Jun 13, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-06-13 5:30 PM

for planning and zoning Commission it is 532 and we'll go ahead and start this the meeting has been duly posted we do have a quorum tonight and so we can jump right into the consent consent agenda does anyone have any questions of Haley for the one item on the consent agenda perfect we'll have Haley come up thanks right chair on the general notes of the plan number two it talks about I think it's the end of the first sentence is that that a portion of this property is within the non shaded zone X defined as there is determined to be outside the 0.2% and it says a portion of this property is within the shaded zone can you show us what they're talking about on the illustration there yes on the plant you can see they have called out the FEMA zone X okay different shadings here right so there is a floodplain floodplain ESA and riparian buffer all within the property within this easement right that's reflected here that's all they're talking about yes okay that's kind of fun just want to make sure thank you any other questions for Haley thank you that'll move us to the individual considerations and I will invite Cindy Jackson to speak about items the 1804 be thank you vice chair commissioners the Z 18 - 0 0 4 you remember this from our May 9th meeting it's a request to rezone four parcels that you can see right here from the dr1 to the DCG district at the time of the meeting on May 9th the council excuse me the planning and zoning Commission actually had a tie vote for whether or not to deny this and then when there was a motion made to continue this there was a tie vote as well it was determined the applicant did have to come back and staff was instructed to investigate the possibility of an overlay district on the site and the applicant was instructed to hold the neighborhood meeting again just real quick zoning map here recap of the the meeting concerns expressed were the loss of affordable housing should this request be permitted the proposed exit on maple the maximum 100 foot building height permitted in the DCG district the use is permitted within the DCG district and the lack of a neighborhood meeting with surrounding property owners the applicant has actually held two neighborhood meetings with one was lot one was yesterday afternoon and one was Wednesday night Commissioner Beck was at the one Wednesday we had small turnout however they were they were the people that spoke at the meeting actually on May 9th and residents that lived in the area or owned property adjacent to the proper to this site and the applicant did come up with acceptable alternate proposals which she will actually discuss later in the meeting in the in the actual meeting this tonight and staff had talked to the applicant regarding the possibility of an overlay which would restrict the height of the buildings to two stories and which would restrict the use to garden office no other use would be permitted in that zoning in that area so that is our recommendation the staff recommends approval of this request with the condition that the zoning overlay be placed on parcels with the following the building height shall not exceed two stories or 30 feet in height and the uses on the parcels shall be restricted to office use I do want to note that this will be only on the four parcels involved in this zoning it won't be on the entire access bank site which is already developed Commissioner Smith thank you vice chair Cindy when it comes to or I guess not really not Cindy Jerry when it comes to a denial if we if we vote to deny what ends up happening to the applicants request then there's a we talked about the last time in public but I want to be able to flush it out and work session just so we know as a commission what all options are there because if we deny they can't come back to this with the with a change to this area for a year correct what's the what's the I believe I believe it's something along those lines but the the the clearest issue is if it goes forward to City Council it triggers a super majority and then if it fails there then what happens with the ag right and so but you know there is a provision in sub chapter 3 where it talks about how long the the period is I don't know if you know it's one year from the day of denial unless they come up with this is substantially different request substantially different meaning if they so I know last time we were here the applicant or the representative for the applicant had you know brought up the idea that there was there's that northern parcel that they're wanting to do which is where a lot of the hot spots are within the Commission and talking about removing those it was the southeastern part of the southern southern parcel there that is a quick change they needed to make so they can connect the thing for like a drainage whatever it was so if we do an overall denial on this on this on this and it goes to City Council requires a majority and it fails there too they can't even come back and work on just that one parcel correct well that would be a substantial it's to me Jerry would have to make the determination that would be a substantially different request because of the fact it's just that one parcel on the corner okay okay that's all and I would rather not you know give a legal opinion on a hypothetical condition you know I'd rather reserve judgment on it until we see the actual fair but generally speaking I think ms. Jackson's okay I don't want hypothetical scenarios here by just just to know that when we make it denial what it actually means for the applicant whenever we're voting for it and if there is some ways that they can adjust from there to at least get something done on the property is better than sure knowing that we're you know shooting their legs off from underneath them for a year so okay Christian are back thank you vice-chair when you say it could go forward to the City Council even if it's a 3-3 would it still be a super majority required it depends on what the motion was that it went 3-3 3-3 is a failed motion so if the motion is a motion to approve you 're just preserving the status quo if you have a motion to deny it fails on a 3 -3 that preserves a status quo if but if you have a motion to deny that passes after an unsuccessful motion to approve then then that goes forward creates a super majority okay but the thing is 3-3 one way it can go to super majority another way not necessarily not none on 3-3 no 3-3 the the the the commission's failure to make a recommendation as a body it just keeps things as they are won't impact City Council's the City Council cannot go forward in lesser until they receive a recommendation okay one way or the other from this body got cha now other question for you that one little plot in that southeast corner there by itself is that something that can be built on or was did we talk about that being mainly a detention area or something like that right now it is a detention area it was a detention area based on in pretty completing improvements now that the improvements have been made they would like to fill in the detention pond and build on it okay and we could build because that is DCG they could build up to 100 feet is that more parking which would means they would have to come before you for an ADP okay okay you don't think they would consider putting the building or maybe a building with parking underneath they actually have a real parking situation going on there and they really need the new and that's what I was thinking if they built like a three-story structure the bottom level is parking yeah that might accommodate it that's just speculative anyway okay thank you Mr. Sullivan so back to the question regarding 3-3 ties and how that works since it was a 3-3 tie with a motion to deny right we're never gonna have a you know it's always gonna be a 3-3 unless one of the three changes the minds one right the other so why are we here I mean didn't that 3-3 deny trigger either to go to the City Council for supermajority or have to wait a year or whatever it's not because somebody was absent it was because there was a recusal right and so I see that's only gonna change when either Commissioner Strange or Ellis or myself or or not reappointed or he comes off I think he's term-limited or something that's still gonna be the make-up right I understand but it cannot go to City Council unless and until this body makes a recommendation whether there's a recommendation to approve or a recommendation to deny one of the two it has to pass and then it goes forward to City Council and then it's just an issue of whether or not a super majority is required to overturn the recommendation of the spot so given the fact that it's a three it's only gonna be six members voting mm-hmm then there's always gonna be the possibility of time one way or the other correct so how is that resolved within the make-up because it's again not because of absence because of recusal I understand and that was a that was a conversation that I was having with the city attorney by email earlier today and what a lot of communities do is that they create a special rule for situations like that and there may be situations where say a Planning and Zoning Commission just is is confused or cannot you know reach one side or the other and what at least one authority recommended is to have a rule in place that council could establish by ordinance to to resolve that that one way of doing it be if if P&Z fails to bring forward a recommendation one way or the other that it 's considered to be a denial of the case I don't know there are any cases on that but that is one thing that I've seen yes Scott just to answer the first part of your question what why did it come back and we it was tabled as a date certain so we're coming back to to this date the applicant of course was asked to do a couple of things by the Commission which was that of having the the public meetings and and to bring back whatever material so then the Commission could ultimately then consider whether or not they wanted to proceed forward and take a vote so based on that and to Jerry's point if it is a 3-3 again it is a no action so if it's if it's approved then it'll go forward if it's if it's denied it will go forward require a super majority and a 3-3 is just going to keep it in limbo I will say that staff is going to propose language in the development code that these types of situations won't continue to the future so if we get into this situation that ultimately I'll go to council as a 3-3 and they'll know what the congestion conditions are and council make the the ultimate decision on this well couple of points on that if I if I could interject one is it's not in limbo because the property under consideration has a zoning classification that exists so it's not in lim bo it's what was it residential or dr1 is what it is and and so you know the 3- 3 the you know if there's no recommendation for this body it would remain dr1 it's not really and truly a limbo situation but I the way that the zoning enabling act is written in in chapter 211 of the local government code I I don't think that we could legally pass anything on to City Council without a recommendation of this body one way or the other it would the the the proposal for a way around that would be one in which a 3-3 vote would result in to dial we got a lot Christmas Sanchez yeah I know Christian Smith and they'll get to the sauce thank you sure just to thank you for the 3-3 Cindy and I guess legal as well we were to make a recommend can we as a as a commission make a recommendation to exclude the consideration for a rezone on the northern parcel doesn't matter if they bring that they bring the land to us we have to vote on the land they brought to us we can't come in and say we can't we can't say hey we're gonna deny the northern part but we're gonna be we will approve a recommendation for the southern part and then have the recommendations that you put on to there we can't make that split game I'm not sure I won't defer to Jerry on that well I'm making a split of zoning classification yeah saying hey you're that's two separate parcels so I'm look the northern parcel we won't approve as DCG we will approve the zoning of this of the lower parcel of DCG and then with stacks that's recommendations for the conditions that there to our attached you know I think that you could make a recommendation there would be essentially a partial recommendation in action on the other or denial of the other and and so I think that you as long as the recommendation is more restrictive than the proposal that was brought forward in your public hearing and considered it's your public hearing then it can it probably could be done and it's not so radically different that it's not even the same case I don't want to pull that pull that arrow out of the quiver yeah we've confirmed that before we get the problem here is that you know you can't reopen a public hearing as this is currently posted the public hearing was closed and it's not posted for public hearing sure so it cannot be reopened if if there were a change to this such that a new public hearing would be required if it were that radical then you'd have to re-notice it and have a new hearing okay I don't think it's that radical but okay understood thank you Chris Ellis thank you thank you vice-chair okay so I'm still confused on I guess the discussion here no it's okay the issue is we had a 3-3 tie last time this was proposed both ways it was it because yes yes yes yes didn't reflect that there was a motion to approve there was not a motion I apologize motion to table yeah right I believe that's correct okay because it seemed like the recommendation from legal was to table it because it was a 3-3 tie so what you're saying now is if if it's a 3-3 denial and never is a vote to approve it's tabled again it's not table it's just stays in the same zoning classification oh okay so then it so the legal advice has changed that's what I'm trying well I'm sorry you're asking about legal advice I what is what do you ask me for legal advice on okay last meeting we had a recess because we weren't really quite sure where the item right was at that time because it was a 3-3 tie there was a vote to table that was denied there was a vote for denial that also did not pass the item got tabled I'm confused okay well the the legal if I don't want to second-guess the legal advice you got before it because one of the reasons for that is that it's consistent with a rule that the council set up that applies in to City Council meetings but those same rules are also put upon the various boards of Commission by by the same rules it says the boards of Commission's must follow the same rules of the City Council the thing is that City Council rule is not a particularly good rule in this particular case because it says that if you get a 3-3 or a tie vote of one kind or another is automatically put on the next available agenda but the assumption in that if you read the entirety of the rule the assumption is that it tied because of an absence and it says that that brought back to some time when you can have the entire council vote on it it doesn't consider the case of this the specific case of when a P&Z or some other body reaches a 3-3 tie so you know I think that as written it did apply in that situation but it was probably not intended to apply in that situation if that's I read it in its entire multiple times so I understand how I understand what its intent is and yet the intent was not what we used it for in my opinion but what I'm trying to understand is where we are at this moment so if we were in that situation where it's a 3-3 tied to the 9 and it never there's never a motion to approve where where is the item it does it go away forward to City Council it cannot go forward to City Council I understand that so it does so you know the applicant can decide whether to go in a different direction or to to impose conditions or something of that nature something is going may have to change in order to break that impasse and that's going to be up to there's going to be the applicant involved in that there's going to be staff involved in that there's going to be feedback from the Commission that's going to be involved in that and between the three of them something's got to have to change in order to break that impasse or it's just not going to go forward the property is going to remain zoned as is. If I could interject that is exactly what happened the staff has a different recommendation now the applicant followed through on the instructions that the Commission gave gave to her when it was determined that it was going to be 3-3 no matter what we did the motion was going to fail and she's come back she's coming back tonight and she has agreed to the overlay conditions which is what is different about this request and she has had the neighborhood meetings and she is going to talk about the result of those neighborhood meetings when she makes her presentation. Thank you and I understand that and appreciate it and I think where I'm just confused and is that we were we were able we denied a table and we were able to table it and and so I hope that do you understand what I 'm saying? No I understand what you're saying. And now what you're saying is that that couldn't happen today after your discussion. Well I'm not saying it couldn 't happen today I think that the that the advice that you got was competent advice that you you could have have applied the rule in that fashion and and it appeared from my readings of the minutes that that there was some sort of agreement whether it was tacit or what have you to effectively table it till tonight if I misread the minutes then you know I wasn't there but that was at least the reaction that I got from it it was that there was some consensus to bring it back tonight. Okay and so just so I understand it and those watching understand if we had the same 3-3 tie to deny and we had the same 3-3 tie not to table where is legal's decision on that? What I'm telling you is that it cannot go forward to City Council there are a number of things that can happen for a you know for the staff and the applicant and the Commission to get together and decide to go after it another way. There is no automatic rule that is going to apply that rescues that situation. Okay I appreciate that. You bet. My hope is that this gets talked about further so this doesn't happen again this confusion does not happen again this is not good for anybody. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Vice Chair. Scott did you have something you need to say? If I could I think that what Jerry's trying to say is that if it goes to a tie-tie nothing happens it stays DR 1 so and allows the applicant to continue to work on their application making sure that it's changed it comes work works with city staff to then bring back new amendments just like they did this last time it wasn't necessarily that there was a tie-t ie vote and then legal came back and said all right well our motion to the table even though it failed is now approved because we say so what it was what it was was that was that because there's a tie-tie no action can be taken therefore no action will be done and so now the applicant has to come back with a brand with brand new recommendations for it to be a different that she could not come back in today with the exact same application she walked in with last time if she did it would there would be there would have been not non-action and so if I'm right she came you guys did have something there is a new application with staff recommendations that weren't here before us last time with action that was taken by the applicant that wasn't taken last time and then if tonight if there's still a tie-tie there's gonna have to be more action that's gonna be taken by the applicant there's got to be more changes that can be made to the application there's probably be new recommendations from the city staff and so a tie-tie vote means in action it means no zoning changes nothing happens city council doesn't see this and the applicant has to keep on trying so we as gatekeepers to the city as planning his own in Commission get to do our job to make sure you know what this is a Commission don't feel comfortable with this right yet right now so a tie-tie means you go and you keep on trying and keep on bringing us something back and until we as a Commission can finally make a recommendation to the City Council that we have in a majority that we're comfortable with then that is the only time we can do that Scott just just one point I think of clarity to that that and Jerry you can correct me if I'm wrong the three three doesn't require them to make changes the three three you are a hundred percent action in action and and then how it's written by rule for us here in Denton is that it comes back to the next full Commission meeting so when I made the statement of in limbo it's in limbo for any period of time the property remains in its current use and fashion the application stays in limbo essentially until there is a full board to vote on it because there wouldn't be a tie so so in essence it is that and it's the same for and correct me if I'm wrong three up three down it is the same it's the same in action the applicant can choose to come back with something to make it more palatable one way or the other and and I just wanted to draw that point of clarity and if I may that I hate to do this because for the most part I agree with what you said there's only one little hair that I have to split and that is when you said that they come back with a new application it cannot be a new application because the public area was closed to their current and if it yeah if it were a new application we would have to we'd have to re-notice it because we would require a new public here semantics I apologize that's okay that's okay that's what I get paid for so I apologize to you sure else thank you vice-chair and just for clarity with with something Commissioner Smith said the applicant is not required to bring something back different it was just a tabled item could have been the exact same package and as it was correct here Sullivan my problem with all of this is that we gave three suggestions one was the meeting which they did four weeks later and this week which I don't understand what happened to the other the first three or four weeks and they also had an option of separating it out which is what Commissioner Smith has been saying so that we just deal with the set the southern part they didn't do that instead they came back with this overlay idea which we spent I don't know maybe an hour discussing a few months ago all the trials and trib ulations and the bad things about overlays going what's the problem here you know if it's a 3-3 denial then come back with something substantially different that you know is not more of the same and that's that's where I'm frustrated on this whole process so you know I guess we'll see what happens but I'm gonna chime in one question just as my brains kind of percolating here what is the actual vote for supermajority and council only one can oppose so it's a 6-1 with a full okay any other questions on this item we are you know the presentation I know we jumped in clarification sister six one sorry thank you best chair six one if there's not a full commission or not not a full council they have to wait until there is a full council for that be a supermajority or is it a one recusal or what one one no and it could be a five one or four one I've seen it five one before I don't know how low it can go here if you want to know the way that the the statutes written it's a three-quarter vote but it's it 's based upon the number of council members in s which is a Latin legal term that basically means that unless they are disqualified from being from serving as city council members in that particular vote so if you had a situation like Commissioner strange if he were on City Council at the time that it would change that and then you'd recalculate based upon you know the number of people who are qualified to vote irrespective of how many are actually present and that's what would require it would be thank you Cindy thank you the next item is for Ron it's item 4b it's an ADP thank you vice chair members of the Commission this request is for a property located on Bonnie Bray north Bonnie Bray the general location is just south of Emory approximately 200 feet properties approximately four point sorry point four seven one acres zone NRMU 12 the applicant is requesting an alternative element plan to develop and construct a medical office building however through their design they are not able to meet all of the design standards which is located in sub chapter 13 of the development code they're proposing to deviate from the following four sections of the DDC regarding buffer requirements parking requirements parking lot landscaping and screening as well as street tree requirements the first one is the buffer requirements per the DDC the applicant is required to provide a type C buffer because the use a medical office is adjacent to residential which is to the east that requirement is 10 trees with 43 shrubs the the reason they are not able to put all of the required buffer is because it's an easement in the back of the property however as part of their proposal they're proposing to add three I'm sorry five trees into the easement area shown here so again they're required ten with shrubs they're not able to because of the easement they're proposing five which these five trees are within the DME's acceptable tree list so that is what they're proposing and also their their comment is also that the structure of the building is proposed to be in a residential scale I believe it's 30 feet tall at its max and and they're willing to consent to that so there will not be any building greater than that built here Commissioner Smith Ron is that five trees and the 43 shrubs or five five trees and that's it my understanding is just the five threes trees Commissioner Ellis thank you vice-chair Ron there's a couple houses behind there mm-hmm so is it just the residential fence and then these trees is that the only I believe there's a fence in an alley yeah I believe so and then the house so there's just a little bit more of an area between the two uses thanks Christian back thank you back sure I went over and looked at it it's more like a swell okay okay so it's separated and there are privacy fences on those houses on Stanley I'm just noticing something though that I don't know I didn't catch while I was looking over there's a house on this tract of land correct correct her yes yeah it's gonna be removed correct okay and then it talks about what you want to do the proposed parking situation is you will put one row of parking in front okay and that'll include the area where the house is from that from that in from I guess it'd be north to south and one row of parking is that right yes yes along by brain yes how many parking spaces are we talking about once he's along the front I think five five or six and actually really that's all one two three or five and then there's parking on the side okay that's gonna be added parking as part of this development correct with me yes and that's gonna butt right up against that parking lot next next to it right to the south yes yes apologize it's been would it be a share yes there's parking to decide would it be a shared thing or is there gonna be a little curb or something separating it too I'm not sure what the design will be the applicant is here and can answer that question during the public okay okay during the regular meeting okay very good thank you okay Mr. Sullivan I'm curious how far does that easement go because I'm looking at here on Google Maps I'm seeing all kinds of trees on the backside of all of those my understanding it's the full length of this what's what's preventing them from putting more than five trees in that area first I mean they put five they can put eight that's well that's question you can ask the applicant but that's what they're proposing there's no there's no restriction because it's an easement crazy just a restriction that they don't want to follow through with is that my understanding is that it's an easement and DME is accepting certain trees they can certainly put ten if that's you know something that so they could meet the code correct and that's why they're doing the ADP and that's one of the items I'm just saying so they could it's just that they choose not to want to do it that way that's a fair assessment yes okay that's fine and then the parking to the south that's somebody else's property correct correct yeah do we know if they already have an agreement with those people to use that parking they have they have stated that they are working towards an agreement and yes and that's something that when they come for a billing permit that's something that they would have to provide the city and record with the county to make sure that that parking is always part of this development got you thank you so the second is parking requirements the code basically requires that there be no parking in front of the building they are proposing one row of parking along the front and again I want to say one two three four five is proposed and then the remaining are on the side as well as with an agreement to the south of the property to mitigate that deviation they're proposing a planting of eight trees along the front which you see here three within again another easement that D me has and three between the property and the road which is here along Bonnie and Bray they are also proposing tall grasses and shrubs shown here in the yellow again to help screen some of that parking that's going to be along Bonnie bright Fisher Sullivan I noticed that the property thank you for us here the property to the south has parking in the front correct and the property to the north has parking in the front correct so why does this require why does this one lot require parking in the back those properties were developed prior to the development code back in 2002 which requires parking to be in the rear or side so there is a change in 2002 okay so thank you those are good questions next next is the the screening requirements for where parking in front is allowed there's a slew of requirements that's required the 15 foot separation or landscape area a tree within every 40 feet so they're proposing to as shown again from the prior landscaping with tall trees I'm sorry tall grasses trees as well as shrubs along the front it does not meet the doesn't meet all of the requirements but meets some of it and that's why again we're here with the Plains Zoning Commission to consider this alternate alternate development plan so mr. Beck thank you by sure also on the front there's a burn yes I'm sorry so there'll be a berm as well to help raise that landscape area no berm on the back side no okay thank you the last thing is street recall tree requirements they are actually required for and the reason why they are here today is because of the the location of the easement in the clearance zone along Bonnie Bray DME would not allow them to put that in there but they are proposing to do that with the acceptable trees that's being proposed or that's being accepted by DME so this one's a little bit not as hard as the other three but again wanted to include it as part of the ADP to make sure that we got this we got this right with that staff has reviewed the criteria for approval and is recommending approval of this alternate development plan as it conforms with those criteria's I'll be happy to stand for any questions Commissioner Smith thank you chair is there anything I know that I see this in full in their presentation maybe this question won't carry any weight but in comparison to the proposed DDC update that's gonna be coming how do these changes shape up against what would be in that new code the buffer requirement specifically I can speak a lot more of that there will be more options for development where they're being a he still still may be requested if we were a year in the future well there will be no ADP's so that's that's the proposal slept and drank beer since then other than that hopefully the new code is a little bit more I was a flexible but allows for more options so that development can occur in a proper manner and I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't want to have the same sit here and say why does that one what is that parking what does that stretch have allowed parking the front and this was on the side well we had a development code change right I'd hate to get something in here in the last minute that if the development code is gonna be different in the future that it's drastically different or if it's gonna be similar to what's gonna be required a year from now then okay yeah and again honestly we'll have to see right and of course there's there's gonna be some projects that may require more work is there any way you could give us a couple pieces information at public hearing about what's currently being proposed on the DDC and how this might look yeah generally yeah I think the buffer is one and as well as some of the parking requirements the minor modification that's something this would consider this minor modification well yeah well there there's criteria and we can I can discuss that briefly okay that would be fun appreciate it. Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you. Ron, the applicant's gonna be here? Yes. In the beginning I was concerned that they're trying to do too much too much change too many changes and maybe this just isn't the right lot kind of a situation but really it's more of a matter that the zoning changes that have taken place since the property to the south and the property of the north was built it's kind of got these guys squeezed a little bit and I'm just wondering if we apply the same rules that we had back then to this lot you know wouldn't it be easier you know to say you know what just go ahead and make it like the rest of the block where your parking is to the front put the trees in the back and look like everybody else in that area yeah I know I kind of make it easier for everybody and I think I think too you know actually this is Bonnie Bray it's scheduled to be a six lane divide roadway so changing use is probably you know from a residential to something different is probably more likely to happen of course we're dealing with an existing site you know that has a home it's a irregular shaped lot it's it's long rectangular versus you know deep so prevents you know parking in in the rear there's easements so there's a lot of things going on along this strip of property that that we do you know we do see that this would affect if those properties did develop we have the same issues any other questions for Ron thank you very much that brings us to our single public hearing item 5a which is an HL 1801 Roman can come and present thank you chair and can I interrupt right before you begin I apologize do we know how long is gonna take I want to be cognizant of dinner should we break and eat while you're pretty entertaining stuff it'd be like movie tavern we need to sit here and eat and there are 13 slides I can take them in very quickly or I can I mean I'm really it's enjoyable materials is great we're in a landmark house it's got to nice it's whatever you guys want to do I can do it in ten minutes maybe can we're going to take a quick break get some food and then come right back okay thanks thank you for that short break I'll invite Roman back up to present on this item thank you chair members of the Commission I'm excited to present a local landmark designation request the request is the is made by the homeowner and it's to make a historic landmark designation for the site of 607 East College Street and this is located between Vine and frame street just to the east of the Texas woman's University campus on your right is the house as you would see it today and again this is an owner is initiated requests on a property that they have rehabilitated themselves its owner occupied and it meets quite a few of the criteria for designation on your left here is the is an image of how it looked when they acquired it which in your notes it would talk about the cast the cast iron very decorative floral pattern columns that were put on but if we went back in time the there were there were wooden columns there now this is just going to be the pictures speak for themselves here the work that was done on this property now here's the 1940 tax image on it what's changed about the front is in the 50s we believe on the right-hand side that porch was extended all the way over but it was built sometime before 1926 and the deed records are in your packet it's very interesting history was either built by jh and Mary Pearl Boyd or the previous owner who was a Henry Stevens and the there's not a mechanics lien on the property but we can tell that there was a request that insurance be maintained on it when the boys took over a loan that was taken out so we know alone was taken out it involved being recorded against this site and in that way we we know that I just had to guess it was before 26 because of other records we've seen but we couldn't pinpoint it it was owned by the Boyd family from 1921 to 1995 and this family was very involved in the community here in Denton here's a again the house today the west side of it there you can see they've retained the original siding and the original windows they did make a change to the lower portion that brick that you see there there was really originally a flared shake siding that went out on the sides on that and let property but it did still have the original knots either cedar posts or whatever that I've came from the other wood that we use here locally for the for the floor post we use Cyprus and there's another one that would come to me in just a minute then this is the front as they acquired it so you can see now the house really adds a lot more to that streetscape than it was when they acquired it this shows the level of effort and work they went into restoring the property here this is the east side there's an image of that front elevation there on your right you can see how the the flared siding it's shape cedar shake siding there on it is the rear elevation and again the level of the work that went into that the work didn't stop with the exterior the interior was fully redone and this house was really updated with thoroughly with insulation and really all the modern amenities this is just a note this is good that we're landmarking a property in here because this in our historic resource survey of 1996 it was recommended that we maybe put even a historic district on this area in this area of town though there were some voids in there the there at the bottom here I'm just mentioning the significance of the we did a little research on the family and miss a lot of interesting things mr. void there was a home we landmarked on North Bell 2100 block up there right where Sherman is and that's a boy judge Boyd and the owners of this house today and other people thought that judge Boyd built this home for his two daughters while they attended college but it turned out there's no relation between the two boys mr. boy lived here jh and Mary Pearl lived there themselves he declared bankruptcy in 1930 there after the Great Depression struck we know that and just quickly through some stories mrs. Jane Boyd who was teaching in Dallas and her sister were visiting the house and so there are all these mentions in our in our newspaper about the family including this one where the daughter Jane Boyd was living at 5004 Worth Street in Dallas and it and as a school teacher must been pretty well this is the home that they she lived in this is a Google Street view of that home today which I think that's a an apartment building by the buildings in the back again many mentions of mr. Boyd on the left here with these different fraternal organizations on the on the lower left here and then there's just quite a lot of mentions what's interesting is one of the daughters began was a teacher at George Washington University upper right-hand side Eleanor Boyd and then later she was also the Dean of women's of women at Texas at West Texas State College in Canyon before his passing it was interesting the family would go up to New York and visit the Reverend Frank Boyd who's the brother of jh and Harry Boyd who was also in New York taken all together we have a house that's could meet any number of criteria criteria in this case I've offered up three the character of the this area of the city is retained in this embodied in this house and then the location again related to the neighborhood and that this particular area doesn't there aren't a significant number of original homes there as a result of this listing there's a neighbor actually immediately next door that has inquired about landmarking her house so this is really good that we're picking up a few of these resources and as a aspect of community pride there were notices sent out the only one I received back is this email which I've blanked out the responses but this is the person asking to landmark their their house next door so I think it's a good thing when there was not any opposition and this is a really nice and this will allow you know people do this for pride of place and then we do have a tax credit that this person can take advantage of on their property when you landmark a property you can go back to the Landmark Commission and if you spent more than ten thousand dollars on it you can ask for 50% off of your city of Denton property taxes for ten years and so that's that's something you don't see at the PNZ meeting but that's one of the reasons people pursue and also just to to protect the area and protect their home I take any questions you Commissioner Beck thank you aren't there a couple of houses over in that that area right there that are already historically designated landmarks at least two houses are there you know I don't have the map but don't memorized yet there aren't too many things like I saw one when I was doing census or something I forget what it was but I remember it was you know they had the deal anchored in front of their house that's your so this wouldn't be the first house is what I'm not the first over there was one and I was surprised when I was started to work here and I haven't gone back to look at it that was in that area that 's gone TW you must have acquired and and the building is the house is actually missing and it was designated in the 80s and it was in that area too okay the only thing I want to comment on so it's probably not true that the house was built for two daughters that actually lived there no they don't that's right until they died in the 80s well actually in the end it was left to a daughter who did live there until it went from that daughter to the current family thank you any other questions for Roman thank you very much with that that concludes our work session we'll close it at 630 and be in council chambers at 640 good evening and welcome to the planet zone commission meeting for June 13th is hot our first order of business will be to stand and give a pledge of allegiance United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I now pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible. next we'll have consideration for our planet zoning minutes because of an absence we'll take these separately so chair will entertain a motion for the May 9th minutes Commissioner Sanchez I make a motion to approve May 9th. Commissioner Beck second we have a first and a second any discussions seeing none we 'll call for a vote on the board passes 6-0 chair will entertain a motion for the May 23rd minutes Commissioner Beck I move to approve minutes on May 22nd. Commissioner Smith I second that motion. We have first and second any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries 5-0 with one abstention next will be our consent agenda chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith I motion to approve consent agenda. Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and second is there any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing nine I will vote call for vote on the board motion carries 6-0 next we'll have item four which is our individual items for individual consideration the first is 4A Z18004B I'll call Cindy Jackson to present thank you vice chair commissioners go ahead and pull this up Z18-0004 was before you on the during the May 9th meeting I 'm going to go ahead and go over a few pertinent facts of the case just to refresh your memory this is a request for to rezone four parcels from the DR1 district to the DCDG district the four parcels comprise approximately 1.057 acres and you can see their location here at the corner of Maple and Pacific along Pacific on the east excuse me west side of Myrtle and at the corner of Myr tle and Eagle Street current zoning as you can see is DR1 and the proposed zoning is DCG when this came to the PNC on May 9th there were several concerns that were expressed by the Commission at that time which included the loss of affordable housing should this be permitted the proposed exit onto Maple Street the maximum 100 foot building height permitted by the in the requested DCG district they used as permitted within the DCG district and the lack of a neighborhood meeting with the surrounding property owners well the applicant has moved forward with a she's held two separate neighborhood meetings one was on Monday June 11th in the evening and one was on Tuesday June 12 during the noon hour the Commission also suggested that staff investigate a possible overlay district which would restrict buildings on the site office buildings and with a maximum height of one story the applicant staff discusses with the applicant and the applicant has agreed to the conditions of the proposed overlay district the at the time when this came forward on May 9th the the Commission could not come to a majority vote on an motion to deny and the Commission could not come forward with a majority vote for a motion to table therefore the applicant came back and made some did what the Commission requested had the neighborhood meetings to which there was a low turnout but I think it was a productive meeting and the applicant will address that further and the staff came back with the requested overlay district so staff recommends approval of this request with the condition that a zoning overlay be placed on the parcels with the following conditions the building height shall not exceed two stories or 30 feet in height and uses on the parcels these four parcels are limited to office use only that concludes my presentation and I'll answer any questions you may have any questions for Cindy there are no questions this item was a public hearing at last meeting tonight it's an individual consideration item that being said we will so go forward and hear public comments so tonight the applicant can speak for ten minutes there's two wishing to speak each would have ten minutes and then anyone else who would like to speak will be right at the four minutes that you would have had in a public hearing tonight as well so I have three cards there if you do want to speak please fill out a card and submit that so with that I will call up the applicant Amy Bissett and if you could state your name and address for the record and you'll have ten minutes my name is Amy Bissett the address is my address is 212 South Elm Denton Texas 76201 I appreciate the opportunity to be back in front of you this evening if you'll give me just a moment I will pull up my presentation and we can begin I'd like to start I did step in at the end of the work session and hear some of the concerns that were voiced by and several commissioners and so I'd like to start by addressing a couple of those upfront and specifically there was concern about the timing of the neighborhood meetings and that they occurred just in the last two days actually and we had two reasons that that happened the first one is that we wanted to give as much invitation notice as possible so we mailed the invitations out 12 days prior to the first public to the first neighborhood meeting and secondly there was some discussion back and forth with city staff after the last meeting about how we proceed whether or not a 3-3 vote would allow us to go directly to council and so it took us some time probably ten days to two weeks to kind of determine whether or not we were going to be coming back tonight or how we were going to proceed and then of course internally and I had to confer with the property owners and the developer to determine and how we would conduct the neighborhood meetings where what format and that sort of thing so it just it and we felt that it was more important to give enough lead time to on the invitations than it was to have them a week or two prior to this meeting and secondly there was some concern about whether we've made any substantial changes to our original request and I think you'll see through my presentation that we have but specifically there was a question posed why haven't we not withdrawn the application for the northern three properties like there was some discussion of last month and when we had that discussion last month and it was to eliminate the concerns about affordable housing and I actually proposed that option that we might need time to consider that option and if this zoning case wasn't going to be supported as it was but when we went back and actually looked at it because we have an alternative development plan on the site the constraints of that alternative development plan put us in a position that we can't do anything with the South tract unless we also are doing something with the northern tracts and so and there was no point in us splitting them up because it caused complete inability to get anything done on our part and so just wanted to address those two things real quickly I want to tell you what I'm going to go through tonight and we're just going to give you a few visual pictures that will provide some context and scale for the discussion and based on the conversation that was had last month I want to specifically discuss the concerns that were raised at the public hearing on May 9th and review the discussion outcomes of the neighborhood meeting access bank is no stranger to anybody in this room it's a predominant building that sits in a main gateway entry into Denton and it was developed roughly ten years ago under an alternative development plan you can see in the picture above and on your screen that it the alternative development plan facilitated some nice entryway features into the heart of Denton including the flagpoles and monument sign wrought iron f encing landscaping street trees and and it's the the same developer and property owners that are looking to construct this project so I wanted to provide that context to you also wanted to provide the the view at the corner of Eagle and Carroll and three out of the four corners at this intersection have major development major commercial developments on them today including large -scale and Eagle at this intersection is six lanes and this is Carroll looking north you see it's six lane this is a primary arterial and major thoroughfare through through Denton and into the heart of Denton where it's going to draw commercial interest and you can see on one corner the four-story multifamily project when you look west down down Eagle you do see that the one corner that's not developed commercially is the I double-of cemetery which preceded the widening and expansion of Carroll Boulevard into a primary arterial road way just as this single-family subdivision that we're contemplating tonight was there prior to and Carroll becoming a major thoroughfare just so that in case this part of the discussion comes up I wanted a visual of Wells Fargo advisors which is the building on the corner of Maple and Carroll and here is the newly constructed multifamily project that is directly across Myrtle Street from the proposed development as you can see and not only through these pictures but also in the above zoning map and three out of four sides of this project are developed with large-scale commercial projects many of them are three or four stories in nature what we are proposing is a single-story residential style construction of garden offices that we believe are provide a natural buffer between the larger scale commercial surrounding it and the existing neighborhood to the north there you can see the dr1 on the visual that shows several blocks of existing housing there and we believe that that's an important to preserve and however we think that there's an opportunity here to build as small offices that provide a good transition in density and scale from the larger and development that's occurring along Carroll and Eagle we are certainly open to and ready to accept a zoning overlay and the city staff have proposed 30 foot restriction or two stories we are willing to accept an overlay of single-story and we have no intention of building anything above single-story and again it will be a residential style construction that's compatible with the single-family homes there and can be a transition in density and scale in the public hearing discussion we did hear that you were concerned about the allowable height of a hundred feet that you were concerned about the removal of affordable housing and encroachment on a residential area the displacement of current tenants traffic on Maple Street the privacy of tenants in the remaining homes drainage onto neighboring properties concerns about crime and safety and tree preservation of some large significant trees that are part of the property we did conduct two neighborhood meetings as you're aware the invitations were mailed out on June 1st they were come-and-go format so we had four hours open window we mailed 32 invitations we had to have neighboring property owners attend both of those property owners are in attendance tonight and so I 'm going to share with you what discussion we had with them and then they can certainly verify that or talk about any discrepancies between how I interpreted it and so the two were 416 Maple Street which is the owner occupied house and for and 325 Maple Street which is the one that is and has two shared property lines with this project so 329 Maple Street is I just want you to have a visual of what we're looking at here I'm 329 Maple Street is one of the three parcels that is impacted by this project there was some discussion about five houses being involved at the last meeting there are three that are a part of the zoning change the one at 329 Maple which is currently occupied by an employee of the property owner because it is in disrepair and really can't be rented to the general public I'm 711 Pacific which is vacant as of yesterday and in 712 Myrtle which has an occupant that is leasing but intends to move when the lease is up because they need to change school districts the fourth parcel is the one to the far south that one is not impacted in terms of it has a detention pond today and we would be tying into the city 's detention system in the future and the two additional houses that were discussed that are highlighted in yellow here as you can see they're already a part of the DCG zoning district they were acquired platted and zoned ten years ago when the bank was originally developed and all of these properties were acquired by the same owner and developer with the ultimate intent of rede veloping the project just so you're aware I'm going to show you the three houses in question this is 329 Maple Street this is 711 Pacific and this is 7 12 Myrtle when you look at our project as a whole and just square up the boundaries this this blue square is essentially what we are looking at and we did the two property owners that came to visit with us 416 Maple which I have highlighted here I want to talk to you a little bit about her concerns and we discussed with her one of her primary concerns was traffic on Myrtle Street or I'm sorry on Maple Street and how close the intersection of Pacific is to Carroll she was concerned about the height of the development she was concerned about the crime in the neighborhood and she was concerned there's a large tree on the corner of Pacific and Maple that I'll point out to you in a minute that she would like for us to preserve. Mr. Yuhas who is also here came in and he we discussed his concerns about drainage affecting his property and the privacy of his tenants and traffic on Maple Street building height and some sort of buffer to be provided since his property is the one that is most impacted in terms of adjacency. It became obvious immediately that Pacific Avenue and that entry was a big point of concern for both of those property owners and we began to brainstorm ways that we could resolve that knowing that we 're going to have to provide adequate fire access to all the buildings and it's unlikely that we would be able to develop without having an access point off of Maple entirely so we discussed the possibility of asking the city to abandon Pacific Street as a street which we were going to do anyway and then we would relocate our entryway to the eastern border of our project on Maple Street. What this does is it gives more distance from Carroll Boulevard and it relocates the entry away from in front of Miss Rausch's house which is most impacted by the traffic in terms of people coming on and off of Pacific and an added benefit is that it provides a very clear demarcation for Mr. Yuhas on the western edge of his property. What you're looking at now is our proposed concept plan along with I just kind of drew in the neighboring property so we could talk about a few things so you see Pacific Street highlighted here on the left of your screen 416 Maple directly across from it that's not drawn to scale it's an approximate location and then 325 Maple on the eastern side over here and these are how the other lots are configured between our project and Maple Street so we would move Pacific East and then we would shift the proposed building west and then it would be essentially on the same side as what the Wells Fargo building that exists today and provide more distance between the property owner at Maple and in our first building. Additionally we're required through subchapter 13 of the didn't develop a code to provide a type C landscape buffer between our project and the adjoining properties that do front Maple Street you can see that highlighted in green here again not to scale this is just a visual representation of the discussions that we had and the tree that Miss Rausch is concerned about sits on the corner of Pacific and Maple and is in a much better position under this scenario to be preserved and I will tell you that moving forward with the alternative development plan our intent is to preserve as many of the trees as we can and you will see if the zoning case is approved at some point you will see that I'll see and approve that alternative development plan and we'll have an opportunity to hold us to and some of the discussions that we're having tonight. My understanding is that both of the property owners that we met with and were satisfied with these changes at that time and that it made it more palatable to them and we committed to both of them and that we would have additional neighborhood meetings as we worked through the site design process and created the alternative development plan to make sure that we could accommodate their suggestions and concerns and minimize any impact negative impact that the project would have. Mr. Yuhas also expressed concerns about drainage impacting his property I did put a contour map on here just so you have a visual of how the drainage is going to flow on the site the high point is on the northwest circle that you see there at 666 feet and the low point is at 638 feet towards the southeast portion so naturally the water is going to flow south and away from the neighbors and however Mr. Yuhas was concerned that if we regraded the site and changed the topography that it might result in some pooling of water in his backyard so we have committed to him that we would work with him as we were doing the drainage plans to make sure that his property was not negatively impacted and as you all know during the final platting process and we are required to handle all of our own drainage on site and not allow any of that to migrate to any neighboring properties but we did we did commit to him that we would have conversations with him as we were actually doing site design to address that specifically for his property with the alternative development plan and final plat processes and we're committed to holding more neighborhood meetings to look at the proposed site plan have neighbors have an opportunity to provide feedback and it would come back to you for approval and we'll work with the neighbors on drainage and we'll work we'll discuss safety and lighting and tree preservation with the neighbors during the site design process and we'll work to minimize the impact to their properties and work with the city of Denton to re look to abandon Pacific Street and really be able to relocate our entrance to an area that is will create less of a traffic issue and as you all know and we'll have to address and mitigate for any traffic and that this development causes at the time of final planning and that concludes my presentation and I do have a property owner representative here with me Virgil strange who will speak on our behalf as well and I'm happy to answer any questions we do have some questions Commissioner Smith thank you much chair miss visit 7-eleven why was it vacated I don't know the answer to that but mr. strange may be able to answer that question I think that just the lease ended we'll table we 'll table that the is everything south of 712 those two homes that are already already in the correct zoning for what you guys are opposed for that are already in the plat to be developed are those what is the status of the residents in those homes I believe that and they they may both have tenants and I allow Virgil to speak to that more specifically however and I do want to clarify that and all of the tenants that are there today where were there are short- term tenants they were told upfront that the project would ultimately be redevelop ed and they haven't they're not expecting to stay for the long term and my understanding is that those who do have leases at this point have roughly a year left on them and so there's some time to plan for a change once once there is an imminent development which at this point there obviously is not so we would not be providing notice at this point okay I think it's fun doors Virgil mr. strange guy ask you a question let's let's pause this for a second when I have questions answer that I think you'll come up if we can deal with that Christian Ellis thank you vice chair thank you Amy for the presentation um so just to clarify I understand that three of the homes are part of the zoning change because the other two already zoned but five of them are being removed with the development is that correct yes that is correct the other two are and already part of a part of the project to be removed and made turned into professional office spaces that's correct okay thanks Mr. Sullivan thank you my share I'm curious if y'all are designing or your plans are designed a single story why not have an overlay to restrict it to a single story instead of two stories well what I'm saying is that we're committed to one story and if it if it is more palatable to the Commission to have the overlay be one story that way in the future if somebody wanted to come back and redevelop they couldn't put something that was two story there and then we if you wanted to make the overlay one story we would be comfortable with that I believe that city staff recommended two stories because that's what's compatible with the neighborhood today right now dr1 is a 40 foot high restriction I believe so this would actually go from 40 to 30 and even at two stories so I think they were just looking at the surrounding area and that two stories would still be compatible okay I wouldn't aware of any other two story houses in that area there is one on Maple Street and that 416 actually is two story but one of the reasons we're committed to single story is we believe it's more appropriate and scale to all the surrounding single family okay thank you I see no other questions thank you very much the next speaker is the second applicant JV strange if you just state your name and address for the record you also have ten minutes good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is JV strange 728 Seville Denton Texas I am one of the property owners and the applicant this has turned into a fairly complex issue for us let me just give you a little bit of a background beyond what I mean did when we bought the properties for the bank which commenced back in about 2007 and 8 I think we bought something like a dozen pieces of property to put together the site that the bank is currently on there was one piece of property we 're not able to buy at that time it was the piece at Myrtle and Eagle so we had to proceed with our development with that little out parcel down below we were also required in our development to put in a detention pond which is the only one on Eagle Drive even though there are larger projects than ours up and down Eagle and the intention with the city was at the point in time the drainage improvements along Eagle and over the Elm and Locust were improved that we would be able to remove our detention pond recent so that has been something that has been hanging out there for 10 years we were approached by the city about a year ago to grant easements across our property so that the drainage improvements could be done and if you go by there now you'll see that one house has been demolished over there not one of ours is across the street belong to somebody else but the city of themselves demolish that to be able to start the drainage work the reason that we have not done anything towards developing anything to the north end of our property is that we've been waiting to clear up this detention pond easement we have severe parking issues at the bank it's a constant complaint from the tenants and our idea it was to at the appropriate time when the city put the drainage improvements in part of their commitment to us is they give us a tap out of our detention pond into the new drainage system at that point we can fill in the detention pond and put additional parking for the bank not a lot maybe 12 spaces down there to be able to accommodate the banks tenants do that we have to modify our alternative development plan and to do that we need to rezone the little piece on the corner and while we're at it to make the landscape buffers and all the other things work and the ADP revision which you would see later on we need to rezone the additional three pieces to the top which we did not own at the time we started the project we have owned those properties our partnerships have owned those properties for a number of years so this whole thing is kind of evolves now around the need for parking at the bank reconstructed attention pond to parking and redoing the entire properties that we own into one consistent zoning and if you look at that one map Amy had we're kind of the only little box down there that started already in DCG so it was our opinion that this would be something compatible with the neighborhood we've been a good neighbor at the bank we take good care of our property anything that we construct there will be constructed in the fashion it would be compatible with the neighborhood and we would continue our efforts to be good neighbors to those people who are left there I know there's issues about the three little houses and taking away housing stock I think Amy mentioned one of the houses currently is occupied by a employee of one of my partners because he can't rent the house to anybody else it's literally falling down the second little house is empty the one on Pacific and it too has some structural issues and termite issues so two of those houses are fairly short-lived the one other one over on Myrtle is a very small house and sets directly across the street from the apartments and of course we have two houses over there that we we bought originally with the bank property and they are already zoned so we're not we're not here to zone those we do not anticipate that if we got the zoning tonight and the council approval that the bulldozers are drove in next month and we demolished all the houses and the people be sitting on the streets that's not the intent we have a lot of work to do we've got the detention pond to address we've got planning issues to address we got the alternative development plan to address engineering issues permitting issues so anything that happens there is is on a longer term other than the parking lot we'd like to get that done as quickly as possible but I can see that what we'd like to do would be start primarily over on the Pacific Street side of the properties and probably construct one building there see how that goes another one another probably the two houses over on Myrtle would be the last two that would be moved out so having been at this business for 40 years I'm naive enough to think I'm gonna go build four offices and have them leashed out in six months I see this evolving out over a number of years and so anybody that's in those houses will have an adequate amount of time to to find a relocation if in fact two of the houses don't fall out from under them in the meantime so I'm here to just kind of clarify why we're here the detention pond issue the parking issue why this all needs to be zoned at one time well we can't withdraw part of it do part of it because it all fits into how we have to work with the city on the ADP it's all got to be considered as one unit at least that's my understanding from what we're gonna have to do to be able to meet the parking requirements and to meet the landscape requirements setbacks etc so hopefully that will help clarify a little bit of what we're doing and to clarify again mr. so we have no intention to go it up two stories one story would be the most I envision these being somewhere around four thousand to five thousand square foot buildings that's tends to accommodate one or two tenants and again it just be single story go up look behind the chase bank up at University you have a similar deal you got a big building in the front on a major street right behind it are four smaller office buildings that back right up to residential housing so there's a there's a picture for what we're thinking about doing already on the north side of town so with that I'll be happy to answer any questions you all I have we do have some questions Mr. Smith thank you vice-chair mr. strange thank you for presentation actually I'm any questions for you you've answered everything for me I do have a question for city staff mr. Jackson if you come back up please I think I think I think mr. strange has 40 years of development knowledge that might make it hard to to make make make it make it sense to me so what he's saying is that they cannot do the parking lot they cannot build a parking lot and fill in the detention pond well they have to do that through the process of doing an ADP and they cannot do that unless they they re zone all of these parcels correct they can't do a partial rezone on the southern part then fill that in and then maybe come to the northern part another time well I'm not sure about the not being able to do that corner without doing all of it I was not part of the process they went through ten years ago I wasn 't with the city at that time so I would have to look into that to see exactly what the restraints are okay so that but I can't happen that could the ADP that currently exists could have had it to where they are restrictions there are restraints to where they do have to rezone all of this if they want to make a change to that one possible I just have to take a look at the ADP well I 'll trust I think I'll trust mr. strange that that's the way he wouldn't be up here lying bold-faced to us in a public hearing so okay a couple of the questions the city to abandon Pacific how the the process for an applicant to go through and negotiate that with the city what's the city opinion on abandoning streets all that kind of stuff they can make a they can petition to abandon the street and do it by separate instrument but typically that's done through a plot Jerry might be able to expound on that more there there is a process for banks really I'm not really up on it right now but there is a process for it there has to be negotiations with the council and real estate and engineering we have to make sure that there's no easements are on the industry there's no utilities in the street and so there's no guarantee even though there there is discussion when they rose we could abandon Pacific move the move everything over so we're up to fire code or that's all dependent upon future decisions and there can there that's correct legal is there a way for us to in an improvement if there was an approval vote put up to make this approval subject to the abandoning a Pacific Street is that even possible is that a restriction that goes too far I believe it is because you know it would be conditioning it on something that may or may not even happen and and it would be a discretionary act with the City Council it would essentially be constraining the City Council it's a way to take action on something that would otherwise it would have discretion and then on the drainage part that comes in ADP that comes in the final plotting plotting plotting they probably mentioned it said it a couple times and it could have been done different parts I want to make sure it's gonna be when it would be when we would see it just to make note well I don 't know if you recall that the city had a lot of issues with drainage and flooding in this area back in the day and they are in the day like eight years ago and they are actually the city has been installing infrastructure throughout that area to handle the drainage and when they when they plot this this this lot into the entire area all the drainage will be considered okay thank you Cindy just a second if you can request to speak because your house would be next thank you guys I guess I'm still trying to get an answer to what Commissioner Smith did and I don't know if mr. strange maybe has that answer about why the why that Eagle parcel stands alone and can't be developed so I'd love I mean if Cindy can answer it I would love mr. strange to address it please when we came forward several months ago well I used to call a DRC meeting I think it's now called a pre-development meeting that dates me we brought this whole issue out about how we needed to what we needed to do to be able to put parking on the corner and to address the issues in the current ADP the current ADP has a limitation in it that we can only have X number of parking places for our bank and so to be able to put more parking down there where the detention pond is which that is part of the bank property we were trying to work with the city to bring in the smaller piece at the bottom down at the corner of Myrtle and Eagle and the three at the top and redo a rebalancing of the whole property to take some of the parking spaces it could be used up north move them down south to spread some of the landscaping requirements to the properties to the north as well so we were told at that time that what we needed to do was to rezone that corner property and read and revise our ADP and that's when we put all four of these properties together to be able to come forward to get into ADP and to provide the parking in the front of the bank so it's some kind of ratio with the parking and in the current ADP so you have to make the footprint bigger I mean that's almost what we're kind of read you to read j uggling yeah we're making a bigger footprint and we're taking some of the parking that can be attributed to the north and putting it down in front of the bank because we cannot put any more spaces at the bank under the current AD P so if we didn't do anything with a little corner lot just say we do nothing we don't do anything with zoning the corner we don't do anything at the top we 're stuck at the bank about getting any more parking and or a filter we can fill in the detention bond but would serve no purpose we need to parking spaces down there for the tenants in that building we have a law firm investment firm a bank and insurance agents and they have constant traffic in and out and we have constant complaints about the parking and it's telling you there's no way to do that there's no way to develop that Eagle lot without trying to pull in these other northern parcels is that how I understand what you're saying that's my that's my current understanding where we are when we when we bought that lot and started working with the city about how we got electric services and other things to the rest of the building of the bank and to the properties to the north there's a big electrical easement that goes through part of that little part on Eagle and Myrtle now we just got to give them the city an easement on another part of it for the drainage so it gets so condensed down we we are a spot on the corner we can't get a curb cut into that off of either Eagle or Myrtle but they don't meet the setback requirements the city has so it just becomes a dead piece of property okay I mean that clears it up slightly I appreciate it thank you anybody else have a question we do Chris are back thank you guys chair Virgil thanks for coming down speaking and I'm still a little muddy on it and I understand this visit might be able to add to it if she wants to come on down I'd be glad to hear too but as she's coming down let me answer this then what you're really needing it sounds like is parking spaces you don't necessarily need the offices you need parking spaces to meet a need for the existing clients of access bank is that what I'm hearing well we need the parking places but we bought we bought all that property we bought all with you maybe put that one exhibit back up baby that shows the all let me just see you one exhibit here yeah when we bought the bank property there were I'd have to guess a dozen properties that we bought up and down what was the old Carroll Boulevard remnants we bought everything I'm pointing you can't see oh you're pointing okay we bought the area that is encompassed in the bank we bought the two houses that were up there that was back in 2007 or eight we were not able to acquire the spot down on Myrtle and Eagle until maybe a year year and a half later and we had already planted had already got our ADP so we could not go back at that time and revise it we were already under construction at the bank we purchased the property the first property we purchased was the one immediately north of the existing property that we own that's 7-eleven which is on Pacific Street we tried to buy that initially when we bought the other property that the owner would not sell it to us we bought that years ago within bought the little property over on Myrtle and then the property up on Maple with the idea in mind all the way from the beginning that again we wanted to try to create a corner a commercial corner here on this entry into Denton so we did want to put offices there that's why we bought all that land the parking down here at the bottom when we built the building I didn't know the problem the city of you know only requires a certain number of parking spaces for the size of your building so we were stuck with that we were stuck with it the ADP the solution to it came when we were able to work with the city to put the easement through there get the outflow of that pond into the new drainage system fill that pond up incorporate that track now into the bank track and these other tracks and then kind of reapportion the parking in the landscaping environments on the entire property so that we can get parking down there and utilize that little dead corner parking is a real problem over there okay and again for I let Amy say anything let me I am sympathetic to the fact that you bought this property with the intent to develop it I totally am and I'm appreciative of your development here and how it wants to try and blend in and not you know disturb the neighborhood I'm still not convinced that this is not encro ach it's gonna affect this older neighborhood so that's still a concern of mine but let me ask this if again it seems like parking is the main concern here now that you can build on this tract of land down the southeast corner there and this is just a hypothetical isn't it possible to build an elevated parking building that would meet the needs of your tenants to provide the time parking the number of parking spaces you need two or three store you could go up to 100 feet there once if if it was a zone now if it was on DCG which it's not right now I understand that and that therein lies the dilemma but saying I mean again just speaking hypothetically this proposal doesn't go forward down the road you're able to come back and get that one corner lot on Myrtle and Eagle zone DCG would that address your parking problems then if you if you built an elevated parking building there that was what we were I'm originally thinking when we had the discussion a month ago at the public hearing but when you look at that the way that ADP is written today and the number of parking spaces is locked in for the bank the reason that we can get more parking spaces if we developed the professional offices is because you have a ratio of X number of parking spaces per square feet and so if we pick up 5,000 square feet to the north then we can take these parking spaces that are on the northern end and use those to park the office building not add parking to the north this is an example and then add parking spaces to the to the property on the south that keeps the number of parking spaces that are for the bank the same and what we've essentially done is allocated some of the existing parking that's the banks now but is close enough to the professional offices to park them at their required ratio so and we would be overall the bank would not gain any parking spaces those ones towards the parking requirements for the the professional offices and I don't have the exact calculations to tell you what square footage would be necessary to get 12 spaces and which is roughly how many we need on the south and we only need about 12 additional spaces but the alternative development plans one says you cannot add parking spaces for the bank and two it says the ADP does not speak to the parcels to the north that are intended to be developed in the future and so you'll need an alternative development plan when you're ready to do that and so and when we did have our pre-development meeting the conversation was there's no way around an amended ADP and you can't get those parking spaces on the south without taking some of the ones that are on the north and allocating them to the office building so that's why we feel like we're kind of in that spot where there's there's no way around there's no way to amend the ADP to get what we need without adding additional space for landscaping and building footage which get freeze up some parking okay but that still wouldn't prevent you again provided that down the road this one track to land on Eagle and Myrtle could be zone DCG that you couldn't build a parking garage there from the bank doesn't have to be associated with the bank but it could serve as a parking facility for pretty much anybody especially if it's paid parking I'm not sure whether a parking garage a standalone parking garage on a parcel would be an allowable use or not I don't know that off the top of my head we would have no need to build the parking garage because we only need 12 spaces okay to get the 12 spaces and you're saying you've got to build these garden offices right in the ADP we have to encompass the project as a whole as my as I understand it today that was the conversation that we've had with the city okay and to Commissioner Ellis's point that seems like a big footprint for 12 spaces but again I understand that when the property was bought it was in never never realized you're gonna run in this kind of confrontation here and just thought this would go but here we are and to consider anything less than this now is like an obstacle there's no there's no way we can make a smaller footprint again without the office space because again if it's just parking space as you want I'm having a hard time I'm not sure that I'm understanding your question I think you said it's a big footprint if you mean the southern tract it would remain green space all the northern tracks you're developing that for the sole purpose of getting 12 more at least 12 more parking spaces did I hear that right at least 12 developing that is for development in its own right to provide office space downtown desirable office space to bring employment density downtown to support commercial and retail and in commerce and it's just that we can't my point is that we can't split them up into where we only address the parcel on the south my from my understanding because we can't get the amendment to the ADP we need it we can't we can't hold the same parking ratio and without adding office buildings okay you're in between the rock and hard spot I can see that okay thank you commissioner Sanchez I'm not sure whose questions directed to we keep we keep addressing Pacific has a street but there's a standard I would I would think that the city has to define a street and when you look when you drive down that I call it an alleyway it's nothing but asphalt over dirt there's no standard it's falling apart so I mean it's hard for me to call it a straight it is a street it is public right away and that that would be the definition of a street is public right of way it's so old it was developed before we have our current street standards so it's not an improved street per se no no curb and gutter drainage storm drains or anything it's got big old p otholes however it is probably right away though that that has been around for quite a while because these these houses for example the house one of the houses that is part of this request it is over a hundred years old and that that it hasn't been maintained well and and so the streets been there at least that long okay Christopher Sullivan thank you for sure what is the the number of parking spaces per square foot in this for you know okay this site was developed under 2002 code and that requires one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area for a bank office professional office personal use service type of use okay and now for the applicant what's the square footage of the bank currently 30,000 the bank building is 30,898 square feet okay so that would give you a hundred hundred parking spaces correct one per 300 if it's 30,000 I think my math is right I don't know it's suspect it appears based on the preliminary drawing that we see here that you're going to have approximately 20 ,000 square feet of additional building space is that right correct but I'm only counting 65 parking spaces in your drawing which I know that's not accurate but I'm only counting 69 parking spaces from Google anyway which may or may not be accurate and so I'm just wondering why is it all that necessary to build the buildings just to get parking spaces well in other words in other words why build another 20,000 square feet of building to get you know to double the number of parking spaces if that's your end goal is to get the parking spaces well there's really two two things here one is we bought the property to develop it and build offices so that that's one thing so we would be building the buildings for their own commercial value I will tell you in the last two years if those had been built I could have had two buildings full I've had two people who wanted to be there five thousand square foot users the bank continues to grow the bank has taken one of the least spaces that we had already and they're growing the whole mix of mr. Sullivan is that when you look at those box in the yellow down there but you excuse me in the blue there's no way we can use that for any use at all today because we cannot park on that the detention pond is there electrical easements there so we have we've got to somehow reconfigure this whole track to be able to get the parking spaces that those individual losses will need and let part of them bleed down to the south to that little blue box so that we can have parking for the bank but you know the intention is not just to get parking spaces the intention is also to take advantage of the property that we bought to build offices because there is a demand for office space downtown debt today okay let me ask you this this forget all the parking spaces if this were to be developed you're going to be adding another equivalent size of the bank that's there now that you're saying you need more parking because of the activity and that's fine however when you're coming out of the bank you can either go east or west on Eagle or you can go north on Carroll and that's about it when you move to the north and you look at Maple and Myr tle those are going to be the streets are going to carry the load for the parking equivalent to what you have now going on to a street that's half the size of or a quarter of the size of Carroll and in worse condition than Eagle and so my concern is all those people that live around there on the north side of Maple you add the apartment complexes that are on Myrtle all of a sudden you 're putting a whole lot of cars coming in and out because once you come onto Maple Street if you turn out from your property onto Maple Street turn left you can go right or left I mean I guess you know what you can go right north on Carroll and I suppose that's a street going through this you can turn left go south on the Carroll with no stop lights I just see a problem that people are going to have that live there now that all of a sudden a whole lot of cars will be dumping onto those streets that weren't designed to hold that many people. Well that's one reason we wanted to go ahead and move Pacific back and widen it so that people can come out and go on to Maple go east or west we also have access going out over onto Myrtle Street and I would anticipate that there would be quite a few cars because of the way those buildings will be oriented that will come on down back behind the bank and exit out onto Carroll on that existing wide approach that we have which is not at the intersection because I avoid going across Myrtle you can't get across that cut that's there so when I'm there I drift back down and I come out either in front of the building get to go east or west on Eagle I just come out and get on Carroll and go wherever I'm going to go so and then again these are pretty much low -impact offices the traffic that will be there would be 8 in the morning and 5 in the afternoon and they're closed they're not like the apartments and some of the other uses which are 24/7 these would be professional offices so traffic could pretty much be limited to early in the morning and 5 o' clock in the afternoon so and again as it phases in over the next five years I would hope that it would just be a gradual enough impact that it doesn't really complicate what's going on up there and we would do everything under our control to make as many other access points out as we could you're going to have traffic with whatever you do but I think that's that would be our plan was to be provided as many routes out wide and specific to a better route move it away from the intersection of Maple and Carroll to get a little more stacking there and to again keep these buildings below 5,000 square feet or at 5, 000 feet so that you know you would have a minimum number of employees in there I've got some other 5,000 square foot buildings you may have got six or eight employees depending on what's in there thank you I do not see any other questions thank you thank you I do have some cards of individuals wishing to speak yes Cindy I've been reading the ADP while you've been talking and I think what they're talking about is at the last paragraph of the ADP states the approval of this alternative development plan will require the applicant to mean the same number of approved parking spaces or fewer the same landscape percentages and the same canopy coverage so modifications to the approved plans may be made provided the landscape values do not decrease and the number of parking spaces and lot coverage do not increase so I think it sounds like they're because these sites were not part of this ADP that gives them the opportunity to increase landscape the lot coverage without actually affecting the lot that's included in the ADP that may be what they're talking about it certainly sounds like it thank you Cindy for that I do have a couple individuals who wish to speak the first one is Andy you Haas looks like he's speaking in opposition if you just save your name and your address for the record and you'll have four minutes to speak sure thank you for your time my name is Andy you house one zero one nine eight fireside lane 40 just wanted to clarify one thing before I start I did not buy this property as an investment I bought this property when my son was accepted to North Texas he lived there while he was in university and now my daughter has applied so this is not just an investment property that we're holding on to you can see that the house I'm sure you 've been by it before I purchased it it was in very bad shape I put a lot of money into that house my neighbors unfortunately didn't do the same thing they affect my property value the quality of their tenants also affect my tenants and that seems to be an ongoing issue my biggest concerns with this is privacy we put this building right right adjacent to our property it abuts it on two sides I understand people for the most part will be during daylight hours eight to five that's not an issue but people looking in the backyards you know affecting my tenants there and my daughter who's going to be there soon I thank the developer for agreeing to the 30-foot one-story limitation that does give me some some confidence and the buffer zone that we talked about that's in the standard if they do move that road Pacific to adjacent to our property line what would that buffer look like you know would that be sufficient to help control the noise in the privacy of my tenants a lot of a lot of my anxiety has to do with my lack of confidence with the present owner you can see he did not maintain his property the tenants that he had in there were not good tenants there were not upstanding individuals of our society from what went on stories my son told me while he was living there people coming and going all hours of the night coming out to our property I don't need that with my daughter there I think that's I think that's about it just to summarize its privacy talk with them I understand you need to help the property I fully understand that and I think it would be better looking than what's there now but the privacy then it's ongoing construction Mr. Strange was talking about several years of construction that's a bit it's a big impact we can make some you make some requirements upon them I wouldn't see an issue with it but again I don't have a whole lot of confidence in the individual making that agreement we do have a couple questions customer back thank you vice- chair thank you mr. you all for coming out tonight speaking on this just to answer your question and Cindy or anybody in the city and correct me if I wrong when they move Pacific over next to your house that's it there's no buffer that's that's the street your house will be there there I don't think there'd be any trees or type is there any curb or sidewalk or anything it's that'd be a good question I know as we go forward we're trying to put sidewalks in as we put new streets in but I'm not sure that's gonna apply here with this as an ADP so I couldn't answer that for you tonight what I'm hearing from you though and correct me if I'm wrong you're satisfied with some of the things that the developers doing but overall you're opposed to this development is that correct that's correct okay all right thank you sir and I do have a question but however I just wanted to add Commissioner Beck noted if it was a redevelop ment of a street there would be the current requirements that could have buffer trees or sidewalks on a new street that's I'm sorry say it again then the new entrance would not be a public street okay so it would just be that like a drive that's it there's nothing there's no landscape buffer Cindy can clarify okay right what we're moving here it won't be a street it will be a driveway okay and they will be required to put a type C buffer along that driveway next to this gentleman's property okay so it would have a type C which is 15 foot with trees and bushes that's right okay great thank you Cindy so I stand corrected mr. you guys let's go just a point of clarity and again this is this is a proposal in a suggestion of abandoning a public right of way so certainly that's not done and that's just an option in this that that someone's considering yes thank you for correcting that today I just had one question for you and actually another one popped up you mentioned that there are some benefits you see to the construction but I think you say that you just wanted to see the imposition or impose some requirements what requirements do you feel would be helpful that they haven't conceded to that would would make you feel more comfortable at the development I guess along that along the decides that it's about his property a privacy fence if they were to put that up especially during all this construction and it sounds like years of construction that would be an issue personally I would like to see that road moved Pacific moved to adjacent to my property so that I can put a driveway in to get into the back of my property that is helpful for me thank you there 's one more question because there's a question here I think the years of construction I think I think might be confusion here years I think they're talking about the years of the other process in the process with they have to go through with the ADP change as well as the final plotting I don't think only the construction will take years I think it will take time so I don't think I'm like years and the applicant could definitely speak to that my understanding from mr. strange is they're gonna build one building and see how it slowly goes then build another one sure that's that's just common sense would you rather have the current existing dilapidated house and yard in tenants next to you or would you rather have a commercial property with commercial tenants that come and go between the hours eight and five I would like to see Denton require these people to maintain their property the way it should be maintained for a hundred year old house to allow that to look like that and have that those type of not the present tenants but the ones that he had before that that's true so a perfect world you'd like to see the residential tenants there now but there was stricter code enforcement to make those tenants yes leader and concise I've had some discussions with code enforcement how'd that go I don't know very well I was not impressed so with that in mind if you don't think code enforcement's gonna do anything what would you rather have I would like to see the folks who are paid to do their job do it okay it's fair enough I agree with you I think folks are paid the job should do their job but I think I just want I want to understand the reality of the situation we're in now so thank you mr. Uos I appreciate you welcome thank you thank you there's no other questions no other questions the next speaker is Wendy is it Rausch we can we can I bump you to the end we'll continue then Chris is not next just one second we have actually Kim McGibbon if you want to speak you to state your name and your address my name is Kim McKibbin it's 1306 West Hickory Street I have several concerns about this I was concerned about it when it first came up and I first saw it come across the thing I was concerned when the signs weren't placed properly I think that what you've got here is two separate requests and for expediency and whatever else reason they were they were combined together I disagree with miss Vessets analysis of the area in that everything's already there and it's all going to go commercial I know that they would like for it to go to commercial but it's going to be really difficult to change the graveyard park to a commercial investment on that corner I do appreciate the work that they've done there although I did enjoy the houses with the goats in it 34 years ago you know the bank looks nice I agree with that I am extremely concerned about giving up Pacific Street any public right-of-way at this particular point in time the development of the city where we are seeking out every square inch that we can get for bicycle lanes and sidewalks and those sorts of things to give up public right -of-way anywhere in the city concerns me I think that we're looking at multiple things in small area plans that the citizens want I do appreciate that they were able to buy this property with a sense of investment I am appalled that they allowed the property to deteriorate as landowners and the property owners and it does you know bring into question why would you just let it sit there and rot why would you allow that to happen in this neighborhood into these people to these neighborhoods I think that you guys have got a really really tough choice on your hands I understand that you've been tied up before I think that there's a lot of work and a lot more explanation that needs to happen on this request that it could be simplified it could be clarified you have parts of it now where if you want to move Pacific Street and surrender that I think that you're getting more and more into a big fat mess the more you wade through it so you know as a citizen who's involved in the future of Denton and knowing what I don't know exactly what is going to happen but this could be could be handled differently and more appropriately at this point in time so I don't know if that's for or against I would say in my if you want to ask me right now am I speaking for or against this particular thing as it stands I would say I'm standing against it okay that wasn't my question because I was wondering what you wrote in your cards that depends I just didn't know what that's right we're going and if in the planning and zoning meetings sometimes I don 't know if I'm for or against until I hear the other people that that contributing to it sure so at this point Tom you can register my vote is against I appreciate that thank you I do not see any questions next will be Christopher and I apologize in advance club Bundy if you just state your name and address for the record yes sir my name is Christopher club Bundy my address is 418 maple Street I live there with my wife and my two twin eight month old girls and so I have a more of like a qualitative subjective input to give I've been a renter in Denton for nine years I've lived in several places that I would consider affordable one was on the corner of Hattie Street and McKinney that house has been demolished I was paying 775 a month two bedroom one bath that place has been demolished and actually office complexes were just built there I lived over off of Robertson Street across the street from Fred Moore High School for about two years and then after my wife and I got married we were lucky enough to find this spot on maple that we really like because we're able to have access to surrounding food and entertainment we take our babies in the stroller down Maple Street at the at the moment there's no sidewalks but the traffic is is relatively light enough to where that's not an issue we cruise down Maple Street and take a left on Pierce and we'll cruise down Highland the properties in question are beautiful and have tons of residential potential the property just across the street from us that I look into from our our front window our living room window has a giant pine tree and the whole the whole lot is just absolutely majestic and I can see a lot of potential there if the property were to change ownership I am speaking on behalf out of concern for neighboring homeowners and tenants who might experience an increase in rent due to a property tax increase which inevitably gets passed down to tenants like me and I also just express concern like I say about enjoyable and appropriate use of space I think that residential makes a lot of sense to me as of someone who's young father experiencing it firsthand and who who is really blessed to be able to afford that space so that's how I have to contribute thank you thank you I do not see any questions appreciate you speaking next will be Wendy Roush if you could just speak your full name and address them great my name is Wendy Roush I live at 416 Maple Street sorry I'm short I did attend the meeting feel like some of the information they gave me was stretched but I'm limited in time so I'm gonna move through this I went door to door nobody knew the meeting was going on or said they saw the mailer they probably just threw it out or something so no one there was no neighborhood awareness of this meeting's going on at all I only had one day to do it from when the meeting was but I talked about 30 people small businesses and residents half of them really didn't have an opinion because they said they didn't have enough information at that time the other ten people I spoke with filled out the survey they were a hundred percent against it so I also found out some things that were pretty upsetting about the neighborhood I'm just gonna skip to the end so I make sure I can say this and then go back over some of my other points to her question why didn't they maintain the property as I was going around the neighborhood the number one complaint from the developer is as our neighborhood has these torn up you know these disrepair houses and it's full of convicted felons but as I went to her door I found all these felons and all the bad houses and disrepair were owned by one person John Kelso them they bought up these residential properties with intention to change the zone to put it DCG they packed our neighborhood full of felons and now they're going around telling us that our neighborhood is shitty and full of felons and we need them to save us by tearing down the houses that they caused the problem in so that was a little upsetting that there all these bad houses they're bringing up are their own all these felons are the people they ran into and now they're like we got to get these people out so I feel like that was manipulative but the other thing is there are people who've lived in those houses I spoke with an old woman her father built the house in 1945 and as far as the business owners around there go they're saying it's a tone deaf development it doesn't really go this if there's gonna be three colleges there and then it's part of the square which is entertainment and dining these office buildings aren't going to offer any of that to any of those people around there so it's kind of just slightly miscategorized and so they were all against it on that trying to see them but just really I feel that it is that I also realized that a down Maple Street up Myrtle and up Pierce on the other side most of those houses have bought been bought in large chunk by other developers that are renting them as residential now and once we flip this zone they're gonna apply for their change and it's gonna keep going so this will be an encro achment on some of these houses and that there are already people in play buying up large chunks so that they can apply after they get their zone change so I feel like that's a special part of the town a lot of the business owners would like to see people come back who went to UNT maintain those houses well open up businesses that serve the public who live here because when people who live in the area actually live there and own the property and work in the businesses there's more concern for the town as a whole as when people in Houston or outside people just buy it up for profit only and I'm sad to say I feel like that's the way Denton's going right now all the land has been hoarding and bought by investors and so I have said if they move the thing I would be for it but once I found out that they are the ones that packed the neighborhood with felons and let their houses fall to disrepair and then blamed it on us I'm not for it because I feel like that's a little underhanded but and also everyone else's points about traffic and everything is valid my time is up thank you very much I do not have any other cards but we do want to provide an opportunity to anyone who wants to speak and certainly do so with that we can just continue on to any sort of discussion amongst the commissioners and or a motion Commissioner Smith I think mrs. Rauch's points are valid and I really appreciate you coming out and doing that and more above all else I appreciate you going door-to-door especially especially especially if from the last time you spoke you were afraid of people who in your neighborhood for you to be brave enough to go around and do that with the with the sure hey I'm just I'm just comm ending commending you on your actions sure I appreciate I appreciate your comments in it I'm gonna make a motion for approval so we can try to get a vote on this and here's my reason why is not necessarily of an approval of the project I think there's been a lot of points made by the public that make this really tough to try to truly approve for in a true legal proceeding in a hung jury situation when there is in a court a criminal case there are six people who are seeing as guilty and six are seeing not as guilty a hung jury it's declared as a mistrial and Jerry don't kill me for trying to butchering any legal comments here but in a hung jury there's a mistrial is declared so that a new jury can be created to then come in and review the trial at that point in time we as we've talked about during work session but we as a commission are we're hung last time willing to see if we're gonna be hung this time or not if we are hung then I am I would like to have this go on because us as a commissioner body do not make make a break and approval of this we make a recommendation to City Council to then let them decide I would see it being prudent of us as a commission to pass this on with no supermajority type of procedures attached to it to allow a seven-person City Council to then decide with no possibility for a tie to decide what's gonna happen with this project I think that's pr udent of us as a commission and so therefore in that in mind I make my motion to adopt an approval with staff recommendations for conditions the building height should not exceed two stories or 30 feet in height as well as uses on the parcel can be restricted to office use only thank you for that motion Commissioner Sanchez respond to the motion what I wanted to do was speak on the issue when I look at this city like Denton cities aren 't static they constantly change and I think when we look at this area right here if you look at the two blocks that that though the one we're talking about and the one east which is where the what he called it where the apartments have been built that has all turned into commercial except there's two houses except for the corner lot that house has been torn down but everything else within across the street is commercial and when you look at the area we're talking about again I see us as planning for the future and I hear people talking 30 40 years ago we had ducks walking around you know we're not living 30 40 years ago we're living and we're trying to develop the city with future ideas this whole area has has really developed I've seen it in because I live in that area but I mean I guess I'm just saying is we have to look at what not just say this is what it was 30 years ago but what's happening today you have Carol Boulevard there you have Eagle and then you've got Elm Street very heavy traffic a lot of businesses are going in that area so I would vote for it and that's because I don't see I don't see us going backwards I wanted to see the city go forward and and like I said the last time eventually every you know just because we bought a house 30 years ago things change and and the community changes and we have to be acceptable to the fact that communities change and and people are things are changing in certain areas I that's all I want to say is the cities are dynamic and we have to look at that and plan for the future Commissioner Beck thank you vice-chair I'm gonna oppose this move mainly for the reasons I stated and I'll say it again that this is an encroachment on an established neighborhood moving forward doesn't always mean it has to be a convert commercial development and I don't disagree that office spaces there's a demand for it doesn't have to be here down the road this could be a good development for this thing it could stop right there we've done a lot of people would like to believe that I think partially I do too but we didn't nobody knows the future for certain and what I want to send a message here is that we want to stop this potential encroachment before it goes any further because down the road again it can be used well we did this year a little bit more isn't gonna hurt and this is a fine old established single-family residential neighborhood I'd like to see the stay as it is so for that reason I'll be opposed in this motion and just for a point of order before I call Commissioner Sullivan I'm gonna go ahead and second the motion and we can open up for discussion Mr. Sullivan thank you I sure I like to respectfully disagree with Commissioner Sanchez change doesn't always have to happen change doesn't always have to go from one extreme to the other just because the property is there quote to be developed doesn't mean that it always has to change from one type of development to another type of development just in the name of progress I don't think that that's what we're here for you know is this proposal in keeping with the surrounding area I mean that's what we've got to look at is does this provide people around it comfort and knowing that they 're not going to be slowly gobbled up by commercial buildings and I just you know I think that you know I just think that other things could be done there could be developed there mr. strange I know you've done a lot of residential building and and you know you've got expertise in that area I would like to see something we're to incorporate the old structures the old houses that are there and and somehow revitalize the area instead of changing it completely from neighborhood to business and so that's you know that's my concern that we just automatically defer to the developer rather than looking at the greater good so to speak and again this is no disparaging you know mr. strange I've known you a long time so it's not it's not you or it's just this situation I just don't I just feel like that at some point we've got to say enough is enough thank you mr. Ellis thank you vice-chair yeah you know I can't get on board with this either I appreciate the concessions of the overlay I appreciate the communications that you had with some of the neighbors and I certainly appreciate access bank and all that it does for the community I'm not discounting that however I can't get on board with the removal of five residential homes that are inhabited whether or not they're in disrepair perhaps that's a code issue that we need to be addressing we don't address a code issue with a zoning change in my opinion I understand the need for more parking that's an issue with many businesses but again I don't believe the way we go forward here the way a smart way is to grow is to displace people that's not certainly what I'm here to do if this was vacant land possibly I would feel differently I'm not sure but this encroachment gobbling up these five houses whether or not two of them are already zoned the way you are requesting this encroachment will collapse the rest of that neighborhood in very short order and I just can't be part of them so I'm gonna hop in here before I turn the mic over to the Commissioner Sanchez of first appreciate everyone coming out twice now to be vocal and to provide insight and context to what's happening in that city block and I've tried my best to take notes and understand all the pros and cons and kind of t-chart this out in terms of the development and so with that here are my thoughts I did second this I'm in support of it but but here's my thoughts is the city went back with the applicant and there's neighborhood meetings and it determined that five there's five general concerns about the property so if we go backwards if we're just look at them the lack of a neighborhood meeting with surrounding property owners the applicant did that the use permitted under DCG zoning district the applicant conceded to an overlay that is more restrictive than the dr1 that's currently there in terms of height the next one is the maximum height of 100 foot building was concerned they addressed that the proposed exit on Maple Street they try to think creatively about what to do with that and the first one listed was the loss of affordable housing shouldn't this request be permitted and that last one we cannot protect with this vote our vote in no way protects these five houses as much as I understand the position you want to protect them they could demolish to as soon as the least and legally they can and put up a office there or on the other three properties they could do duplexes home occupation they could put a church lodge club child care or adult daycare kindergarten or elementary school they can do that by right and so regardless of our vote tonight in this first item about loss of affordable housing I'm certainly not a prop onent of getting rid of hundred-year-old homes that are salvageable and we can keep the history alive but this this vote of not rezoning that is not a protection of those five homes so I just don't the the substantiation of that merit is a little bit lost on me in terms of us protecting that the other things I heard was traffic on Myrtle on the eastbound I haven't driven over there but on the eastbound there's a massive apartment complex that half of the traffic is displaced on Myrtle currently so maybe it's an issue with engineering to look at that street but I don't think the parking on the west side from garden offices is going to highly impact Myrtle more than the apartment complex and speaking of the apartment complex the three homes in discussion that abut Myrtle on the east side their front doors face a four-story building right now and so I don't know if we're protecting the neighborhood good by leaving three homes in the shadows of of dense residential and so there's there's a lot of things compounded in this decision and it's it's not a fun decision that I would I would say this is a joy like we will have later tonight and a vote but I think this is a necessary one it's one that the applicant has been working on for for ten years to try to get to this point I certainly understand the ADP requirement and the conjunction of these two properties is is what is required to allocate the parking and so I think the applicant has answered the call that the city has made and the the citizens have have put forth and done I think a stellar job of meeting those things and trying to provide concessions so with that again I second that and then I'll give it to you Commissioner Sanchez yes I just wanted to mention that you know we talked about affordable housing but how new housing is being built here in Denton all you just have to go to the north everywhere in Denton you see new housing being developed and as new housing gets developed older neighborhoods become more affordable and I think that's what I believe in the city being dynamic not everything is going to stay the same so as the city develops more housing is being created more affordable housing is also being created in other neighborhoods you know some neighborhoods I used to live in North Denton and and those areas 30 40 years ago those houses were probably prime people that own it own those homes you know we're of had money today people are buying those houses for four or five bedroom homes because they were built back in the 60s much cheaper and so what I'm saying is things change and that's what we have to look at long term Christian thank you vice chair just a couple of comments with regard to to your comments a no vote on this does not protect these homes as you said for forever but a yes vote does most definitely destroy them and that is what I am not willing to do you know our city the city doesn't just go forward with constant commercial development commercial development is obviously and utterly important to our city's growth but without citizens making it go doesn't work we have a first and a second I see no other request to speak so with that I will call for a vote on the board this is a motion to approve with the conditions set forth from the city the motion fails three three Commissioner Beck I move we denied them does the 1800 for me and do I have a second Christian Ellis second Commissioner Smith thank you vice chair can I ask the applicant to come back to the mic mr. strange please I just have a quick question for you seeing as how this happened last time and and and there was some ruffled feathers when it went to tie tie and it goes to tie tie and it looks like we might have ourselves another tie tie what is what do you as the applicant plan to do if we do become a three three tie again during this denial if we if legal goes forward and says just like the last time we'll have to wait and have an inaction here not necessarily a table but an inaction nothing can be can be done on this there's no motion on the floor what would what would you as applicant do in the interim well I don't think that's bad my priority seniors what I think I'll do I think your job is easy to approve it or deny it and I will I'm a big I'm a big guy been around a long time so I'll deal with what if your decision is so if you deny it I'll figure out a way but if we don't deny it if it goes to a three three tie again there's no way there's no action take his motion was to deny of course and if and if there's three commissioners who vote yes to deny and three commissioners who vote no to deny then there's not going to be any motion on this that's what it probably turns to a legal action and then legal actions gonna have we're gonna gonna say what they said last time which is we don't have a city code enforced and feel free to jump in here whatever you want to Jerry there is no there is no city code to enforce what force there to be done anything done until us as a commission are a hole to where there's no longer a tie available which we'll never get to because we have a recusal in this case well I see they're having a conference just wait a minute I 'm gonna ask city it's a way in here for clarification okay just for clarity what what has happened is is that we had a motion to approve which which was a three three tie there is a motion on the floor which is a motion to deny and if that motion goes to a three three how the how the rules are written today is that would come back to this Commission when there is a full Commission so it is somewhat circular meaning that it would come back again and what would happen is is again because we have only six members that are going to be able to vote on this will be in the same position so the fact of the matter is is that I think the the options that exist is there's a motion on the floor if that motion on the floor does result in a tie then that's where it's at or another motion to be made or if the motion for denial passes then that would go before City Council and require a super majority vote for it to pass with Council and I guess if I could I'm sorry Mr. Strange my question is is that if last time is indicative of what might happen here in a minute we go to vote does the applicant have any plans in the interim if nothing is done and we're sitting here at a time there's no other motion that could be made tonight does the applicant have any other plans to do anything else to change their application to come back before us you know I think I think I can save us all a lot of heart burn we burn up a lot of time here we burn up a lot of people's energy I will disagree with her comment about nobody knowing about it the city had two mail ings that went out we sent out mailings on the meetings off of the city's list so if nobody got three letters I can't really help that I think to save the heart burn why don't just withdraw my motion I'll go home take a deep breath and figure out what I'm gonna do so appreciate your all's time we do have the right to withdraw don't want mr. Drake I'm sorry I asked to withdraw your application yes yes I withdraw my application and good night so at this point city we do not need to take a vote if there's been a withdrawal well let me let me clarify what I just said moment the application has been brought forward you could certainly withdraw your application that doesn't necessarily mean that the city has to let go of the zoning case as a result of your withdrawal but the city could I mean the the the Commission could go ahead and decide not to proceed if that's what they chose to do motion on the floor is one to deny you could go ahead vote on it we need a vote before that we have Commissioner Smith so essentially what you're saying legal is that if it goes to a tie then the case is no longer no one's bringing it forward anymore after this tie the applicant could withdraw their application after this motion is right yeah it's a really unusual case that if the city wanted to continue on with zoning the the property even if the applicant doesn't want to that they theoretically they could do that and I think that's what mr. strange was asking I don't think that that's likely to happen okay I do have one more question mr. strange if if we pass a denial if I was to switch my vote you would go directly to City Council and roll the dice there is that of any interest to you to at least get to council because as it stands it's either we will and effectively withdraw it for a period of time or we can push you to council if you'd prefer that I'd love your your feedback on that I don't think that there would be much future for me to go to council for a supermajority okay I think I'd just be right back where I am here so I think I'll just whatever the next steps mr. Drake are necessary to withdraw either before or after the vote I don't want to get stuck in a deal where I can't move anywhere for one year so I guess I've since this is confused and I'm not a lawyer I would ask for your guidance if I do was your do I have to wait for a year before I come back well I think that depends on what the city decides to do I like I said I think that technically the city could elect proceed with the zoning case I don't see that happening when we're got at a 3-3 impasse I'm not seeing a whole lot of desire for the city to to take control of this and to push for some kind of a decision on this at the City Council I think that effectively your withdrawal is going to withdraw the case and it will not stop you from reapplying okay yes Scott and Jerry is it necessary to vote on this or may the question be withdrawn or that excuse me the motion be withdrawn the motion could be withdrawn if that's the desire of the move at commissioner back would you like to proceed with the motion or would you like to withdraw the motion thank you just as a matter of course you stay with the motion and then if he still decides to withdraw it he can at that time but yeah I want to proceed with the motion okay we have a first and second seeing no discussion we'll call vote in the board this is a motion to deny so a yes is to deny a no is to reject the denial that motion fails 3-3 at this time the Plans Oath of Meeting Commission will take no action on the item that will move us to agenda item 4b which is ADP 18-0002 and Ron Magenta will present thank you by share members of the Commission this request is for property located on Bonnie brain North Bar and Bray on property approximately point four seven one acres approximately 200 feet just south of Emory Street the applicant is requesting a an alternative development plan that is to develop a medical building unfortunately due to the site constraints lot configuration as well as easements the applicant is requesting to deviate from four sections of the development code those sections are listed here they address buffer requirements parking requirements landscaping and screening requirements per parking in front as well as tree tree requirements the first deviation is buffer requirements the code requires a type C for property that is a non residential use adjacent to a residential use and that requirement is 10 trees and 43 shrubs the applicant is as part of their mitigation award request is to plant five trees that are acceptable under DME's acceptable tree list the second is parking in front per the development code parking is not permitted in the front rather it is only permitted in the rear or side for certain situations and in this case this falls under that situation the applicant is requesting to place one row parking an alternative or mitigation to that is planting eight three trees as well as a berm shrub and tall grass along the front as shown here on this exhibit screening standards as relates to parking front also the applicant is requesting an alternative requirement is to propose or to provide a 15-foot landscape area some large trees and other requirements the applicant is not able to meet all those requirements they are proposing to plant trees a shrub a berm and tall grasses as well to help screen for the parking your front and lastly the fourth deviation to the code is the street requirements the applicant is proposing to plant five trees where DME has allowed them to go ahead and propose those trees as long as they meet the trees that are acceptable by them this again is more or less on the on the fence but we want it included in the ADP just to make sure that we have the design correct with that staff did any criteria or analysis of the criteria of approval and is recommending approval based on those criteria and I'll be happy to stand for any questions the applicant is here as well and would be able to answer questions we do have one question Commissioner Smith do you have a chance to I did yes I looked at the the proposed proposed development code there is a provision that allows the director the ability to prove an alternative landscape plan which would address three of the four parking is still going to be required to be on the side or rear but other than that everything else could be addressed with if this development code that is being proposed will pass there is again that alternative landscape provision thank you wrong I do not see any other questions thank you the applicant is here mr. Lee Allison do you speak your name and your address for the record you will have ten minutes to speak from beginning there we go good evening I'm Lee Allison with Allison engineering group with me this evening is Lance Hordorf our project manager Kent Key could not be here at the moment Ron has done an excellent job I'm certainly not going to use ten minutes I'd like to fill in a few gaps this slide helps demonstrate the restrictions that we're up against to the north and I'm sorry to the top of this page to the east there is a 15-foot alley as mr. Beck noted in the session it is more like a swale but it is legally a dedicated alley does not carry traffic it has wastewater in it and it has electric utility electric distribution line versus the electric transmission lines that are in the front the green at the top of the page is a 15-foot electric eas ement is the green at the bottom of page a little history as Bonnie Bray electric system was put in and the large transmission lines were put in at the time I don't think there was a realization that structures could not be built within 35 feet of the pole line of transmissions or 17 and a half feet of the pole line of distribution lines so when you put a pole in an easement right next to the easement line you're taking part of that person's property as a result the city went back through there and purchased easements those green strips primarily to help preserve and make correct the taking of the property that occurred by the placement of poles along those lines in addition the electric easement took up a little bit of green space or that pink space the yellow space is a common access easement the colored space to the left is setbacks and the crossed hatch strip that almost goes completely across the middle that's the area that's available for constructing a building this was in set up by a plant that was intended to show the set the pattern for development from the south to the north with the easements already on it brought this plant just as an example of that this was actually a replant even though it says final plat you can see one of the lots is numbered one are symbolizing a replant replant final plat for all practical purposes is the same thing this is the site plan that we developed it has the building in the middle of that strip we have some parking to the right this site could not handle enough parking however there is a shared parking arrangement with the property owner to the south the maximum use of that property would be medical which would be one space for 200 square feet that would require 25 spaces they have 39 that leaves I got that right 17 leftover and we're gonna be using up to at least 15 left over we're gonna use up to to bring the dry ball through so we'll have 12 spaces available to us and we only need 10 to make up the parking on our space additionally the parking in front we're doing with pervious pavers to enhance the landscape characteristics of it if you look at our site let me see if I can manage this that's an existing residence it's on the northern part of our site vacant land in between that residents will go away body bray is really not conducive to have residences along it particularly with the drives that back out we feel like this is a reasonable and responsible transition it wouldn't be the better homes this is the alleyway that's between the property behind us and our site people have built homes have built fences on either side but you can see the alley coming through people have put a few trees here and there and then we've got Bonnie brave this can be widened in the future an electric substation we actually feel that our whole tight site in its entirety is a bit of a buffer between the backyards of the residential areas and what's happening the activity on Bonnie Bray Street itself these are some pictures that's the church that's the house to the north of the church that is the medical building immediately south of us they have a little bit of a burn with some landscaping a tree there we think what we're doing is carrying forward what has been done to the south but taking it up several notches not just a single notch the building residential side I'm not sure that's the best terminology I mean we're looking at a 4,000 4200 square foot building that's a big house it's 30 feet tall which could be equivalent to a two-story house when we say it's single-story we're not trying to imply the height of the building so much fact we think the height helps break a buffer to the substation and the tall transmission poles are in front but rather the fact that there's not going to be anybody on the second floor there's not going to be people up there that can look over the fences into the back of the neighboring property so we're going to avoid that we're trying to put some architecture front back and sides that meet the city requirements we think the building itself is an enhancement to the site as to other uses that could be put there regardless a deviation table I don't even though we list the four things we're getting a deviation from we're not trying to go tit-for-tat we're not going straight across and saying well to alleviate this we're going to do these things we're trying as the code says put up a quality site so that site is a combination of things including the plantings one of the reasons we didn't go with as many trees as we could in the back is we didn't feel like they would accomplish it that much with the architecture of the building leaving some tree spacing some room to get around the electric lines we felt like that provided an architectural pleasing vintage versus trying to come in and just pack the place with trees not be able to grow grass underneath not doing shrubs because there's already six foot privacy fence and those wouldn't you wouldn't see them from the back the people they're trying to buffer we did act add an extra tree in the front because that was an opportunity felt like it would do more and also because with the trees allowed in the electric easement they're smaller than normal so that helped alleviate part of that condition as well trying to go for a quality site overall to meet the intent of the code this is not the most extreme use allowed for that location therefore we didn't we think that it needed the most extreme extreme version of buffers and enhancements etc that could be there it's not like we're coming in with a large grocery store mechanical equipment we're coming in with something a little more residential in nature and appearance is compatible it works a good transition architecturally size wise scale wise appearance wise between the backyards of residences that have been established for quite a while a 15-foot alley a 15-foot easement with trees in it then a building then going to parking in the front we looked at putting parking in the back but a parking lot with parking spaces on both sides require 60 feet so that eats way into our development I'm not trying to read through the list but I believe that we have at least in for the most part met the city's desires to have a quality development as an alternative development plan and address the intended purposes and desires of the code in the context of the neighborhood that we're developing in I'll be like yes I got it here questions if you have any I'll be glad to try and answer we do have a couple commissioner back thank you vice chair thank you Lee for your great presentation as usual very good presentation couldn't help but notice you were kind of moving slow coming down those stairs tonight I just want to let you know I feel your pain buddy so signed me up for Camp gladiator within a week I had a pulled muscle and I moved to the top of the list most likely to be eaten by the lions didn't notice I went over looked at the lot and I think this this development's gonna fit it right in the fact that you're doing a lot more to buffer the appearance of it and create that buffer for the parking areas there was some trees some very nice-looking trees they look like they were on that very back line back there but are they gonna have to come down they were some nice canopy trees they weren't some of our grace I believe I thought they were hickory trees I could be wrong but the fact that you're sliding trees I thought those things were right on the line could you put that picture back up that actually showed it from a sky view oh yeah yeah get on the house there that you're gonna take oh we were trying this one what happened because the dumpster regulations we couldn't be out in front so we had to push it further back and I think our dumpster got okay so it is gonna push against where you're gonna have to pull those trees down but still have to put trees up okay all right just thought I'd check on that thank you Commissioner Sullivan thank you vice chair when I initially saw this I thought to myself it's kind of like the people who go into a house buy a house take out all the carpet all the wood flooring redo the kitchen redo the living room do all the study going why did you buy the house if you're gonna be doing all these changes and that's the way I looked at this from the standpoint of well you didn't want to do this code you didn't want to do that code I'm thinking well maybe this isn't the lot for you you know kind of a thing but then when I heard the history of it the fact that zoning changed and that's why y'all have to have back parking is to the front parking like everybody else it made sense to me and so and even your explanation about because I think I made the comment about why not the trees in back if you know everybody else has trees but I understand your point of view so I think that looking at what you have to work with and the fact that it is sort of an oddball zoning situation that was changed after the fact that it looks like you've got a fairly good plan my only my biggest concern is the the parking to the south I mean what kind of an agreement y'all have with those people I mean at some point can they get mad and put a fence up and say you can't park over here anymore I have been told that there is a written agreement and we will need to provide that written agreement with our site plan process to confirm that but my understanding is a written agreement and it travels with the property and they whether there's a fence or not we can always use that common access easement that goes across the front of both to get over there to access those spaces okay thank you I did not see any other questions thank you very much thank you the vice chair will entertain any motion or there is opportunity to discuss coach Alice thank you vice chair I move approval Mr. Smith I second we have a first and a second seeing no discussion call for a vote on the board vote passes 6-0 congratulations that will take us to our public hearing first item and only item is 5 a HL 18 - 0 0 1 I will open the public hearing and Romans already here thank you chair and members of the Commission I have a request here for a historic landmark designation of a house located at 607 East College Street this is a map of the area this property is located just to the east of Texas women's University and these pictures really speak for themselves you the house as it is today is on the right hand side and as it was acquired it was on the left the owners have initiated this request and it is fully rehabilitated property and property and owner occupied and it does meet the criteria several the criteria for designation as you can see from these photographs the owners have put a lot of care into this property the restorative restoration work was done very very well for this home to be around for a lot longer this home was built prior to 1926 in the Prairie craftsman style has been owned by the Boyd family for 70 some odd years and we did a lot of research trying to pinpoint act who actually built it was either built by jh and Mary Pearl Boyd or by Henry Stevens there was a loan that was assumed by mr. Boyd and with an agreement that insurance be maintained on this site if if a property was built there so it happened around that time so as you can see from these photos again the east the west side of the house it's beautifully all redone the addition that you see in the very far back there was done in the in the 50s we believe and the other alteration was at the front porch here as you see it on the east on the right hand side of your image that porch was extended this is how appeared when it was acquired so you can tell that has a lot greater street presence today this shows the level of work and care put in and the siding was all me all the siding except for the lower portion where the brick is is original and the windows are all original and they were all restored as well it was an extensive work on the porch and there's the rear elevation here the interior was also completely dead done redone and modernized this area of town in the 1996 historic resource survey of Denton was mentioned as an area that could be considered for an historic district though there's a mention that there is some of the integrity of the neighborhood had been lost but there are still a few homes remaining in the area this is one of them and that's one of the reasons it qualifies for designation the other is that the Boyd family was very prominent in Houston and I'm sorry in Houston in Dent on and there's a little history you can in the newspaper back then we they write a lot about a lot of things including actually a bankruptcy of mr. Boyd here but the main thing is that they had two daughters who were who went off to college and were influential in the city one of them becoming a Dean I'll show you in just a bit the the other thing I just want to mention here this house was thought to have been built by judge Boyd who we landmarked a house on North Bell near Sherman very recently by judge Bill that the thought was that he built this home for his daughters but it was actually just completely unrelated mr. Boyd this is a home in Dallas that still exists that we know from the news articles that Eleanor Boyd lived in when she was in Dallas teaching on the left here are a couple of images to fraternal organizations that mr. Boyd was active in and on the right you see that Eleanor Boyd became a member of George Washington University's faculty and then later the Dean of Women at Texas at West Texas State College then a little later in September 55 we see that mr. Boyd was up in New York visiting a brother who was a reverend and another brother in Geneva New York as you see from the pictures the home meets a number of qualifications to be considered historic property the really number 12 and 13 are most clear here value as an aspect of community pride and a building or structure that due to its location has become a value to the neighborhood community or the city and we sent out notices to 200 feet and 500 feet we didn't receive any negatives back we did receive one request of a neighbor who wants to landmark their property so there's no opposition to this designation and we recommend that the planning and zoning Commission recommend designation to the City Council I'll take any questions I don't see any questions it is a public hearing you can come to the mic but for those of my old roommate sisters house can you state your name and your address my name is Wendy Roush I live on 418 Maple Street I feel like my old roommate sister lived in this house did they perhaps rented in the 90s and if it is and it was it was built for someone nicer well-to-do man 's two daughters it had beautiful work inside it and it was a lovely house and that's like the inside the windows were like is that the house I don't think this house was ever used as a rental property that might have been one because this went from the Boyd family who had it for 70 years to the current owners who rehabilitated it but it was in that 600 block of college it was further they'd build it for their daughter so they'd actually done a room so maybe it's another house near it that was also built very nicely so thanks for the comment Wendy just I have to request for you to fill out a card for the items that you've now spoken if you could jot that one thank thank you I do not see any questions for Roman is there any discussion where the vice chair will entertain a motion Commissioner Ellis thank you vice chair I will make a motion to approve and thank you Roman for a wonderful as always presentation Commissioner Smith I 'll make a second only because of Wendy Roush's comments we do have a first and a second I do not see any requests for discussion Roman as always thanks for the presentation of these these are the easiest votes I feel on the Commission besides one earlier that one was the easiest this one's the second easiest of the night but it is a joy to approve this and we'll call for vote of the board motion passes 6-0 that takes us to our planning zoning Commission matrix and you wouldn't have any I have one it seems as though it would have been extremely helpful just for the the purpose of understanding a gen item 4a this evening to have had access to the previous ADP it seemed like we talked for an hour only to find out that the ADP said that they were capped at parking so maybe if there is in the future pertinent historical documents relevant to the item that might be it would be helpful for me to have have access to that or a link to go get it so that's all I have any other points of note for the matrix with that we will close our public hearing at 853