Mar 07, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-03-07 5:00 PM

Commission work session for March the 7th 2018. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 5.03. Our first order of business will be to receive clarification of agenda items. So I will go through and does anybody have changes on the minutes? Nope, everybody good? Questions on the consent agenda? Okay, move us to items for individual consideration. Since I think this is going to be our work session report, do we want to skip that and come back and just do that at that time and let us go on through the work our public hearings? Is that okay with everybody? Okay, so we will return to individual consideration. Public hearing, call on Sydney Jackson for item A which is going to be the 1.719 acres. Good afternoon . Okay, this is a request to rezone one point, approximately 1.7119 acres from neighborhood residential to NR2 to employment center commercial ECC district. As you can see the site is located on the south side of West University Drive, approximately 820 feet from Thomas Egan at the intersection of University and Thomas Egan. This shows the current zoning map and you can see the subject site zone NR2 and this shows the proposed zoning map and you can see the subject site zone as ECC. With regards to the Denton plan, the site is zoned rural areas. Rural areas is for uses such as farms, ranches and very low density residential areas typically about five, one dwelling unit per five acres. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Just this was kind of puzzling to me. It says now is this a future, is this what we're looking at future, was this what was considered for this area for the future or is that what's ... That's the future land use map. Okay. And the site is designated for rural areas and the site over here is designated for business innovation and industrial commerce. I'm curious how we got from NR2 to rural areas. Well, NR2 doesn't quite comply with that and I'm sure they were going to fix that when we work on the... We've got plans for this area with regards to the zoning code. My suspicion is one of the reasons it was designated rural areas is because there's no development out there per se right now and university at that time was just a two-lane road. University has now been expanded to a six-lane divided arterial and when you make... You know, improve the access to a site then you'll have the development come to the site. So I expect we're going to... This is an area that you may see some transition going on in the future. Now there I ask is this ... Is this something we can look at about going from NR2 to something more practical now considering the changes? Yes. Okay. Cindy, can I follow up on Commissioner Beck's point? Sure. I think he brings up a good point because I believe a lot of the issues in the future that may be addressed in our zoning map is a lot of this area has a tremendous amount of gas wells. Yes, you're anticipating one of my slides. Am I? Well, let me see your slide before I make any comments. Okay. I'm already getting ahead of you. Sounds good. Okay, and I... Is that the old just in case slides for us? Yeah. As you can tell the proposed zoning doesn't technically conform to the rural areas future land use map. However, when we have a situation where the zoning code does not meet the future land use designation we do have criteria, additional criteria that the request must conform to. The criteria is pretty extensive and there's a full discussion of how the site complies with the criteria in your staff analysis and I'll just go through it briefly. First of all, due to the size, shape, and location of the site along West University as well as proximity to gas well sites, this site is unlikely to develop as a single family house. Now, there are areas where perhaps they could, single family could develop further south and not be in full proximity to the gas well plots. However, they're still going to be have to deal with the gas well plot and if they wouldn't have driveways off of University, which as I said is a six lane arterial, there would be a street that would connect the houses to West University. Commercial uses are appropriate along primary arterials. You can see that all over the city. West University will provide the access and visibility that would be needed for commercial use. The ECC districts are typically found near employment centers and incorporate office and business workplaces with supporting secondary uses such as, you know, retail commercial types of uses for go out to lunch or something like that. The development must comply with all E SA, tree preservation, buffer screening, tree canopy, and lighting requirements. So you're going to have to comply with every aspect of our zoning code and any infrastructure needs such as water and sewer and electric will be assessed at the time of plotting and site plan process. Access and mobility, well we've got 1,234 linear feet of fringe along West University US 380, which is going to be a significant retail corridor now that it has been constructed to its full capacity, which is as six lanes divided a primary arterial. Now here's the gas well plat map. This little star right here shows our the subject site and as you can see between the city limit line which is located here and Mosh Branch Road this site, this site, and this site, are the only ones that are not encumbered by a gas well plat. Residential and gas wells just just are not compatible so my point was to show that it's a highly unlikely that any of this area is going to be residential in the near future. We don't know how long the gas wells will be there. They could be through for over 20 years. So yes sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Is this is any of this area where these gas well plats are? Is that being used for farming or anything? There are this area right in here is used for farming. You have growing a crop? Yeah wheat. Okay . That we have that property owner has expressed that they are not in favor of this particular request and it's in your packet. She actually says it's being used for wheat. But that's pretty much that's it. That's it right here. Okay. Right here. Okay. Thank you. There's other places down here that there are single family areas. There's single family areas adjacent in the ETJ and there are commercial areas all along here. So down here to the south like I was saying I could possibly see maybe some single family where they they wouldn't have to deal with the gas wells because you can see the gas wells here and here and here and here and here and here. They're all over the place. So. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. I know for a fact there's single family right where you were pointing because I've sold houses there so those are all single family. Yeah there are single family in there. Okay. Public notifications. We sent out two notices due to the size of the property the holdings in here. There were only two property owners located within 200 feet of the subject site as well as 500 feet of the subject site. We heard back from one of them and it was this person right here and her opposition represents 49% of the land area within the 200 foot buffer and because of that this kicks it into requiring a supermajority vote of the council to be approved. Staff recommends approval of this request because even though the request is technically inconsistent with the future land use designation in going through the additional criteria we've shown that it is consistent with the overall goals of the Denton Plan 2030 and the proposal conforms to the criteria for approval as outlined in section 35 3 3 b3. That concludes my presentation and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Cindy did staff consider a lesser intense zoning discussion? We did not. Not at this time no. Okay. Is there a reason? Just because you felt ECC was okay? We thought that was fine. The applicant proposes to market it for office uses. Which ECC is not required? I mean that's not the only... Well that is the you can ask the applicant why how he chose that particular zoning designation but we didn't see a problem with it given that there's ECC located just 1,300 feet away to the east. I have some concern about the area as a whole right there and in particularly across the street across 380. Across 380 and at that location is undeveloped. Oh I know. So I'm just I'm thinking of the future and this piece is ECC and is that actually what we want the area to become. There's no doubt that growth is gonna happen there. I'm a little concerned with the intense zoning designation here is what I'm having a problem with. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. You mentioned in our backup material that there's a small area floodplain. Can you show us on the map where that's at? Small area floodplain with associated ESAs. The floodplain and the ESA are just located right here. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on this item? Discussion? Okay. I think you have the next one too. Yes I do. The next one will be Eric Schmidt and the 8.87 acres at Colorado Boulevard and Cindy Jackson will present that one as well. Thank you. Okay Z170032 is a request to rezone approximately 8.9 acres from NR6 neighborhood residential 6 to NRMU 12 neighborhood residential mixed use 12. It's generally located on the southwest side of Colorado which you can see right here and approximately 350 feet 15 feet northwest of San Jacinto which is right here. Here you can see the current zoning map with the site as it is currently zoned and here you can see the proposed zoning which would be an extension of the NRMU 12 that is located across Colorado. The site is designated as moderate residential on the future land use map. Moderate residential can accommodate single-family residential with a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre either attached or on small lots. This zone is typically used as a transition between established single-family neighborhoods which we've got here on the west and mixed use or commercial areas and I should state that San Jacinto that is adjacent to Golden Triangle Mall and the subject site itself is adjacent to a bowling alley along San Jacinto as well as some office uses and there's a site that was currently approved for a hotel. Residential uses permitted in the NRMU 12 district are generally consistent with the future land use designation however staff does not feel that the multifamily and the commercial uses that are also permitted under the NRMU 12 are appropriate in this district and for this reason we will be recommending approval of an overlay which will restrict the uses to town houses with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre. Now the applicant has indicated he only wants eight dwelling units per acre but he doesn't have a site plan formalized yet and this will give him some wiggle worm. Cindy just a question. Yes sir. Is that different than what was the original recommendation in our backup? No. I may have misread it then I'm gonna have it confused with something else. Okay I may be on confused with one another one. Yeah the recommendation was for approval. I see it now. I've got it here. Yeah the mixed-use overlay limiting the uses to townhome. Thank you. Moderate density residential neighborhoods are appropriate along secondary arterials which is what Colorado Boulevard is. Colorado Boulevard will provide adequate visibility and access to the site. As I mentioned earlier NRMU 12 is typically found in close proximity to low density residential. It serves as a buffer between the low density residential and more intense use. The NRMU 12 also limits the residential density and scale and we are proposing to limit the density even more than what it currently is permitted the 12 units. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Cindy currently under NR6 that's what it is now right? Is that six units per acre? Is that what it is? Okay. The development will have to comply with all standards ESA tree preservation buffers screening tree canopy lighting requirements and design standards and the infrastructure needs as always will be assessed during the time of plotting and site planning. The site has 904 linear feet of frontage along Colorado right here and Colorado is a secondary arterial road. It's got its four four lanes. It's parts of it are undivided and as you get closer to the intersection is divided. Here's a look at the surrounding zoning districts. NR3 single-family is directly adjacent to the site to the west and NR6 is directly adjacent to the site to the the southwest. NRMU 12 is across Colorado Boulevard and this request would be an extension of this NR MU 12 and then RCCD is located to the southwest which is where Gold Tri angle Mall and the associated pad sites and offices are located. Notification we sent out 35 notices via certified mail and 116 notices sent out by regular mail. We've received six responses in opposition two in favor and one one we called neutral because it was just it depends so we put that as neutral and I've handed out to you copies of all of the notices that we have received since the time of the report was written. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair and one of the one of the responses back it were all a lot of the responses back it's asking about traffic on Claremont as the entrances is have you seen that preliminary site plan did you say you said he didn't have one? No we don't have one. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting at which he produced a site plan and he wanted to get the neighbors take on it and the neighbors had a lot of issues with extending Claremont and so the applicant is working with the neighbors he is no longer proposing to connect to Claremont and he is working with staff to find other means of access. Okay that works thank you. Commissioner Roselle. One point of clarification in one question the percentages next to opposition in favor is that linear feet three percent of linear feet in opposition and three percent of in favor? No it's three percent in area three percent of the land area located within the 200 foot buffer. Okay thank you the other question is that's I haven't German back there in a while but isn't that in our sixth neighborhood is there a gate there? It's just open? Okay that's it. All right Cindy I have a follow-up. Yes. If there's not going to be a connection on the extension of Claremont to the east that subdivision just has one point of ingress egress. Exactly. I know it currently only has one but it has a future stub to the east. Yes it does. We know we are actually we're working on on an alternate plan so that there would not be access people would not be able to drive through there. I just was thinking about the fire code. Yes I'm we're working with them. I'll let you work on it just observation. Okay thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. If Claremont in that decision is that should that decision be made by the city based on what future land use or what the city wants or is it is it allowed to be made by the developer? It seems awfully. It's something that the city is working with the developer on so it's the city's going to say this is what we require and these we're giving you these alternatives to meet our requirements and then the developer will have to choose how he's going to do it. I guess because my question is I mean you've got a neighborhood back here that would probably be served if Claremont was extended right? That's right. One of the issues with extending Claremont that the the people attending the neighborhood meeting had was cut through traffic from Colorado and the fact that their streets it's their private streets they're extremely narrow they can they can't even accommodate sometimes the solid waste trucks that go through or fire apparatus so it's it's not a really a viable alternative to push it all the way through and give the general public access to that so we are working with on alternate ways to do that to take care of this. I don't want to say what we're working on yet because I don't know what will ultimately be the product. Commissioner Ellis do you have a question I couldn't tell whether you were saying? I had a comment. Okay. Yeah if I could. Thank you chair. Commissioner San chez that community right now it's a zero lot line garden community garden style home community very narrow streets they can't even park on the cul-de-sacs where they are they have to park in their driveway or garages and Claremont is the only place where visitors can park if somebody wants to park in the street in that community so their concerns are certainly valid because it is difficult to to to get around in there and as Cindy mentioned I don't think we would want just open access to that particular development to be to allow people to cut through there. Commissioner Sanchez. I drove by there and yeah I looked at the community so I was just curious why you wouldn't extend that I mean it would give access I mean you've got other roads that go on to Colorado in that neighborhood that the previous there's a couple other streets there. Right. We're working on different alternatives and we have to meet with the applicant. Okay. To see which way he wants to go. Let's hold just a second let's go through and let you get your presentation I think we're getting kind of off track and let's see if we can answer some of this in your presentation. I think that was just about it yes. We're recommending approval with the overlay which will limit the use to townhome and will allow a maximum of 20 of 10 dwelling units per acre. Okay. Commissioner Rosales you have a question. My question is just I'm not familiar with the area I'm unsure what they're cutting through to if they were to be did they talk about because it seems like they just go are they trying to bypass that one strip of San Jacinto? Is that what the concern is? There is actually the light at the loop from backs up all the way. I can't where's the arrow? Thank you. There's a light at the loop and during heavy traffic times it can back up all the way. Past San Jacinto. So the concern is during high traffic they can't get to San Jacinto going south and so they cut across . They will cut across and then they will get on San Jacinto and then come go through the mall. Okay that's helpful. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. One of the people in opposition sent in a well-documented letter here and mentioned that the streets the Homeowner Association owns those streets. So what kind of private yeah so wouldn't the city run into some legal problems here if the notion to run Claremont through was pursued? I'll let you answer that question. Well they're saying they own the streets and because they own the streets you can't we can't come in there. We can't we can't attach to it. Is that correct? I'll call staff for additional. Just to clarify those streets were platted as private access ways. Okay. So they were not they were not platted as public streets. So when at time of platting we would look at you know whether or not there was some arrangement with the with the neighboring property owner. We haven't dived in to see if there's any anything on a title that gives rights to that neighboring property. I mean we have we haven't got that far into it. Okay well I was curious you know we're gonna deal with that. We proceed. Okay thanks. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. One of the problems they brought up one of things I was thinking about with whenever you have townhomes I know it's not technically multifamily we have anything coming in there is the possibility for it to go taller than two stories risking sight line of the backyard of single-family homes around it. Can we can we include into that overlay a limit on the height of the building? We could. Something closer to it in our six height. The applicant originally was proposing three stories and after meeting with the neighborhood he's reduced that to two stories and he's also agreed not to have them next to the the fence between the two properties but to move them back to try to restrict the visibility into their yards. I think words words are great but for I know for already adding conditionals and put an overlay and we might as well throw in the height so all right thank you. Any other questions on this item? Thank you Cindy good job. Not at this time we will take public comment we will meet again at 630 in council chambers and that will be a public meeting and anybody is welcome to speak on these items at that time. Thank you sir. That will move us to item C that will be presented by Ron. So be Z 18 - 0 0 0 3. Thank you chair members of the Commission. This item is for a rezoning as well as an initial zoning. We have CMG proposed for the entire site. Currently the zoning the property is NR 2 on the southern portion and then RD 5X which is a designated zoning that's given after annexation therefore is not actually zoning therefore the request is also to initially add zoning and that is again CMG for the entire site. It's approximately 6.37 acres just along Teasley just south of Geyer High School. Future land use designation for the site and the area is community mixed use which is intended for mixed uses as well as commercial and other related complementary uses and the proposed zoning request is consistent with the future land use designation. This is the existing zoning map as I illustrated earlier the northern portion of it is RD 5X again a holding or designated zoning district the southern portion is NR 2 the applicant is requesting that it be rezoned to CMG. The notch over here is actually not owned by the applicant. I've asked the applicant to see what they can do. I don't have the answer they will probably be able to answer why they were not able to maybe work out and have that property zone as well but for now the request is what's shown outlined in black. Commissioner back isn't that where the gas well is? I believe this is a cell tower the gas well is just north of this property. Okay thanks. A little bit better of the area area of the area as again indicated Geyer High School to the north you've got a mobile home park to the east some residential and gas well to the east southeast primarily commercial slash industrial uses to the south we've also have NRMU and CMG to the west and then as it wraps around again Geyer High School to the west and you can see that that's the notch over here which is the cell tower and then the gas well is just north of this site. Staff did a quick analysis of course the the big one is it doesn't meet the future land use element in the future land use designation and it does it meets all the goals and objectives of the Denim Plan 2030. It's a teasley proposed to be a six lane divide roadway commercial development along this corridor is important it's also a gateway into our city so we want to make sure that we have the proper land uses and CMG will allow that. NR2 and RD5 does not therefore rezoning and initially zoning this to CM G is appropriate for this area. Again mobility, teasley, six lane divided, TechStat has begun work on this widening project between the city limits to the east all the way north to Lillian Miller proposed six lane divided roadway 135 feet completion date my understanding is January of 2020. Guaranteed right? Not guaranteed. Just kidding. Public notifications was sent out to 14 to 30 to 200 foot property owners 500 courtesy notices were sent to 13 of those and then a sign was posted along Teasley Lane. As of this afternoon staff has not received any response either in opposition or in favor. We I have received actually phone calls basically questions on what's being proposed and what I understand what the applicant has stated in their narrative primarily commercial uses and restaurant I believe. We'll skip that one. Recommendation for the proposed rez oning and initial zoning is approval as it again conforms with the DEM plan 2030 and is consistent and with in line with the section 35 3 3 b 3 which outlines approval for rezoning cases. With that I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank You Chair. In regards to the notification we had this on a case three four yeah three or four months ago. Mm-hmm. Were notifications sent in the ETJ? Do not think so no. Okay. All right we'll bring that up in matrix then. Okay. Commissioner Beck. Yes. That's correct that's my understanding and in their property it just barely touches it but yet this area. That's correct yes it's in this general area. Right and it's it's not much of their property again it's in the northeast portion of it but certainly we looked in yes. Commissioner Beck you've got your idea and I'm sorry. I'm getting the lights flashing. Should I say that over again? Okay sorry. Anybody else? Thank you Ron. Thank you. That will get through our public hearing section and we will go back now and catch both our individual consideration items and also our work session report and that will be Chad Allen. Chad before you get started how long will your presentation be? I'm trying to decide whether we want to take a break now and get food while you're getting ready or okay great. I think they may have practiced it. Good evening chair, commissioners. I'm Chad Allen. I'm deputy city engineer responsible for Capital Project Delivery and I and Preetam our traffic engineer are going to talk about the drainage and transportation design criteria manuals update and we're going to try to keep it short. We're just going to talk about try to talk about the changes that have happened since the last time we presented this to the Commission which was on January 24th. So we're just going to try to focus on the changes. We're going to ask you tonight to consider to make any more comments that you might want to make about the manuals and then later during the public meeting hopefully to recommend approval of the changes of the design criteria manuals to City Council and again we're talking about the drainage design criteria manual and the transportation design criteria manual. So this is where we're at in the process. We presented this to planning and zoning back on January 24th. At that time we were going through a 30-day official comment public comment period. We had put a public notice at City Hall. We'd uploaded all the documents to the website and we had distributed them to the development community. After the last planning and zoning meeting we met with the development community about the drainage design criteria manual on February 6th and specifically we met with the Denton Community Development Alliance. On February 13th we met with that same organization about the transportation design criteria manual and we received a lot of feedback from them. Their comments and our responses to their comments are in your backup. We incorporated we made a lot of changes based on those comments and we revised the drafts by March 1st and then on March 6th we started another final seven public comment day period. That's happening right now and that lasts until March 13th. Tonight we're bringing them back to planning and zoning for consideration and then hopefully for approval tonight and then after the public comment period is over on March 13th we expect to have the final drafts completed on the 15th. We're currently scheduled to go to council on the 20th for a public hearing. We'll give the entire presentation we gave to planning and zoning at that council public hearing along with the all of the changes. We'll discuss all the changes at that meeting and then hopefully a couple days after that we'll be able to publish the final updates to the manuals and upload them to the website and start distributing them to the development community. So these are the major changes that happen to the drainage manual after the public comment period and after receiving your feedback at the last planning and zoning meeting. We received 53 comments during the public comment period mostly from the Denton Community Development Alliance and then we received some good feedback from planning and zoning on January 24th. One of the things we didn't do the very first thing we wanted to do was define I-swim in the manual and we realized tonight right before this meeting that we didn't do that. We've actually made that change. Our consultant has that in his lap over there so that definitely will be incorporated into the final manual. I apologize about that. We also clarified the fence policy. These are the major changes in the in the drainage manual. We clarified the fence policy or we tried to. We hope we did that to your satisfaction. Basically the Denton development code describes some of our fence requirements and the development code now says that there's no fences allowed in drainage easements or in flood plains. That's been added to the development code. It didn't previously used to say flood plains. It just focused on drainage easements so that change has been made to the development code. No new fences in drainage easements or flood plains except where an exception is provided in the design criteria. So we did provide one exception in the design criteria and it basically says if there's a drainage easement that has a fully sized 100-year capacity underground storm drain in the easement then you can put any non mason ry fence across it. Go ahead. Question on that. I appreciate you all taking the comment and trying to address it. The question that I have when I read that it says further down in the exception that you can do that provided that there's not surface flow there and I think typically where those come into account is we're gonna have what's called overland relief situations wherever you have those pipe systems through normally through residential yards. So even though there's an exception there because of the overland relief requirement you're still not gonna be able to put a fence there even if it's knock out. That's how I... I guess you could look at it that way and the reason we are making that requirement that there has to be a 100-year design pipe underground is because we don't want to put a fence across a ditch that is required to carry some of that flow. So that's the whole reason for not wanting fences in overland flow ditch sort of situations because they obstruct the flow. They can be washed downstream during large storms and they could be debris that could cause damage downstream so we don't want fences in those locations but the intent of this exception was that if there is that pipe under the ground and if the surface really isn't for carrying any of the 100-year storm it's basically carried in that pipe then you can put your fence across it. So just a clarification I appreciate the clarification is that if it 's a hundred your storm can be carried in the pipe but you still have to have the requirement for if there's a problem with the pipe you know something blocks up the curb inlet and you have to provide for overland relief which you have to do you all are gonna allow fences to be in that application or not ? I think you're sort of talking about a we cover that in this positive overflow situation that we talk about in the next bullet point but the intent generally is to allow fences across those drainage easements where there is an underground pipe system that's sized appropriately. Okay. I think I kind of understand what you're saying those pipe systems are going to be located in low points and there's going to be some overland flow but basically the intent is to allow fences across there if that pipe system exists. That's always a question that we I deal with constantly with clients. Yeah. We have a drainage pipe why can't I put a fence over it? Right. And so just trying to clarify I know Commissioner Ellis asked the same right it's a constant resident complaint concern and I appreciate you all trying to address it. We'll make sure it is allowed under those circumstances. Yes that's definitely the intent. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Are we talking about privacy type fences or just fences? So these are privacy fences for homeowners is it? Okay okay so we're probably looking at wood fences then something that would because it seems like if we had chain link or even you know the metal fences that water can flow through. Right. It didn't seem like it'd be that big a deal but then I don't know. This allows any kind of fence across the drainage easement as long as that pipe system with a hundred year storm capacity is installed underground. Okay. And the panels are removable. Yes so we can get in there for maintenance purposes. The next major change was about the amount of water that's allowed to run stormwater that's allowed to discharge from a newly developed site and we've added the requirement that if the flow exceeds 3 CFS or if it's less than 300 CFS that it has to be put underground. That this is something that we 've been implementing as part of the DRC process for a long long time. It just hasn't been described in our design criteria very well so we tried to implement that now as part of design criteria. In fact all of these policies the last three policies are things that we've been implementing for a long time but they just weren't described in the design criteria well. The next thing is about positive overflow areas. You may have sort of been talking about this. These positive overflow areas are low points in the road where there's an inlet at a low point and if that inlet were clogged water would pond and possibly flood structures around that inlet. So we require that an acceptable outfall area be identified for those areas and lately as part of the development process we've been asking and trying to implement and asking developers to install concrete flumes and easements behind these low point inlets that drain to an appropriate area to provide positive outflow in case the in lets are clogged. So that's what this is about. Again we've been implementing this as part of DRC for a long time. It just hasn't been described well in our criteria. That may be the clarification in the past they weren't concrete they were grass areas. So it seems like you can put a fence over it till you read that part that if it's... So this fences aren't allowed here because this is for the this is overland flow. This is identified for overland flow in those situations where the inlets are clogged and right that exception about the f encing doesn't apply for this situation. Right but if you're going to require to be concrete in all those situations and you can't put fences in them. Correct. This is an overland flow area. So we're trying we're trying to again with our fence policy we're trying to not allow obstructions to the flow where overland flow is is required where it is required but when there is an underground system where overland flow isn't required to carry any of the stormwater you can fence across it which hasn't really been the case in the past. So we are trying to make it more acceptable and flexible for fences. Okay. I'm not sure if we satisfied you. I still feel like you're unsatisfied. Well I just I can hear the comments coming in the future so okay anyway I appreciate you trying to I appreciate you taking the feedback and trying to do what you can. I understand public safety comes first. I totally agree with that. Right. And it's just I know it's just always been a sore issue for a lot of people in the past of can't put a fence in the yard and there's a 16-foot strip I can't mow it I mean I can't do anything with it but I got to mow it pay taxes on it I can't use it and you've heard it plenty of times too so just asking while we're talking about it. Okay. Thank you. And the next bullet point is also something we've been implementing for a long time as part of DRC it hasn't been described well in our design criteria and then it's about the FEMA shaded zone X areas on the firm panels these are shaded zone X areas that aren 't really the the 500 year areas that we don't really regulate in but these are the ones that have a small less than square mile drainage area and they're identified as shaded zone X areas on the flood map. As part of the DRC process we treat them as flood plain areas and we ask developers to process map to study them and process map revisions if required and go through the FEMA process and so we just wanted to clarify that in our design criteria something we've been doing for a long time through DRC but it's never been described well in our design criteria. Good evening everyone my name is Preetam Deshmukh I'm the traffic engineer for the city and I'll be talking about what happened with the transportation criteria manual we back when we came to this commission before since then we met with as Chad mentioned we met with the Dent Community Development Alliance and received approximately 37 comments during that period and majority of the comments were more of clarification or you know some more information that was missing in in the manual it wasn't clear enough and we've responded to all the comments there in the backup and the major changes related to truck turning radiuses on driveways and where they would be applicable some of the commercial driveways don't require them such as offices some of them require so we have that discussion there were also some clarification regarding parking spaces the criteria manual had slightly different notifications compared to the development code and we clarified that when that type of dimensions were allowed additionally we explained more on driveway spacings there were some information that was missing and I want to point out them the most important comment was pre-development meeting there was a lot of questions about when do we find out when the traffic studies needed when do we find out what kind of impacts I'm gonna have when do we find out how much am I responsible for so definitely we've laid in notes and try to make it as clear as possible that when you get together during pre-development meetings we talk about what kind of plans you have and come up with the scoping for the traffic impact analysis and there was some clarification about the round about designs these are our main comments and at this time we do recommend good commissioner Ellis thank you chair with regard to the traffic impact analysis and I did see your line in there about it being it should be scheduled at the same time as pre-development meeting which is great then you added a point that I have a question about just for its clarity it talks about developments that have are pending recently approved and it talks about that located adjacent to the site that we're gonna be talking about or in close proximity do we want to define that better than mentioning in close proximity what does that even mean so what happens is that proximity is defined based on the type of project the size of project say for example there is a huge project coming in large development four or five hundred homes the the study area goes beyond a certain level so we look at larger circulation network we look at larger scope we look at more intersections that will be impacted and based on that now we define that that would be our area and then we'll pick whatever is adjacent to the area so if we corner ourselves saying within quarter mile or half mile it's not fair for smaller developments it's not fair for larger to that it's kind of a and I guess I understand where you're coming from but it this is a criteria manual for a developer to look at this doesn't really say anything to them about what's expected about you mean the way it reads is okay development plus recently approved or pending development which is not yet but construction located adjacent to the site and or in close proximity it's just I mean you I guess it leaves you open to say anything to them so this is part of the comment that we tried to address from from PNC I think PNC was worried that we were approving all these different plants and all these different new land uses coming in play and what are we doing as far as something that's already proved that may or may not happen but should be considered if for the next developer to come in because that traffic will be added and no one's looking at that traffic so as part of addressing that particular issue is we came up with this requirement that once the developer comes in and discusses about the traffic study we as as a city staff will look at other development that I'll work with planning to get other developments that have been recently approved and add that traffic to the system so we're talking in terms of traffic to the system not necessarily the development itself that all the other developments we don't care but the traffic that's going to be on the network is considered as background traffic and then the new project will add more time yeah and I definitely understand the need for it I just I don't like the way that it's written okay we can clarify a little bit more I just yeah close proximity just doesn't do anything for me I mean it is that a quarter mile a mile say we can say within the approved study area within the decided study area yeah okay I'll read it a little bit more okay thank you okay change it any other questions so moving forward we recommend approval of these design criteria manuals both strong order design criteria manual and transportation design curriculum after final input from the community and final revisions Commissioner Osello thank you chair just so I understand the recommendation process tonight there would be a motion for approval but there's still two steps to be done with public comment and final revisions so we would be approving a document that we would not see the final revisions to before recommending approval of you will be recommending approval to council and council will be hosting a public meeting that's a public meeting there could be comments at that point so it's that whole process where council is the final authority approving the final document but in this current form as it's addressed you're recommending approval I think understand that but when we recommend approval it's possible for council not to get the same copy that we have since final revisions could still be added correct okay I'll have another question and kind of backtrack to Commissioner Ellis on the TIA and another city has got a requirement of a certain traffic study that they have to keep current if for some reason that's not current and you have a project coming on at what point is it the responsibility of developers to go and fill in those gaps I think it should be kind of Commissioner else's point is that there's a certain area that they should fill in and if the maps aren't current or there's information missing is there anything in this document that says if it's not current it's not the developers responsibility to bring it and make it current the city brings it current and then they do their certain area that makes sense yeah I think the city has its own traffic model that it's gonna keep up and current depending on whatever planning approves moving forward whatever types of plan uses are approved so city will keep up keep the background traffic information the developer is only responsible for his piece and the city will provide the background information I know y'all are catching up a lot of that we are and then don't get too far behind the layers of the onion but I know once it's caught up it shouldn't be an issue but if for some reason in the future it's not current there needs to be something in there that it's not the private developers responsibility to get that current if the city hasn't maintained it and kept it current I think that should be the city's responsibility to do that not the developers like that but I I believe that's always been the case that's really it's not developers responsibility look keep everything current I agree with that and I'll just leave my comment and we'll leave it there Commissioner Beck actually this a lot of this goes over my head but in relationship to Commissioner Ellis's and Chair strange these kind of details that are important granted would these not be the things you would discuss in the pre-development meeting you know when you want to narrow it down you're not going forward until you have that meeting and at that meeting that close proximity would be defined then is that correct correct okay that's exactly what it is for okay thank you I guess I'd make a comment back Commissioner Beck it's not so much as defined it's who defines it and I think it's if it's clearly written here it's a city traffic engineer and the city engineer both are responsible to define and identify and the developer would have no saying that no we will work with the developers okay yeah it's not that this document we were trying to become we've tried to make it more flexible okay depending on the type of development so probably getting in on ultimately traffic engineer and city engineer decide a question that comes to mind on the pre-development meetings I'm glad to hear that some of the comments and some of the requirements will be handled in that is the pre-development meeting are there any changes going into that and that may be outside this purview that there are written comments that come out of those are those gonna be in writing that you have a pre-development meeting all these things are presented and then there's a written response from the city that you hand and say okay here's all the items and you meet these criteria and you walk out because that necessarily hasn't been the case I think it's been more of a conversation and again I think this may be outside and getting a little bit deeper of just the transportation criteria manual but if it's going to be comments that are binding is there a procedure that those come in writing they can and we can include something like that and I could really add more to that one of the changes we're looking at doing is as part of a really calling it a pre-application meeting okay making sure though looking at we don't want to we don't want to blur the lines with respect to vesting but we do want to give what I was calling a determination of of review and basically what that would what that means is after that meeting you'll get a letter basically outlining all of the specific requirements you need to do a TIA your traffic shed is within a half mile plus you know whatever that way when when an applicant comes and submits their application they're not shuffling through a multitude of checklists that that determination of review is really your checklist so if that's if you've submitted everything on that list your application would be deemed complete and then start the review process but these are things that we're working on in the process okay I'll say maybe we'll talk later I have to say everybody's spare the Jim strange brain damage so any other comments for our questions for pre temp thank you guys I appreciate you okay I think that takes care of all the items that we have on work session anybody have anything else before close we'll close our work session at six o'clock and we will reconvene in council chambers at 630 for those that were asking questions earlier about good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning commission meeting for March 7 2018 this meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I'll call us to order at 635 our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flag honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible the next item on our agenda will be to consider the minutes for February 21st Commissioner Smith motion to approve Commissioner Ellis second okay any comments seeing none will call for a vote on the board okay motion to approve carry six to zero will take us to our consent agenda Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I move to approve our item in the consent agenda okay Commissioner Smith I second okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none call for a vote on the board the motion carries six to zero we'll move us to item four our items for individual consideration I will call on Chad Allen for presentation on PZ 18 - 049 good evening chair commissioners I'm Chad Allen deputy city engineer in charge of capital project delivery and tonight I and pre-t am our traffic engineer will discuss the drainage and transportation design criteria manuals update for a presentation tonight we're going to focus on the changes that have been made to the manuals because of public comment and PNC feedback since the last presentation to the planning and zoning Commission and that happened on January 24th so we're asking you to provide any comments or accept comments from the public and then hopefully to recommend approval of the design criteria manuals to City Council during this meeting and the manuals we're talking about are the drainage design criteria manual and the transportation design criteria manual so this is what's happened since the last time we discussed this with PNC we our last PNC meeting was on January 24th at that time we were going through a 30-day public comment period in early February we also met with a development community about both manuals we met with them on February 6th about the drainage design criteria manual and on February 13th about the transportation design criteria manual and specifically when we met with the Denton Community Development Alliance during both of those meetings and we received a lot of feedback from them about the manuals after that we've incorporated a lot of their comments into the manuals and or we revised the drafts of the manuals by March 1st and then we started another public comment period a seven-day public comment period yesterday on March 6th tonight we're presenting for your consideration and approval hopefully and then after the public comment period is over on March 13th we anticipate to have the final draft completed by March 15th and we're currently scheduled to go to council for a public hearing on March 20th to talk about the manual s after that a couple days later we hope to publish the final updates and update and upload the manuals to the website and then start to send them out to the development community for use we're just talking about the changes since the last PNZ meeting these are the major changes that happen a lot of most of these are for public comment and then we also received feedback from PNZ on the 24th about the drainage manual we received 53 comments mostly from the Denton Community Development Alliance and we provided responses to all of those comments in your backup some of the major changes we made were we tried to clarify the fence policy basically we are asking that no new fences are placed in drainage easements or in flood plains unless an exception is provided in the design criteria manual and basically that exception is if there's a direct if there's a drainage easement and in that drainage easement there's a 100-year storm designed full capacity underground storm drain system located in that easement then any non-Masonry fence would be allowed to cross that easement as long as it has knockout panels three other things we've added are are basically items that we've been implementing as part of the development process for a long time but they've just never been clearly described in the development code or the design criteria manual so we're trying to get those in right now as part of the update first one is a limit of the discharge from newly developed sites of stormwater of 3 CFS or less if it 's greater than 3 CFS or less than 300 cubic feet per second then we're asking for it to be placed in an underground storm drain system again this is something we currently implement through DRC but it wasn't really described well in our design criteria manual the second one is about flumes and easements that are associated with positive overflow areas these are areas at inlets that are located in low points of streets and we have been asking as part of the DRC process and we have been implementing that developers provide a concrete flume and an easement in these overflow areas so that stormwater can if the inlet is clog ged storm water can flowing along a certain path to an acceptable outfall location so again we've been implementing this and now we're just trying to get it into the design criteria and then finally we're adding the fact that FEMA shaded zone X areas on firm panels are required to be possibly FEMA map provisions are required if developers want to reclaim those areas or reclaim the floodplain associated with the FEMA shaded zone X areas and there's a couple different shaded zone X areas on the firm panels there's those that are associated with the 500 year storm event and we don't regulate those and then there are those that are associated with minor watersheds that are less than one square mile and we treat those just as any other floodplain developers are asked to stay out of them or provide a study and provide BF identify BF ease and then put them in easements and perform map revisions if necessary so again we've been doing that for a long time in the DRC process and we 're trying to now put it into the develop the design criteria free time is going to come up and talk about the drainage criteria manual changes now good evening my name is free time - look I'm the traffic engineer for the city of Denton chair commissioners a little bit of I wanted to clarify the what Chad missed on the last one and drainage criteria the definition for the I swim will be included in the drainage new criteria manual that was one of the comments from the commissioners I just wanted to make it on the record I 'll move on talk about transportation criteria manual here we received about 37 comments and primarily came from Denton Community Development Alliance and we've responded or provided a response to all of the comments in the backup majority of comments needed clarification more information was needed and footnotes and stuff like that the major ones that we focused on and they're listed here are truck turning radiuses that may or may not be required for commercial driveways clarification on parking spaces the part this dimension of the parking spaces were slightly different from the development code what's included in the current development code so that was clarified we added more information about driveway spacing that provided a clear understanding of what was required from from develop developers that came in and then last but not least which is the most important thing that we did is things were better defined in the pre-development meeting I don't think that was clarified in the previous version of the transportation criteria manual but there will be a pre-development meeting where the developers would find out what they're required to do so those are the things that were changed and based on that we at this point recommend the commissioners to or the Commission to approve and and recommend approval the two criteria manuals I just wanted to last note notify that they were currently the public comment period which means we will still continue to receive public comments and and then we have a public meeting and I mentioned earlier on March 20th with City Council thank you I have a comment I'm gonna tell you guys I think you've done a great job with your presentation I know you all have heard me number of times asked when we're going to do ordinance or criteria manual updates to get the stakeholders of people that have to comply with all these to sit down go over them try to work out as many of those things beforehand before we get an ordinance I think you guys have done a great job I think that's the way it should be and I want to just as good as I give and take give you guys congratulations because I do think you all have done a good job of going out in the community to get input and listen to it and then incorporate in there so thank you all for doing that and I think that's a good role for us to continue to look at and do in the future so good job anybody else thank you for your presentation thank you so that's our presentation on our individual consideration item floor will be open for motion or discussion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you guys for for your presentation and your hard work on this and in dealing with comment and explanation I'm gonna move that we approve this and move this forward to council for a full presentation there and hopefully approval Commissioner back I think that motion again with the understanding this is going to move on to the City Council and public hearing is still part of the process but yes I second okay we have a motion to approve in a second and I will add just a clarification that the public comment section is still open so people that do want to make comments or suggestions you're still able to do so and is there a final cutoff date for that that people need to be aware of 13th March 13th okay so get your comments in the next week thank you all with that is there any other discussion or comments okay call for a vote on the board and motion carries six to zero that will move us to our public hearings section see me this time I'm going to open the public hearing for Z 17 - 0 0 2 9 and Cindy Jackson will present that item thank you Commission chair I'm sorry I'm gonna have to find my presentation in here somewhere okay thank you for waiting okay this is Z 17 - 0 0 2 9 is a request to rezone approximately 1.7 acres from neighborhood residential and our to to just to employment center commercial ECC district the site is located on the south side of University approximately 820 feet west of the intersection of West University and Thomas J Egan here you can see the zoning map as it is currently on the top and this is what the zoning map will look like should this request be approved with regards to compliance with the Denton plan the site is designated as rural areas on the future land use plan rural areas permit such uses as farms ranches very low density residential approximately on approximately five acre lots and rural commercial uses the request does not conform to the this designation of rural areas we believe that it was one of the reasons it was designated as rural areas at the time that the comprehensive plan was written is because of the fact that it's fairly unde veloped and agricultural uses in this area and the University was still just a two- lane road at that time since the comp plan has been written the University has been built to its full capacity as a six lane divided arterial when a request does not conform to the future land use map the Denton Development Code gives additional criteria which we have to analyze the request with the criteria are intended to balance the competing interests of the public health safety morals and general welfare against the right to use to the use of the property and include things such as existing land use pattern the creation of an isolated zoning district adequate infrastructure environmental impacts in the character of the district a full discussion of these criteria are in your backup but I will give an abbreviated version to you due to the size shape and location of the site along West University as well as the proximity to gas well sites this this site is unlikely to develop as a single-family house commercial uses are more appropriate along primary primary arterials West University will provide adequate visibility and access for commercial use the ECC districts are typically found near employment centers and in corporate office and business workplaces with supporting secondary uses and development will comply with all ESA tree preservation buffer screening tree canopy lighting requirements all all standards of the DDC that are applicable the infrastructure needs will be accessed at the time of plotting and site plan this map shows the location of the gas well plots in relation to the subject site the subject site is right here designated by the star and as you can see from the city limits all the way to Mosh branch there are really just this site and two others that are not encumbered by a gas well plot and of course what goes along with gas well plots are gas wells and there is a preponderance of gas wells in the area which staff fields will prevent the area from the site from developing as a single-family residential site access and mobility the site has 1,234 linear feet of frontage along West University and is a significant retail cord as excuse me regional corridor it was recently as I mentioned constructed to its full capacity so it is now a primary arterial with six lanes and divided public notifications went out for this site for this site on February 15th we sent certified mail to two property owners and we sent courtesy notices to the same two property owners due to the the large size of the land holdings in this area that that covered the whole area we received one response in opposition and that that response comprises 49% of the land area within the 200 foot buffer because of that this will have to be approved by the City Council with the super majority vote staff recommends approval of this request well the request is technically inconsistent with the future land use map it is consistent with the overall goals of the Denton plan 2030 and it conforms to the criteria for approval as outlined in the in the DDC that concludes my presentation I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is present as well if you have any questions for him any questions for staff Commissioner Beck I am curious Cindy and thanks for your presentation how this little slice got separated from anything else can you give us any background well I wasn't able to find out why okay the only the only thing we can figure out is that the former property owner of this site just did not want to have to be involved with with the gas wells okay so it was never a part of the property that surrounds it okay thank you I see other questions thank you Cindy do you have one card wishing to speak Victor Ena at 1222 Golden Hoof Drive please go ahead and give us your name and address and and then your time will start sir yes Victor Ena like you stated earlier that's my address that's my residence thank you councilman chairman councilman the last time I was here was during fracking debacle and this location in dispute happens to be approximately close to the same vicinity and I spoke to this chamber and a little altercation took place between the former mayor and myself because I have written I wrote him with my concerns and he never returned my calls say I have senators and congressmen wrote and called me back the fr acking went on even though I complained here they were allowed to do the fr acking every day non-stop the ordinance stated that they should stop fr acking at 7 p.m. and not no construction on Sundays but they were allowed my complaints were disregarded now we are talking about this zoning change I talked to a friend of mine at work who happens to be Caucasian now with this issue and he told me that I'll I better have my wife speak because I wasn't born here I've been in this country 35 years married 32 years have four kids two of them have master's degrees and two of them will get masters in two months from now I didn't think my wife needed to speak on my behalf I had a little degree myself the word my complaint earlier was was handled reminded me a little bit about a country I left 35 years ago where people people's opinions doesn't count I know this the issue was then put on ballot and then citizens opposed it even though they are congress in Austin over a rule here now with this zoning change in question I believe this will change my property value there will be higher taxes involved as well as crime and noise so in my humble opinion I strongly disapprove of this I live on a five-acre ranch it's good on who Frank check I have livestock as well so this will impact my residents a great deal so hope that the council will put this into consideration thank you very much some questions for you just a clarification yes are you the applicant are you an adjacent property owner adjacent adjacent yes and it's less than 500 feet about I miss understand I miss understood but I thought you were the applicant and I was puzzled with your comments so I click clear clears up the you're an adjacent property owner yes thank you appreciate you coming out this evening and do you have another question for you yes like Commissioner Smith you say you're you're just the east or the west of the property on the side of you gotta gotta gotta so specifically you're worried that this zoning is going to increase fracking activity or what's the noise level okay this is all my property right here okay yes go for the questions thank you sure thank you sir for coming out this evening this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to Commissioner back I'm sorry sir Victor could you come back down I'm sorry I didn't didn't get my name up quick enough first off appreciate you coming down and speaking and congratulations on four kids getting master's degree yes very good glad to have you here your concern for noise though now you sit back from where you pointed you sit back pretty far off the highway this is a small strip of land I'm not sure and maybe hopefully we'll get the applicant down here kind of give us an idea of what 's going on there but what runs through your mind with this so much things what do you think is going to be there to create the problems you're concerned about well the way I see it it's like you give somebody an inch they want a fee you give me a fee they want a yard so this is approved who's to say that down the road since one commercial business is already approved who's to say that the rest of the property understood understood and I do understand that but if you we look at the Syrian is Cindy pointed out because of all the gas wells there and trust me I empathize with your concern over fracking but now that they're there this isn't going to be a logical place on this side of the highway it's not going to be appealing to developers for single-family residential and it seems right now to me at least that this would be a likely zone change and perhaps all along that way again understand the concern for noise everything like that but they've widened 380 now it's a six lane highway as opposed to when you probably first moved there when it was so I think that's going to be an inevitable faith of this area so I you know I don't get me wrong I'm not unsympathetic towards your concerns there but I think there 's ways that we control that as each item comes through here we reevaluate it before it goes in and make sure it isn't going to be so disruptive to the surrounding area so I wanted at least you know share that with you now will I get a guarantee that my property tax will not go up not for me I'm not in that position to do that but what would make you think that it would increase property taxes okay thank you thank you for coming out this evening again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time seeing none will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or motion Commissioner Beck I would like the applicants here if you come down I kind of you have a question if you will give your name and address force please sir my name is dr. Leshacker I live at Lake Iowa Texas which is in a part of Gainesville Cook County thank you dr. Shacker yes okay thank you for coming down the one opposition letter we got was from the property owner that surrounds this piece a miss Nadra Mitchell and she said she couldn't be here tonight but she's concerned that this is an area that 's surrounded by wheat fields can if she's watching or she can review this video later what could you convey to her that this is not going to be disruptive to her wheat fields I mean is there something to share with us that would let us know that the type of developments you're going to do is absolutely well let me just give you a little history what happened here many years ago I wanted to build a clinic here in Denton and it was very difficult to find adequate medical space here in that and I found this piece of property was going to put up my medical clinic when fortunately I found a nice building right on I-35 and I was left with this this piece of property and I've been trying to sell it and then you had a zone change in the early 2000s which made it in our two and they came in with all of these gas wells and of course nobody's going to build a household near an NR to zone that's clear because I've had it up for sale for I don't know how many over the last five years we've had a number of requests for ECC now we just have ECC all over the place just east of us and just as another word of history in United States I don't know why you can hear I'm from I'm from the south I'm from southern Staten Island New York but I've been here 40 years you see but your accent doesn't change excuse me for my fiction but anyway it turns out if you really do a history all property in the United States grows north and then grows west why that happens nobody knows if there's a boundary of course that might offset that but if you look it up that's the history now I'm not here to cause chaos for anybody the Mitchell's included but it turns out when people put a gas well that diminishes my property my ability to sell it in fact I can't even sell it and under the ECC I'm not gonna feel interfere with their their wheat cutting that's not my intention if there's a beautiful nice building now the only salient value of this property is the 1234 feet linear feet on a highway so people can come in and go out very very easily so that had to turn down a number of office so of course it's not in my benefit it's not an account he's benefit the city's benefit you're not going to get any more taxes it's just going to be useless land and as you know in this country we want land to be used and in fact a person can come literally sit on your land if they meet the criteria they can become an adverse possessor and actually literally take over theoretically steal your land legally in this country so it's showing you that the the fathers had very good thought we want land to be used I want the land to be used I don't want to disrupt the Mitchell's in any which way I'm not interfering with the gas wells I wasn't here to protest their gas wells I'm not here to protest their wheat cutting but I think it 's just a natural progression of all cities and of course anything that would come on that land I can assure you it's gonna have to meet the zoning zoning and Planning Commission and this is my first time trying to change the zoning and I I'm very impressed with Cindy Jackson's just terrific her analysis I couldn't embellish that any any better so I would employ you to consider have all considerations I'm a team player whatever you decide I'll go along with that thank you looks like I have another question Commissioner Smith thank you Dr. Seyar is that yeah sure so the purpose of rezoning it is purely just to be able to make a more market able sell the land correct okay they don't have a current developer who's one to take the land out from underneath you and use it no in fact I even offered to sell the land at a fraction of its value to the Mitchell's they said they were not interested and over a number of years I often them to purchase that land so they have that but right now it's just useless piece of property does purely reason with no no intent of what the usage is gonna be but just to reason for it's correct other than all if I just want to get clarification no that's exactly Cindy can ask you another question then thank you Dr. Seyar if we do rezone this and this does become commercial uses what rules and regulations do we have on setbacks for commercial uses on this property at that point in time because I'm just looking at it and measuring it using you know a lot it's a very narrow piece of land and at the very most the widest part of land you can tell me Dr. Seyar if you disagree with me the wid est part of the land south from 380 down to the back edge of that property is a hundred and fifty feet yes so what we'll play some jeopardy music or something like that next time for the ECC district yes ma'am the there are no setbacks okay the only time there was a setback is if it was abutting a single-family user district okay so for this there would be 30 feet plus one foot for each foot of building height above 30 feet along the rear and and the west side okay because the remainder of it this part right here sure narrow that it won't be able to be used so basically that would have to become from a commercial use standpoint if someone wants to take by this land use and develop it you would have to be a driveway in basically is the or nothing or empty land to the widest part of the property and so at the very most you could fit probably one piece of what the guy was you could fit a everyone homes laughing at that you could fit basically one one commercial building on there that's there's a median opening right here so the driveway entrance would probably be here so all of you would probably be drive okay and buffer sure this is zoning case I don't get too deep but I just the utility of the land I just wanted to ask more questions about that thank you very much I appreciate it this is a public hearing and anyone else that would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time seeing none and we'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or emotion Commissioner Smith a motion to approve Commissioner Roselle first of all I want to thank Victor for coming out and speaking his words I don't think they go unnoticed by any of the Commission and it and I appreciate it but with that it seems like the property owners has been kind of pigeonholed by the the fracking that's gone on in the area and so it seems the case that he provided in terms of the context of the land that I'm going to vote and for this and second this to see if there can be some development if any on that property we have a first and a second for approval Commissioner Ellis thank you if you were going to open it for discussion yes okay thank you very much thank you dr. Shasheer and mr. Victor for coming out I'm having a rough time supporting this I'm sorry that staff didn't discuss a lesser zoning here the intensity of the zoning concerns me I don't know that's where we want this particular area of the city to go maybe we do at this point I don't know I am concerned as Victor stated that once we rezone this ECC it opens the door to properties to the West properties to the north that do abut these rural properties and we can't discount the fact or I can't discount the fact that that there are rural property owners that still do exist in our area so I can't support this and just wanted to get that on the record commissioner back thank you chair and I agree to agree with Commissioner Ellis's concerns but I guess the bigger factor here is Victor lives on the north side and there's a good distance back that area as far as I can see is not threatened with the zone change that will come before us and I think it'll be a whole different argument but the area south of the highway right now is is is almost dead because of the gas wells there and unless you know we make some kind of move like this it will remain that way I really don't want to see residential expand I would like to see it you know we want density in the city and that means going up and not out so for that reason I would like to get this into more but commercial area and not encourage single-family developments out in that area so I would be voting for Commissioner Smith thank you chair bargie or Commissioner Ellis to your to your point I think I'd the point I was trying to make there was that I think this the sliver is so small and I could agree with you on a lesser zoning as long as it's still incorporated some sort of office or some sort of you know no light light industrial use but that piece of land is so small that I don't think we're gonna end up having development that's gonna be noisy not to mention if you want to talk about noise there is a whatever a four lane highway six lane highway where they're running right through the middle it's pretty loud enough that I just think that to honor but dr. say charts trying to do is just trying to get this land out from underneath them to possibly what's gonna end up being there is probably going to be a some sort of office building or some sort of medical practice or something like that just because that land is not going to support some large strip center or some large industrial development just because the size of it but I take your points and I agree with you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you Commissioner Smith and I appreciate what you have to say there and and my comments are are not just to single out the doctor's property what it does is if we rezone this it does open up the ability to more easily rezone other things to ECC in that immediate area and across the street so that's my concern because we do have to look at if we do one what are the unintended consequences what do we open up you know we talk about isolated isolated zoning districts we're creating one right now and when we do that my concern is have we thought about it enough to make sure that that's what we want this to start becoming because we're at the top of the heap here with with this don't zoning designation so so that's that's my concern it's not to to to handcuff this owner it's to think of the other property owners in the future of that particular zone in the city but I appreciate your comments thank you Commissioner Sanchez my biggest consideration consideration is basically what the city says it's a primary arterial arterial road so over time I think in the next 10 15 20 years you're gonna see more that was businesses that you see prior to March those businesses all that is going to expand so I think it's a it's a reasonable recommendation and I'm gonna vote for it I'm gonna echo Commissioner San chez comments as I look at the area further to the west over towards 51 there's a pretty good sized commercial use there and I think because of the text on improvements to six lane road that it ultimately this will become some type of a commercial corridor for our city for the matter of fact that because of all the gas wells it will be very difficult if not impossible to meet the setback requirements because of the gas wells and because of the infrastructure that's there with the six lane highway and commercial uses already up and down 3 80 to the west and going on over to Decatur I think ultimately that's where we 're gonna go and to your point I understand it is early but I think this is going to be the the direction that this whole area will ultimately move in just because of the features that are around it and the accessibility that 's out there and the need for services so I'm going to support the zoning change as well and with that unless there any other comments or discussion I'm going to call for a vote on the board and the motion before us is a first and a second to approve with that I'll call for a vote on board and motion is going to carry five to one that will move us to item B in our public hearings this evening at this time I'm going to open Z 17 - zero zero three two and call on Cindy Jackson for presentation Z 17 - zero zero three two is a request to rezone approximately eight point nine acres of land from neighborhood residential six and our sixth zoning district to neighborhood residential mixed use 12 NRMU 12 zoning district the site is generally located on the southwest side of Colorado Boulevard approximately 315 feet northwest of San Jacinto here at the top you see our current zoning map which shows the NR6 zoning and at the bottom you'll you see the proposed zoning map which shows the proposed zoning district as you can see this district is a continuation of the NR12 district that's to the north future land use map designation for this site is moderate density single-family residential which permits single-family residential on small lots with a density of between four to twelve dwelling units per acre this is typically used as a transition between the established single-family neighborhoods and commercial areas or mixed-use areas as you can see we've got to the west low density residential and then we've got to the southeast regional mixed use which is actually the site of the Golden Triangle Mall and associated pad sites and commercial uses excuse me residential uses permitted in the NR 12 zoning district are consistent with the future land use plan designation however permitted multifamily and commercial uses would not be conforming with this site for that reason staff is recommending an overlay which will restrict the uses to single-family townhomes and a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre moderate density residential neighborhoods are appropriate along secondary arterials which is what Colorado Boulevard is it should provide adequate visibility and access the NRMU 12 district is typically in close proximity to low density residential neighborhoods as I mentioned as and it's used as a transition or buffer to more intense commercial uses the NRMU 12 district it limits the residential density and scale the density is limited per the district to 12 but we are requesting an overlay to restrict that to 10 the development must comply with all standards including the ESA tree preservation buffer standards screening tree canopy and light requirements and the infrastructure needs will be assessed for the site at the time of plotting and site plan the site has 904 linear feet of frontage on Colorado Boulevard Colorado Boulevard is designated as a secondary arterial part of it is four lane divided excuse me four lane undivided and as we get closer to the intersection with Hatt San Jacinto it becomes a four lane divided during the work session there were questions about the stub out of Claremont and and why it was there this site was originally supposed to be phase two of the patio homes that are located here and for reasons that I couldn't find it it never developed that way and so this is what the new proposal is compatibility with the the zoning surrounded zoning there is NR three single-family to the west and our six to the southwest our CCD to the southeast which is a intense commercial area and NRMU 12 and multifamily out to the north the area is the request is very compatible with the surrounding zoning we sent out 35 notices on February 2nd via certified mail and 116 courtesy notices went out as well we've received six responses in opposition and two in favor and one neutral and and one of the responses is right up here it's difficult to tell because it kind of blends in with the boundary line of the 200 feet staff recommends approval of this request with the condition that mixed use overlay district be applied to the site with the following conditions that there shall be no uses permitted other than single-family attached town homes including duplexes or single-family detached units it would just be town homes the overall density of the site shall not exceed 10 dwelling units per acre and that concludes my presentation and the applicant is here if you have questions Cindy question another came up in work session what is the height maximum on in our six I think it's 65 but let me double check what is in our 12 though just like this up here we had discrepancy there just to clarify I think we're having a little sidebar discussion and I get frowned at right quick here amongst us the height requirements or maximums on would you when you get to the code for mr. inner me 12 it's 40 feet okay and in our six is 40 as well so they're the same height requirement in both okay Commissioner Smith nothing I withdraw my request I think I stole your question maybe okay any other questions for staff thank you Cindy this is a public hearing and the first card that I have is the applicant and I'll call on Eric Schmidt if you'll give your name and address for us I think you'll have up to ten minutes sir yes sir thank you good evening my name is Eric Schmidt 's property here in Denton 207 West Hickory and there is basically this property has been here for a long time and as Cindy was saying never did really develop I feel like the proposed use of townhome is an excellent buffer between the hard commercial mall bowling alley and the apartments on the north side or the opposite side of Colorado and the garden homes that surround us we held a meeting open public meeting Monday February 12th and we had 42 people show up and had mixed feedback I would say 50/50 we took into consideration the main concerns of the of the folks in the area such as the buffer between the existing residential and the proposed development and considered that we would be willing to construct a fence you know upon the city's approval in addition we were going to landscape the buffer between those we talked about the trees we're willing to replace the hardwood species on a caliper plus basis so that we would line Colorado with an ash fence and or hardwood species probably live oak or red oak or something like this in addition we have in the development of proposed amenity center and dog park would have a pool and clubhouse something like that for the folks that live there walking trail and we invited the folks that were contiguous to have access to those facilities as well as they were like as they would like to some of the main concerns and it was interesting the folks that showed up lots of them were elderly retired folks and just didn't want to have a big disturbance and I assured them that our proposal is fee ownership these folks it's not apartment or a strip center or something that would probably be more likely for this particular property these folks will own their homes and part of the requirements for each of the homes would be also another hardwood tree minimum of one they have driveways as well as garages on site one of the concerns was off-street parking or on-st reet parking so we created an area in the proposed flat for guest parking added an additional 12 spaces for that the last discussions we had and we're open to feedback is the main entrance or the grand entrance which would be Colorado Boulevard a very nice landscaped entrance and they didn't want this traffic to flow through to behind the bank into the garden home development as a through street and so the engineers and I met and thought well maybe we could make that a they call it I guess a crash gate where the fire department or the police could get through if there was an emergency and for whatever reason the main gate was blocked off or inaccessible so we felt like that would be a good compromise and we're prepared to do that basically it's it 's a real tasteful townhome type mix I think the market we're sorely lacking for this price point of home 275 to 350s they anticipated sale price of these homes and there's a bus route there and we've also figured out a configuration with the preliminary traffic study to have a turn lane in front as a middle line to Colorado Boulevard where we could reconfigure the median and the development group is prepared to do that to make that happen there's it seems to be a lot of land in the middle where Colorado gets narrowed down there for for some reason but there's plenty room for a turn lane there and we could reconfigure that at our expense to help with the traffic flow so we addressed of the eight points that the folks had at the meeting or excuse me ten we came back and have agreed or deferred to the the folks around us on eight of them and one of the two that are remainer they just don't want to see any development there so we're trying to get by the best we can I appreciate your time and consideration I'm open for questions okay commissioner back thank you chair and thank you mr. Smith for your presentation and I want to commend you on holding a neighborhood meeting that seems to be something that developers what's a crash gate it's a gate that they have it's a small gate that could be crashed through pretty easily but it's a control gate so that the fire department and this is my understanding the fire department the police department either has electronic access where they can open it 24/7 or have a key or a lock in every city is different but basically there's nobody driving back and forth through the property on a regular basis and the way it's designed in our proposed plan they wouldn't necessarily need to is the main entrance would would serve everybody to ingress and egress but per the requirements and I think the majority of the emphasis on that requirement are for emergency access and so we're trying to make a provision for that okay that makes sense now did I hear you right that you're willing to offer the amenities you're going to be putting in this to the garden home community to to everybody that's contiguous along there we offered them the right to come to the dog parks or the walk park so they can come through that crash gate area yes sir okay we would continue the sidewalk into the community and it's pretty close to the garden homes I had a couple of folks that are over in the larger homes that one guy wanted a gate another guy didn't didn't want a gate and so I wouldn't sure how that would work but if we do like a masonry wall or a pretty substantial wall that we're anticipating he'd probably have to go around and come up the back street right okay one last thing concern mentioned by some of the residents there is the height and I know you wanted to build three store up to three story I think the height is 40 feet is that right thank you okay and that that would allow a three-story but do you see yourself accommodating the residents in the garden homes where you could put the second and third story buildings closer to Colorado yes we're studying that right now and the plan that the builders that we're working with the three story is about 32 feet so we'll be under the 40 however they the houses that are the lower density lowest density if you will that are contiguous we're thinking that we might could limit those to a two-story which is no different than is already in the neighborhood in our suits and so far as they're contiguous to that back fence that abuts the development I think that we could probably work with them on a two-story configuration on those parcels just just for everybody's if you missed it up here in our six which is there now would allow the same height somebody want to build a two-story house back in the garden house that could be done so just want to make that point right and staff mentioned that it would be at a limit of ten dwelling units per acre but she mentioned something about you wanting to bring it down today we're yeah we're less than that actually I think one plane we had was like 74 and the other was 78 and so instead of 85 or 90 whatever that equates to 8.9 to be 89 we're already dropping it down and that's to make provision for the green dog park and the walkways and landscape buffer okay thank you any other questions for the applicant thank you sir yes quite a few cards you might want to stay close if we need to thank you the next card I have is Jennifer gear 1512 Greens Point Circle it's not marked as to whether it's opposition or support please give us your name and address certainly my name is Jennifer gear and I'm on 1512 Greens Point Circle and I appreciate the opportunity to talk thank you very much I had meant to put opposed I just turned in my card a bit quickly so that was the intent on it but but staffs input on the overlay actually is a very key point to me because one of my concerns is that I live on a cul-de-s ac and I actually love the area because it's a nice private cul-de-sac but there's great easy access to the major roads Colorado and such it's a really nice location so my concern was that the zoning could change somebody else could buy out the project and it could become apartments or something like this which I really did not want so townhomes if something is going to be built there is more amenable to me so then my my remaining concerns are really traffic because Colorado can be pretty busy I don't know if there's a way of having it go out to San Jacinto I'm not sure if that becomes an option or not and then the privacy how you know if there's a nice brick wall with sound abat ement that sort of thing in it and the aesthetics of it because I did not have the the details on the landscaping so a little bit was talked about but there weren't any visuals so I actually don't see and that's very important to me because we have a nice community very nice cul-de-sacs and I don't want that to be encumbered by a very high density look to it so I want a nice marriage of the two if that is going to be built I will say that I did not I was at the that meeting you referred to and I did not see a 50/50 I definitely saw that the community was not that interested in having a development there but that townhomes probably seem to be the lesser of possible evils out there certainly we'd rather have single-family detached rather than single-family attached but single-family attached is better than some of the other options so I guess in summary if the aesthetics of it the the greenery the trees and such are really nice nearby then I think that might be amenable I guess one final note is that a lot of the existing residents in the cul-de-sacs area a lot of them are elderly and most people said that they probably wouldn 't be using the amenities even so so it's a nice offer but probably not to be utilized so the view the aesthetics the noise level the traffic I think those are the bigger issues of the actual residents thank you for the opportunity to speak thank you for coming this evening your comments next part I have is Linda Dudley 1916 Cavender Circle in opposition to be followed by Gary Glover hello our main concern I live in the garden home can you give us your name and address for the record yes Linda Dudley 1916 Cavender thank you I live in the garden homes been there 13 years and we have enjoyed a quiet safe neighborhood most until recently it was all pretty much older people whose children were grown and gone and these are small homes up to like four feet apart so we're in there you know we're but we're all good friends and we we have lived a safe place you know we feel like we can go home at night and it 's quiet and we've loved that but we own our streets our HOA we do not want the traffic to come through Claremont because our streets are narrow and how this subdivision got approved ever with these small streets we don't know but there's no room for any parking in the streets on on my street and the next street over so any overflow that can't get in the garage or the or the driveway parks on Claremont that's the only place because there's no room for fire trucks or any emergency vehicles to come in on those streets so that is our biggest worry and concern also of course noise crime high taxes just all that we realize that there's going to be development we can't control that and I guess single-family would be the most desirable but we 80 homes we can't even imagine the traffic and the noise that's going to be that's what we were told at the meeting up to 80 homes so our residences so we're just all concerned about how that's going to affect us our safety security noise just all of it and you know we're just hoping to keep it as quiet as possible and as you know low density as possible and just keep our neighbors from being just pretty much safe question for you Commissioner Smith thank you chair thank you ma'am come out and speak tonight the the applicant to talk about putting that crash gate up so that emergency services has access through Claremont just in the event it is hard to just put up one entrance in and out of a neighborhood and the fire code that comes along with that crash gate you think that's that's what's not it's not open to the public it's meant to be just purely for emergency personnel long story short it's basically it's a barrier that keeps it from public traffic going through but if like a fire truck needs to get through to this new development they have the ability to go through that gate we would prefer no at minutes through our neighborhood okay with trucks or whatever even the even in the process of an emergency well I guess if it was an emergency okay sure I actually have a question for the applicant now yes sir projected value of the town homes you're building in here 250 to 350 range great so anything okay I'm sorry one more size square foot did you think minimum of 1600 feet on up to like 2200 livable got thank you I have a follow-up question for miss Dudley one of the things the applicant stated that they were open to is restricting the height against the existing neighborhood if that's restricted to two stories with a maximum height on it does that alleviate some of the fears of the height backing right up to your neighborhood that we think it would in our neighborhood we have 36 homes they're all one level except for two and that is when you enter our subdivision which is between in wood bank building and then the strip center where Bur lington Co. factory is and that so there are two but the rest of it's just and so that is is a concern that there'll be tall buildings with people who can see over you know into the homes or the patios or whatever if we again if we added that restriction is there open to doing that two-story against the adjoining with that help allay some of the concerns I think it would but not as far I mean you know I still feel the same about coming through our neighborhood sure yeah but the noise and traffic and you know Colorado is not a huge street I think it would really jam up the traffic already if you go out of our neighborhood and try to go on to the loop from Colorado usually end up sitting through that light maybe three or four times right now just with the traffic that it's got right now one other observation I would just share with you on the possibility of a second point of egress that is gated it may be a benefit for your neighborhood as well if there was some type of an accident right there at in wood bank and there's emergency in your neighborhood there's no way to get into it this development with that emergency only gate within allow a second point so there might be another consideration for you all there for your future well as long as it's a crash gate as long as the all kinds of people can't crash through there we're gonna have to come up with a better term emergency great one other question Commissioner Sanchez for the applicant I know I had the same question about what would be the square footage as you said about 1600 square foot that that's what we're anticipating for the minimum size living area up to 22 23 and they're gonna be more or less for families yes sir okay totally homeowners they own their property it's nothing like an apartment and they're not very micro small these are good- sized homes okay thank you I see no other questions thank you ma'am Gary Glo ver to be followed by Daniel Kettler and you sir are marked on your card in opposition if you'll give her name Gary Glover 1501 Greens Point one of my biggest concerns is that my house backs up directly to where this is going in it backs up to the vacant lot where I'm sitting sits up pretty high up on a hill even if you build even as high up as I am if you're building three-story units like is talked about that's still going to be looking down into my backyard everyone else's backyard that's my home basically two-story okay fine that 's going to be about on an even par but three stories going to take away just about every bit of privacy that I have another issue has been has been talked about the traffic problems everything else miss gear I can testify to this also that they're on Greens Point one of the problems that we have on weekends is that Colorado courts or waters edge apartments now on weekends people go over to see their friends there's not enough guest parking over there they park on the street all the time now they're usually gone by Monday early Sunday afternoon but there's a lot of parkings we've had to have come and have to have people just parked their vehicles and left them there and we've had to have them towed eventually so I realized there will be additional parking over here with the with townhomes but that's still probably going to end up being a problem one of the questions that I had also was they said that these would be comparable to the three-story units the street three-story townhomes that were at I believe it's called 1450 Centerplace over behind Corinos one of the thing one of the questions I had is what about sanitation or is that 's going to be individual pickup or they going to be dumpsters because the ones over there on Centerplace are dumpster usage another question that I have again I sit up on a hill is there's going to be an erosion problem there in fact already is is this going to be something that's going to be dealt with by the city is this something I'm gonna have to deal with or is this something that the development is going to have to deal with depending on where they were all the property lines are at I understand they're going to develop it I understood that whenever I bought the home there and again townhomes are well not the worst thing but again single family detached would be a lot better given the traffic it 's already going down Colorado especially whenever you're trying to get to the loop turning down San Jacinto is an option at times but if you're not going that way as it is right now whenever I have to go to work it's easier for me to go down San Jacinto go up to Teasley and go back that way to get up on get up on 35 than it is to go all the way down to to the loop and try and get on that adding in more units like that I think is just gonna make the problem worse thank you sir next card I have is Daniel Kettler to be followed by Jerry Rowan Daniel Kettler 1925 Canyon Court when this development was proposed my first question is why going from 6 to 12 when we have space available in the city that's already zoned to zone 12 I took the zoning map down and I took a look at a lot of the properties there's available property ready to go why change what we have so the existing six and our six properties are fantastic why can't they just be built around like it was intended which I didn 't even realize until this meeting that that was apparently in the works but it just fell through if that were to happen I probably have a lot of my arguments melt away so the density is an issue as has been mentioned traffic I would think that we wouldn't want to be over stuffing the land we'd be just getting what the land is rated for now I live in Canyon Court so we have the in our three density and we're gonna be backing up to 10 to 12 that's quite a jump that's three to four times even the six is it's a reasonable jump so I just think that that's a little aggressive I think the six has originally attended was probably a better idea I would also like to echo that the amenities that are being offered to us are kind of a that's kind of a hollow benefit we didn't we bought our property without an HOA with a lot without a lot of these amenities because we didn't really want so why do I want to take a long path to come around my exit to come to a swimming pool I almost have to drive to get there it's not really a convenience there's really no way to put an access from our neighborhood into theirs because all the property is owned by the area homeowners we don't need the walking area we don't need a dog park then has the finest dog park I've ever been to there's an excellent walking path that runs against the dent and a train that I use all the time there 's plenty of walking space these are things that we need we have a quiet neighborhood we really do like it that way I was also at that initial meeting and my interpretation was not 50/50 my my interpretation was 5 to 95 so regarding this masonry wall that's been proposed to explain this in my time it were four feet below them at my fence in six feet it rises four feet so when they begin construction I'm already looking at this this is going to be my view right here a brick wall if you stand six feet from my fence I can see below your knees now you build three stories that's a skyscraper even at two stories that's still a considerable reduction in view I don't get to see Colorado Parkway really but I do get to see the sky so it's really like building next to a roadway I kind of disagree with the spot rezoning of land to suit a seller that's trying to squeeze something out of his property or developer that's trying to squeeze more property in it was zone 6 why not leave it six it would work great this area that's I 'm sorry we don't have a map can't show you it's like 95% and our six and this small sliver I'm sorry and our three and a small sliver of six and now you want to kind of package this the shoe warn is 12 in there I just don't think it's right for the area for traffic for all that I really don't have a problem thank you for your comments next speakers Jerry Rowan in opposition to be followed by Jeanette gear in opposition good afternoon my name is Jerry Rowan 2316 Claremont Lane I was wasn't at the first meeting because I didn't know anything about the first meeting but anyway my big concern is the traffic flow and there's several issues that I have concerns about him my neighbors have concerns about and first of all the last I heard was there was a plan to run traffic all the way through and even with the what they call in the crash gate that's not an alternative if something was happened like you said he had an accident up on San Jacinto or whatever you know people used to still couldn't get through there to get out unless you're an emergency vehicle so I think that should be that should not be even considered and the other thing is coming off of San Jacinto that when you turn it back going back to the east toward Briarwick or Cavender that when you turn there it's it's a blind spot I don't know how much the engineers have been out there researching looking at that you know I'm sure they have but anyway that is it's dangerous there you have to because people coming coming back to the West and coming going to work in the mornings you better be careful because they don't stop because there's not a stop sign there so anyway it's it's it's a concern about safety and the other thing is that street is not wide enough like she was talking earlier about you know people have to park out there because a Cavender Briar wick are not wide enough to park on the street so that's out so that's a big concern but the safety issue of getting in and out I think it's bad idea even considering that so but everything else has already been talked about that I had concerns about so I won't waste y'all's time but I appreciate your time and thank you very much thank you sir for coming out this evening next part I have is Janik gear in opposition clearly my handwriting is much worse than I thought it's Derek apologies Derek gear I should put my glasses on sooner 1512 Greens Point Drive I'm sorry Greens Point Circle came to speak in opposition some of it was allayed by the description the staff of a I think it's 10 10 per acre overlay requirement and that that that allayed some of my concern I'm going to repeat some concern with the traffic as we come out of our cul-de-sac although when you look at it on the map here Colorado looks like a flat gentle curve but in reality there's a dip in a blind curve so you're coming out and you're like going okay is there someone coming because you can't see below that dip so there's a little bit more to it than just the just what it looks like on the linear linear map let me see if I gotta make sure I don't cover anything my wife 's already covered can we get a crash gate okay no I think that's that pretty much covers it but I appreciate your time thank you for coming out this evening I have some additional cards that did not wish to speak and I'm just going to read those into the record have Collette Brandon 1921 Canyon in opposition then have Nate Brandon at 1921 Canyon in opposition and then I have Lisa K ettler 1925 Canyon in opposition and then as part of our backup we did have a letter from the HOA and so that's already is part of our record and so that is part of our neighborhood comments this is a public hearing so anyone else who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time please come up to the mic so the folks that are at home and the recording can get your comments can you give us your name again so they'll know sorry Linda Dudley 1916 Cavender again about our straight Claremont we own that street that is not a city street and we do not want that to be used for this new subdivision I just want to make sure that was a clear thing and I don't know about this crash gate you know who could come who could use it whatever but I just wanted to make sure y'all understood we do not approve of that okay make sure everybody is clear on that for private vehicles or public like trash trucks and anything you have city trash trucks coming there now correct when you're in your neighborhood we do okay so the ones that you're concerned about is fire trucks coming in there or private vehicles we just want to make sure that it is not used by this subdivision understand and we may have staff and I know there was a couple people making some comments and I couldn't tell up here from city staff maybe I can give some additional feedback about this crash gate emergency gate let's get the correct term so we're all using the right wording I've actually heard it both ways I've heard it as a crash gate and I've heard it as an emergency gate and these are it depends on the city they're locked and if there if there's a key access and there's something called Knox box that that the fire only the fire and EMS have access to are they it's electronic where only fire and EMS have have the way to get into it okay Mr. Lee does that help clarify who would have access yeah great and we can use either term and we're in good races all right either one emergency access emergency access well I'm old and getting short and I'll try to get a new term here again this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak please come forward at this time and I don't have any more cards but you you're welcome not to turn one in because our homeowner president was going to speak you're welcome to speak just fill out a card for us before you leave the city the blue card yes my name is Martha Henderson I live at 1917 Piney Creek Boulevard in Piney Creek there was a piney Creek I'm not understanding why about this crash gate or whatever I'm not understanding we don't need it to be a crash gate if anyone in our neighborhood needs an emergency they can come into our neighborhood why do why does this subdivision need a crash gate to come through our neighborhood when they have access to Colorado or to San Jacinto which was what mr. Schmidt said that he was going to look into instead of going through Cl aremont he was going to go through see if he could access San Jacinto through the between the bowling alley and the office the doctor's office building so that's what I'm not understanding why they are so adamant that they want to come in through our neighborhood emergency vehicle into their neighborhood when they have will have two interest in off of Colorado that's what I'm not understanding let me let me call on Cindy thank you for coming up and you might ma'am if you don't mind stay I've got a question for you I mean if we can get up and answer your question first well I'm not sure what the fire code was when their neighborhood was built but today the fire code requires two points of access into a subdivision and they will only have one driveway along Colorado if that driveway gets blocked by an accident or something there is there would be no way to get in there so the crash gate in a situation like that the emergency access gate would be used to get into that area and it goes both ways it is a benefit to these these people as well if their only entrance is blocked then emergency medical service and police can get through from Colorado into their subdivision and and it gives them aid does that help with the reason why thank you ma'am this is a public hearing Commissioner Rossell you had a question it's actually for miss Jackson I appreciate your clarification the emergency access gate just to further clarify our how did that subdivision get built without a second point of access and are they currently out of code I wasn't here when they were built they they have been there for quite a while and my thought is is that the fire code just didn't require the second point of access and they did anticipate in the future that they would have a second point of access because the subject site was supposed to be phased to and connect to Colorado sure I appreciate that and my brother is a didn't firefighter and I know the importance of having two access points to make sure that there is an emergency or fire in the house there's multiple ways in exactly the other question I have is can this new potential subdivision that we're looking at on the rezone be built without acts having access to Claremont they would have to find some way to get a second access somewhere right now they can't get access to Santa Cinto the the vacant lot that's adjacent to them is actually the site of a future hotel the bowling alley we're not sure they will give them access because when the hotel asked the bowling alley to connect the bowling alley refused so we we don't anticipate that that they'll let this particular this site connect to them either okay that's most helpful thank you Cindy I've got a question for you yes sir at the mic what's the difference in the parking requirements for the NR six versus the NR MU I know and there's a 18 by 18 pad that has to be with an NR six and I think there's some revisions coming on that what's the difference between NR six and NR MU 12 it's bit for parking it's based on use so if it's a residential use they have to have space for two two cars just like in our six so there's correct so they have to be the parking requirement for either zoning is the same that's correct okay thank you for a single-family attached and detached yeah exactly so it doesn't make a difference okay okay thank you for the clarification sorry we're gonna need to get you a chair sit right here beside I'm sorry I 've got a couple more questions for you for heads up here Commissioner Sanchez so I don't on Colorado they can only have one exit they based on what I'm seeing here they've got a pretty large frontage right so they can only have one they can only have one access we've already met with the traffic engineer about that and they can have just one access because of the median that is closer to the the intersection of San Jacinto that prevents them from having any exit there which is where they had originally planned and they need to have it further to the west and they will need to provide right turn lane and left turn lane so that there's lots of access but not yeah there only be permitted one okay my other question was um no I've got one other question maybe it'll come back commissioner back thank you chair thanks Cindy question that I think was expressed by some of the people who live in that community was that if we do rezone this to NRMU 12 and mr. Smith's decides for some reason he doesn't want to build and takes off just hypothetically speaking then the concern would be that now they could come in and build multi-family so if we're gonna prove this with the overlay my question would be in that event could we keep the overlay oh the overlay runs with the land not with the property all right I know we've been over this before but I just want to make sure that wouldn't go away no okay the only way it would go away is if somebody tried to rezone it and take it away and we have to look at it all over again yep okay thank you another question for you Commissioner Sanchez I finally remembered we've had a lot of concern about you know traffic can you address that a little bit to for the public here so they understand what what the category of that road is and is there any future considerations of widening it or anything like that right now it's secondary arterial arterial is our second largest category of street it's four lanes and to the best of my knowledge that there's no plans to widen it at this time okay I just want to make sure sure and his San Jacinto is the same classification in size I see no other questions okay thank you yes sir if you have another common well I'll I use chair to we typically give one comment per resident but I'll make an exception for you please state your name and Jerry rolling 2316 Claremont Lake my question was if you want access to Claremont or to Piney Creek those roads were never taken over by the city so they belong to the HOA so if y'all are assisting on access is the city gonna take these roads over I'll let staff address that one we again we're sort of premature in that that discussion until we get to platting we we really won't know to be quite honest I can tell you though we're not maybe Victor can chime in but but I don't know if we've ever forced traffic onto a private access way particularly when it's plotted as a as a private access way I think the only rights that the city has when I looked at the plat was for a murder you know for police fire garbage otherwise it is as you stated your your private street okay thank you okay thank you sir this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item please please come forward Lisa Kettler 1925 Canyon Court and I have a few questions on the masonry wall I'd like to know what is the highest allowable wall per city code and I would also like to know at what what grade point the wall would be built on because we're about four feet lower than the field behind us so would it be built on that side or on the higher side and if it's built on the higher side and we keep our fence who is responsible for maintaining the land about seven feet in between and also if the wall falls into disrepair what is the procedure for us to go about getting that fixed I see Cindy digging in the book over there so the maximum permitted height of a wall or fence be it on an interior lot line is a feat and the responsibility for the maintenance would be on the the property owner for the seven foot strip that's correct it would the developer property owner of the townhouses and is there a through code enforcement as far as the maintenance of the fence is there a requirement on that or that would fall in code enforcement city didn't that that would be the property maintenance code that code enforcement enforces community improvement okay if you have an additional question if you'll please come to the microphone so we can get you on for those that are watching at home okay so if it falls into district disrepair who do I go to the I'm not sure who I'm sure I'm sorry use terms back and forth that we're familiar with the code enforcement department within the city didn't is who you would make a complaint to and they would then contact the property owner and give them a notice that the fence is in disrepair and they need to have it repaired okay thank you you bet thank you for coming out this evening again this is a public hearing I'll make one more exception we typically allow one one opportunity to speak but please come forward this evening I know this is a lot of people have come out and we 'll make sure that we get all the comments on the record so short last time Derek gear 1512 Greenspoint Circle just a question based on the requirements for the fire code to have two accesses whether this is rezoned or not once this land is developed they will need a second access and clarinet is the only one okay just clarify if I could just know that staff maybe you want to clarify my my head non there there are certain exact you know they if there are there's if there's less than 30 30 homes or less I think they can have one access point again I'm not I'm not going to speak on behalf of the fire marshal but I know there are exemptions with respect to that in addition there's also the ability to sprinkle if they put fire sprinklers in so there are ways that that they could mitigate again very expensive to sprinkle those units but there are different sort of mitigation options that that could be done but again we're sort of early early on on the stage for that to decide right now Commissioner back thank you chair if the applicant would come back up a quick question for him one of the residents over in the garden homes ask how are you going to dispose of your trash it's gonna be individual pickup like they have or their dump sters per the city either way whichever is required of us okay meet that okay and well I've got you up here probably to respond to Lisa's concern would you be available if the walls in disrepair would you invite that they call you first before the usual we would in fact that information available to them where they could do that absolutely and in fact they're anticipating a small HO A to build reserves for the seasonal flowers as well as maintenance of the grounds which would include the wall entrances and that sort of thing thank you I have an additional question and in trying to listen to some of the neighbor concerns you stated you you all were open to doing two-story against existing neighborhoods yes sir we have in the options are given before us here by city staff an overlay and a number of requirements would that be another requirement that you all would be open to of us adding to the overlay to restrict those to a two-story height and looking at the lot depth on in our six in NREMU 12 which are the what you're currently to what you 're proposing they're both 80 feet so if we made a requirement of two- story on 80 feet of budding adjacent properties would you all be open to that I think if they're there continuous to that we would yes yes and I think we tried to convey that to those neighbors as well but absolutely so you're okay with us doing that and try to ones that give them some protection to their neighborhoods of yes sir and be no different than a two-story house next door correct okay thank you for being willing to accept that additional requirement in the overlay another question Commissioner Rozelle this will probably be for city sorry Cindy just one clarification under the current zoning of NR six by right can a developer go in and build a three-story house on all properties I come into that 40 foot they don't surpass the 40 foot height they could okay thank you I don't know if that's you know yeah I don't know if that's possible but they could but if we decline the zoning recase the applicant or anyone else could come in under the inner six and put three stories along all I can take you is my right it would never come to us they could just go to it okay thank you again this is a public hearing anyone else who would like to speak on this item please come forward sure one final exception and I'll come across the public hearing after this I just don't think it was ever clarified you'll give us your name and Daniel Kettler 1925 Canyon Court I don't think it was ever clarified where this wall is going to go no one ever said it's at the top of the or the higher grade or the lower grade so if an eight-foot wall which we've now established is the largest is built at the lower grade it's effectively a four-foot fence not really much of a fence it's built up there that makes a difference so there's been no clarification also one of the thing is you meant something that you just mentioned that if if this gentleman does not choose to go ahead with this development and all of this pushes forward to the next developer everything that you know that all this goodwill these get goodwill items are they going to be set in stone that somebody else has to follow through with all these points the only things that will be following through and that's why I'm mentioning the possibility of a two-story requirement is what goes in this overlay okay if it's not specifically called out in this overlay on the zoning to your point it is just good words and that's it okay that's what I would like that that's why we 're trying to take some of these concerns that are being expressed here and possibly if the Commission is so inclined to possibly include some additional requirements and protections for the existing neighborhood to have a higher zoning but that's only bumped up to an NRMU 12 next door to you all okay thank you thank you sir sir Commissioner Ellis thank you chair sir I 'm sorry I was gonna address one of your comments to maybe help you understand a little bit further so yeah the overlay is chair explained will run with the land so if this development doesn't happen and the overlay is approved for this rezoning it it it runs with the land with regard to getting answers about more specifics about the fence and whatnot this right now is just the zoning part of it the site plan comes next after that of which we will come before us and can be looked at in a lot of things that that we're discussing tonight are we don't really have a site plan nothing's being presented with that so nothing can can go up there and show us and that we can tweak at this point so right now it's it's the zoning with the overlay that we're discussing and then the site plan would come after and then you'd have a better idea of what that fence will look like and where streets will go and how the townhomes will be configured and whatnot okay so where does the vote come in that you recommend to the City Council is it between overlay and site plan or is it let me step in we're having a little sidebar conversation is for clarification this is going to be a residential case it's not a commercial case so the correct thing that will come back before this board is going to be what's called a plat a site plan is as Commissioner Ellis is correct is with a commercial application or a heavier density but with this particular type of zoning it's going to be residential so it's going to be a plat and that would come before us as Commissioner Ellis says and at some point here in the future so a number of the items and the concerns that you're talking about in regards to fences and those types of things would be talked about at the platting stage and there are going to be limitations that what this board can and cannot enforce as far as a plat is concerned because so we're clear about that why I'm trying to have some of the conversation give the neighborhood as much leeway some of you ought to speak multiple times to get as much information from you all your concerns that we can incorporate it into the overlay if this Commission chooses to move forward with that to address as many of these concerns as as possible and have them included in the overlay because we are limited in what we can do during a platting phase okay as long as they technically meet the requirements of a plat that will move forward okay thank you so much for coming out and your patience and expressing all of your concerns again this is a public hearing final call for anyone else who would like to speak on this item seeing none I will close the public hearing and I will open the floor for discussion and the motion Commissioner Beck thank you chair and I too would like to thank every one of you for coming out speaking tonight and it's it's it's tough I realize I've been in this situation to where I live and dealing with a change that's going to impact you but as you've all mentioned invariably this was going to happen sometime down the road and all we're trying to do here on both sides I think is try and minimize the negative impact that development is going to happen here my feeling is mr. Schmidt says we're backwards to accommodate a lot of things and I'm glad he is because you do have a nice little community set back there and I'd like to see you keep it as much as possible I think with what's been suggested here you will be able to maintain that now there will be folks like mr. Kepner and I think mr. Glover who but right up against this new property so they're gonna see things a little more dramatically than everybody else is so I understand that concern but we've got a look kind of at the bigger picture here the city is growing there's no doubt about that we've got to provide housing this is an opportunity for us to do that yes it is an nr6 but again mr. Schmidt's has indicated that he's willing to go below 10 residents an acre hopefully a if I heard that right and that'd be nice and that's not that far off of an nr6 but this is an infill area that we need to develop we've got all these empty spots in the city and this is a good place to do it the idea of fire being a problem mentioned here I mean if you think about that lot that sits there when it's hot and dry that's a tender box and if that field were to ever catch fire that six-foot wood fence that y'all got there that's pretty old would pick up pretty quick and carry it so this would be another good reason to develop this area to prevent that kind of thing I think if we keep it limited to townhomes or single-family attached I think that's what we were talking about no more than that it stays in unison with what y'all got there it's not that distinctive it's not going to stick out that much understand there's going to be a little bit more traffic that's going to happen anyway once this area gets developed there's always going to be a little bit more traffic and as a city will deal with that as best we can as we as we move forward but I think I mentioned too that in our six if you leave it like it is by right it was mentioned by one of the commissioners they can come in and build a three- story there too and they don't have to come through PNC because they can do that by right so keep that in mind so anyway that's my position I just want to share that with you I were not unsympathetic to this new development coming in but this is a good opportunity this is a good offering I think that would have sewage a lot of the fears and concerns you have thank you Commissioner Sanchez I would also like to thank thank you all for showing up I think all your all the information you've given us has helped it helps us make a better decision I know it's it's kind of agonizing when you when new buildings or new construction is developed adjacent to areas that you're used to being pretty open but like I'd like to say you know there's at one time we all figured the rules areas are going to have to be developed and I think he the developer has made a lot of concessions and I think probably at the end you'll find that what he what he does build probably will be to your liking it's close to the mall and and I think the the town homes that they're talking about 1600 square foot is pretty compatible to what 's around around in the area Commissioner Rosa thank you chair I would like to echo question back and Christian Sanchez thanks for everyone coming out that's really helpful for us who may not be knowledgeable the area to know that their intimate cul-de-sacs and the environment of the 36 patio homes that's super helpful for me to kind of think through this process and as I've heard everyone speak as well as seen the presentation the things that lead me to make a motion are are threefold one it seemed like pervasive response from the citizens was traffic concerns specifically through traffic to Claremont and then the impact they'll have on Colorado and then from what I've heard the emergency access gate seems to be a an understanding response to mitigate flow through traffic from public vehicles not city but public vehicles and then the Colorado if there's right turn left turn right aways the traffic that's gonna be put on Colorado and then our six would put 53 homes and this is gonna put 80 it's not gonna be a lot different than what's by right already available for NR6 in terms of traffic the other thing that was talked about extensively tonight was the density and I feel like yes there is gonna be an increase of density from NR6 to an NRIU 12 although I'm an emotion with an overlay to reduce that so there is a give on the density but I think there is a get and protecting building height I know everyone's concerned about the adjacent building heights but the applicant is actually restricting the rights that we're making it more restrictive than what can be built now so I feel there's a give and take for increased density but also protection of those building heights and the last thing it was brought up was the amen ity centers and the dog park and and whatnot and I I understand that that might not get used but I do take it as an olive branch from the developer but there is a consideration of trying to be good neighbor and so with all that being said I'm going to move to to approve this with the condition staff outlaid meaning defining it as limited to town homes with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre as well as a limitation of a two-story construction on contiguous property to the residential homes Commissioner Rozo would you entertain adding the emergency access gate is requirement to connect to clear month yes the friendly minute so you'd have in addition to the staff overlay could you just your add-ons could you clearly stay because I think staff wants to make sure we get these as well yes so my motion is to approve it with the staff conditions of limited to town homes with the maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre as well as 10 yeah 10 thank you let me try this one more time I moved to approve this item with the staff recommendations to limit the use to town homes with maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre as well as a restriction on two-story construction on cont iguous property to residential homes already constructed and the installment of an emergency access gate okay commissioner Smith thank you chair thank you for coming out and as Commissioner Roselle has already said I agree and echo a lot of the same sentiments so how will second this motion second thank you just as a point of order I want to clarify the motion that in staff recommendation they have both single-family and town homes and single-family detached in your in your motion you stated single-family residential you okay with the town homes and the single-family detached willing ends as well as in the city staff so the city staff I'm reading says the use of the site is limited to town homes I have an older copy here staff recommendation that I have for me here says it's limited to the single-family attached Victor there's still I got you yes it's typed differently in two different places yes I'm fine with the city staff outlined in the recommendation of 1a and 1b which says this there shall be no uses permitted other than single- family attached including town homes or single-family detached dwelling units great thank you for clarifying that because I know the staff's trying to make sure we get this written down correctly as it moves from P and Z to City Council we have a first and a second with the staff recommended requirements for the overlay in addition to Commissioner Roselle's two additional points of a two- story height requirement for any contiguous property adjacent to this and also the emergency access gate required for connection to Claremont and I think legal has just a mr. Smith since you seconded are you okay with that clarification yes I second is clarification okay appreciate the opportunity to restate the motion with the additional requirements and the clarification on the second and I will call on Commissioner Ellis thank you chair just a couple of comments thank you everyone for coming to speak hopefully what will happen mr. applicant is that you'll make friends here and then as you move forward with your development that you can continue to hear concerns and whatnot but I think with the the overlay protection that is being put in place that that the applicant is agreeing to it really is a very good thing for this piece of property and around you it does offer protections that you don't have now so with that I will support it Commissioner back thank you chair and I guess I would ask would Commissioner Rosell consider another amendment that would assure that the minimum height for the fence it goes around it is eight foot I won't say what material but I think the eight foot requirement would make a lot of people out there feel a lot better too isn't that what that's required by code that's the maximum loud if I'm not right yeah so it could be a six foot I would like to see an eight foot fence and give them that much more privacy I'm not opposed to it but there's different fences but there's gonna be an entry fence like a it's my understanding there'll be some sort of landscaped entry you're not talking about no I'm talking about where it will about say Jason properties right okay the two residential areas yeah I'm open to that okay thank you so we need to rework that then one more time I accept the friendly amendment okay Commissioner Smith I second that amendment so we've got that added as well all right Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I will have to ask the applicant if he's okay with that added point of the overlay okay thank you great okay we have a first and a second and I think the motion's been clarified and I think we have that correct I'm going to support this as well I know the neighbors are concerned about it I see this as well as Commissioner Ellis that this is actually a better than what you could have built against you with the height requirement you can have three foot or three story buildings against you now the way it's currently zoned 40 feet tall I know you would like to see it as a open field but I think the reality is at some point it 's going to develop and this is an opportunity for this board to place some additional requirements on the property owner and there's some restrictions on it that will give you some protections that you don't currently have and I think also in taking into account the emergency access gate helps you with the possibility of the future tie-ins and so with those additional requirements I'm going to support this motion as well I want to thank everybody for coming out it's we've had a good discussion and good give-and-take and same thing with the Commission I think we've worked to come up with hopefully a good motion here that will address a lot of concerns both the neighborhood and then still allow the applicant to develop the property within reason so with that I will call for a vote on the board this motion to approve motion is going to carry six to zero thank you all again for coming out this evening I'll give the room a minute to clear because we do have a lot of people in here and then you did great. With that I'm going to go ahead and move forward to the next item on our agenda as folks head on out and go ahead and clear the chambers as we move on to our next item and I'm going to open the public hearing now for Z 18 - 0 0 0 3 and I will call on Ron for presentation. Thank you chair members of the Commission this request is for a rezoning of a property as well as an initial zoning of a property to CMG commercial mixed use district as you can see on this exhibit the southern portion of the property is zone NR 2 the northern portion is zone RD 5 by designation as it was annexed recently the subject site is approximately six point three seven acres general location is along Teas ley just south of J J. H. Heis of Geyer High School. The future land use designation has this area designated as community mixed use which is intended to promote mixed uses primarily commercial uses with complementary existing uses as well. This exhibit here at a slide just basically illustrates what is currently zone as described earlier the proposed zoning would be CMG as you see here similar to what's zone for the Geyer High School. Surrounding uses include a mobile home to the east some residential and a gas well to the southeast some commercial and industrial uses to the south NRM I'm sorry NR 2 CMG industrial uses to the southwest and then Geyer High School to the north as well as to the west. Staff looked at this proposal and concluded that the CMG is the consistent with the future land use element it is appropriate as opposed to the NR 2 and the RD 5 which is which are not Teasley is a key growth corridor as well as an entry into the city and commercial uses is more an appropriate use for this area. Teasley is currently a two-lane divided roadway however TechSat has begun construction or the work to widen and construct this to a six lane divided roadway 135 feet total from the city limits to the east all the way to the north to Lillian Miller. Anticipated widening completion is approximately January 2020. Notifications were sent out 14 were sent out to property owners within 200 feet 13 courtesy notices were sent out to residents within 500 feet and a sign was posted by the applicant. As of this afternoon there were no responses returned no opposition no in favor. Staff recommends approval of this route zoning change request as an initial zoning request that as it is conformance with the criteria of approval for the DDC and it is consistent with the goals and objective of the DEM plan 2030. That concludes my presentation I'll be happy to answer any questions the applicant has prepared presentation and is prepared to do that next. Commissioner Beck. Thank You Chair just quick question on I meant to ask this in the work session you mentioned in the back with your background material any future development that encroaches into the ESA habitat or ESA floodplain designation AE would require a field assessment what's AE? That's a type of floodplain designation. What's AE stand for? I apologize. Now if there was anything online. Alternative of something right? I can't say. All I know is a type of it's a level of floodplain designation. Got you. Thanks. See no other questions for staff. Thank you Ron. I do have one card Patricia Font in support. Hi good evening chair and commissioners my name is Patricia Font I am an assistant planner at GNA consultants we are located at 111 Hillside Drive in Louisville Texas. Alright okay so the name of our property is Hillcrest North and we are proposing to rezone our property from NR2 and RD X 5X to CMG. Okay so our land is a proper is approximately six acres located on Teasley Lane. To the north is Gair High School as you can see and to the south is some industrial uses and that's about 1,600 feet away from FM 2499. As we get a closer look you can see that Gair High School has added some parking to the west. This allows for great visibility coming down 2181. There's the mobile home park to the east and as I said before industrial uses to the south. 2181 will be is under construction and this will be a six lane divided. Our client also runs his business out of this building right here. Okay I know we had a question or we talked about kind of why this whole thing is not rezoned. Our client currently owns all of these parc els that are outlined in red and the cell tower is at the north or northwest portion which he does not own. There are gas wells in the northwest portion of the property that will remain and they will have access through the subject site. The environmentally sensitive area map indicates that there may be a water habitat in the northwest corner at this time. We intend to be preserving it all. Adequate public utilities are present and they will have to be extended all the way to the east of this development. Okay the future land use map Denton 2030 as you can see there's moderate residential there's industrial and commerce to the south and in between there's community mixed use. This X is a great buffer and transition between residential and industrial. Right now the zoning is split and the north the north portion is RD 5X and the southern portion is NR 2. That's primarily residential. We are proposing a zoning change to CMG. We believe it makes logical sense for this site to extend CMG all the way down to Teasley Lane. We're trying to clean up a little bit of the split zoning and it's also very important to us that our client remains his business and continues it on this property. This is the concept plan that we took to our DRC meeting. They had some great comments and we are working a few modifications for their regulations but we are getting ready to propose plotting. Thank you. A couple questions for you Commissioner Smith. Miss Fain. The projected use do you guys have an idea? It looks like it's obviously commercial use and it's obviously going to be some sort of development but is it offices, professional buildings, is it going to be strip mall? What is it going to be? Right now it's just commercial uses. We're thinking retail, restaurant, residential. I mean not residential, retail, restaurant and office. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Beb. Thank you Chair. Did I just hear you say that the business owner for outdoor living pool and patio, he's gonna stay there and still run his business? Yes sir. Same building not gonna shift it or anything so gonna work around it in other words right? Yeah it will be demol ished and he'll work. Okay so it is going but you're still gonna have the business there at some point. I got you. Yes. Thank you. Okay any other questions for the applicant? Okay thanks very much. Again this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time. Seeing no one else I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Smith. Motion to approve this request. Okay. Commissioner Bec. Second. Okay we have a first and a second for approval. Any further discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six to zero. Congratulations and good luck on your project and the chair wants to apologize for making you guys stay so long. I never know all the cards and everybody hears who's to speak so apologize for not moving you all forward in the agenda. Good evening. That will move us to our final item this evening which will be our project matrix. Commissioner Bec. Yes I wonder would it be possible to bring up what we briefly touched on in the work session how we've got an area out there in 3-8 that's NR2 that in my opinion clearly shouldn't be you know how would we go about is there something we can start here the process of looking at changing that area to something more amenable like the ECC. In the very near future we are I mean we're working on our internal sort of draft of the updated zoning map based on the new categories and I suspect in the next couple months if not sooner maybe two months that will be that will be rolled out so we are we're really taking a hard look at so you know sort of the first phase was matching up if you remember that the memo there was sort of the front two districts now we're really sort of honing in and saying does it really make sense that this area be NR2 what was what was a long-term overall intent for that looking at gas wells and a couple other factors out there it the likelihood is probably slim to none but we are sort of that's where we are right now so okay it will happen very soon all right thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. Twice now we've had it where the NRU 12 the permitted uses back in the backup has said the wrong building height. It will not happen again. Thank you I appreciate it. The kids yes makes us look like fools and also the Ronan mentioned that ETJ notifications on that last thing we put on did not go out we had brought that up in the past when we had it before where notifications about the did not go out to ETJ but people come and come you know say hey my properties in ETJ I wasn't notified did we ever have a solution for that I know it wasn't an issue in this case but just driving my memory saying that we did it. I've got to go back and look at I don't think it was ever really specified in the I know in the 200 notice it's sort of explicit on it's the most recent municipal tax roll approved municipal tax roll and that goes into account for the super majority we sort of go above and beyond that at the 500 sure what I'll do is I'll get clarification on that report back and report back. Thank you. Anyone else? Can I just add one AE AE is the prior to AE a the a flood zones are high risk and prior to AE being enacted there used to be an a 1 through 30 and the number would correspond with the base flood elevation now it's just AE and then there's a number assigned to see AE 7 which would mean 7 feet above base flood is your finish floor so that's that's what AE it's not like it means really anything I it's just yeah rest assured. Thank you for the clarification and with that at 850 to or excuse me 847 I will close our meeting this evening thank you everyone for coming out good job