Good evening and welcome to the Plan and Zoning Commission
work session for Wednesday August 8th, 2018.
We will open the work session at 5.04. The first item on
our agenda is clarification of agenda items, if any.
Who is going to be running that? Should I call upon someone
?
Yeah, I'll go ahead and do that. I don't know if there's
any...we'll go through, I guess, the clarifications.
Okay.
And if there's any questions on any of the consent items?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. This is for the PP18-007. I just...who's
doing this? Haley?
Sean.
Sean, okay. Can you just refresh us on the status of Mills
Road there? It's a collector's street now, I believe, and
is going to remain one? Or if there's going to be any
improvements?
I can't speak absolutely to that, but I have not heard any
mention of widening that at this time. They are widening
Mayhill.
Right.
But I have heard no mention of doing anything of that sort
to Mills Road.
Okay, so no information as to we'd get maybe a right turn
lane on Mills Road going on to the new Mayhill?
I can't speak to that.
Okay. All right. I thought I'd try. Thanks.
Commissioner Ellis.
You have questions on this item?
I do. Oh, not this item. Sorry, Sean. No. But I do on the
next consent agenda.
Is there any more questions on this item? Perfect.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you. Haley?
Yes. Haley, my question is the way number, the note number
seven is written. So it states the drainage easement is
maintained by the lots that traverse and are adjacent to?
Correct.
Okay, so does that include the lot that's adjacent below
that's not part of this plot?
And if it does, do they know that?
And if it doesn't, then my suggestion would we need to
clarify the line.
Let me pull that up here so we can all see.
Yes, so this is a standard note required in our criteria
manual to be on plats and what it is referring to is
whichever lot the drainage easement is on is the lot that
would be responsible for its maintenance.
That's the intent of the note.
Right, but okay, so there's not like misleading the way it
's written when it says traversed by or adjacent to.
In other words, so you see there's a lot, so lot two has a
drainage easement right on the south side, correct?
That's correct.
So there's an adjacent lot below it, not part of this plot.
I can see your confusion in the language. I don't know that
we've ever encountered an issue with that. This note is
standard language from the criteria manual for drainage.
It would only be for the lots within the within the
boundary.
Well, and that's what I thought.
Right, so I mean my suggestion would be to clarify that.
Maintained by the owners of the lots within.
Subject plat.
Yeah.
Certainly, yeah, and I will say with the updates for the
criteria manuals coming forward, hopefully at the end of
the year, what that's something we could could hopefully
try to tighten up the language on.
I'd suggest it. I mean, it may not be an issue now or that
we've never had it, but it certainly could be, especially
if someone's not maintaining it and it's like it says right
there an adjacent lot and you're adjacent.
So I don't know.
Okay, thanks.
Any other questions on agenda consent.
Haley, if you'd stay up there, can we go to item for be of
individual consideration.
All right, so this is a site plan for an I hop at razor
ranch.
So the request before you, as I mentioned, is to consider
approval for a site plan for an I hop restaurant to be
constructed within the South RR to district of the razor
ranch overlay.
So the subject side is outlined on the map in yellow. It's
approximately one acre. It's currently comprised of all of
one lot and a portion of another lot. There is an amending
plat that's been approved but not yet filed to combine this
all into one lot.
The site, as you can see here is located along the frontage
road of I 35 fairly adjacent to the new convention center
for reference.
So the base zoning for this area is the regional center
commercial downtown district. However, as we've seen many
times before the razor ranch overlay district shown here on
the map encompasses this area and provides additional
criteria on top of that base zoning.
So what we see here, the subject property outlined in red
is part of that South RR to district that's intended to be
kind of the perimeter street commercial development within
razor.
Within the razor ranch overlay all site plans are required
to be considered by the planning and zoning commission for
approval. There are standards outlined in the overlay
district itself for architecture landscaping and signage.
The following things that we'll look at here the site plan
the landscape plan and the building elevations are all
specifically required to be considered by the planning and
zoning commission.
The overlay district provides criteria for approval. Those
being that the site plan complies with that concept and
schematic plan that we just saw this being in that are to
district and being a permitted commercial use that it
provides for compatible arrangement of buildings that
wouldn't adversely affect properties outside of the overlay
district.
That there is adequate and safe circulation for vehicular
traffic and that it complies with all the other criteria of
the overlay. So we'll run through some of these highlights
of the criteria that are outlined in more detail in your
backup.
Looking at the site plan, you can see in blue, the
approximate building square footage of 4621 square feet.
Within the razor ranch overlay, they are precluded from the
maximum parking requirements of the city. So their minimum
is 47 based on the square footage of the building. They are
providing 66 parking spaces for the restaurant.
And as you can see here, access to the site would be from
one drive aisle onto an internal street within razor ranch.
So no direct access to the frontage road.
Looking at their landscaping plan, the site is required a
minimum of 10% landscaping. Overall they have 26% provided.
They're required to have a 25% tree canopy and what they
provided is 46%.
Apologize the highlights that are on the map there got a
little bit off but you can see the general areas. Christian
back. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Quick question while we've got this up. So the entrance is
going to be from the back of the building. Correct. Okay,
and the green we're seeing there then is going to be
covered.
I'm assuming those are trash bins in the back there. Well,
as I mentioned, the highlights are a bit off on the screen
here. They shifted apparently on this computer versus mine.
That's intended to highlight the landscape areas on the map
. These are the dumpster locations in the back. So they'll
be concealed though as you're pulling them? Correct. Yeah,
they will have a screening wall around these, but the
access will be from this one driveway.
Great. Thank you. And one of the other main criteria for
the razor ranch is the plaza area. So based on the square
footage of the use, one square foot of plaza areas required
per 10 square feet of building.
So they were required a minimum of 462 square feet of plaza
. They've provided 604 that would be roughly here in front
of the building in what was intended to be outlined in
yellow. And the elements they've provided within that are
benches, shade trees and additional landscape plantings.
Here we can see the building elevations. They've met the
base criteria for razor in terms of color being the neutral
earth tones. They do have some accent colors as you can see
here and they are providing the kind of standard limestone
that's featured throughout all the buildings at razor.
So with that staff is recommending approval of the site
plan request. We found it to be compliant with all of the
criteria within the overlay district as well as the
criteria for approval that were discussed here.
I could stand for any questions. Christian back. Thank you.
Just curious, are they closing down the other high hop,
because you're going to have to I have something less than
a mile from each other.
Huh, it's too much I have for anybody. No, just curious. It
is my understanding that this would replace the I hope that
's currently by you and T, because they were asking for that
extra parking place I just assumed that they would take it
below from them.
Okay.
Thank you, Haley and I think you have the next one as well.
All right, this request is for an alternative development
plan for a parking lot expansion at the faith tabernacle
church.
So, this ADP is kind of twofold it's intended to amend a
previously approved ADP from 2010, as well as to provide
for some other deviations from the landscape requirements
of the development code.
So the site is outlined here in yellow it's just under
eight acres total located at the southwest corner of Audre
Lane and Latimer.
The site has a base zoning of NR for districts that's
neighborhood residential for in 2010 as I mentioned an ADP
was approved for this site.
When the church came in it inhabited an existing school
building, and with some of the upgrades they found that
they needed to deviate from some of the code requirements
that being the 50% tree canopy coverage that was required.
In lieu of that what the planning and zoning Commission
approved at the time was that they preserve all existing
trees on the site I believe there were approximately 54
trees at that time.
And then they added to the canopy by providing the required
street trees and internal parking lot trees.
They also requested to deviate from the type C buffer
requirement, there are single family residences on the west
and south adjoining properties.
And so that requires a type C 15 foot wide buffer. In lieu
of that they increase the total landscape area for the site
40% minimum was required, they provided 65% landscaping
overall to provide a greater separation between the church
and the surrounding residences.
Some of the requirements for that ADP were that in addition
to the approved deviations.
The applicant maintain the landscape and tree canopy areas
provided as well as not increase the number of parking
spaces on site.
So to deviate from this requirement, the method would then
be to amend the ADP, as we're doing here tonight.
So this tables intended to summarize all the elements of
this ADP. So as I spoke to, they were required 50% tree
canopy for the NR for district.
What they was previously approved was the preservation of
those trees as well as the new parking lot and street trees
.
What they're proposing with this amendment is to maintain
all of the existing trees. So the original trees on the
site as well as their plantings in 2010, as well as to
provide the additional required parking lot trees and
screening trees to screen the parking lot from the right of
way.
That would increase the total tree canopy for the site to
30%.
The type C buffer that was required by the code, as I
mentioned, they were allowed to not provide those buffer
plantings in lieu of providing additional landscape area in
2010.
What they've requested now is to add an additional 83
parking spaces to the site that would decrease the total
landscape area to 58%.
So they would still be well above the 40% required, but it
would deviate from what was originally approved.
And the other element that is new with this request that
wasn't addressed in 2010 is the screening requirement for
parking that's located between a building and the street.
So the code outlines a number of elements that have to be
included in that screening. It has to be a 15 foot wide
area, contain a berm with a maximum one to four side slope,
and then have either one large tree per 40 feet or three
small trees clustered every 30 feet.
And then in addition, it has to have either zero escaping a
continuous shrub row or some sort of wall with a minimum
height of three feet.
Christian Smith.
Thank you, Mr. Currently right now what parkings on the
site as of right now, I'm asking for an additional 83 how
many parking spaces are now, they have 103 spaces.
Okay, I didn't hear that earlier. If this was in a
traditional spot rather than an NR4, this is like an NRMU
or somewhere else, you know, some other commercial use.
What, what parking requirements would be needed for this
square footage size of building.
The required parking is just based on building square
footage so it's the same regardless.
Regardless, okay.
My understanding and the applicant will be here to speak to
this more tonight I believe was that they've always planned
to have this number of spaces that they needed.
The funds just weren't there at the time to provide that
when they first took over the existing school building.
Okay, they fall into any of our current code requirements
for that to use some sort of per per unit material have to
do anything like that.
No, based on what they provided to us on their site plan,
the number of classrooms in the building the number of
seats within the chapel, all of the spaces that they're
requesting our marriage just straight concrete and they'll
be fine.
Yes, that's correct.
All right. So with the front parking screening that I was
referencing that because of the existing site conditions,
there's a large detention pond in between the parking lot
in the street on Audra, as well as a drainage easement that
runs along the frontage there they they weren't able to
provide all these required elements
when their engineer assessed the site he found that they
couldn't provide the required barb without greatly
affecting the site's drainage pattern.
So what they've proposed is to widen the landscaping
screening where they can so to widen that 15 feet to 20
feet in the areas that aren't affected, or that wouldn't
affect the drainage easement.
And within that to provide a continuous double row of shr
ubs in lieu of the single row. And then they provided one
tree for every 25 linear feet instead of one tree for 40
feet.
So we'll look at those elements. Now, you can see here the
existing church building, all of these parking spaces
outlined in yellow are the new spaces you can see they
already had a large number of spaces on the site.
This would take them from 28% lot coverage currently to 34
%.
Looking at the landscaping in blue I tried to outline as
best I could the drainage easement that's on the site. Like
I said there's a large detention pond within that that they
were, we're trying to work around.
So in the areas highlighted in green, they have widened the
required landscape area to 20 feet as I mentioned, and then
increase the amount of plantings within that area.
The landscaping would decrease 7% from what's currently on
the site with the addition of this impervious paving, and
then the tree canopy would increase by 7% with the
additional screening and parking lot trees.
So the code outlines these criteria for approval of an
alternative development plan, the preservation of existing
neighborhoods, this being an expansion of an existing use
that's been there for many years.
Staff didn't find any concerns or any anticipated negative
effects from allowing it to continue there. Assuring
quality development, what they've requested we found isn't
necessarily to lower design standards, it's to work within
existing site conditions and provide as much as they can to
meet the code.
And then focusing new development to activity centers. This
wouldn't be in any way contributing to scroll as I
mentioned because they're just expanding their existing use
on the site.
The other two criteria being ensuring infrastructure can be
adequately provided. The site has already served with
access as well as utilities, so we didn't find any concerns
with that.
And then resulting in an overall high quality development
that meets the intent of the code.
What we found is the proposed screening elements go above
and beyond what would be required in terms of the number of
plantings.
They are continuing to preserve all of the existing trees
on site as well as increase the canopy. Really it's due to
the large acreage of the site that it's quite hard to
provide 50% coverage with tree canopy on an eight acre lot.
And then the overall landscaping is still well in excess of
the 40% minimum that's required.
So staff is recommending approval of this request as we
found it met all of the required criteria. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
See no questions. Thank you.
The next item would be public hearing 5A and I'll invite
Sean Jacobson to present.
All right.
When you are.
It's all yours. All right.
Good evening vice chair and members of the planning and
zoning Commission.
This evening I'm bringing a request for rezoning from john
Featherston on behalf of victory and 288.
The proposed site is a point 744 acre site on the southwest
corner of loop 288 and East University Drive. The request
is to rezone from the current neighborhood residential
mixed use to a commercial mixed use zoning.
The site in question is currently a commercial vacant site.
If you see there we have one vacant building and some out
buildings. That's the view from the road you can see our
sign for tonight properly posted.
The request currently it's a neighborhood residential mixed
use zoning as you can see there to facilitate their rede
velopment they'd like to go to a community mixed use general
zoning.
So the two criteria we consider when looking at a rezoning
are in DTC section 35.3.4 B does it match the future land
use plan and does it allow for if we permit it will we be
able to provide the appropriate public services public
facilities.
So going to the first criteria we want to look at the
future land use map.
As you can see there the subject property is well within
the community mixed use future land use area that's
intended primarily for mix of uses that has a commercial
focus and the community mixed use general zoning that's
proposed would fit with that because it does in fact allow
for mix of uses that are commercially focused in nature.
The CMG zoning is appropriate in terms of the permitted
uses and scale development there and by contrast the
current zoning neighborhood residential mixed use is more
of a residential focus it's not a great fit it's a as you
can see we expect that more to the south there.
The CMG zoning would fit better with the future land use.
However, future land use map isn't it's not infallible so
we want to look at what's on the ground right now.
Currently the adjacent uses are primarily commercial or
vacant. So again, CMG being commercially focused would fit
with that.
And the site itself is at the intersection of two primary
arterials loop 288 and university drive CMG is designed for
allow for uses that need good access and obviously it with
two primary arterials, you have great access.
So it does actually fit both of those categories, the
adjacent uses and the actual site location.
The second element would we be able to provide the public
facilities public services if we accept this rezoning, as
already noted it has good access to primary arterials.
Water is provided on site as a sewer, and it's a previously
developed location.
We did send out courtesy notices 200 500 feet receive no
responses.
Taking all that into consideration staff recommends
approval it meets the criteria we look at it meets the
location to primary arterials, and it's compatible with the
adjacent uses.
And with that said, happy to answer any questions. Mr Smith
, they must share Sean are they similar to both is planning
on doing some expansion or remodels what are they doing are
they planning to sell do you have anything from the
applicant to know what why their request for the zoning is
coming in.
Now, Zimmer a Kubota is the property to the south there.
The south of that location.
The one this is the undeveloped. So what is, what is that
right there is that the is that the, that, that, that don't
shop and stuff then or is that the old gas station, it's
the old gas station. Yes, sir.
Understood. Yes, sir. Okay.
Zapping going to be here tonight. Yes, sir. Okay.
Another question I have is, is there any protocol from a
city's perspective to talk to the neighbors of this
property if it seems so clear that that strip should be in
alignment with CMG.
Was there any reaching out to Kimoto or the donut shop that
subway right there to see if they would want to pull
together the reason is that happen or.
That's not a practice I'm familiar with I believe we
generally leave that to owners to come forward with the rez
oning request at the time that they find that to be most
convenient.
I don't see any other questions. Thank you very much.
Absolutely.
So this time we'll go skip ahead to work session report B,
which is a project matrix update. Hold the discussion on
rezoning RD RD five X and rural residential areas to
residential district.
It's all yours Ron.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
My presentation real quickly.
So this presentation is part of a response to requests
regarding rural areas specifically and don't rezoning them
to future residential development.
I think he came from Commissioner Beck on this particular
item.
So as part of that request, we're presenting this this item
.
Just to kind of give the commission a little bit more of an
overview higher altitude wanted to go over really quickly
on the comprehensive plan I know we've got a new planning
zoning Commissioner here as well and just want to be able
to offer that inside as well.
As you all know, then plan 2030 was approved back in 2015
it's our comprehensive plan for the city. As you can see
this is what it's intended for primarily a guide for the
city to use in considering decisions related to to lane use
infrastructure, and the like and I think that relates back
to what we're going to be discussing a few minutes.
It is really a 20 year plan out seeing what what the city
should be wants to be in the future. Moving forward.
The plan itself has 10 elements from lane use to community
character to mobility. There's themes that were used to to
draft the comprehensive plan, all for a mobility community
character, sustainability and community health were
important themes that was used at the end of the
comprehensive plan
there is an implementation chapter that contains actions
that relate back to the goals that were established in the
comprehensive plan.
And as any plan review and updates are necessary and
comprehensive plans tend to be looked at between five to
seven years out so 2015 we're in 2018 so in a couple years
probably revisiting the comprehensive plan.
Within the comprehensive plan there is a community vision
statement, and I pulled this up, because obviously this is
the meat of the plan. This is the community's vision.
And as it relates to a rural areas, there is a particular
section the community vision statement. I know it's hard to
see so I've kind of recreated that section of community
vision statement. And in that section, it's the rural
fringe areas with the rural areas that we have here in the
city.
So the community vision statement states is that those
areas contiguous in the future should be staged in growth,
be physically and environmentally sound, reduce frag
mentation of those areas and reduce sprawl discourage
premature development and conserve as much future
development as possible conservation development is
encouraged, which retains rural character of the area
protects our open spaces and our greenways and views.
Also value our development values are greater, and it's an
offer, it's a way to offer more choices to our residents.
Lastly, there's a there's a bullet there that talks about
safety and compatibility, as it relates to activities in
these areas, primarily, as we look at the air to the west
gas wall and drilling production, specifically.
So, again, within the damn plan 2030 there is a section
that talks about rural areas, rural area is a future land
use designation in rural areas as described as an as areas,
primarily for farms and ran chats, very low density, low in
height, no more than two stories tall,
primarily single family on large lots, which are suitable
for the periphery of the city promotes conservation
development.
When we have the opportunity to cluster homes we should and
conserve areas that are more suitable for open space.
Again, materials, consistent with the natural surrounding
of the area, rural in nature.
So how does that translate to zoning, going a step further
down a rural areas are transferred as you see in this chart
, the area that is in green, our current zoning districts is
the RD five, I'm sorry, yes RD five, and the RC.
I don't see RD five x there because that is not a zoning
district is just a designation so when it, when you look at
rural areas were referring to the RD five and the RC zoning
districts.
What an RD five is, is as zoning district is defined as the
areas that are very low in density in as used for
agricultural uses RC is those areas that are allowed to
have some rural.
I'm sorry commercial uses, such as a general store, an area
where goods can be sold and purchased. And then we have the
rural residential which RD five x, and that again is not a
zoning district is a designation in the x is just to
distinguish the difference
between the two. And these areas that are shown as RD five
x are properties that were recently annexed into the city
and not yet zoned.
And the one and the reason why we have that designation is
the section in our development code, which is stated here
35 16 AG, and that any application that comes in again now
it's in the city so it's annex into the city, and any
application
again, we have to review again something and if there's no
zoning, what do we fall back to, and we fall back to the RD
five as explained here, specifically in the areas or the,
the language that is in green, and I'll just really, I'll
read it real briefly
or quickly that is for newly annexed land that has not yet
been zoned.
Specifically it's identified in the DDC, but also it's our
lowest intense use or zoning district. So it makes sense.
So that's why you have already five x's in certain areas of
the city that were again recently annexed.
So, where are those areas. I had our GIS folks prepare an
exhibit I apologize if it's hard to see here. The areas
that are in green the lighter green our zone already five x
, I'm sorry not zone but rather designated already five x.
The areas that are of a darker green, and even a lighter
green, are your RD. I'm sorry already five in our see. So
you see that almost 111 parcels have not yet been zoned.
There are about 19 that are RD five, and then 12 that are
RC. So the majority of these areas are RD five x, and we
need to zone these properties.
Soon, or they'll remain already five. The intent of when
the property was annex was that the property would be zoned
immediately.
We haven't done that as a city, the applicant or the
property owners that that want to develop haven't done that
they haven't, they haven't needed a need to come in for rez
oning because they haven't developed or if they do develop
there within the parameters
of already five. So, no activity yet on these areas and you
can see the majority of what we see along the periphery of
the city is already five designated as already five.
Next, again telling us that there's not a lot of
development activity there if if there were you'd see them
in in, I think it was last planning zoning Commission
meeting, we had an application, just north of long road,
and that's probably one of the more
recent areas that was rezoned from our zone that is from
whatever RD five x to in our four or six with a condition.
So,
so the reason or the why why do we have already five x is
there were why haven't we done it yet, and I blew this up
here to show you that in 2008.
We annex all this area here has shown primarily as we
receive development activity, north of town and this is the
the Craver Ranch development.
The city initiated a rezoning, I'm sorry, an annexation of
this area, but the Craver Ranch never developed, and
therefore the zoning never took place. So it's been
designated RD five x since 2008.
Another explanation of why we have so many already five x
is, is that in 2010, we the city initiated a involuntary
annexation process of these planning area annexation areas,
you see that we have four planning areas to the north, and
the remaining
RD h, which is referred to as donut holes in the city
started this back again in 2010.
In 2010, the areas in blue or annex into the city.
And again they were never zoned, they were just annex and
so therefore receive that already five x.
In 2010, the, the city council allowed for non annexation
agreements to be issued or to be granted to expire in 2015.
And so, those properties that were not annex were subject
to annexation in 2015.
In 2015, the council approved on some annexation you see
there in green, but also extended those non annexation
agreements for others.
And for another year to expire in 2016.
2016 came around and we annex these parcels that are shown
in purple.
Not all of the properties were annex, the remaining parcels
were again given another extension. And that year is 2020.
So August 2020.
These non annexation agreements of those areas that were
not annex will be subject to again see see council's
determination either to extend it or to proceed with annex
ation.
Commissioner back. Thanks. First year let me ask a question
here because going up there in the northeast quadrant there
, we've still got this.
I guess it's et et j area.
What prevented.
I mean leaving that big hole there what prevented the city
from going ahead and annex and that no come down to your
this way. Yes.
And then you're golfing that rather than leave it open like
that it's like a big old hole in the year that we've been X
what prevented that from being my understanding when they
when they started this process back in 2009.
There was actually PA five here. And then this was another
PA six. However, they decided again council decided to go
forward with this area, anticipating growth happening here,
more likely in the immediate future than these areas so
that was I believe the
reason why they left these out but you're right.
That would make sense but unfortunately they were. They
decided to move forward with this area versus the area to
the east.
Okay, moving forward what kind of prohibitions or
limitations with the city have in in annexing that area is
there going to be some right concern.
I think it's a little higher than that we have the state
just approved the legislation that basically limits or not
limits but rather gives direction on how involuntary annex
ations are to occur, and it is a much more involved process,
which requires
the owners to vote to basically agree. If they don't agree
then elections are scared are required to even to annex
those properties so very unlikely and a little bit more
difficult process.
If the city does decide to go forward with future involunt
ary annexation. Okay, great. Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
In regards to Larry so continue on because it's in the ETJ.
As I understand the ETJ it's a little bit like the Wild
West out there anybody can pretty much do whatever they
want to out there. Is that correct with no not not not very
many restrictions no code code.
Yeah, they would have to follow county requirements. There
's no city is what I should say is no no city enforcement on
anything code wise.
So, with having those types of holes and granted it's a
harder process but having those types of holes hilarious
point now in that northeast quadrant, essentially, pretty
much anybody can go in there and do what they wanted to as
long as it met county land use and design standards
yes, what we, the city does have is subdivision regulations
through an area local agreement with the county. We review
and I think you've seen plats that have come through the
planning zoning Commission for those properties but you're
right, nothing that we can say as far as land use or design
standards.
Thank you.
Okay, so here's here's the, the map that shows all the
areas filled in.
Again, again, based on her, whatever the City Council
decides in 2020.
They'll either move forward with annexation or extend those
non annexation agreements that is yet to be determined.
I threw a couple slides here, just to help illustrate some
of what I'm going to be discussing in the next few slides.
I looked into this back in 1974 the city annex this segment
of university drive this is east of town.
This is mingo and the railroad tracks, and this is again
university.
When they annex this.
They were trying to get out as far.
My understanding is really to extend our ETJ boundary
further out.
They gave it an art to zoning, primarily because at that
time before the 2002 code is probably the lowest intense
use similar to what we have now is already five so they
gave an art to.
Now is that the right zoning for that area.
Probably not. I mean if it's a commercial I'm sorry if it's
a highway a quarter commercial probably a little bit more
appropriate but now that's that's what we have we have our
to along university drive.
Another area is north of town. Again, as you can see, they
extended all the way up as far, you know, pass my lim road,
and again, received an art to zoning back in 2000 or
whenever it was zoned, received the lowest intense use.
And then in 2002 and we zone the entire city and received
an art to zoning district.
Locust is right here. And this is a high.
I 35.
So I show all this to kind of going back to the question.
I appreciate the, the patients here.
The future land use or the, the den plan 2030 has goals in
the land use goals that are in their den plan 2030 is to
grow compactly with purpose, grow with our, our assets and
be resourceful grow with character and balance.
Is a preferred growth concept again in our plan 2030 that
shows the area that we want to see growth happening.
You know, first, and I know that this is just a guy so this
is just take it for you know what it is it's a guiding
document. We see that we want to see areas around the
downtown.
The core primarily basically the core is loop 288 in I 35,
you see that we have major nodes or commercial centers
identified as growth areas.
We see that there are some development here in yellow
towards Teasley and South of town ropes and ranch,
anticipating more development there.
Now that there are also, you know, development, you know,
seen here on coal range the future coal ranch, when that
develops. We also have hills of den so those are the areas,
again, along major corridors and along commercial centers
where prefer growth,
again is preferred, it's a guiding document should go.
Where does that leave all the areas north of town or, you
know, west of town where those non, I'm sorry those are D
five zoning districts or RD five x destinations, go.
It didn't anticipate it so for our purposes are for the
plan 2030.
Development is not going to occur in any time soon, and
that we should focus our growth here, not only that it fits
within the goals but it's it's compact, our infrastructure
is within the core, and we're not extending our, our, you
know, our infrastructure.
Further out where there's, there's not much activities
there, and physically we we can we can withstand some of
that type of development.
That being said, we as you all know we're working on a
draft code update with that is a draft zoning map.
And we wanted to share this with you because following our
land use goals in our development activity that we've seen,
we, we see that the areas to the north to the west, north
and around to the east, you can see that these areas are
still shown in green
and that green is what we refer to as rural residential.
That's what we're proposing, and again, ultimately that
will be brought forward to y'all for your consideration and
City Council for ultimate decision.
But the idea there is that, as, as you look north of town
and West, it's, it's meant it's it's supposed to be rural.
But again, this is the, the, the, the, the plan 2030 is a
guide. The zoning map is a little bit more than that it's
actually in you, you have to comply with the zoning map.
So that's why it's important that we visit this and take
very careful consideration.
And maybe this area here are closer to the loop. Maybe
these areas are not rural areas, and rather rural
residential but should be zone for residential. So, I think
that's where we were asking and maybe that was the question
maybe I went off completely
the rails but if we are thinking of residential along the
periphery of town. This is the time to start thinking about
how we want to zone is as we move forward. If, if not, then
we are going to zone these properties or the draft zoning
of these properties
are going to be our, our which is rural residential, and we
will no longer have RD five x, it will be all zoned.
So that's what we are.
Let's go with Commissioner Smith real fast. Thank you. That
's true.
On the on the our our there where we said the Craven
development was if we'll say there was a suggestion before
we get through the rest of the DC update and do the new
zoning.
There's nothing we can do to maybe even suggest something
that make that zoning more favorable to bring development
towards that way is that something you said we can't can do
is that is that is the.
Is that a commission to you can see if a developer came in
and saw that was our arm.
It basically if there was an hour versus whatever they have
there are are three or four when I knew the new DC says, if
it was an hour for an hour for already.
And would that attract possibly more developers to it
because they would have to go the extra step of having to
rezone from the RR to the R for a message is asking
question to see.
Commission possibly make that area if we feel like that as
a commission that should be developed. Could we do
something now to maybe at least make that area more
attractive for development by getting I think that's a fair
suggestion of recommendation to city council.
The risk is that you need to be right.
Of course, if you hit wrong if you hit the wrong area with
with the intense zoning, then you're not going to be able
to dial that back later. If you find out that it was wrong.
What I think what staff is proposing is a more conservative
approach that would avoid potential liability for down
zoning if we hit the wrong area.
Question. Thank you.
Thank you. I share a couple things.
Once we lose the RD five X RD X and go to our right. Does
that become more complicated than we want to make some zone
changes down the road, then make any more different.
Okay, they would, similarly to what we've seen today with
any zoning change request they would just come in and
submit an application.
Okay, and I agree with your concept that there are just
certain areas that, you know, way off down the road that,
you know, we shouldn't even consider developed but if you
look at this map, you kind of see a pregnancy there where
it's kind of pushing out towards the northeast.
No, within the loop there. Okay, yeah, see how it's pushing
out. And we did bring up that area along long road and how
that area is developing.
You've got residential that's on the, I guess it would be
the south side of the loop, kind of pushing its way towards
that area. And I want to control.
And I think we all should want to control expansion of
residential.
That's why I'm reluctant to expand our three or two or four
out that way but that at least part of that Sherman drive
is what it is, is going to be eventually a primary arterial
because it's going to be widen later down the road.
And I'm hoping we can and I guess the DC rewrite sub
committee to look at it too. That should be to me like
suburban corridor, a mixed use thing where we can get some
commercial development in there first, and then let the
residential follow that, if need be because that's prime
for.
Right. Does that make sense. Yeah, yeah, no, definitely.
And that that again that's the, the, you know, this was a
recent case that the Plains on the Commission heard and,
you know, obviously,
we had this as our, was it the right.
I'm sorry, the future land use designation I don't I don't
want to say that this was already determined but because it
's still draft, but the future land use had this as rural
areas was was that the appropriate designation.
Maybe not but that was just one time I think it was I think
that's changing.
Yeah. And we saw again, the other way you're proven 2015 so
you know there's certain things that have changed. Right.
The other area is concerned about but it's going to be in
that area where there is a lot of growth was that stretch
of University 380 out there, where it's in our to now.
But again we were looking at least on the stretch of
University within maybe 500 feet each side mate, making
that more amenable to commercial development to and getting
rid of that in our to right and then again that's why yeah
that's a good point and I think that goes back to what
Commissioner Smith was referring to, you know, what's more
attractive you know what would what would you know if we
can help you know track businesses. That's part of this
effort as well and you can see that those areas that had an
hour to propose.
It would be more commercial. And so that's what we're
proposing.
Are you good. Commissioner Smith. Yeah, thank you. Chair,
Vice Chair, I think I was saying is that with being our are
we're just kind of letting it possibly just letting
development come as it comes and if it comes and it you
know hey it's sitting our now and you want to build a
commercial here
and then a residential there because patchwork but
essentially as a commission have a little bit of power of
saying, of course, you know to legal advice not making it
too restrictive because they can come in but, but being
able to come in and say something along the lines of hey
let's make it, you know, our one or two,
and we start almost like, you know, flies with honey we
start putting out Hey, this is what we want to see here we
want to see suburban development up this corridor. And so
we want to make this are two and so that would tell
developers that this is not just open for interpretation.
This is what we want out here have let's attract the type
of people that we want to come and develop that to zone
that's already there. So, rather than letting it come as it
may and commissions change over and maybe by the whims of
it, they become as piecework together we can kind of go and
paint the picture of what we want that
there that's, that's true that's true future planning
rather than just being a voting commission.
But in a commissioners but just I just illustrate a little
bit about what you just mentioned. See this area right over
here. You can see my mouse.
That's currently doesn't is RD five x, you know, we see
growth happening on the east side of town as well. And so
we, again, propose our to in that area. Hopefully see more
development correct in that area so but yeah you I mean do
I mean, where and how, in, in which area is
something that I believe the commission can make
recommendations towards.
One thing that particular on that west side I think as we
look at it.
Just given the number of gas wells in that area whether or
not it really makes sense.
So maybe it's maybe it's sort of a lower intensity mixed
use. Again, could be it could be a lot of things but, but I
think if we go straight residential and some of those
particularly out west.
I think we'd be back again for a rezoning change. I'm not
prepared to make recommendations.
I think it's enlightening to know that we could possibly
take a harder look at it and say, here's some here's some
pretty good uses for what's out there is really a way we
get a continuation of this presentation where we do see gas
wells are out here here's
what could be pretty good uses, other than the RR would be
quick we could see an R one or two out here, or there's not
too many gas wells in this area we could possibly see some
suburban development here here there are gas wells here so
maybe lighter mixed use
or commercial use be better there. I think that'd be
beneficial for us to be able to at least give you guys a
direction and recommendation.
Certainly, certainly appreciate it.
That was my presentation unless you all have any other
questions.
Thank you, Vice Chair. So Ron, I think what I hear you
saying is losing the already five x really means nothing
because the city's probably not going to be voluntarily
taking property and we're right with what you're less again
again unless there's a special circumstance,
then, you know, then, then, I'm sure the city would would
consider an involuntary annexation but from what I hear, or
experience I don't think that will be anytime soon.
Does the state law now affect the non annexation agreements
at all. You know that is a question that you know the city
attorney, I have discussed you know the non annexation
agreements were adopted or approved prior to the deadline
or what the, the time that it went effective.
December 1 of last year.
That's still to be determined I can certainly find out and
get a little bit more information and share that with the
commission but I don't have a quick answer.
Yeah, because I guess that my question would be is, if
suddenly we've now taken that property, then what is it.
2020, you know we get in 2020 what that zoning would be.
That's a good question. We probably have to at that point
zone that property. In my opinion, as we, if we do decide
to go forward with annexation, we would zone those with the
appropriate zoning at that time,
and not leave it to any default zoning or default
designation.
Just just to add, if, if there is a use there they can
still continue, I believe under the annexation.
Opportunity. Yeah, well, yes, and at the end of the non
annexation agreement, if it is not extended, then we can
annex at that time. There's nothing that says we couldn't
hold it in a holding pattern similar to an already five x
what we call it now or the idea that it's just
unzoned at that time and subject to zoning at, at some
point but I think that what we're hearing is that staff is
wanting to try to get more out in front of that and try to
anticipate the needs when properties are brought in if at
all possible.
Mr Sanchez. Okay. Yeah, I kind of like that.
Five dx because it kind of leaves that open to, to it well,
the development is we don't. It seems like we want to what
we're hearing is, you want to put in zoning, when in
reality we really don't know how the city is going to grow.
And then we zone it at that point.
It kind of limits what you're going to do and to me it kind
of puts a break on on what he just mentioned is is puts a
break on it scares developers.
I think the idea of you work with it, you work with the
area and see what's happening there and then start
developing it I mean zoning it not come in and annex it and
then say okay we're going to give it this egg is
designation.
I think that's time or time or hands quite a bit. I think,
I think development is something that flows growing of
cities is constantly flowing.
Once we start putting designations, we kind of tie it. And
then we tie our own hands rather than let let the city grow
. I mean, when I say grow I'm saying is we're constantly
overseeing it here in the, what do you call it planning and
zoning, we're constantly going back every five six years
to see what's going on. And then at that point, but just
annex an area and then given the designation I think that
that's limiting our growth and, and then brings, it's going
to bring a lot of more issues.
Point taken. Yes.
See any other questions.
You said your presentation.
Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you.
So before we close out the work session we want to take a
minute, the commission and city staff wanted to honor
outgoing chairman strange for a service to the commission,
and so I'll turn it over to Richard for for more.
We wanted to just thank Jim for the six years of service,
and I haven't been here that that that amount of time but
but I do appreciate having him having him sit as the chair,
particularly coming coming into this position recently.
He's asked him some challenging questions, and obviously
has a different perspective being being from development
community which which makes it, you know, it's good to have
have all those different perspectives.
So I'm sure we will will see you probably in a different
light.
But we did want to offer your or recognize you, but also
offer you a lifetime membership.
Time.
I may sit out in the audience.
A few times and hopefully we'll have the opportunity to
continue to bring projects before this commission as I did
before I got to sit on the commission and hopefully we'll
continue to do so after and
we'll reflect on earlier this morning. First and foremost I
want to just take a few minutes and think peak camp. It's
been six years ago when she called and asked if I would
serve, and she gave me a very good warning.
She said gas wells is coming up so before you consider
taking this you need to know what you're signing up for,
and I agreed to do that and that was a very fair warning
from her.
And then I was honored when Dalton Gregory appointed me two
more times, and again to to serve for six years and so it's
been an honor to serve serve six years prior to being on PN
C with building and standards, or haps go board before
getting the opportunity to serve here at PNC and we'll see
what the future holds. It's didn't the community obviously
I was born in and raised in and work in, and have enjoyed
getting opportunity to serve and maybe there'll be some
other opportunities
that I can continue to give back.
I have a lot of fellow commissioners there's been a lot of
folks that I've had the opportunity to serve with before
you all were here and they'll be. I'm sure a group of very
talented people that will continue to come before this
commission and serve on this commission.
Thank you each of you all for making it a pleasure and an
honor to to be your chairman for these last two years it's
a it's a responsibility and an honor that I've cherished it
sometimes I'm sure I've stepped on some toes.
I'm sorry for anybody that that I may have stepped on too
hard sometime but I hope also that by sharing my opinion it
's helped not only our commission but mostly of all our, our
city.
And your faith in me to be your chairperson and, and thank
you for this honor.
Your presence will be missed for sure. So, best of luck
enjoying your Wednesday nights.
Welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting for
August 8 2018. I'll call this meeting to order at 640
apologize for the delay.
The first order of business is to stand give allegiance to
the US and Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one
individual.
The next item on the agenda is to consider the approval of
the planning and zoning Commission meetings for July 25,
chair will open the floor to a motion.
Commissioner back. I move we approve the minutes.
Commissioner Ellis. Second.
We have first and second will call for a vote on the board.
We vote on the board vote by hands by show of hands those
in favor for approval against abstention.
The vote minutes carry for zero with one abstaining.
Next we have a change in the agenda. We're going to go
ahead and move item for a and cover that now.
Item for is to consider and appoint a member for the
planning and zoning Commission chair and vice chair we had
a chair roll off this evening.
And so that position is being vacated.
The vice chair will entertain a nomination for the chair
position.
Commissioner Smith a motion to point Andrews L is our chair
for our commission.
I appreciate that. Commissioner back. Second.
First and second.
Is there any discussion or do we vote and take another
nomination if it fails.
See no discussion will call this to a vote will do by show
of hands those in favor.
Raise your hand against abstaining passes six zero.
Thank you all very much. I appreciate that.
Hopefully I can serve in a good capacity.
Next we will entertain a motion for the vice chair position
.
Commissioner back. I move we approve commissioner Margie
Ellis for vice chair and commissioner Smith.
Second. Commissioner Ellis do you accept the nomination. I
do. Thank you very much.
With that we will call vote by show of hands those in favor
.
Against abstaining vote carries six zero. Congratulations
vice chair Ellis.
With that we can progress to the consent agenda chair will
entertain a motion for the consent agenda.
Commissioner Smith motion for approval and commissioner
Ellis.
Second we have a first and second is there any discussion
on the items.
With that we will vote by show of hands those in favor.
Against abstaining passes six zero.
Next we have item 4B SP eighteen zero zero one eight and I
will invite Haley for presentation.
Good evening this is case SP eighteen eighteen for I hop at
razor ranch.
The request is for approval of a site plan for an I hop
restaurant to be constructed within the razor ranch south R
R two district.
The site is outlined in yellow on the map. It's
approximately one acre in total.
The site is currently comprised of one lot plus a portion
of a second lot.
The property is going through the planning process to reloc
ate that lot line and make this all one lot.
As you can see it's located along the frontage road north
of scripture street and in close proximity to the new
convention center.
The base zoning for this area is a regional center
commercial downtown.
However as you can see here this entire area is part of the
razor ranch overlay district.
In particular this property is part of what's known as the
south RR two district which is kind of a commercial
commercial perimeter district for the southern part that
would surround the town center.
All site plans for properties within the razor ranch
overlay district are required to be approved by the
planning and zoning commission.
In particular there are architectural and landscape
standards outlined in the overlay district that are
required to be considered as part of this approval.
The criteria for approval of a site plan are that it
substantially complies with that concept plan we just saw.
So this meets that criteria being a commercial use that's
permitted within that district.
The site plan is to provide for a compatible arrangement of
buildings and uses so as not to adversely affect properties
outside of the overlay district.
It's to provide for adequate and safe vehicular circulation
and to comply with all of the architectural and landscape
standards outlined in the overlay.
So we'll look at these in a little more detail now.
Outlined in blue is the apartment building footprint.
It would be just over 4600 square feet.
The minimum of 47 parking spaces are required.
They are providing 66 on site within the razor ranch
overlay.
They are exempted from the maximum parking standard that we
have elsewhere in the city.
And as you can see here there would be a one driveway shown
in gray that would connect to an internal drive aisle
within the overlay district.
So no direct connectivity to the service road.
In terms of landscaping the site is required to have a
minimum of 10 percent landscaping.
They're providing 26 percent generally in the areas shown
in green.
They're required 25 percent tree canopy at maturity.
The trees they're planting would provide 46 percent canopy
coverage for the site.
Another criteria of razor ranch is to provide plaza areas
for pedestrians on each property.
They're providing a 604 square feet of plaza that would
include benches, shade trees in close proximity and then
some additional planters outside the front of the building.
And that area is generally shown in yellow.
Here you can see the building elevations.
So they are meeting the building material and color palette
requirements for razor ranch.
As I'm sure you're familiar with there's a general neutral
earth tone theme that's carried throughout all of the
buildings there.
As well as a requirement for some native Texas limestone on
each of the buildings.
So this is providing for those elements.
With that staff is recommending approval of the request as
we found it to be compliant with all the regulations of the
razor ranch overlay district as well as the criteria for
approval.
And I'd be happy to stand for any questions.
Thank you Haley.
There are no questions at this time.
Thank you very much.
Oh never mind.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you Chair.
Haley you mentioned in work session that there's part of
another lot and the plant has not been filed yet.
Is that on them to file it.
So the plot has been through the approval process.
It was an amending plot.
So it's a approval by staff under the local government code
.
So it's been approved.
They just haven't brought in the execution package to have
that filed yet.
But obviously they will and they would need to.
Yes.
That will be done.
I think that's it.
This item is an individual individual consideration item.
If there's anyone to speak they can speak on this item.
If you want to speak and come up we just need to fill out a
card after before you leave.
But you're more welcome to step forward.
We just need your name and address.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the commission.
I appreciate you having me here today.
My name is Michael Walden.
I'm the director of construction facility services for IHOP
.
We just want to let you know that we're very excited to
have the opportunity to move and be part of Razor Ranch.
As you know we'll be closing down our own location as the
university continues to expand and grow.
And it's just been an exciting opportunity to work with H
aley and the team.
And we appreciate the hard work of the entire city staff
and city of Denver.
It's been a great experience.
We thank you.
Great.
I don't see any questions but thank you for being here.
With that the chair will entertain a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
And Commissioner Ellis.
Second.
We have a first and second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none we will vote by show of hands.
Those in favor?
Opposed?
Six against abstain.
The item is approved 6-0.
Congratulations.
Next I'll invite Haley back up for item 4C ADP 18-5.
This is a parking lot expansion at the faith tabernacle
church.
The purpose of this ADP is kind of dual fold.
There was an original ADP approved for the site in 2010
that would be amended with this approval.
As well as some new deviations being requested from the
landscaping requirements contained in subchapter 13 of the
development code.
The property is outlined here in yellow on the map.
It is just under eight acres in total.
Located at the southwest corner of Audreau lane and Lat
imore street.
The property is zoned neighborhood residential 4.
A little bit of history.
In 2010 as I mentioned an ADP was approved that granted a
few deviations from the codes landscaping requirements.
The first of those being a reduction in the minimum tree
canopy.
50% canopy coverage is required for the NR4 district.
Given the large size of the site that was difficult to
attain.
So the planning and zoning commission at that time approved
a lower percentage that was comprised of all existing trees
on the site being preserved.
And the new trees being planted as street trees and parking
lot trees.
Additionally they had requested to deviate from the buffer
requirement because of the close proximity of residential
uses.
A 15 foot type C buffer was required on the south and west
property lines.
In lieu of providing the buffer plantings they provided
additional landscape area on the site to help create more
separation between the church and the residential uses
nearby.
And as kind of the conditions of approval of that plat was
that the applicant maintained the landscape and tree canopy
area approved under the ADP.
As well as not increase the number of parking spaces on
site.
So to add additional parking and deviate from what was
approved that brings us back here tonight.
Kind of a brief summary of what was approved then and what
's requested now.
As I mentioned in terms of the tree canopy they were unable
to provide that 50%.
What was approved was the preservation of 54 existing trees
.
As well as the provision of new trees to bring them to 22.8
% landscaping.
What you'll see here on the plans tonight is again to
maintain all of the existing trees.
And provide additional trees by way of parking lot trees
and screening that would increase the canopy to 30%.
The type C buffer as I mentioned they were approved to not
provide the buffer plantings by providing greater landscape
area.
So that would be affected by this.
They're adding 83 spaces to 103 that are already on site.
So that would increase the lot coverage and decrease the
landscape area to 58%.
And then as I mentioned front parking screening is the
other component here was not addressed in the 2010 ADP.
But the code does require when parking is between the
building and the street that a 15 foot wide landscape
screening area be provided.
That contains a berm, a certain number of tree plantings
and either shrubs or some sort of wall.
What the applicant has proposed is in areas where they're
able to to not interfere with the drainage and tension on
site.
To provide a 20 foot wide landscape area with a double row
of shrubs and increased number of trees.
So just looking at the proposed site plan you can see
outlined in yellow the general areas where new parking
would be provided.
As I mentioned there's 83 more spaces in addition to the
103 that are already approved.
They would decrease the lot coverage from 34% to 28% with
this addition.
In terms of landscaping outlined in the grayish blue color
is that drainage facility or tension facility that I
mentioned.
That created some complications because as you can see the
parking already butts up against that.
So it's hard for them to provide for the required landsca
ping and berm in that area.
So what they have proposed in the areas outlined in green
are the new plantings on site in front of the parking would
be that 20 foot wide area that I referenced that contained
one tree per 25 feet as well as a double row of evergreen
shrubs.
The total site landscaping would be decreased by 7% but the
canopy coverage for the site would increase by 7% as a
result of this change.
There are several criteria for approval of an ADP so I'll
run through those briefly.
The preservation of existing neighborhoods we did not
identify any concerns there as this is the expansion of
parking for an existing use.
In terms of assuring a quality development we found that
what they're requesting isn't necessarily lowering design
standards it's just providing an alternative that works
with the existing drainage and engineering of the site.
And then this would not be in any way contributing to spraw
l because it's just a continuation and expansion of their
use.
Infrastructure is already provided to the site served by
utilities as well as access to roadways.
And then in terms of this being a high quality development
they are providing above and beyond the plantings that
would be required for that screening area just an
alternative locations.
They're continuing to preserve all the trees as was
required by the previous ADP and they are still maintaining
landscaping area that's well in excess of the 40% minimum.
With that staff is recommending approval of the request as
we found it to meet all the criteria for approval.
I'd be happy to stand for any questions.
Thank you Haley. I do not see any questions. Appreciate the
presentation.
This item is for individual consideration. You are open to
speak on the item if you'd like to speak if anyone here
would like to speak I don't have any cards but you're more
than welcome to speak.
Seeing none we'll move to a discussion or motion.
Commissioner Smith.
Motion to approve.
Commissioner Sanchez.
I'll second is there any discussion.
Seeing no Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Just wanted
to thank Haley for putting this together so nicely.
It was great to see you know the requirement the background
.
So well and how it relates to the current request. So thank
you.
Good point.
Seeing no further discussion will call for a vote by show
of hands those in favor.
Against abstaining. Item carries six zero.
Next on the agenda is public hearing Z 18 dash 12 I'll
invite Sean Jacobson presentation and with that I'll also
open the public hearing for the item.
Good evening. Good evening chair and members of the
commission.
Tonight I'm presenting a rezoning request on behalf of John
Featherston who's here for victory in 288 LLC is here if
you have questions afterwards.
The property in question is at the southwest corner of the
intersection of loop 288 and East University Drive say 0.7
44 acre site and they're requesting a rezoning from
neighborhood residential mixed use to community mixed use
general.
Currently the site is basically a vacant commercial site.
You have one large vacant building and then some outbuild
ings around that site there.
Current zoning neighborhood residential mixed use proposed
community mixed use general.
When we're assessing a rezoning request we look at DDC
section 35.3.4 B and we consider whether it aligns the
proposed zoning aligns with the future land use plan as
well as if the requested zoning was allowed whether we
would be able to provide adequate public facilities public
services.
So taking that first question looking at the future land
use map we see that the property in question is in the
community mixed use area and it turns out that community
mixed use general works very well with that proposed
potential land use.
It's a future land use is expected to be a mix of uses but
with a primarily commercial angle and those are the types
of uses that CMG would permit.
By contrast the current zoning neighborhood residential
mixed use while allowing for a mix of uses is more of a
residentially focused zoning and so it's less appropriate
when compared to the future land use map.
Looking at the adjacent uses right now primarily it's
either commercial or undeveloped around the property in
question and so commercially focused CMG zoning would be
compatible with those current uses around the area.
Also as you can see in the lower side we have two primary
arterials there at the intersection and CMG is particularly
well designed allows uses that are commercial and that fit
well in places with good access and two primary arterials
good access.
It's a good fit for the uses allowed under CMG.
Looking at the second criteria public facilities and
provision of public services as we've discussed it has good
access site also has both water and sewer available and it
has been previously developed.
We did send out notifications to the public in the area 200
and 500 feet we received no responses for or against.
Taking all this together staff recommends approval the
request meets with our criteria in the DDC and it fits the
adjacent uses and the nature of the location.
With that I'm happy to answer any questions and I know as I
said the applicant is available as well.
Perfect great presentation. Thank you very much.
There's no no questions this time.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing and open for individuals to speak
the applicant if you'd like to speak or anyone else like to
speak.
You're more than welcome to do so at this time.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, sir.
Can I ask the applicant a question.
And sir when when you come up you say your full name and
address for the record.
John the last name's Featherstone I'm with the dimension
group 10755 Sandhill Road Dallas Texas 75238.
Thank you. Great.
So the question I had was what is the intent for the rezone
.
I know that there's the old gas station there.
The reason is an intent to develop actual property rezone
and sell.
What's the intent for the reason.
Actually the intent is it will be the existing the old
vacant convenience store gas station all the car wash that
building that's sitting there.
All of that will be demoed.
We already have plans turned in to the city and they're
under review for a new convenience store with gasoline
sales.
They'll be developed per your current standards.
They can look far better than what's sitting there right
now.
Anything look for about what's sitting there.
So pretty sure.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We would I would just respectfully request that you follow
the staff's recommendation and recommend approval to the
council.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you.
Chair I'm glad to see this development come in.
I remember when the old Shell station was there and when it
disappeared I couldn't believe it's set there for so long.
So I'm glad to see this come back in play.
It's in an area in close proximity to me.
It keeps me from having to go under the loop to the gas
stations up there.
So it's very convenient.
I'm glad to see this.
I hope this change goes through.
I think CMG is a good change for this area especially along
loop 288 as far up as Audreau.
So I think this is a good move all the way around.
Thank you.
Seeing no other speakers or questions I'll close the public
hearing and move to discussion or motion.
Commissioner Beck.
I move to approve the 180012.
Commissioner Smith.
Second the motion.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none we will vote by show of hands.
Those in favor? Against? Abstaining?
The item passes 6-0.
Congratulations.
That moves us to item 6A our planning and zoning project
matrix.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Just wanted to bring it onto the public record for the item
that we discussed during work session reports.
Just if we can make sure that gets on the planning matrix
to see that RR and what possible uses we could do in those
areas that were discussed.
Just wanted to make sure that got on.
I didn't know if that got on the matrix of work session.
I want to make sure it got on there now.
Yes.
Just to kind of go back over the matrix because I know we
had set some dates sort of clear because I know some things
were pending since 2016.
At the next meeting what we'll try to do is also bring that
back for the next meeting for discussion.
We will have another new P&Z member.
I think at that time it might be good to have legal sort of
just talk a little bit about what we can and we can't talk
about as part of the work session.
So that item will be included as well as I presented to the
Committee on the Environment earlier in the week on Monday
with the latest draft of the tree code.
What I will do on Friday is or prior to Friday I will send
everybody a copy of the memo, the AIS that I had prepared
as well as the draft regulations and PowerPoint
presentation.
And then I'll go over that whole packet really at the next
P&Z meeting.
We're going back to COE in September and then I have coming
back again to P&Z for work session.
So we're coming back full force with the tree code.
So I just wanted to make sure everyone was in the loop.
So it is coming. I said it was coming back.
So it's coming back.
So we're going to really devote probably the next two
meetings and then some.
We're going to be getting a memo from Solid Waste on the
recycling question.
I'll have that distributed as well.
If we need further clarification, we'll have them come back
in.
But I wanted to I figured most of the time would be spent
on the on the tree code.
And so I wanted to reserve enough time for that.
Otherwise, we have the other dates and we'll continue to
move through these items and any new ones that come up.
Great. Thank you.
You good.
Kishore Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
You know, I just wanted to take a moment in regular meeting
to thank our outgoing chair, Jim Strange, for his years of
service and leadership to the city.
He's done a great job on planning and zoning these last six
years.
So thanks to him.
Yeah, for sure. I can echo that.
Kishore Beck.
I would like to second Commissioner Ellis's comments and I
'd like to officially welcome new Commissioner Matt Pernita
to our crew to welcome board.
Any other items for the matrix discussion with that, we
will close the PNC meeting for August 8th at seven oh five.