes here you know they might though those might look like be distinguishable as individual units right or in a big house they might look like one house all right Commissioner Ellis thank you actually did you have a presentation because we can talk no I couple questions with regard to the big house concept is does each unit have its own entry yes from from the outside yes okay okay so I think I from the from the back side you'll be more recognizable because it'll be a garage for each unit from the front side you might the unit entries might be hidden so you might really not know with regard to the standards which look like pretty high- end standards I enjoyed reading through them did you consider it being a gated community altogether I don't think the development wants it to be gated necessarily but we are in the planning process you can see right here that we're kind of prepping it to be that way if indeed needs to go that direction I'll give you an access point to the back that would be usable for that neighborhood and keep it to the just that neighborhood yeah yeah we're just trying to you know with the fact that there's not just a straight drive-through on it right and if we do gate this backside it would just just trying to keep the speed demons sure flying through the place yeah it makes sense thank you Commissioner Smith nature you envision these all being rent als or selling a property my understanding is that this is all for sale property rough estimate of property value I can't speak to that right now is anybody can anybody here speak to the rough rough estimate with property value would be for the units the property value rough estimate what you think the property value for the units that you guys conceptually will build the zoning change is accepted I don't know they've been comparing the values with the town homes that are up on 77 north of the substation and and they're antisocial repeating these are going to be 20 30 percent maybe even more higher value than those looking for that that upper scale that's why we're putting in more parking and and the Humanity Center and the and the garages and that kind of stuff to cater to these people and hopefully we'll have with with some of the newer you know food delivery things hoping that the Humanity Center will be able to accommodate some of those things we do have part of their layout was some places for storage for cold storage for yeah Greg's talking about the like Amazon boxes automated delivery parcel boxes planning on two or three of those throughout the site okay thank you any other questions for the applicants thank you this is a public hearing so anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time and if you haven't filled out a card you can speak and then fill out a card before you go you can come and speak you you don't have to have a card I was trying to say you can come and give your name and address and speak and then please just fill out a card before you go so yes please come speaking my name is Stephanie Wilson my address is 2609 Thunderbird Drive in here in Denton right my backyard backs up to the property that they're discussing and I got to admit some of the things that they were talking about we couldn't hear so I apologize up front if I'm asked a question that's already been covered I could not hear what they were talking about in the way of entrances and exits out of that area but if anyone has ever been on Bonnie Bray the traffic is horrible and to add one more just one more exit of more people coming in and out along that area it just seems overwhelming quite honestly so if there is a second exit I just didn't hear where it was it was curious if there's any entrance into the neighborhood that I live in because we certainly wouldn't want to join add those roads to that area also I think I saw where there was the there was no easement between our fences and the new one that would go in so I obviously we have a question about whether there would be what type of fence there would be also we have all of our wiring is underground we've enjoyed not having all these electrical wires and utilities was hoping that that would follow suit into that same neighborhood because when we're in our backyard we've not had to look at wiring and would like that to continue going forward as well we do have to well I think that's it I think everything else got covered I'll ask staff just to come up and let's go over the entrances again so that everybody's aware of the ingress and egress points certainly not sure how well this shows up on the screen so I'll try to zoom in a little bit one primary entrance here on Bonnie Bray there is a proposed entrance here that I believe would would be gated to the marketplace development and then the other would be a continuation I can't recall the name of the street off the top of my head Augusta Augusta yeah and and as they mentioned we're still in discussions as to rather you know if these are private streets there may be a possibility to gate the entire community if they're public streets we wouldn't be able to have this point gated I suspect so this for clarification there is no connectivity to the north out of this new proposed subdiv ision to these residential existing subdivisions to the north of this piece no what what may have looked like a connection here is actually the drainage flow yeah so no connections to the north right does that answer your question okay just commit commission we were concerned about electrical - it's it'll be underground I assume we're doing I know DME allows for both I think their preference is underground so I suspect that would be continued here okay thank you any Commissioner Ellis Haley sorry thank you chair sorry she had a concern with fencing which is addressed in these standards from what I understand correct yes the standards do provide for various fencing materials I believe wood wrought iron and masonry were all possibilities with a minimum height of six feet okay great ma'am if you'd like to speak further please come to the mic and you're okay I don't understand the right iron there would be because that would not block and it's just one of the possible materials that they could incorporate it may be a mixture of materials that answer your questions ma'am thank you great thanks for coming to the mic so those that are watching online can hear your questions and comments Commissioner Ellis did you have anything else up they they sorry they have you on the board still thank you again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on the item please come forward and you can fill out a card later hi I'm Jim Wilson I live at 2609 Thunderbird Drive and I'm not mistaken that's this area right in here correct that's Thunderbird here so our home is right in here yes all right so when you talked about the m asonry or the wrought iron as possibilities are you saying that you may construct a wall between us and and the houses that are going to be on that line right there is that what you're saying I haven't seen the detailed plans yet to know where perimeter fencing would be proposed but the code would or the proposed amendments would allow for a perimeter fence around any portion of the property that could be constructed of any of those materials but I haven't seen those plans as to where that fence would be proposed at this time okay another question I had is that you saw that there may be access to this street right over here which I believe is Greenway is that Greenway I believe it's green it's Augusta Augusta Augusta okay so the access to that street there from this subdivision that you're working on that aspect of it yes our Augusta Drive would be continued into the subdivision the reason I bring that up is because I know Bonnie braes an issue traffic wise if you've been there in the summer when they have salt hall tournaments track meets all kinds of things not to mention the church when it lets out and all the masses and the things that go on with that Bonnie brae is unbelievably difficult at times my big concern is the fact that there's no access from the service road to anything that is razor ranch on the north side of 380 absolutely no access there's a big sign that says hey guess we got Academy there's Sam's there's Walmart so people cross 380 going north and stay on the service road and go oh my there's nothing here so I can't get in there I'm going to go to the first Street I can which is in this case Thunderbird that's our Street we have an inordinate amount of traffic on that street already just because there's no access from the service road this development here I think just to avoid the traffic on University and Bonnie Brae will be utilizing our Street in order to get around to get into their subdivision that's a lot of houses that's a lot of cars that's a lot of traffic in there so that's that's our big concern the neighbors that are here with me right now we all live in that section of Thunderbird right in this area right here and we see this almost daily as much traffic as there is it comes through that area so needless to say we're obviously opposed to this but we just want to see some relief of the traffic situation that's happening in our particular established neighborhood that's been there forever and ever and and I don't understand why the northwest side of Denton all of a sudden has become such a burgeoning place of commerce and development but oh my 15 years ago it was and we were like out there in the country by ourselves and now boom here we are but anyway so those are our concerns is mainly the traffic and and just to make sure that something is done to relieve some of the traffic it's going to be created by all this to be honest with you thank you I have a question for you sir mr. Wilson sorry I didn't catch you sooner problem does commissioner Rizzo thank you chair actually I don't have a question but I wanted to see we can get a good response for you from staff so I appreciate you coming up mr. Wilson first I think if if and when the property north of Cracker Barrel gets developed that would help out a little bit if there's no but that's off topic but the question I had for staff is could we have an update on the mobility of Bonnie Bray as was that me and Siri serious check in mobility specifically with that is one the status of Bonnie Bray but also would there be a traffic study to get a dec eleration lane into this development so hopefully if the congestion of turning in and out might not affect Bonnie Bray can you provide an update for us in terms of a traffic study I know there was one done for razor ranch several years ago for the entire development as part of this since the zoning was already in place there was no TIA done for this particular project to speak to a couple of your other questions though first this this is still part of razor ranch that I know they're they're working on development for but that will probably be several years away great this portion of Bonnie Bray is phase six of the overall Bonnie Bray expansion plan that started on the south side of the city and is moving north the last I heard it is in the early stages of design and it would be perhaps 2020 or 2021 before construction begins just due to funding and the fact that they're working north from the south side of the city okay but that that is in process and it is impending within the next few years for this to be widened perfect and what would qualify the development getting a deceleration lane to turn from how does that process work typically that would be something that comes out of a TIA just this and I'm not sure like I said without them doing a TIA for this rather that would be considered I believe I'm correct in saying that there is talks of possibly a signal going in just south of there at the drive where Academy is where it'll be crossing over into the future HEB shopping center that's going in across the road here I believe I've heard talks of a possible signal there okay perfect so that may alleviate some of the traffic concerns yeah hopefully thank you okay sure I'm just gonna ask one more question maybe too early in the stages right now but but this development would there be an HOA involved in this do you know okay an enforceable HOA that would actually take care of the property okay all right thank you thank you sir again this is a public hearing anyone who'd like to speak on this item please come forward at this time anybody else I waited I'm Norma Ferenbacher and I live at 2705 Thunderbird so right along the place for those big homes are gonna be what our big houses I was I was with the understanding that there was going to be one acre lots and three homes per one acre lots I don't know where I got that at but what our big homes are those apartment buildings or what I don't are they townhouses I'd call on the applicant to come up and address your question specifically this way if you don't mind get to the mic so those that are watching online can hear you how do we get back to the one of the exhibits that shows the different zoning so this this whole zone right here would all be single-family individual lots where's the thing that shows the big homes where someone said that these are these those what are those this is just individual individual single-family detached homes where did where did we get the word big houses ma'am if you don't mind can you can you come up where did we get the word big houses big homes where the parking was going to be in the back and there would be one entrance to the front I was under the understanding that those were multiple multiple family homes not big houses for individual families those are single-family homes is that what you're saying okay okay that's all I wanted to know thank you sir this is a public hearing and I'll do a final call anyone else who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time anybody else with that I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion Commissioner Smith motion to approve Z 18001 a the the the amendment to the razor ranch overlay district as the staff is provided with recommendation okay Commissioner back second all that okay we have a first and a second for approval first half recommendations Commissioner Ellis thank you chair just a quick comment thank you all for coming to speak I mean just so you understand what we're voting on it's an amendment to the razor ranch overlay district to establish these residential concepts the zoning is already in place for this for the single-family for the multifamily on the bottom so this was to be able to get their project going to establish the the criteria for for the building standards for them then they can move forward to a real site plan which will come back before us so stay engaged and and and watch for those because you'll be able to see the actual site plan instead of a concept at that point going forward Commissioner Smith thank you chair I should have asked here in it that I don't think there was a neighborhood meeting that was conducted this is a question for the applicant you don't have to respond I would just make a recommendation that after this is done as you guys move forward in your project to possibly discuss having a neighborhood meeting and trying to get answer a couple more questions there's not these this many unknowns it's a recommendation thank you good recommendation we do have a first and a second for approval any further discussion or comments we call for a vote on the board seeing none I'll call for a vote on board motion carries six to zero thank you all for coming out tonight that will move us to item C on our public hearings this evening this item has been postponed indefinitely so we will be taking no action on this item that will move us to item D at this time I'm going to open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 3 2 and the chair would entertain a motion Commissioner Rozelle I move to continue this item to a date certain of March 7 2018 Commissioner Smith I second that motion okay I'm a motion to continue to date certain March the 7th 2018 any further discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board and this item will be left open publicly that motion to continue passes 6 to 0 and the item is still open we'll move us to item E we'll open the public hearing for fr 17 - 0 0 2 6 Commissioner Smith motion to postpone the item till date certain of March 21st 2018 okay Commissioner Ellis second okay we have a first and a second to continue the item dates certain March 21st 2018 we will leave the public hearing open and we'll call for a vote on the board motion carries 6 to 0 we'll move us to our item F and before I open the public hearing does anybody need to take a break are we okay to continue take a break or continue okay we'll slip out the side if you need it at this time I 'm going to open the public hearing for DCA 17 - 0 0 1 1 and we'll call on Deborah Viera for presentation good evening Commission this is a continuance from the public hearing started on February 7 for the proposed revisions to sub chapter 17 staff have gone through the major changes during the last public hearing I don't know if you want me to go over those again last time that we met we continue we continue the meeting to allow for public input to to be answered those documents have been provided to you as a part of our recommendation we are rev ising 20 items listed on the public comment to address public concern and to add clarity to the document staff is available to answer any questions that you may have I think we may not have been prepared so for your presentations any questions none Commissioner Roselle at the risk of throwing a kink in this I was curious about the idea of an alternative ESA being specific to the actual protected habitat because it seems like in my estimation like an up land habitat might be easier to define a mitigation requirement versus a wet land habitat where there might be a multitude of things going on that you would want to mitigate for whether it's drainage or actual foliage or things like that the way the the codes written though all the alternative options are in 17.11 so maybe this is not even feasible but I just curious to know if it's possible to to try to find a compromise between chairs point of finding black and white in this process and Commissioner Ellis's point of an organic process if there's a way to compromise and find ways in which some essays are are more black and white in terms of mitigation trees for instance verse wetlands so I'd love to know your thoughts on trying to accomplish something like that if it is the Commission desire you can establish for upland habitat any specific criteria the things that we need to think about is we're going to mitigate let's say that we go a ratio for every stream remove how many trees are we going to do based on trees number of trees are we're going to do based on canopy are we're going to do based on DBH so just there are different ways to go by when we do an assessment of the upland habitat we look into the species that they're going making up that that tree stand and we also look into the understory it under certain is as important as the tree itself so staff would like to see some preferences to the protection of the understory and to the mitigation of the understory not only tree to tree ratio something like that so if that could be incorporated into your recommendation for a criteria for upland habitat that would be great I think it's helpful to kind of get guidance on that another question I have that's somewhat related is to kosher Sanchez's point about fragmentation is it my am I correct understanding that for an upland habitat if there's ten acres of contiguous the tree tree stand yes it's possible to separate that those ten acres for the development and actually separate that contiguous into two potential or multiple potential tree smaller tree stands that correct correct right now on okay 17.9 a item one for example it talks about preservation of upland habitat continues to forested areas and adjacent properties on parcel is strongly encouraged so at this point it is a recommendation to keep them contiguous we would like to do that we prefer to see that if this is something that if the last sentence that is something that you want to modify and make it a requirement that is also an option for you I'm not necessarily in favor of that I'm more thinking about if you have ten acres and then it does get separated or chopped down what is the actual value of the upland habitat that's left because it seems to me and I'll defer to kosher Sanchez's expertise on this but if you have ten acres and you can take 50% of that potentially for residential so you have five acres of encouraged together but not be together is that five acres even I hate to say worth it but is there there's not an upland habitat anymore because it's less than ten acres so I'm curious about just the thought process of once you even invite an alternative ESA into the picture what environmental mentally sensitive areas is even left it seems like it deteriorate pretty quickly once you actually aggravate the beginning of it and I don't necessarily have any direction to go on that I'm just I'm concerned about the actual impact if we allow for the ESA's to be disturbed it seems like it'd be a cascading effect of damage to the understory and everything else when those when the concentration continues to shrink in such a way the smaller you make the tree stand the more stress you put on the habitat itself without getting into too much technicality here the more you the more edges you add to the habitat the more friction and changes you will have okay so definitely we would like to maintain the integrity of the upland habitat as much as possible and that's why the we strongly encourage to be contiguous because we don't want to keep adding edges to it the alternative ESA plan provide us at least an opportunity to have the type of discussion about where to leave that area so minimizing those edges were more interaction and more chances for pressure to the habitat could happen so the alternative ESA plan it is just an opportunity to have that kind of discussion that we don't have if you just follow the code I really appreciate that because you brought up a good point that I hope Christian Ellis I agree with you on her point just now in that the invitation to have a discussion where those trees are if we if we do have a black and white mitigation process I wonder if we even have that opportunity to encourage development in certain areas with the feedback of the property owner so that food for thought thank you Commissioner San chez oh that's all right yes for my question yes the question was okay just to follow up on Commissioner Roselle's question it does city determine where those areas are is it the property owner that just determines those at the end of the day it is that the property owner we we encourage we like to find reasons when somebody comes with a site plan we look into possible issues the other thing very important it is upland habitat could be used to meet tree coat requirements so the larger the trees the higher the price to replace through the tree coat so most of that that is also considered at the time you know it they also look into the financial component of it I always recommend to have a good mix of big trees but also younger trees because all big trees they're mature and eventually they die so even though we would place a special value to those trees how beautiful they are we also want to continue it is so during discussion with staff we always told the applicant look into providing a variety of sizes so your area would keep going longer so all those aspects are considered when we are reviewing alternative ESA plans and when we would discuss it with the applicant as well I have several comments number one I appreciate the time and effort that's gone through the the list of questions that have been posed and then the responses that have been given and the options have the responses to these questions have they been incorporated into the order and sure you need direction from us to do that if we want to take action on any of those staff has made has proposed to make some changes as listed on the response on their response column they are total 20 amendments total if you are okay with the language as proposed I would like to incorporate that into the motion so none of the comments at least at this time have come I'm a little somewhat confused I will make sure we're all on the same page the ordinance that we have to vote on tonight is the same one that was two weeks ago correct the comments that have been made by staff as the responses to the public input have not been brought into the ordinance of yet so the ordinance that we have to vote on if we've made no changes whatsoever as is the same one from two weeks ago so in order to add any of these change we have to make a motion to put those in correct and then any of the other things that we talked about in work session about defining terms or 50% or any of those things all that has to be incorporated into the ordinance as well kind of as and then as y'all to take it on and move forward versus having giving direction to have that and come back know this is the clean ordinance all the changes are made it's ready for you guys take it to city council correct so either or you can do it what we have discussed during the work session if I'm not mistaken you 're okay with the definition of wetlands and you are okay with the definition of open habitat so those would be also incorporated plus the 50% to clarify what significant native water related habitat is so we will add those okay the other question that I know I ask in work session and I know I had posed it earlier what is the suggestion that you that you all have if we're trying to move this forward tonight or whether we want to and it's commissions not just mine and commissions purview to do that have it go back and cleaned up about the phase one to be able to have what we put in our ordinance somehow where it's accessible that people can find it and it's all that in work session so I don't go through it all again here how do we solve that problem the phase one situation staff will have to to research what avenues are to put that type of information out just keep in mind from a hierarchical step for you have the federal which is court of engineers FEMA and such then you have the state DCQ and then later the city most of the time work things work from federal to city but not from city to federal so we will have to find ways to actually make the ESA map make the ESA regulations more readable available out there we can look into look for more regional venues to do that like cog and other venues where many people actually use those resources so let us explore those options I don't have a definite answer for you I understand the need for it the more the more clear and available it is everybody will benefit from it we can start looking into definitely maybe doing something in our web page or something like that that is not so buried into you know layers and layers of clicks to be able to reach that so let us work on that I don't have a strategy but whatever we can whatever opportunity we have to actually put that information out there it is it is we will try that that is not the only one when it comes down to ease us flower mounds have something similar to it so I'm expecting that other cities will actually start looking to it and as scientists perform those studies they they become available you know to check with us and staff will keep educating our our applicants so whenever they come they know I think that's great and I'd love to see that if I could make a similar suggestion I have in the past would staff entertained reaching out to companies that actually do the phase one reports to say what's the industry standard where do you all go to go pull your data and do your research if it's geo whatever this is has on it hey here are the four national state whatever they are websites that we go and we look at to your point national state how does it the city of Denton add theirs to those websites and so instead of us to your point trying to create something go to the people that actually produce the reports and say give us the four or five places you guys go and pull the data down and then come back to us and say city Denton is going to be a partner and our data will be available in this same database that everybody goes to pull all this environmental information from them that might be a suggestion also to entertain is to how do we get our information out there so everybody is aware of it yeah we can we can pull our applicants for open record requests who have submitted one says geo search okay it's got gobs of pages of geo search so there's probably multiple ones okay and I think that's a from that would satisfy my concern is get it to where people can find it that's one of my one of my other ones and then the final point that we talked about in work session is and I think we've talked about a little bit here is to try to get the process to where it is not quite so much of a politically arbitrary one to more of a Harrison defined standards and it becomes a little more of a certainty if that's possible it may not be and we talked about several different ideas and work session and those would be something else that I'd like to see if we're going to revise this that that when it comes back before us or move it forward with all this stuff put in it tonight that we add that in if possible I don't know if anybody else has additional comments because if not I'm gonna go to the next cards for public okay thank you Deborah for your proposal I do have a card we should speak Kim McKeegan 1306 West Hickory in opposition my name is Kim Mc Keegan 1306 West Hickory here in Denton I am sorry that I am the only person from the public here to talk to you about this this evening I think that the environmentally sensitive areas that you've identified that you're trying to deal with are just that they're very sensitive things I think that it needs to be truly understand that it's not just because we want to keep the trees so that the birds will have a place to land it's not just because we want to keep the stream so a species of salamander will be there these areas are what purify your air they are your buffer between your residential sections and your water supply please remember that if you are allowing someone to encroach upon something that has been identified as an environmentally sensitive area I mean they 're that for a reason it's not just because they're pretty or they've got a certain type of plant that grows there sometimes they are but usually in a inside the city limits you're protecting your drainage water which is going right back into your drinking water and by the way I live downstream so I am concerned about that so when you talk about the development and personal property owners and things along those lines and their rights we're not talking about a tree ordinance so much when you talk about environmentally sensitive areas you are talking about an identified area that somehow buffers us between our water our air and other things like that yes and didn't they have been overlooked they've been abused they've been used some that I don't I will never understand and maybe it'll be the Corps of Engineers that find some of those people for pollution of some of those areas later down the line but please as you look at these things in and it's I'm sorry it's not black and white you can't say this can be traded for this in a lot of cases because of the history of the land in where we live I mean when the Spaniards got here they said it was totally unusable you couldn't walk through it you couldn't write a horse through it because of all the post oaks and that understory so what we have now in some areas are just very small tidbits of other things like the upland the woodlands upland trees that that those tree stands are limited you cannot slice them up it's the understory as much as the trees themselves so you have those things to take into consideration so when someone comes before you or as you're trying to develop language for these things please be aware that they 're declared sensitive areas for a reason and if you can keep away from them leave them alone don't split them up work with the property owners work with the business people if they'll put it on this side of the property instead of that side of the property can the city offer them anything we said in works or you said in work sessions that the city doesn't want them the developers don't want them nobody wants to take care of them maybe we need to look at that as a city about what we can do please if you don't understand what you're what you're pushing forward through and what you're setting as a precedent put this off get some more information so like I said I apologize that I'm the only one here I originally came to planning and zoning to learn about a tree ordinance and I've been here now for what four years on and off so please take take this take what you're about to do very seriously thank you I have some questions for you number one I want to tell you it's almost nine and you've been here since I think about four so appreciate you I did I came for the work session appreciate you being a tough it out and staying for the whole thing how would you we may have some areas we disagree maybe we have some that we agree on do you propose or think it's fair to to your point those areas that are environments that are better benefit everybody but they're on one person's property how is it equitable for that person to bear the burden of that for the good of the community well it depends and I don't have a straightforward answer for you that for that for you I don't know if it's the individuals responsibility to bear that burden or if it is the community's responsibility to bear that burden I would agree with you there if if I'm going to buy a piece of property and my people doing my phase one stuff have done a thorough vetted search I'm gonna know that I'm about to buy a piece of property that on the east side of the west side drains into Lake Louisville and I can't put anything down there because that's where all the rest of the community drains through and that's the filter zone or I can't cut down all the understory between my house and the Corps of Engineers Lake because it's environmentally sensitive area people have to be aware of what they're getting into like you've said before it's not like we're going out and creating these areas sometimes now occasionally they do move if you change if a streambed changes your environmentally sensitive area is going to move it's going to change there's no doubt about that I don't know if people realize how valuable some of those things are not just to the community but to adding to their property it's not always a bad thing to have these it can add to the to the overall beauty it can add to a different concept of stuff to purchase prohibited and put up walls I've seen communities do that it's like well here's the park and it's an environmentally sensitive area so we're just going to put up a wall and all the water spill into it that's not the solution and I do think that it's part of the community didn't didn't as a whole needs to value what we have particularly some of the some of the trees and the woodland areas that are very small it's like we don't have a map right now to look at today of where these particular areas are you can look it up on didn't stuff but a lot of it's outdated because gas stations have been built over it and things like that so I think as a community we need to be more aware and that's why it really hurts me that I'm the only public person here I understand that a lot of the public comment that was taken was basically from contractors developers real estate people and I don't think it ought to be that way but as a community as a city we need to be pushing some of this stuff I mean we worry about the size of the houses and the lot sizes but when you put all those houses and that concrete up and the water comes down you make me pay something for my runoff fee but where's it going it should be draining into these environmentally sensitive areas and taking it on down to Lewisville or at Roberts so I think that it's it's a bigger issue than just planning and zoning and this and I don't exactly know how to approach that but I felt compelled to stay find out what you guys were looking at I did try to read through a lot of the stuff maybe I didn't know what some chapter such-and-such was but then when I I typically go through everything and read it and that's what brought my attention to this so I think you've got a bigger conversation a community conversation a city conversation that needs to happen and maybe we can come up with some ideas I mean Denton really is an environmentally conscious area we're also a growing community I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive but I think we really do have to value what our resources are thank you for answer there's a couple other people Commissioner back thank you chair thanks Kim for coming down as usual you articulate thanks very well I think you did a great job here of creating that state of mind I was trying to present in several other areas but you came up in opposition to this so I think what we yeah what we what what's being proposed here I think are good things I think it does what essentially you're stating I don't think there's anything in there that hurts us was there one specific thing you saw though that you thought was gonna violate well I think some of the conversation that I heard during the work session today is what really concerned me okay you know is there really a clear understanding about what the essays are what they do for us as a community and how valuable they can be as opposed to if I cut this one down or if I cut this one in half can I mitigate this over here I don't think you can really in a lot of cases you can't create an alternative environmentally sensitive area you can mitigate trees that you cut down but once the trees are gone and the block of what that creature is is gone it loses it loses its pieces it loses its totality so that concerned me I I would like to to think that everybody understands what what we're talking about when we talk about it an ESA and environmentally sensitive area it's not just that this is here that's here but what they do for us as a community and I'm not real sure that I heard that understanding today and I agree there was that that element out there but I think what we're voting on here because I don't want you to be discouraged especially with me because we we see eyed eye on this is that really what the staff has done here is just refine this to a certain element that pretty much keeps things intact and honors the ESA I don't think we've got anything here that's going to allow any mitigation at this point that is going to be disrupted that'll be something we discuss down the road so I didn't want you to be discouraged because my sense is the Commission feels like this is a good revision change and we 'll go forward with it it's not going to be the negative thing there down the road we're going to have to deal with these issues you've hit the broader aspects of it I agree there is anything this commission can do but I think this is something the city has taken up I've mentioned this in my social media comments that we've reached a point where the city is growing as rapidly as it is and it's encroaching on these areas and I agree with Chairman Strange you know it shouldn't fall on a single individual this should be an area where the community comes together and say hey you know we need to sustain this area doesn't need to fall on this one guy but that's something that has to go to city council we need to organize on that and I'd be glad to work with you on that it's the language yeah be careful of the language be careful of the loopholes that you may be leaving open and that's you know basically what what concerns me as you're putting forth an ordinance and yeah it's got to keep going up the line but just be aware of what the language is okay thanks Kim Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thanks Kim for coming out to share your thoughts yeah I guess to continue with what Larry said I'm a little bit surprised by your opposition because I I agree with your thoughts on this what this is is not a new ordinance this is a rewrite of the current thing that's on the books it actually makes it better it does define it better it makes it easier to read it's it's quicker to go through and understand what ESA's are staff has vetted this for a long time along with the community on the environment so these changes I think are good and and strengthen the ESA it's brought up great conversation here this is not the tree code that's still there and that's delayed but being discussed we probably still need further discussion on the the process of the alternative ESA and possibly we can move this forward because it makes sense to move this forward after this long these are good changes to this current ordinance that's not to say that we don't need further discussion on other parts of it but because we do I don't think we need to hold this up any longer my hope is maybe with the alternative plan process we can continue that discussion into our DDC rewrite and and and and give that the attention it desires because we're not going to be able to figure that out tonight what we should be able to figure out tonight because we've we've we 've talked about it now at great length we've had it in our possession now for I think close to a month Deborah's gone above and beyond and in trying to get things worked out with our concerns with the public comment with working public comment that could be worked into these changes so I mean I'm in support of this where this is right now and again to request further conversation of what was brought up but I hate to stall this out I don't think that does the city any good at all nor the development community because a lot of their good suggestions have been incorporated into this rewrite it would make no sense to to oppose this well sometimes having to choose whether you're opposed or your support if you could see some of the cards that I write I just put a question mark in the middle I am NOT opposed to updating the ordinance I just am asking for caution and awareness and it seems like you're confident that that 's there just an idea about your concerns for phase one and how we can put the information out there and make it available we're still working on the ESA criteria manual we are they intended just to address topics that homeowners would be interested in knowing but also the technical people who does the research so we can definitely address the phase one situation within the criteria manual because it would be very specific for the for the technical side of the users so that's an option for you to consider as well thank you thanks again for staying and comments is a public hearing I have no more cards we have one more card good evening Lee Allison with Allison engineering group representing the community development Alliance this evening appreciate this opportunity to speak again I'd like to say that the changes that the staff has recommended all sound good to us we think they could be implemented into the code it's the things that are not being addressed that are concerned particularly the portions that are broken and aren't being fixed I have heard discussion this evening and appreciate the idea of changing the process by which the code or alternate ESAs are considered again as you mentioned earlier mr. Beck we want to keep the science and the facts and the technology into it and the politics out and a zoning case tends to be more political as it should because you're dealing with land use versus land characteristics and granted these essays are purposeful characteristics but they're really not just the use of the land the bigger issues with alternative ESAs and making adjustments are really pretty much related to the the flood plains not to the wet lands not to the jurisdictional waters not to the navigable waters not to the to the timberlands it has more to do with the flood plains and you can have a flood plain that might be a thousand feet wide and you've got a 200 foot stream buffer but we can hardly get into that thousand feet we have a restriction there are 50 cubic yards of dirt that can be put in in one example that 's point one nine inches of dirt over an acre of land we're told we can put parking lots in there but another section of the ordinance to say the parking lot has to be above the BFE you're not gonna bring those parking lots up with point one nine inches or point one nine feet of soil you're gonna need feet of soil you're gonna need much yards to do that when I look consider this more after last week the word that comes up is awkward and it's been the process that's been awkward to have a committee prepare an ordinance put the ordinance out there get public feedback then list the public comments but not go reiterate rework the ordinance and come back is just been kind of odd to me not that back-and-forth discussion and then to bring to the P&Z a list of comments that have been made and say which ones do you want to change in the ordinance kind of making you the next writer of it versus that iterative working cooperative process has been kind of awkward knowing what the purpose of the essays are and the opportunity to work with the drainage ordinance the floodplain ordinance the park recreation plans incorporating bike paths and walking trails in with the ESA's great places to have alternative routes for bike paths and in walking paths to get the bicycles off the streets instead of putting more lanes on to the streets not that some don't need to be there but other ways to keep traffic from having to mix in with each other instead of looking at those synergistic opportunities we're kind of segregating the ESA 's from land development and telling developers to come in and try and get alternate ESA's I've had a couple of these changes request and one got turned down and after it was turned down XP&Z members have asked me why did you put that retaining wall that far back that was just blank land in front of there because y'all wouldn't let us move it forward didn't really understand what it was when it comes to the wetlands and so forth the Corps of Engineers the US Army Corps of Engineers the permits we have to get through the EPA etc are much more restrictive than what didn't would happen didn't doesn't need regulations to protect those other than you have to have a core permit we 're already there and the mitigation costs are very expensive so I encourage you as we go forward ask that yes present these forward for change at this time but also as we go through a rewrite of the entire Denton Development Code that we coordinate these together and integrate them so that our limits on fill and valley storage and so forth something's broke let's fix it across the board not not fix it here because it said somewhere else and we can't change it thank you questions Commissioner Beck hey chair actually you brought up again the concern about which was in comment number 7 about the dirt work quantities are too so to be meaningful and I would like to ask Deborah to come up because I asked her about this to clarify it was kind of muddy to me and could you share with us Deborah what you shared with me regarding this the limit on the 50 cubic yard or the 25 cubic year for residential 50 cubic yard for commercial is just to require the protection of the ESA the physical protection the fencing out it is the same threshold that anybody who will go and move dirt or excavate would require to pull a building permit a clear and great impairment during that process the staff does what we call the ESA review which is different from the ESA assessment okay what it does is ask the the developer or the owner to put some protective fence and just to let the people operating the heavy equipment that those are areas that needs to that not disturbance should happen that's what the 50 cubic the 25 and the 50 50 cubic yard is all about then we have on sex and section 17. 7 the area that talks about feel on their own developed plane that's where we have the 300 cubic yard threshold that's for feel within the undeveloped floodplain but the 25 and the 50 what is triggering is just the protection of the ESA the physical protection with some sort of fencing around so this is not limiting developers to build parking lots or anything like that the building in the in the in the floodplain you have to meet 17 which is is us but also 19 and again I'm branching out outside my expertise here but bear with me when you are developing in when you are feeling in the floodplain from a drainage standpoint there is a limit about how much feel you can put without increasing the value storage oh I will say reducing the value storage and increasing the BFE the base flood elevation most of the time the drainage code requires all parking areas to be elevated 12 inches above the BFE the base flood elevation the reason why is because during a flood flood event we don't want cars to be you know floating away when you have to put that much amount in the floodplain to elevate the parking pretty much chances are you are also reducing your value storage and you would be increasing the the BFE so most of the time parking needs to be happening outside the floodplain anyway and this is not from my ESA standpoint it just from a drainage standpoint so is that maybe a misunderstanding Lee or how would you know sir I think we're getting two things mixed together if you'll go to comment number 51 on the page part a when it talks about field is limited to 50 cubic yards or 300 cubic yards per acre that 's just not enough dirt to be meaningful to even you're gonna have you this can be done without an alternate ESA but that's not enough work to be meaningful if we're gonna need to put a parking lot anywhere and we can do it and meet the other ordinances like sub chapter 19 regarded to drainage etc we have to go for an alternate ESA which isn't that onerous well currently is with having to go through the zoning but you know that's not something we're as much against it 's just we're almost gonna have to do it every time to be able to work in a floodplain ESA and you know again if we've got a floodplain that's a thousand feet wide and we're wanting to come in two or three hundred feet on each side and we've got a stream buffer that's 200 feet wide we got wetlands that are within that stream buffer we're not getting into the wetlands and others but it's hard to get into that stream buffer I mean to that floodplain edge FEMA allows it in fact with FEMA I can do it with just a simple letter of map revision based on fill if it's a studied stream so this is a lot more string ent these are kind of meaningless but as Deborah was mentioning or alluding to and what I was trying to explain is you've got conditions in subchapter 19 of the drainage ordinance or over here in a floodplain ordinance and those don't necessarily make sense but we're not going to address those things that don't make sense in others so we're going to keep this subchapter the same and not deal with the bigger issue and I guess I'm asking is this goes forward should it then to go forward with an idea that as we look at the entire DDC together let 's look at the impact of all of the sections of the code and not let one put a parameter around another that keeps it from making changes that would be appropriate that would be proper okay but I guess my concern is if you're going to build in a floodplain and you're going to have to come in with another field to actually alter the ESA there lies the conflict to me it's I understand that as a property owner they're kind of stuck with this but as a developer in your design is there no way you can come in and put the fill you need to to put the parking space in the building without encroaching the two the limits within well indent in the floodplain is an ESA right so to get into the floodplain you have to get into the ESA to encroach on it I mean you can't narrow your flood plane from a thousand feet to 200 feet without filling in the floodplain and therefore encroaching on the ESA you know it's okay well there I guess there in life the dilemma for most of us yeah you know what are we preserved do we do we deserve the person's right to you know build on a property that's going to really do something that's gonna negatively impact the entire community but it gets back to the question of why should one individual pay for it too so that's an argument we can't have here no and I think the question is case by case is it really negatively impacting the community just because it's reducing the size of an ESA doesn't mean it's having a negative impact I don't think it's necessarily neutral either I could be wrong but again that's a deeper discussion we get into but sure I see a point Deborah was are you you like to counter with anything that we just addressed here I mean I believe staff is looking into sub chapter 19 as well they you have seen the drainage criteria manual it's my understanding that they're also working on the 19 that would be something that you will be looking at it I don't know if that would be packaged as a part of the DDC rewrite or they wouldn't move it individually but those are those are the the discussions so I think that you would have the opportunity to take a look closely on on sub chapter 19 as well thank you late before I recognize Commissioner I want to follow up on Commissioner back's question I think that's some of this because of the technicality and all the layers it makes it sometimes difficult to follow all these the floodplain is is regulated by FEMA and you can modify that you can study it you can do letters of my provisions Clomor's and those types of things correct that is correct FEMA allows that the issue comes in and that's where I'm having a little bit of a concern and trying to bring some things up is that the city didn't then comes on top of it and then comes outside of it and says if it's in the eight puts an ESA on either side of it you can't come inside the ESA without doing an alternative ESA plan correct so FEMA allows you to do something and you can however the city of Denton has come and put another layer of regulation on top that says you can't do what you can through federal and all the guidelines and all the things that you have to do and we've had those discussions about the insurance and safety and all that kind of stuff so you didn't have a whole another layer of regulation on top that makes that where you can't do it unless you do an alternate ESA that's correct and that's where I have a difficult time when we're talking about this is there are protections for things it's through federal it's through state but the city didn't puts an extra one on top and then how do people find out about it because these reports are typically pulled off of federal and state maps and the city of Denton is coming out and putting a whole nother layer of regulation a whole additional economic burden on individual property owners that we don't have in a federal and the state level and that's where I'm struggling with some of this trying to find a happy median of protect the environment there are guidelines on their federal and state level see it then has another level what's the balance that we're going to do as a municipality in a regulation we're going to put and then say that guy over there we're going to take all this property through our regulation for the good of the community and you just have to bear the burden but the federal government and the state government says you can work in those areas but the city of Denton says you can't or you have to do an alternate ESA and then it's a political process and it's not defined it's very defined when you do a FEMA permit it's black and white and I know that's not a term people want to hear but it's a very specific guideline how you do it and if you can't meet the guidelines you don't get to do it so I would pitch it back to you Commissioner back okay thank you chair and I do understand the dilemma we have with not being able to have all the levels of regulation up there in front of the developers you've got federal and state and then boom come in here comes the city I would just comment that federal and state don't necessarily have the best interest of a community in mind so the fact that the city said that we do have a department in the city that is looking out a little bit more for us I'm okay with that but I don't want to make it rough on the bill but nobody does but I wouldn't be little the fact that just because the city has another level there it's necessarily a bad thing I think they're there in our interest we just need to try and work out the kinks I agree without doing one more day we need stewardship yes and then there was a sarcastic comment in there about how FEMA can come in and change the flood plain without going through the zoning process and changes everybody ESA so in fact they're in the process of changing maps now so the yes of the floodplain ESAs may change again in the next year or two don't they do that every year no they've started to do it more frequently since hurricane Katrina and others but prior to that it might have been ten or twenty years whether they put new maps out yeah Commissioner Rosa thank you chair I have a question for mr. Austin before I get to that I find myself strangely maybe surprising myself can agree with this question or back on the political idea that although I think federal and state governments awesome I don't know if they 're in our backyard looking after our trees and so I'm not necessarily opposed to having a local authority theoretically and hopefully looking out for the best interest of the community I would one hope that they are looking out for the best interest of the community that's why there is extra scrutiny but to chairs point there has to be a way for developers and property owners to know what that is if if we're adamant about having an extra level of scrutiny then we should also be adamant about the transparency in which that scrutiny is going to be applied to the property owners and developers and if it's if there is some issue with a phase one which to be honest I learned about tonight what that was if there is issues with something like that then I would like to to encourage the city and staff to find ways to make that more transparent for development to happen that's just a point the question I had was free mr. Austin you you've also been here five hours on many nights and I appreciate very much the feedback you provide to this Commission and to staff and your work is evident here if I understood you correctly and I want to make sure I did it sounded to me like you were okay or in agreement with the 20 responses that staff made to the public comment with the encouragement that through the DDC rewrite that's also going on that this Commission and Council more holistically look at the alignment between sub chapters to make sure there's a holistic approach did I understand you correctly or did I miss you somewhere I wished I'd said it as well some emphasis on the process related to zoning that's completely understand and it seems like from I believe what Deborah said that there might be opportunities when we look at the holistic rewrite to look at sub chapter 19 and kind of dive more into that so I appreciate the confirmation thank you I don't see any other questions this is a public hearing and I don't think there's anybody else left to speak on this item so I'm gonna close the public hearing and I'm gonna open the floor for discussion and emotion Commissioner Beck I got the right one DCA 17 oh one a one C yes with the stipulation that the comments that we agreed upon today are included in the rewrite in the revision that covered all Richard okay yeah okay can I go ahead and just maybe repeat what you were saying sure was that you want to that your motion is to approve all 20 revisions as provided in the notes in addition to the definition of the wet lands and the definition of the upland habitat and also to include the expansion of significant under 37 17 5d to include 50% as being significant yeah well and what about the a ESA process do we want to attach that here well it should be kept it separate that's it would be your motion but but it was my yeah so my opinion on that portion of it if it was to be included is that you would give staff and especially our department a chance to review that process and how it impacts other provisions okay let's leave that off then let's do everything you said before I open my mouth Commissioner Ellis I will second that do I need to restate it because I wrote it just like you said it Victor so I will second it and I will say with the hope that we can move this along because I think we've vetted it really well and I would hope that we continue the the discussion for the process and we can do that properly we have a first and a second for approval with the conditions added by legal any discussion well I was going to make a comment if we weren't going to call for and I'm a call for a building board I'm not going to support the motion because I'd like to see the changes that have been talked about cleaned up and brought back and have a final clean look at the ordinance I'd like to see 30 days and then have it back cleaned up and ready to move forward and so I would support continuance for 30 days to allow the changes that we've talked about the phase one some of the other items that have been mentioned and then clean it up and I'd also like to see some discussion of the city taking these areas and designating them in for the public good and yet the individual property owners are bearing the burden of that and I have said it over and over again on this Commission that I don't have a problem with the environmental areas and I have a problem with preserving trees what I do have a problem with is if it's public policy and it's for the good of the community the community should bear the cost of those items and we're gonna with the ordinance here we're going to raise the percentages on the upland habitat which puts a greater burden on individual property owners they may have audit thinking they could do a certain percentage and we're changing that and I'm not comfortable voting for that for those reasons so Commissioner Beck do you want to speak before I call for a vote on the board or yes Commissioner Beck okay and again I empathize with your concerns about that I but I you know hesitate to hold this up we've done this with the tree co and it just keeps getting held there's no reason not to move this forward I would be with you side by side to deal with these finer points that you want to deal I don't think we need to hold this revision up to do that though and I completely agree with you that I think it's time that the city bucked up and said look you know if we're gonna preserve some of these areas then you know we need to do that not put it on the owner so I would encourage to approve this revision and move forward and then deal with these other things as time goes by rather than drag it out there much longer thank you well I'm glad that we agree on that because I think the concern that I have is that when the ordinance passes and it goes from here out in the community says you'll preserve it the discussion and the opportunity for the city to step up and say we're increasing the burden is gone away it 's now regulated and it's by ordinance and there's no discussion of the city 's going to step up and go by those areas or compensate property owners for it it's going to be done and there won't be that conversation that was the concern I had with the tree code that's the same concern I have here as we continue to increase regulation for the public good at the expense of private property owners and I think we can keep moving them forward I'm gonna be the lone voice maybe to vote against it on that principle and so be it but I am going to state emphatically that when we pass these ordinances this way that's now the law and there is no incentive for the city now to come out and say well we've taken it from 25 to 50 or 15 to 30 and we're gonna pay for the difference it's now that's the law and you guys just lost the use of whatever property that is in the value and that's the end of the discussion and I have a problem with that so I'm not gonna vote for it because of that it's a philosophical issue it is a big issue it's not for me to solve it's for me to state it the Commission votes how they are and the general public or city council can hear it and say you know what we think that's wrong and we don't think it's right to take people's property we need to if it's important enough we need as a community you need to raise the funds that we need to go buy these areas and we'll protect them for the public good from here on out and these items don't continue to come back to us over and over again and we argue about whether it's an alternate or not or how much you can take whatever it's the city owns it see maintained at City Park Department whoever at the city level owns it and takes care of it and it's now public good bought with public funds and pay for and private individuals are out of that mix and because of that that's why I'm not gonna vote for this it's why I didn't vote for the tree code and I'm gonna stay consistent to those principles so Commissioner Sanchez I'd like to just say that I agree with you I think we need to really get everything put in writing I think there's been a lot of discussion on this issue more than you know we've gone through what two three weeks two three meetings on this and I still think there's a lot of misunderstanding on what what should be written on the regulation so I'd like to see it in print so I can actually read what we're saying what we want and then I think there's no problem with we shouldn't be in a hurry get it get it passed so that in you know I just believe that let's get it if we have to have more meetings on this let's do it it doesn't it doesn't bother me to to do it right or figure out what we want on on this regulation without I just want to be able to read what we're voting on Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I think Commissioner Roselle's ahead of me I'm sorry it bumped and I missed saying it Commissioner Roselle my apologies it doesn't matter chair does the delay not the delay would a continuance of this item affect the work being done on the DDT see rewrite because if we if the chair proposes a 30-day continuance that puts us to at least two meetings into the DDC schedule we were presented earlier a week ahead of the zoning map proposal and so I'm curious about the implications I'm not opposed to continuing for 30 days to to have this in writing I'll be honest I don't I don't think the the increase in protection is gonna go away in 30 days what seems to be the principal issue for for your vote nevertheless I don 't know if it's it's ever a harm to see things more in the language more drawn out and fleshed out rather than a comment section I'm not opposed to that I just would like staff's and point input on the negative impact it might have if any to the DDT see rewrite efforts it wouldn't really affect it since we're gonna hold those review meetings as a separate meeting we would just keep this on out whether we hold it with a at a regular meeting we can do it either way but it wouldn't necessarily delay the project thank you so my next question would be I guess to take advantage and captivate most effectively the 30 days if that was to gain support here what would be the charge the city is it just to copy and paste the responses and chair I'm asking me you specifically is that what you'd want to see the next 30 days what else would you want to see I'd like to see the comments pasted the definitions that we've talked about the clarification on the significant the phase one thoroughly research to make sure that that works because I think that's a huge glaring issue that I'm surprised I'm the only one that's brought that up and how that gets addressed at this late stage and then it'd be great if we could have a little bit of discussion on the process of how the alternative ESA thing would would work hopefully in 30 days there's an ability to sit down and talk about how does that actually work and get more streamlined those are the things that I would think it goes to city council then city council can decide how they're going to pay for some of these things or not but at least the process of the ordinance is very clean the problems with it are corrected the notifications to the general public are now out there people are aware of it and I think those are bare minimums of things that need to be addressed before it moves on and is more than likely adopted that's all Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Ellis thank you chair okay my concern is you know to delay this 30 days again puts this in perpetual purgatory and it goes nowhere I think it's what you stated before chair and it's with all due respect I think it's just philosophically a difference I don't think 30 days is going to change your mind at all because I do think that you want the ESA ordinance to go away and effectively be written be written and scrubbed all together so I don't think that's going to do anything I think that's just going to invite more confusion to these changes that are proposed and I'm not saying that your changes aren't valid like I've said many times the process I brought that up several weeks ago this phase one that we heard to today those are things that could be continued to be discussed with the rewrite but to delay this again I forecast that being then it's just going to be out there again and it's not going to move forward at all that's my concern I don't think that's going to make a difference I think City Council is going to get a clean version of this I don't I won't speak for Deborah but I'll let her speak I think she'll have that rewritten for them with our recommendations out of that spreadsheet form and that's what they'll be voting on so that's just my comments to the 30 days I'd love to take a vote on this and we'll see where it goes okay any other discussion with that and there is no further comment and I'll call the question and we will vote on the motion to approve with the conditions added by legal clarified by legal move forward by Commissioner Beck clear so we will call for a vote on the board the motion carries four to two that will move us to our project matrix just wanted to mention I know there's there's a couple of items on on the matrix that mentions what can be discussed at at work session that legal was going to provide a sort of an overview and one thing Victor and I talked about was setting it setting some time aside one as a group to kind of go over what you can and can't discuss but also the types of applications just to kind of refresh it so everybody everybody knows or new members are sort of aware of what's what what the duties are but then also scheduling some time individually with each of you just to answer any any questions and and go over a little bit more detail if you like so just wanted to to mention that offer offer that so we'll be contacting you in the in the near future within the next couple weeks to start to start scheduling some of those times the other thing I did want to mention because I know traffic you know has been a hot hot topic it always is and will continue to be so I did speak to Todd Estes our city engineer as well as pre-tem our traffic engineer there they're working on a number of different things what I've asked them to do is come hopefully in March worst case April to a work session and devote some time specifically to transportation so they can talk about the the impact fee CIP how projects make it to the CIP list from the impact fee and they can kind of explain and give everybody that that overview so everyone understands that but also where they're headed with with really creating a true thoroughfare plan that the mobility plan is part of bike plan this bike and pen plan is part of that I'm so start to look at it more in a holistic manner so as as you're up here making decisions you kind of have that have that that background and understanding at least where on the engineering side where they're headed with some of these things so just wanted to give that update and happy to bring any other things to you that you so desire Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I got the email I think we all did about the downtown implementation plan about form-based code I'm still curious about is that is that happening are we are we transition to form-based code downtown not not necessarily we're in the process now of looking at some design criteria specific some of this will be incorporated into the DDC rewrite what we're looking at right now though in sort of the short term is looking at some design criteria specifically for what we'll call call the core of the downtown kind of around around the the square and a few blocks off and then it's probably more of a hybrid I think personally I'm not a huge fan of a form-based it doesn't mean it's not great or doesn 't work sometimes it can be challenging particularly in the built environment that we have downtown but I think will I think when you see where we're starting to head with some of these design criteria and least manual it'll it'll it'll easily paint that picture as far as the type of development rather than being so prescriptive of you know your your Florida Florida ceiling height can't be greater than 10 feet and then we get into situations where somebody needs 10 and a half and they're they're going for a variance I don't want to get into that kind of that kind of situation at least that's not what I would I would recommend so we are in the process of actually now we're working on that so that'll be another item that will be that will be brought forward to you perfect thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair not really for the matrix but I just wanted to take the opportunity to mention that the oak gateway plan small area plan committee that we're on is tomorrow at Calhoun from 6 to 730 it's for the stations will be set up to have public input so please if you want to come and give your input that to that area know anyone pass along the word it's going to be set up really well by the consultants and it's super important and it's going really well so this is our first opportunity for public comment so 6 to 730 tomorrow Calhoun thanks for the reminder with that I don't see any other items so at 943 we'll close our meeting tonight thank you everyone