1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,160
 Good afternoon. Welcome to the work session for the Planning and Zoning Commission for

2
00:00:08,160 --> 00:00:12,720
 the City of Denton. I'll call our meeting to order at 432. My name is Tim Smith. I'm

3
00:00:12,720 --> 00:00:16,680
 the vice chair. I'll be filling in for Chair Ellis this evening. I'll also make note that

4
00:00:16,680 --> 00:00:22,520
 Commissioner Ronnie Anderson is also not present at this time. Our first item on work session

5
00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:27,520
 is citizen comments on consent agenda items. Are there any citizens here to make any comments

6
00:00:27,520 --> 00:00:35,680
 on consent agenda? We don't have a consent agenda so that's not even possible. All right.

7
00:00:35,680 --> 00:00:40,000
 With that being said, we'll move forward. First item of business then will be 3A work

8
00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:46,800
 session reports. Charlie to present on PZ 22-078 on our fiscal impact model tool.

9
00:00:46,800 --> 00:01:03,080
 We've spent a lot of time working and developing this model with our consultant AECOM is here

10
00:01:03,080 --> 00:01:10,560
 with us. This model started back in 2019 with the adoption of the development code. One

11
00:01:10,560 --> 00:01:15,280
 of the approval criteria in the development code was a consideration of fiscal impact

12
00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:21,040
 to the city. With that City Council requested staff come up with a standardized model that

13
00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:28,760
 we could use to input development related information and then produce a summary for

14
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:37,360
 consideration when these projects come forward. So we issued a request for proposal and AECOM

15
00:01:37,360 --> 00:01:44,880
 is the person that was awarded that contract to create this model. So what was the goal

16
00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:51,120
 of the model? Like I had mentioned previously, the goal is to have a standard model that

17
00:01:51,120 --> 00:01:57,640
 isn't developer driven and it's a set of assumptions that the city has come up with

18
00:01:57,640 --> 00:02:04,560
 through this process of developing it that we can provide consistency from development

19
00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:10,360
 project and proposal to the next so that you all are looking at the same information every

20
00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:16,240
 time. Previously, we would have developers submit, sometimes they would submit their

21
00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:21,480
 own fiscal impacts for these projects and so like I said before, this would be a standard

22
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:32,840
 model. So a word of caution to the commission on how this should be used. This is one of

23
00:02:32,840 --> 00:02:39,680
 13 approval criteria in the development code. This is not the only approval criteria. So

24
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:46,880
 you will see the fiscal impact of these projects based on the model that's been created, but

25
00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:52,200
 there's a number of other factors to consider when these projects come forward and then

26
00:02:52,200 --> 00:02:58,400
 so this is not the -- this should not be the sole determining factor and moreover, it's

27
00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:04,520
 also should be a balanced citywide approach. So project proposals will come one at a time

28
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:09,780
 and the commission should remember that, you know, these projects balance out citywide.

29
00:03:09,780 --> 00:03:13,680
 So I think AECOM will touch on it a little bit. What we've seen is what you would probably

30
00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:21,400
 expect that commercial projects offer a higher net positive fiscal impact to the city than

31
00:03:21,400 --> 00:03:27,520
 maybe a residential would, but as the city develops out, multiple of these projects could

32
00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:35,320
 balance the city out as it relates to the fiscal impact. With that, I'll let Chris Brewer

33
00:03:35,320 --> 00:03:44,320
 with AECOM talk about the work they did. >> Thank you, Charlie. Again, thank you very

34
00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:48,320
 much for the opportunity to present tonight. I think this has been an exciting moment to

35
00:03:48,320 --> 00:03:52,760
 get to in terms of what we've learned over the last year and a half. To get to tonight,

36
00:03:52,760 --> 00:03:57,160
 given all the complexities of the last few years, has been a challenge but also an enjoying

37
00:03:57,160 --> 00:04:02,780
 process for us. I think when we look at the scope that we were asked to deliver on, there

38
00:04:02,780 --> 00:04:07,440
 were really two goals at the end of the day. One is this notion of is a project in that

39
00:04:07,440 --> 00:04:11,560
 benefit to the city? Simple enough. But that obviously creates a whole set of questions.

40
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:16,320
 Well, is it a single family house on a one acre lot or is it a five story building with

41
00:04:16,320 --> 00:04:21,040
 300 units on half an acre? Again, that notion of density, that notion of scale, having a

42
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:25,800
 model that can deal with such a wide array of development options. Again, building in

43
00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:31,760
 that flexibility and that redundancy but also building in updateability. These are key challenges

44
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:36,320
 that we had to think through but also building in concrete assumptions that allow us to make

45
00:04:36,320 --> 00:04:41,800
 sure that the answers you get make sense regardless of project size. So, again, thinking about

46
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:48,160
 that, try and provide a framework for how does the city benefit from real estate development?

47
00:04:48,160 --> 00:04:51,680
 What are those fiscal benefits and how do they change over time? Was ultimately a key

48
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:56,680
 goal of our process. And when I think about that, I think, you know, when we first talked

49
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:00,960
 to Charlie and the team, there was this clear challenge of many times you're operating at

50
00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:04,120
 the beginning of a development program where the developer does not have a clear view of

51
00:05:04,120 --> 00:05:08,280
 their project, their cost may change, their program may change. So, building in a set

52
00:05:08,280 --> 00:05:12,360
 of assumptions at the front end that allows you to begin to understand that fiscal benefit

53
00:05:12,360 --> 00:05:16,660
 conceptually and then as the developer comes back and finalizes their numbers, we can then

54
00:05:16,660 --> 00:05:21,920
 improve the model and get to a closer final proxy for what the actual impact will be.

55
00:05:21,920 --> 00:05:25,520
 We also see another benefit of this process that we're learning through similar efforts

56
00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:31,000
 elsewhere is the need for cities to compel developers or to work with developers to come

57
00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:35,520
 to a standard set of inputs to allow cities to understand development. I think many developers

58
00:05:35,520 --> 00:05:40,600
 will try to confuse the process with different ways of framing information. The huge benefit

59
00:05:40,600 --> 00:05:44,820
 of transparency here in terms of asking for information a certain way becomes very telling

60
00:05:44,820 --> 00:05:48,720
 in terms of understanding how the developers are looking at projects. We want to have a

61
00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:54,080
 long-term view, so not just year one of a project but over 40 years, what is that net

62
00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:58,880
 benefit over time, how does it change becomes an important thing to us. And then really

63
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:03,160
 I think one of the things we've really keyed in on this study is this reality of roadway

64
00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:07,440
 maintenance and reconstruction costs. I think the one issue that a lot of cities are slowly

65
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:12,120
 waking up to is where do they find the funds to replace that 50-year-old road, the city

66
00:06:12,120 --> 00:06:17,160
 road. Those sorts of questions have become a lot more present to a lot of cities and

67
00:06:17,160 --> 00:06:23,220
 our model that we've built to this point allows us to begin to understand those questions.

68
00:06:23,220 --> 00:06:29,120
 So the core methodology for us, again, it builds from basic information. One is a structured

69
00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:33,080
 way of collecting information from our developer, so being able to pull that into the model

70
00:06:33,080 --> 00:06:37,460
 and a clear framework in terms of zoning, what's the actual parcel, what's the parcel

71
00:06:37,460 --> 00:06:41,720
 land value, how much density are we putting on the parcel, again, a very clear and transparent

72
00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:47,240
 framework. And then we take that information and we then put it into context with a broad

73
00:06:47,240 --> 00:06:50,720
 set of assumptions that have been developed. So a lot of these were brought up through

74
00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:55,520
 GIS data, so parcel-specific information on property taxes, so relating property taxes

75
00:06:55,520 --> 00:07:01,560
 to year of construction. Again, getting at very specific types of assumptions for whether

76
00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:04,920
 it's an effective rate that we're calculating based on some things or a calculated rate

77
00:07:04,920 --> 00:07:09,180
 based on property taxes. So that as those rates change, you can change them. But it

78
00:07:09,180 --> 00:07:14,760
 ultimately gets us to a way of getting to a net benefit framework over a multi-year period

79
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:21,200
 of time. And part of what I'm so pleased about with the study is that it is both broad

80
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:24,900
 and robust, meaning we've thought about just about every revenue assumption we can come

81
00:07:24,900 --> 00:07:30,060
 up with and come up with a framework for how to attack it. And a lot of these, again, series

82
00:07:30,060 --> 00:07:34,760
 of conversations with city staff to think about and question and second-guess the assumptions

83
00:07:34,760 --> 00:07:37,960
 so that we're in a decent place in terms of where we are today in terms of the different

84
00:07:37,960 --> 00:07:43,000
 revenues, whether it's a calculated rate or an effective rate. One of the examples of

85
00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:48,500
 an effective rate is we wanted to come up with an estimate of net retail sales per square

86
00:07:48,500 --> 00:07:53,840
 foot. And so we worked with the city to understand aggregated sales tax data in relation to growth

87
00:07:53,840 --> 00:07:58,400
 in built occupied retail environment to get at that net number. Now we know from experience

88
00:07:58,400 --> 00:08:01,880
 that's going to be a volatile number, particularly post-COVID. So that might be a number that

89
00:08:01,880 --> 00:08:06,680
 we update more consistently. But thinking about how to calculate and come up with justifiable

90
00:08:06,680 --> 00:08:12,880
 numbers is a critical approach for us. And I think one of the things we're most intrigued

91
00:08:12,880 --> 00:08:17,680
 about at the beginning was leveraging GIS to be able to get at, in many cases, parcel-specific

92
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:22,680
 assumptions. So being able to think about based on where you are in the city, what those

93
00:08:22,680 --> 00:08:27,280
 underlying land values are, what the zoning allows for, what the new development is, and

94
00:08:27,280 --> 00:08:32,120
 what, for example, say the property taxes or utility taxes could be. Taking that information

95
00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:36,320
 at a parcel level and ultimately working up to get to our assumptions was a critical thing

96
00:08:36,320 --> 00:08:39,760
 about this. Because obviously based on where you are in the community, the costs could

97
00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:43,680
 be different. So thinking about that and being able to pull that up was one of our key goals

98
00:08:43,680 --> 00:08:49,520
 in the process. And specifically the revenues could be different.

99
00:08:49,520 --> 00:08:53,120
 Probably one of the areas that we spent a lot of time thinking about was cost of city

100
00:08:53,120 --> 00:08:58,320
 services, specifically general fund basis. So a lot of time for me as the economist wading

101
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:02,280
 through city comprehensive financial statements. I know not the most exciting thing, but we

102
00:09:02,280 --> 00:09:09,280
 enjoy it. Thinking about this sort of long-term question as, you know, the city grows, there's

103
00:09:09,280 --> 00:09:13,600
 at least an argument that the marginal cost of providing city services should decrease

104
00:09:13,600 --> 00:09:18,560
 as we add more residents. So what that tells us is that growth rate on cost should be potentially

105
00:09:18,560 --> 00:09:22,360
 less than inflation over time. And at least historically what we're running for in the

106
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:26,920
 model right now is, you know, 2.4% growth in general fund cost. And this is an assumption

107
00:09:26,920 --> 00:09:31,160
 that can be changed in the model on an annual basis. But it becomes that one of those critical

108
00:09:31,160 --> 00:09:36,200
 notions of how does a new project increase the city's cost of doing business on a general

109
00:09:36,200 --> 00:09:40,320
 fund basis. So to us this was an important assumption. But we wanted to actually think

110
00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:45,400
 about different ways of looking at the data as well.

111
00:09:45,400 --> 00:09:48,880
 Now basically last fall there was a critical moment where we handed the model over to the

112
00:09:48,880 --> 00:09:53,440
 city. And I don't remember if I told Charlie to attempt to break the model, but we wanted

113
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:57,440
 to put it through its paces. In other words, try to use it in a bunch of real-world situations

114
00:09:57,440 --> 00:10:02,440
 and to see how it was calculating. Because again, we can't always predict the different

115
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:06,240
 scenarios in which it'll be used. And so we wanted to get that real-world experience.

116
00:10:06,240 --> 00:10:10,560
 And I think we learned two things for that process. The first was that the model wasn't

117
00:10:10,560 --> 00:10:14,200
 dealing with increases in density very well. So if we were adding density within a given

118
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:19,800
 site it was increasing the cost of each additional resident. And we generally agreed that if

119
00:10:19,800 --> 00:10:23,480
 we added more residents in a given specific parcel, that marginal cost of each additional

120
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:28,880
 resident should probably go down. So this really triggered a literature review to understand

121
00:10:28,880 --> 00:10:33,320
 this question of how does density reduce the cost of city services. And quite frankly there's

122
00:10:33,320 --> 00:10:37,880
 a huge body of research that goes back about 40 years on this topic. In our case we found

123
00:10:37,880 --> 00:10:43,980
 research from 2021 that actually provided very clear marginal reductions in revenues

124
00:10:43,980 --> 00:10:48,960
 and costs for each city department to give us a framework for how we might reduce the

125
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:54,440
 cost of going from say four units to the acre to say ten units to the acre. So again at

126
00:10:54,440 --> 00:10:58,600
 the margin we're able to say it costs the city slightly less amount to provide services

127
00:10:58,600 --> 00:11:03,000
 based on more density within a given location. When you read all of these studies though

128
00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:08,280
 it's very clear that as you build up in density and start thinking about transit and taller

129
00:11:08,280 --> 00:11:12,280
 buildings obviously city cost tends to grow. So that's one of those assumptions that we

130
00:11:12,280 --> 00:11:15,520
 think is probably pretty stable for the near term. But it's one of those things to think

131
00:11:15,520 --> 00:11:20,120
 about. But again this was one that we made, spent a significant amount of time this spring

132
00:11:20,120 --> 00:11:25,720
 trying to adjust for because it wasn't being dealt with in the model really well. I think

133
00:11:25,720 --> 00:11:29,260
 the other one that's really been a big focus in the last six months has been this whole

134
00:11:29,260 --> 00:11:34,720
 question about roadways, life cycle costs of roadways. The model always dealt well with

135
00:11:34,720 --> 00:11:38,520
 the roadway impact fee. It's a relatively straightforward calculation. But there was

136
00:11:38,520 --> 00:11:43,320
 this broader question of as roads are taken into the city system what's the cost to maintain

137
00:11:43,320 --> 00:11:48,080
 those roads over time and what's that incremental cost to a project whether it be an infill

138
00:11:48,080 --> 00:11:54,000
 site with no new roads or say a new subdivision where there's not only impacts on existing

139
00:11:54,000 --> 00:11:59,060
 city streets but new roads coming into the system. And we obviously had one set of assumptions

140
00:11:59,060 --> 00:12:02,680
 probably six months ago and in the last six months we've revisited almost all of those

141
00:12:02,680 --> 00:12:05,800
 and I think we're at a better place now. I think there's still some questions we're

142
00:12:05,800 --> 00:12:10,720
 working through here. But the basic goal is to give the city a better perspective of the

143
00:12:10,720 --> 00:12:15,760
 true long term cost of how does road maintenance come into play in terms of thinking about

144
00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:18,920
 new real estate development. So I think this is probably one of the areas where I think

145
00:12:18,920 --> 00:12:25,400
 we're much happier with the result meaning coming up with an ongoing cost over 40 years

146
00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:29,040
 to maintain a road at such a level where it won't fall apart and we have to reconstruct

147
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:32,840
 it. So we're doing a better job of trying to maintain a road before we have to rebuild

148
00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:38,500
 it from scratch if that makes sense. Now ultimately what we want to be able to do is to start

149
00:12:38,500 --> 00:12:44,520
 to build again a faceplate to the model to allow us to understand all the different assumptions.

150
00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:48,920
 I think the model deals with a tremendous number of different assumptions that we can

151
00:12:48,920 --> 00:12:53,040
 think about based on the property type whether it's single family, multi family, whether

152
00:12:53,040 --> 00:12:58,600
 it's under three stories or over three stories. We built in a significant amount of flexibility

153
00:12:58,600 --> 00:13:02,320
 here to deal with different scenarios because we obviously can't anticipate all of them.

154
00:13:02,320 --> 00:13:06,760
 And one of the things I'm excited about is that ability to deal with quite possibly just

155
00:13:06,760 --> 00:13:10,760
 about any single development format you could think of is at least at this point conceptually

156
00:13:10,760 --> 00:13:17,200
 in the model. But then ultimately building in a fiscal summary page and I think it's

157
00:13:17,200 --> 00:13:21,520
 the intent of Charlie and Development Services to be able to present a summary like this

158
00:13:21,520 --> 00:13:25,400
 whenever we're thinking about a project to be able to understand the sort of net benefit

159
00:13:25,400 --> 00:13:30,400
 over 40 years to that project. Again thinking about whether it's a revenue or a cost item,

160
00:13:30,400 --> 00:13:34,520
 what does that look like at the bottom line. So again this sort of simple summary is one

161
00:13:34,520 --> 00:13:42,740
 way that we may see these things presented in the future in terms of policy action.

162
00:13:42,740 --> 00:13:45,840
 And again I think this last spring what we started to do was to put the model through

163
00:13:45,840 --> 00:13:50,940
 its paces and so this is one example where we took an actual parcel conveniently one

164
00:13:50,940 --> 00:13:56,560
 acre in size and started to think about how we change density on that parcel, how we think

165
00:13:56,560 --> 00:13:59,940
 about the number of people as well as jobs associated with that parcel. Again these are

166
00:13:59,940 --> 00:14:05,720
 all single family up to multi-family projects. Thinking about average unit sizes, construction

167
00:14:05,720 --> 00:14:10,600
 cost, one of the big adjustments we made this winter was the model right now runs off of

168
00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:15,240
 construction costs based on national building code, international building code. We recognized

169
00:14:15,240 --> 00:14:19,520
 early on that a developer might build a building that's more expensive than the code so he

170
00:14:19,520 --> 00:14:24,640
 wanted to build in an option in the model to say well it's not a $350,000 house, it's

171
00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:29,400
 a $450,000 house. And to have that difference to be picked up in the model is one of the

172
00:14:29,400 --> 00:14:34,640
 adjustments. So what we noticed here obviously is thinking about the notion of revenues,

173
00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:38,440
 cost of municipal services and then that net impact at the bottom. And I think the one

174
00:14:38,440 --> 00:14:42,720
 thing you notice here is as we increase in density that marginal cost of each resident

175
00:14:42,720 --> 00:14:47,600
 decreases. So again that's one of those key things we wanted to get at was as we add density

176
00:14:47,600 --> 00:14:52,200
 that marginal cost should be going down to some extent. But also thinking about that

177
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:56,740
 net impact and does it ultimately make sense in terms of residential product versus say

178
00:14:56,740 --> 00:15:02,520
 retailer commercial product. And really on this last slide we wanted to actually think

179
00:15:02,520 --> 00:15:06,040
 about some actual projects and how they might look based on the model and I think some of

180
00:15:06,040 --> 00:15:12,160
 this is fairly intuitive in terms of commercial projects and significantly greater net impact.

181
00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:18,040
 I always think about this too, the three single family options and realizing lane miles constructed.

182
00:15:18,040 --> 00:15:22,200
 And obviously now in the model it's going to take a heavier hand with more lane miles

183
00:15:22,200 --> 00:15:26,600
 constructed. So that's one of the differences in the model as we see today. But again a

184
00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:30,160
 applying it to different real world situations whether it be an infill site close to the

185
00:15:30,160 --> 00:15:34,000
 core or a greenfield site at the edge of town. Those are two very different scenarios and

186
00:15:34,000 --> 00:15:38,320
 being able to understand cost implications and revenue implications is something we wanted

187
00:15:38,320 --> 00:15:52,680
 to think through carefully. Questions, comments?

188
00:15:52,680 --> 00:16:05,720
 I think this is a great tool. If I was to be a devil's advocate though, you know, wouldn't

189
00:16:05,720 --> 00:16:12,440
 it be fair to say that there is a built in bias in this formula towards more density.

190
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:18,320
 I mean this really didn't say anything new. We all know a development further out from

191
00:16:18,320 --> 00:16:24,680
 the city's core is going to cost more, you know, we know that. But as a thriving city

192
00:16:24,680 --> 00:16:30,160
 you have to offer alternatives. I mean not everybody wants to live 10 houses per acre.

193
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:33,640
 You know what I mean? Does that make sense? Yeah. I mean so are we not going to build

194
00:16:33,640 --> 00:16:41,440
 an R2, R3 development because it doesn't make, I mean it just seems there's a built

195
00:16:41,440 --> 00:16:46,680
 in bias. Yeah, right. So and I think this goes back

196
00:16:46,680 --> 00:16:51,960
 to one of the key points that Charlie had made at the beginning of the presentation

197
00:16:51,960 --> 00:16:56,840
 is that, you know, we need to make sure that we're considering all types of development

198
00:16:56,840 --> 00:17:01,640
 within our community. We cannot evaluate projects on a project by project basis as it relates

199
00:17:01,640 --> 00:17:07,040
 to the fiscal impact to the city. It's very important that we have a community that has

200
00:17:07,040 --> 00:17:15,000
 a balance of land uses both from non-residential and residential. As the data showed, commercial

201
00:17:15,000 --> 00:17:19,880
 development and multifamily projects are going to have a better financial benefit to the

202
00:17:19,880 --> 00:17:25,880
 city. But we also recognize the importance of having single family housing. It's very

203
00:17:25,880 --> 00:17:30,520
 important that we have a variety of housing types within our community so that our residents

204
00:17:30,520 --> 00:17:37,560
 and future residents have an opportunity to select from a variety of housing options.

205
00:17:37,560 --> 00:17:41,780
 We have an issue with affordable housing that we're also trying to address. So that's why

206
00:17:41,780 --> 00:17:47,440
 we say this is only one out of 13 criteria for evaluating zoning requests because we

207
00:17:47,440 --> 00:17:51,360
 recognize the significance and importance of having a wide variety of land uses within

208
00:17:51,360 --> 00:17:56,600
 our community. And I would also caution the commission that as we make decisions on projects,

209
00:17:56,600 --> 00:18:01,240
 they need to be land use based, right? So our future land use map is one of the key

210
00:18:01,240 --> 00:18:05,100
 components that we look at as part of our comprehensive plan and our policies. They

211
00:18:05,100 --> 00:18:11,080
 are very land use focused. And so we need to make sure that we're evaluating projects

212
00:18:11,080 --> 00:18:15,280
 from a standpoint of is the proposed land use consistent with our comprehensive plan

213
00:18:15,280 --> 00:18:20,000
 recommended land uses for the area. It shouldn't be based upon what is the price of the single

214
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:24,400
 family home that's being provided for, or if it's, you know, Starbucks versus Tina's

215
00:18:24,400 --> 00:18:30,320
 coffee shop that's being evaluated. Again, it comes down to appropriateness of land use.

216
00:18:30,320 --> 00:18:34,800
 Thank you. And thank you all for the work. And this is a great idea. It's a great thing

217
00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:40,440
 tool to use. And I'm all for it. I just wanted to kind of play devil's advocate a little

218
00:18:40,440 --> 00:18:45,480
 bit on it. Thank you. Commissioner. Scott. Commissioner call. I appreciate that comment.

219
00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:51,200
 And I guess I just want to even make it a little more clear. This is not designed as

220
00:18:51,200 --> 00:18:59,440
 a tool to disapprove a project. It is not a tool that's designed to prevent something

221
00:18:59,440 --> 00:19:05,960
 from occurring. It's just another informative way for us to be able to bring projects forward

222
00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:11,600
 and you can see comprehensively how this fits into our community. So just I want to make

223
00:19:11,600 --> 00:19:18,000
 sure that's just abundantly clear. It's not a tool in the toolbox to negate something.

224
00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:24,280
 Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Pruitt.

225
00:19:24,280 --> 00:19:29,640
 Thank you, Chair. More vice chair. I just thank you for all your work on this. I think

226
00:19:29,640 --> 00:19:34,080
 it's been a long time coming and a lot of hard work has gone into it. I did have one

227
00:19:34,080 --> 00:19:39,960
 just brief question. I think obviously for projects where this is applied and it comes

228
00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:47,440
 into backup, we'll be able to see it. Will this be used in the development process for

229
00:19:47,440 --> 00:19:52,480
 by right projects for staff's information or will it only be used for projects as they

230
00:19:52,480 --> 00:20:00,600
 come before us? I think there's a variety of uses that we can use this for. Even when

231
00:20:00,600 --> 00:20:05,440
 it first came together, it was contemplated if we're looking at a specific area to incentivize

232
00:20:05,440 --> 00:20:10,840
 redevelopment, a tool like this could be used to look at multiple different project types

233
00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:15,760
 in an area. So I think there's a variety of ways that we could use this tool and not just

234
00:20:15,760 --> 00:20:20,000
 the items that come before this commission. Okay. Yeah, I guess I would think -- I think

235
00:20:20,000 --> 00:20:28,440
 we've talked before about having whatever it is yearly or bi-yearly reviews of the culmination

236
00:20:28,440 --> 00:20:32,560
 of projects that have come both before us and through the rest of the process. And as

237
00:20:32,560 --> 00:20:41,000
 we talk about, hey, what we want is a balanced pattern of development, it might help if we're

238
00:20:41,000 --> 00:20:46,800
 already doing that work to be able to see whether this tool is also balanced once you

239
00:20:46,800 --> 00:20:49,480
 sum all the projects together, if that makes sense.

240
00:20:49,480 --> 00:20:53,920
 Yes, I believe I follow you on that. And I guess I go back to -- so with respect to by

241
00:20:53,920 --> 00:20:58,960
 right development, this tool, we shouldn't be utilizing for by right development. And

242
00:20:58,960 --> 00:21:04,240
 the reason why I say that is because the zoning has already entitled the uses that are allowed

243
00:21:04,240 --> 00:21:07,280
 within it. So if somebody comes in with a project that is allowed under the existing

244
00:21:07,280 --> 00:21:12,240
 zoning by right, then they have the opportunity to get their plans approved if they meet all

245
00:21:12,240 --> 00:21:15,840
 of our development requirements, right, but be able to get that permit. So this is not

246
00:21:15,840 --> 00:21:22,080
 a conversation for by right development. So you're right with respect to reporting project

247
00:21:22,080 --> 00:21:26,440
 progress. I think that was primarily geared toward the Conference of Plan and our 271

248
00:21:26,440 --> 00:21:32,120
 action items associated with that. But I think there could be some benefit in making sure

249
00:21:32,120 --> 00:21:37,280
 that we evaluate this tool over time and could provide, you know, maybe an annual summary

250
00:21:37,280 --> 00:21:42,520
 to the Planning and Zoning Commission to demonstrate how well we believe this tool is working for

251
00:21:42,520 --> 00:21:46,480
 us or working against us or if any of the assumptions need to be modified as we work

252
00:21:46,480 --> 00:21:47,480
 through it.

253
00:21:47,480 --> 00:21:54,280
 Got a couple of questions. Tina answered one of them there, just about us having an annual

254
00:21:54,280 --> 00:21:58,960
 report or something like that so we could see just how the impact tool is, this fiscal

255
00:21:58,960 --> 00:22:04,440
 tool is working for us to be able to see projects as a whole as they've come in front of them,

256
00:22:04,440 --> 00:22:08,480
 the PNZ and then going in front of council, how that pans out. So thank you, Tina, for

257
00:22:08,480 --> 00:22:13,040
 answering that. There was a question that I think Charlie, you kind of brought up there

258
00:22:13,040 --> 00:22:17,440
 a second ago that I want to come back to saying that we could use this tool as a way of identifying

259
00:22:17,440 --> 00:22:24,600
 areas that we should maybe look to incentivize development. Does this tool incorporate the

260
00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:30,400
 ability for us to input maybe tax breaks that we're giving or tax incentives we're giving

261
00:22:30,400 --> 00:22:34,960
 and calculate that into the total fiscal analysis? Is that included in that tool for us to be

262
00:22:34,960 --> 00:22:38,920
 able to see that? Not saying that it pumps out, saying this is the recommendation if

263
00:22:38,920 --> 00:22:42,800
 you want to incentivize, but if we do have incentivization projects that come from like

264
00:22:42,800 --> 00:22:46,440
 economic development and can we input that into the tool and see how that affects our

265
00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:51,680
 fiscal analysis? Yeah, actually, there's a section in the tool that allow us to add any

266
00:22:51,680 --> 00:22:58,600
 of those additional economic development incentives as part of the fiscal summary. Okay, awesome.

267
00:22:58,600 --> 00:23:03,000
 Whenever you are discussing marginal cost, talk to me about what that means. I understand

268
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:08,400
 it. It sounds like what you're talking about is the dollar to develop or dollar to repair

269
00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:14,600
 per person, and that's kind of why you said marginal cost decreases as density increases.

270
00:23:14,600 --> 00:23:19,720
 Give me just the definition of what you mean by marginal cost.

271
00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:27,600
 So the way the model works specifically with general fund costs is that it looks at growth

272
00:23:27,600 --> 00:23:36,360
 in population over time, growth in inbound commuters. So workers who come in, that's

273
00:23:36,360 --> 00:23:42,320
 our total on an annual basis over I believe a 10 to 15 year period in relation to growth

274
00:23:42,320 --> 00:23:47,440
 in general fund costs over that time. What we're trying to get to is both a compound

275
00:23:47,440 --> 00:23:52,340
 growth rate and the expectation, the hypothesis going in was that it was going to be less

276
00:23:52,340 --> 00:23:59,400
 than inflation and it was, which was helpful, but also on a per person basis, per person

277
00:23:59,400 --> 00:24:04,280
 plus per commuter effectively, what's that marginal cost of each person we add, what's

278
00:24:04,280 --> 00:24:10,920
 that cost? Gotcha. And I think begging or baked into that approach is actually an important

279
00:24:10,920 --> 00:24:14,440
 question and I always remember this, my wife is a high school principal and she always

280
00:24:14,440 --> 00:24:19,200
 says that at certain times of the year that 25th or 26th kid doesn't, it's all revenue,

281
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:25,300
 it doesn't cost much. So I think there is a conversation to be had about pragmatically

282
00:24:25,300 --> 00:24:29,400
 what is the marginal cost based on project size. I think we're making a general statement

283
00:24:29,400 --> 00:24:33,800
 across the board that well if we add a project there's a cost and I think there's probably

284
00:24:33,800 --> 00:24:39,040
 an argument that for projects below a certain size that cost might actually be more negligible.

285
00:24:39,040 --> 00:24:43,440
 Also based on location, I think this is one of the things we really keyed in on was is

286
00:24:43,440 --> 00:24:47,840
 it an infill project where we're keeping the existing road versus is it a greenfield

287
00:24:47,840 --> 00:24:51,440
 project where there's a new road to be built? There's obviously a different cost factor

288
00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:57,000
 there. Gotcha. Okay. Did this also take into account hot tax and things like that that

289
00:24:57,000 --> 00:25:02,120
 are collected from obviously hotel occupancies? Yes. Is that included in there? I just didn't

290
00:25:02,120 --> 00:25:04,680
 see it on the tools I was going through when we were looking at the last slide. We spent

291
00:25:04,680 --> 00:25:08,400
 a lot of time thinking about assumptions and being able to come up with appropriate proxies

292
00:25:08,400 --> 00:25:12,880
 based on whether it's a hotel or some other use. Gotcha. I understand. And then I think

293
00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:20,480
 to Commissioner Pruitt's questions, what step do we include this tool? I mean obviously

294
00:25:20,480 --> 00:25:24,600
 it's, we wouldn't be doing it necessarily at zoning because at zoning there's not a,

295
00:25:24,600 --> 00:25:29,160
 we don't have a project to look at. Is it done at preliminary platting? Is it done at

296
00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:34,280
 the time of engineering as we lead up to that platting process? When do we see as a city

297
00:25:34,280 --> 00:25:41,560
 we would incorporate that tool? I was going to say I have, well Charlie I was going to

298
00:25:41,560 --> 00:25:44,520
 say, have you given thought to this as to where we would incorporate this? And I've

299
00:25:44,520 --> 00:25:51,080
 got an idea and that is any report that we produce that requests for the fiscal impact

300
00:25:51,080 --> 00:25:56,600
 analysis as an evaluation criteria that we could include that information. Now keep in

301
00:25:56,600 --> 00:26:00,800
 mind some of the reports that you receive that address fiscal impact analysis, the zoning

302
00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:04,660
 entitlements are already in place, right? So and a great example I believe is on our

303
00:26:04,660 --> 00:26:10,040
 platting reports. One of the criteria that's in there is, thank you for the head nonsense

304
00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:14,360
 too, one of the criteria that's in there is the fiscal impact analysis. So that data

305
00:26:14,360 --> 00:26:17,440
 could be put in there. But again, when it comes to a by-right project that's already

306
00:26:17,440 --> 00:26:24,400
 been entitled, this really is just for informational purposes only. So it seems like it's at the

307
00:26:24,400 --> 00:26:28,600
 step in which this commission is acting more in a ministerial manner than anything else.

308
00:26:28,600 --> 00:26:33,720
 Is that correct? Especially on those plotting items? Yes. Gotcha. Okay. What about in the

309
00:26:33,720 --> 00:26:38,640
 form of like a PD, whenever there is a plot that's being submitted with that zoning change?

310
00:26:38,640 --> 00:26:43,080
 You know with, so I believe one of the criteria for evaluation on the fiscal impact analysis

311
00:26:43,080 --> 00:26:48,080
 does apply to rezoning as well as specific use permits. So we would work to be able to

312
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:52,760
 provide that information to the commission. I think, and I don't know if, I can't recall

313
00:26:52,760 --> 00:26:58,120
 if we tested this on much larger scale projects that might have a variety of different land

314
00:26:58,120 --> 00:27:02,000
 uses included with them. I guess if we get a development plan in, we would probably be

315
00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:07,240
 able to plug the information into the tool. Yeah, so one of the benefits of the tool is

316
00:27:07,240 --> 00:27:15,120
 it allows for multiple uses. And so that we can look at a single project and include residential,

317
00:27:15,120 --> 00:27:20,320
 retail uses, commercial uses. So those can all be included on a single project. And I

318
00:27:20,320 --> 00:27:26,080
 think also a benefit of the tool is we don't have to have a lot of inputs to be able to

319
00:27:26,080 --> 00:27:32,040
 produce a fiscal impact to the city. I will say, obviously, the more information that

320
00:27:32,040 --> 00:27:36,880
 we have about a project, it's going to be a better analysis. And these projects may

321
00:27:36,880 --> 00:27:42,480
 also change as projects change going through the process. So if we receive something and

322
00:27:42,480 --> 00:27:45,960
 then it comes to platting and the project has changed a little bit, the fiscal impact

323
00:27:45,960 --> 00:27:51,440
 obviously is going to be different as part of that as well. I think my only, I think

324
00:27:51,440 --> 00:27:55,560
 it's a great tool. And I think my only concern is we've been, this is, this has been discussed.

325
00:27:55,560 --> 00:27:58,640
 This tool has been discussed for what, two, three, four, I mean, I've been on the commission

326
00:27:58,640 --> 00:28:02,780
 for five years and we've been talking about it. You know, hopefully, hopefully having

327
00:28:02,780 --> 00:28:07,040
 this come up. I think my only fear has ever been having something like this involved has

328
00:28:07,040 --> 00:28:11,840
 just been possibly muddying the lines when we see something that is ministerial, like

329
00:28:11,840 --> 00:28:17,680
 a preliminary plat or a final plat, that we, we see an impact analysis that's negative

330
00:28:17,680 --> 00:28:22,560
 and it begins to confuse folks to say that, you know, the city, therefore we couldn't

331
00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:28,560
 do something about it. I think that the, I think it being involved in a zoning process

332
00:28:28,560 --> 00:28:34,080
 and being informational is, is extremely great. I'd, I'd, I'll let Scott talk in a second,

333
00:28:34,080 --> 00:28:40,520
 but the, I think that my, I think there's a little bit of a fear there of we see this

334
00:28:40,520 --> 00:28:49,640
 in a, a zoning process or an SUP process that may end up affecting a vote that comes forward.

335
00:28:49,640 --> 00:28:53,680
 But regardless, I think having more information is always better than not having more information.

336
00:28:53,680 --> 00:28:57,240
 So I just want to make sure that's clear. Before I throw to Scott, I just want to recognize

337
00:28:57,240 --> 00:29:02,400
 on record that Commissioner Anderson has, has joined us. So welcome, Ronnie. But Scott.

338
00:29:02,400 --> 00:29:06,640
 Well, and I think just to be frank that, that this will be a learning process for all of

339
00:29:06,640 --> 00:29:12,080
 us. So I think that we will, will gain a better understanding as we work through this and

340
00:29:12,080 --> 00:29:18,160
 walk through this staff, your professional planning staff will ensure that you understand

341
00:29:18,160 --> 00:29:23,600
 that this is for informational purposes or just part of the backup like anything else.

342
00:29:23,600 --> 00:29:28,320
 So we'll try to delineate that. And again, I think we're all going to learn as we do

343
00:29:28,320 --> 00:29:31,840
 this. It's something new. And again, we'd like to think that it's an improvement. So

344
00:29:31,840 --> 00:29:37,800
 we appreciate that. Thanks, Scott. Okay. Any other questions from the commission?

345
00:29:37,800 --> 00:29:43,600
 I just want to thank everybody. This has been a long time coming. We spent hundreds of hours

346
00:29:43,600 --> 00:29:48,880
 in this model, testing it, I'm going through and redrafting it and get the best product

347
00:29:48,880 --> 00:29:52,140
 that we can. So thank you guys for all your support on that. Thank you, Charlie. Thank

348
00:29:52,140 --> 00:29:57,320
 you Acom for your guys' hard work on it. So thank you. Really appreciate it. Thank you.

349
00:29:57,320 --> 00:30:01,240
 Great. Commissioner Smith, if I could just add, I mean, significant kudos to Charlie

350
00:30:01,240 --> 00:30:05,560
 as well as Chris as well. Charlie has been tremendous in trying to lead us through this

351
00:30:05,560 --> 00:30:12,640
 effort on pulling this tool together and really allowing us to ask lots of questions related

352
00:30:12,640 --> 00:30:18,400
 to it and challenging the, especially the assumptions associated with it. So tremendously huge thank

353
00:30:18,400 --> 00:30:23,200
 you to both of you for that. Of course. Hang around Charlie. I'll buy you dinner tonight.

354
00:30:23,200 --> 00:30:33,720
 All right. Moving on to our next work session report. PZ 22-114. Receive report, whole discussion

355
00:30:33,720 --> 00:30:37,720
 regarding overlay districts and historic districts. I think we got Mia and Cameron tag teaming

356
00:30:37,720 --> 00:30:45,920
 this one. Good evening, commission. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and

357
00:30:45,920 --> 00:30:50,400
 principal planner. And then we have Mia Hines, associate planner. Let me bring up the overlay

358
00:30:50,400 --> 00:31:00,320
 bootcamp. Okay. So this evening, our planning bootcamp is historic districts and overlay

359
00:31:00,320 --> 00:31:05,680
 districts. On the agenda, first we're going to be covering just the purpose and history

360
00:31:05,680 --> 00:31:09,720
 of overlays, just to give you kind of that foundation to build off of. And then we're

361
00:31:09,720 --> 00:31:13,940
 going to start running into our different overlay districts. We have our municipal airport,

362
00:31:13,940 --> 00:31:19,800
 unicorn lake, razor ranch, followed by Fry Street. And then I'll be talking about historic

363
00:31:19,800 --> 00:31:24,280
 districts as well as our Denton square district. And then we'll be ending with helpful links.

364
00:31:24,280 --> 00:31:31,000
 So now I'm going to have pass it over to Mia. Thank you, Cameron. Okay. Again, Mia Hines,

365
00:31:31,000 --> 00:31:35,560
 associate planner. All right. So what is an overlay district? I like to think of it as

366
00:31:35,560 --> 00:31:40,680
 a chicken burrito or a chicken burrito bowl, excuse me. So a chicken burrito bowl to me

367
00:31:40,680 --> 00:31:44,960
 is a chicken burrito bowl to you, but they are not the same typically because of the

368
00:31:44,960 --> 00:31:50,240
 rice type and the toppings and stuff like that. And so similarly, an overlay district

369
00:31:50,240 --> 00:31:56,440
 would be the bowl and then the base zoning would be the chicken. So I say a chicken burrito

370
00:31:56,440 --> 00:32:00,500
 bowl and then you understand it as a chicken burrito bowl. We say PD with a base zoning

371
00:32:00,500 --> 00:32:05,480
 of MN. It has the same similar type of understanding, but there are different stipulations and different

372
00:32:05,480 --> 00:32:11,000
 regulations within that that are special and unique to that specific land area. So sub

373
00:32:11,000 --> 00:32:15,000
 chapter four of the Denton development code establishes procedures and standards to allow

374
00:32:15,000 --> 00:32:20,800
 for the creation of overlay and historic districts, excuse me, in the city of Denton. And again,

375
00:32:20,800 --> 00:32:25,360
 that is meant to protect and enhance specific lands and structures by applying specific

376
00:32:25,360 --> 00:32:31,940
 standards to that overlay district. The districts shall contain in the creation of them reasonable

377
00:32:31,940 --> 00:32:39,120
 and necessary requirements to ensure the protection and enhancement of said lands and structures.

378
00:32:39,120 --> 00:32:43,700
 The creation and amendments to an overlay district shall be made pursuant to subsection

379
00:32:43,700 --> 00:32:53,880
 2.7.4 and 2.7.2 and those are the standards that we use whenever we bring zoning text amendments

380
00:32:53,880 --> 00:33:01,520
 or zoning map amendments to this body. So historically speaking, currently overlay conditions

381
00:33:01,520 --> 00:33:06,160
 are not permitted for base zoning districts under the 2019 DDC. So if you have a straight

382
00:33:06,160 --> 00:33:13,400
 zoning district or zoning change request brought to you, we cannot apply conditions to that

383
00:33:13,400 --> 00:33:19,480
 specific straight zoning. We do still have the PD tool or have the PD tool to apply overlays,

384
00:33:19,480 --> 00:33:24,760
 but under our current DDC, we do not allow us for overlay conditions to be established

385
00:33:24,760 --> 00:33:33,080
 on straight zoning changes. Under the 2002 DDC, we did have the flexibility under the

386
00:33:33,080 --> 00:33:38,720
 mixed use residential protection overlay standard and that was used where necessary to address

387
00:33:38,720 --> 00:33:44,720
 the concerns of owners of existing adjacent residential uses and sort of apply maybe additional

388
00:33:44,720 --> 00:33:50,940
 setback requirements or additional landscape requirements and sort of to help provide flexibility

389
00:33:50,940 --> 00:33:58,800
 in areas where a developing use would have adversely impacted a neighborhood or to protect

390
00:33:58,800 --> 00:34:05,720
 environmental areas. There's different reasons to apply overlay districts, but mainly it's

391
00:34:05,720 --> 00:34:13,320
 to address development concerns or limitations within a specific area. Under the current

392
00:34:13,320 --> 00:34:22,640
 DDC, section 2.4.5 F1 does allow for conditions of approval, but those cannot be applied to,

393
00:34:22,640 --> 00:34:27,320
 like I said earlier, straight zoning changes and zoning map amendments. And then currently

394
00:34:27,320 --> 00:34:35,060
 under our current DDC and section 2.7.3, we have standards and procedures for rezoning

395
00:34:35,060 --> 00:34:39,520
 to a plan development, which is a completely other boot camp in itself and the complications

396
00:34:39,520 --> 00:34:44,320
 and things, complexities of things associated with plan development. So just to give you

397
00:34:44,320 --> 00:34:50,600
 a brief history of how overlays are and how they've come about. So as we mentioned in

398
00:34:50,600 --> 00:34:56,240
 the title slide or excuse me, the agenda slide, we do have a couple of overlay districts here

399
00:34:56,240 --> 00:35:03,560
 within the city of Denton that have transitioned to PDs under the 2019 DDC. Specifically we're

400
00:35:03,560 --> 00:35:08,560
 going to discuss Fry Street, Unicorn Lake, Razor Ranch, Historic Districts, Denton Square

401
00:35:08,560 --> 00:35:13,400
 District and the Municipal Airport District. And as you can see, a lot of the things that

402
00:35:13,400 --> 00:35:19,640
 they regulate are parking, uses, density, dwelling unit size, things like that, specific

403
00:35:19,640 --> 00:35:24,580
 to those areas. So jumping straight in with the Municipal Airport overlay district, these

404
00:35:24,580 --> 00:35:31,320
 standards and the things that regulate this area can be found in DDC section 4.5. And

405
00:35:31,320 --> 00:35:36,800
 these are standards that restrict the height of structures and objects of natural growth,

406
00:35:36,800 --> 00:35:41,600
 land uses and implement state and federal rules regarding land uses in the vicinity

407
00:35:41,600 --> 00:35:46,520
 of the airport. And that's essentially to ensure safe travels and safe flight paths

408
00:35:46,520 --> 00:35:53,560
 for the planes using that airport area. Another overlay district that we have is the Unicorn

409
00:35:53,560 --> 00:35:58,720
 Lake overlay. So this is a district that was established, for example, to protect an environmentally

410
00:35:58,720 --> 00:36:06,600
 sensitive area while still allowing for density and development within an area. This particular

411
00:36:06,600 --> 00:36:14,160
 district was established via ordinance 2006-139 and encompasses approximately 47 acres allowing

412
00:36:14,160 --> 00:36:20,840
 for up to 112 maximum single family residential units. The Razor Ranch overlay district is

413
00:36:20,840 --> 00:36:26,140
 probably our most active overlay district. I think we have at least maybe two agenda

414
00:36:26,140 --> 00:36:32,240
 items on the agenda for tonight regarding Razor Ranch. This particular area encompasses

415
00:36:32,240 --> 00:36:39,160
 approximately 410 acres of land and allows for development of a mix of uses located near

416
00:36:39,160 --> 00:36:45,400
 West University and I-35. The last comprehensive ordinance for the Razor Ranch overlay was

417
00:36:45,400 --> 00:36:52,080
 adopted in 2016. Staff will be working with a consultant to provide another comprehensive

418
00:36:52,080 --> 00:36:57,080
 ordinance and add that to our current DDC just so we have those standards in a centralized

419
00:36:57,080 --> 00:37:03,380
 location. So with that, I'll pass it back over to Cameron to cover the Fry Street overlay

420
00:37:03,380 --> 00:37:12,000
 and the historic districts. Thanks, Mia. So moving on to Fry Street overlay, this is located

421
00:37:12,000 --> 00:37:19,440
 in our DDC section 4.6, but it covers approximately 12 acres and is divided into two sub areas,

422
00:37:19,440 --> 00:37:24,720
 sub area A and B as you can see on the map here. It does apply to all buildings, structures,

423
00:37:24,720 --> 00:37:29,400
 sites and properties within that district. It does allow for that multifamily dwelling,

424
00:37:29,400 --> 00:37:34,720
 which we obviously see in our sub area B, which you can see in our photo here at Fry

425
00:37:34,720 --> 00:37:40,280
 and Hickory Street in the lower right hand corner. It does also regulate off street parking,

426
00:37:40,280 --> 00:37:45,640
 solid waste containers and signage and it does have district dimensional standards involved

427
00:37:45,640 --> 00:37:51,800
 and it does look at lot dimensions, setbacks and other standards such as height maximum

428
00:37:51,800 --> 00:37:56,600
 as well as coverage. In addition to that, we do have additional standards for sub area

429
00:37:56,600 --> 00:38:02,320
 B, which is that multifamily apartment complex, that mixed use that we see and it does regulate

430
00:38:02,320 --> 00:38:06,640
 site landscape and building and parking designs and those site plans are specifically shown

431
00:38:06,640 --> 00:38:15,720
 within the DDC. Moving on to our historic districts, we do have three local historic

432
00:38:15,720 --> 00:38:22,480
 districts within Denton, the Oak Hickory Historic District, which is covered in 4.9.4, our Belle

433
00:38:22,480 --> 00:38:27,880
 Avenue Historic District, which used to be a conservation overlay and this is located

434
00:38:27,880 --> 00:38:32,640
 in our subsection 4.9.5 and then lastly our West Oak Area Historic District, which is

435
00:38:32,640 --> 00:38:37,960
 located in 4.9.6 and all of these buildings within the historic districts are reviewed

436
00:38:37,960 --> 00:38:42,440
 under our Secretary of Interior Standards, also known as the standards and they also

437
00:38:42,440 --> 00:38:48,680
 do within their overlays have additional individual architectural requirements that they that

438
00:38:48,680 --> 00:38:55,920
 are overseen by the DDC such as fencing, ordinary maintenance, window replacements, things such

439
00:38:55,920 --> 00:39:01,640
 as that. So just to kind of give you all a general idea of where these historic districts

440
00:39:01,640 --> 00:39:06,600
 are, I circled the square, the Oak Hickory Historic District is probably our most well

441
00:39:06,600 --> 00:39:12,280
 known historic district and that's located west of the square along West Oak and these

442
00:39:12,280 --> 00:39:16,880
 are just an example of some of the properties that are in that area, but you can see a historic

443
00:39:16,880 --> 00:39:22,300
 building and the building today and once again these are kind of why we have these regulations

444
00:39:22,300 --> 00:39:27,840
 in place to show and retain that historic character that we have here in the city. Another

445
00:39:27,840 --> 00:39:32,000
 example Belle Avenue, which is located just north of T.W.U. campus, but once again that

446
00:39:32,000 --> 00:39:39,640
 historic photo and then the building today. And then lastly the West Oak Area Historic

447
00:39:39,640 --> 00:39:44,020
 District, which is located a little bit further west along West Oak, generally between Houston

448
00:39:44,020 --> 00:39:51,200
 Place and Hickory Street. So moving on to the Denton Square District, this is located

449
00:39:51,200 --> 00:40:00,640
 in subsection 4.10. The district is outlined there kind of in that brown tan color and

450
00:40:00,640 --> 00:40:06,080
 I wanted to start the local landmarks within this district. These are properties that are

451
00:40:06,080 --> 00:40:12,240
 under HLC jurisdiction as local landmarks so I just wanted to highlight that. But when

452
00:40:12,240 --> 00:40:15,640
 it looks, when we're looking at the Denton Square District, this did get implemented

453
00:40:15,640 --> 00:40:20,960
 in June of 2019 and it also falls under the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic

454
00:40:20,960 --> 00:40:26,280
 Properties, but we're also looking at an individual set of guidelines which are located in the

455
00:40:26,280 --> 00:40:30,000
 DDC, but also in their own packet and that is the Denton Square District Standards and

456
00:40:30,000 --> 00:40:35,640
 Guidelines. And this really is regulating the built environment so that we're looking

457
00:40:35,640 --> 00:40:40,820
 at building orientation, setbacks, materials being used and ultimate goal of it is to promote

458
00:40:40,820 --> 00:40:50,840
 and preserve the square and to look at proper context and proper infill. So as we're kind

459
00:40:50,840 --> 00:40:55,640
 of wrapping this presentation up, we just wanted to share where you can find these different

460
00:40:55,640 --> 00:41:01,720
 overlays on our Denton interactive map. So you can go to our GIS maps, click on planning,

461
00:41:01,720 --> 00:41:06,240
 go under the subcategory to overlay districts and then you'll see all our districts there

462
00:41:06,240 --> 00:41:10,400
 that you can click on so you have a better idea of where all these are. As you can see,

463
00:41:10,400 --> 00:41:16,000
 most of them are located more centrally within our 288 loop in the I-35, but then we also

464
00:41:16,000 --> 00:41:19,560
 have our municipal airport overlay on the west side of the city and then we have Unicorn

465
00:41:19,560 --> 00:41:27,680
 Lake a little bit further south, south of I-35 east on the southeast edge of the city.

466
00:41:27,680 --> 00:41:34,120
 And as we wrap up here, we have our helpful links, the standards which I just discussed,

467
00:41:34,120 --> 00:41:39,080
 the Denton Square District Guidelines, Preservation Plan, Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan and Community

468
00:41:39,080 --> 00:41:44,720
 Code, but we are free to stand for any questions. Thank you, Mia and Cameron. Any questions

469
00:41:44,720 --> 00:41:52,600
 from the commission? Mia, can you go back to the historical lake district for the downtown

470
00:41:52,600 --> 00:42:04,040
 area? Just a pure curiosity. So the STARD, the STARD properties have to fall underneath

471
00:42:04,040 --> 00:42:10,240
 the HLC guidelines, but then the entire, our entire historic overlay applies to all buildings

472
00:42:10,240 --> 00:42:16,840
 within there? Correct. So the STARD are local landmarks, so they have additional jurisdiction

473
00:42:16,840 --> 00:42:23,040
 under HLC, so HLC has to review those. Just those properties. Yes, correct. But when we're

474
00:42:23,040 --> 00:42:28,680
 looking at the square as a whole, that does have its own kind of set of standards separate

475
00:42:28,680 --> 00:42:33,440
 from HLC. Gotcha. I'm guessing HLC is more strict than our standards are. Yes, correct.

476
00:42:33,440 --> 00:42:36,960
 Okay, got it. So basically it's like the entire down there has one set of strict standards

477
00:42:36,960 --> 00:42:40,560
 and then those STARD ones have even more strict on top of that. Correct. Okay, just wanted

478
00:42:40,560 --> 00:42:45,360
 to make sure. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So any other questions? Thank you all very much for

479
00:42:45,360 --> 00:42:50,000
 your hard work. Appreciate it. Okay. That brings us to clarification of agenda items

480
00:42:50,000 --> 00:42:54,640
 for tonight. I'll give a few notes to make sure if you guys saw the emails that came

481
00:42:54,640 --> 00:43:06,880
 in. Item 3E FP 22-0027A has been withdrawn by the applicant. And then items 4C and 4E

482
00:43:06,880 --> 00:43:13,520
 both had revisions that were emailed out. 4C, just whenever we make a vote, it'll be,

483
00:43:13,520 --> 00:43:19,440
 if it is a vote for approval, it will be with the modifications as prescribed in the presentation.

484
00:43:19,440 --> 00:43:25,160
 And then on 4E, if approved for a vote with modifications as presented on some revised

485
00:43:25,160 --> 00:43:33,000
 ordinance text. So you guys should have all received that. Okay. First item then 2A, consideration

486
00:43:33,000 --> 00:43:40,560
 of the of the meeting minutes from August 24, 2022. Any comments or questions on that?

487
00:43:40,560 --> 00:43:48,560
 Okay. Seeing none, move on to 3A ZCP 22-0018. I think that's Mia Hines coming on up for

488
00:43:48,560 --> 00:44:06,400
 that one. Okay. Good evening again, members of commission. Mia Hines, associate planner.

489
00:44:06,400 --> 00:44:12,640
 Just a brief overview of this agenda item. It is a request for a site plan approval for

490
00:44:12,640 --> 00:44:19,880
 a razor ranch medical office development phase three. The site is approximately 2.065 acres

491
00:44:19,880 --> 00:44:28,360
 located at the southeast corner of Panhandle and I-35 frontage. And staff will be recommending

492
00:44:28,360 --> 00:44:32,640
 approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. Just a brief reminder that the

493
00:44:32,640 --> 00:44:36,920
 reason that this is a zoning compliance plan, which is typically approved administratively,

494
00:44:36,920 --> 00:44:40,240
 but the reason that this is coming before this body is because it's within the razor

495
00:44:40,240 --> 00:44:47,040
 ranch south campus. So Tina, do you have anything to add in there? Got you. All right. Thank

496
00:44:47,040 --> 00:44:51,640
 you, Mia. Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think you got the

497
00:44:51,640 --> 00:45:03,720
 next one. FP 22-0028. Mia, I'm telling you, we're going to combine all these into one

498
00:45:03,720 --> 00:45:13,200
 PowerPoint and make it super easy. I should. I should. Okay. Good evening again. This is

499
00:45:13,200 --> 00:45:19,700
 a final plat for the razor ranch addition. At this time, the plat, I'm sorry, located

500
00:45:19,700 --> 00:45:24,760
 south of university, east of I-35. At this time, staff is recommending denial as the

501
00:45:24,760 --> 00:45:29,560
 plat doesn't meet all of our approval criteria. However, we have no objection to the request

502
00:45:29,560 --> 00:45:40,440
 extension to a date certain of September 28th, 2022. Okay. Any questions? All right. Three

503
00:45:40,440 --> 00:45:50,720
 for three, MP 22-0011B. Oh, that is me. That is you. Sorry. You're good. Okay. This is

504
00:45:50,720 --> 00:46:03,880
 a minor plat located within the city's ETJ at the northeast corner of March and, sorry,

505
00:46:03,880 --> 00:46:12,840
 I can't read the street name. It is of J&J Acres. It does not meet all of our criteria

506
00:46:12,840 --> 00:46:18,000
 for approval. At this time, we tried to work with the applicant here last minute as well,

507
00:46:18,000 --> 00:46:22,800
 and we just weren't able to get to that point, so we are recommending denial of this case.

508
00:46:22,800 --> 00:46:29,240
 And we already gave an extension on this one. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? All right.

509
00:46:29,240 --> 00:46:38,360
 Thank you, Mia. All right. Bring us to 3D PP 22-0022. Sean Jacobson to present. Good

510
00:46:38,360 --> 00:46:45,760
 evening, Chair and members of the commission. So, yes, this is PP 22-22, which is the prominent

511
00:46:45,760 --> 00:46:53,280
 square addition. It's a 36.13 acre site at the southeast corner of Loop 288 and University.

512
00:46:53,280 --> 00:46:58,400
 At this time, staff is recommending denial, but we do not object to the request for an

513
00:46:58,400 --> 00:47:08,640
 extension to that October 12th. Any questions? No questions? Okay. Thank you, Sean. 3E has

514
00:47:08,640 --> 00:47:18,600
 been withdrawn, so it's a 3F PP 22-0021A. Julie Wyatt to present. Good evening, Julie

515
00:47:18,600 --> 00:47:26,200
 Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. This is PP 22-21. This is located between

516
00:47:26,200 --> 00:47:33,840
 Loop 288 and Mayhill. The purpose of this plat is to facilitate a multifamily development.

517
00:47:33,840 --> 00:47:37,680
 They still have to get an SUP for that multifamily development, as well as address some other

518
00:47:37,680 --> 00:47:45,280
 items on that preliminary plat. They have submitted for those additional requirements,

519
00:47:45,280 --> 00:47:48,560
 but they're not quite there yet, so we are recommending denial of the request. I'll be

520
00:47:48,560 --> 00:47:53,160
 happy to answer any questions. And we gave the extension last meeting, correct? Yes, sir.

521
00:47:53,160 --> 00:48:03,920
 Any other questions? All righty. Thank you, Julie. 3G PP 22-0007A, all you. All right.

522
00:48:03,920 --> 00:48:10,200
 So this is for a single-family residential development south of Audra. It is the second

523
00:48:10,200 --> 00:48:14,680
 phase of a two-phase project. They have a couple of things they need to work through

524
00:48:14,680 --> 00:48:19,120
 on this preliminary plat, so we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to that

525
00:48:19,120 --> 00:48:26,560
 extension that they requested. Okay. Any questions from the commission? All right. Thank you,

526
00:48:26,560 --> 00:48:33,480
 Julie. Last one, FP 22-0001. All right. This is for the Agave Ranch development, and you're

527
00:48:33,480 --> 00:48:38,840
 probably all very familiar with this one. They did get a plat or a preliminary plat extension

528
00:48:38,840 --> 00:48:43,540
 a couple of weeks ago from this commission. They're now moving forward with their final

529
00:48:43,540 --> 00:48:48,760
 plat. They do have some items that they do need to work through on this first phase of

530
00:48:48,760 --> 00:48:53,880
 their final plat, so staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to their

531
00:48:53,880 --> 00:48:59,800
 requested extension, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any questions

532
00:48:59,800 --> 00:49:06,680
 from the commission? I know there was an email sent in, Julie, from the North Denton Neighborhood

533
00:49:06,680 --> 00:49:11,200
 Association. I don't know if you had a chance to review any of those comments they had in

534
00:49:11,200 --> 00:49:14,880
 there and would be willing to address it. I don't want to go through line by line item

535
00:49:14,880 --> 00:49:19,200
 on there on a plat with an extension request, but are any of those things been brought to

536
00:49:19,200 --> 00:49:23,120
 the attention of the applicant to be able to address? It seems like they're referencing

537
00:49:23,120 --> 00:49:28,960
 things that were put into the overlay as originally approved. Yes. So we went through the concerns

538
00:49:28,960 --> 00:49:34,960
 with that neighborhood association, and they were related to those overlay conditions.

539
00:49:34,960 --> 00:49:40,760
 So this zoning was approved a couple of years ago with overlay conditions with the adoption

540
00:49:40,760 --> 00:49:46,340
 of or the implementation of the 2019 Denton Development Code, those transition to a PD.

541
00:49:46,340 --> 00:49:51,060
 So any development on the site has to conform to that, and that has to do with land use

542
00:49:51,060 --> 00:49:56,320
 as well as screening and other open space requirements. We did go through their concerns.

543
00:49:56,320 --> 00:50:01,720
 A lot of their concerns were related to those amenities that are required of the development,

544
00:50:01,720 --> 00:50:09,120
 some trail systems, some park amenities. Those are things that are typically or those aren't

545
00:50:09,120 --> 00:50:14,200
 reflected on final plots. Those are reflected in the development of the site. So the applicant

546
00:50:14,200 --> 00:50:19,000
 has reserved those common area open space lots that are going to be maintained by the

547
00:50:19,000 --> 00:50:24,640
 HOA to accommodate those landscape buffers and open space amenities that are required

548
00:50:24,640 --> 00:50:28,880
 by the applicant, but that wouldn't be reflected on the final plot. Only the reserved space

549
00:50:28,880 --> 00:50:32,920
 will be reflected on the final plot? Yes, sir. Got you. Okay. I know there was a question

550
00:50:32,920 --> 00:50:37,200
 about phasing, but I think we understand they're doing this in I think three phases, correct?

551
00:50:37,200 --> 00:50:44,040
 They are. And staff, the way their plot does reflect, the phasing is a little unconventional,

552
00:50:44,040 --> 00:50:49,360
 so we have asked them to be a little clearer with their resubmittal so that it's very clear

553
00:50:49,360 --> 00:50:52,920
 going forward how that phasing is approached in those remainder areas.

554
00:50:52,920 --> 00:50:58,600
 How do they make it more clear on the plot? There really isn't a set rule as to how an

555
00:50:58,600 --> 00:51:03,960
 applicant could address these. It's pretty open-ended in terms of our Denton Development

556
00:51:03,960 --> 00:51:08,080
 Code and the Texas Local Government Code, but we just want to make sure that however

557
00:51:08,080 --> 00:51:12,680
 they choose to say that this is phase two or phase three, that it's just very clear

558
00:51:12,680 --> 00:51:17,240
 on the plot. Got it. Okay. All righty. Any other questions

559
00:51:17,240 --> 00:51:23,080
 from the commission? Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Appreciate it. That brings us to item

560
00:51:23,080 --> 00:51:31,040
 number four, public hearings, 4A PD 22-0006 and Cameron Robertson to present. Good evening,

561
00:51:31,040 --> 00:51:35,920
 commissioners. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and principal planner.

562
00:51:35,920 --> 00:51:46,520
 There it is. Okay. So this is for PD 22-0006. This is a request for a planned development

563
00:51:46,520 --> 00:51:52,800
 with MN-based zoning for an approximately 36,000 square foot home zone furniture showroom

564
00:51:52,800 --> 00:52:01,500
 at the southeast corner of University Drive or also known as US 380 and Ector Street.

565
00:52:01,500 --> 00:52:06,320
 It is consistent with other commercial development along US 380. The majority of the parking

566
00:52:06,320 --> 00:52:11,280
 would be placed at the front of the lot and the property or the building itself would

567
00:52:11,280 --> 00:52:17,860
 be centered between that north and south property line along that western edge to mitigate impact

568
00:52:17,860 --> 00:52:22,560
 for those residential properties to the south. It is also staff found that it is consistent

569
00:52:22,560 --> 00:52:26,920
 with our Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and staff is recommending approval. And I can

570
00:52:26,920 --> 00:52:35,960
 take any questions. Any questions, commission? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, vice chair.

571
00:52:35,960 --> 00:52:41,840
 Just qualitatively so that we're all on the same page, is there a particular main reason

572
00:52:41,840 --> 00:52:48,480
 why this is decided to go to the PD route and the main zoning category wouldn't apply

573
00:52:48,480 --> 00:52:55,520
 or wouldn't be sufficient for the proposed development? So currently it is an MN zoning

574
00:52:55,520 --> 00:53:01,920
 district. If we went the just MN zoning district, we would not be allowed to have front parking.

575
00:53:01,920 --> 00:53:07,460
 The parking would be near the rear nor near those residential properties. Additionally,

576
00:53:07,460 --> 00:53:12,760
 we would have to have that SUP for a general retail use over 15,000 square feet. So what

577
00:53:12,760 --> 00:53:19,600
 this PD is trying to provide is proper infill, more contextual that is more compatible with

578
00:53:19,600 --> 00:53:23,800
 the properties, commercial properties along US 380 as well as to reduce the impact to

579
00:53:23,800 --> 00:53:30,800
 those residential properties at that southern edge. Okay. Thank you. Tina. And to that point,

580
00:53:30,800 --> 00:53:35,120
 I think Cameron explained that very well. Normally we would not advocate the planning

581
00:53:35,120 --> 00:53:40,020
 and zoning commission consider planning plan development district requests for single lots.

582
00:53:40,020 --> 00:53:45,400
 But in this case, as Cameron pointed out, we felt it was an appropriate solution to

583
00:53:45,400 --> 00:53:50,400
 be able to address this infill development. We understand why the MN zoning was put in

584
00:53:50,400 --> 00:53:55,700
 place, particularly from a land use perspective. But when it comes to the existing surrounding

585
00:53:55,700 --> 00:53:59,880
 development conditions, especially if you look at the existing grocery store that is

586
00:53:59,880 --> 00:54:05,320
 immediately to the West, that it would only be appropriate to consider this type of solution

587
00:54:05,320 --> 00:54:09,600
 as it relates for the development of that property. So otherwise you normally hear us

588
00:54:09,600 --> 00:54:18,520
 on our soapbox about our caution on using PDs. Trust me, we hear it. Thank you. Is the

589
00:54:18,520 --> 00:54:21,840
 applicant have a presentation tonight, Cameron? They do not have a presentation, but they

590
00:54:21,840 --> 00:54:26,600
 will be here for Q&A. Okay. I'll just ask the question here because it's more of a

591
00:54:26,600 --> 00:54:29,480
 piece of curiosity. Are they going to shut down the other home zone over off 288 or is

592
00:54:29,480 --> 00:54:32,520
 this going to be a second location in the city of Dunlap? From my understanding, this

593
00:54:32,520 --> 00:54:37,840
 would be a second location. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other

594
00:54:37,840 --> 00:54:56,140
 questions? All right. For BZ22-0004A, Mia Hines to present. Thank you. Mia Hines, just

595
00:54:56,140 --> 00:55:03,200
 a brief description of this request. It is to amend the text associated with the Razor

596
00:55:03,200 --> 00:55:11,120
 Ranch overlay district's allowance of multifamily within the Razor Ranch South Campus. Specifically,

597
00:55:11,120 --> 00:55:18,960
 they are wanting to add 200 multifamily units. Currently, the Razor Ranch overlay district

598
00:55:18,960 --> 00:55:24,800
 standards allows for up to 1800 multifamily units within the Razor Ranch South Campus.

599
00:55:24,800 --> 00:55:28,760
 They're wanting to increase that to 2,000 and it's just a zoning text amendment. They

600
00:55:28,760 --> 00:55:32,760
 aren't trying to include it in an area where it isn't already permitted or anything like

601
00:55:32,760 --> 00:55:38,680
 that. As part of this though, we wanted to further clarify, visually speaking, where

602
00:55:38,680 --> 00:55:45,680
 multifamily is permitted on the zoning concept plan just to show, again, it's something that's

603
00:55:45,680 --> 00:55:49,840
 already listed within the standards where multifamily is, but just to visually show

604
00:55:49,840 --> 00:55:56,200
 and have a visual representation of where multifamily is permitted. With that, staff

605
00:55:56,200 --> 00:56:00,680
 is recommending approval of the request as it complies with the applicable sections of

606
00:56:00,680 --> 00:56:05,520
 our DDC and I will take any questions you have at this time.

607
00:56:05,520 --> 00:56:12,200
 Any questions for the commission? I've only got one. I know you just made the presentation

608
00:56:12,200 --> 00:56:17,200
 on overlay districts a minute ago on work session reports. This feels a little bit of

609
00:56:17,200 --> 00:56:21,480
 cart before the horse in the sense that you referenced that there was going to be a review

610
00:56:21,480 --> 00:56:26,240
 of that Razor Ranch overlay district and is that correct in understanding what you said

611
00:56:26,240 --> 00:56:31,560
 earlier? Not a review, but a compiling of Razor Ranch ordinances the way that they're

612
00:56:31,560 --> 00:56:38,280
 amended. Every amendment doesn't include the entirety of the Razor Ranch district development

613
00:56:38,280 --> 00:56:43,920
 standards. What we're wanting to do instead of when I'm looking at a specific sub area

614
00:56:43,920 --> 00:56:48,560
 and reviewing it, I have to go find the specific ordinance and then point to those specific

615
00:56:48,560 --> 00:56:52,680
 development standards within that specific ordinance. What we're wanting to do is compile

616
00:56:52,680 --> 00:56:57,440
 the changes and amendments and add that to as an appendix to our 2019 DDC just so it's

617
00:56:57,440 --> 00:57:01,120
 much easier for us to access and it's much easier for the public to access as well.

618
00:57:01,120 --> 00:57:04,480
 I know we've made amendments in the past, but I just know the city staff started working

619
00:57:04,480 --> 00:57:08,080
 on this. We're making changes to it, but if we're just compiling them all together, then

620
00:57:08,080 --> 00:57:13,680
 what's another one? So, okay. Well, and to that point, what I would add is given all

621
00:57:13,680 --> 00:57:18,720
 of the ordinance amendments that have transpired over time, this is going to be a complex project

622
00:57:18,720 --> 00:57:24,880
 for us to consolidate, and we had started on an effort and then the person who was working

623
00:57:24,880 --> 00:57:29,000
 on it is no longer with that entity, so we're basically having to start over again. So,

624
00:57:29,000 --> 00:57:35,640
 we don't want to cause any delay with the applicants project in this particular case.

625
00:57:35,640 --> 00:57:42,080
 So, as for right now, we believe it's appropriate to go ahead and allow for this means of addressing

626
00:57:42,080 --> 00:57:47,080
 the need. Got it. Thank you. Any questions?

627
00:57:47,080 --> 00:57:51,120
 Okay. Thank you, Mia. Thank you.

628
00:57:51,120 --> 00:57:59,240
 Brings us to 4C, S21-0008, Ron Megida to present for us.

629
00:57:59,240 --> 00:58:16,640
 Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. I'll take my glasses off so I can see. Again,

630
00:58:16,640 --> 00:58:21,040
 Ron Megida, principal planner of development services. The request is for a specific use

631
00:58:21,040 --> 00:58:27,640
 permit as introduced for an equipment sales and rental use. The equipment sales and rental

632
00:58:27,640 --> 00:58:35,640
 use is part of a U-Haul commercial business, which will consist of office, warehouse, self-storage,

633
00:58:35,640 --> 00:58:41,240
 as well as the equipment sales and rental uses as requested. It is located here, as

634
00:58:41,240 --> 00:58:48,760
 you can see in yellow, just north of 380, east of Spring Valley Drive, and, again, approximately

635
00:58:48,760 --> 00:58:58,560
 5.892 acres in size. The site plan that you see here, you hopefully had received the revised

636
00:58:58,560 --> 00:59:02,600
 version of it. I just want to highlight a couple things. Obviously, it's going to be

637
00:59:02,600 --> 00:59:08,800
 made up of three buildings. Building A will be where the office and front of the business

638
00:59:08,800 --> 00:59:16,680
 will be located with also warehouse spaces to store the U-Box containers. So that is

639
00:59:16,680 --> 00:59:22,520
 primarily what Building A will serve. Building B is the location of the self-storage units.

640
00:59:22,520 --> 00:59:29,200
 Those are individual units rented by individuals, again, to store their items. Similarly, Building

641
00:59:29,200 --> 00:59:37,260
 C will have similar type units for individual renters to rent those units. The specific

642
00:59:37,260 --> 00:59:44,400
 use permit, as again introduced, is really to allow for the equipment rental and sales

643
00:59:44,400 --> 00:59:51,800
 area or use, and that is displayed here in what is shown highlighted in this darker gray

644
00:59:51,800 --> 00:59:59,040
 shading, one location here as well as the other area, which is shown over here. Also,

645
00:59:59,040 --> 01:00:03,280
 want to make mention as part of the conditions, which I will highlight in a second, there

646
01:00:03,280 --> 01:00:08,960
 will be some locations where those U-Box containers will be stored temporarily. This is to allow

647
01:00:08,960 --> 01:00:16,120
 for those individuals that own those U-Boxes to empty or load them again from the U-Boxes

648
01:00:16,120 --> 01:00:22,720
 to their units or vice versa, as well as a U-Box display only, which will be located

649
01:00:22,720 --> 01:00:28,320
 in front by the front entrance, and this will be just for that purpose to display that type

650
01:00:28,320 --> 01:00:36,440
 of use or that type of container. I'll go straight to the recommendations or the conditions

651
01:00:36,440 --> 01:00:42,160
 that is staff is recommending approval of the specific use permit with the following

652
01:00:42,160 --> 01:00:47,200
 conditions. Condition one is primarily making sure that the site plan as well as the landscape

653
01:00:47,200 --> 01:00:53,200
 plan is followed and complied with. If there are any changes, they will require a new specific

654
01:00:53,200 --> 01:00:58,280
 use permit. Now, there is some allowances for some slight changes to the landscape area,

655
01:00:58,280 --> 01:01:03,920
 up to 5%, but again, all other changes will require a new specific use permit. Storage

656
01:01:03,920 --> 01:01:11,440
 of the U-Box containers are prohibited outdoors. They must be located within an enclosed structure.

657
01:01:11,440 --> 01:01:15,980
 Again, except for those that we mentioned earlier that you saw earlier, the display

658
01:01:15,980 --> 01:01:20,560
 one will be located in front. That will be outdoors, as well as those temporary stored

659
01:01:20,560 --> 01:01:26,760
 containers, again, right in front of building B. Those will also be outdoors if there is

660
01:01:26,760 --> 01:01:32,040
 a need for them, and again, that area is specified in the site plan, and that is the only area

661
01:01:32,040 --> 01:01:36,520
 in which those U-Boxes will be located. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for

662
01:01:36,520 --> 01:01:37,520
 any questions.

663
01:01:37,520 --> 01:01:38,520
 >> Commissioner Perot.

664
01:01:38,520 --> 01:01:50,200
 >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Just one, when staff was evaluating this, did you look at the proposed

665
01:01:50,200 --> 01:01:58,440
 alignment of the 380 to 288 bypass on TxDOT's future projects, and how does that impact

666
01:01:58,440 --> 01:02:00,520
 this area, or is it further north of this?

667
01:02:00,520 --> 01:02:06,880
 >> I think it's further north of this, and I know Karina, who also was part of this review,

668
01:02:06,880 --> 01:02:10,980
 and I'm getting a head nod as well. So yes, the transportation department, as well as

669
01:02:10,980 --> 01:02:13,920
 our other engineering department, looked at that specific alignment.

670
01:02:13,920 --> 01:02:14,920
 >> Thank you.

671
01:02:14,920 --> 01:02:22,440
 >> Any other questions to the commission? I think the only question I have is I know

672
01:02:22,440 --> 01:02:26,520
 on DCRC on Monday, we were looking at the next item we were going to discuss was outdoor

673
01:02:26,520 --> 01:02:31,520
 storage, and I just didn't know, with you leaving the charge on that, how much, you

674
01:02:31,520 --> 01:02:34,800
 know, the changes and the recommendations that are within here are going to align with

675
01:02:34,800 --> 01:02:39,040
 some of those recommendations city staff was going to make to changes to outdoor storage

676
01:02:39,040 --> 01:02:40,040
 in the DDC.

677
01:02:40,040 --> 01:02:43,640
 >> Yes, the goal, right, and again, we won't get into that because I think posting, we

678
01:02:43,640 --> 01:02:45,440
 want to make sure we don't get outside of that.

679
01:02:45,440 --> 01:02:49,520
 >> Sure, I understand. I guess more of is we're not going to create a nonconformity

680
01:02:49,520 --> 01:02:54,120
 if there is some sort of change, ultimate change that gets created in the development

681
01:02:54,120 --> 01:02:57,760
 code later on down the road for outdoor storage. It seems like this has been very strict in

682
01:02:57,760 --> 01:03:02,400
 the way that it's restricting outdoor storage, and I guess to make it more, so that Hillary

683
01:03:02,400 --> 01:03:07,800
 doesn't hit me over the head in a minute, I've seen U-Haul facilities before that have

684
01:03:07,800 --> 01:03:12,520
 trucks that are stored all over the place on the site itself. I don't, I see it talks

685
01:03:12,520 --> 01:03:16,920
 about the U-Haul, the U-Box containers. I don't think this has actual truck rentals

686
01:03:16,920 --> 01:03:21,280
 there, so it's just storage facilities and the U-Boxes themselves, and that the U-Boxes

687
01:03:21,280 --> 01:03:25,000
 are being contained to only the temporary areas and the display areas. Is there anything

688
01:03:25,000 --> 01:03:26,000
 I'm missing on that?

689
01:03:26,000 --> 01:03:30,560
 >> So, no, these will include trailers and trucks as well, and because these are displayed,

690
01:03:30,560 --> 01:03:34,160
 you know, for immediate rental and for sale, they will be allowed, and that is something

691
01:03:34,160 --> 01:03:38,760
 that the development code will allow and, or does allow and will allow in the future.

692
01:03:38,760 --> 01:03:42,720
 >> But for, but for display, it's out there, but then for the actual storage of them, they'll

693
01:03:42,720 --> 01:03:44,280
 also be outdoors back there.

694
01:03:44,280 --> 01:03:47,240
 >> Correct. Correct. So, storage is a little bit, you know, different versus display, you

695
01:03:47,240 --> 01:03:48,240
 know.

696
01:03:48,240 --> 01:03:49,240
 >> Sure.

697
01:03:49,240 --> 01:03:52,360
 >> The ones that are not necessarily immediately for, you know, sale or rental, those are what

698
01:03:52,360 --> 01:03:55,600
 we're referring to as display, and I'm sorry, for as storage.

699
01:03:55,600 --> 01:03:56,600
 >> Yeah.

700
01:03:56,600 --> 01:03:58,840
 >> So, those are a little bit more stricter in what we would require.

701
01:03:58,840 --> 01:03:59,840
 >> Okay. Got it.

702
01:03:59,840 --> 01:04:05,640
 >> Commissioner Smith, if I could add to that. So, keep in mind, the DDC has a use that's

703
01:04:05,640 --> 01:04:10,360
 considered equipment, sales, and rental, and so, and then we also have outdoor storage.

704
01:04:10,360 --> 01:04:16,200
 So, in this particular instance, we've evaluated this as equipment, sales, and rental because

705
01:04:16,200 --> 01:04:21,720
 of the trucks and trailer component. The U-box container is a little bit of a unique situation

706
01:04:21,720 --> 01:04:25,480
 associated with this, and we felt like it aligned better with the equipment, sales,

707
01:04:25,480 --> 01:04:30,540
 and rental component of their business, but the standards that this request has been evaluated

708
01:04:30,540 --> 01:04:34,200
 against are based upon the requirements that we would have in place for equipment, sales,

709
01:04:34,200 --> 01:04:39,420
 and rental, which may have some differences compared to our standard outdoor storage regulations.

710
01:04:39,420 --> 01:04:43,480
 So, not to split hairs, but it does to some extent.

711
01:04:43,480 --> 01:04:45,480
 >> Gotcha. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson.

712
01:04:45,480 --> 01:04:49,600
 >> Thanks, Chair. Are there going to be open 24 hours to the storage units? Because, I

713
01:04:49,600 --> 01:04:52,680
 mean, there's a neighborhood right behind it, and I wouldn't want to live in that neighborhood.

714
01:04:52,680 --> 01:04:56,400
 >> My understanding is that they're going to have some, no, they'll be closed, is my

715
01:04:56,400 --> 01:05:00,600
 understanding. So, there'll be business hours where there will be closed hours.

716
01:05:00,600 --> 01:05:03,800
 >> But they don't have a code where they can come in and punch in and go to the storage

717
01:05:03,800 --> 01:05:05,920
 unit, all that stuff.

718
01:05:05,920 --> 01:05:09,840
 >> Not that, I mean, the applicant is here, and they'll be able to answer that question.

719
01:05:09,840 --> 01:05:13,200
 My understanding is even with that, they will not be allowed to enter the building during

720
01:05:13,200 --> 01:05:14,200
 closed hours.

721
01:05:14,200 --> 01:05:25,440
 >> Okay. Any other questions for the commission? Okay. Thank you, Ron. Brings us to 4D, DCA

722
01:05:25,440 --> 01:05:29,080
 22-0005. Ron, your project as well.

723
01:05:29,080 --> 01:05:48,440
 >> All right. Okay. This is a development code amendment related to multifamily dwelling.

724
01:05:48,440 --> 01:05:54,720
 And, really, the genesis of this code amendment started off with how we are to address multifamily

725
01:05:54,720 --> 01:06:00,320
 living. And those that are, you know, on the commission are familiar with these, these

726
01:06:00,320 --> 01:06:05,640
 are ones where they're on a single lot, and they are developed with either a single family

727
01:06:05,640 --> 01:06:12,320
 or duplex or even a triplex or fourplex on a single lot again. And so, trying to categorize

728
01:06:12,320 --> 01:06:17,120
 what that type of use is, it's a fairly new residential type. We, you know, struggled

729
01:06:17,120 --> 01:06:23,320
 with it. We actually processed it as PDs in the past. But after learning more of the function

730
01:06:23,320 --> 01:06:28,720
 and the way it's developed and what it's being used as, we felt that it was more of a multifamily

731
01:06:28,720 --> 01:06:35,320
 use. So, therefore, staff is recommending that we categorize it as a multifamily, have

732
01:06:35,320 --> 01:06:40,240
 adjusted that by, you know, refining and clarifying the definition of multifamily so that it would

733
01:06:40,240 --> 01:06:46,040
 include this type of use. We're also adding additional standards to enhance the multifamily

734
01:06:46,040 --> 01:06:51,200
 development. Again, as a result of adding this, I want to make sure that we address

735
01:06:51,200 --> 01:06:56,800
 these other, you know, components such as a single family type of housing. So that is

736
01:06:56,800 --> 01:07:03,580
 what is under Section 533D. That will be included in there to address specifically those buildings

737
01:07:03,580 --> 01:07:11,080
 that have one or two units. Lastly, we wanted to make sure that we address dimensional standards

738
01:07:11,080 --> 01:07:18,720
 under MN where the housing, or sorry, the height limit is 41 through 65 would require

739
01:07:18,720 --> 01:07:24,320
 a specific use permit, and that applies to all uses. We are actually limiting that or

740
01:07:24,320 --> 01:07:29,920
 applying that only to where it's adjacent to residential uses, and I'll discuss that

741
01:07:29,920 --> 01:07:36,400
 in our presentation during the public hearing. The DCRC met on this several times, three

742
01:07:36,400 --> 01:07:43,760
 dates specifically. Therefore, after meeting with staff and reviewing the proposed code

743
01:07:43,760 --> 01:07:47,680
 amendments, they've recommended that this be moved forward to the Applying Zoning Commission

744
01:07:47,680 --> 01:07:52,560
 and City Council. The sections that we saw here, or that you see here, pretty much what

745
01:07:52,560 --> 01:07:57,980
 I described earlier, we were going to work on the definition of multifamily. We're proposing

746
01:07:57,980 --> 01:08:02,320
 some main amendments there, adding that use specific standards for those buildings that

747
01:08:02,320 --> 01:08:08,640
 have one to two units, and then also that MN district dimensional standards as it relates

748
01:08:08,640 --> 01:08:12,960
 to building, maximum building height. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for

749
01:08:12,960 --> 01:08:24,240
 any questions. Any questions for Ron? Okay, seeing none. Thank you, Ron. Last one for

750
01:08:24,240 --> 01:08:35,680
 EDCA 22-0006. You all heard a little bit about plan developments

751
01:08:35,680 --> 01:08:40,640
 or overlay districts as it relates to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment

752
01:08:40,640 --> 01:08:49,200
 is really to develop a more comprehensive PD procedure from rezoning it to a plan development.

753
01:08:49,200 --> 01:08:58,720
 One of the major additions that we're proposing, staff, is the option for an overlay plan development.

754
01:08:58,720 --> 01:09:04,560
 What will result is there will be two types of PDs if this were to be approved. One, an

755
01:09:04,560 --> 01:09:10,260
 overlay, which is a little bit more or less involved as far as types of submittal requirements.

756
01:09:10,260 --> 01:09:17,240
 It's a little bit more to address the compatibility or the issues that are more related to adjacency.

757
01:09:17,240 --> 01:09:23,000
 That is what is being proposed. We're also looking at clarifying what submittal requirements

758
01:09:23,000 --> 01:09:29,840
 are for standard PDs. The current development code has it, but we felt that there was a

759
01:09:29,840 --> 01:09:37,720
 need for more clarification. Adding more information related to PD amendments. As we get more PDs,

760
01:09:37,720 --> 01:09:43,440
 more amendments will follow. Staff is recommending that we delete the notification requirements

761
01:09:43,440 --> 01:09:49,520
 for minor amendments. Currently, the requirement is to notify property owners. Again, we felt

762
01:09:49,520 --> 01:09:54,680
 that that was not necessarily needed for minor amendments as opposed to major amendments.

763
01:09:54,680 --> 01:10:00,640
 Lastly, looking at the criteria for approval for rezoning to a PD, we added a little bit

764
01:10:00,640 --> 01:10:06,680
 more information and more criteria so that when staff looks at it, when the Planning

765
01:10:06,680 --> 01:10:10,800
 and Zoning Commission looks at it, and City Council, they have a little bit more of information

766
01:10:10,800 --> 01:10:18,640
 in which to make their decision. That basically summarizes the PD code amendments.

767
01:10:18,640 --> 01:10:25,560
 Any questions for Ron? I've only got one. Ron, can you just walk through what is a minor

768
01:10:25,560 --> 01:10:28,880
 amendment and a major amendment when it comes to a PD?

769
01:10:28,880 --> 01:10:34,760
 Sure. Generally, a minor amendment is something very simple where it doesn't affect the site

770
01:10:34,760 --> 01:10:45,320
 layout. It doesn't affect the number of units or parking or any major design element. As

771
01:10:45,320 --> 01:10:51,160
 opposed to the major, which if they're proposing a change in their street configuration or

772
01:10:51,160 --> 01:10:58,000
 access, that sort of thing, a little bit more substantial. That is something that is considered

773
01:10:58,000 --> 01:11:02,880
 major. The full description of that is available on your backup if you need to. We can pull

774
01:11:02,880 --> 01:11:06,480
 that up during now, or we can pull it up during the public hearing.

775
01:11:06,480 --> 01:11:10,000
 No, I just wanted to make sure you said it out loud.

776
01:11:10,000 --> 01:11:15,080
 Commissioner Smith, if I could ask Ron a quick question. I seem to recall we had some corrected

777
01:11:15,080 --> 01:11:18,440
 text. Are you addressing that in your public hearing presentation, or was that sent out

778
01:11:18,440 --> 01:11:20,640
 previously? Yes, that will be part of the presentation

779
01:11:20,640 --> 01:11:27,440
 in the public hearing. Okay. Got it. All right. Thank you, Ron. Appreciate

780
01:11:27,440 --> 01:11:30,600
 it. Before we close work session, I just want to

781
01:11:30,600 --> 01:11:35,760
 recognize and say welcome back to Corina Maldonado for coming back from maternity leave and welcome

782
01:11:35,760 --> 01:11:41,600
 back on as a transportation planner. Everyone go over there and say hi to Corina. Glad you're

783
01:11:41,600 --> 01:11:47,280
 back and rolling. With that, I will close our work session at 544 and we will reconvene

784
01:11:47,280 --> 01:12:03,400
 in council chambers at 630. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton

785
01:12:03,400 --> 01:12:10,240
 planning and zoning meeting on September 14, 2022. I'll call our public meeting to order.

786
01:12:10,240 --> 01:12:14,040
 First item of business is item number one, pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flags.

787
01:12:14,040 --> 01:12:21,660
 Please stay with me if you're able. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

788
01:12:21,660 --> 01:12:28,720
 of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,

789
01:12:28,720 --> 01:12:36,640
 with liberty and justice for all. Honoring the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the

790
01:12:36,640 --> 01:12:46,200
 United States of America and Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.

791
01:12:46,200 --> 01:12:52,160
 Thank you. All right. On to item two, consider approval of the planning and the zoning meeting

792
01:12:52,160 --> 01:12:57,800
 minutes for meeting of August 24, 2022. Commissioner Villarreal.

793
01:12:57,800 --> 01:13:01,520
 I move approval. I didn't see who the second was before I

794
01:13:01,520 --> 01:13:03,440
 got away. Commissioner Anderson.

795
01:13:03,440 --> 01:13:06,560
 Second. Okay. First and a second for approval.

796
01:13:06,560 --> 01:13:18,800
 Go ahead. Take a vote. Take a vote on the board.

797
01:13:18,800 --> 01:13:28,000
 That passes 6-0. Moving on to item three or item 3A, ZCP 22-0018.

798
01:13:28,000 --> 01:13:42,920
 I'll ask up Mia Hines. Mia Hines, associate planner.

799
01:13:42,920 --> 01:13:52,080
 This item is a zoning compliance plan for Razor medical office building phase three.

800
01:13:52,080 --> 01:13:55,480
 This is coming before this body, and I'll get into that subsection here in a second,

801
01:13:55,480 --> 01:14:00,040
 but this is coming before this body as it is within the Razor Ranch South Campus and

802
01:14:00,040 --> 01:14:05,560
 any site plan within that development area requires approval by the Planning and Zoning

803
01:14:05,560 --> 01:14:09,560
 Commission. So again, this is a consideration or considering

804
01:14:09,560 --> 01:14:14,480
 approval of the site plan for medical office development within the Razor Ranch overlay

805
01:14:14,480 --> 01:14:19,680
 district South Campus. The site, as you can see there to the right,

806
01:14:19,680 --> 01:14:26,080
 is approximately, or located at the southeast corner of Panhandle Street and I-35.

807
01:14:26,080 --> 01:14:32,400
 It's approximately 2.065 acres, and the area specifically that we're concerned about this

808
01:14:32,400 --> 01:14:37,400
 evening is the area highlighted in green. Previous phases for this have already been

809
01:14:37,400 --> 01:14:42,640
 developed and are existing, and this is just the phase three of that overall development.

810
01:14:42,640 --> 01:14:46,960
 So if you're familiar with the, I know you all are familiar with the Razor Ranch overlay

811
01:14:46,960 --> 01:14:53,360
 zoning, within the overlay are sub-districts, and then within those sub-districts are each

812
01:14:53,360 --> 01:15:00,600
 parcel is further subdivided for conceptual land uses allowed within that particular area.

813
01:15:00,600 --> 01:15:07,240
 So this site is zoned within the RCCD Zoning District. It's part of the Razor Ranch Overlay

814
01:15:07,240 --> 01:15:14,080
 District South Mixed Use District, and the uses permitted on this site, as you can see,

815
01:15:14,080 --> 01:15:19,960
 they're highlighted in the box, the red box, are hotel, retail, office uses, and multifamily.

816
01:15:19,960 --> 01:15:24,360
 And so with them proposing medical office, that use is of course permitted within this

817
01:15:24,360 --> 01:15:28,880
 particular site. For Razor Ranch site plans, and this is sort

818
01:15:28,880 --> 01:15:34,960
 of what I was, I'm sorry, for Razor Ranch site plans, what we're going to look at for this

819
01:15:34,960 --> 01:15:43,000
 particular site is Ordinance 2011-225, specifically the architectural standards established in

820
01:15:43,000 --> 01:15:50,560
 Exhibit C-2A and the landscape standards established in Exhibit D-2A. And with the Zoning Compliance

821
01:15:50,560 --> 01:15:54,840
 Plan package, we took a look at the site plan, the landscape plans, and the four-sided building

822
01:15:54,840 --> 01:15:59,960
 elevations. Additionally, the Razor Ranch Overlay District

823
01:15:59,960 --> 01:16:06,520
 and the 2002 DDC provides criteria for approval for site plans within this sub-area of Razor

824
01:16:06,520 --> 01:16:14,040
 Ranch, specifically the site plan should substantially comply with the concept and schematic plan.

825
01:16:14,040 --> 01:16:20,040
 The site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses. The site plan

826
01:16:20,040 --> 01:16:25,000
 provides for the adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and the site plan fully

827
01:16:25,000 --> 01:16:29,120
 complies with all other sections of the Overlay District. And so those are things that we

828
01:16:29,120 --> 01:16:33,240
 checked to make sure were addressed as we were reviewing this Zoning Compliance Plan

829
01:16:33,240 --> 01:16:38,120
 package. Additionally, with the development and the

830
01:16:38,120 --> 01:16:45,720
 approval of the site plan for Phase 2, came some conditions with that approval as it relates

831
01:16:45,720 --> 01:16:52,720
 to the eventual development of Phase 3. Specifically, one stipulation was that plant materials approved

832
01:16:52,720 --> 01:16:57,920
 for Phase 2 and the amended Phase 1 should not be removed in future phases unless they

833
01:16:57,920 --> 01:17:04,280
 could be successfully replanted using equivalent or similar material. Additionally, the minimum

834
01:17:04,280 --> 01:17:10,680
 open space requirement shall be maintained for all approved and future phases of land

835
01:17:10,680 --> 01:17:15,160
 included within Lots 1R, which is there shown to the south, and then Lot 2, which is our

836
01:17:15,160 --> 01:17:21,440
 subject lot this evening. So here's the site plan, and of course a detailed version was

837
01:17:21,440 --> 01:17:27,920
 provided within the backup. Existing on the site for the overall razor medical development

838
01:17:27,920 --> 01:17:33,480
 is a 15,000 square foot building and an approximately 22,000 square foot building. Currently there

839
01:17:33,480 --> 01:17:40,080
 are 193 parking spaces, and as you can see, shown in there with the light orange color

840
01:17:40,080 --> 01:17:45,640
 and the light yellow color, there is one driveway access point off of Panhandle. That's only

841
01:17:45,640 --> 01:17:50,980
 a right in and a right out. And then there's a cross access point through Phase 2 into

842
01:17:50,980 --> 01:17:56,960
 Phase 1 and a cross access also to the east. So with the addition of Phase 3, which we're

843
01:17:56,960 --> 01:18:01,080
 focusing on this evening, the applicant is proposing an approximately 9,000 square foot

844
01:18:01,080 --> 01:18:08,120
 medical office building on Lot 2, shown there in green, 37 additional parking spaces, and

845
01:18:08,120 --> 01:18:13,820
 then that driveway there to the northwest would be a full access point, right in, right

846
01:18:13,820 --> 01:18:20,480
 out, left in, left out, and straight ahead as well. So the landscape plan, in looking

847
01:18:20,480 --> 01:18:27,560
 and reviewing this particular plan, we wanted to make sure that the minimum requirements

848
01:18:27,560 --> 01:18:33,900
 as established in the 2002 DDC and the razor ranch overlay districts were met, namely minimum

849
01:18:33,900 --> 01:18:38,960
 one tree per 45 linear feet. That was actually, if you look at the image to the right, all

850
01:18:38,960 --> 01:18:44,400
 of the lighter green circles are existing plantings approved with previous phases. If

851
01:18:44,400 --> 01:18:48,400
 you recall the approval criteria I mentioned earlier, one of the stipulations was that

852
01:18:48,400 --> 01:18:53,320
 anything approved within the previous phase should not be removed unless they could be

853
01:18:53,320 --> 01:18:58,200
 replanted as a part of this Phase 3. They are not proposing to remove any of those plantings.

854
01:18:58,200 --> 01:19:03,880
 They are adding two trees within the parking area and then some screening there along the

855
01:19:03,880 --> 01:19:09,880
 east. So those standards are being met. Excuse me. Additionally, within that, as you can

856
01:19:09,880 --> 01:19:14,200
 see by the table, those minimum open space requirements for the entire site are being

857
01:19:14,200 --> 01:19:20,800
 maintained as well. So here are the elevations with the proposed

858
01:19:20,800 --> 01:19:27,520
 material and color screen there to the right. That image that you see at bottom center is

859
01:19:27,520 --> 01:19:33,560
 an existing building within Phase 1 of this development. So as you can see, both the proposed

860
01:19:33,560 --> 01:19:38,320
 elevations and color and material scheme match with what is existing within the razor medical

861
01:19:38,320 --> 01:19:44,040
 development. So with that, staff is recommending approval as the request does meet the established

862
01:19:44,040 --> 01:19:49,480
 criteria of the RROD development standards, and I will stand for any questions that you

863
01:19:49,480 --> 01:19:58,320
 may have at this time. Thank you, Mia. I don't see any questions

864
01:19:58,320 --> 01:19:59,320
 at this time. Thank you.

865
01:19:59,320 --> 01:20:07,760
 Does the applicant have a presentation or is that it? Nothing? Okay. All right. This

866
01:20:07,760 --> 01:20:11,080
 is not a public hearing, but as an item for individual consideration, anybody who would

867
01:20:11,080 --> 01:20:17,800
 like to speak may do so with three minutes. Okay. Seeing none, I'll open the floor to

868
01:20:17,800 --> 01:20:23,040
 a motion or approval. Commissioner Anderson? Make a motion to approve.

869
01:20:23,040 --> 01:20:25,800
 Okay. I've got a motion to approve. Commissioner Villarreal?

870
01:20:25,800 --> 01:20:31,000
 Second. Okay. I've got a second. Commissioner Perot?

871
01:20:31,000 --> 01:20:36,000
 I've got technical difficulty if I come back up. We're good.

872
01:20:36,000 --> 01:20:40,680
 Good? Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second for approval. We'll call for a

873
01:20:40,680 --> 01:20:55,540
 vote on the board. Nothing? Okay. On this item, we'll take a vote

874
01:20:55,540 --> 01:21:02,240
 via roll call. We got a recusal. How should we handle that?

875
01:21:02,240 --> 01:21:09,720
 I was going to say if Selena can reset it, you're more than welcome to take a vote that

876
01:21:09,720 --> 01:21:12,720
 way. Okay. All right. We'll take a vote. Commissioner

877
01:21:12,720 --> 01:21:19,640
 Anderson, Commissioner Villarreal, will we make a motion again? Okay.

878
01:21:19,640 --> 01:21:37,720
 All right. Motion passes 6-0. Sorry for the technical difficulties there. Okay. Bring

879
01:21:37,720 --> 01:21:43,160
 this to item 3B, FP22-0028. Mia, your presentation as well.

880
01:21:43,160 --> 01:21:54,680
 Good evening again, members of the commission. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. So this is a

881
01:21:54,680 --> 01:22:01,400
 final plat request for Razor Ranch addition located at the southeast corner of West University

882
01:22:01,400 --> 01:22:08,880
 and I-35. The plat at this time does not meet all of our approval criteria, and so staff

883
01:22:08,880 --> 01:22:15,280
 is recommending denial. However, we do not have any objections to the requested extension

884
01:22:15,280 --> 01:22:23,260
 to October 12th. Okay. Thank you, Mia. Commissioner Villarreal.

885
01:22:23,260 --> 01:22:25,960
 To approve the extension to a date starting of October 12, 2022.

886
01:22:25,960 --> 01:22:29,480
 Okay. Got a motion to extension. Commissioner, approve it.

887
01:22:29,480 --> 01:22:35,440
 I have a second. The first and the second. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call

888
01:22:35,440 --> 01:22:51,080
 for a vote on the board. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to item 3C, MP22-0011B, and

889
01:22:51,080 --> 01:23:00,280
 Mia Hines come on back up as well. Thank you. Again, Mia Hines, Associate Planner.

890
01:23:00,280 --> 01:23:07,840
 This is a minor plat application for J&J Acres. The property is, at this time, the plat does

891
01:23:07,840 --> 01:23:13,680
 not meet, I'm sorry, located at the northeast corner of Warshin and Green Valley Circle.

892
01:23:13,680 --> 01:23:17,920
 At this time, the property does not meet the standards and approval criteria within our

893
01:23:17,920 --> 01:23:24,120
 ordinance, and so staff is recommending denial. Okay. Thank you very much, Mia. Any questions?

894
01:23:24,120 --> 01:23:28,120
 Commissioner Anderson? Has there, was this brought up in the work

895
01:23:28,120 --> 01:23:33,280
 session? Was there already a previous? There was. Yeah, there was a previous extension

896
01:23:33,280 --> 01:23:34,280
 already given. That's correct.

897
01:23:34,280 --> 01:23:41,560
 Yes. All right. Thanks. Okay. All right. Seeing no other speakers, I will call for a motion.

898
01:23:41,560 --> 01:23:48,160
 Commissioner Villarreal? Move to deny. Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner

899
01:23:48,160 --> 01:23:49,160
 Pruitt? Second.

900
01:23:49,160 --> 01:23:54,960
 Okay. We have a first and a second for denial. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call

901
01:23:54,960 --> 01:24:02,600
 for a vote on the board. Just a reminder, a vote yes is a vote yes to deny. Okay. Motion

902
01:24:02,600 --> 01:24:12,200
 passes 6-0. Item 3D, PP 22-0022, and Sean Jacobson to present.

903
01:24:12,200 --> 01:24:18,760
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, presenting

904
01:24:18,760 --> 01:24:29,520
 PP 22-0022, a preliminary plat for the prominence square addition. At this time, staff is recommending

905
01:24:29,520 --> 01:24:38,480
 denial of this plat for a property on the southeast corner of Loop 288 and University

906
01:24:38,480 --> 01:24:43,080
 Drive because it does not meet our standard of approval. However, staff has no objection

907
01:24:43,080 --> 01:24:49,640
 to the requested extension to October 14, sorry, October 12.

908
01:24:49,640 --> 01:24:53,600
 Any questions for Sean? Okay. Commissioner Pruitt?

909
01:24:53,600 --> 01:24:59,080
 I'll move to approve the applicant's requested extension to date certain of October 12.

910
01:24:59,080 --> 01:25:02,040
 Okay. Got a motion to extend. Commissioner Anderson?

911
01:25:02,040 --> 01:25:03,040
 Second.

912
01:25:03,040 --> 01:25:11,800
 Okay. With a second. Any other discussion? Okay. I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion

913
01:25:11,800 --> 01:25:17,560
 passes 6-0. Item 3E has been withdrawn by the applicant. So that's FP 22-0027A that

914
01:25:17,560 --> 01:25:27,440
 has been withdrawn. So I'll move down to 3F, PP 22-0021A. Julie Wyatt to present.

915
01:25:27,440 --> 01:25:31,960
 Good evening. Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. I'm presenting PP

916
01:25:31,960 --> 01:25:40,480
 22-0021A. This is for a preliminary plat for the Forest Crossing Phase 2 addition. The

917
01:25:40,480 --> 01:25:46,240
 purpose of the preliminary plat is to facilitate a multifamily development. They do have some

918
01:25:46,240 --> 01:25:51,480
 items that they have to address with the preliminary plat, including moving forward with a specific

919
01:25:51,480 --> 01:25:57,280
 use permit for that use. And so staff is recommending denial. They have received an extension, so

920
01:25:57,280 --> 01:26:02,120
 there is not an option for an additional extension. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

921
01:26:02,120 --> 01:26:06,200
 Okay. I don't see any questions, Julie. Thank you.

922
01:26:06,200 --> 01:26:09,520
 I'll take a motion and discussion. Commissioner Villarreal?

923
01:26:09,520 --> 01:26:10,520
 Move to deny.

924
01:26:10,520 --> 01:26:12,480
 Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner Cole?

925
01:26:12,480 --> 01:26:13,480
 Second.

926
01:26:13,480 --> 01:26:19,800
 Okay. Got a second. With a first and a second to deny, I'll ask for a vote on the board.

927
01:26:19,800 --> 01:26:31,000
 Okay. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to 3G, PP 22-0007A. I believe that is Julie Wyatt

928
01:26:31,000 --> 01:26:32,000
 as well.

929
01:26:32,000 --> 01:26:39,840
 Good evening. This is PP 22-0007A. This is for the Audre Oaks addition. It's for a single-family

930
01:26:39,840 --> 01:26:44,160
 residential development south of Audre Oaks. They do have some items they do need to work

931
01:26:44,160 --> 01:26:48,960
 through in order for it to meet our criteria for approval. So staff is recommending denial.

932
01:26:48,960 --> 01:26:53,240
 However, we have no objection to the requested extension to October 12th. I'll be happy to

933
01:26:53,240 --> 01:26:54,240
 answer any questions.

934
01:26:54,240 --> 01:26:58,040
 Okay. I don't see any, Julie. Thank you.

935
01:26:58,040 --> 01:26:59,040
 Thank you.

936
01:26:59,040 --> 01:27:03,280
 I see a motion and discussion. Commissioner Cole?

937
01:27:03,280 --> 01:27:08,360
 I make a motion extension to October 12th, 2022 meeting.

938
01:27:08,360 --> 01:27:11,000
 Okay. Got a motion for extension. Commissioner Anderson?

939
01:27:11,000 --> 01:27:12,000
 Second.

940
01:27:12,000 --> 01:27:20,440
 First and a second, hanging in the discussion. Call for a vote on the board. That motion

941
01:27:20,440 --> 01:27:29,640
 passes 6-0. Our last item of individual consideration, 3HFP 22-0001. I'll call Julie Wyatt as well

942
01:27:29,640 --> 01:27:30,640
 for that project.

943
01:27:30,640 --> 01:27:36,520
 Good evening. This is for a final plat for a phase of the Agave Ranch development. The

944
01:27:36,520 --> 01:27:41,000
 item, they do have some items that they do need to correct on the final plat before we

945
01:27:41,000 --> 01:27:47,000
 can recommend approval. So we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the

946
01:27:47,000 --> 01:27:51,240
 requested extension to October 12th. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

947
01:27:51,240 --> 01:27:55,880
 I don't see any. Thank you, Julie.

948
01:27:55,880 --> 01:28:01,280
 Discussion or a motion?

949
01:28:01,280 --> 01:28:02,280
 Commissioner Pruitt?

950
01:28:02,280 --> 01:28:07,880
 I move to approve the applicant requested extension to a date certain of October 12th.

951
01:28:07,880 --> 01:28:15,280
 Okay. Second. Second for Cole. Okay. Any discussion? That's enough to call for a motion on the

952
01:28:15,280 --> 01:28:16,280
 board.

953
01:28:16,280 --> 01:28:30,160
 All right. That motion passes 6-0. Moving on to item four, public hearings, 4A PD 22-0006

954
01:28:30,160 --> 01:28:34,680
 and Karen Robertson to present. Evening, Karen.

955
01:28:34,680 --> 01:28:43,340
 Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Let me pull up my presentation real quick. So

956
01:28:43,340 --> 01:28:52,120
 this is for PD 22-006, home zone. This is a request for a PD with MN land uses for general

957
01:28:52,120 --> 01:28:59,120
 retail use larger than 15,000 square feet. It is located on approximately 2.407 acres.

958
01:28:59,120 --> 01:29:06,600
 It is located on the southeast corner of Ector Street and University, also known as US 380.

959
01:29:06,600 --> 01:29:11,840
 It is also situated between an existing commercial corridor, which is that US 380, as well as

960
01:29:11,840 --> 01:29:16,920
 single family dwellings along the southern edge.

961
01:29:16,920 --> 01:29:21,600
 So before I kind of delve into the development plan itself, I just want to kind of talk about

962
01:29:21,600 --> 01:29:25,880
 the difference between a PD and an SUP in this instance. So the reason this is going

963
01:29:25,880 --> 01:29:33,120
 through the PD process versus an SUP is to allow for consistent commercial development

964
01:29:33,120 --> 01:29:38,720
 along US 380. Currently, the project site is larger than two acres, so it does not need

965
01:29:38,720 --> 01:29:43,640
 our definition of infill development. Due to that fact, it has to be restricted with

966
01:29:43,640 --> 01:29:48,680
 that MN district. An MN district does not allow for front parking, and it is a little

967
01:29:48,680 --> 01:29:53,640
 bit more restrictive. So with the PD, this allows that commercial development to push

968
01:29:53,640 --> 01:29:59,080
 most of its parking along US 380 and to kind of match what we're seeing along that commercial

969
01:29:59,080 --> 01:30:04,820
 corridor to the north, east, and west with that Aldease. The applicant is also seeking

970
01:30:04,820 --> 01:30:11,300
 to allow for all general retail uses, regardless of size, to be permitted on the property.

971
01:30:11,300 --> 01:30:16,880
 So moving on to the development plan, it would be a maximum of 39 feet, four inches tall,

972
01:30:16,880 --> 01:30:21,240
 and it would be centrally situated along that western edge of the property, which is close

973
01:30:21,240 --> 01:30:27,120
 to Ector Street. It does allow for setbacks, beginning at a minimum of 55 feet near the

974
01:30:27,120 --> 01:30:32,520
 residential properties on the south and the east side. It does have a main entrance emphasis

975
01:30:32,520 --> 01:30:40,440
 along US 380. It also allows for vehicular access. Primary access would be from US 380.

976
01:30:40,440 --> 01:30:48,180
 There would be a drive along Ector Street and cross access along Primrose Street. The

977
01:30:48,180 --> 01:30:54,080
 development did reduce the parking number of parking spaces to 87 parking spaces, and

978
01:30:54,080 --> 01:30:59,980
 the primary parking, as I stated, would be located along the frontage of US 380, similar

979
01:30:59,980 --> 01:31:06,200
 to what you see across on the west side to Aldease. Additionally, there would be a tree

980
01:31:06,200 --> 01:31:11,160
 preservation area that would be located along the southern edge. Those are those trees highlighted

981
01:31:11,160 --> 01:31:17,920
 in green there. It would also provide a minimum six foot solid masonry wall along the southern

982
01:31:17,920 --> 01:31:23,720
 and eastern southeast edges for those residential properties. The development plan is currently

983
01:31:23,720 --> 01:31:31,040
 providing 21% landscape area. The minimum for MN districts is 20%. They'd also be providing

984
01:31:31,040 --> 01:31:37,920
 a 74% new and preserved tree canopy, which that minimum is 40% for MN districts.

985
01:31:37,920 --> 01:31:43,280
 So looking at the provable criteria, just a summary, the project is consistent with

986
01:31:43,280 --> 01:31:47,280
 Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, which I'll delve a little bit more into in my slides

987
01:31:47,280 --> 01:31:51,760
 after this. It does provide greater level of design quality as compared to a specific

988
01:31:51,760 --> 01:31:56,640
 use permit. It is compatible with the surrounding area, especially that commercial corridor,

989
01:31:56,640 --> 01:32:02,520
 and it does provide public facilities adequate to serve the development.

990
01:32:02,520 --> 01:32:07,240
 So moving on to the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, I'll kind of keep this high level,

991
01:32:07,240 --> 01:32:11,840
 but it is a mix of community mixed use as well as low residential. Community mixed use

992
01:32:11,840 --> 01:32:16,080
 areas do accommodate greater density between that single family with neighborhoods and

993
01:32:16,080 --> 01:32:20,480
 commercial areas. And then low residential does include land uses that support residential

994
01:32:20,480 --> 01:32:27,920
 neighborhoods. It is on a corridor focused area, which we do see US 380 remaining a significant

995
01:32:27,920 --> 01:32:34,880
 commercial thoroughfare in the city. It does implement, it is infill. It is basically filling

996
01:32:34,880 --> 01:32:41,120
 a gap in our neighborhood fabric along US 380. The property itself has been undeveloped

997
01:32:41,120 --> 01:32:45,080
 since the 1960s, except for that southern portion, which does have a residential property

998
01:32:45,080 --> 01:32:52,000
 on it. And it does provide context sensitive commercial infill. In regards to urban design,

999
01:32:52,000 --> 01:32:56,600
 as I stated earlier, the primary access would be along US 380, but it would allow for cross

1000
01:32:56,600 --> 01:33:02,800
 access as well as onsite pathways to public sidewalks. And lastly, building scale and

1001
01:33:02,800 --> 01:33:07,680
 orientation, it is centered in the property along that western edge, trying to reduce

1002
01:33:07,680 --> 01:33:13,120
 the impact to neighboring residential properties to the south and southeast.

1003
01:33:13,120 --> 01:33:18,320
 Moving on, it provides an additional commercial option in this established area. As you can

1004
01:33:18,320 --> 01:33:24,000
 see on the aerial here, much of the corridor is already infilled. This is one of the last

1005
01:33:24,000 --> 01:33:29,040
 remaining properties on US 380. The existing size of the property does limit the size and

1006
01:33:29,040 --> 01:33:33,800
 scale of development. The applicant has reduced the parking and has placed the majority of

1007
01:33:33,800 --> 01:33:38,640
 parking towards the front of that property along that commercial corridor to keep it

1008
01:33:38,640 --> 01:33:42,880
 away from the adjacent residential properties in the south and southeast. And it is a compatible

1009
01:33:42,880 --> 01:33:48,800
 land use and scale and form considering the single family residential as well as the adjacent

1010
01:33:48,800 --> 01:33:54,600
 commercial. There was public outreach done. There was a newspaper ad and property posted

1011
01:33:54,600 --> 01:34:03,440
 both in August. Notices were mailed, 20 in the 200 foot, 118 in the 500 foot. We did

1012
01:34:03,440 --> 01:34:10,000
 receive one response in opposition at 1207 Primrose Street. Staff is recommending approval

1013
01:34:10,000 --> 01:34:17,440
 of the request as it complies with criteria in section 2.4.5(e) as well as 2.7.3(d).

1014
01:34:17,440 --> 01:34:21,360
 And this is scheduled for the City Council on September 27th. And I can stand for any

1015
01:34:21,360 --> 01:34:26,200
 questions. Thank you, Cameron. I don't see any at this

1016
01:34:26,200 --> 01:34:31,040
 time. We do have a card from the applicant. I'll go ahead and call up Michael Clark to

1017
01:34:31,040 --> 01:34:42,080
 come up and speak. You'll have 10 minutes. Before you continue, I want to go ahead and

1018
01:34:42,080 --> 01:34:49,620
 open up the public hearing. Good to go? Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Good evening. My name is

1019
01:34:49,620 --> 01:34:57,840
 Michael Clark. I'm with Winkleman and Associates, 6750 Hillcrest Plaza, Suite 215, Dallas 75230.

1020
01:34:57,840 --> 01:35:02,720
 Here representing Jason Adams and Home Zone. Jason is unfortunately out of town. We've

1021
01:35:02,720 --> 01:35:07,520
 had a couple delays and he was unfortunately not able to be here. I have the architect

1022
01:35:07,520 --> 01:35:14,040
 is with me here tonight and the broker if there's questions that I can't answer. Staff

1023
01:35:14,040 --> 01:35:19,260
 as always did a very thorough report for you guys. I'm not going to try not to be redundant.

1024
01:35:19,260 --> 01:35:26,240
 But the Home Zone, what we're proposing here is a showroom, has very little traffic. Any

1025
01:35:26,240 --> 01:35:30,280
 basically people come in, they look at furniture. Furniture is delivered from their warehouses

1026
01:35:30,280 --> 01:35:37,140
 in Grand Prairie. So we have very little truck traffic, very little vehicular traffic actually.

1027
01:35:37,140 --> 01:35:42,080
 Staff is in agreement with our parking request for a slight deviation in the required parking.

1028
01:35:42,080 --> 01:35:48,480
 We actually think we need significantly less than that for what we're proposing here. We've

1029
01:35:48,480 --> 01:35:53,600
 worked diligently with staff, worked trying to preserve trees, get the parking. To get

1030
01:35:53,600 --> 01:35:57,720
 where we're at here today, we had a, pardon me, we had, I believe, a very productive meeting

1031
01:35:57,720 --> 01:36:03,320
 with the homeowners. They expressed some concerns. We, I think, alleviated many of them with

1032
01:36:03,320 --> 01:36:08,920
 the low traffic and the showroom and the low trucks. I think...

1033
01:36:08,920 --> 01:36:16,880
 We'll have public comment. You'll have public comment here in a minute, Mr. Anderson. So

1034
01:36:16,880 --> 01:36:19,800
 if we can, we'll just let the applicant go ahead and present. Sorry, sorry, go ahead.

1035
01:36:19,800 --> 01:36:26,280
 From, as I said, we had a public meeting and we invited as many as we thought we could.

1036
01:36:26,280 --> 01:36:31,520
 If I did something incorrectly or obviously somebody didn't get invited, I apologize for

1037
01:36:31,520 --> 01:36:37,080
 that. We have coordinated cross access with the commercial uses to our east as staff directed,

1038
01:36:37,080 --> 01:36:41,440
 quite frankly, not to throw them under the bus or anything, but the cross access to Prim

1039
01:36:41,440 --> 01:36:46,600
 Rose is really more for them than us. We don't envision using that little narrow alley that

1040
01:36:46,600 --> 01:36:51,680
 goes out to Prim Rose for anything other than for them to eventually, if they redevelop,

1041
01:36:51,680 --> 01:36:58,280
 get access jointly with us. Pardon me, with us. So with regard to Prim Rose and the access

1042
01:36:58,280 --> 01:37:03,040
 there, we don't envision using that in any way. That being said, I'm happy to answer

1043
01:37:03,040 --> 01:37:08,280
 any questions and reserve any time I have left to answer any other questions possibly.

1044
01:37:08,280 --> 01:37:14,760
 Are there any questions for Mr. Clark? How did you notify the neighborhood of the public

1045
01:37:14,760 --> 01:37:24,360
 meeting you're going to be having? We, how did we, Jerry Clark was our contact

1046
01:37:24,360 --> 01:37:28,040
 given to us for the HO, for the Homeowners Association. I'm sorry, it's been a number

1047
01:37:28,040 --> 01:37:34,320
 of months ago. Jerry Clark was our contact and he established the meeting with the Ector,

1048
01:37:34,320 --> 01:37:37,920
 I apologize, I can't remember the name of the organization, but we set up a meeting

1049
01:37:37,920 --> 01:37:43,600
 at a local church down on Ector, just a few blocks south of the site, but he was the one

1050
01:37:43,600 --> 01:37:46,720
 that coordinated it. Were you in attendance there? Yes, sir.

1051
01:37:46,720 --> 01:37:54,600
 How many folks showed up? 15, 16, Gary? Perhaps 20. Okay.

1052
01:37:54,600 --> 01:38:00,360
 It wasn't a huge number, but it wasn't three. Okay. All right. What were the main concerns

1053
01:38:00,360 --> 01:38:07,280
 are brought about the neighborhood? They were concerned about the homeowners immediately

1054
01:38:07,280 --> 01:38:12,440
 to our south were concerned about the proximity. We discussed the height of the building and

1055
01:38:12,440 --> 01:38:18,240
 the actual separation that we were preserving trees there and the lack of truck traffic.

1056
01:38:18,240 --> 01:38:24,040
 I think made them feel more comfortable. The rest of the homeowners were, I think, generally

1057
01:38:24,040 --> 01:38:32,320
 concerned about traffic and I think the showroom use and the seriously very limited amount of

1058
01:38:32,320 --> 01:38:40,240
 traffic was what made them feel more comfortable. Okay. All right. I see other questions for

1059
01:38:40,240 --> 01:38:43,860
 you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I do have two other

1060
01:38:43,860 --> 01:38:49,720
 cards that are wishing to speak. I'll start with Crystal Rainey Anderson. Come on up and

1061
01:38:49,720 --> 01:38:54,160
 introduce yourself, give your name and the address and then you have for a public hearing

1062
01:38:54,160 --> 01:38:59,960
 four minutes to speak. Okay. My name is Crystal Rainey Anderson and

1063
01:38:59,960 --> 01:39:06,680
 I am here representing my mother, Janet Rainey. She lives at, we live at 1207 Primrose Lane,

1064
01:39:06,680 --> 01:39:11,200
 Denton, Texas, which is exactly right behind where they're proposing to build this home

1065
01:39:11,200 --> 01:39:17,120
 zone. I have a letter of opposition that she sent in. She wanted me to read here today.

1066
01:39:17,120 --> 01:39:22,680
 She says, "I am opposed to the rezoning of the property. I'm strongly opposed to a home

1067
01:39:22,680 --> 01:39:29,680
 zone project. I brought my property in 2009 and have spent over $150,000 remodeling and

1068
01:39:29,680 --> 01:39:35,200
 adding to it. It is my retirement home and home for my daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons.

1069
01:39:35,200 --> 01:39:40,040
 My property value would decrease tremendously. Between the proposed retaining wall and my

1070
01:39:40,040 --> 01:39:44,240
 back fence, there would definitely be a dead space where homeless people could and would

1071
01:39:44,240 --> 01:39:49,400
 camp creating trash pileups and who knows what else. Right now, I have an uninstructed

1072
01:39:49,400 --> 01:39:54,120
 view from my back patio and kitchen window. If this project is approved, I would be looking

1073
01:39:54,120 --> 01:40:00,080
 at a back of a business instead of the sunset and clouds, which we regularly enjoy. There

1074
01:40:00,080 --> 01:40:04,940
 are tagged trees next to my back fence that cannot be removed. These trees provide shade

1075
01:40:04,940 --> 01:40:09,660
 and help kill these. I also don't want to hear delivery truck beeps or garbage trucks

1076
01:40:09,660 --> 01:40:14,200
 dumping at four o'clock in the morning like they do down the street at Enterprise. According

1077
01:40:14,200 --> 01:40:18,840
 to the plan, the dumpsters will almost be in line with my bedroom window. That is not

1078
01:40:18,840 --> 01:40:23,800
 acceptable. Not only that, but I also do not want to sit on my back patio and listen to

1079
01:40:23,800 --> 01:40:29,000
 the delivery trucks at their docking bay at any time in the day. Although this is not

1080
01:40:29,000 --> 01:40:32,880
 a food service business, there would still be employee food trash and bathroom trash

1081
01:40:32,880 --> 01:40:38,440
 that would attract rats and guess where they would end up. If this property is approved,

1082
01:40:38,440 --> 01:40:44,600
 I would be concerned because of the outside lights and security cameras. The eight foot

1083
01:40:44,600 --> 01:40:48,600
 retaining wall will not prevent these lights and cameras from shining into my backyard

1084
01:40:48,600 --> 01:40:53,280
 or even my bedroom windows. I don't want my backyard lit up at night. I have grandchildren

1085
01:40:53,280 --> 01:40:57,000
 that play in the backyard and I do not want security cameras looking in there. That is

1086
01:40:57,000 --> 01:41:02,920
 an invasion of privacy. Home zone is a very affordable furniture store because the furniture

1087
01:41:02,920 --> 01:41:07,520
 is cheap and poorly made. I know because I bought from them and had to get a refund.

1088
01:41:07,520 --> 01:41:11,360
 I do not believe this location will benefit them and they should move up the road to raise

1089
01:41:11,360 --> 01:41:16,740
 a ranch. The traffic would increase down Ector and Emory and Primrose. It is hard now to

1090
01:41:16,740 --> 01:41:21,560
 make it across Ector from Emory with the increased traffic. I'm sure there will be accidents.

1091
01:41:21,560 --> 01:41:26,440
 It's almost impossible to make a right-hand turn onto University from Ector. There have

1092
01:41:26,440 --> 01:41:31,760
 been several wrecks there already. I understand that there was a neighborhood meeting of which

1093
01:41:31,760 --> 01:41:36,760
 we did not get invited to some weeks ago. I know that the owners who are notified of

1094
01:41:36,760 --> 01:41:42,920
 this were the vitamin shop owner and the 1300 Ector owner. Why were not the rest of us

1095
01:41:42,920 --> 01:41:47,280
 invited? We don't know what was discussed at this meeting. The first time we knew about

1096
01:41:47,280 --> 01:41:51,840
 this was when one of the owners who were invited provided my next door neighbor a copy of the

1097
01:41:51,840 --> 01:41:57,200
 plan. I would like to know why we were left out and others left out of that meeting. There

1098
01:41:57,200 --> 01:42:02,040
 were five homeowners, three retirees, that would be greatly affected by this project.

1099
01:42:02,040 --> 01:42:07,400
 We would slowly be overtaken by other businesses and I'm sure none of us are in favor of this.

1100
01:42:07,400 --> 01:42:11,920
 We are all residential zoning, not a retail business. We want to enjoy our homes to the

1101
01:42:11,920 --> 01:42:16,160
 stage of our lives. I don't want to leave this area, but if this project is approved,

1102
01:42:16,160 --> 01:42:20,960
 most likely my house will go up for sale. Please do not approve this project. Keep the

1103
01:42:20,960 --> 01:42:30,320
 neighborhood. We don't want them in our backyard. Thank you for your comments. Next to speak,

1104
01:42:30,320 --> 01:42:35,080
 Mr. Kurt Anderson. You'll have four minutes to speak. Just state your name and address

1105
01:42:35,080 --> 01:42:40,600
 and your four minutes will begin. Hi. My name is Kurt Anderson. I live at 1207 Primrose.

1106
01:42:40,600 --> 01:42:48,800
 This is my wife, Crystal. Son-in-law, I take care of the property. I also take care of

1107
01:42:48,800 --> 01:42:57,200
 the easement behind the property. The tagged trees are an issue and also you have tagged

1108
01:42:57,200 --> 01:43:10,320
 trees that go into approximately maybe 30 yards into those properties on the easement

1109
01:43:10,320 --> 01:43:20,520
 line from where they're going to exit to Primrose. You go down, you look down that line, that

1110
01:43:20,520 --> 01:43:26,560
 tree line, all those trees are tagged. You go look down this side, all the trees are

1111
01:43:26,560 --> 01:43:35,560
 tagged. You know, I maintain that area. I keep it clean so the vagrants and the homeless

1112
01:43:35,560 --> 01:43:44,220
 don't camp out. I had an incident last year, last July. Someone broke into my shed. I found

1113
01:43:44,220 --> 01:43:52,160
 two homeless men on the other side of my fence in a bunch of brush. Covered up. They had

1114
01:43:52,160 --> 01:44:02,120
 a nice little pad and 25 feet easement. All it's going to do is attract homeless. We're

1115
01:44:02,120 --> 01:44:11,680
 going to have a rat problem on top of more traffic, whether it's, you know, Primrose

1116
01:44:11,680 --> 01:44:19,360
 actor. People are going to be going, you know, if they miss the driveway, they're going to

1117
01:44:19,360 --> 01:44:25,800
 come in Primrose. You know, I've got kids out there. I like to play. You know, you're

1118
01:44:25,800 --> 01:44:33,760
 going to increase the traffic. You're going to have, you know, what's -- my question is

1119
01:44:33,760 --> 01:44:40,520
 how is the state going to deal with the infrastructure? Are they going to put lights in Primrose

1120
01:44:40,520 --> 01:44:49,480
 and lights at the other entrance so people can get out safely? You know, I oppose this.

1121
01:44:49,480 --> 01:44:57,960
 You know, I'm a man of few words. I don't usually speak up like this, but this is going

1122
01:44:57,960 --> 01:45:09,680
 to be an issue. Not just for us. Security wise, lights, it will be 24/7. That's an invasion

1123
01:45:09,680 --> 01:45:20,520
 of privacy. And they can't do anything but do that. They have to. That back line, you're

1124
01:45:20,520 --> 01:45:25,600
 going to get a lot of people coming in and out of there, going to those dumpsters to

1125
01:45:25,600 --> 01:45:32,760
 pick furniture, and it's going to end up in that alley because that's where they're going

1126
01:45:32,760 --> 01:45:39,800
 to put it. And guess who's going to occupy that furniture? Homeless people. I've got

1127
01:45:39,800 --> 01:45:48,120
 nothing against homeless people. I was homeless for six years. I came to Texas to change my

1128
01:45:48,120 --> 01:46:00,240
 life. Okay? I have no problems with them. Their shelters being built, hopefully it accommodates

1129
01:46:00,240 --> 01:46:08,700
 the masses. But you're still going to get people in there. No matter what you do, people

1130
01:46:08,700 --> 01:46:13,640
 are still going to camp out there. Because it's going to be hidden. And it's going to

1131
01:46:13,640 --> 01:46:24,440
 be hidden well. Unless you can supply a patrol that goes through that easement, pave it up,

1132
01:46:24,440 --> 01:46:34,440
 preserve the trees, make a nice alleyway through, and that goes all the way from 380 to actor.

1133
01:46:34,440 --> 01:46:47,080
 That easement. Like I said, I oppose this. And thank you very much for your consideration.

1134
01:46:47,080 --> 01:46:55,640
 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Cameron, I have a couple questions for you based off

1135
01:46:55,640 --> 01:47:01,920
 what the public comment was made on that. Traditionally when we have neighborhood notification

1136
01:47:01,920 --> 01:47:10,920
 for any type of neighborhood meetings, are we providing the 205 foot, 500 foot radius

1137
01:47:10,920 --> 01:47:15,600
 addresses to the applicant? How does that -- I've never actually ever asked before how

1138
01:47:15,600 --> 01:47:20,920
 does an applicant get the addresses for inviting out neighborhoods? They source it themselves?

1139
01:47:20,920 --> 01:47:26,680
 How do they go about that? So we usually provide those addresses as well. But that meeting

1140
01:47:26,680 --> 01:47:32,320
 did take place in January of 2022. So it has been a while. I assume as staff that I provided

1141
01:47:32,320 --> 01:47:37,840
 that, but I'm not positive. I do know that they went through the HOA first. Okay. Okay.

1142
01:47:37,840 --> 01:47:43,960
 Thank you. Another question I had. There was a question about lights and access at Hector

1143
01:47:43,960 --> 01:47:50,320
 and Primrose. I'm assuming a TIA was completed for this project and there wasn't. I know

1144
01:47:50,320 --> 01:47:56,600
 that TxDOT controls 380, but we don't see any major TIA impacts that come from that

1145
01:47:56,600 --> 01:48:05,480
 to predicate a stoplight. Let me grab the quick numbers real quick. Sure. I will provide

1146
01:48:05,480 --> 01:48:14,880
 them. So in regards to our trip generation report, it would generate approximately 238

1147
01:48:14,880 --> 01:48:22,560
 daily trips with 10 morning peak hour trips and 18 evening peak hour trips. Okay. Thank

1148
01:48:22,560 --> 01:48:30,200
 you. Okay. Any other questions for Commissioner Anderson? On the presentation, can you go

1149
01:48:30,200 --> 01:48:39,200
 back to the lot? I want to see what's going to happen that's going to back up to Anderson's

1150
01:48:39,200 --> 01:48:46,960
 property. This photo right here? Yes. The little red arrow. Yes. I'm looking at a map

1151
01:48:46,960 --> 01:48:51,840
 here and I don't see where that arrow is going to come out. Is it going to come out by the

1152
01:48:51,840 --> 01:49:02,960
 building at 1201 or 1211 Primrose? Yes. I believe that is correct. As staff, I do want

1153
01:49:02,960 --> 01:49:09,920
 to preface though that the egress and the ingress and the cross access can change as

1154
01:49:09,920 --> 01:49:17,640
 part of the PD standard stipulations. So there is additional, I guess, wording included in

1155
01:49:17,640 --> 01:49:23,640
 our development standards to allow for changes at the CEP phase. There's not going to be

1156
01:49:23,640 --> 01:49:31,240
 a grass 30 foot area between their house and it's going to be paid parking, correct? Yes.

1157
01:49:31,240 --> 01:49:36,320
 Not only 9% is allowed to be paid, but yes, there will be some paid parking behind that.

1158
01:49:36,320 --> 01:49:43,720
 Okay. Could I ask the developer, I mean, could I ask you a question, please, sir? The other

1159
01:49:43,720 --> 01:49:49,560
 concerns they had were lights. Are there going to be tall lights facing the properties on

1160
01:49:49,560 --> 01:49:59,980
 Primrose and Hector? Cameron, how do I bring it back up? No, go ahead. Unfortunately, they

1161
01:49:59,980 --> 01:50:04,360
 weren't at the meeting, so they didn't hear if those questions were brought up and answered

1162
01:50:04,360 --> 01:50:11,800
 or not. That's good. Thanks. As far as lighting goes, that was discussed in the meeting and

1163
01:50:11,800 --> 01:50:16,640
 one of the things that we will do, or not one of the things, there will be no pole lights

1164
01:50:16,640 --> 01:50:21,920
 at all behind the building. Everything will be on the building, wall packed, shielded.

1165
01:50:21,920 --> 01:50:27,400
 So just the bare minimum of light for security in the back. Okay. But back inside, my apologies.

1166
01:50:27,400 --> 01:50:33,760
 Okay. Now cameras, are there going to be cameras facing their property looking in their backyard?

1167
01:50:33,760 --> 01:50:40,400
 I don't know that. Yeah, I apologize. I don't know that, but I assure you that if we have

1168
01:50:40,400 --> 01:50:44,480
 cameras with an eight foot wall, they will not be able to, they won't be high enough

1169
01:50:44,480 --> 01:50:49,000
 to be in their yard and I'm not trying to make light of it, but we will not be searching

1170
01:50:49,000 --> 01:50:55,520
 in their backyard. It will simply be for our security. And may I answer a couple other

1171
01:50:55,520 --> 01:51:01,560
 questions if I could? Sure. Absolutely. Perfect. Thank you. The lights were one of them. The

1172
01:51:01,560 --> 01:51:08,280
 garbage, actually we would just as soon not have a dumpster. They recycle all cardboard

1173
01:51:08,280 --> 01:51:14,120
 and all styrofoam inside. We're required to have a dumpster. So we've got a double dumpster

1174
01:51:14,120 --> 01:51:19,640
 and we certainly don't need two. But I understand, I deal with rules all the time. That's what

1175
01:51:19,640 --> 01:51:24,240
 we're showing. So the dumpster is not, I mean, it will be, it will be utilized. Any commercial

1176
01:51:24,240 --> 01:51:28,360
 property is going to have a dumpster. It's not trying to make light of that either, but

1177
01:51:28,360 --> 01:51:34,520
 it will not be heavily used. And food products, houses have trash. I mean, we have employees

1178
01:51:34,520 --> 01:51:39,600
 who might have some food trash, but that's it. I mean, there is no food product here.

1179
01:51:39,600 --> 01:51:43,400
 And one other thing with the lights, we close at eight o'clock. This is not a, not a late

1180
01:51:43,400 --> 01:51:48,340
 night operation. So the lights on would be just for security reasons only. That's correct.

1181
01:51:48,340 --> 01:51:52,000
 And they're, they're not as bright as. No, and they'll be shielded. They'll, they'll,

1182
01:51:52,000 --> 01:51:58,040
 I don't know how to describe it exactly, but it'll be basically just a light on the wall,

1183
01:51:58,040 --> 01:52:03,280
 just shining and with a cutoff fixture, basically just, just like the drive. Okay. Okay. Thank

1184
01:52:03,280 --> 01:52:11,640
 you. Terribly described, but not a bit as just answer your question regarding the lighting.

1185
01:52:11,640 --> 01:52:15,840
 So as part of the DTC, we will be looking at lighting specifically during the building

1186
01:52:15,840 --> 01:52:21,040
 permit process as part of the DTC, all lighting does have to face downwards. It cannot face

1187
01:52:21,040 --> 01:52:30,360
 out and it cannot shine on neighboring properties. Thank you. Any discussion? Questions for city

1188
01:52:30,360 --> 01:52:37,000
 staff or applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and look to the dais

1189
01:52:37,000 --> 01:52:48,880
 for a motion or discussion. I closed the public hearing already. And then you use your, your

1190
01:52:48,880 --> 01:52:53,080
 four minutes. I'm, I'm sorry. There will be time at city council as well. If you want

1191
01:52:53,080 --> 01:52:57,240
 to bring up any of the points that you do have, and I'm sure camera will be able to

1192
01:52:57,240 --> 01:53:01,160
 visit with you afterwards to be able to questions that can be worked out with the applicant,

1193
01:53:01,160 --> 01:53:09,040
 but I did close the public hearing now. So we do have to move forward. I apologize. Motion

1194
01:53:09,040 --> 01:53:19,840
 or discussion? Okay. Commissioner Cole. I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. A motion to

1195
01:53:19,840 --> 01:53:27,360
 approve commissioner Anderson. A second. And man, I just want to say one thing. Unfortunately,

1196
01:53:27,360 --> 01:53:32,200
 three 80 is going to be building up and, and, and, you know, this is going to be a lot lower

1197
01:53:32,200 --> 01:53:36,600
 traffic than something else. I believe that would eventually come in there. So I just

1198
01:53:36,600 --> 01:53:43,480
 want to say that to you guys. Sorry. Okay. We got a motion, a second to approve. So you

1199
01:53:43,480 --> 01:53:57,220
 know, the discussion on the board, I'll ask for a vote. Okay. The motion carries six zero.

1200
01:53:57,220 --> 01:54:01,200
 And I believe, uh, just for those that are spoke, um, the, it will be seen at council

1201
01:54:01,200 --> 01:54:09,560
 on September 27th, uh, in this room at, at six 30. So the 27th of September. Yes, sir.

1202
01:54:09,560 --> 01:54:18,840
 In this room. Yes, sir. Okay. Uh, that'll take us to item four B Z 22 0 0 0 4 a I'll

1203
01:54:18,840 --> 01:54:38,800
 be Mia Hines to present. Now open the public hearing at this time. Okay. Good evening again.

1204
01:54:38,800 --> 01:54:46,000
 Members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. Um, this is, uh, this item on the

1205
01:54:46,000 --> 01:54:52,640
 agenda is a zoning change for the razor range overlay district regarding the number permitted

1206
01:54:52,640 --> 01:54:58,900
 number of multifamily units within the South campus. So the request is specific to specifically

1207
01:54:58,900 --> 01:55:08,800
 to amend the text of, um, section 35.7.15.7 subsection 8.1 C and a two of the razor ranch

1208
01:55:08,800 --> 01:55:14,640
 overlay, uh, development standards. Currently the, those standards allow up to 1800 multifamily

1209
01:55:14,640 --> 01:55:20,120
 units, um, within the South campus where multifamily is permitted. Um, and the applicant is proposing

1210
01:55:20,120 --> 01:55:25,800
 to increase that to two, a total of up to 2000 multifamily units, um, within the South

1211
01:55:25,800 --> 01:55:30,240
 campus. Um, as a part of this request, the applicant has provided, um, a, an exhibit

1212
01:55:30,240 --> 01:55:35,040
 sort of clarifying where a multifamily is permitted. Um, they aren't changing any underlying

1213
01:55:35,040 --> 01:55:41,000
 zoning or any, um, um, conceptual lean uses that are already existing and already permitted

1214
01:55:41,000 --> 01:55:46,040
 within the razor ranch South campus. Um, they are simply sort of clarifying for visual purposes

1215
01:55:46,040 --> 01:55:51,720
 where multifamily is permitted, um, on that exhibit. And this is sort of what I was talking

1216
01:55:51,720 --> 01:55:56,160
 about there. The area highlighted or the area in the center highlighted, um, in the sort

1217
01:55:56,160 --> 01:56:01,520
 of light pink color is considered what we call the razor ranch town center area. Um,

1218
01:56:01,520 --> 01:56:06,360
 as you can see, it just has that RR1 designation as it currently exists. They're shown there

1219
01:56:06,360 --> 01:56:12,480
 to the left. Um, and the, we would just further clarify that with, um, the MF, um, next to

1220
01:56:12,480 --> 01:56:17,360
 it. Again, MF, multifamily is already permitted within the town center. This just visually

1221
01:56:17,360 --> 01:56:23,440
 clarifies that point. Um, so in reviewing this request, since it is a simple text amendment,

1222
01:56:23,440 --> 01:56:27,800
 we looked into the razor ranch overlay development standards to see if there was a specific review

1223
01:56:27,800 --> 01:56:33,080
 criteria, um, and there, uh, was not within those overlay standards. Also anything within

1224
01:56:33,080 --> 01:56:38,640
 the razor ranch, um, development that does, is not specifically listed, um, in the standards,

1225
01:56:38,640 --> 01:56:45,560
 uh, is subject to the 2002 DDC. And the 2002 DDC did not have any, um, criteria for approval

1226
01:56:45,560 --> 01:56:51,760
 specifically related to amending overlay text, um, um, and regulations. And so with that,

1227
01:56:51,760 --> 01:56:56,800
 we brought it forward to what we currently go by, um, and, and, and, uh, reviewed the

1228
01:56:56,800 --> 01:57:04,600
 request, uh, pursuant to the, um, uh, criteria for approval located in sub-chapter two of

1229
01:57:04,600 --> 01:57:09,600
 the current DDC. Um, specifically, I just wanted to point out that, um, the, the future

1230
01:57:09,600 --> 01:57:15,920
 land use map area designation for this site is regional mixed use. Um, and so with that,

1231
01:57:15,920 --> 01:57:22,280
 if you look in our 2040 comprehensive plan, the, um, intended, uh, area or that, that

1232
01:57:22,280 --> 01:57:27,880
 area is intended for development, proposing residential commercial office entertainment

1233
01:57:27,880 --> 01:57:33,400
 and other uses except industrial at the highest level of scale and density within the city.

1234
01:57:33,400 --> 01:57:38,760
 So if there were anywhere to support and promote additional density and additional multifamily,

1235
01:57:38,760 --> 01:57:44,120
 um, um, uh, dwelling units, it would be within where we have within our future land use map,

1236
01:57:44,120 --> 01:57:49,200
 regional mixed use. And so that's, uh, part of the, the, uh, support, um, for this project.

1237
01:57:49,200 --> 01:57:56,040
 Um, additionally, there are, um, design standards, uh, specifically applicable to multifamily

1238
01:57:56,040 --> 01:58:01,080
 developments within the Razor Ranch South Campus, namely a minimum of 7% parking area

1239
01:58:01,080 --> 01:58:06,420
 landscape coverage, a minimum of 15% parking area tree canopy coverage, and a 15 foot wide

1240
01:58:06,420 --> 01:58:12,020
 landscape screening buffer around parking areas. And that sort of aids in the, um, minimizing

1241
01:58:12,020 --> 01:58:18,480
 adverse impacts on surrounding properties, wherever multifamily would develop. Um, so

1242
01:58:18,480 --> 01:58:22,840
 with that pursuant to our DDC and state law, we did do public outreach. And as the time

1243
01:58:22,840 --> 01:58:30,600
 of this report, we have not received any opposition or any responses in opposition to this request.

1244
01:58:30,600 --> 01:58:34,880
 So given that, uh, staff recommend staff is recommending approval as it meets the criteria

1245
01:58:34,880 --> 01:58:40,880
 I discussed, um, earlier. Um, a part of the backup that was sent to you was a, a red line

1246
01:58:40,880 --> 01:58:44,620
 essentially showing what those changes are. That has been modified a little bit just to

1247
01:58:44,620 --> 01:58:49,040
 provide further clarification. It's still, um, that they are, the applicant is requesting

1248
01:58:49,040 --> 01:58:55,520
 to increase from 1800 up to 1800 multifamily units to 2000. Um, but instead of what the

1249
01:58:55,520 --> 01:59:00,600
 wording has, and I believe that that was shared with you in advance of this meeting, um, instead

1250
01:59:00,600 --> 01:59:05,880
 of the wording provided within the packet, we're, we would like to go with, um, um, what's

1251
01:59:05,880 --> 01:59:11,400
 here and that would be the remaining 750, um, multifamily dwelling units can be built

1252
01:59:11,400 --> 01:59:15,960
 within the density zone or outside of the density zone within any sub district in the

1253
01:59:15,960 --> 01:59:20,860
 South campus. And so that's something that is already exists. Um, it's already in place,

1254
01:59:20,860 --> 01:59:24,920
 but it further clarifies, cause as it reads currently, um, one would think that those

1255
01:59:24,920 --> 01:59:30,680
 remaining 750, um, need to be outside of the density zone. And that's certainly not the

1256
01:59:30,680 --> 01:59:35,440
 goal, um, here. So with that, I'll stand, oh, following the decision of the recommendation

1257
01:59:35,440 --> 01:59:40,440
 of this body, this is scheduled for the September 20th city council meeting and I'll take any

1258
01:59:40,440 --> 01:59:44,600
 questions or comments that you may have. The applicant is also here with a brief presentation.

1259
01:59:44,600 --> 01:59:53,000
 Okay. Maybe questions for city staff. Okay. Uh, seating. Yeah. Thank you. Do I have one

1260
01:59:53,000 --> 01:59:57,080
 car to speak? And as the applicants, I'll ask Amy Bissett to come up and introduce yourself

1261
01:59:57,080 --> 02:00:01,640
 as well as your address and you'll have 10 minutes to speak. Thank you. Amy Bissett,

1262
02:00:01,640 --> 02:00:09,280
 97 land company, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201. I'm going to be very brief, but I do want

1263
02:00:09,280 --> 02:00:13,040
 to share a couple of quick things with you all. I appreciate being here this evening.

1264
02:00:13,040 --> 02:00:19,440
 Um, as you know, um, razor ranch is its own unique animal. It's an older, um, development

1265
02:00:19,440 --> 02:00:27,000
 code and it's, um, the 400 acres is regulated by a complex, um, zoning overlay ordinance.

1266
02:00:27,000 --> 02:00:32,720
 But when you boil it down to its very base, um, there are 15 pages of a base ordinance

1267
02:00:32,720 --> 02:00:38,400
 that really outlines the entire development. Um, it, it dictates the criteria for approving

1268
02:00:38,400 --> 02:00:44,000
 a site plan. Um, it dictates the land divisions on the North and South side of university,

1269
02:00:44,000 --> 02:00:48,900
 um, indicates development standards and permitted uses. And on the South campus, there are three

1270
02:00:48,900 --> 02:00:55,320
 primary sub-districts, the town center RR2 and the South mixed use district. The South

1271
02:00:55,320 --> 02:00:59,760
 campus development standards do define the number of and type of dwelling units allowed.

1272
02:00:59,760 --> 02:01:06,760
 Um, and they, it also defines a density zone, which, um, Mia showed on, on, uh, in her presentation

1273
02:01:06,760 --> 02:01:10,920
 and I've got another exhibit here showing the same. Um, really what I just wanted to

1274
02:01:10,920 --> 02:01:16,360
 point out here is that, um, the design or the intent behind, um, the razor ranch overlay

1275
02:01:16,360 --> 02:01:21,380
 district is that the multifamily would be, um, clustered around the 10 acre public park

1276
02:01:21,380 --> 02:01:27,560
 that was dedicated by, um, the razor ranch developer and, um, provide those amenities

1277
02:01:27,560 --> 02:01:32,720
 within walking distance. And, um, I'm going to show you an aerial in just a minute because

1278
02:01:32,720 --> 02:01:38,440
 I think it's worth sharing, but, um, our request is simply to change a couple of sentences

1279
02:01:38,440 --> 02:01:44,360
 within the text of those 15 pages. Um, the only substantive change is to increase the

1280
02:01:44,360 --> 02:01:50,720
 number of total units by 200 and, um, to provide some corrective text or really clarification

1281
02:01:50,720 --> 02:01:58,320
 text on, um, where multifamily is allowed outside of the density zone. And then, um,

1282
02:01:58,320 --> 02:02:02,640
 Kevin Bankhead with Allegiance Hill View is here with me as well and, um, available for

1283
02:02:02,640 --> 02:02:06,720
 any questions that you may have, but he sent this aerial to me not that long ago and just

1284
02:02:06,720 --> 02:02:11,080
 wanted to share if you look, um, you're looking towards the density zone in this aerial with

1285
02:02:11,080 --> 02:02:17,360
 the, you can see the, um, oop, got to flip right off of it, the 10 acre park here and

1286
02:02:17,360 --> 02:02:22,000
 you can see how the multifamily that's developed today is kind of clustered around that with,

1287
02:02:22,000 --> 02:02:28,240
 um, immediate access to a very, um, nice public amenity. And, um, that's all I have and happy

1288
02:02:28,240 --> 02:02:33,160
 to stand for any questions. Thank you.

1289
02:02:33,160 --> 02:02:42,600
 Any questions for Ms. Bissett? Okay. Thank you. That is the only card I have, uh, to

1290
02:02:42,600 --> 02:02:47,240
 speak. Anybody who has wished this public hearing, uh, to speak publicly may do so and

1291
02:02:47,240 --> 02:02:53,440
 you can fill out a blue card afterwards. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing

1292
02:02:53,440 --> 02:02:58,720
 and I'll move to the dais for motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. Make a motion to approve.

1293
02:02:58,720 --> 02:03:03,840
 Okay. Got a first for approval. Commissioner McDade? I second. Okay. Got a second. Well,

1294
02:03:03,840 --> 02:03:07,880
 the first and second for approval. No other discussion to be had. I'll ask for a motion

1295
02:03:07,880 --> 02:03:21,720
 or a vote on the board. Okay. That motion passes six zero. Okay. With that, we'll move

1296
02:03:21,720 --> 02:03:30,400
 on to item four C that's 21 dash zero zero zero eight. Ask Ron McGee to come up to present.

1297
02:03:30,400 --> 02:03:32,920
 Thank you chair. My name is the commissioner Ron McGee, a principal planner with development

1298
02:03:32,920 --> 02:03:45,760
 services. Get my presentation. This, uh, request is public hearing now around. Okay. Great.

1299
02:03:45,760 --> 02:03:51,680
 Thank you. Um, this request is for a specific use permit to allow for an equipment system

1300
02:03:51,680 --> 02:03:56,520
 sales and rental use, uh, the equipment sales and rental use as part of the U hall commercial

1301
02:03:56,520 --> 02:04:02,840
 business, um, that you see here outline in yellow, um, north of university and just east

1302
02:04:02,840 --> 02:04:09,520
 of spring Valley drive. It's approximately 5.82 acres in size. Uh, the business will

1303
02:04:09,520 --> 02:04:16,120
 consist of an office warehouse self storage, uh, units as well as the equipment sales and

1304
02:04:16,120 --> 02:04:23,720
 rental use, uh, that is being sought out after, uh, for this SUP. The future land use, um,

1305
02:04:23,720 --> 02:04:28,360
 designates the area as community mixed use, uh, with some light industrial to the north

1306
02:04:28,360 --> 02:04:32,960
 of the property. Uh, it was currently zone light industrial and as part of that light

1307
02:04:32,960 --> 02:04:38,680
 industrial zoning district, the equipment sales and, um, rental use requires a specific

1308
02:04:38,680 --> 02:04:44,800
 use permit. This is the proposed site plan. Um, this site plan was emailed to the planning

1309
02:04:44,800 --> 02:04:50,840
 zoning commission, uh, prior to the meeting. Uh, it's an updated one that's, um, in, uh,

1310
02:04:50,840 --> 02:04:55,000
 that's different from what was included in your packet that was sent out on Friday, uh,

1311
02:04:55,000 --> 02:05:00,840
 really quickly to illustrate what the site plan includes. It includes a building a, which

1312
02:05:00,840 --> 02:05:08,240
 will be the, uh, location where the office and the rental, um, uh, activity will occur.

1313
02:05:08,240 --> 02:05:15,040
 Uh, it also houses, uh, the you box containers, which will be part of the, uh, business. Uh,

1314
02:05:15,040 --> 02:05:21,160
 this warehouse will be, um, primarily where they will be stored, uh, loading and, um,

1315
02:05:21,160 --> 02:05:25,960
 unloading will come from the back of the property, the rear, I'm sorry, the back of the building,

1316
02:05:25,960 --> 02:05:32,400
 uh, the rear area that you see here, um, highlighted by the cursor. Building B is the location

1317
02:05:32,400 --> 02:05:38,040
 of the storage units where individuals are able to rent out, uh, individual units in order

1318
02:05:38,040 --> 02:05:43,720
 to store their items. Uh, building C, which is further, uh, to the east, I'm sorry, to

1319
02:05:43,720 --> 02:05:48,960
 the west, uh, as well will be located, uh, will be where, uh, self-storage units will

1320
02:05:48,960 --> 02:05:55,800
 be located. Um, the area where the equipment rental, uh, display areas, uh, primarily again

1321
02:05:55,800 --> 02:06:01,480
 per this SUP will be located in the areas that are highlighted or shaded in gray in this

1322
02:06:01,480 --> 02:06:08,160
 particular area, uh, along the, uh, western part of the property as well as this area

1323
02:06:08,160 --> 02:06:13,000
 over here. Now the remaining areas that you see here in white, uh, those will be for the

1324
02:06:13,000 --> 02:06:20,040
 purpose of maneuvering large trucks and other, um, uh, vehicles. Uh, but again, the display

1325
02:06:20,040 --> 02:06:24,720
 area and equipment rental area will be in this highlighted areas. Also important to

1326
02:06:24,720 --> 02:06:29,120
 note in the site plan is two areas specifically as it relates to the conditions, which I will

1327
02:06:29,120 --> 02:06:34,600
 be presenting in a few minutes. Uh, the area that you see here in orange is where there

1328
02:06:34,600 --> 02:06:40,920
 will be temporary storage of U box centers, uh, send, uh, sorry, containers that is, uh,

1329
02:06:40,920 --> 02:06:46,440
 where individuals who want to unload or unload their items from the U box containers into

1330
02:06:46,440 --> 02:06:51,040
 their storage units that are able to, and that will only occur within the area that's

1331
02:06:51,040 --> 02:06:58,480
 identified there and dimensioned as eight by 18 feet, uh, in size. The other area important

1332
02:06:58,480 --> 02:07:04,600
 to note is the orange that's in front of building a, that will be the location of a U box container

1333
02:07:04,600 --> 02:07:11,880
 display, uh, that will only serve as a display to help, um, uh, show what a U box, uh, container

1334
02:07:11,880 --> 02:07:19,320
 is. As far as the landscape plan, um, the landscape plan complies with the landscape

1335
02:07:19,320 --> 02:07:24,080
 area tree canopy cover, uh, the street tree requirements as well as the buffer screening

1336
02:07:24,080 --> 02:07:29,160
 and requirements, uh, per the development code. I want to make mention that the, uh,

1337
02:07:29,160 --> 02:07:34,280
 applicant as well as staff have worked hard in order to provide that screening that's

1338
02:07:34,280 --> 02:07:39,980
 required or that's part of this proposal. You see that the area along university is

1339
02:07:39,980 --> 02:07:45,200
 well landscaped with trees and, uh, landscaping also included. There's hard to see, but there's

1340
02:07:45,200 --> 02:07:52,400
 also a berm that again helps screen, um, the, uh, the equipment cells and rental, um, and

1341
02:07:52,400 --> 02:07:59,360
 just provides that additional landscaping that we would like to see on US 380. Criteria

1342
02:07:59,360 --> 02:08:04,560
 for approval for, uh, SUPs are under, uh, section two five, I'm sorry, two four, uh,

1343
02:08:04,560 --> 02:08:12,320
 five E as well as two five two D. Uh, could summary, um, wise the proposal is consistent

1344
02:08:12,320 --> 02:08:17,040
 with the goals and policies of the den 20 40 comprehensive plan. Uh, it complies with

1345
02:08:17,040 --> 02:08:22,600
 the ally zoning district purpose statement. Uh, the approval of the SUP is not expected

1346
02:08:22,600 --> 02:08:28,480
 to generate any adverse impacts and the utilities and infrastructure is available as this area

1347
02:08:28,480 --> 02:08:34,240
 is located within an urban area along three 80, uh, an area that, um, is, uh, somewhat

1348
02:08:34,240 --> 02:08:40,560
 developed already, uh, with other uses newspaper, I'm sorry, uh, notifications were sent out

1349
02:08:40,560 --> 02:08:47,680
 on includes newspaper as well as a website. Um, notice this, um, were, um, published on

1350
02:08:47,680 --> 02:08:55,320
 our city website as of this afternoon, staff has not received any written responses. Um,

1351
02:08:55,320 --> 02:09:00,160
 one public hearing sign was posted on the property, um, in advance of the meeting and

1352
02:09:00,160 --> 02:09:06,440
 there were no neighborhood meetings held for recommendations. Staff is recommending approval

1353
02:09:06,440 --> 02:09:12,120
 with this, um, issue for this USP requests with the following conditions. The first one

1354
02:09:12,120 --> 02:09:17,600
 is generally to comply with the attached site plan and landscape plan. And again, the attached

1355
02:09:17,600 --> 02:09:21,920
 site plan, um, that we're referring to is the one that was submitted with the changes

1356
02:09:21,920 --> 02:09:27,360
 that were, um, described. Um, if there were, if there are any changes to the site plan

1357
02:09:27,360 --> 02:09:33,000
 or the landscape plan, that will require a new specific use permit. Now there is allowances

1358
02:09:33,000 --> 02:09:38,000
 for some landscaping, uh, adjustments up to 5%. But again, generally any changes will

1359
02:09:38,000 --> 02:09:44,280
 require a new specific use permit. Uh, condition number two, uh, relates to the, um, you boxes

1360
02:09:44,280 --> 02:09:49,760
 or storage containers specifically, uh, they're not, they're not allowed to be stored out,

1361
02:09:49,760 --> 02:09:57,280
 um, in, um, outside of the enclosed structure. Um, the change and the backup, we added that,

1362
02:09:57,280 --> 02:10:02,440
 um, the last sense that you see there, this does not include the one storage container

1363
02:10:02,440 --> 02:10:07,080
 located by the front entrance of building A for display purpose only. So that would

1364
02:10:07,080 --> 02:10:13,360
 be something that would be allowed and it would be just that one, um, storage container.

1365
02:10:13,360 --> 02:10:18,320
 Number three, um, again, changes, um, that were sent earlier, uh, prior to this meeting,

1366
02:10:18,320 --> 02:10:24,200
 um, include the following that in situations when their storage containers are, um, temporarily

1367
02:10:24,200 --> 02:10:30,200
 stored outside of the, of the, um, uh, the building, uh, they're primarily to be used

1368
02:10:30,200 --> 02:10:36,600
 by customers to load and unload, uh, their items. And they are, um, in an area identified

1369
02:10:36,600 --> 02:10:41,960
 per the site plan. Again, as I illustrated in the site plan, an area of eight by 18 only

1370
02:10:41,960 --> 02:10:48,360
 that's where they would be located. Again, these changes, um, were made after the packet

1371
02:10:48,360 --> 02:10:55,120
 went out, uh, after, um, staff and the applicant were able to further discuss, um, their business

1372
02:10:55,120 --> 02:11:02,680
 plan. With that, um, staff, um, stands for any questions. The applicant is, uh, present

1373
02:11:02,680 --> 02:11:07,880
 and does not have a presentation, but is, uh, open for questions or be available for

1374
02:11:07,880 --> 02:11:08,880
 questions.

1375
02:11:08,880 --> 02:11:14,280
 Thank you, Ron. I don't see any questions for you right now. So appreciate it. This

1376
02:11:14,280 --> 02:11:18,520
 is a public hearing. Uh, anyone who's wishing to speak may do so. We fill out a blue card

1377
02:11:18,520 --> 02:11:25,040
 afterwards if you'd like. Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and move to

1378
02:11:25,040 --> 02:11:34,320
 dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. I make a motion to approve with conditions.

1379
02:11:34,320 --> 02:11:38,920
 Okay. The motion approved with the conditions are presented. Commissioner Villarreal. Second.

1380
02:11:38,920 --> 02:11:47,880
 Okay. Got a second. Um, chair, may I ask for a tiny adjustment on the motion? Um, to, just

1381
02:11:47,880 --> 02:11:55,000
 to confirm that it's as, um, as presented. Is that correct? Conditions as, as, as presented.

1382
02:11:55,000 --> 02:12:00,560
 Yes, chair. Thank you. All right. Clarification of the motion. Uh, commissioner cold motion

1383
02:12:00,560 --> 02:12:05,880
 to approve with conditions as presented and commissioner Villarreal seconds that. Okay.

1384
02:12:05,880 --> 02:12:17,880
 All right. Any discussion? Okay. Call for a vote on the board. That motion passes six

1385
02:12:17,880 --> 02:12:25,880
 zero. Good luck in your project. All right. I'll move on to item four D D C a 22 dash

1386
02:12:25,880 --> 02:12:30,320
 zero zero zero five, and I'll open the public hearing. Go ahead. Ron. Thank you chair. I'm

1387
02:12:30,320 --> 02:12:38,320
 a commissioner on the principal planner. Um, this item is a code amendment requests initiated

1388
02:12:38,320 --> 02:12:44,680
 by the city. Uh, it is for the purpose of addressing a new residential type that we've

1389
02:12:44,680 --> 02:12:51,120
 seen the last, uh, I guess past year, uh, regarding, um, uh, horizontal multifamily

1390
02:12:51,120 --> 02:12:58,440
 living and those that actually seen and heard some of those cases, we've processed as can

1391
02:12:58,440 --> 02:13:04,000
 you go to the full screen? I'm sorry about that. Um, these, uh, horizontal multifamily

1392
02:13:04,000 --> 02:13:10,360
 living have been processed as PDs, uh, primarily because we, um, we're trying to find a use

1393
02:13:10,360 --> 02:13:17,840
 that fit, um, what their role functions are. After review and further, um, you know, study

1394
02:13:17,840 --> 02:13:23,480
 of this type of use, uh, it was determined that the use is more in line with multifamily

1395
02:13:23,480 --> 02:13:28,840
 as it is a single lot with multiple units. Uh, now these units are not typically what

1396
02:13:28,840 --> 02:13:34,960
 you'd seen a multifamily as far as a vertical, um, type development. It does have some of

1397
02:13:34,960 --> 02:13:39,320
 them have single family, uh, or single units. Some of them have two units. Some of them

1398
02:13:39,320 --> 02:13:43,920
 at three unit buildings. Uh, so they're, they're not your typical, but again, by definition,

1399
02:13:43,920 --> 02:13:50,920
 they fit the multifamily desk, uh, definition as such. We have updated the, um, or proposed

1400
02:13:50,920 --> 02:13:55,600
 update the definition of multifamily. Uh, and that's part of this code amendment. We're

1401
02:13:55,600 --> 02:14:00,960
 also adding a use specific standard, uh, to multifamily specifically to, uh, provide a

1402
02:14:00,960 --> 02:14:07,380
 little bit more design consistency for those buildings that contain one or two units as

1403
02:14:07,380 --> 02:14:13,080
 part of a future multifamily development that more or less would resemble what you've seen

1404
02:14:13,080 --> 02:14:19,120
 as a horizontal multifamily living type development. Uh, also in addition to the code amendment,

1405
02:14:19,120 --> 02:14:24,040
 uh, this code amendment, we're looking at adjusting the, um, the, um, the dimensional

1406
02:14:24,040 --> 02:14:30,080
 standards that is for the MN district, uh, where it requires a, uh, SGP for buildings

1407
02:14:30,080 --> 02:14:36,240
 over 41 or 41 to 65 feet. Uh, and we're gonna, um, I'll further describe what we're proposing,

1408
02:14:36,240 --> 02:14:41,240
 but really just focusing on where those buildings are proposed adjacent to residential uses.

1409
02:14:41,240 --> 02:14:46,600
 And I've got, uh, uh, shared, uh, information that I'll share in the presentation or the

1410
02:14:46,600 --> 02:14:52,240
 slide that's coming. Also make, I wanted to make note that the DCRC, um, held, um, three

1411
02:14:52,240 --> 02:14:56,640
 meetings specifically to discuss this proposed code amendments. Uh, as you see here, April

1412
02:14:56,640 --> 02:15:03,920
 22nd, May 27th and June 24th, uh, they, the development code review committee has recommended

1413
02:15:03,920 --> 02:15:07,680
 this be moved forward to planning zoning commission and city council. And therefore we're, we're

1414
02:15:07,680 --> 02:15:12,720
 here tonight, uh, for this, uh, item, uh, summary of the code amendments. Um, again,

1415
02:15:12,720 --> 02:15:17,120
 we talked about the multifamily dwelling unit being, uh, amended. Uh, we're also adding

1416
02:15:17,120 --> 02:15:22,120
 residential condominiums as it is referenced in that, uh, in the code. We want to make

1417
02:15:22,120 --> 02:15:28,620
 sure that we provide a definition for it as well. Then you use, uh, use specific standard.

1418
02:15:28,620 --> 02:15:33,960
 We're also proposing to add that as part of section five three three D, which is the use

1419
02:15:33,960 --> 02:15:38,480
 specific standards for multifamily. And then lastly, uh, again, mentioning the dimensional

1420
02:15:38,480 --> 02:15:44,020
 standards for MN, uh, we're looking to amend the, uh, height, uh, maximum building height

1421
02:15:44,020 --> 02:15:50,640
 requirement as it relates for, uh, as it relates to the MN district. So, uh, with that, uh,

1422
02:15:50,640 --> 02:15:56,080
 what you see on screen is the proposed definition of multifamily. Uh, you see that the, uh,

1423
02:15:56,080 --> 02:16:03,160
 the red line and underline, um, in red are the added in or deleted, um, language. Um,

1424
02:16:03,160 --> 02:16:09,500
 so as, uh, proposed, the definition of multifamily dwelling will, will be as follows, a single

1425
02:16:09,500 --> 02:16:16,760
 lot containing five or more dwelling units. This definition includes residential condominiums

1426
02:16:16,760 --> 02:16:23,600
 developed on a single lot. We're also proposing as mentioned, uh, a definition for residential

1427
02:16:23,600 --> 02:16:29,820
 condominium dwelling. And that is, is going to read as follows, a pop, sorry, a property

1428
02:16:29,820 --> 02:16:37,160
 comprise of multiple individual dwelling units on a single lot where each unit is owned separately.

1429
02:16:37,160 --> 02:16:41,480
 Again, um, very similar to, um, multifamily, but we wanted to make sure that we gave it

1430
02:16:41,480 --> 02:16:48,560
 a special definition as it is referenced in the development code. The use specific standard

1431
02:16:48,560 --> 02:16:55,220
 that I was referring to is the one in red, uh, highlighted in underline that is, um,

1432
02:16:55,220 --> 02:17:00,880
 it is for buildings containing one or two dwelling units. Uh, they shall comply with

1433
02:17:00,880 --> 02:17:06,760
 the building mass and form standards as established in section seven, 10 three E, which is the

1434
02:17:06,760 --> 02:17:11,960
 building mass and form. Again, this would only apply for those buildings that are part

1435
02:17:11,960 --> 02:17:20,360
 of a multifamily, uh, development that contain only one or two dwelling units. The item,

1436
02:17:20,360 --> 02:17:24,280
 um, that you see here is related to, again, the build, uh, maximum building height for

1437
02:17:24,280 --> 02:17:30,920
 MN. As you see note number two, um, that's where the changes are being proposed. Uh,

1438
02:17:30,920 --> 02:17:36,760
 buildings between 41 and 65 feet. We've added the language adjacent to a residential zoning

1439
02:17:36,760 --> 02:17:44,320
 district or adjacent to an existing single family detach dwelling townhome or duplex use

1440
02:17:44,320 --> 02:17:51,320
 shall require a specific use permit pursuant to two five two of the development code. Now

1441
02:17:51,320 --> 02:17:56,560
 the reason why you see, uh, single family detached dwelling townhome and duplex highlighted

1442
02:17:56,560 --> 02:18:03,520
 is that this is something that was changed or amended and modified, um, after the development

1443
02:18:03,520 --> 02:18:11,720
 code review committee, uh, made their recommendation. Um, the understanding of what we believe was

1444
02:18:11,720 --> 02:18:17,920
 it was intended for these types of uses, but as it was presented to the DCRC, the development

1445
02:18:17,920 --> 02:18:24,000
 code review committee, it only stated existing residential use. Uh, we wanted to go a little

1446
02:18:24,000 --> 02:18:30,880
 further and really just focus on the uses that we felt that was the, um, uses that wanted

1447
02:18:30,880 --> 02:18:36,560
 to, we wanted to see protected. And that again is the single family detached dwelling townhomes

1448
02:18:36,560 --> 02:18:42,560
 and duplex uses. So that is different from what the DCRC recommended, but again, wanted

1449
02:18:42,560 --> 02:18:49,080
 to make sure that we specify specifically those types of uses. Staff recommends approval

1450
02:18:49,080 --> 02:18:57,680
 with, um, um, as it does comply or as it does meet the requirements of approval for code

1451
02:18:57,680 --> 02:19:02,600
 amendments under section two, seven, four D of the DDC. And that concludes my presentation.

1452
02:19:02,600 --> 02:19:09,920
 I'll stand for any questions. Okay. I don't see any Ron. Thank you. This is a public hearing.

1453
02:19:09,920 --> 02:19:16,960
 Anybody who was wishing to speak may do so. You thought a blue card afterwards. Okay.

1454
02:19:16,960 --> 02:19:20,600
 Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I'll move to the dais for a motion. Commissioner

1455
02:19:20,600 --> 02:19:27,960
 to vote. Sorry. Before I take the motion, Tina Ron, could you please pull up that slide

1456
02:19:27,960 --> 02:19:31,920
 that had the language with respect to the MN district? Something just caught my attention

1457
02:19:31,920 --> 02:19:38,800
 on that as you were explaining that. So the note number two buildings between 41 and 65

1458
02:19:38,800 --> 02:19:43,840
 feet, we have adjacent to a residential zoning district. We consider multifamily zoning districts,

1459
02:19:43,840 --> 02:19:50,560
 residential districts, correct? It does include multifamily if yes. Okay. And given your explanation

1460
02:19:50,560 --> 02:19:55,800
 that we were the reason why we were amending this provision was to not require a specific

1461
02:19:55,800 --> 02:20:00,800
 use permit also for multifamily adjacent to multifamily. I believe we need to tweak the

1462
02:20:00,800 --> 02:20:06,680
 text that's on the slide so that it says adjacent to a residential zoning district parentheses

1463
02:20:06,680 --> 02:20:12,440
 excluding multifamily districts parentheses or adjacent to an existing single family detached

1464
02:20:12,440 --> 02:20:17,680
 dwelling townhome or duplex use. So when he was presenting that, it caught my attention

1465
02:20:17,680 --> 02:20:23,960
 with the language that's proposed here. So it's kind of silly to require a specific use

1466
02:20:23,960 --> 02:20:28,940
 permit adjacent to for a multifamily development adjacent to a multifamily development. So

1467
02:20:28,940 --> 02:20:34,400
 the way this language that we have here is since we consider multifamily zoning districts,

1468
02:20:34,400 --> 02:20:38,760
 residential districts, it's important that we make, we insert a parenthetical reference

1469
02:20:38,760 --> 02:20:43,160
 that excludes multifamily districts. And my apologies that we did not catch that previously.

1470
02:20:43,160 --> 02:20:50,400
 I guess going with our shorter presentations for work session, I missed that. And my apologies

1471
02:20:50,400 --> 02:20:54,680
 for bringing that up at the dais, but I just want to make sure that we get that correct

1472
02:20:54,680 --> 02:21:00,120
 and want to make sure that the commission would be in agreement with that change.

1473
02:21:00,120 --> 02:21:08,160
 All right. Thank you, Tina. So this will have the change within there saying that footnote

1474
02:21:08,160 --> 02:21:11,600
 number two adjacent to residential zoning district excluding multifamily dwelling use

1475
02:21:11,600 --> 02:21:17,440
 or adjacent to an existing single family detached dwelling townhome or duplex use. So we've got

1476
02:21:17,440 --> 02:21:23,560
 that in there. Okay. With that said, commissioner Villarreal, I'm sorry, before I go to commissioner

1477
02:21:23,560 --> 02:21:30,480
 Villarreal, commissioner Peru. Sorry. Just a point of clarification. I'm trying to recall

1478
02:21:30,480 --> 02:21:36,120
 where in our code it defines a multifamily district. I think we have our one through

1479
02:21:36,120 --> 02:21:42,920
 our seven and then the other districts which allow multifamily are mixed use districts.

1480
02:21:42,920 --> 02:21:57,620
 So I just want to make sure that the language is clear as intended. Does R7 allow multifamily

1481
02:21:57,620 --> 02:22:04,680
 with this approval of a specific use permit? I believe so. Yes. Do we have any other residential

1482
02:22:04,680 --> 02:22:09,320
 zoning districts that would trigger the multifamily? I guess we want to make sure that we are not

1483
02:22:09,320 --> 02:22:14,440
 requiring an SUP for multifamily development adjacent to multifamily. And since we consider

1484
02:22:14,440 --> 02:22:20,160
 adjacent to a residential zoning district, is it appropriate then to say excluding multifamily

1485
02:22:20,160 --> 02:22:28,400
 uses or do we need to, I'd be concerned about excluding R7 altogether since R7 allows for

1486
02:22:28,400 --> 02:22:38,360
 other residential uses, such as single family. So, yeah, so just to kind of clarify the multifamily

1487
02:22:38,360 --> 02:22:45,320
 dwelling use is permitted in the residential zoning districts, but only in the R7 with

1488
02:22:45,320 --> 02:22:53,560
 a specific use permit. So. Does that answer your question commissioner Peru? Yeah, I just

1489
02:22:53,560 --> 02:22:59,560
 wanted to, maybe I was mishearing, but I thought we were referring to a term of multifamily

1490
02:22:59,560 --> 02:23:03,880
 district, which wasn't defined in the code. And I appreciate you catching me because I'm

1491
02:23:03,880 --> 02:23:10,360
 confusing my cities. So maybe what we do is on that language, excluding multifamily uses

1492
02:23:10,360 --> 02:23:17,000
 in an R7 district. The whole intent was to remove that specific use permit requirement

1493
02:23:17,000 --> 02:23:22,440
 for the additional height where it was adjacent to the, for multifamily uses where it was

1494
02:23:22,440 --> 02:23:26,720
 adjacent to single family detached dwellings, townhomes or duplex uses, but also in our

1495
02:23:26,720 --> 02:23:30,760
 code we were trying to be consistent with our language because we typically make references

1496
02:23:30,760 --> 02:23:39,680
 to residential districts and then whatever additional qualifiers we add on there. So,

1497
02:23:39,680 --> 02:23:43,720
 but I appreciate you catching me on that. So maybe it needs to be excluding multifamily

1498
02:23:43,720 --> 02:23:48,400
 dwelling use in R7 district. I know it gets a little wordy, but I just want to make sure

1499
02:23:48,400 --> 02:23:56,520
 that we're trying to achieve the intended outcome. Okay. All right. I guess I have a

1500
02:23:56,520 --> 02:24:02,480
 quick point of clarification commissioner. Sorry, apologies. A quick point of clarification

1501
02:24:02,480 --> 02:24:09,440
 before I make the motion. What practical difference does adding the language about the R7 zoning

1502
02:24:09,440 --> 02:24:14,720
 district make to the overall amendment? I'm, I guess I'm missing the confusion on Eric's

1503
02:24:14,720 --> 02:24:18,840
 part. I think it, I think it makes it, cause if it says adjacent to a residential zoning

1504
02:24:18,840 --> 02:24:25,560
 district and R7 being a residential zoning district and because R7 can allow for multifamily,

1505
02:24:25,560 --> 02:24:29,160
 then that might, then that's what Tina is saying that essentially if we have it in there

1506
02:24:29,160 --> 02:24:33,520
 and it just says residential zoning district, then we would be requiring new multifamily

1507
02:24:33,520 --> 02:24:38,560
 to obtain an SUP when they're a budding or adjacent to an already existing multifamily

1508
02:24:38,560 --> 02:24:42,960
 that's existed in R7 district. So I don't know if that helps clarify. No, I get, I get

1509
02:24:42,960 --> 02:24:48,880
 that part. I guess my question is more about the language Ron had before he added the R7

1510
02:24:48,880 --> 02:24:53,860
 zoning district when it just said excluding multifamily dwelling use. I think it's, I

1511
02:24:53,860 --> 02:24:57,000
 think it's only just, I think it's just, I think it's just overkill of clarification

1512
02:24:57,000 --> 02:25:02,120
 so to speak since R6 and lower doesn't allow for any multifamily with an SUP. Okay. I,

1513
02:25:02,120 --> 02:25:05,640
 I see your point and I agree with you that I think that it might be just overkill, but

1514
02:25:05,640 --> 02:25:09,160
 I think it might just be more of a better clarification to say R7 zoning district by

1515
02:25:09,160 --> 02:25:13,400
 putting it into there. But yeah, I don't know if Tina, if you had anything else into there

1516
02:25:13,400 --> 02:25:22,080
 that, okay. You've all explained it. Okay. All right. Well with that, yeah, I've served

1517
02:25:22,080 --> 02:25:28,040
 on the DCRC when this was proposed. Staff did a good job of providing a real tangible

1518
02:25:28,040 --> 02:25:32,920
 need for these changes and I appreciate that. With that, I happily move to approve the amendments

1519
02:25:32,920 --> 02:25:38,880
 as presented with the new changes. All right. Commissioner McDade. I second. Okay. Well,

1520
02:25:38,880 --> 02:25:45,240
 first and a second. Any other discussion? Sometimes democracy at works feels like mommy

1521
02:25:45,240 --> 02:25:50,160
 and daddy fighting at the dais, but it's okay. We'll be okay with that. See no other discussion.

1522
02:25:50,160 --> 02:26:00,800
 We will take a vote on the board. Okay. That motion passes six zero. All right. Ron, last

1523
02:26:00,800 --> 02:26:09,040
 one. 4E DCA 22-0006. You to present and I'll open the public hearing. Great. Thank you,

1524
02:26:09,040 --> 02:26:13,680
 chair, members of the commission. This is another city initiated code amendment related

1525
02:26:13,680 --> 02:26:18,960
 to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment is really to provide a more

1526
02:26:18,960 --> 02:26:26,600
 comprehensive procedure for rezoning to a plan development. One of those changes is

1527
02:26:26,600 --> 02:26:33,740
 to also add a new type of PD, a plan development, an overlay plan development. And I'll go into

1528
02:26:33,740 --> 02:26:40,040
 that in my slides preceding this to provide a little bit more description of the difference

1529
02:26:40,040 --> 02:26:47,660
 between what an overlay PD is as well as what a standard PD is. The DCRC did meet on this

1530
02:26:47,660 --> 02:26:52,840
 particular item and discussed it on July 8th. And per the recommendation, we are bringing

1531
02:26:52,840 --> 02:26:57,920
 it forward to the planning zoning commission and ultimately to city council for consideration.

1532
02:26:57,920 --> 02:27:04,120
 To summarize the code amendment code amendments, that is again, we're outlining and proposing

1533
02:27:04,120 --> 02:27:10,860
 the new type of PD and that is an overlay. So we will now approve, have two types of

1534
02:27:10,860 --> 02:27:17,400
 plan development, an overlay PD, a plan development, as well as a standard plan development. We're

1535
02:27:17,400 --> 02:27:24,960
 also looking at clarifying the submittal documents, just again, to help more further require what

1536
02:27:24,960 --> 02:27:28,960
 we need in order to review plan developments. We're making sure that those documents are

1537
02:27:28,960 --> 02:27:35,360
 provided. Clarifying when concurrent reviews are allowed. There are certain times when

1538
02:27:35,360 --> 02:27:39,000
 they are allowed and certain times when they are not. So that is further clarified in this

1539
02:27:39,000 --> 02:27:46,000
 proposed code amendment. Adding more information related to PD amendments. There is, as you

1540
02:27:46,000 --> 02:27:53,080
 all know, past PDs prior to 2019, there were some PDs that were created as part of the

1541
02:27:53,080 --> 02:27:59,200
 2019 development code and as we know, as PDs start to become used more often, there will

1542
02:27:59,200 --> 02:28:05,480
 be needs for amendments. So adding more information is going to be helpful in those efforts. We're

1543
02:28:05,480 --> 02:28:11,560
 also proposing to delete, sorry, to delete the notification requirements for minor amendments.

1544
02:28:11,560 --> 02:28:18,180
 The current requirement is that we, the city, notify adjacent property owners for minor

1545
02:28:18,180 --> 02:28:24,120
 amendments to PDs. We feel that those are unnecessary and that those minor amendments

1546
02:28:24,120 --> 02:28:29,520
 are typically minor in nature, of course, and the ones that are more substantial, such

1547
02:28:29,520 --> 02:28:34,880
 as the major amendments, do still require those notifications and do still require public

1548
02:28:34,880 --> 02:28:41,320
 hearings for those considerations. Lastly, we are proposing to add more clarification

1549
02:28:41,320 --> 02:28:46,560
 as it relates to the approval criteria for rezoning to plan development. Again, to provide

1550
02:28:46,560 --> 02:28:53,760
 further information to be able for staff, the P&Z, and city council to review as planning

1551
02:28:53,760 --> 02:29:00,960
 developments are proposed. So we won't spend, I won't go through all of the code amendments

1552
02:29:00,960 --> 02:29:07,280
 that's on, that was submitted to the planning zoning commission. Those are included in your

1553
02:29:07,280 --> 02:29:14,840
 backup as exhibit two. I really just wanted to focus on the overlay PD addition, and as

1554
02:29:14,840 --> 02:29:22,560
 you see on this slide, the description of an overlay plan development is presented,

1555
02:29:22,560 --> 02:29:28,000
 and I will read it for the viewing public. I also want to make mention that the changes,

1556
02:29:28,000 --> 02:29:35,640
 there are changes to this description different from the backup that was sent to you on Friday.

1557
02:29:35,640 --> 02:29:42,600
 Yes, we looked at this after the backup had been sent out. We wanted to add a little bit

1558
02:29:42,600 --> 02:29:49,000
 more clarification to the description, and so the changes that you see here is what staff

1559
02:29:49,000 --> 02:29:56,400
 is proposing. So an overlay plan development is a PD intended to address concerns of neighboring

1560
02:29:56,400 --> 02:30:02,920
 property owners to ensure the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of are compatible

1561
02:30:02,920 --> 02:30:10,000
 with surrounding neighborhoods or less intensive uses. An overlay PD may be used to restrict

1562
02:30:10,000 --> 02:30:16,960
 or expand the uses permitted within a base zoning district, or to impose additional use

1563
02:30:16,960 --> 02:30:23,480
 specific standards within sub-chapter five upon a proposed use, or to modify setbacks,

1564
02:30:23,480 --> 02:30:29,040
 landscaping, screening, or buffering requirements to allow the borders joining residential uses

1565
02:30:29,040 --> 02:30:38,680
 or less intensive land uses than what is proposed within the overlay PD. I also want to make

1566
02:30:38,680 --> 02:30:47,440
 clarification that the last sentence on this description should not be included. I failed

1567
02:30:47,440 --> 02:30:53,000
 to remove that. That is not our intent. We want to remove that as part of our code amendment,

1568
02:30:53,000 --> 02:31:05,880
 so let me go ahead and make that quick correction. Further, the overlay plan development is in

1569
02:31:05,880 --> 02:31:11,720
 the course of reviewing any requested zoning map change to a base zoning under the section

1570
02:31:11,720 --> 02:31:18,480
 272. The director of planning, as well as the planning zoning commission or city council,

1571
02:31:18,480 --> 02:31:23,680
 they find that there is a need to impose conditions upon the request that rezoning to address

1572
02:31:23,680 --> 02:31:30,760
 compatible concerns. This overlay PD would be one of those options to utilize if that

1573
02:31:30,760 --> 02:31:38,720
 is the direction of the planning zoning commission, the director, and the city council. So examples

1574
02:31:38,720 --> 02:31:46,360
 of an overlay PD, as you probably have already or know of, is the Baker track. Our end district

1575
02:31:46,360 --> 02:31:51,320
 that one is located on the northwest part of the city. As you know, there was a rezoning

1576
02:31:51,320 --> 02:32:00,760
 to go from RR to LI, and as part of that rezoning, there was some conditions added to that, primarily

1577
02:32:00,760 --> 02:32:07,160
 adding landscaping and some trees and some screening. So that zoning change request would,

1578
02:32:07,160 --> 02:32:13,760
 if they were to be presented today or if this was approved, they would come in as an overlay

1579
02:32:13,760 --> 02:32:18,640
 plan development. Another one is the Windsor 935 medical office. This one is a little bit

1580
02:32:18,640 --> 02:32:26,760
 further ago, and where there were some uses that were identified as only allowed, and

1581
02:32:26,760 --> 02:32:33,360
 so limiting just certain uses, that is another way an overlay plan development could be used

1582
02:32:33,360 --> 02:32:42,600
 in the future, again, if the code amendment was approved. Standard PD is defined or described

1583
02:32:42,600 --> 02:32:48,080
 as intended to be used to achieve greater flexibility than is allowed by strict application

1584
02:32:48,080 --> 02:32:55,180
 of the DDC. So standard PD may be used to permit new or unique land use or combinations

1585
02:32:55,180 --> 02:33:01,760
 of uses to propose, or to propose innovative or creative development standards. A standard

1586
02:33:01,760 --> 02:33:08,360
 PD shall be built off of a basic zoning district within the DDC. And again, I apologize, the

1587
02:33:08,360 --> 02:33:13,600
 last sentence should not be included with this plan development or with this proposed

1588
02:33:13,600 --> 02:33:22,480
 code amendment. That is something that will not be included. Examples of a standard PD,

1589
02:33:22,480 --> 02:33:29,400
 obviously Robeson Ranch is one of those plan developments. The Christopher Todd communities,

1590
02:33:29,400 --> 02:33:32,680
 which is the horizontal multifamily, again, as I mentioned earlier in the previous code

1591
02:33:32,680 --> 02:33:38,380
 amendment, that was used as a PD because we didn't have quite understanding of what that

1592
02:33:38,380 --> 02:33:43,280
 type of residential development is, so it was processed as a PD. Love First Community

1593
02:33:43,280 --> 02:33:50,840
 Village, that one is off of McKinney and just west of Mayhill, that is. That had a unique

1594
02:33:50,840 --> 02:33:57,320
 development proposal where there were some additional housing types, and the way it was

1595
02:33:57,320 --> 02:34:02,600
 laid out was a little different from your typical development, so that we felt was more

1596
02:34:02,600 --> 02:34:09,360
 of a specialized PD or a unique type of development, so it fit within the definition or description

1597
02:34:09,360 --> 02:34:15,880
 of a standard PD. So those are examples of what we would refer to as standard PDs.

1598
02:34:15,880 --> 02:34:22,880
 I want to make also just a quick presentation on what we would require between the two.

1599
02:34:22,880 --> 02:34:27,960
 Overlay PDs, really what we're looking for is just a list of conditions or restrictions

1600
02:34:27,960 --> 02:34:34,000
 that are proposed, again, hopefully to ensure that there is compatibility between the proposed

1601
02:34:34,000 --> 02:34:38,000
 development and any other neighboring property, so that would be something that the staff

1602
02:34:38,000 --> 02:34:45,600
 will be looking for as part of their submittal documents. Standard PDs are a little bit more

1603
02:34:45,600 --> 02:34:51,200
 involved in that we require a little bit more information and require the following. One

1604
02:34:51,200 --> 02:34:57,160
 is the PD regulation document, which will consist of the following. Also a PD development

1605
02:34:57,160 --> 02:35:01,960
 plan, which is really their site plan for that particular development, and if they're

1606
02:35:01,960 --> 02:35:06,360
 proposing any phasing, they will also provide a phasing plan as part of their submittal.

1607
02:35:06,360 --> 02:35:12,240
 So again, as you can see, I just want to illustrate, an overlay PD does not require as much as

1608
02:35:12,240 --> 02:35:18,940
 does a standard PD, where they will provide a lot more information as part of their submittal.

1609
02:35:18,940 --> 02:35:24,680
 With that, staff is recommending approval as the proposed code amendments are consistent

1610
02:35:24,680 --> 02:35:33,200
 or are in line with the section of the DDC, Section 274D as it relates to code amendment

1611
02:35:33,200 --> 02:35:36,880
 approval criteria. With that, I'll stand for any questions.

1612
02:35:36,880 --> 02:35:43,320
 Okay. Thank you, Ron. I don't see any questions this time. This is a public hearing. Any of

1613
02:35:43,320 --> 02:35:51,320
 those that wish to speak may do so. You can fill out a blue card after the fact. Okay.

1614
02:35:51,320 --> 02:35:55,820
 Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I'll move to the dais for a motion or discussion.

1615
02:35:55,820 --> 02:36:01,720
 Commissioner Cole. Make a motion to approve. Okay. Commissioner

1616
02:36:01,720 --> 02:36:10,000
 Cole, a motion to approve with the additions and changes that were created and presented.

1617
02:36:10,000 --> 02:36:17,000
 Yes, with the conditions presented. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal.

1618
02:36:17,000 --> 02:36:27,080
 Okay. Got a first and a second in the discussion. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask for a vote on the

1619
02:36:27,080 --> 02:36:35,960
 board. And that passes 6-0. Okay. I'll take us to our final item tonight. The item 5A,

1620
02:36:35,960 --> 02:36:41,360
 our Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix. I'll turn the dais over to Tina.

1621
02:36:41,360 --> 02:36:46,620
 Thank you, Chairman. We have not had a City Council meeting since the Planning and Zoning

1622
02:36:46,620 --> 02:36:52,960
 Commission last met, so no cases to report or provide any update on that. But wanted

1623
02:36:52,960 --> 02:36:57,440
 to get an item on your calendar just because I know some of you are working professionals

1624
02:36:57,440 --> 02:37:04,160
 and want you to be able to plan accordingly. On October 12th, we are anticipating that

1625
02:37:04,160 --> 02:37:08,800
 the Planning and Zoning Commission will probably need to convene a meeting at approximately

1626
02:37:08,800 --> 02:37:14,400
 3.30 or 4 o'clock that afternoon. We'll obviously firm up that time once we have the agenda

1627
02:37:14,400 --> 02:37:18,760
 more solidified, but just wanted to, you know, maybe have you put that on your calendars

1628
02:37:18,760 --> 02:37:23,640
 for 3.30, and we might pleasantly surprise you with a later start time. But the reason

1629
02:37:23,640 --> 02:37:28,960
 for this, just so you know, is our capital projects engineering team as well as our transportation

1630
02:37:28,960 --> 02:37:33,840
 planning team is working on an update to our roadway impact fee ordinance. The Planning

1631
02:37:33,840 --> 02:37:41,240
 and Zoning Commission serves as the CIAC, and I would be lying if I told you what all

1632
02:37:41,240 --> 02:37:45,880
 those letters stood for. I just know that's the acronym assigned to the alternate committee

1633
02:37:45,880 --> 02:37:51,440
 that you would convene into to consider any changes to the roadway impact fee ordinance.

1634
02:37:51,440 --> 02:37:57,480
 So what we would do is in all likelihood convene that meeting first, take care of that business,

1635
02:37:57,480 --> 02:38:01,640
 and then it will have a separate agenda posted, and then we'll have your normal Planning and

1636
02:38:01,640 --> 02:38:07,800
 Zoning Commission agenda packet that evening as well. But again, more importantly, just

1637
02:38:07,800 --> 02:38:11,680
 want to get that on your calendars so that you can plan accordingly at work, so thank

1638
02:38:11,680 --> 02:38:12,680
 you.

1639
02:38:12,680 --> 02:38:16,240
 Okay. Commissioner Villarreal.

1640
02:38:16,240 --> 02:38:22,600
 So I brought it up briefly at the DCRC meeting about perhaps putting forth a potential amendment

1641
02:38:22,600 --> 02:38:26,760
 or at least a discussion about a potential amendment, and it was said that this would

1642
02:38:26,760 --> 02:38:33,720
 be the best venue to initiate that discussion, right? I know we've had a couple conversations

1643
02:38:33,720 --> 02:38:39,440
 over the last few P&Z meetings about parking minimums, and I know we just had a DCRC, or

1644
02:38:39,440 --> 02:38:46,760
 sorry, a Development Code amendment regarding that, but I know there's a lot of discussion

1645
02:38:46,760 --> 02:38:56,560
 and approval in the realm of removing parking minimums entirely, and I would like to kickstart

1646
02:38:56,560 --> 02:39:05,160
 that discussion down the line and put that on staff's radar for perhaps a future amendment

1647
02:39:05,160 --> 02:39:10,000
 going to DCRC, not immediately, but sometime in the long-term future.

1648
02:39:10,000 --> 02:39:11,000
 Okay.

1649
02:39:11,000 --> 02:39:12,000
 That's it.

1650
02:39:12,000 --> 02:39:13,000
 Got that in?

1651
02:39:13,000 --> 02:39:14,000
 Awesome.

1652
02:39:14,000 --> 02:39:16,120
 Okay. Commissioner Cole.

1653
02:39:16,120 --> 02:39:28,680
 I just wanted to concur with Commissioner Villarreal on that. I support him in that, just having

1654
02:39:28,680 --> 02:39:39,000
 a conversation. I think we should have a conversation. I think there is a consensus on this commission

1655
02:39:39,000 --> 02:39:47,800
 to have that conversation, but I think it needs to be targeted and narrow and not go

1656
02:39:47,800 --> 02:39:52,160
 down a rabbit hole, but just handle the parking minimums.

1657
02:39:52,160 --> 02:39:59,320
 Okay. I know we did just approve a code amendment. We did. It's got to go to council, and it

1658
02:39:59,320 --> 02:40:02,640
 sounds like we haven't gone to council yet. Say it again?

1659
02:40:02,640 --> 02:40:04,640
 Go to council.

1660
02:40:04,640 --> 02:40:09,240
 Okay. Go to council. Really, the discussion on that would probably have to be much later

1661
02:40:09,240 --> 02:40:15,480
 on, and I'd hate for us to go through and have a discussion about change to code that

1662
02:40:15,480 --> 02:40:20,760
 we just approved. I think it's a good discussion to have, and I think that we'll direct city

1663
02:40:20,760 --> 02:40:26,880
 staff to bring back why parking minimums even need to exist and what the importance of those

1664
02:40:26,880 --> 02:40:30,880
 are, then see where we go from there. Commissioner Pruitt.

1665
02:40:30,880 --> 02:40:37,440
 Yeah, I'll just third that, but also echo some comments of the vice chair. Any change

1666
02:40:37,440 --> 02:40:44,500
 like that is something that needs community buy-in, needs a longer perspective to understand

1667
02:40:44,500 --> 02:40:52,720
 what the trade-offs are, and so I think I would look forward to those discussions.

1668
02:40:52,720 --> 02:41:01,960
 Okay. Anything else to add to the matrix this time? Okay. Seeing none, I'll adjourn our

1669
02:41:01,960 --> 02:41:05,080
 meeting at 759. Thank you very much.