Sep 14, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2022-09-14 4:30 PM

Good afternoon. Welcome to the work session for the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Denton. I'll call our meeting to order at 432. My name is Tim Smith. I'm the vice chair. I'll be filling in for Chair Ellis this evening. I'll also make note that Commissioner Ronnie Anderson is also not present at this time. Our first item on work session is citizen comments on consent agenda items. Are there any citizens here to make any comments on consent agenda? We don't have a consent agenda so that's not even possible. All right. With that being said, we'll move forward. First item of business then will be 3A work session reports. Charlie to present on PZ 22-078 on our fiscal impact model tool. We've spent a lot of time working and developing this model with our consultant AECOM is here with us. This model started back in 2019 with the adoption of the development code. One of the approval criteria in the development code was a consideration of fiscal impact to the city. With that City Council requested staff come up with a standardized model that we could use to input development related information and then produce a summary for consideration when these projects come forward. So we issued a request for proposal and AECOM is the person that was awarded that contract to create this model. So what was the goal of the model? Like I had mentioned previously, the goal is to have a standard model that isn't developer driven and it's a set of assumptions that the city has come up with through this process of developing it that we can provide consistency from development project and proposal to the next so that you all are looking at the same information every time. Previously, we would have developers submit, sometimes they would submit their own fiscal impacts for these projects and so like I said before, this would be a standard model. So a word of caution to the commission on how this should be used. This is one of 13 approval criteria in the development code. This is not the only approval criteria. So you will see the fiscal impact of these projects based on the model that's been created, but there's a number of other factors to consider when these projects come forward and then so this is not the -- this should not be the sole determining factor and moreover, it's also should be a balanced citywide approach. So project proposals will come one at a time and the commission should remember that, you know, these projects balance out citywide. So I think AECOM will touch on it a little bit. What we've seen is what you would probably expect that commercial projects offer a higher net positive fiscal impact to the city than maybe a residential would, but as the city develops out, multiple of these projects could balance the city out as it relates to the fiscal impact. With that, I'll let Chris Brewer with AECOM talk about the work they did. >> Thank you, Charlie. Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to present tonight. I think this has been an exciting moment to get to in terms of what we've learned over the last year and a half. To get to tonight, given all the complexities of the last few years, has been a challenge but also an enjoying process for us. I think when we look at the scope that we were asked to deliver on, there were really two goals at the end of the day. One is this notion of is a project in that benefit to the city? Simple enough. But that obviously creates a whole set of questions. Well, is it a single family house on a one acre lot or is it a five story building with 300 units on half an acre? Again, that notion of density, that notion of scale, having a model that can deal with such a wide array of development options. Again, building in that flexibility and that redundancy but also building in updateability. These are key challenges that we had to think through but also building in concrete assumptions that allow us to make sure that the answers you get make sense regardless of project size. So, again, thinking about that, try and provide a framework for how does the city benefit from real estate development? What are those fiscal benefits and how do they change over time? Was ultimately a key goal of our process. And when I think about that, I think, you know, when we first talked to Charlie and the team, there was this clear challenge of many times you're operating at the beginning of a development program where the developer does not have a clear view of their project, their cost may change, their program may change. So, building in a set of assumptions at the front end that allows you to begin to understand that fiscal benefit conceptually and then as the developer comes back and finalizes their numbers, we can then improve the model and get to a closer final proxy for what the actual impact will be. We also see another benefit of this process that we're learning through similar efforts elsewhere is the need for cities to compel developers or to work with developers to come to a standard set of inputs to allow cities to understand development. I think many developers will try to confuse the process with different ways of framing information. The huge benefit of transparency here in terms of asking for information a certain way becomes very telling in terms of understanding how the developers are looking at projects. We want to have a long-term view, so not just year one of a project but over 40 years, what is that net benefit over time, how does it change becomes an important thing to us. And then really I think one of the things we've really keyed in on this study is this reality of roadway maintenance and reconstruction costs. I think the one issue that a lot of cities are slowly waking up to is where do they find the funds to replace that 50-year-old road, the city road. Those sorts of questions have become a lot more present to a lot of cities and our model that we've built to this point allows us to begin to understand those questions. So the core methodology for us, again, it builds from basic information. One is a structured way of collecting information from our developer, so being able to pull that into the model and a clear framework in terms of zoning, what's the actual parcel, what's the parcel land value, how much density are we putting on the parcel, again, a very clear and transparent framework. And then we take that information and we then put it into context with a broad set of assumptions that have been developed. So a lot of these were brought up through GIS data, so parcel-specific information on property taxes, so relating property taxes to year of construction. Again, getting at very specific types of assumptions for whether it's an effective rate that we're calculating based on some things or a calculated rate based on property taxes. So that as those rates change, you can change them. But it ultimately gets us to a way of getting to a net benefit framework over a multi-year period of time. And part of what I'm so pleased about with the study is that it is both broad and robust, meaning we've thought about just about every revenue assumption we can come up with and come up with a framework for how to attack it. And a lot of these, again, series of conversations with city staff to think about and question and second-guess the assumptions so that we're in a decent place in terms of where we are today in terms of the different revenues, whether it's a calculated rate or an effective rate. One of the examples of an effective rate is we wanted to come up with an estimate of net retail sales per square foot. And so we worked with the city to understand aggregated sales tax data in relation to growth in built occupied retail environment to get at that net number. Now we know from experience that's going to be a volatile number, particularly post-COVID. So that might be a number that we update more consistently. But thinking about how to calculate and come up with justifiable numbers is a critical approach for us. And I think one of the things we're most intrigued about at the beginning was leveraging GIS to be able to get at, in many cases, parcel-specific assumptions. So being able to think about based on where you are in the city, what those underlying land values are, what the zoning allows for, what the new development is, and what, for example, say the property taxes or utility taxes could be. Taking that information at a parcel level and ultimately working up to get to our assumptions was a critical thing about this. Because obviously based on where you are in the community, the costs could be different. So thinking about that and being able to pull that up was one of our key goals in the process. And specifically the revenues could be different. Probably one of the areas that we spent a lot of time thinking about was cost of city services, specifically general fund basis. So a lot of time for me as the economist wading through city comprehensive financial statements. I know not the most exciting thing, but we enjoy it. Thinking about this sort of long-term question as, you know, the city grows, there's at least an argument that the marginal cost of providing city services should decrease as we add more residents. So what that tells us is that growth rate on cost should be potentially less than inflation over time. And at least historically what we're running for in the model right now is, you know, 2.4% growth in general fund cost. And this is an assumption that can be changed in the model on an annual basis. But it becomes that one of those critical notions of how does a new project increase the city's cost of doing business on a general fund basis. So to us this was an important assumption. But we wanted to actually think about different ways of looking at the data as well. Now basically last fall there was a critical moment where we handed the model over to the city. And I don't remember if I told Charlie to attempt to break the model, but we wanted to put it through its paces. In other words, try to use it in a bunch of real-world situations and to see how it was calculating. Because again, we can't always predict the different scenarios in which it'll be used. And so we wanted to get that real-world experience. And I think we learned two things for that process. The first was that the model wasn't dealing with increases in density very well. So if we were adding density within a given site it was increasing the cost of each additional resident. And we generally agreed that if we added more residents in a given specific parcel, that marginal cost of each additional resident should probably go down. So this really triggered a literature review to understand this question of how does density reduce the cost of city services. And quite frankly there's a huge body of research that goes back about 40 years on this topic. In our case we found research from 2021 that actually provided very clear marginal reductions in revenues and costs for each city department to give us a framework for how we might reduce the cost of going from say four units to the acre to say ten units to the acre. So again at the margin we're able to say it costs the city slightly less amount to provide services based on more density within a given location. When you read all of these studies though it's very clear that as you build up in density and start thinking about transit and taller buildings obviously city cost tends to grow. So that's one of those assumptions that we think is probably pretty stable for the near term. But it's one of those things to think about. But again this was one that we made, spent a significant amount of time this spring trying to adjust for because it wasn't being dealt with in the model really well. I think the other one that's really been a big focus in the last six months has been this whole question about roadways, life cycle costs of roadways. The model always dealt well with the roadway impact fee. It's a relatively straightforward calculation. But there was this broader question of as roads are taken into the city system what's the cost to maintain those roads over time and what's that incremental cost to a project whether it be an infill site with no new roads or say a new subdivision where there's not only impacts on existing city streets but new roads coming into the system. And we obviously had one set of assumptions probably six months ago and in the last six months we've revisited almost all of those and I think we're at a better place now. I think there's still some questions we're working through here. But the basic goal is to give the city a better perspective of the true long term cost of how does road maintenance come into play in terms of thinking about new real estate development. So I think this is probably one of the areas where I think we're much happier with the result meaning coming up with an ongoing cost over 40 years to maintain a road at such a level where it won't fall apart and we have to reconstruct it. So we're doing a better job of trying to maintain a road before we have to rebuild it from scratch if that makes sense. Now ultimately what we want to be able to do is to start to build again a faceplate to the model to allow us to understand all the different assumptions. I think the model deals with a tremendous number of different assumptions that we can think about based on the property type whether it's single family, multi family, whether it's under three stories or over three stories. We built in a significant amount of flexibility here to deal with different scenarios because we obviously can't anticipate all of them. And one of the things I'm excited about is that ability to deal with quite possibly just about any single development format you could think of is at least at this point conceptually in the model. But then ultimately building in a fiscal summary page and I think it's the intent of Charlie and Development Services to be able to present a summary like this whenever we're thinking about a project to be able to understand the sort of net benefit over 40 years to that project. Again thinking about whether it's a revenue or a cost item, what does that look like at the bottom line. So again this sort of simple summary is one way that we may see these things presented in the future in terms of policy action. And again I think this last spring what we started to do was to put the model through its paces and so this is one example where we took an actual parcel conveniently one acre in size and started to think about how we change density on that parcel, how we think about the number of people as well as jobs associated with that parcel. Again these are all single family up to multi-family projects. Thinking about average unit sizes, construction cost, one of the big adjustments we made this winter was the model right now runs off of construction costs based on national building code, international building code. We recognized early on that a developer might build a building that's more expensive than the code so he wanted to build in an option in the model to say well it's not a $350,000 house, it's a $450,000 house. And to have that difference to be picked up in the model is one of the adjustments. So what we noticed here obviously is thinking about the notion of revenues, cost of municipal services and then that net impact at the bottom. And I think the one thing you notice here is as we increase in density that marginal cost of each resident decreases. So again that's one of those key things we wanted to get at was as we add density that marginal cost should be going down to some extent. But also thinking about that net impact and does it ultimately make sense in terms of residential product versus say retailer commercial product. And really on this last slide we wanted to actually think about some actual projects and how they might look based on the model and I think some of this is fairly intuitive in terms of commercial projects and significantly greater net impact. I always think about this too, the three single family options and realizing lane miles constructed. And obviously now in the model it's going to take a heavier hand with more lane miles constructed. So that's one of the differences in the model as we see today. But again a applying it to different real world situations whether it be an infill site close to the core or a greenfield site at the edge of town. Those are two very different scenarios and being able to understand cost implications and revenue implications is something we wanted to think through carefully. Questions, comments? I think this is a great tool. If I was to be a devil's advocate though, you know, wouldn't it be fair to say that there is a built in bias in this formula towards more density. I mean this really didn't say anything new. We all know a development further out from the city's core is going to cost more, you know, we know that. But as a thriving city you have to offer alternatives. I mean not everybody wants to live 10 houses per acre. You know what I mean? Does that make sense? Yeah. I mean so are we not going to build an R2, R3 development because it doesn't make, I mean it just seems there's a built in bias. Yeah, right. So and I think this goes back to one of the key points that Charlie had made at the beginning of the presentation is that, you know, we need to make sure that we're considering all types of development within our community. We cannot evaluate projects on a project by project basis as it relates to the fiscal impact to the city. It's very important that we have a community that has a balance of land uses both from non-residential and residential. As the data showed, commercial development and multifamily projects are going to have a better financial benefit to the city. But we also recognize the importance of having single family housing. It's very important that we have a variety of housing types within our community so that our residents and future residents have an opportunity to select from a variety of housing options. We have an issue with affordable housing that we're also trying to address. So that's why we say this is only one out of 13 criteria for evaluating zoning requests because we recognize the significance and importance of having a wide variety of land uses within our community. And I would also caution the commission that as we make decisions on projects, they need to be land use based, right? So our future land use map is one of the key components that we look at as part of our comprehensive plan and our policies. They are very land use focused. And so we need to make sure that we're evaluating projects from a standpoint of is the proposed land use consistent with our comprehensive plan recommended land uses for the area. It shouldn't be based upon what is the price of the single family home that's being provided for, or if it's, you know, Starbucks versus Tina's coffee shop that's being evaluated. Again, it comes down to appropriateness of land use. Thank you. And thank you all for the work. And this is a great idea. It's a great thing tool to use. And I'm all for it. I just wanted to kind of play devil's advocate a little bit on it. Thank you. Commissioner. Scott. Commissioner call. I appreciate that comment. And I guess I just want to even make it a little more clear. This is not designed as a tool to disapprove a project. It is not a tool that's designed to prevent something from occurring. It's just another informative way for us to be able to bring projects forward and you can see comprehensively how this fits into our community. So just I want to make sure that's just abundantly clear. It's not a tool in the toolbox to negate something. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. More vice chair. I just thank you for all your work on this. I think it's been a long time coming and a lot of hard work has gone into it. I did have one just brief question. I think obviously for projects where this is applied and it comes into backup, we'll be able to see it. Will this be used in the development process for by right projects for staff's information or will it only be used for projects as they come before us? I think there's a variety of uses that we can use this for. Even when it first came together, it was contemplated if we're looking at a specific area to incentivize redevelopment, a tool like this could be used to look at multiple different project types in an area. So I think there's a variety of ways that we could use this tool and not just the items that come before this commission. Okay. Yeah, I guess I would think -- I think we've talked before about having whatever it is yearly or bi-yearly reviews of the culmination of projects that have come both before us and through the rest of the process. And as we talk about, hey, what we want is a balanced pattern of development, it might help if we're already doing that work to be able to see whether this tool is also balanced once you sum all the projects together, if that makes sense. Yes, I believe I follow you on that. And I guess I go back to -- so with respect to by right development, this tool, we shouldn't be utilizing for by right development. And the reason why I say that is because the zoning has already entitled the uses that are allowed within it. So if somebody comes in with a project that is allowed under the existing zoning by right, then they have the opportunity to get their plans approved if they meet all of our development requirements, right, but be able to get that permit. So this is not a conversation for by right development. So you're right with respect to reporting project progress. I think that was primarily geared toward the Conference of Plan and our 271 action items associated with that. But I think there could be some benefit in making sure that we evaluate this tool over time and could provide, you know, maybe an annual summary to the Planning and Zoning Commission to demonstrate how well we believe this tool is working for us or working against us or if any of the assumptions need to be modified as we work through it. Got a couple of questions. Tina answered one of them there, just about us having an annual report or something like that so we could see just how the impact tool is, this fiscal tool is working for us to be able to see projects as a whole as they've come in front of them, the PNZ and then going in front of council, how that pans out. So thank you, Tina, for answering that. There was a question that I think Charlie, you kind of brought up there a second ago that I want to come back to saying that we could use this tool as a way of identifying areas that we should maybe look to incentivize development. Does this tool incorporate the ability for us to input maybe tax breaks that we're giving or tax incentives we're giving and calculate that into the total fiscal analysis? Is that included in that tool for us to be able to see that? Not saying that it pumps out, saying this is the recommendation if you want to incentivize, but if we do have incentivization projects that come from like economic development and can we input that into the tool and see how that affects our fiscal analysis? Yeah, actually, there's a section in the tool that allow us to add any of those additional economic development incentives as part of the fiscal summary. Okay, awesome. Whenever you are discussing marginal cost, talk to me about what that means. I understand it. It sounds like what you're talking about is the dollar to develop or dollar to repair per person, and that's kind of why you said marginal cost decreases as density increases. Give me just the definition of what you mean by marginal cost. So the way the model works specifically with general fund costs is that it looks at growth in population over time, growth in inbound commuters. So workers who come in, that's our total on an annual basis over I believe a 10 to 15 year period in relation to growth in general fund costs over that time. What we're trying to get to is both a compound growth rate and the expectation, the hypothesis going in was that it was going to be less than inflation and it was, which was helpful, but also on a per person basis, per person plus per commuter effectively, what's that marginal cost of each person we add, what's that cost? Gotcha. And I think begging or baked into that approach is actually an important question and I always remember this, my wife is a high school principal and she always says that at certain times of the year that 25th or 26th kid doesn't, it's all revenue, it doesn't cost much. So I think there is a conversation to be had about pragmatically what is the marginal cost based on project size. I think we're making a general statement across the board that well if we add a project there's a cost and I think there's probably an argument that for projects below a certain size that cost might actually be more negligible. Also based on location, I think this is one of the things we really keyed in on was is it an infill project where we're keeping the existing road versus is it a greenfield project where there's a new road to be built? There's obviously a different cost factor there. Gotcha. Okay. Did this also take into account hot tax and things like that that are collected from obviously hotel occupancies? Yes. Is that included in there? I just didn't see it on the tools I was going through when we were looking at the last slide. We spent a lot of time thinking about assumptions and being able to come up with appropriate proxies based on whether it's a hotel or some other use. Gotcha. I understand. And then I think to Commissioner Pruitt's questions, what step do we include this tool? I mean obviously it's, we wouldn't be doing it necessarily at zoning because at zoning there's not a, we don't have a project to look at. Is it done at preliminary platting? Is it done at the time of engineering as we lead up to that platting process? When do we see as a city we would incorporate that tool? I was going to say I have, well Charlie I was going to say, have you given thought to this as to where we would incorporate this? And I've got an idea and that is any report that we produce that requests for the fiscal impact analysis as an evaluation criteria that we could include that information. Now keep in mind some of the reports that you receive that address fiscal impact analysis, the zoning entitlements are already in place, right? So and a great example I believe is on our platting reports. One of the criteria that's in there is, thank you for the head nonsense too, one of the criteria that's in there is the fiscal impact analysis. So that data could be put in there. But again, when it comes to a by-right project that's already been entitled, this really is just for informational purposes only. So it seems like it's at the step in which this commission is acting more in a ministerial manner than anything else. Is that correct? Especially on those plotting items? Yes. Gotcha. Okay. What about in the form of like a PD, whenever there is a plot that's being submitted with that zoning change? You know with, so I believe one of the criteria for evaluation on the fiscal impact analysis does apply to rezoning as well as specific use permits. So we would work to be able to provide that information to the commission. I think, and I don't know if, I can't recall if we tested this on much larger scale projects that might have a variety of different land uses included with them. I guess if we get a development plan in, we would probably be able to plug the information into the tool. Yeah, so one of the benefits of the tool is it allows for multiple uses. And so that we can look at a single project and include residential, retail uses, commercial uses. So those can all be included on a single project. And I think also a benefit of the tool is we don't have to have a lot of inputs to be able to produce a fiscal impact to the city. I will say, obviously, the more information that we have about a project, it's going to be a better analysis. And these projects may also change as projects change going through the process. So if we receive something and then it comes to platting and the project has changed a little bit, the fiscal impact obviously is going to be different as part of that as well. I think my only, I think it's a great tool. And I think my only concern is we've been, this is, this has been discussed. This tool has been discussed for what, two, three, four, I mean, I've been on the commission for five years and we've been talking about it. You know, hopefully, hopefully having this come up. I think my only fear has ever been having something like this involved has just been possibly muddying the lines when we see something that is ministerial, like a preliminary plat or a final plat, that we, we see an impact analysis that's negative and it begins to confuse folks to say that, you know, the city, therefore we couldn't do something about it. I think that the, I think it being involved in a zoning process and being informational is, is extremely great. I'd, I'd, I'll let Scott talk in a second, but the, I think that my, I think there's a little bit of a fear there of we see this in a, a zoning process or an SUP process that may end up affecting a vote that comes forward. But regardless, I think having more information is always better than not having more information. So I just want to make sure that's clear. Before I throw to Scott, I just want to recognize on record that Commissioner Anderson has, has joined us. So welcome, Ronnie. But Scott. Well, and I think just to be frank that, that this will be a learning process for all of us. So I think that we will, will gain a better understanding as we work through this and walk through this staff, your professional planning staff will ensure that you understand that this is for informational purposes or just part of the backup like anything else. So we'll try to delineate that. And again, I think we're all going to learn as we do this. It's something new. And again, we'd like to think that it's an improvement. So we appreciate that. Thanks, Scott. Okay. Any other questions from the commission? I just want to thank everybody. This has been a long time coming. We spent hundreds of hours in this model, testing it, I'm going through and redrafting it and get the best product that we can. So thank you guys for all your support on that. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you Acom for your guys' hard work on it. So thank you. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Great. Commissioner Smith, if I could just add, I mean, significant kudos to Charlie as well as Chris as well. Charlie has been tremendous in trying to lead us through this effort on pulling this tool together and really allowing us to ask lots of questions related to it and challenging the, especially the assumptions associated with it. So tremendously huge thank you to both of you for that. Of course. Hang around Charlie. I'll buy you dinner tonight. All right. Moving on to our next work session report. PZ 22-114. Receive report, whole discussion regarding overlay districts and historic districts. I think we got Mia and Cameron tag teaming this one. Good evening, commission. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and principal planner. And then we have Mia Hines, associate planner. Let me bring up the overlay bootcamp. Okay. So this evening, our planning bootcamp is historic districts and overlay districts. On the agenda, first we're going to be covering just the purpose and history of overlays, just to give you kind of that foundation to build off of. And then we're going to start running into our different overlay districts. We have our municipal airport, unicorn lake, razor ranch, followed by Fry Street. And then I'll be talking about historic districts as well as our Denton square district. And then we'll be ending with helpful links. So now I'm going to have pass it over to Mia. Thank you, Cameron. Okay. Again, Mia Hines, associate planner. All right. So what is an overlay district? I like to think of it as a chicken burrito or a chicken burrito bowl, excuse me. So a chicken burrito bowl to me is a chicken burrito bowl to you, but they are not the same typically because of the rice type and the toppings and stuff like that. And so similarly, an overlay district would be the bowl and then the base zoning would be the chicken. So I say a chicken burrito bowl and then you understand it as a chicken burrito bowl. We say PD with a base zoning of MN. It has the same similar type of understanding, but there are different stipulations and different regulations within that that are special and unique to that specific land area. So sub chapter four of the Denton development code establishes procedures and standards to allow for the creation of overlay and historic districts, excuse me, in the city of Denton. And again, that is meant to protect and enhance specific lands and structures by applying specific standards to that overlay district. The districts shall contain in the creation of them reasonable and necessary requirements to ensure the protection and enhancement of said lands and structures. The creation and amendments to an overlay district shall be made pursuant to subsection 2.7.4 and 2.7.2 and those are the standards that we use whenever we bring zoning text amendments or zoning map amendments to this body. So historically speaking, currently overlay conditions are not permitted for base zoning districts under the 2019 DDC. So if you have a straight zoning district or zoning change request brought to you, we cannot apply conditions to that specific straight zoning. We do still have the PD tool or have the PD tool to apply overlays, but under our current DDC, we do not allow us for overlay conditions to be established on straight zoning changes. Under the 2002 DDC, we did have the flexibility under the mixed use residential protection overlay standard and that was used where necessary to address the concerns of owners of existing adjacent residential uses and sort of apply maybe additional setback requirements or additional landscape requirements and sort of to help provide flexibility in areas where a developing use would have adversely impacted a neighborhood or to protect environmental areas. There's different reasons to apply overlay districts, but mainly it's to address development concerns or limitations within a specific area. Under the current DDC, section 2.4.5 F1 does allow for conditions of approval, but those cannot be applied to, like I said earlier, straight zoning changes and zoning map amendments. And then currently under our current DDC and section 2.7.3, we have standards and procedures for rezoning to a plan development, which is a completely other boot camp in itself and the complications and things, complexities of things associated with plan development. So just to give you a brief history of how overlays are and how they've come about. So as we mentioned in the title slide or excuse me, the agenda slide, we do have a couple of overlay districts here within the city of Denton that have transitioned to PDs under the 2019 DDC. Specifically we're going to discuss Fry Street, Unicorn Lake, Razor Ranch, Historic Districts, Denton Square District and the Municipal Airport District. And as you can see, a lot of the things that they regulate are parking, uses, density, dwelling unit size, things like that, specific to those areas. So jumping straight in with the Municipal Airport overlay district, these standards and the things that regulate this area can be found in DDC section 4.5. And these are standards that restrict the height of structures and objects of natural growth, land uses and implement state and federal rules regarding land uses in the vicinity of the airport. And that's essentially to ensure safe travels and safe flight paths for the planes using that airport area. Another overlay district that we have is the Unicorn Lake overlay. So this is a district that was established, for example, to protect an environmentally sensitive area while still allowing for density and development within an area. This particular district was established via ordinance 2006-139 and encompasses approximately 47 acres allowing for up to 112 maximum single family residential units. The Razor Ranch overlay district is probably our most active overlay district. I think we have at least maybe two agenda items on the agenda for tonight regarding Razor Ranch. This particular area encompasses approximately 410 acres of land and allows for development of a mix of uses located near West University and I-35. The last comprehensive ordinance for the Razor Ranch overlay was adopted in 2016. Staff will be working with a consultant to provide another comprehensive ordinance and add that to our current DDC just so we have those standards in a centralized location. So with that, I'll pass it back over to Cameron to cover the Fry Street overlay and the historic districts. Thanks, Mia. So moving on to Fry Street overlay, this is located in our DDC section 4.6, but it covers approximately 12 acres and is divided into two sub areas, sub area A and B as you can see on the map here. It does apply to all buildings, structures, sites and properties within that district. It does allow for that multifamily dwelling, which we obviously see in our sub area B, which you can see in our photo here at Fry and Hickory Street in the lower right hand corner. It does also regulate off street parking, solid waste containers and signage and it does have district dimensional standards involved and it does look at lot dimensions, setbacks and other standards such as height maximum as well as coverage. In addition to that, we do have additional standards for sub area B, which is that multifamily apartment complex, that mixed use that we see and it does regulate site landscape and building and parking designs and those site plans are specifically shown within the DDC. Moving on to our historic districts, we do have three local historic districts within Denton, the Oak Hickory Historic District, which is covered in 4.9.4, our Belle Avenue Historic District, which used to be a conservation overlay and this is located in our subsection 4.9.5 and then lastly our West Oak Area Historic District, which is located in 4.9.6 and all of these buildings within the historic districts are reviewed under our Secretary of Interior Standards, also known as the standards and they also do within their overlays have additional individual architectural requirements that they that are overseen by the DDC such as fencing, ordinary maintenance, window replacements, things such as that. So just to kind of give you all a general idea of where these historic districts are, I circled the square, the Oak Hickory Historic District is probably our most well known historic district and that's located west of the square along West Oak and these are just an example of some of the properties that are in that area, but you can see a historic building and the building today and once again these are kind of why we have these regulations in place to show and retain that historic character that we have here in the city. Another example Belle Avenue, which is located just north of T.W.U. campus, but once again that historic photo and then the building today. And then lastly the West Oak Area Historic District, which is located a little bit further west along West Oak, generally between Houston Place and Hickory Street. So moving on to the Denton Square District, this is located in subsection 4.10. The district is outlined there kind of in that brown tan color and I wanted to start the local landmarks within this district. These are properties that are under HLC jurisdiction as local landmarks so I just wanted to highlight that. But when it looks, when we're looking at the Denton Square District, this did get implemented in June of 2019 and it also falls under the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Properties, but we're also looking at an individual set of guidelines which are located in the DDC, but also in their own packet and that is the Denton Square District Standards and Guidelines. And this really is regulating the built environment so that we're looking at building orientation, setbacks, materials being used and ultimate goal of it is to promote and preserve the square and to look at proper context and proper infill. So as we're kind of wrapping this presentation up, we just wanted to share where you can find these different overlays on our Denton interactive map. So you can go to our GIS maps, click on planning, go under the subcategory to overlay districts and then you'll see all our districts there that you can click on so you have a better idea of where all these are. As you can see, most of them are located more centrally within our 288 loop in the I-35, but then we also have our municipal airport overlay on the west side of the city and then we have Unicorn Lake a little bit further south, south of I-35 east on the southeast edge of the city. And as we wrap up here, we have our helpful links, the standards which I just discussed, the Denton Square District Guidelines, Preservation Plan, Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan and Community Code, but we are free to stand for any questions. Thank you, Mia and Cameron. Any questions from the commission? Mia, can you go back to the historical lake district for the downtown area? Just a pure curiosity. So the STARD, the STARD properties have to fall underneath the HLC guidelines, but then the entire, our entire historic overlay applies to all buildings within there? Correct. So the STARD are local landmarks, so they have additional jurisdiction under HLC, so HLC has to review those. Just those properties. Yes, correct. But when we're looking at the square as a whole, that does have its own kind of set of standards separate from HLC. Gotcha. I'm guessing HLC is more strict than our standards are. Yes, correct. Okay, got it. So basically it's like the entire down there has one set of strict standards and then those STARD ones have even more strict on top of that. Correct. Okay, just wanted to make sure. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So any other questions? Thank you all very much for your hard work. Appreciate it. Okay. That brings us to clarification of agenda items for tonight. I'll give a few notes to make sure if you guys saw the emails that came in. Item 3E FP 22-0027A has been withdrawn by the applicant. And then items 4C and 4E both had revisions that were emailed out. 4C, just whenever we make a vote, it'll be, if it is a vote for approval, it will be with the modifications as prescribed in the presentation. And then on 4E, if approved for a vote with modifications as presented on some revised ordinance text. So you guys should have all received that. Okay. First item then 2A, consideration of the of the meeting minutes from August 24, 2022. Any comments or questions on that? Okay. Seeing none, move on to 3A ZCP 22-0018. I think that's Mia Hines coming on up for that one. Okay. Good evening again, members of commission. Mia Hines, associate planner. Just a brief overview of this agenda item. It is a request for a site plan approval for a razor ranch medical office development phase three. The site is approximately 2.065 acres located at the southeast corner of Panhandle and I-35 frontage. And staff will be recommending approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. Just a brief reminder that the reason that this is a zoning compliance plan, which is typically approved administratively, but the reason that this is coming before this body is because it's within the razor ranch south campus. So Tina, do you have anything to add in there? Got you. All right. Thank you, Mia. Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think you got the next one. FP 22-0028. Mia, I'm telling you, we're going to combine all these into one PowerPoint and make it super easy. I should. I should. Okay. Good evening again. This is a final plat for the razor ranch addition. At this time, the plat, I'm sorry, located south of university, east of I-35. At this time, staff is recommending denial as the plat doesn't meet all of our approval criteria. However, we have no objection to the request extension to a date certain of September 28th, 2022. Okay. Any questions? All right. Three for three, MP 22-0011B. Oh, that is me. That is you. Sorry. You're good. Okay. This is a minor plat located within the city's ETJ at the northeast corner of March and, sorry, I can't read the street name. It is of J&J Acres. It does not meet all of our criteria for approval. At this time, we tried to work with the applicant here last minute as well, and we just weren't able to get to that point, so we are recommending denial of this case. And we already gave an extension on this one. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you, Mia. All right. Bring us to 3D PP 22-0022. Sean Jacobson to present. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. So, yes, this is PP 22-22, which is the prominent square addition. It's a 36.13 acre site at the southeast corner of Loop 288 and University. At this time, staff is recommending denial, but we do not object to the request for an extension to that October 12th. Any questions? No questions? Okay. Thank you, Sean. 3E has been withdrawn, so it's a 3F PP 22-0021A. Julie Wyatt to present. Good evening, Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. This is PP 22-21. This is located between Loop 288 and Mayhill. The purpose of this plat is to facilitate a multifamily development. They still have to get an SUP for that multifamily development, as well as address some other items on that preliminary plat. They have submitted for those additional requirements, but they're not quite there yet, so we are recommending denial of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions. And we gave the extension last meeting, correct? Yes, sir. Any other questions? All righty. Thank you, Julie. 3G PP 22-0007A, all you. All right. So this is for a single-family residential development south of Audra. It is the second phase of a two-phase project. They have a couple of things they need to work through on this preliminary plat, so we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to that extension that they requested. Okay. Any questions from the commission? All right. Thank you, Julie. Last one, FP 22-0001. All right. This is for the Agave Ranch development, and you're probably all very familiar with this one. They did get a plat or a preliminary plat extension a couple of weeks ago from this commission. They're now moving forward with their final plat. They do have some items that they do need to work through on this first phase of their final plat, so staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to their requested extension, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any questions from the commission? I know there was an email sent in, Julie, from the North Denton Neighborhood Association. I don't know if you had a chance to review any of those comments they had in there and would be willing to address it. I don't want to go through line by line item on there on a plat with an extension request, but are any of those things been brought to the attention of the applicant to be able to address? It seems like they're referencing things that were put into the overlay as originally approved. Yes. So we went through the concerns with that neighborhood association, and they were related to those overlay conditions. So this zoning was approved a couple of years ago with overlay conditions with the adoption of or the implementation of the 2019 Denton Development Code, those transition to a PD. So any development on the site has to conform to that, and that has to do with land use as well as screening and other open space requirements. We did go through their concerns. A lot of their concerns were related to those amenities that are required of the development, some trail systems, some park amenities. Those are things that are typically or those aren't reflected on final plots. Those are reflected in the development of the site. So the applicant has reserved those common area open space lots that are going to be maintained by the HOA to accommodate those landscape buffers and open space amenities that are required by the applicant, but that wouldn't be reflected on the final plot. Only the reserved space will be reflected on the final plot? Yes, sir. Got you. Okay. I know there was a question about phasing, but I think we understand they're doing this in I think three phases, correct? They are. And staff, the way their plot does reflect, the phasing is a little unconventional, so we have asked them to be a little clearer with their resubmittal so that it's very clear going forward how that phasing is approached in those remainder areas. How do they make it more clear on the plot? There really isn't a set rule as to how an applicant could address these. It's pretty open-ended in terms of our Denton Development Code and the Texas Local Government Code, but we just want to make sure that however they choose to say that this is phase two or phase three, that it's just very clear on the plot. Got it. Okay. All righty. Any other questions from the commission? Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Appreciate it. That brings us to item number four, public hearings, 4A PD 22-0006 and Cameron Robertson to present. Good evening, commissioners. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and principal planner. There it is. Okay. So this is for PD 22-0006. This is a request for a planned development with MN-based zoning for an approximately 36,000 square foot home zone furniture showroom at the southeast corner of University Drive or also known as US 380 and Ector Street. It is consistent with other commercial development along US 380. The majority of the parking would be placed at the front of the lot and the property or the building itself would be centered between that north and south property line along that western edge to mitigate impact for those residential properties to the south. It is also staff found that it is consistent with our Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and staff is recommending approval. And I can take any questions. Any questions, commission? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, vice chair. Just qualitatively so that we're all on the same page, is there a particular main reason why this is decided to go to the PD route and the main zoning category wouldn't apply or wouldn't be sufficient for the proposed development? So currently it is an MN zoning district. If we went the just MN zoning district, we would not be allowed to have front parking. The parking would be near the rear nor near those residential properties. Additionally, we would have to have that SUP for a general retail use over 15,000 square feet. So what this PD is trying to provide is proper infill, more contextual that is more compatible with the properties, commercial properties along US 380 as well as to reduce the impact to those residential properties at that southern edge. Okay. Thank you. Tina. And to that point, I think Cameron explained that very well. Normally we would not advocate the planning and zoning commission consider planning plan development district requests for single lots. But in this case, as Cameron pointed out, we felt it was an appropriate solution to be able to address this infill development. We understand why the MN zoning was put in place, particularly from a land use perspective. But when it comes to the existing surrounding development conditions, especially if you look at the existing grocery store that is immediately to the West, that it would only be appropriate to consider this type of solution as it relates for the development of that property. So otherwise you normally hear us on our soapbox about our caution on using PDs. Trust me, we hear it. Thank you. Is the applicant have a presentation tonight, Cameron? They do not have a presentation, but they will be here for Q&A. Okay. I'll just ask the question here because it's more of a piece of curiosity. Are they going to shut down the other home zone over off 288 or is this going to be a second location in the city of Dunlap? From my understanding, this would be a second location. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? All right. For BZ22-0004A, Mia Hines to present. Thank you. Mia Hines, just a brief description of this request. It is to amend the text associated with the Razor Ranch overlay district's allowance of multifamily within the Razor Ranch South Campus. Specifically, they are wanting to add 200 multifamily units. Currently, the Razor Ranch overlay district standards allows for up to 1800 multifamily units within the Razor Ranch South Campus. They're wanting to increase that to 2,000 and it's just a zoning text amendment. They aren't trying to include it in an area where it isn't already permitted or anything like that. As part of this though, we wanted to further clarify, visually speaking, where multifamily is permitted on the zoning concept plan just to show, again, it's something that's already listed within the standards where multifamily is, but just to visually show and have a visual representation of where multifamily is permitted. With that, staff is recommending approval of the request as it complies with the applicable sections of our DDC and I will take any questions you have at this time. Any questions for the commission? I've only got one. I know you just made the presentation on overlay districts a minute ago on work session reports. This feels a little bit of cart before the horse in the sense that you referenced that there was going to be a review of that Razor Ranch overlay district and is that correct in understanding what you said earlier? Not a review, but a compiling of Razor Ranch ordinances the way that they're amended. Every amendment doesn't include the entirety of the Razor Ranch district development standards. What we're wanting to do instead of when I'm looking at a specific sub area and reviewing it, I have to go find the specific ordinance and then point to those specific development standards within that specific ordinance. What we're wanting to do is compile the changes and amendments and add that to as an appendix to our 2019 DDC just so it's much easier for us to access and it's much easier for the public to access as well. I know we've made amendments in the past, but I just know the city staff started working on this. We're making changes to it, but if we're just compiling them all together, then what's another one? So, okay. Well, and to that point, what I would add is given all of the ordinance amendments that have transpired over time, this is going to be a complex project for us to consolidate, and we had started on an effort and then the person who was working on it is no longer with that entity, so we're basically having to start over again. So, we don't want to cause any delay with the applicants project in this particular case. So, as for right now, we believe it's appropriate to go ahead and allow for this means of addressing the need. Got it. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Thank you, Mia. Thank you. Brings us to 4C, S21-0008, Ron Megida to present for us. Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. I'll take my glasses off so I can see. Again, Ron Megida, principal planner of development services. The request is for a specific use permit as introduced for an equipment sales and rental use. The equipment sales and rental use is part of a U-Haul commercial business, which will consist of office, warehouse, self-storage, as well as the equipment sales and rental uses as requested. It is located here, as you can see in yellow, just north of 380, east of Spring Valley Drive, and, again, approximately 5.892 acres in size. The site plan that you see here, you hopefully had received the revised version of it. I just want to highlight a couple things. Obviously, it's going to be made up of three buildings. Building A will be where the office and front of the business will be located with also warehouse spaces to store the U-Box containers. So that is primarily what Building A will serve. Building B is the location of the self-storage units. Those are individual units rented by individuals, again, to store their items. Similarly, Building C will have similar type units for individual renters to rent those units. The specific use permit, as again introduced, is really to allow for the equipment rental and sales area or use, and that is displayed here in what is shown highlighted in this darker gray shading, one location here as well as the other area, which is shown over here. Also, want to make mention as part of the conditions, which I will highlight in a second, there will be some locations where those U-Box containers will be stored temporarily. This is to allow for those individuals that own those U-Boxes to empty or load them again from the U-Boxes to their units or vice versa, as well as a U-Box display only, which will be located in front by the front entrance, and this will be just for that purpose to display that type of use or that type of container. I'll go straight to the recommendations or the conditions that is staff is recommending approval of the specific use permit with the following conditions. Condition one is primarily making sure that the site plan as well as the landscape plan is followed and complied with. If there are any changes, they will require a new specific use permit. Now, there is some allowances for some slight changes to the landscape area, up to 5%, but again, all other changes will require a new specific use permit. Storage of the U-Box containers are prohibited outdoors. They must be located within an enclosed structure. Again, except for those that we mentioned earlier that you saw earlier, the display one will be located in front. That will be outdoors, as well as those temporary stored containers, again, right in front of building B. Those will also be outdoors if there is a need for them, and again, that area is specified in the site plan, and that is the only area in which those U-Boxes will be located. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions. >> Commissioner Perot. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Just one, when staff was evaluating this, did you look at the proposed alignment of the 380 to 288 bypass on TxDOT's future projects, and how does that impact this area, or is it further north of this? >> I think it's further north of this, and I know Karina, who also was part of this review, and I'm getting a head nod as well. So yes, the transportation department, as well as our other engineering department, looked at that specific alignment. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions to the commission? I think the only question I have is I know on DCRC on Monday, we were looking at the next item we were going to discuss was outdoor storage, and I just didn't know, with you leaving the charge on that, how much, you know, the changes and the recommendations that are within here are going to align with some of those recommendations city staff was going to make to changes to outdoor storage in the DDC. >> Yes, the goal, right, and again, we won't get into that because I think posting, we want to make sure we don't get outside of that. >> Sure, I understand. I guess more of is we're not going to create a nonconformity if there is some sort of change, ultimate change that gets created in the development code later on down the road for outdoor storage. It seems like this has been very strict in the way that it's restricting outdoor storage, and I guess to make it more, so that Hillary doesn't hit me over the head in a minute, I've seen U-Haul facilities before that have trucks that are stored all over the place on the site itself. I don't, I see it talks about the U-Haul, the U-Box containers. I don't think this has actual truck rentals there, so it's just storage facilities and the U-Boxes themselves, and that the U-Boxes are being contained to only the temporary areas and the display areas. Is there anything I'm missing on that? >> So, no, these will include trailers and trucks as well, and because these are displayed, you know, for immediate rental and for sale, they will be allowed, and that is something that the development code will allow and, or does allow and will allow in the future. >> But for, but for display, it's out there, but then for the actual storage of them, they'll also be outdoors back there. >> Correct. Correct. So, storage is a little bit, you know, different versus display, you know. >> Sure. >> The ones that are not necessarily immediately for, you know, sale or rental, those are what we're referring to as display, and I'm sorry, for as storage. >> Yeah. >> So, those are a little bit more stricter in what we would require. >> Okay. Got it. >> Commissioner Smith, if I could add to that. So, keep in mind, the DDC has a use that's considered equipment, sales, and rental, and so, and then we also have outdoor storage. So, in this particular instance, we've evaluated this as equipment, sales, and rental because of the trucks and trailer component. The U-box container is a little bit of a unique situation associated with this, and we felt like it aligned better with the equipment, sales, and rental component of their business, but the standards that this request has been evaluated against are based upon the requirements that we would have in place for equipment, sales, and rental, which may have some differences compared to our standard outdoor storage regulations. So, not to split hairs, but it does to some extent. >> Gotcha. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. >> Thanks, Chair. Are there going to be open 24 hours to the storage units? Because, I mean, there's a neighborhood right behind it, and I wouldn't want to live in that neighborhood. >> My understanding is that they're going to have some, no, they'll be closed, is my understanding. So, there'll be business hours where there will be closed hours. >> But they don't have a code where they can come in and punch in and go to the storage unit, all that stuff. >> Not that, I mean, the applicant is here, and they'll be able to answer that question. My understanding is even with that, they will not be allowed to enter the building during closed hours. >> Okay. Any other questions for the commission? Okay. Thank you, Ron. Brings us to 4D, DCA 22-0005. Ron, your project as well. >> All right. Okay. This is a development code amendment related to multifamily dwelling. And, really, the genesis of this code amendment started off with how we are to address multifamily living. And those that are, you know, on the commission are familiar with these, these are ones where they're on a single lot, and they are developed with either a single family or duplex or even a triplex or fourplex on a single lot again. And so, trying to categorize what that type of use is, it's a fairly new residential type. We, you know, struggled with it. We actually processed it as PDs in the past. But after learning more of the function and the way it's developed and what it's being used as, we felt that it was more of a multifamily use. So, therefore, staff is recommending that we categorize it as a multifamily, have adjusted that by, you know, refining and clarifying the definition of multifamily so that it would include this type of use. We're also adding additional standards to enhance the multifamily development. Again, as a result of adding this, I want to make sure that we address these other, you know, components such as a single family type of housing. So that is what is under Section 533D. That will be included in there to address specifically those buildings that have one or two units. Lastly, we wanted to make sure that we address dimensional standards under MN where the housing, or sorry, the height limit is 41 through 65 would require a specific use permit, and that applies to all uses. We are actually limiting that or applying that only to where it's adjacent to residential uses, and I'll discuss that in our presentation during the public hearing. The DCRC met on this several times, three dates specifically. Therefore, after meeting with staff and reviewing the proposed code amendments, they've recommended that this be moved forward to the Applying Zoning Commission and City Council. The sections that we saw here, or that you see here, pretty much what I described earlier, we were going to work on the definition of multifamily. We're proposing some main amendments there, adding that use specific standards for those buildings that have one to two units, and then also that MN district dimensional standards as it relates to building, maximum building height. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions. Any questions for Ron? Okay, seeing none. Thank you, Ron. Last one for EDCA 22-0006. You all heard a little bit about plan developments or overlay districts as it relates to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment is really to develop a more comprehensive PD procedure from rezoning it to a plan development. One of the major additions that we're proposing, staff, is the option for an overlay plan development. What will result is there will be two types of PDs if this were to be approved. One, an overlay, which is a little bit more or less involved as far as types of submittal requirements. It's a little bit more to address the compatibility or the issues that are more related to adjacency. That is what is being proposed. We're also looking at clarifying what submittal requirements are for standard PDs. The current development code has it, but we felt that there was a need for more clarification. Adding more information related to PD amendments. As we get more PDs, more amendments will follow. Staff is recommending that we delete the notification requirements for minor amendments. Currently, the requirement is to notify property owners. Again, we felt that that was not necessarily needed for minor amendments as opposed to major amendments. Lastly, looking at the criteria for approval for rezoning to a PD, we added a little bit more information and more criteria so that when staff looks at it, when the Planning and Zoning Commission looks at it, and City Council, they have a little bit more of information in which to make their decision. That basically summarizes the PD code amendments. Any questions for Ron? I've only got one. Ron, can you just walk through what is a minor amendment and a major amendment when it comes to a PD? Sure. Generally, a minor amendment is something very simple where it doesn't affect the site layout. It doesn't affect the number of units or parking or any major design element. As opposed to the major, which if they're proposing a change in their street configuration or access, that sort of thing, a little bit more substantial. That is something that is considered major. The full description of that is available on your backup if you need to. We can pull that up during now, or we can pull it up during the public hearing. No, I just wanted to make sure you said it out loud. Commissioner Smith, if I could ask Ron a quick question. I seem to recall we had some corrected text. Are you addressing that in your public hearing presentation, or was that sent out previously? Yes, that will be part of the presentation in the public hearing. Okay. Got it. All right. Thank you, Ron. Appreciate it. Before we close work session, I just want to recognize and say welcome back to Corina Maldonado for coming back from maternity leave and welcome back on as a transportation planner. Everyone go over there and say hi to Corina. Glad you're back and rolling. With that, I will close our work session at 544 and we will reconvene in council chambers at 630. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton planning and zoning meeting on September 14, 2022. I'll call our public meeting to order. First item of business is item number one, pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flags. Please stay with me if you're able. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honoring the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Thank you. All right. On to item two, consider approval of the planning and the zoning meeting minutes for meeting of August 24, 2022. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval. I didn't see who the second was before I got away. Commissioner Anderson. Second. Okay. First and a second for approval. Go ahead. Take a vote. Take a vote on the board. That passes 6-0. Moving on to item three or item 3A, ZCP 22-0018. I'll ask up Mia Hines. Mia Hines, associate planner. This item is a zoning compliance plan for Razor medical office building phase three. This is coming before this body, and I'll get into that subsection here in a second, but this is coming before this body as it is within the Razor Ranch South Campus and any site plan within that development area requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So again, this is a consideration or considering approval of the site plan for medical office development within the Razor Ranch overlay district South Campus. The site, as you can see there to the right, is approximately, or located at the southeast corner of Panhandle Street and I-35. It's approximately 2.065 acres, and the area specifically that we're concerned about this evening is the area highlighted in green. Previous phases for this have already been developed and are existing, and this is just the phase three of that overall development. So if you're familiar with the, I know you all are familiar with the Razor Ranch overlay zoning, within the overlay are sub-districts, and then within those sub-districts are each parcel is further subdivided for conceptual land uses allowed within that particular area. So this site is zoned within the RCCD Zoning District. It's part of the Razor Ranch Overlay District South Mixed Use District, and the uses permitted on this site, as you can see, they're highlighted in the box, the red box, are hotel, retail, office uses, and multifamily. And so with them proposing medical office, that use is of course permitted within this particular site. For Razor Ranch site plans, and this is sort of what I was, I'm sorry, for Razor Ranch site plans, what we're going to look at for this particular site is Ordinance 2011-225, specifically the architectural standards established in Exhibit C-2A and the landscape standards established in Exhibit D-2A. And with the Zoning Compliance Plan package, we took a look at the site plan, the landscape plans, and the four-sided building elevations. Additionally, the Razor Ranch Overlay District and the 2002 DDC provides criteria for approval for site plans within this sub-area of Razor Ranch, specifically the site plan should substantially comply with the concept and schematic plan. The site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses. The site plan provides for the adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and the site plan fully complies with all other sections of the Overlay District. And so those are things that we checked to make sure were addressed as we were reviewing this Zoning Compliance Plan package. Additionally, with the development and the approval of the site plan for Phase 2, came some conditions with that approval as it relates to the eventual development of Phase 3. Specifically, one stipulation was that plant materials approved for Phase 2 and the amended Phase 1 should not be removed in future phases unless they could be successfully replanted using equivalent or similar material. Additionally, the minimum open space requirement shall be maintained for all approved and future phases of land included within Lots 1R, which is there shown to the south, and then Lot 2, which is our subject lot this evening. So here's the site plan, and of course a detailed version was provided within the backup. Existing on the site for the overall razor medical development is a 15,000 square foot building and an approximately 22,000 square foot building. Currently there are 193 parking spaces, and as you can see, shown in there with the light orange color and the light yellow color, there is one driveway access point off of Panhandle. That's only a right in and a right out. And then there's a cross access point through Phase 2 into Phase 1 and a cross access also to the east. So with the addition of Phase 3, which we're focusing on this evening, the applicant is proposing an approximately 9,000 square foot medical office building on Lot 2, shown there in green, 37 additional parking spaces, and then that driveway there to the northwest would be a full access point, right in, right out, left in, left out, and straight ahead as well. So the landscape plan, in looking and reviewing this particular plan, we wanted to make sure that the minimum requirements as established in the 2002 DDC and the razor ranch overlay districts were met, namely minimum one tree per 45 linear feet. That was actually, if you look at the image to the right, all of the lighter green circles are existing plantings approved with previous phases. If you recall the approval criteria I mentioned earlier, one of the stipulations was that anything approved within the previous phase should not be removed unless they could be replanted as a part of this Phase 3. They are not proposing to remove any of those plantings. They are adding two trees within the parking area and then some screening there along the east. So those standards are being met. Excuse me. Additionally, within that, as you can see by the table, those minimum open space requirements for the entire site are being maintained as well. So here are the elevations with the proposed material and color screen there to the right. That image that you see at bottom center is an existing building within Phase 1 of this development. So as you can see, both the proposed elevations and color and material scheme match with what is existing within the razor medical development. So with that, staff is recommending approval as the request does meet the established criteria of the RROD development standards, and I will stand for any questions that you may have at this time. Thank you, Mia. I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation or is that it? Nothing? Okay. All right. This is not a public hearing, but as an item for individual consideration, anybody who would like to speak may do so with three minutes. Okay. Seeing none, I'll open the floor to a motion or approval. Commissioner Anderson? Make a motion to approve. Okay. I've got a motion to approve. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. Okay. I've got a second. Commissioner Perot? I've got technical difficulty if I come back up. We're good. Good? Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. We'll call for a vote on the board. Nothing? Okay. On this item, we'll take a vote via roll call. We got a recusal. How should we handle that? I was going to say if Selena can reset it, you're more than welcome to take a vote that way. Okay. All right. We'll take a vote. Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Villarreal, will we make a motion again? Okay. All right. Motion passes 6-0. Sorry for the technical difficulties there. Okay. Bring this to item 3B, FP22-0028. Mia, your presentation as well. Good evening again, members of the commission. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. So this is a final plat request for Razor Ranch addition located at the southeast corner of West University and I-35. The plat at this time does not meet all of our approval criteria, and so staff is recommending denial. However, we do not have any objections to the requested extension to October 12th. Okay. Thank you, Mia. Commissioner Villarreal. To approve the extension to a date starting of October 12, 2022. Okay. Got a motion to extension. Commissioner, approve it. I have a second. The first and the second. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to item 3C, MP22-0011B, and Mia Hines come on back up as well. Thank you. Again, Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This is a minor plat application for J&J Acres. The property is, at this time, the plat does not meet, I'm sorry, located at the northeast corner of Warshin and Green Valley Circle. At this time, the property does not meet the standards and approval criteria within our ordinance, and so staff is recommending denial. Okay. Thank you very much, Mia. Any questions? Commissioner Anderson? Has there, was this brought up in the work session? Was there already a previous? There was. Yeah, there was a previous extension already given. That's correct. Yes. All right. Thanks. Okay. All right. Seeing no other speakers, I will call for a motion. Commissioner Villarreal? Move to deny. Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner Pruitt? Second. Okay. We have a first and a second for denial. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Just a reminder, a vote yes is a vote yes to deny. Okay. Motion passes 6-0. Item 3D, PP 22-0022, and Sean Jacobson to present. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, presenting PP 22-0022, a preliminary plat for the prominence square addition. At this time, staff is recommending denial of this plat for a property on the southeast corner of Loop 288 and University Drive because it does not meet our standard of approval. However, staff has no objection to the requested extension to October 14, sorry, October 12. Any questions for Sean? Okay. Commissioner Pruitt? I'll move to approve the applicant's requested extension to date certain of October 12. Okay. Got a motion to extend. Commissioner Anderson? Second. Okay. With a second. Any other discussion? Okay. I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion passes 6-0. Item 3E has been withdrawn by the applicant. So that's FP 22-0027A that has been withdrawn. So I'll move down to 3F, PP 22-0021A. Julie Wyatt to present. Good evening. Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. I'm presenting PP 22-0021A. This is for a preliminary plat for the Forest Crossing Phase 2 addition. The purpose of the preliminary plat is to facilitate a multifamily development. They do have some items that they have to address with the preliminary plat, including moving forward with a specific use permit for that use. And so staff is recommending denial. They have received an extension, so there is not an option for an additional extension. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. I don't see any questions, Julie. Thank you. I'll take a motion and discussion. Commissioner Villarreal? Move to deny. Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner Cole? Second. Okay. Got a second. With a first and a second to deny, I'll ask for a vote on the board. Okay. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to 3G, PP 22-0007A. I believe that is Julie Wyatt as well. Good evening. This is PP 22-0007A. This is for the Audre Oaks addition. It's for a single-family residential development south of Audre Oaks. They do have some items they do need to work through in order for it to meet our criteria for approval. So staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the requested extension to October 12th. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. I don't see any, Julie. Thank you. Thank you. I see a motion and discussion. Commissioner Cole? I make a motion extension to October 12th, 2022 meeting. Okay. Got a motion for extension. Commissioner Anderson? Second. First and a second, hanging in the discussion. Call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 6-0. Our last item of individual consideration, 3HFP 22-0001. I'll call Julie Wyatt as well for that project. Good evening. This is for a final plat for a phase of the Agave Ranch development. The item, they do have some items that they do need to correct on the final plat before we can recommend approval. So we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the requested extension to October 12th. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I don't see any. Thank you, Julie. Discussion or a motion? Commissioner Pruitt? I move to approve the applicant requested extension to a date certain of October 12th. Okay. Second. Second for Cole. Okay. Any discussion? That's enough to call for a motion on the board. All right. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to item four, public hearings, 4A PD 22-0006 and Karen Robertson to present. Evening, Karen. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Let me pull up my presentation real quick. So this is for PD 22-006, home zone. This is a request for a PD with MN land uses for general retail use larger than 15,000 square feet. It is located on approximately 2.407 acres. It is located on the southeast corner of Ector Street and University, also known as US 380. It is also situated between an existing commercial corridor, which is that US 380, as well as single family dwellings along the southern edge. So before I kind of delve into the development plan itself, I just want to kind of talk about the difference between a PD and an SUP in this instance. So the reason this is going through the PD process versus an SUP is to allow for consistent commercial development along US 380. Currently, the project site is larger than two acres, so it does not need our definition of infill development. Due to that fact, it has to be restricted with that MN district. An MN district does not allow for front parking, and it is a little bit more restrictive. So with the PD, this allows that commercial development to push most of its parking along US 380 and to kind of match what we're seeing along that commercial corridor to the north, east, and west with that Aldease. The applicant is also seeking to allow for all general retail uses, regardless of size, to be permitted on the property. So moving on to the development plan, it would be a maximum of 39 feet, four inches tall, and it would be centrally situated along that western edge of the property, which is close to Ector Street. It does allow for setbacks, beginning at a minimum of 55 feet near the residential properties on the south and the east side. It does have a main entrance emphasis along US 380. It also allows for vehicular access. Primary access would be from US 380. There would be a drive along Ector Street and cross access along Primrose Street. The development did reduce the parking number of parking spaces to 87 parking spaces, and the primary parking, as I stated, would be located along the frontage of US 380, similar to what you see across on the west side to Aldease. Additionally, there would be a tree preservation area that would be located along the southern edge. Those are those trees highlighted in green there. It would also provide a minimum six foot solid masonry wall along the southern and eastern southeast edges for those residential properties. The development plan is currently providing 21% landscape area. The minimum for MN districts is 20%. They'd also be providing a 74% new and preserved tree canopy, which that minimum is 40% for MN districts. So looking at the provable criteria, just a summary, the project is consistent with Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, which I'll delve a little bit more into in my slides after this. It does provide greater level of design quality as compared to a specific use permit. It is compatible with the surrounding area, especially that commercial corridor, and it does provide public facilities adequate to serve the development. So moving on to the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, I'll kind of keep this high level, but it is a mix of community mixed use as well as low residential. Community mixed use areas do accommodate greater density between that single family with neighborhoods and commercial areas. And then low residential does include land uses that support residential neighborhoods. It is on a corridor focused area, which we do see US 380 remaining a significant commercial thoroughfare in the city. It does implement, it is infill. It is basically filling a gap in our neighborhood fabric along US 380. The property itself has been undeveloped since the 1960s, except for that southern portion, which does have a residential property on it. And it does provide context sensitive commercial infill. In regards to urban design, as I stated earlier, the primary access would be along US 380, but it would allow for cross access as well as onsite pathways to public sidewalks. And lastly, building scale and orientation, it is centered in the property along that western edge, trying to reduce the impact to neighboring residential properties to the south and southeast. Moving on, it provides an additional commercial option in this established area. As you can see on the aerial here, much of the corridor is already infilled. This is one of the last remaining properties on US 380. The existing size of the property does limit the size and scale of development. The applicant has reduced the parking and has placed the majority of parking towards the front of that property along that commercial corridor to keep it away from the adjacent residential properties in the south and southeast. And it is a compatible land use and scale and form considering the single family residential as well as the adjacent commercial. There was public outreach done. There was a newspaper ad and property posted both in August. Notices were mailed, 20 in the 200 foot, 118 in the 500 foot. We did receive one response in opposition at 1207 Primrose Street. Staff is recommending approval of the request as it complies with criteria in section 2.4.5(e) as well as 2.7.3(d). And this is scheduled for the City Council on September 27th. And I can stand for any questions. Thank you, Cameron. I don't see any at this time. We do have a card from the applicant. I'll go ahead and call up Michael Clark to come up and speak. You'll have 10 minutes. Before you continue, I want to go ahead and open up the public hearing. Good to go? Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Michael Clark. I'm with Winkleman and Associates, 6750 Hillcrest Plaza, Suite 215, Dallas 75230. Here representing Jason Adams and Home Zone. Jason is unfortunately out of town. We've had a couple delays and he was unfortunately not able to be here. I have the architect is with me here tonight and the broker if there's questions that I can't answer. Staff as always did a very thorough report for you guys. I'm not going to try not to be redundant. But the Home Zone, what we're proposing here is a showroom, has very little traffic. Any basically people come in, they look at furniture. Furniture is delivered from their warehouses in Grand Prairie. So we have very little truck traffic, very little vehicular traffic actually. Staff is in agreement with our parking request for a slight deviation in the required parking. We actually think we need significantly less than that for what we're proposing here. We've worked diligently with staff, worked trying to preserve trees, get the parking. To get where we're at here today, we had a, pardon me, we had, I believe, a very productive meeting with the homeowners. They expressed some concerns. We, I think, alleviated many of them with the low traffic and the showroom and the low trucks. I think... We'll have public comment. You'll have public comment here in a minute, Mr. Anderson. So if we can, we'll just let the applicant go ahead and present. Sorry, sorry, go ahead. From, as I said, we had a public meeting and we invited as many as we thought we could. If I did something incorrectly or obviously somebody didn't get invited, I apologize for that. We have coordinated cross access with the commercial uses to our east as staff directed, quite frankly, not to throw them under the bus or anything, but the cross access to Prim Rose is really more for them than us. We don't envision using that little narrow alley that goes out to Prim Rose for anything other than for them to eventually, if they redevelop, get access jointly with us. Pardon me, with us. So with regard to Prim Rose and the access there, we don't envision using that in any way. That being said, I'm happy to answer any questions and reserve any time I have left to answer any other questions possibly. Are there any questions for Mr. Clark? How did you notify the neighborhood of the public meeting you're going to be having? We, how did we, Jerry Clark was our contact given to us for the HO, for the Homeowners Association. I'm sorry, it's been a number of months ago. Jerry Clark was our contact and he established the meeting with the Ector, I apologize, I can't remember the name of the organization, but we set up a meeting at a local church down on Ector, just a few blocks south of the site, but he was the one that coordinated it. Were you in attendance there? Yes, sir. How many folks showed up? 15, 16, Gary? Perhaps 20. Okay. It wasn't a huge number, but it wasn't three. Okay. All right. What were the main concerns are brought about the neighborhood? They were concerned about the homeowners immediately to our south were concerned about the proximity. We discussed the height of the building and the actual separation that we were preserving trees there and the lack of truck traffic. I think made them feel more comfortable. The rest of the homeowners were, I think, generally concerned about traffic and I think the showroom use and the seriously very limited amount of traffic was what made them feel more comfortable. Okay. All right. I see other questions for you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I do have two other cards that are wishing to speak. I'll start with Crystal Rainey Anderson. Come on up and introduce yourself, give your name and the address and then you have for a public hearing four minutes to speak. Okay. My name is Crystal Rainey Anderson and I am here representing my mother, Janet Rainey. She lives at, we live at 1207 Primrose Lane, Denton, Texas, which is exactly right behind where they're proposing to build this home zone. I have a letter of opposition that she sent in. She wanted me to read here today. She says, "I am opposed to the rezoning of the property. I'm strongly opposed to a home zone project. I brought my property in 2009 and have spent over $150,000 remodeling and adding to it. It is my retirement home and home for my daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons. My property value would decrease tremendously. Between the proposed retaining wall and my back fence, there would definitely be a dead space where homeless people could and would camp creating trash pileups and who knows what else. Right now, I have an uninstructed view from my back patio and kitchen window. If this project is approved, I would be looking at a back of a business instead of the sunset and clouds, which we regularly enjoy. There are tagged trees next to my back fence that cannot be removed. These trees provide shade and help kill these. I also don't want to hear delivery truck beeps or garbage trucks dumping at four o'clock in the morning like they do down the street at Enterprise. According to the plan, the dumpsters will almost be in line with my bedroom window. That is not acceptable. Not only that, but I also do not want to sit on my back patio and listen to the delivery trucks at their docking bay at any time in the day. Although this is not a food service business, there would still be employee food trash and bathroom trash that would attract rats and guess where they would end up. If this property is approved, I would be concerned because of the outside lights and security cameras. The eight foot retaining wall will not prevent these lights and cameras from shining into my backyard or even my bedroom windows. I don't want my backyard lit up at night. I have grandchildren that play in the backyard and I do not want security cameras looking in there. That is an invasion of privacy. Home zone is a very affordable furniture store because the furniture is cheap and poorly made. I know because I bought from them and had to get a refund. I do not believe this location will benefit them and they should move up the road to raise a ranch. The traffic would increase down Ector and Emory and Primrose. It is hard now to make it across Ector from Emory with the increased traffic. I'm sure there will be accidents. It's almost impossible to make a right-hand turn onto University from Ector. There have been several wrecks there already. I understand that there was a neighborhood meeting of which we did not get invited to some weeks ago. I know that the owners who are notified of this were the vitamin shop owner and the 1300 Ector owner. Why were not the rest of us invited? We don't know what was discussed at this meeting. The first time we knew about this was when one of the owners who were invited provided my next door neighbor a copy of the plan. I would like to know why we were left out and others left out of that meeting. There were five homeowners, three retirees, that would be greatly affected by this project. We would slowly be overtaken by other businesses and I'm sure none of us are in favor of this. We are all residential zoning, not a retail business. We want to enjoy our homes to the stage of our lives. I don't want to leave this area, but if this project is approved, most likely my house will go up for sale. Please do not approve this project. Keep the neighborhood. We don't want them in our backyard. Thank you for your comments. Next to speak, Mr. Kurt Anderson. You'll have four minutes to speak. Just state your name and address and your four minutes will begin. Hi. My name is Kurt Anderson. I live at 1207 Primrose. This is my wife, Crystal. Son-in-law, I take care of the property. I also take care of the easement behind the property. The tagged trees are an issue and also you have tagged trees that go into approximately maybe 30 yards into those properties on the easement line from where they're going to exit to Primrose. You go down, you look down that line, that tree line, all those trees are tagged. You go look down this side, all the trees are tagged. You know, I maintain that area. I keep it clean so the vagrants and the homeless don't camp out. I had an incident last year, last July. Someone broke into my shed. I found two homeless men on the other side of my fence in a bunch of brush. Covered up. They had a nice little pad and 25 feet easement. All it's going to do is attract homeless. We're going to have a rat problem on top of more traffic, whether it's, you know, Primrose actor. People are going to be going, you know, if they miss the driveway, they're going to come in Primrose. You know, I've got kids out there. I like to play. You know, you're going to increase the traffic. You're going to have, you know, what's -- my question is how is the state going to deal with the infrastructure? Are they going to put lights in Primrose and lights at the other entrance so people can get out safely? You know, I oppose this. You know, I'm a man of few words. I don't usually speak up like this, but this is going to be an issue. Not just for us. Security wise, lights, it will be 24/7. That's an invasion of privacy. And they can't do anything but do that. They have to. That back line, you're going to get a lot of people coming in and out of there, going to those dumpsters to pick furniture, and it's going to end up in that alley because that's where they're going to put it. And guess who's going to occupy that furniture? Homeless people. I've got nothing against homeless people. I was homeless for six years. I came to Texas to change my life. Okay? I have no problems with them. Their shelters being built, hopefully it accommodates the masses. But you're still going to get people in there. No matter what you do, people are still going to camp out there. Because it's going to be hidden. And it's going to be hidden well. Unless you can supply a patrol that goes through that easement, pave it up, preserve the trees, make a nice alleyway through, and that goes all the way from 380 to actor. That easement. Like I said, I oppose this. And thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Cameron, I have a couple questions for you based off what the public comment was made on that. Traditionally when we have neighborhood notification for any type of neighborhood meetings, are we providing the 205 foot, 500 foot radius addresses to the applicant? How does that -- I've never actually ever asked before how does an applicant get the addresses for inviting out neighborhoods? They source it themselves? How do they go about that? So we usually provide those addresses as well. But that meeting did take place in January of 2022. So it has been a while. I assume as staff that I provided that, but I'm not positive. I do know that they went through the HOA first. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Another question I had. There was a question about lights and access at Hector and Primrose. I'm assuming a TIA was completed for this project and there wasn't. I know that TxDOT controls 380, but we don't see any major TIA impacts that come from that to predicate a stoplight. Let me grab the quick numbers real quick. Sure. I will provide them. So in regards to our trip generation report, it would generate approximately 238 daily trips with 10 morning peak hour trips and 18 evening peak hour trips. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Commissioner Anderson? On the presentation, can you go back to the lot? I want to see what's going to happen that's going to back up to Anderson's property. This photo right here? Yes. The little red arrow. Yes. I'm looking at a map here and I don't see where that arrow is going to come out. Is it going to come out by the building at 1201 or 1211 Primrose? Yes. I believe that is correct. As staff, I do want to preface though that the egress and the ingress and the cross access can change as part of the PD standard stipulations. So there is additional, I guess, wording included in our development standards to allow for changes at the CEP phase. There's not going to be a grass 30 foot area between their house and it's going to be paid parking, correct? Yes. Not only 9% is allowed to be paid, but yes, there will be some paid parking behind that. Okay. Could I ask the developer, I mean, could I ask you a question, please, sir? The other concerns they had were lights. Are there going to be tall lights facing the properties on Primrose and Hector? Cameron, how do I bring it back up? No, go ahead. Unfortunately, they weren't at the meeting, so they didn't hear if those questions were brought up and answered or not. That's good. Thanks. As far as lighting goes, that was discussed in the meeting and one of the things that we will do, or not one of the things, there will be no pole lights at all behind the building. Everything will be on the building, wall packed, shielded. So just the bare minimum of light for security in the back. Okay. But back inside, my apologies. Okay. Now cameras, are there going to be cameras facing their property looking in their backyard? I don't know that. Yeah, I apologize. I don't know that, but I assure you that if we have cameras with an eight foot wall, they will not be able to, they won't be high enough to be in their yard and I'm not trying to make light of it, but we will not be searching in their backyard. It will simply be for our security. And may I answer a couple other questions if I could? Sure. Absolutely. Perfect. Thank you. The lights were one of them. The garbage, actually we would just as soon not have a dumpster. They recycle all cardboard and all styrofoam inside. We're required to have a dumpster. So we've got a double dumpster and we certainly don't need two. But I understand, I deal with rules all the time. That's what we're showing. So the dumpster is not, I mean, it will be, it will be utilized. Any commercial property is going to have a dumpster. It's not trying to make light of that either, but it will not be heavily used. And food products, houses have trash. I mean, we have employees who might have some food trash, but that's it. I mean, there is no food product here. And one other thing with the lights, we close at eight o'clock. This is not a, not a late night operation. So the lights on would be just for security reasons only. That's correct. And they're, they're not as bright as. No, and they'll be shielded. They'll, they'll, I don't know how to describe it exactly, but it'll be basically just a light on the wall, just shining and with a cutoff fixture, basically just, just like the drive. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Terribly described, but not a bit as just answer your question regarding the lighting. So as part of the DTC, we will be looking at lighting specifically during the building permit process as part of the DTC, all lighting does have to face downwards. It cannot face out and it cannot shine on neighboring properties. Thank you. Any discussion? Questions for city staff or applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and look to the dais for a motion or discussion. I closed the public hearing already. And then you use your, your four minutes. I'm, I'm sorry. There will be time at city council as well. If you want to bring up any of the points that you do have, and I'm sure camera will be able to visit with you afterwards to be able to questions that can be worked out with the applicant, but I did close the public hearing now. So we do have to move forward. I apologize. Motion or discussion? Okay. Commissioner Cole. I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. A motion to approve commissioner Anderson. A second. And man, I just want to say one thing. Unfortunately, three 80 is going to be building up and, and, and, you know, this is going to be a lot lower traffic than something else. I believe that would eventually come in there. So I just want to say that to you guys. Sorry. Okay. We got a motion, a second to approve. So you know, the discussion on the board, I'll ask for a vote. Okay. The motion carries six zero. And I believe, uh, just for those that are spoke, um, the, it will be seen at council on September 27th, uh, in this room at, at six 30. So the 27th of September. Yes, sir. In this room. Yes, sir. Okay. Uh, that'll take us to item four B Z 22 0 0 0 4 a I'll be Mia Hines to present. Now open the public hearing at this time. Okay. Good evening again. Members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. Um, this is, uh, this item on the agenda is a zoning change for the razor range overlay district regarding the number permitted number of multifamily units within the South campus. So the request is specific to specifically to amend the text of, um, section 35.7.15.7 subsection 8.1 C and a two of the razor ranch overlay, uh, development standards. Currently the, those standards allow up to 1800 multifamily units, um, within the South campus where multifamily is permitted. Um, and the applicant is proposing to increase that to two, a total of up to 2000 multifamily units, um, within the South campus. Um, as a part of this request, the applicant has provided, um, a, an exhibit sort of clarifying where a multifamily is permitted. Um, they aren't changing any underlying zoning or any, um, um, conceptual lean uses that are already existing and already permitted within the razor ranch South campus. Um, they are simply sort of clarifying for visual purposes where multifamily is permitted, um, on that exhibit. And this is sort of what I was talking about there. The area highlighted or the area in the center highlighted, um, in the sort of light pink color is considered what we call the razor ranch town center area. Um, as you can see, it just has that RR1 designation as it currently exists. They're shown there to the left. Um, and the, we would just further clarify that with, um, the MF, um, next to it. Again, MF, multifamily is already permitted within the town center. This just visually clarifies that point. Um, so in reviewing this request, since it is a simple text amendment, we looked into the razor ranch overlay development standards to see if there was a specific review criteria, um, and there, uh, was not within those overlay standards. Also anything within the razor ranch, um, development that does, is not specifically listed, um, in the standards, uh, is subject to the 2002 DDC. And the 2002 DDC did not have any, um, criteria for approval specifically related to amending overlay text, um, um, and regulations. And so with that, we brought it forward to what we currently go by, um, and, and, and, uh, reviewed the request, uh, pursuant to the, um, uh, criteria for approval located in sub-chapter two of the current DDC. Um, specifically, I just wanted to point out that, um, the, the future land use map area designation for this site is regional mixed use. Um, and so with that, if you look in our 2040 comprehensive plan, the, um, intended, uh, area or that, that area is intended for development, proposing residential commercial office entertainment and other uses except industrial at the highest level of scale and density within the city. So if there were anywhere to support and promote additional density and additional multifamily, um, um, uh, dwelling units, it would be within where we have within our future land use map, regional mixed use. And so that's, uh, part of the, the, uh, support, um, for this project. Um, additionally, there are, um, design standards, uh, specifically applicable to multifamily developments within the Razor Ranch South Campus, namely a minimum of 7% parking area landscape coverage, a minimum of 15% parking area tree canopy coverage, and a 15 foot wide landscape screening buffer around parking areas. And that sort of aids in the, um, minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding properties, wherever multifamily would develop. Um, so with that pursuant to our DDC and state law, we did do public outreach. And as the time of this report, we have not received any opposition or any responses in opposition to this request. So given that, uh, staff recommend staff is recommending approval as it meets the criteria I discussed, um, earlier. Um, a part of the backup that was sent to you was a, a red line essentially showing what those changes are. That has been modified a little bit just to provide further clarification. It's still, um, that they are, the applicant is requesting to increase from 1800 up to 1800 multifamily units to 2000. Um, but instead of what the wording has, and I believe that that was shared with you in advance of this meeting, um, instead of the wording provided within the packet, we're, we would like to go with, um, um, what's here and that would be the remaining 750, um, multifamily dwelling units can be built within the density zone or outside of the density zone within any sub district in the South campus. And so that's something that is already exists. Um, it's already in place, but it further clarifies, cause as it reads currently, um, one would think that those remaining 750, um, need to be outside of the density zone. And that's certainly not the goal, um, here. So with that, I'll stand, oh, following the decision of the recommendation of this body, this is scheduled for the September 20th city council meeting and I'll take any questions or comments that you may have. The applicant is also here with a brief presentation. Okay. Maybe questions for city staff. Okay. Uh, seating. Yeah. Thank you. Do I have one car to speak? And as the applicants, I'll ask Amy Bissett to come up and introduce yourself as well as your address and you'll have 10 minutes to speak. Thank you. Amy Bissett, 97 land company, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201. I'm going to be very brief, but I do want to share a couple of quick things with you all. I appreciate being here this evening. Um, as you know, um, razor ranch is its own unique animal. It's an older, um, development code and it's, um, the 400 acres is regulated by a complex, um, zoning overlay ordinance. But when you boil it down to its very base, um, there are 15 pages of a base ordinance that really outlines the entire development. Um, it, it dictates the criteria for approving a site plan. Um, it dictates the land divisions on the North and South side of university, um, indicates development standards and permitted uses. And on the South campus, there are three primary sub-districts, the town center RR2 and the South mixed use district. The South campus development standards do define the number of and type of dwelling units allowed. Um, and they, it also defines a density zone, which, um, Mia showed on, on, uh, in her presentation and I've got another exhibit here showing the same. Um, really what I just wanted to point out here is that, um, the design or the intent behind, um, the razor ranch overlay district is that the multifamily would be, um, clustered around the 10 acre public park that was dedicated by, um, the razor ranch developer and, um, provide those amenities within walking distance. And, um, I'm going to show you an aerial in just a minute because I think it's worth sharing, but, um, our request is simply to change a couple of sentences within the text of those 15 pages. Um, the only substantive change is to increase the number of total units by 200 and, um, to provide some corrective text or really clarification text on, um, where multifamily is allowed outside of the density zone. And then, um, Kevin Bankhead with Allegiance Hill View is here with me as well and, um, available for any questions that you may have, but he sent this aerial to me not that long ago and just wanted to share if you look, um, you're looking towards the density zone in this aerial with the, you can see the, um, oop, got to flip right off of it, the 10 acre park here and you can see how the multifamily that's developed today is kind of clustered around that with, um, immediate access to a very, um, nice public amenity. And, um, that's all I have and happy to stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Bissett? Okay. Thank you. That is the only card I have, uh, to speak. Anybody who has wished this public hearing, uh, to speak publicly may do so and you can fill out a blue card afterwards. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and I'll move to the dais for motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. Make a motion to approve. Okay. Got a first for approval. Commissioner McDade? I second. Okay. Got a second. Well, the first and second for approval. No other discussion to be had. I'll ask for a motion or a vote on the board. Okay. That motion passes six zero. Okay. With that, we'll move on to item four C that's 21 dash zero zero zero eight. Ask Ron McGee to come up to present. Thank you chair. My name is the commissioner Ron McGee, a principal planner with development services. Get my presentation. This, uh, request is public hearing now around. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, this request is for a specific use permit to allow for an equipment system sales and rental use, uh, the equipment sales and rental use as part of the U hall commercial business, um, that you see here outline in yellow, um, north of university and just east of spring Valley drive. It's approximately 5.82 acres in size. Uh, the business will consist of an office warehouse self storage, uh, units as well as the equipment sales and rental use, uh, that is being sought out after, uh, for this SUP. The future land use, um, designates the area as community mixed use, uh, with some light industrial to the north of the property. Uh, it was currently zone light industrial and as part of that light industrial zoning district, the equipment sales and, um, rental use requires a specific use permit. This is the proposed site plan. Um, this site plan was emailed to the planning zoning commission, uh, prior to the meeting. Uh, it's an updated one that's, um, in, uh, that's different from what was included in your packet that was sent out on Friday, uh, really quickly to illustrate what the site plan includes. It includes a building a, which will be the, uh, location where the office and the rental, um, uh, activity will occur. Uh, it also houses, uh, the you box containers, which will be part of the, uh, business. Uh, this warehouse will be, um, primarily where they will be stored, uh, loading and, um, unloading will come from the back of the property, the rear, I'm sorry, the back of the building, uh, the rear area that you see here, um, highlighted by the cursor. Building B is the location of the storage units where individuals are able to rent out, uh, individual units in order to store their items. Uh, building C, which is further, uh, to the east, I'm sorry, to the west, uh, as well will be located, uh, will be where, uh, self-storage units will be located. Um, the area where the equipment rental, uh, display areas, uh, primarily again per this SUP will be located in the areas that are highlighted or shaded in gray in this particular area, uh, along the, uh, western part of the property as well as this area over here. Now the remaining areas that you see here in white, uh, those will be for the purpose of maneuvering large trucks and other, um, uh, vehicles. Uh, but again, the display area and equipment rental area will be in this highlighted areas. Also important to note in the site plan is two areas specifically as it relates to the conditions, which I will be presenting in a few minutes. Uh, the area that you see here in orange is where there will be temporary storage of U box centers, uh, send, uh, sorry, containers that is, uh, where individuals who want to unload or unload their items from the U box containers into their storage units that are able to, and that will only occur within the area that's identified there and dimensioned as eight by 18 feet, uh, in size. The other area important to note is the orange that's in front of building a, that will be the location of a U box container display, uh, that will only serve as a display to help, um, uh, show what a U box, uh, container is. As far as the landscape plan, um, the landscape plan complies with the landscape area tree canopy cover, uh, the street tree requirements as well as the buffer screening and requirements, uh, per the development code. I want to make mention that the, uh, applicant as well as staff have worked hard in order to provide that screening that's required or that's part of this proposal. You see that the area along university is well landscaped with trees and, uh, landscaping also included. There's hard to see, but there's also a berm that again helps screen, um, the, uh, the equipment cells and rental, um, and just provides that additional landscaping that we would like to see on US 380. Criteria for approval for, uh, SUPs are under, uh, section two five, I'm sorry, two four, uh, five E as well as two five two D. Uh, could summary, um, wise the proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the den 20 40 comprehensive plan. Uh, it complies with the ally zoning district purpose statement. Uh, the approval of the SUP is not expected to generate any adverse impacts and the utilities and infrastructure is available as this area is located within an urban area along three 80, uh, an area that, um, is, uh, somewhat developed already, uh, with other uses newspaper, I'm sorry, uh, notifications were sent out on includes newspaper as well as a website. Um, notice this, um, were, um, published on our city website as of this afternoon, staff has not received any written responses. Um, one public hearing sign was posted on the property, um, in advance of the meeting and there were no neighborhood meetings held for recommendations. Staff is recommending approval with this, um, issue for this USP requests with the following conditions. The first one is generally to comply with the attached site plan and landscape plan. And again, the attached site plan, um, that we're referring to is the one that was submitted with the changes that were, um, described. Um, if there were, if there are any changes to the site plan or the landscape plan, that will require a new specific use permit. Now there is allowances for some landscaping, uh, adjustments up to 5%. But again, generally any changes will require a new specific use permit. Uh, condition number two, uh, relates to the, um, you boxes or storage containers specifically, uh, they're not, they're not allowed to be stored out, um, in, um, outside of the enclosed structure. Um, the change and the backup, we added that, um, the last sense that you see there, this does not include the one storage container located by the front entrance of building A for display purpose only. So that would be something that would be allowed and it would be just that one, um, storage container. Number three, um, again, changes, um, that were sent earlier, uh, prior to this meeting, um, include the following that in situations when their storage containers are, um, temporarily stored outside of the, of the, um, uh, the building, uh, they're primarily to be used by customers to load and unload, uh, their items. And they are, um, in an area identified per the site plan. Again, as I illustrated in the site plan, an area of eight by 18 only that's where they would be located. Again, these changes, um, were made after the packet went out, uh, after, um, staff and the applicant were able to further discuss, um, their business plan. With that, um, staff, um, stands for any questions. The applicant is, uh, present and does not have a presentation, but is, uh, open for questions or be available for questions. Thank you, Ron. I don't see any questions for you right now. So appreciate it. This is a public hearing. Uh, anyone who's wishing to speak may do so. We fill out a blue card afterwards if you'd like. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and move to dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. I make a motion to approve with conditions. Okay. The motion approved with the conditions are presented. Commissioner Villarreal. Second. Okay. Got a second. Um, chair, may I ask for a tiny adjustment on the motion? Um, to, just to confirm that it's as, um, as presented. Is that correct? Conditions as, as, as presented. Yes, chair. Thank you. All right. Clarification of the motion. Uh, commissioner cold motion to approve with conditions as presented and commissioner Villarreal seconds that. Okay. All right. Any discussion? Okay. Call for a vote on the board. That motion passes six zero. Good luck in your project. All right. I'll move on to item four D D C a 22 dash zero zero zero five, and I'll open the public hearing. Go ahead. Ron. Thank you chair. I'm a commissioner on the principal planner. Um, this item is a code amendment requests initiated by the city. Uh, it is for the purpose of addressing a new residential type that we've seen the last, uh, I guess past year, uh, regarding, um, uh, horizontal multifamily living and those that actually seen and heard some of those cases, we've processed as can you go to the full screen? I'm sorry about that. Um, these, uh, horizontal multifamily living have been processed as PDs, uh, primarily because we, um, we're trying to find a use that fit, um, what their role functions are. After review and further, um, you know, study of this type of use, uh, it was determined that the use is more in line with multifamily as it is a single lot with multiple units. Uh, now these units are not typically what you'd seen a multifamily as far as a vertical, um, type development. It does have some of them have single family, uh, or single units. Some of them have two units. Some of them at three unit buildings. Uh, so they're, they're not your typical, but again, by definition, they fit the multifamily desk, uh, definition as such. We have updated the, um, or proposed update the definition of multifamily. Uh, and that's part of this code amendment. We're also adding a use specific standard, uh, to multifamily specifically to, uh, provide a little bit more design consistency for those buildings that contain one or two units as part of a future multifamily development that more or less would resemble what you've seen as a horizontal multifamily living type development. Uh, also in addition to the code amendment, uh, this code amendment, we're looking at adjusting the, um, the, um, the dimensional standards that is for the MN district, uh, where it requires a, uh, SGP for buildings over 41 or 41 to 65 feet. Uh, and we're gonna, um, I'll further describe what we're proposing, but really just focusing on where those buildings are proposed adjacent to residential uses. And I've got, uh, uh, shared, uh, information that I'll share in the presentation or the slide that's coming. Also make, I wanted to make note that the DCRC, um, held, um, three meetings specifically to discuss this proposed code amendments. Uh, as you see here, April 22nd, May 27th and June 24th, uh, they, the development code review committee has recommended this be moved forward to planning zoning commission and city council. And therefore we're, we're here tonight, uh, for this, uh, item, uh, summary of the code amendments. Um, again, we talked about the multifamily dwelling unit being, uh, amended. Uh, we're also adding residential condominiums as it is referenced in that, uh, in the code. We want to make sure that we provide a definition for it as well. Then you use, uh, use specific standard. We're also proposing to add that as part of section five three three D, which is the use specific standards for multifamily. And then lastly, uh, again, mentioning the dimensional standards for MN, uh, we're looking to amend the, uh, height, uh, maximum building height requirement as it relates for, uh, as it relates to the MN district. So, uh, with that, uh, what you see on screen is the proposed definition of multifamily. Uh, you see that the, uh, the red line and underline, um, in red are the added in or deleted, um, language. Um, so as, uh, proposed, the definition of multifamily dwelling will, will be as follows, a single lot containing five or more dwelling units. This definition includes residential condominiums developed on a single lot. We're also proposing as mentioned, uh, a definition for residential condominium dwelling. And that is, is going to read as follows, a pop, sorry, a property comprise of multiple individual dwelling units on a single lot where each unit is owned separately. Again, um, very similar to, um, multifamily, but we wanted to make sure that we gave it a special definition as it is referenced in the development code. The use specific standard that I was referring to is the one in red, uh, highlighted in underline that is, um, it is for buildings containing one or two dwelling units. Uh, they shall comply with the building mass and form standards as established in section seven, 10 three E, which is the building mass and form. Again, this would only apply for those buildings that are part of a multifamily, uh, development that contain only one or two dwelling units. The item, um, that you see here is related to, again, the build, uh, maximum building height for MN. As you see note number two, um, that's where the changes are being proposed. Uh, buildings between 41 and 65 feet. We've added the language adjacent to a residential zoning district or adjacent to an existing single family detach dwelling townhome or duplex use shall require a specific use permit pursuant to two five two of the development code. Now the reason why you see, uh, single family detached dwelling townhome and duplex highlighted is that this is something that was changed or amended and modified, um, after the development code review committee, uh, made their recommendation. Um, the understanding of what we believe was it was intended for these types of uses, but as it was presented to the DCRC, the development code review committee, it only stated existing residential use. Uh, we wanted to go a little further and really just focus on the uses that we felt that was the, um, uses that wanted to, we wanted to see protected. And that again is the single family detached dwelling townhomes and duplex uses. So that is different from what the DCRC recommended, but again, wanted to make sure that we specify specifically those types of uses. Staff recommends approval with, um, um, as it does comply or as it does meet the requirements of approval for code amendments under section two, seven, four D of the DDC. And that concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any questions. Okay. I don't see any Ron. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anybody who was wishing to speak may do so. You thought a blue card afterwards. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I'll move to the dais for a motion. Commissioner to vote. Sorry. Before I take the motion, Tina Ron, could you please pull up that slide that had the language with respect to the MN district? Something just caught my attention on that as you were explaining that. So the note number two buildings between 41 and 65 feet, we have adjacent to a residential zoning district. We consider multifamily zoning districts, residential districts, correct? It does include multifamily if yes. Okay. And given your explanation that we were the reason why we were amending this provision was to not require a specific use permit also for multifamily adjacent to multifamily. I believe we need to tweak the text that's on the slide so that it says adjacent to a residential zoning district parentheses excluding multifamily districts parentheses or adjacent to an existing single family detached dwelling townhome or duplex use. So when he was presenting that, it caught my attention with the language that's proposed here. So it's kind of silly to require a specific use permit adjacent to for a multifamily development adjacent to a multifamily development. So the way this language that we have here is since we consider multifamily zoning districts, residential districts, it's important that we make, we insert a parenthetical reference that excludes multifamily districts. And my apologies that we did not catch that previously. I guess going with our shorter presentations for work session, I missed that. And my apologies for bringing that up at the dais, but I just want to make sure that we get that correct and want to make sure that the commission would be in agreement with that change. All right. Thank you, Tina. So this will have the change within there saying that footnote number two adjacent to residential zoning district excluding multifamily dwelling use or adjacent to an existing single family detached dwelling townhome or duplex use. So we've got that in there. Okay. With that said, commissioner Villarreal, I'm sorry, before I go to commissioner Villarreal, commissioner Peru. Sorry. Just a point of clarification. I'm trying to recall where in our code it defines a multifamily district. I think we have our one through our seven and then the other districts which allow multifamily are mixed use districts. So I just want to make sure that the language is clear as intended. Does R7 allow multifamily with this approval of a specific use permit? I believe so. Yes. Do we have any other residential zoning districts that would trigger the multifamily? I guess we want to make sure that we are not requiring an SUP for multifamily development adjacent to multifamily. And since we consider adjacent to a residential zoning district, is it appropriate then to say excluding multifamily uses or do we need to, I'd be concerned about excluding R7 altogether since R7 allows for other residential uses, such as single family. So, yeah, so just to kind of clarify the multifamily dwelling use is permitted in the residential zoning districts, but only in the R7 with a specific use permit. So. Does that answer your question commissioner Peru? Yeah, I just wanted to, maybe I was mishearing, but I thought we were referring to a term of multifamily district, which wasn't defined in the code. And I appreciate you catching me because I'm confusing my cities. So maybe what we do is on that language, excluding multifamily uses in an R7 district. The whole intent was to remove that specific use permit requirement for the additional height where it was adjacent to the, for multifamily uses where it was adjacent to single family detached dwellings, townhomes or duplex uses, but also in our code we were trying to be consistent with our language because we typically make references to residential districts and then whatever additional qualifiers we add on there. So, but I appreciate you catching me on that. So maybe it needs to be excluding multifamily dwelling use in R7 district. I know it gets a little wordy, but I just want to make sure that we're trying to achieve the intended outcome. Okay. All right. I guess I have a quick point of clarification commissioner. Sorry, apologies. A quick point of clarification before I make the motion. What practical difference does adding the language about the R7 zoning district make to the overall amendment? I'm, I guess I'm missing the confusion on Eric's part. I think it, I think it makes it, cause if it says adjacent to a residential zoning district and R7 being a residential zoning district and because R7 can allow for multifamily, then that might, then that's what Tina is saying that essentially if we have it in there and it just says residential zoning district, then we would be requiring new multifamily to obtain an SUP when they're a budding or adjacent to an already existing multifamily that's existed in R7 district. So I don't know if that helps clarify. No, I get, I get that part. I guess my question is more about the language Ron had before he added the R7 zoning district when it just said excluding multifamily dwelling use. I think it's, I think it's only just, I think it's just, I think it's just overkill of clarification so to speak since R6 and lower doesn't allow for any multifamily with an SUP. Okay. I, I see your point and I agree with you that I think that it might be just overkill, but I think it might just be more of a better clarification to say R7 zoning district by putting it into there. But yeah, I don't know if Tina, if you had anything else into there that, okay. You've all explained it. Okay. All right. Well with that, yeah, I've served on the DCRC when this was proposed. Staff did a good job of providing a real tangible need for these changes and I appreciate that. With that, I happily move to approve the amendments as presented with the new changes. All right. Commissioner McDade. I second. Okay. Well, first and a second. Any other discussion? Sometimes democracy at works feels like mommy and daddy fighting at the dais, but it's okay. We'll be okay with that. See no other discussion. We will take a vote on the board. Okay. That motion passes six zero. All right. Ron, last one. 4E DCA 22-0006. You to present and I'll open the public hearing. Great. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. This is another city initiated code amendment related to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment is really to provide a more comprehensive procedure for rezoning to a plan development. One of those changes is to also add a new type of PD, a plan development, an overlay plan development. And I'll go into that in my slides preceding this to provide a little bit more description of the difference between what an overlay PD is as well as what a standard PD is. The DCRC did meet on this particular item and discussed it on July 8th. And per the recommendation, we are bringing it forward to the planning zoning commission and ultimately to city council for consideration. To summarize the code amendment code amendments, that is again, we're outlining and proposing the new type of PD and that is an overlay. So we will now approve, have two types of plan development, an overlay PD, a plan development, as well as a standard plan development. We're also looking at clarifying the submittal documents, just again, to help more further require what we need in order to review plan developments. We're making sure that those documents are provided. Clarifying when concurrent reviews are allowed. There are certain times when they are allowed and certain times when they are not. So that is further clarified in this proposed code amendment. Adding more information related to PD amendments. There is, as you all know, past PDs prior to 2019, there were some PDs that were created as part of the 2019 development code and as we know, as PDs start to become used more often, there will be needs for amendments. So adding more information is going to be helpful in those efforts. We're also proposing to delete, sorry, to delete the notification requirements for minor amendments. The current requirement is that we, the city, notify adjacent property owners for minor amendments to PDs. We feel that those are unnecessary and that those minor amendments are typically minor in nature, of course, and the ones that are more substantial, such as the major amendments, do still require those notifications and do still require public hearings for those considerations. Lastly, we are proposing to add more clarification as it relates to the approval criteria for rezoning to plan development. Again, to provide further information to be able for staff, the P&Z, and city council to review as planning developments are proposed. So we won't spend, I won't go through all of the code amendments that's on, that was submitted to the planning zoning commission. Those are included in your backup as exhibit two. I really just wanted to focus on the overlay PD addition, and as you see on this slide, the description of an overlay plan development is presented, and I will read it for the viewing public. I also want to make mention that the changes, there are changes to this description different from the backup that was sent to you on Friday. Yes, we looked at this after the backup had been sent out. We wanted to add a little bit more clarification to the description, and so the changes that you see here is what staff is proposing. So an overlay plan development is a PD intended to address concerns of neighboring property owners to ensure the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods or less intensive uses. An overlay PD may be used to restrict or expand the uses permitted within a base zoning district, or to impose additional use specific standards within sub-chapter five upon a proposed use, or to modify setbacks, landscaping, screening, or buffering requirements to allow the borders joining residential uses or less intensive land uses than what is proposed within the overlay PD. I also want to make clarification that the last sentence on this description should not be included. I failed to remove that. That is not our intent. We want to remove that as part of our code amendment, so let me go ahead and make that quick correction. Further, the overlay plan development is in the course of reviewing any requested zoning map change to a base zoning under the section 272. The director of planning, as well as the planning zoning commission or city council, they find that there is a need to impose conditions upon the request that rezoning to address compatible concerns. This overlay PD would be one of those options to utilize if that is the direction of the planning zoning commission, the director, and the city council. So examples of an overlay PD, as you probably have already or know of, is the Baker track. Our end district that one is located on the northwest part of the city. As you know, there was a rezoning to go from RR to LI, and as part of that rezoning, there was some conditions added to that, primarily adding landscaping and some trees and some screening. So that zoning change request would, if they were to be presented today or if this was approved, they would come in as an overlay plan development. Another one is the Windsor 935 medical office. This one is a little bit further ago, and where there were some uses that were identified as only allowed, and so limiting just certain uses, that is another way an overlay plan development could be used in the future, again, if the code amendment was approved. Standard PD is defined or described as intended to be used to achieve greater flexibility than is allowed by strict application of the DDC. So standard PD may be used to permit new or unique land use or combinations of uses to propose, or to propose innovative or creative development standards. A standard PD shall be built off of a basic zoning district within the DDC. And again, I apologize, the last sentence should not be included with this plan development or with this proposed code amendment. That is something that will not be included. Examples of a standard PD, obviously Robeson Ranch is one of those plan developments. The Christopher Todd communities, which is the horizontal multifamily, again, as I mentioned earlier in the previous code amendment, that was used as a PD because we didn't have quite understanding of what that type of residential development is, so it was processed as a PD. Love First Community Village, that one is off of McKinney and just west of Mayhill, that is. That had a unique development proposal where there were some additional housing types, and the way it was laid out was a little different from your typical development, so that we felt was more of a specialized PD or a unique type of development, so it fit within the definition or description of a standard PD. So those are examples of what we would refer to as standard PDs. I want to make also just a quick presentation on what we would require between the two. Overlay PDs, really what we're looking for is just a list of conditions or restrictions that are proposed, again, hopefully to ensure that there is compatibility between the proposed development and any other neighboring property, so that would be something that the staff will be looking for as part of their submittal documents. Standard PDs are a little bit more involved in that we require a little bit more information and require the following. One is the PD regulation document, which will consist of the following. Also a PD development plan, which is really their site plan for that particular development, and if they're proposing any phasing, they will also provide a phasing plan as part of their submittal. So again, as you can see, I just want to illustrate, an overlay PD does not require as much as does a standard PD, where they will provide a lot more information as part of their submittal. With that, staff is recommending approval as the proposed code amendments are consistent or are in line with the section of the DDC, Section 274D as it relates to code amendment approval criteria. With that, I'll stand for any questions. Okay. Thank you, Ron. I don't see any questions this time. This is a public hearing. Any of those that wish to speak may do so. You can fill out a blue card after the fact. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I'll move to the dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. Make a motion to approve. Okay. Commissioner Cole, a motion to approve with the additions and changes that were created and presented. Yes, with the conditions presented. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal. Okay. Got a first and a second in the discussion. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask for a vote on the board. And that passes 6-0. Okay. I'll take us to our final item tonight. The item 5A, our Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix. I'll turn the dais over to Tina. Thank you, Chairman. We have not had a City Council meeting since the Planning and Zoning Commission last met, so no cases to report or provide any update on that. But wanted to get an item on your calendar just because I know some of you are working professionals and want you to be able to plan accordingly. On October 12th, we are anticipating that the Planning and Zoning Commission will probably need to convene a meeting at approximately 3.30 or 4 o'clock that afternoon. We'll obviously firm up that time once we have the agenda more solidified, but just wanted to, you know, maybe have you put that on your calendars for 3.30, and we might pleasantly surprise you with a later start time. But the reason for this, just so you know, is our capital projects engineering team as well as our transportation planning team is working on an update to our roadway impact fee ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission serves as the CIAC, and I would be lying if I told you what all those letters stood for. I just know that's the acronym assigned to the alternate committee that you would convene into to consider any changes to the roadway impact fee ordinance. So what we would do is in all likelihood convene that meeting first, take care of that business, and then it will have a separate agenda posted, and then we'll have your normal Planning and Zoning Commission agenda packet that evening as well. But again, more importantly, just want to get that on your calendars so that you can plan accordingly at work, so thank you. Okay. Commissioner Villarreal. So I brought it up briefly at the DCRC meeting about perhaps putting forth a potential amendment or at least a discussion about a potential amendment, and it was said that this would be the best venue to initiate that discussion, right? I know we've had a couple conversations over the last few P&Z meetings about parking minimums, and I know we just had a DCRC, or sorry, a Development Code amendment regarding that, but I know there's a lot of discussion and approval in the realm of removing parking minimums entirely, and I would like to kickstart that discussion down the line and put that on staff's radar for perhaps a future amendment going to DCRC, not immediately, but sometime in the long-term future. Okay. That's it. Got that in? Awesome. Okay. Commissioner Cole. I just wanted to concur with Commissioner Villarreal on that. I support him in that, just having a conversation. I think we should have a conversation. I think there is a consensus on this commission to have that conversation, but I think it needs to be targeted and narrow and not go down a rabbit hole, but just handle the parking minimums. Okay. I know we did just approve a code amendment. We did. It's got to go to council, and it sounds like we haven't gone to council yet. Say it again? Go to council. Okay. Go to council. Really, the discussion on that would probably have to be much later on, and I'd hate for us to go through and have a discussion about change to code that we just approved. I think it's a good discussion to have, and I think that we'll direct city staff to bring back why parking minimums even need to exist and what the importance of those are, then see where we go from there. Commissioner Pruitt. Yeah, I'll just third that, but also echo some comments of the vice chair. Any change like that is something that needs community buy-in, needs a longer perspective to understand what the trade-offs are, and so I think I would look forward to those discussions. Okay. Anything else to add to the matrix this time? Okay. Seeing none, I'll adjourn our meeting at 759. Thank you very much.