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