Apr 11, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-04-11 5:00 PM

mission meeting for April 11th 2018. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will open our work session at five o'clock. We'll go into clarification of agenda items. So does anybody have any comments or changes on the minutes? Okay, as is. How about on the consent agenda? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. It had to do with the Texas oncology. That's Haley's. Thanks Haley. You know it's really just my brain. I could not wrap myself around this vehicle generation table that was up there. Can you walk me through that at all as how those numbers were? Those are just standard numbers based on trip generation for a medical facility of this type. Okay, so not specific to this. No, it's very general just to determine what their estimated trip generation would be. It's standard data that's requested with a preliminary plat. In this case they just put it on the plat rather than submitting it as a separate document. Understood. Thank you because I haven't seen it on top there before. Thank you. Clarification, this would be specific to this site though, correct? In that it's you know for that size of a medical facility, yeah, but they're just estimates based on the ITE manuals. But nothing that was done specifically in this area for this site? It's not like a full TIA. No, this is just looking at a facility of this type. Some kind of general data? Yeah, general data from the ITE manuals. Okay. Just to help, trying to help. It's based on the site though. Specifically it's using the traffic criteria manual for a site this size to estimate what the traffic generation will be off of this in lieu of doing, because of the size of it, in lieu of doing an actual TIA. So it's kind of a staff level engineering type calculation that's done because of the size it's not so large and it doesn't have the trips to justify TIA like we've talked about. But they are having to do an actual traffic calculation for this particular site by using the criteria manual because it's not big enough to trigger TIA. So your question, I was just trying to be helpful. Yeah. I thought what you were asking is are those numbers in regards to the site? Right. Yes, they are. They're just the way it's calculated is not a true TIA. Understood. That does help. Thank you very much. Any other questions on this item or on the consent agenda? Okay. Thank you, Hayden. Then we'll move us to items for individual consideration. I 'll call on Haley for presentation of 4A. All right. This item is an alternative development plan request for a tractor dealership and repair facility. So the request is for approval of an ADP that would deviate from these two specific sections of the code, perimeter fencing and screening requirements and then the parking lot screening requirements within subchapter 13. So the site itself is the northern roughly 5.4 acres of this tract outlined in yellow. We've seen a preliminary plat for this site previously. It's being split into two lots and the northern lot will be developed as a tractor dealership. As you can see here it's located on the west side of I-35. We have Windsor here across and then it's just north of Schuyler Drive. And this is located within a regional center commercial downtown zoning district. To walk you through specifically what's involved in this request I want to first look at the overall site plan. So you can see here they have about a 20,000 square foot building proposed in the middle of the site. The area here and here would be display. So this would be kind of public display like you'd see at a car lot and then this would be behind a fence. Just other display area for them. The blue areas are where customer and employee parking would be and the green is a detention pond that they're proposing at this time. So what we have on the site is 71% lot coverage and 29% landscaping total and a total of 63 parking spaces. And I did mention briefly in your backup but I wanted to bring it up here today. There is some discussion with the city of Windsor Drive possibly extending so I wanted to point out that this detention pond and some of the parking spaces may be relocated before the building permit for this site but it wouldn't alter any of the items that they've requested this alternative plan for. Commissioner Becker. Thank you Chair. Okay can you illustrate where Windsor might come no go back to the other one you had there. Where would Windsor come through? It would be on lot two of the okay if you remember the preliminary plat. Right. So lot two being roughly across here. Right. The intent would be for someday for Windsor to cross. So it wouldn't come straight across then? It would probably angle across and hopefully come somewhere in lot two but just in them dedicating that right-of-way if they if they do so it could shift their boundary line for lot two a little further north and relocate some of the parking on this side. Okay mentioned that should the Windsor come through it'd be located on the south end of the Soate property. He said if this occurs the parking and detention fill is shown on the site plan may change as you pointed out but none of the proposed deviations really requested with this ADP would be affected so the eight foot chain length fence wouldn't be the material and the landscaping all that would remain the same the location may change may change okay just to follow the boundaries of wherever the parking lot. Gotcha. Thanks. So again that they do have three specific standards they're requesting to deviate from. Our code does not allow chain link as a permitted fence material and they are as I mentioned requesting an eight foot tall chain link fence. It would be vinyl coated to tinted black so it would be non-reflective and that would be along the rear and side yards of the property. The code also specifies that fences forward of the front building line shouldn't be over three and a half feet tall. For security purposes they're requesting a total of a six foot tall wrought iron fence along the front of the property and then the code requires and if you have parking in front of a building a 15 foot wide landscaped area that includes a berm a large tree for every 40 linear feet and then either a hedgerow continuous wall or zero escaping also in that area to screen the parking because they want that display area right on I-35 for visibility purposes they were requesting to not provide that screening and instead they've proposed some alternative locations that we'll look at. So to look at the fencing the area in yellow or orange on the map is where the chain link fence is proposed right now so that would be again eight feet tall black vinyl coated chain link they are proposing to plant some trees along it to help further screen that side yard fencing. The red area would be the wrought iron fence location so that's six foot tall wrought iron fence and there would be gates here and here across the access drives to allow circulation through the site and as I mentioned they've proposed some alternatives for the landscaping so the darker green here and here on the site are trees that they're proposing to plant along that chain link fence so that the chain link isn't as visible from the right-of-way if you're driving down the frontage road and then in the lighter green these are the alternative locations so they've proposed all of the required number of trees and shrubs just in alternative sites rather than putting it directly here in front of their display yard as the code would require they're proposing clustering it around the entrances to the site and then four other trees that they couldn't fit in they've proposed to move to the back of the site. So just some of the considerations that staff looked at with this request the intent for our fencing requirements is to ensure you know visually attractive high quality materials also to ensure the visibility of buildings from the right of way being the intent for lower fencing in the front yard and then with our parking requirements the intent there being to kind of mute those visual effects of driving by and seeing just rows of parking in front of a building you know to ensure that there's not glare onto the roadways and that it's a visually attractive look along the street. So the code provides us very specific criteria for an ADP the first being preservation of existing neighborhoods it's not anticipated that this would have any negative effect on the surrounding area if you're familiar with the area there 's RV dealerships directly north of there and then various other commercial uses along the frontage road as is typical. So this is consistent with the existing development pattern in the area. In terms of assuring quality development the request doesn't necessarily lower the design standards they're just proposing alternatives that aren't allowed in our code that would help them enhance the security and the visibility of the products on site. One of the other criteria is focusing new development to activity centers this is compatible with that goal in terms of if this is typical highway development it is a regional scale customer base that they have so it fits with the zoning requirements for the area. Infrastructure is in place for this development there's no concerns there that staff identified and then in terms of resulting in a high quality development that meets the intent of those standards we discussed what they're proposing is higher quality the fencing along the frontage is non-opaque so it won't necessarily reduce the visibility of the site from the right of way and they are proposing to screen the chain link fence by vinyl coating it and providing landscaping in front of it. And then in terms of the parking lot screening as I mentioned they have all of the required plantings they actually are providing eight additional street trees beyond what is required to greatly enhance those main entry points to the site but not you know visually detract from the display area for their equipment. So with all that being said staff is recommending approval of their request we found that it meet these established standards in the DDC and I can try to answer any questions about the site. Commissioner Smith. Thank You Chair. The further down along 35 Haley like James Wood and then across on the east side with Classic and one other used car lot is it still is it RCCD over there as well? 35 East? Yeah 35 East but further south of Mayhill. I believe most of that is RCCD there is some PD zoning in that area but most of those are RCCD. So what makes I mean the what makes it to where if we approve this we wouldn't see like James Wood or some other because it seems like they're requesting the six foot wrought iron fence in the front purely for security purposes. They're a tractor and repair shop and get it I mean how but how much difference are they in comparison to James Wood or to Classic or some of those other car dealerships who would have the same amount of security concerns what would what would preclude them from coming along and asking for the exact same type of change within the change and be able to build a new fence as well be able for security purposes and we didn't have a just six six foot wrought iron fences all up and down 35. Certainly and in discussing it with the applicant the concern was with the type of equipment that the typical low fencing you see at car lots in the front wouldn't necessarily be sufficient and they they found that some of the neighbors in this area have taller fences that predate our current code so they just wanted to be consistent with what the neighbors have and ensure that extra level of security based on the large equipment that they're dealing with and why why is the current zoning only three and a half is just for a visibility issues or what was the that is not based on zoning the fence requirement is that applies citywide unless you are an industrial or an agricultural use so if this were an industrial site they would be allowed to have a six or eight foot fence in the front yard but got it for commercial uses it's not allowed and then the the screening the the it 's like a fabric correct like what you'd see on construction sites as well the screen the screening within the chain link no I believe it's actual vinyl coating on the metal chain link itself okay all right so it's not it's not the screen like you see on construction sites where it's got it my I was gonna ask about maintenance on that stuff gets raggedy after a while but yeah now I understand thank you that's all I have commissioner Rizzo thank you chair the ADP would apply to both lots correct the the ADP is specific to the site plan for this Kubota dealership so just the five point eight acres they have no plans at this point for what would go on lot two but if lot two one of the same conditions they would have to come back and get an ADP yes it is specific to the the Kubota sites that we're looking at tonight and maybe we can talk about this in the other room but I'm with the Commissioner Smith on this I don't I'm trying to understand why they need a six foot fence maybe it's my ignorant ignorance and the tractor business but I think those equipments are enclosed just like a car would be so I don't I'm not understanding why they need a six foot fence but no car dealership has ever asked for that and I don't I don't know I'd be interested if the applicants here to understand their rationale because it doesn't seem like a six foot rod iron fence is necessary and the applicant will be here this evening at the regular session to discuss this further my understanding from them as I said it's because they they're going to have this large display area in the front with large tract ors rather than smaller cars that couldn't necessarily cross a lower fence I guess the concern would be tractors and heavy equipment may be able to do that so they were they felt that the six foot height and the wrought iron material was necessary for security but I believe they could speak more to the specifics on that okay I have a more general question rather than specific in the D DC update that we have coming which and maybe I have a different opinion these seem to be fairly minor to me are these things that possibly with the DDC update be handled administratively rather than these are still going to be required as ADPs because of this some of the small changes trying to think back to some of the specifics I think some of the fencing requirements we 're trying to address to allow a little more flexibility there for certain uses and then in terms of landscaping I don't think we quite have that nailed down yet but the intent is for it to be more administrative approval for you know that were actually the way that the current the current draft is written there would not be an ADP process anymore there would be some flexibility with with staff having some some some minor the ability to do some minor adjustments like 10% I think it is on certain standards fence I just don't recall off the top my head regarding this the height in the front anybody else thank you having that will move us to 4b and I have a conflict of interest on 4b I was in the partnership that sold this property to this current owner and so even though it's been a number of years ago I 'm going to recuse myself just to make sure there's no appearance of conflict of interest a moment turn the meeting over to Commissioner Roselle at this time thank you chair and I believe Haley is presenting this item as well item 4b yes so this item is a site plan for a medical office building within the razor ranch overlay district so the request is from prime Denton properties for approval of a site plan to allow a medical office building on lot one block four which is part of the razor ranch south edition to look at the site more specifically it's outlined here in red on this this aerial to give you a reference as to where this is in relation to the convention center the hospital next door so it's on the I-35 frontage road between Scripture and Pan handle it's just over four acres total in terms of the razor ranch overlay it's on the very southern portion within the south mixed use district so in 2011 they adopted very specific standards for this lot you've heard me mention before that the south mixed use district we don't have a lot of those standards adopted in the overlay yet this lot specifically had those developed in 2011 with the intent of developing it with a similar medical use that we 're seeing tonight as with other razor site plans what was required of them was to provide a site plan a landscape plan and building elevations at this time so the criteria for approval for a site plan for razor is that it substantially complies with the concept and schematic plan that it provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that wouldn't adversely affect neighboring properties that it provides for safe vehicular circulation and that it complies with the requirements of the overlay district so looking at their site plan you can tell they at this point they're developing phase one of what would be a larger development so at this time we're only looking at the southern half of the slot so the northern portion will be developed at some future time but what they're proposing tonight is a 22,000 square foot medical office building it would include 110 parking spaces which is what's required based on the square footage and the site would have direct access from scripture Street so no no direct tie-in to the frontage road all traffic would be routed to the site through scripture it does have a tie-in to the adjoining medical facility and then you can see where they've stubbed out to someday provide connectivity to the northern half of the lot and ultimately to panhandle looking at the site they have a total of 22% landscaping 20% was is what's required by the overlay there isn't a specific tree canopy requirement for the overall lot within the standards the parking lot did have a 22% tree canopy and 10% landscaping requirements so they have exceeded those as we can see here on the plan and I wanted to point out just some features you'll notice there there are no street trees directly provided along I-35 due to the amount of utility easements in that area they've relocated those in between the buildings which the flexibility for that is allowed for within the overlay and then they do have all of the required street trees here along scripture looking at the building elevations this top area is what would face internal to the parking lot this would be the side along I-35 and then we have here the two side elevations which you can see are kind of mirrors of each other so scripture and then facing north which would ultimately about the other building and the building is proposed to be built primarily of Texas limestone and ephis materials so fairly typical and staff is recommending approval of the site plan request we found it to be compatible with all the requirements of the razor range overlay district and I can stand for any questions Christian back thank you by chair signage would they be able to put signs on the back of their building that faces 35 and if so what would they look like they haven't provided sign plans at this time all signs are handled as separate permits at the time of building permit but they would be allowed to have wall signs the exact square footage I'm not sure off the top of my head but illuminated I'm sorry illuminated signs are they pliable I believe illumination is permitted okay the other thing noticing that the only entrance into this is all scripture going back to your traffic analysis for the Texas oncology which is just right down the road did was that taking consideration that we were also building this unit that was going to bring in the I don't believe this site was accounted for in the Texas oncology numbers that plat started long before this came along but there has been traffic studies for the overall razor ranch area that included all of razor ranch so you know all of the necessary improvements to the perimeter streets and accounted for okay Trish or Sullivan I think is it thanks sir chair as an add-on to a commissioner back I guess I was a similar question is that we've got a thousand thirty four vehicle trips on oncology coming on to scripture and then we have only one plate one entrance and exit from this location on the scripture and driving on scripture quite often for one of a reason there's two lanes on the eastbound side and one lane coming on to the service road which means those two sides are going to generate a thousand two thousand three thousand cars a day and they're going to be going on to a one lane street to then get onto the service road to go wherever they're going to go from there has I mean is there no other I mean what's what's their other plan to get all those cars out of that area for the time being the traffic would be on scripture the ultimate goal is that they would have a you know what like we saw on their site plan they are stub bing out to the north so eventually this lot will have access via panhandle and scripture when the northern portion develops at this time this site would have the one driveway you know somewhere in this area and then they're also connecting to this existing facility here so there there would be cross connectivity between the sites that would offer another means in and out of the parking lot if that were a concern but scripture for the time being would be the only access to the site until that northern half develops thank you pressure Sanchez you mentioned that the parking parking is based on the number of the square footage is that for a medical facility yes okay specific for mad yeah leave a parking ratio I believe it's a one to two hundred square feet for medical offices oh it's what's required so they're right at that number any other questions for Haley thank you very much would be possible to call chair back in item 5a that public height that's being withdrawn from staff so we won't that'll come back at a later time it'll be re-advertised the access bank project is withdrawn so that we reposted it'll be completely reposted renoticed react re-advertised okay perfect and just to give you there was an issue with I think most most are probably aware there was an issue with the signposting so as a result that item is being withdrawn from staff and we'll be requiring them to just re-notice repost properly in the interim were adjusted some administrative policies with respect to signposting technically it's not a code requirement but it has been a directive from City Council so we'll clarify a few items moving forward Commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair we don't have to do anything though this is just going to be pulled from our meeting today but we're pulling with that we can move on to agenda item 5b chair I give it back to you thank you that we will move on to 5b and ask for Cindy Jackson for presentation thank you chairman commissioners c17 - 0 0 3 3 is a request to rezone 0.3 acres well it's not really a rezoning is to assign an initial zoning to 0.3 acres on to see em see mg you can see the site is located here along old Alton Road just south of Teasley current zoning is already 5x the site was recently annexed into the city and it's currently got a holding zoning designation of already 5x and the proposed zoning is CMG which is concurrent with the property to the north I'd like to mention that this lot the subject lot and the property to the north are all one lot for some reason they were plotted with part in the city and part in the county once the app if this is rezoned the applicant plans to get the site plan approved and construct a vehicle repair facility on the site the site has a future land use designation of community mixed use the types and uses the types and scale of uses permitted within the CMG district conforms to the goals of the community mixed use designation the zoning also conforms to the industrial commerce area and rural areas that is surrounding it we've got some moderate residential further up the street however this along old Alton Road is our site right here the requested CMDG district would be a continuation of the existing CMG district the use is permitted in the CMG district would be consistent with the uses that are exist in the area today which I include vehicle repair which is across the street come over here in the ETJ offices to the south self storage to the east and some institutional uses Geier high school as well as a there over here is a electrical transformer site substation the site will take access from old Alton Road currently old Alton Road is designated as a future secondary arterial roadway Teasley is a primary arterial roadway the subject site also has water and sewer available which you can see from these very thin blue and red lines the blue is water and the red is sewer staff sent out notifications on March 25th we sent out five via certified mail and 11 courtesy notices so far we have not received any response to those notices a sign was posted on the site I did verify that earlier today staff recommends approval of this request as the requested zoning is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030 and the CMG is compatible with the surrounded property in terms of permitted uses that concludes my presentation I'll answer any questions Commissioner Smith thank you chair whenever we did this we proved the northern part of this of this plot we proved it back in October why wasn't it included in the rezoning at that point in time is because they only do in the city okay we the annexation happened in yesterday it final ized yesterday if I could just add the annexation we went through altogether I think five between public hearings public meetings five different meetings for a small piece of property but exactly those are the rules thank you for your hard work it started in February cool anything else Commissioner Sanchez on the north side that's gonna be a garage right there that's what they're working on and then it's just gonna be an extension yes this is all gonna be one side and it's all gonna be a garage that's correct which will have access off of old Alton right about here okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair so when they combine the two still only access off old Alton there that's for the whole development okay thanks this this looks like a lot here but what it actually is it's right of wife or Teasley Commissioner Beck I just like a publicly apologize to the staff for sending up a false red flag about the sign on that my bad I was looking on the wrong side of the road so I sincerely apologize for that thank you just as a note looks like the current zoning map hasn't been updated for the site to the north that we've rezoned I think that's on LCMG also correct yeah I don't think I don't think it has been updated quite yet okay any other questions for staff on this okay thank you Cindy thank you that will move us to Adam see Haley so this is a proposed amendment to the DVC to remove limitation 34 so the request before you as I mentioned is to remove limitation 34 from sub chapter 5 our zoning districts and limitations this limitation only applies to the distribution center warehouse and warehouse retail uses within our employment center districts so a little bit of background this was taken to City Council as a work session item and they recommended that we bring it forward prior to the overall code update so what we're proposing is to remove limitation 34 entirely from the code what limitation 34 states is that the warehouse and distribution center uses are permitted with no more than 150,000 gross square feet and eight truck docks it further stip ulates that all of the docks and bays shall be to the rear or side of the structure not visible from the street and that buffering standards apply to any outdoor storage as well as the loading docks just to give you a point of reference for 150,000 square feet equates to this is the Walmart at razor ranch it's just over that size and has six truck docks on it so we're talking about this applying to something roughly the size of a Walmart or larger just a little bit of background so limitation 34 has been in the code since it was adopted in 2002 in 2012 we changed some of the warehouse and distribution center type uses so prior to this we had wholesale storage and distribution and distribution centers as separate uses and l34 only applied to the wholesale storage use within the ECI district both of those uses were completely removed in 2012 and we got our current uses which is distribution center slash warehouse general and warehouse retail and then we extended the applicability of limitation 34 to apply to both of those uses within ECI and then to retail warehouses within ECC so we did a little bit of internal analysis just to see how much property this would affect within the ECI zoning district if you run just some basic math on a site to see what would it take to fit a hundred and fifty thousand square foot building allowing for parking at a rate of one to one thousand and then accounting for the lot coverage with an ECI which is a maximum of 85% what we find is that you need a site that's a minimum of 5.2 acres to fit a structure that size and adequately provide for parking of it so just looking at our map all it's a little hard to see but all of the sites that are in the black outlining with the hatch marks on them are the sites that that would actually fit so we're not talking about all that much property that this would change anything for within the ECI district I believe the total was just over 400 acres and it was 23 properties across the city and they're running along that same thought process within the ECC district to see what size of property you would have to have to actually be able to fit 150,000 square feet we found your minimum lot size would be 5.5 acres so that applied to about 150 acres total in the city that was limited to these six properties some further considerations we did do a comparison of several neighboring cities you can see the list here we found none of them had anything even remotely similar to this that in terms of limitations on warehouses or distribution centers within McKinney within their town center they limit warehouses to 20,000 square feet other than that there are no limitations and then within Carroll ton warehouses are limited to being an accessory used within their corporate commercial district which is intended to be more for office office campuses but you could have an accessory warehouse at those facilities further looking at what we're permit currently without limitation in our ECC and ECI districts light manufacturing is permitted by right no limitations on size or the number of base that you can have at a facility if you're manufacturing craft alcohol production also permitted by right so if you had a site that was actually producing alcohol or another product they could have as many bays and as much square footage as they wanted but if it's solely a distribution center that's where our limitations would currently apply and just in speaking with our economic development team they do see a lot of requests for property where you could put a large warehouse and the average minimum size that these corporations are looking for is 200 to 300 thousand square feet of building so currently we limit greatly where those facilities could go in the city with all that being said staff is recommending removing l34 from all of the employment center districts as we've discussed here and I'd be happy to answer any other questions Commissioner Beck thank you chair just to satisfy my own curiosity I assume Walmart got an exception to the ruling when they built that as what a part of the razor-range overlay Walmart is actually just considered retail so this limitation didn't apply I was just using that for a size comparison to let you know what type of or size of facility that we were looking at thanks any other questions for Haley okay thank you that will run us through our agenda for this evening and it will take us to back in our work session to receive our work session report and I don't know which withers okay good evening chair commissioners Scott McDonald director of development services just want to give you a brief update on the development code review committee took some action at City Council last night there's been a little bit of confusion as to the makeup and how it is that the the group is going to function so through a resolution with council the committee is comprised of a total of six members three members which are council or considered the voting members two of those council members make a quorum the council members will serve as chair vice chair three P&Z members are ex officios and part of that committee ultimately some of that conversation and just as a heads up on this that there won't be a great deal of voting that will take place this is going to be more gathering input seeking input from both P&Z and council this committee also will have a sunset date of December of 2018 and council has the option of of course changing that but that's that's the way that the resolution is set it is also the intent that staff will come back before this group and report what status were the were the committee the work group is steps that have been achieved and and kind of address what the committee's concerns are it is our intent to walk through our we have the as you know three modules and we'll be presenting before this group next week with module three which are their final sub chapters but the subcommittee is going to be walking through it as if it is the development code beginning with sub chapter one and then we'll just work through at a pace that's comfortable for the subcommittee and if you have any questions as far as organizational Ron is going to bring you just a little bit of an update of it and kind of where we're at and where we 're going the next meeting is on next Wednesday for the subcommittee and that will be an organizational meeting where it is that will set the chair vice chair capture the minutes from previous meetings and ultimately work on really those goals and it'll be an overview while clearing is here of the contents of module three and answer any questions that they have Commissioner Roselle thank you with with some of the committee members rolling off council do you have an update of what three council members are on that committee thank you yes I intended to to bring that as well so councilperson Sarah Baguier ultimately is coming off and council appointed mayor Watts to to be that third member so the members then in turn will be Ke ely Briggs John Ryan thank you and Chris Watts thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Scott I know this the draft resolution changed because I read it and then it was different this morning so can you walk me through that discussion I'm just trying to figure out exactly what our role is now just because at one point it was going to be a six-person committee and it kind of still is sort of not really because you got a quorum really with two of three council people so will you just walk me through that a little bit yes and ultimately discuss this in work session and there was some some dialogue that went back and forth with council and it was councils intent that because the original committee that was created and I don't recall what year was three council persons and they wanted to keep it in that in that context but they also did value the input of P&Z so it was important to keep the three members the resolution then just makes that committee a committee of six which is three of the council three of the P&Z P&Z acting in an ex officio capacity I can tell you for me personally that it is my intent that really it's the voices that I hear in the differing opinions as to how it is that we move forward and what we do with that ultimately council has the final decision on how it is that we adopt and what we adopt and I and I really don't think that there will be too many opportunities that we're really gonna have to vote really it's gonna be a recommendation of the committee to move what we're proposing forward if that helps what does but what we're proposing for will be voted on by the three council people correct if if a vote is necessary that would be how the voting would take place would ultimately be the three council people correct right okay only question I would have on the the meetings that you're talking about are those televised or live stream where we can watch those or do you have to actually come and attend them you'd have to come and attend them they're they're open to the public of course they're posted and I think we 'll have a regular a regularly scheduled time that that we're gonna work to do day and time okay and you know then Ron will give you a brief update of where we're at and where we're going okay thank you Scott thank you thank you chair members of the Commission I'll try to make it brief our meeting last Friday was two hours so I don't plan on taking two hours but we'll go through this really quickly my presentation real quick so as Scott said we met with the Advisory Committee there's really high level went over the purpose of the DEN development code update of course our DEN plan 2030 to be consistent with that but also consistent with the vision of the DEN plan 2030 we are looking at updating our code not only in the the zoning districts but also the development standards as well the chapters that we will get into a little more into detail later are here shown here they are eight total sub chapters we're going from 24 to 8 again we we went through with Clary on last the 28 that is with chapters 1 & 2 we will go through 6 7 & 8 next Wednesday I won't go through each one of this but again sub chapter 1 is general provisions sub chapter 2 is administration and procedures and again you heard that again from Clary on a couple weeks ago sub chapter 3 our zoning district and sub chapter 4 overlay districts is important these are important sub chapters this is where we see a lot of our zoning cases come through and this is where everything is put in for example the sub chapter 3 we are going from 28 I'm sorry yes 28 zoning districts currently down to 14 so there's going to be a lot of consolidation elimination revised and also new zoning districts as well included in that sub chapters are dimensional standards the maximum height maximum lot coverage the minimum setbacks and minimum lot area sub chapter 4 will contain our overlay and historic districts none of those will change they will carry forward and move over to this sub chapter sub chapter 5 is our use regulations this is where we look at what uses are permitted in each zoning district it will advise us as to if it's permitted by right by SUP or permitted by a use specific standard now you specific standard is it's basically our limitations so what you see is limitations they're just renaming it as you specific standards one big thing that is not included in this sub chapter moving forward the mixed use residential overlay protection will no longer be included in that and the hope is that the development standards as proposed will address compatibility moving forward included in this sub chapter are our accessory uses and structures temporary uses our wireless telecommunication and gas well standards as well some of those are ready sub chapter 6 is our development standards this is the the largest sub chapter it contains a number of sections that are currently different sub chapters in our current code as you can see here this is what it will include from land disturbing activities only through parking buildings and site design down to water and wastewater standards sub chapter 7 is our subdivision regulations and that includes our plat ting requirements public improvements requirements more on how subdivisions are handled and yes that's true definitions we know a definition this is important right because a lot of times we want to make sure we understand what the use is or what the term is and that's where the sub chapter 8 will contain all of our definitions so that being said we've got a lot to bring forward all of the public drafts are online as we speak that's all of those sub chapters 1 through 8 so anybody that's watching please go to den code 2030 comm you can view those sub chapters and you can make comments online you can also call or provide us an email or send us an email that is with any comments moving forward we've already gone through the module 1 we've done module 2 last month we are going to be doing module 3 next week we see here this is the schedule as clarion will be visiting us next week we will start with a work session with council and go through these meetings and end it with a public open house which will be held on Wednesday from 6 to 8 at the den that should say Civic Center I should change that that's Civic Center on April 10th which was yesterday our zoning map went online as well so our proposed only map was that is drafted was put online so those folks that are able to can also view that zoning map on our website den code 2030 comm to help answer questions and address any concerns or issues we have put together a series of public open houses that you see here the first one will start on April 23rd at the Fred Moore High School from 6 to 8 we will have staff available to answer questions we've got we had a total of seven the committee suggested that we add more at any public libraries to assist or to provide those that are able to go to a library through public transit it's a more of a central or public place that they can make it to so we are proposing three additional workshops or a public open space open houses that is at the three libraries that we have again those dates have not yet been determined but we will schedule those as soon as possible and post it online as well these dates also were included in a postcard that was sent out I believe it was last week so every property owner should have received a postcard with these public open house dates and times so if they didn't catch it here hopefully they will catch it when they get their postcard in their mail they should have received it by either today or tomorrow there's a postcard I failed to notice that that was the next slide so this is the post card that went out and as you can see hard to see maybe on my screen but the the dates that I just went over the seven are included with the the postcard again we are trying to direct post folks to the website again a lot of information is on the website including the zoning map so again denco 2030 comm so we we send those to property owners but we also know that citizens residents that don't own property are also interested so we are trying to make sure that we get them involved and engaged with this process these are the list that you see up here our our communication plan to get the word out we we also rely on the planning zoning Commission to help spread that word so any information that you can or any feedback or any ways that we can do better please let us know but we also encourage you to help spread that word about what's going on with the den code update we have a dedicated website I probably said it three times already but den code 2030 comm is where everything is being put in we 've got links to all of the sub chapters as well as the zoning map and any other information that is relevant to this process when we're at the public open houses we hope that there are a lot of people there that have questions we hopefully can answer them but if we cannot we will take their comments write it down and document it and so when we start to revise our draft we we can refer back to these common cards so at those public open houses we'll have a fair number of these comic cards available so that people can fill out and make sure that they provide it back to us so this next few slides is regarding the zoning map update I can go through it it's a fairly lengthy discussion I don't know chair if you want to take a break there's food available and then we can go through this so we don't have to break the presentation that's up to y' all it'd be a great suggestion so why don't we call a recess at 553 and we'll try to get back by 6. Going to reopen our work session at 6.01 and let Ron go ahead and continue this presentation. Great thank you chair members of the commission I felt you emphasize this one important change that's being proposed with the den code update and that with the new 14 zoning districts I mentioned that we have minimum lot areas minimum setbacks we also have maximum maximum heights and maximum lock coverage that being said the proposal is we will no longer as proposed have any density requirements so there will be no density so you're for example in our four four units per acre none of that it will be based on the development regulations parking lot coverage landscaping that will set the development for that property so I hope that I know that was a big one for me too so I wanted to make sure that I got that through. Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I appreciate you mentioned it Ron I'd encourage Ron to bring that out because that was kind of a scary thing for us I think the concern was by removing that limitation there we've got to rely on lot coverage and and building height stuff like that so the concern was you know could they build them higher and put more in there because it could build them higher so that's just something you know we need to as a commission need to kind of watch as we move along there that one that one I think bothered a couple people. That was a big one so I apologize I went through that I didn't mean to but I want to make sure that that was clear that we are proposing as it is no density maximums or requirements. Ron if I could just add one one notion within the each zoning new zoning district there are you know there are the standards the setback requirements we are looking at adjusting some some of those where some might be a six foot side setback they may be reduced to five given the majority of the NR4 lots that we have now and so I just wanted to point that out because we haven't we haven't adjusted that yet from from module one so that'll be taken care of after module three when we do the complete draft so just wanted to point that out in case somebody sees that and thinks that their property now will be non-conforming we we're still looking at adjusting that. When will that adjustment come out you say? With the public draft of the entire code. That's set for June, July so as soon as we get comments from these sets of public drafts the consultants will go back and make necessary revisions and then bring back a draft that we can present back to the Commission and to the rest of the public. Thank you. Again yeah just to add to what Richard said in addition to those zoning dimensional standards also the use standards or use table we're also looking at updating as well so there there will be some changes and we anticipate additional input as we get through this process so a lot of a lot of input a lot of revisions but hopefully we can get to approve of a development code update. Okay so next important topic is zoning. Zoning map. The zoning map as you know we has to be updated because we have new zoning districts we're going from 28 to 14 and those 14 don't share the same name or the same you know some of them don't share the same intensity or density so there are going to be some properties that are going to be changed our hope is that we can just convert convert that is those zoning districts that we have now to a zoning district that is being proposed and I've got a table or a chart that shows how that's going to be done but we've went through the a process it's it's not it wasn't a simple process but I want to make sure that you all understand it it is still a draft in that we're going to need to update it but this is our first brush of trying to make a zoning map out of the new zoning district so I won't go through this list because I've got a slide for each of these criteria a total of 16 so I'll go ahead and start with the first one of course we started off with the DIM plan 2030 looked at the goals and object objectives as it relates to a lane use and zoning the big one there is our community vision statement we we want to make sure that that's the focus that's what the citizens approved back in 2015 and we want to make sure it's consistent with the vision of the city after the the the vision and the the goals and objectives we looked at the future land use map that you see here and you often hear from us from staff these future land use designations from rural areas down to business innovation all the way through you know neighborhood compatibility areas these are the future land use design ations as shown on our future land use map so here's the chart that I was referring to earlier on the left is the future land use designation in our DIM plan 2030 to the right is the the middle column is the current zoning districts and this is how we see these zoning districts where they fall under that specific future land use designation so for example in our one would be considered low residential the NR 2346 is moderate residential and so on and so forth the farthest right column is our proposed zoning district that is the 14 zoning districts that I was referring to this is how we see them being converted from not only the current zoning district but from the future land use designation so I'm gonna keep this up here for a little bit and ask if anybody has any questions with this chart and I apologize none of this was provided in advance but wanted just to give y'all some time since we have time to go over the process of our update of our zoning map so the next step was we had this methodology of not not splitting parcel we purposely left parcels the way they are we didn't want to zone a property half one zoning and half the other so if you see a parcel that extends long from from here to here this probably should be zone geo general office but because we didn't want to split parcels we left it alone because we felt that that would cause even more confusion or more issues in the future so we left it based on parcels moving forward Ron question for on that yes sir if you have on a on a current parcel split zoning did you go with the more dense or the higher zoning rather than down zoning them for a lot of those chair there the ones I recall are primarily around the downtown or around the the University because we're limited we're limiting the amount of zoning districts that automatically was zone whatever the zoning that was closest to the area so so to the to your answer to answer your question that is yes but the majority of it we didn't deal with that specifically well I 'm just going through my memory of how many cases have come here over the years and split zonings right and so obviously there's probably still some of those out there so on split zoning cases you had to take that parcel now it's owned right with one running rather than two in the one I recall it was the one off of Scripture normal that one comes to mind that's the one I can I mean in the example I gave you the response I gave you we gave that a zoning that was suitable for both for example that was I believe dr2 and DCG right and so in that area we we don't amend because our current I'm sorry our proposed MD would not apply there so in essence we took care of that split zoning by the proposed zoning proposed again because we were dealing with less zoning districts so there there wasn't a lot of where we had split zoning to begin with or as a result so I guess to carry the conversation one step further mm-hmm in that example since you brought it up that parcel had DCG and dr2 right and so instead of that parcel becoming an MD that parcels become an MN correct so back to my question that property really it's probably down zone rather than up zoned correct okay and we will get to that that is there's something that's part of this presentation and how we deal with down zoning and some up zoning as well okay but good question so the next step in the methodology was we applied the HC which is a highway corridor zoning district and what we did is we apply that to properties or parcels that is a long I 35 and we use a thousand foot extension from the center line of the highway so as you can see this is I 35 where there are the car dealerships some regional or commercial retail establish ments in as you can see based on what you see here majority of it roughly is about a thousand foot deep now that may be a bit longer or deeper than normal but we wanted to capture as much as we can and we went back and made sure that if there are existing neighborhoods or existing uses that would not fit the HC zoning district we went in and modified it and you can see some of it over here as well the other important thing is where there is a PD or a zoning overlay and we'll get into that a little bit more we left those alone as well those existing PDs and existing zoning overlays will carry forward as PDs the other zoning district that we use along major corridor was the suburban quarter zoning district and again we use the a thousand a thousand foot central from the center line this is loop 288 it also applied on University on Teasley and Fort Worth Drive as well so the idea here again is we want to capture any highway or I'm sorry suburban corridor and we use a thousand foot again as the start but as I explained earlier we went back and made sure that we weren't impacting any existing development or residential development here's a here's an example of how that was done so the one to your left is University Drive and again this area here is looked at or is being being proposed as suburban corridor and if there was a neighborhood adjacent to it and it is an established neighborhood we made sure that we went back and made it right and cleaned it up and it's more obviously better it's not better but it is existing established neighborhoods and they should be zoned the way they are and so that is we 're going to be receiving an R2 because of the conversion that we talked about prior yes sir commissioner back thank you chair so I'm assuming that black line we've seen and we'll actually take a dip and go around that neighborhood right yeah it will not know that that's just to illustrate where that thousand foot extension was taken to the same thing for I-35 we we did the the HC and you can see here this is the Southridge neighborhood we know that that's not going to be to see that's established an established neighborhood and it's residential so we went and we made sure that we zoned it the way it should be zoned I talked about this somewhat earlier PDs the big one that we know of or as well known as the ropes and range plan development those PDs that we have a total of 15 legal conforming PDs will carry forward as PDs so they will be moved over and will not be altered or of any way master plan communities we've got three four technically but three coal ranch hills of den and hunter ranch those MPCs will be carried over as PDs so moving forward they will be PDs as part of the draft zoning map zoning overlays these are different from your special purpose overlay districts such as the fry Street special purpose overlay district these are zoning overlays these are the zoning cases that was brought forward to the planning zoning Commission and to and then into to council that is and if there was a restriction or a condition placed on this zoning case they technically are not the true zoning so they're referred to as zoning overlays and we have approximately 32 of these currently since 2002 and they will be carried forward as PD s as part of the draft zoning map any questions on this one because this this provided or had some discussion with the advisory committee so I didn't know I want to offer an opportunity for the playing zoning Commission to ask questions okay I think everybody remembers this one this one I try to find one that was somewhat recent this is the one of Audra where they were proposing an NR six but truly they needed four point five and so that's that's the reduction Commissioner Smith nature who's gonna keep track of these overlays because they're all gonna be so different everything else that I mean it's it's not just even taking like we've got it we got a variation or an overlay on an R2 or something like that now and then we go in and it's everything becomes PD we don't even see in the signifier of it was it in our two or in our four in our six with extra little overlays or emissions everything else who's keeping track of it is it written it's it's it's gonna be by ordinance so we will have that go back through and be able to currently currently with the current PDs we've got a folder system with each PD sure that identifies you know what it is their development standards their zoning regulations so the ordinance part I get I think I think the part I'm more looking at is that if there is ever any extra development in any of these areas that have an overlay on it the current system we have now at least gives you just from the outset of just being able to see it's in our two at least gives you some idea of knowing at least how many how many dwellings per acre and then you can kind of figure out the overlays from there once you do PD you know in our six with overlays and two with overlays well no I mean it actually I guess just log istically I don't want over overburdened city with having to ask right answer a bunch of questions maybe I'm I think it might be even easier if we put them as PDs because if you left them as zoning you don't know there's a PD and you can assume it's this with the PD you can see okay it's not it's gonna have an overlay yes you know to go to if you click on it in our interactive map you can click on an existing PD sure it tells you what number it is what name it is and then you can reference that there's an ordinance number so it almost helps that there is a PD it's a PD versus just a underlying zone industry so smart Ron thank you okay so the other after we did all that we also looked at the preferred growth concept which is in our didn't plan 2030 our again our our vision our hope is that we try to develop sustainability a sustainable with with the intent of you know sustaining our resources so we want to develop within the core and then work our way out eventually so any areas that were in the periphery of the city we left or try to leave as rural residential our our that's the least intense zoning district so similar to what we have now is RD 5 they will just be our art and again we those are going to be those areas that are along the periphery of the city we also looked at you know areas that we weren't really familiar with we use aerial photography Google Street View and visited each site so I asked the committee I asked you all know where this is this is actually University Drive and this is mingo right next to the railroad does anybody know that this well I guess we weren't as familiar with it than as you all were so I I didn't know that building was there or you know what it was and so we had to research it and so we we had to make sure that we knew each parcel before we put a zoning on it so that's that's to show you that there was there was some time spent doing that city properties city properties where they made sense that they were the use that's currently on that property was permitted on in that proposed zoning district we left it as is so this is in the downtown area the blue here that you see is the square and so all this property and this is where we are right now this is where we're currently at MD mixed use downtown is primarily high intensity I can't say high density I say high intensity because it allows a lot of different uses and allows for a certain height maximum and lot coverage as well but the uses looking at the allowed uses it also allowed for the those those type of uses in the MD when we left it empty we didn't change it at all for larger areas that we feel needs a little bit more attention such as the airport the landfill large DME facilities and so on we have the option or the zoning district called PF plant public facilities and again that is defined as lands that are meant for public and quasi public community uses and this zoning would apply to and should apply to these type or these areas in the city that the city owns so we have it for large areas such as the airport we also have them for UNT and TW now we're also considering an institutional zoning district for these two universities that's that's something that will most likely come as part of the amendment but for now they're zone SPF Commissioner Roseau thank you chair can you help me understand the rationale of making of their own zoning district when they de facto do what they want anyways we have to give them some zoning district so I think institutional zoning district that's what that's a good question because we thought the same thing if they didn't receive any zoning is like we we wouldn't have you know a designation for them but you're right there is there they don't have to comply with our regs as far as the zoning regulations so what would be the benefit of having a separate zoning that's used twice in our city just for them I think there may be I don't know if Richard can help me with this one part of it is just to avoid any confusion with the p.l. I have seen in in past cities where where it had a residential designation and this particular University had a campus plan but they felt as though they had they were entitled as a result of the zoning for a certain amount of density not the case here since we don't have density but all in all it's I think it's it's just better to capture them as their own ideally it would be to have a master plan but I think at that point it would just defer to that for whatever whatever they do yeah that makes sense thank you I'd have a follow- up question on that you say if I should are they're gonna become a separate zoning category yes we're thinking of adding a zoning district called just institutional zoning district for the universities and all these other properties those are the properties that the University of North Texas currently owns yes so with the with the rules that all the other zoning categories have to meet then if I heard you right these don't have to meet those same categories or requirements the University the institutional one here didn't I see doesn't fall under institutional just DST would be under public facilities just the first two yeah just these two okay I misunderstood I just thought all of those were going into oh no no no no those those my mistake misunderstanding yeah apologies Commissioner Smith nature if they acquire new land after we go through to a reason rezone that's technically go through a zoning change then if they let's say they go buy something that's just they think they sorry they would they would have that would that come in front of us we would just vote on that because zoning change technically or what would that go be automatic when they purchase it it will be up to them to decide if they want to rezone it or just keep it as this so it's it's it's it makes it simple for us right now right but if they grow and they acquire any type of the property it we did be complicated again at some point if I can just say you know another and I was thinking about this actually earlier it's kind of funny one way we we might want to consider and just sort of talk it out more with legal is there's kind of the concept of a floating zone so whether this becomes sort of a floating zone and as they acquire property just become sort of self executing again I want to talk that over with with legal whether that's even a possibility but I think it's just sort of looking at at those options or sort of every quarter do we do a true up of properties of David Clark yeah I think it's also to understand where they're they obviously have a plan of how they want to sure I guess I guess for me it was more to not have to bog us down as a as a as a commission to not to come to the see it's a here have Haley get there and talk for ten minutes about why we're gonna reason on it and it just like I was just going on it sorry for picking on you Haley one follow-up on that on the on the reverse is true though - these entities do sell properties they do come so what would be the zoning or how would you handle going from institutional that there there is no zoning on that parcel so for example like the city of debt parcel that's for sale here on Locust Street I bought property from DISD before if it's institutional so TISD would would not be the institutional it would be there's just the universities I guess I'm still yeah sorry I'm having a hard time with it got wrote written in stone and it doesn't come out right actually if I can just give another another example because this is a real example TWU in this case probably wouldn't want to rezone to institutional they've acquired it was a piece of property they acquired to to build apartments for the students so in that case they kept it but they were contracting out with a different party to sort of build and manage that so in that case they kept the the zoning and went and are going through through our site plan process so in that regard we may want to have them rezone or again I think there's other we can look at it as as we move forward but part of it is to sort of try to understand also what what their long-term plans are Commissioner Osello I'm gonna restate chairs question a little bit differently the public facilities can sell and what would that zoning would just be public facilities until the new property owner came back through the rezone yes okay and a lot of I did speak with DISD the county text I mean text on and DC T a you know individually and I told them this is what is happening and they were comfortable with what we were proposing for example DISD the schools are permitted in all zoning district from majority except for like the HI the L I so you don't want schools in those areas so we did we did talk to these agencies before we made this public I know we have a couple minutes left this is probably the more important slide but I just wanted to share this with you really quickly we have approximately 38,496 parcels in the city and we did an analysis where we took a parcel and if it went from an R4 with the conversion and we zoned it on R2 for because of maybe consistency or compatibility that is considered a zoning down and vice versa if we saw an LI and probably more suitable for an HI that would be a zoning up so we did that we did that conversion we did that analysis and we came up with approximately 2800 parcels that are being zoning up being zoned up in about 1800 are gonna be zoned down now out of 38,000 that's pretty good that tells us that the majority of these parcels are being converted to the zoning district that they either are or roughly are so and not not a big change so just give you guys an insight of what that number is or how we're how we've done our our zoning map update so that concludes my presentation unless there's anything else I appreciate the time thank you Ron and just one quick note we'll have a standing work session item so that we can update the Commission on the actions of the committee and what's being presented and where we're going great thank you with that I'll close our work session at 629 and we'll reconvene as quickly as possible in council chambers good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission meeting for April the 11th 2018 this meeting's been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and we'll call us to order at 6 37 our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and the Texas flags honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible our next order of business will be to consider a motion for our minutes for March the 21st 2018 Commissioner Smith I'm most to approve okay Mr. Beck second okay we have a first and a second for approval any comments or questions seeing none to call for a vote on the board oh most is going to carry five zero with two abstain and we 'll move us to our consent agenda Commissioner Beck I move we approve consent agenda okay Commissioner Smith second that motion okay we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none call for a vote on board most is going to carry seven zero I will move us to item for a individual consideration call on Haley for presentation good evening this request is for an alternative development plan for a tractor dealership and repair facility the request for this alternative development plan is to specifically deviate from the perimeter fencing and screening requirements and then the parking screening requirements found in subchapter 13 of the Ditten Development Code the site is part of a larger tract of land located on I-35 the property has been preliminary platted not yet final platted to separate this into two lots this ADP specifically applies to the northern 5.4 acres of the site and the property is currently zoned regional center commercial commercial downtown looking at the site you can see they have approximately a 20,000 square foot building in the roughly the middle of the site that's outland here in yellow in blue you see the designated parking areas and the area in green is a large detention pond overall the site has 71% lot coverage 29% landscaping and 63 parking spaces as I mentioned briefly at work session the city is in some discussions regarding the future alignment of Windsor the general location of parking and this detention pond could shift but the requested items tonight in terms of the fencing and screening would not be affected by that specifically the request the first item is to permit a chain link fencing material currently this isn't a permitted fence material in the code what the applicants requesting on the side and rear yards is an eight foot tall black vinyl coated chain link fence they're also proposing to plant trees along that fence on the side yards to further screen it the second request is for a front fence that will exceed the three and a half foot maximum in the code what they've proposed is a six foot tall ornamental wr ought iron fence along the front property line and then the third item when you have parking in front of a building the code requires a 15 foot wide area that is to include a berm one large tree per every 40 linear feet and then either zero scaping hedges or a continuous wall to enhance their display visibility from the street the applicant is proposing to not provide the screening yard there are they are proposing to include all of those required landscaping elements for that area and have them in alternative locations on the site that we'll see here in a moment so looking at the fencing requirements the yellowish orange color is the location for the black eight foot chain link fence you can see here they do have trees proposed along the sides of that to further screen the parts that would be visible from the road and then the area in red is the location for that six foot tall wrought iron fence they're requested along the frontage and to further elaborate on that the wr ought iron fencing is like I said proposed for security because this is a display yard here in the front it would have gates here on the access drives to allow traffic in and out of the site but its primary purpose would be for security and to still allow visibility of the site and it is generally consistent with other fences that you would see along this part of the service road on I-35 from our research those other fences in this area predate the code requirements so that's how they were permitted at a taller height looking at this in a little more detail the dark green areas are the areas where they 're providing trees to help screen the fencing as we discussed and then the lighter green areas you see here all of the required street trees and parking lot screening trees as well as the shrubs that would have made up that continuous hed gerow are all provided in these areas you see them clustered around the two main drive entries to the site and then a few of the trees have been provided along the back part of the property and in addition to the required plantings they are proposing eight additional street trees as well to further enhance these entries to the site so with an ADP we always like to look back at what the intent of the code requirements are the DDCs fencing requirements are meant to ensure high quality you know long durability fencing materials and then specifically within our residential and mixed-use districts we have that limited height requirement to ensure that the buildings and you know the entire site is still visible from the right-of-way with our parking lot screening the intent there is muting the visual effects of parking from the right-of-way so that as you drive down the street you have you know a visually appealing street front edge and there's no light or glare from the parking lots interfering with the roadway so to go briefly through the criteria for approval for an ADP the first is preservation of existing neighborhoods it's not anticipated that this would negatively affect the surrounding area it is consistent with the other development specifically to the north there are several other large RV sales facilities and then south there's a mixture of institutional and commercial uses this request would not necessarily lower the site design standards in the Denton Development Code they're intended to provide enhanced security and visibility for the site in terms of focusing new development and activity centers what we see here is typical highway scale development this is a regional zoning a regional commercial center by zoning and future land use and this use would be something that we would expect to have a regional customer base that fits with that infrastructure is not a concern here there is existing infrastructure in terms of roadways water and sewer available to the site and the end result here would still be a high quality development that would generally meet the intent of the code by providing the screening for that chain link fencing and vinyl coating it they would reduce you know the the reflective typical material see with chain link and they are providing a non-opaque high quality fence along the frontage as well the height is higher for security purposes but the material itself is a permitted high quality material and then in terms of parking lot screening as I mentioned they are providing all of the required elements just in alternate locations on the site and they are also providing those additional eight trees so with that staff is recommending approval of the request because we found it to meet all of these criteria and I could stand for any questions do you have a question Commissioner Beck thank you chair Haley just for clarification again can you go back to the diagram the site location show us that the Google yeah okay so when you 're talking about this is one tract of land but it's gonna be in two different lots yes there is a preliminary plan that's been approved it would split the lot into two pieces this would be the northern roughly five and a half acres and then there would be a second lot okay okay and I don't know why that wasn't clear to me before so we're basically building in that area where the least amount of trees are right now correct yes is what you're doing and that is the five point three eight acres yes what is the total acreage for the whole I'm guessing 11 maybe I believe the other lot is just over two acres but I want to confirm that yes I believe the totals about seven point one acres okay so they 're using about five and a half and then be a remainder of about two so when we 're talking about putting fencing on that I guess it'd be the south end to kind of obscure the view in there actually it's gonna be covered up by a couple of acres so yes why is the fencing even an issue as far as a barrier of some kind is that where the roads gonna run through and no the code doesn't permit chain-link material at all it's not a man material yeah but you talk about trees and bushes being planted to landscaping on that south end to cover the view of the chain link fence but can we even really see it if there's two acres roughly two acres south of that once that sites developed it probably wouldn 't be visible no but in the meantime it would provide that additional screening and okay they're using that to meet all of their other tree and landscaping requirements as well okay thank you any other questions for Haley thank you Amy I believe the applicant is here if you had any questions for them as well this is an item for individual consideration and if there's anyone who would like to speak on this item especially the applicant you're welcome to come forward this time my name is Richard Mason I'm with icon consulting group I am the project architect on it and I appreciate your time to speak this evening we have been through quite a bit of give-and-take with Haley and her group to to get to this point and as most of you know where the current location of Zimmer or Kubota is they're busting at the seams and ready to get to a bigger site you know to expand and and get into a nicer building that kind of thing and so that's basically the whole development there and and what we're asking for again we're trying to meet the intent of what in working with Haley and the intent of the code with the materials and those types of things recognizing that the front of this is going to be a display area for various types of equipment that Zimmer sells and and so and then the security issue of being in a transient zone that are along the highway those are the main two things that we 're trying to to accomplish keep the site secure but also keep it individually pleasing and architecturally aesthetically pleasing space in short I'll keep it short but that's basically what our agenda is okay any questions for the applicant thank you for coming out thank you for your time you bet sir anybody else want to speak on this item seeing none chair entertaining motion discussion Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I'm gonna move to approve ADP 17 for Commissioner Beck second first and second any further discussion or comments I'll make a quick comment just say so good to see a local company do well and glad that you all are going to be able to stay in town and expand and continue to run your business here congratulations with that call for a vote on the board motion carries seven zero good luck with your project that will move us to well before I go to 4b I want to make this a general announcement on our agenda I've got a couple people here in the room let everyone know that in our public hearing sections item 5a has been withdrawn so if you're waiting for that item it has been withdrawn and it's going to be renoticed so do want to let you all know that if any of you are waiting for that item that will move us on to item 4b and I'm going to rec use myself on this item due to the fact that I was in a part of the partnership that owned this property originally and has sold it several years ago to the present owner and so I'm going to recuse myself on this item and I'll yield to the vice chair on this item thank you chair for item 4b I'll call Haley for presentation good evening this item is a site plan request for a medical office building in the razor branch overlay district so specifically this is for a medical office on lot 1 block 4 of the razor ranch south edition you can see the property here outlined in red it's total of just over four acres it's located along the I-35 frontage road scripture currently runs on the south side of the property on the north will be the future extension of panhandle drive that 's being extended as part of the razor ranch development within the overlay district this lot specifically is located within the south mixed-use district we've discussed previously that there haven't been design standards developed for the majority of the south mixed-use district but this specific lot did have an amendment to the overlay passed in 2011 that adopted a site design standard just for this lot and as you're familiar with these site plans for razor ranch require submittal of a site plan landscape plan and building elevations for your consideration the criteria for approval generally are that the site can comply with the concept and schematic plan that we just looked at that the site provide for compatible arrangement of buildings and uses to not net negatively impact adjoining properties that there be adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic and that the site comply with all other aspects of the overlay so we'll look at the site plan here the proposed building is 22,000 square feet this is intended to be phase one of a larger development so you can see they're generally developing the southern half of the lot the intent would be to develop another medical office or similar use on the north part of this property to make one larger development that would be interconnected for this phase they're providing 110 parking spaces which is the exact requirement based on the parking ratios in our code of one space for 200 square feet of office and you can see here access to the site would be provided on the south side from a single driveway along scripture Street based on the drive aisles and their parking lot they do intend to interconnect so that eventually when the northern half develops there will also be access to the site from panhandle and they also have cross-connect ivity to the existing medical facility east of this property looking at the landscaping they have exceeded all of the landscape requirements in the razor ranch overlay for this particular lot a total of 22 percent landscape or 20 percent landscaping was required they're providing 22 and then specifically within the parking lot they were required 22 percent tree canopy and 10 percent landscaping so they have exceeded those numbers the building elevations are in compliance with the requirements of the overlay what you see here on the top is the side that would face face east into the site the middle elevation is what would be visible along the right of way of I-35 and then on the bottom you see the two the north and south end of the building and the building would be constructed of if his material similar to stucco and Texas limestone staff is recommending approval of the site plan request it was found to be compliant with all of the applicable regulations within the razor ranch overlay district and I can stand for any questions thank you Haley any questions for Haley commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair Haley when they do develop the other site you did say that they would come back with a site plan for that as well that would be something separate yes thank you I do not see any other questions thank you Haley as this is an individual consideration item anyone who would like to speak and certainly do so is there anyone here who would like to speak about this item great see none the vice -chair will entertain a motion or discussion commissioner Smith motion to approve SP 18 - 0 0 0 1 commissioner Ellis second is there any discussion I'll call for a vote on the board motion passes passes 6-0 with one recusal with that we'll move into our public agenda item B will be first and before that I'll call the chair back in the meeting thank you chairman and commissioners z 17 - 0 0 3 3 is a request for approval of an initial zoning designation of CMG on the subject site located on the map here it's located on the east side of old out and road south of Teasley given that the site was recently annexed into the city it has a holding zone designation of RD 5x and here you see the zoning map as it will look if this request is approved the subject site is designated as community mixed use the intent of community mixed use is to achieve a mix of uses basically commercial uses but also some residential and other service uses the types of uses and the scale of the development that is permitted in the CMG district conforms to the goals and of the community mixed use designation the requested CMG district would actually be a continuation of the existing CMG district that you see to the north this little site right here this point three acres is actually part of the lot that is located to the north when the site was plotted it was plotted with the city limit line going through the lower third of it the uses permitted in the CMG district are consistent with the uses that are in the area today specifically vehicle repair offices self storage we have institutional uses across the street as well as commercial the site will take access from old Alton Road old out and road is designated as a future secondary arterial you can see Teasley Road right here which is a primary arterial the site has access to water and sewer you can see the water and sewer lines water are blue and the sewer lines are red notices were sent out on March 25th we sent out five notices via certified mail to property owners within 200 feet of the site and we sent 11 notices courtesy notices to property owners with it with excuse me to properties within 500 feet of the site we have at this time received no response to the mailing staff recommends approval of this request as it conforms with the standards for rezoning specifically the CMG district is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030 and the CMG district is compatible with the surrounding land uses and that concludes my presentation so any questions for Cindy I think in the transition of me stepping back in and you already being here we didn't open the public hearing so just for clarification I didn't know where we were my apologies so we're gonna open the public hearing for item 5b do you want me to go through my presentation again I'll ask for that is there anyone in the audience that would like to hear the presentation again seeing none public hearings open and we 've had our presentation any questions for Cindy seeing none this is a public hearing so if there's anyone here who would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time seeing none it'll close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or emotion Commissioner Smith motion approves e 17 - 0 0 3 3 a commissioner is out I second okay we have a first and a second for approval any questions or comments so none we will call for a vote on the board motion is going to carry 7 0 we'll move us to item C this time I'm going to open the public hearing for DCA 18 - 0 0 0 2 and call on Haley for presentation so this is a proposed amendment to the Denton Development Code to remove limitation 34 so the request before you is to consider making a recommendation to council regarding removing limitation 34 from subchapter 5 of the Denton Development Code this limitation is applicable to distribution center warehouse general and warehouse retail uses within our employment center districts so for a bit of background staff is proposing to remove l34 entirely from the code in all places where it applies within the employment center districts this limitation specifically as I mentioned applies to distribution centers and warehouses and permits no more than 150,000 gross square feet and eight truck docks it further stipulates that all the docks and bays have to be to the rear or side not viewable from the street and that buffering standards apply for outdoor storage and the loading docks just for size comparison purposes the Walmart at razor ranch that you see here is just over 150,000 square feet and contains six truck docks so that would be a rough comparison of the type of facility where this limitation would start applying a little bit more background l34 has been in the code since it was adopted in 2002 in 2012 we did make some changes that expanded the applic ability of it though we changed uses in 2012 so we previously had wholesale storage and distribution and distribution centers as separate uses with this with an ordinance in 2012 we removed both of those and adopted instead distribution center slash warehouse as a use and warehouse retail as another use and then we along with that expanded l34 to not only apply in the ECI district to wholesale storage but to apply to both of these new uses in the employment center districts we did some comparisons just to see what types of properties this would affect in the city so to develop a site that would have these limitations with 150,000 square foot or larger building to provide for adequate parking and allow for the required landscaping area on the site within the EC I district you would have to have a minimum size property of 5.2 acres so looking at where we have that size of property with this zoning we found that it would affect approximately 23 different properties in the city that totaled approximately 429 acres total so in the grand scheme of things not all that many properties would even be eligible for a facility as large as this limitation applies to properties within ECC we did ran the same comparison again to just see where this would start to kick in and we found the minimum size property where this would affect would be about five and a half acres a total of six properties were affected by this at just approximately 150 acres total so some further considerations that staff had we looked at what other cities in this area have in terms of limitations on warehouse or distribution facilities we found nothing comparable to what we have here none of the comparison cities had any limitation on the number of bays only two had limitations on warehouses at all with McKinney limiting the size of a warehouse in their town center to 20,000 square feet and Carrollton limiting warehouses to be an accessory use only within their corporate commercial district which is where they have zoning in place to allow for large office campuses looking at other uses that can be permitted by right in these districts today craft alcohol production and light manufacturing are permitted with no limitation those facilities could include warehouses or distribution centers and not be limited in size but if you're strictly wanting to warehouse or distribute things that's where we for some reason have this limitation in place and speaking with economic developments they do frequently get requests for this type of facilities and places where they could go within the city and in general when those applicants come to them they're looking for places to put a 200 to 300,000 square foot building minimum so this limitation does inhibit in that way a lot of property that could be eligible for development with that being said staff is recommending approval of removing L34 from the Employment Center districts and I could answer any questions any questions for Haley okay thank you Commissioner Ellis thank you Jim Haley was there any discussion among staff with the other part of the limitation removing the size and that but where it talks about the screening and the loading ducks being the back did you have discussion over perhaps certainly entertaining them and we currently have standards that that accomplish those same goals within sub chapter 13 we have requirements for of course buffering between uses we already require that docs not be accessible or visible directly from the street so all of those same things are accomplished just in other places in the code okay so redundant yeah we're not removing any protections there necessarily by eliminating the location okay and then the way I read this is this limitation wasn't just two buildings that were 150,000 square feet it 's just they couldn't be over 150,000 square feet exactly so I don't quite follow the map thing because so really we're removing any this from any distribution center of any size yes the intent with that exercise was just to see at what point would you start being limited so if you did have a property that was 5.2 acres that's when we would start seeing this because any site smaller than that couldn't even hold a facility that would this would apply to okay okay thank you any other questions for Haley okay thank you this is a public hearing so if there's 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 Smith thank you chair motion approved DCA 18 - 0 0 0 2 okay Commissioner back second okay we have a first and a second for approval any further discussion seeing none of clothes and call for a vote on the board most is going to carry seven zero and we'll move us to our project matrix for this evening Commissioner Ellis thank you chair well I'm going to bring up that notification practice once again here as some questions came to light today so I guess I want to know who currently enforces it is that something that maybe we can have a discussion about to know how that is enforced and then I know we have an affidavit I believe that the applicant is supposed to supply to the city can we maybe get that in our backup materials that that was received or get a copy of it or something I know I don't want to be the sign police even though I do drive by all of our you know zoning issues but I would like to know and you know who is enforcing that so that things are properly done certainly and it's our responsibility to to to police that in this regard I believe in this specific case I believe they did submit an affidavit I can't tell you I have already updated the application and criteria as far as what needs to be posted and how and I sent that to to all of staff tonight and we will be reviewing that Monday morning at our staff meeting and so once we finalize that I will include that in the packet for the next PNC meeting to review okay thank you can I ask one more question if if an applicant submits an affidavit which is a notarized document and it is it compliant I mean is there a do we have a penalty or is there there's a requirement that it needs to be submitted prior to the to the meeting the way it's written unfortunately it's not a code requirement and so there's there's not a it's not as tight as it should be I mean there's not there's simply no other way to put it so the the what I attempted to do this evening is working to sort of clarify that where staff will be designating exactly where those signs need to be located they'll still be responsible for putting them up but we will be able to tell them exactly where to put them and how they need to be placed thank you I look forward to that update because I know we've made such good progress forward I don't want to go backwards now especially on something this absolutely simple thank you anything else on the matrix this evening okay with that I will close this at 7 10 thank you everyone