WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.160
 Good afternoon. Welcome to the work session for the Planning and Zoning Commission for

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

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

00:00:16.680 --> 00:00:22.520
 Commissioner Ronnie Anderson is also not present at this time. Our first item on work session

00:00:22.520 --> 00:00:27.520
 is citizen comments on consent agenda items. Are there any citizens here to make any comments

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.

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

00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:46.800
 session reports. Charlie to present on PZ 22-078 on our fiscal impact model tool.

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

00:01:03.080 --> 00:01:10.560
 with us. This model started back in 2019 with the adoption of the development code. One

00:01:10.560 --> 00:01:15.280
 of the approval criteria in the development code was a consideration of fiscal impact

00:01:15.280 --> 00:01:21.040
 to the city. With that City Council requested staff come up with a standardized model that

00:01:21.040 --> 00:01:28.760
 we could use to input development related information and then produce a summary for

00:01:28.760 --> 00:01:37.360
 consideration when these projects come forward. So we issued a request for proposal and AECOM

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

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

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

00:01:57.640 --> 00:02:04.560
 through this process of developing it that we can provide consistency from development

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

00:02:10.360 --> 00:02:16.240
 time. Previously, we would have developers submit, sometimes they would submit their

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

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

00:02:32.840 --> 00:02:39.680
 13 approval criteria in the development code. This is not the only approval criteria. So

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

00:02:46.880 --> 00:02:52.200
 there's a number of other factors to consider when these projects come forward and then

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

00:02:58.400 --> 00:03:04.520
 also should be a balanced citywide approach. So project proposals will come one at a time

00:03:04.520 --> 00:03:09.780
 and the commission should remember that, you know, these projects balance out citywide.

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

00:03:13.680 --> 00:03:21.400
 expect that commercial projects offer a higher net positive fiscal impact to the city than

00:03:21.400 --> 00:03:27.520
 maybe a residential would, but as the city develops out, multiple of these projects could

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

00:03:35.320 --> 00:03:44.320
 with AECOM talk about the work they did. >> Thank you, Charlie. Again, thank you very

00:03:44.320 --> 00:03:48.320
 much for the opportunity to present tonight. I think this has been an exciting moment to

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,

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

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

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

00:04:07.440 --> 00:04:11.560
 benefit to the city? Simple enough. But that obviously creates a whole set of questions.

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

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

00:04:21.040 --> 00:04:25.800
 model that can deal with such a wide array of development options. Again, building in

00:04:25.800 --> 00:04:31.760
 that flexibility and that redundancy but also building in updateability. These are key challenges

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

00:04:36.320 --> 00:04:41.800
 sure that the answers you get make sense regardless of project size. So, again, thinking about

00:04:41.800 --> 00:04:48.160
 that, try and provide a framework for how does the city benefit from real estate development?

00:04:48.160 --> 00:04:51.680
 What are those fiscal benefits and how do they change over time? Was ultimately a key

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

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

00:05:00.960 --> 00:05:04.120
 the beginning of a development program where the developer does not have a clear view of

00:05:04.120 --> 00:05:08.280
 their project, their cost may change, their program may change. So, building in a set

00:05:08.280 --> 00:05:12.360
 of assumptions at the front end that allows you to begin to understand that fiscal benefit

00:05:12.360 --> 00:05:16.660
 conceptually and then as the developer comes back and finalizes their numbers, we can then

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.

00:05:21.920 --> 00:05:25.520
 We also see another benefit of this process that we're learning through similar efforts

00:05:25.520 --> 00:05:31.000
 elsewhere is the need for cities to compel developers or to work with developers to come

00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:35.520
 to a standard set of inputs to allow cities to understand development. I think many developers

00:05:35.520 --> 00:05:40.600
 will try to confuse the process with different ways of framing information. The huge benefit

00:05:40.600 --> 00:05:44.820
 of transparency here in terms of asking for information a certain way becomes very telling

00:05:44.820 --> 00:05:48.720
 in terms of understanding how the developers are looking at projects. We want to have a

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

00:05:54.080 --> 00:05:58.880
 benefit over time, how does it change becomes an important thing to us. And then really

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

00:06:03.160 --> 00:06:07.440
 maintenance and reconstruction costs. I think the one issue that a lot of cities are slowly

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

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

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.

00:06:23.220 --> 00:06:29.120
 So the core methodology for us, again, it builds from basic information. One is a structured

00:06:29.120 --> 00:06:33.080
 way of collecting information from our developer, so being able to pull that into the model

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

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

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

00:06:47.240 --> 00:06:50.720
 set of assumptions that have been developed. So a lot of these were brought up through

00:06:50.720 --> 00:06:55.520
 GIS data, so parcel-specific information on property taxes, so relating property taxes

00:06:55.520 --> 00:07:01.560
 to year of construction. Again, getting at very specific types of assumptions for whether

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

00:07:04.920 --> 00:07:09.180
 based on property taxes. So that as those rates change, you can change them. But it

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

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

00:07:21.200 --> 00:07:24.900
 and robust, meaning we've thought about just about every revenue assumption we can come

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

00:07:30.060 --> 00:07:34.760
 of conversations with city staff to think about and question and second-guess the assumptions

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

00:07:37.960 --> 00:07:43.000
 revenues, whether it's a calculated rate or an effective rate. One of the examples of

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

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

00:07:53.840 --> 00:07:58.400
 in built occupied retail environment to get at that net number. Now we know from experience

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

00:08:01.880 --> 00:08:06.680
 we update more consistently. But thinking about how to calculate and come up with justifiable

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

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

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

00:08:22.680 --> 00:08:27.280
 underlying land values are, what the zoning allows for, what the new development is, and

00:08:27.280 --> 00:08:32.120
 what, for example, say the property taxes or utility taxes could be. Taking that information

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

00:08:36.320 --> 00:08:39.760
 about this. Because obviously based on where you are in the community, the costs could

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

00:08:43.680 --> 00:08:49.520
 in the process. And specifically the revenues could be different.

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

00:08:53.120 --> 00:08:58.320
 services, specifically general fund basis. So a lot of time for me as the economist wading

00:08:58.320 --> 00:09:02.280
 through city comprehensive financial statements. I know not the most exciting thing, but we

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

00:09:09.280 --> 00:09:13.600
 at least an argument that the marginal cost of providing city services should decrease

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

00:09:18.560 --> 00:09:22.360
 less than inflation over time. And at least historically what we're running for in the

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

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

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

00:09:36.200 --> 00:09:40.320
 fund basis. So to us this was an important assumption. But we wanted to actually think

00:09:40.320 --> 00:09:45.400
 about different ways of looking at the data as well.

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

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

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

00:09:57.440 --> 00:10:02.440
 and to see how it was calculating. Because again, we can't always predict the different

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.

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

00:10:10.560 --> 00:10:14.200
 dealing with increases in density very well. So if we were adding density within a given

00:10:14.200 --> 00:10:19.800
 site it was increasing the cost of each additional resident. And we generally agreed that if

00:10:19.800 --> 00:10:23.480
 we added more residents in a given specific parcel, that marginal cost of each additional

00:10:23.480 --> 00:10:28.880
 resident should probably go down. So this really triggered a literature review to understand

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

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

00:10:37.880 --> 00:10:43.980
 research from 2021 that actually provided very clear marginal reductions in revenues

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

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

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

00:10:58.600 --> 00:11:03.000
 based on more density within a given location. When you read all of these studies though

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

00:11:08.280 --> 00:11:12.280
 buildings obviously city cost tends to grow. So that's one of those assumptions that we

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

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

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

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

00:11:29.260 --> 00:11:34.720
 question about roadways, life cycle costs of roadways. The model always dealt well with

00:11:34.720 --> 00:11:38.520
 the roadway impact fee. It's a relatively straightforward calculation. But there was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

00:12:44.520 --> 00:12:48.920
 I think the model deals with a tremendous number of different assumptions that we can

00:12:48.920 --> 00:12:53.040
 think about based on the property type whether it's single family, multi family, whether

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

00:12:58.600 --> 00:13:02.320
 here to deal with different scenarios because we obviously can't anticipate all of them.

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

00:13:06.760 --> 00:13:10.760
 about any single development format you could think of is at least at this point conceptually

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

00:13:17.200 --> 00:13:21.520
 the intent of Charlie and Development Services to be able to present a summary like this

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

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,

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

00:13:34.520 --> 00:13:42.740
 way that we may see these things presented in the future in terms of policy action.

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

00:13:45.840 --> 00:13:50.940
 its paces and so this is one example where we took an actual parcel conveniently one

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

00:13:56.560 --> 00:13:59.940
 about the number of people as well as jobs associated with that parcel. Again these are

00:13:59.940 --> 00:14:05.720
 all single family up to multi-family projects. Thinking about average unit sizes, construction

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

00:14:10.600 --> 00:14:15.240
 construction costs based on national building code, international building code. We recognized

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

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

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

00:14:29.400 --> 00:14:34.640
 adjustments. So what we noticed here obviously is thinking about the notion of revenues,

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

00:14:38.440 --> 00:14:42.720
 thing you notice here is as we increase in density that marginal cost of each resident

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

00:14:47.600 --> 00:14:52.200
 that marginal cost should be going down to some extent. But also thinking about that

00:14:52.200 --> 00:14:56.740
 net impact and does it ultimately make sense in terms of residential product versus say

00:14:56.740 --> 00:15:02.520
 retailer commercial product. And really on this last slide we wanted to actually think

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

00:15:06.040 --> 00:15:12.160
 this is fairly intuitive in terms of commercial projects and significantly greater net impact.

00:15:12.160 --> 00:15:18.040
 I always think about this too, the three single family options and realizing lane miles constructed.

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

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

00:15:26.600 --> 00:15:30.160
 applying it to different real world situations whether it be an infill site close to the

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

00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:38.320
 being able to understand cost implications and revenue implications is something we wanted

00:15:38.320 --> 00:15:52.680
 to think through carefully. Questions, comments?

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

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.

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

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

00:16:24.680 --> 00:16:30.160
 you have to offer alternatives. I mean not everybody wants to live 10 houses per acre.

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

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

00:16:41.440 --> 00:16:46.680
 in bias. Yeah, right. So and I think this goes back

00:16:46.680 --> 00:16:51.960
 to one of the key points that Charlie had made at the beginning of the presentation

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

00:16:56.840 --> 00:17:01.640
 within our community. We cannot evaluate projects on a project by project basis as it relates

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

00:17:07.040 --> 00:17:15.000
 a balance of land uses both from non-residential and residential. As the data showed, commercial

00:17:15.000 --> 00:17:19.880
 development and multifamily projects are going to have a better financial benefit to the

00:17:19.880 --> 00:17:25.880
 city. But we also recognize the importance of having single family housing. It's very

00:17:25.880 --> 00:17:30.520
 important that we have a variety of housing types within our community so that our residents

00:17:30.520 --> 00:17:37.560
 and future residents have an opportunity to select from a variety of housing options.

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

00:17:41.780 --> 00:17:47.440
 we say this is only one out of 13 criteria for evaluating zoning requests because we

00:17:47.440 --> 00:17:51.360
 recognize the significance and importance of having a wide variety of land uses within

00:17:51.360 --> 00:17:56.600
 our community. And I would also caution the commission that as we make decisions on projects,

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

00:18:01.240 --> 00:18:05.100
 components that we look at as part of our comprehensive plan and our policies. They

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

00:18:11.080 --> 00:18:15.280
 from a standpoint of is the proposed land use consistent with our comprehensive plan

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

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

00:18:24.400 --> 00:18:30.320
 coffee shop that's being evaluated. Again, it comes down to appropriateness of land use.

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

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

00:18:40.440 --> 00:18:45.480
 bit on it. Thank you. Commissioner. Scott. Commissioner call. I appreciate that comment.

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

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

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

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

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.

00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:24.280
 Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Any other questions from the commission? Commissioner Pruitt.

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

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

00:19:34.080 --> 00:19:39.960
 just brief question. I think obviously for projects where this is applied and it comes

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

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

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

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

00:20:05.440 --> 00:20:10.840
 redevelopment, a tool like this could be used to look at multiple different project types

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

00:20:15.760 --> 00:20:20.000
 the items that come before this commission. Okay. Yeah, I guess I would think -- I think

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

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

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

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

00:20:46.800 --> 00:20:49.480
 sum all the projects together, if that makes sense.

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

00:20:53.920 --> 00:20:58.960
 right development, this tool, we shouldn't be utilizing for by right development. And

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

00:21:04.240 --> 00:21:07.280
 within it. So if somebody comes in with a project that is allowed under the existing

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

00:21:12.240 --> 00:21:15.840
 of our development requirements, right, but be able to get that permit. So this is not

00:21:15.840 --> 00:21:22.080
 a conversation for by right development. So you're right with respect to reporting project

00:21:22.080 --> 00:21:26.440
 progress. I think that was primarily geared toward the Conference of Plan and our 271

00:21:26.440 --> 00:21:32.120
 action items associated with that. But I think there could be some benefit in making sure

00:21:32.120 --> 00:21:37.280
 that we evaluate this tool over time and could provide, you know, maybe an annual summary

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

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

00:21:46.480 --> 00:21:47.480
 through it.

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

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

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,

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

00:22:08.480 --> 00:22:13.040
 answering that. There was a question that I think Charlie, you kind of brought up there

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

00:22:17.440 --> 00:22:24.600
 areas that we should maybe look to incentivize development. Does this tool incorporate the

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

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

00:22:34.960 --> 00:22:38.920
 able to see that? Not saying that it pumps out, saying this is the recommendation if

00:22:38.920 --> 00:22:42.800
 you want to incentivize, but if we do have incentivization projects that come from like

00:22:42.800 --> 00:22:46.440
 economic development and can we input that into the tool and see how that affects our

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

00:22:51.680 --> 00:22:58.600
 of those additional economic development incentives as part of the fiscal summary. Okay, awesome.

00:22:58.600 --> 00:23:03.000
 Whenever you are discussing marginal cost, talk to me about what that means. I understand

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

00:23:08.400 --> 00:23:14.600
 per person, and that's kind of why you said marginal cost decreases as density increases.

00:23:14.600 --> 00:23:19.720
 Give me just the definition of what you mean by marginal cost.

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

00:23:27.600 --> 00:23:36.360
 in population over time, growth in inbound commuters. So workers who come in, that's

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

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

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

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

00:23:59.400 --> 00:24:04.280
 plus per commuter effectively, what's that marginal cost of each person we add, what's

00:24:04.280 --> 00:24:10.920
 that cost? Gotcha. And I think begging or baked into that approach is actually an important

00:24:10.920 --> 00:24:14.440
 question and I always remember this, my wife is a high school principal and she always

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,

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

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

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

00:24:33.800 --> 00:24:39.040
 an argument that for projects below a certain size that cost might actually be more negligible.

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

00:24:43.440 --> 00:24:47.840
 it an infill project where we're keeping the existing road versus is it a greenfield

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

00:24:51.440 --> 00:24:57.000
 there. Gotcha. Okay. Did this also take into account hot tax and things like that that

00:24:57.000 --> 00:25:02.120
 are collected from obviously hotel occupancies? Yes. Is that included in there? I just didn't

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

00:25:04.680 --> 00:25:08.400
 a lot of time thinking about assumptions and being able to come up with appropriate proxies

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

00:25:12.880 --> 00:25:20.480
 to Commissioner Pruitt's questions, what step do we include this tool? I mean obviously

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,

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

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

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

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

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

00:25:51.080 --> 00:25:56.600
 analysis as an evaluation criteria that we could include that information. Now keep in

00:25:56.600 --> 00:26:00.800
 mind some of the reports that you receive that address fiscal impact analysis, the zoning

00:26:00.800 --> 00:26:04.660
 entitlements are already in place, right? So and a great example I believe is on our

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

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

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

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

00:26:24.400 --> 00:26:28.600
 step in which this commission is acting more in a ministerial manner than anything else.

00:26:28.600 --> 00:26:33.720
 Is that correct? Especially on those plotting items? Yes. Gotcha. Okay. What about in the

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

00:27:15.120 --> 00:27:20.320
 retail uses, commercial uses. So those can all be included on a single project. And I

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

00:27:26.080 --> 00:27:32.040
 produce a fiscal impact to the city. I will say, obviously, the more information that

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

00:27:36.880 --> 00:27:42.480
 also change as projects change going through the process. So if we receive something and

00:27:42.480 --> 00:27:45.960
 then it comes to platting and the project has changed a little bit, the fiscal impact

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

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.

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

00:27:58.640 --> 00:28:02.780
 for five years and we've been talking about it. You know, hopefully, hopefully having

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

00:28:07.040 --> 00:28:11.840
 just been possibly muddying the lines when we see something that is ministerial, like

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

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

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

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,

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

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.

00:28:49.640 --> 00:28:53.680
 But regardless, I think having more information is always better than not having more information.

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

00:28:57.240 --> 00:29:02.400
 on record that Commissioner Anderson has, has joined us. So welcome, Ronnie. But Scott.

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

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

00:29:12.080 --> 00:29:18.160
 walk through this staff, your professional planning staff will ensure that you understand

00:29:18.160 --> 00:29:23.600
 that this is for informational purposes or just part of the backup like anything else.

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

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

00:29:31.840 --> 00:29:37.800
 we appreciate that. Thanks, Scott. Okay. Any other questions from the commission?

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

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

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

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.

00:29:57.320 --> 00:30:01.240
 Great. Commissioner Smith, if I could just add, I mean, significant kudos to Charlie

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

00:30:05.560 --> 00:30:12.640
 effort on pulling this tool together and really allowing us to ask lots of questions related

00:30:12.640 --> 00:30:18.400
 to it and challenging the, especially the assumptions associated with it. So tremendously huge thank

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.

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

00:30:33.720 --> 00:30:37.720
 regarding overlay districts and historic districts. I think we got Mia and Cameron tag teaming

00:30:37.720 --> 00:30:45.920
 this one. Good evening, commission. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and

00:30:45.920 --> 00:30:50.400
 principal planner. And then we have Mia Hines, associate planner. Let me bring up the overlay

00:30:50.400 --> 00:31:00.320
 bootcamp. Okay. So this evening, our planning bootcamp is historic districts and overlay

00:31:00.320 --> 00:31:05.680
 districts. On the agenda, first we're going to be covering just the purpose and history

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

00:31:09.720 --> 00:31:13.940
 going to start running into our different overlay districts. We have our municipal airport,

00:31:13.940 --> 00:31:19.800
 unicorn lake, razor ranch, followed by Fry Street. And then I'll be talking about historic

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.

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,

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

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

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

00:31:44.960 --> 00:31:50.240
 rice type and the toppings and stuff like that. And so similarly, an overlay district

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

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

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

00:32:05.480 --> 00:32:11.000
 regulations within that that are special and unique to that specific land area. So sub

00:32:11.000 --> 00:32:15.000
 chapter four of the Denton development code establishes procedures and standards to allow

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,

00:32:20.800 --> 00:32:25.360
 that is meant to protect and enhance specific lands and structures by applying specific

00:32:25.360 --> 00:32:31.940
 standards to that overlay district. The districts shall contain in the creation of them reasonable

00:32:31.940 --> 00:32:39.120
 and necessary requirements to ensure the protection and enhancement of said lands and structures.

00:32:39.120 --> 00:32:43.700
 The creation and amendments to an overlay district shall be made pursuant to subsection

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

00:32:53.880 --> 00:33:01.520
 or zoning map amendments to this body. So historically speaking, currently overlay conditions

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

00:33:06.160 --> 00:33:13.400
 zoning district or zoning change request brought to you, we cannot apply conditions to that

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,

00:33:19.480 --> 00:33:24.760
 but under our current DDC, we do not allow us for overlay conditions to be established

00:33:24.760 --> 00:33:33.080
 on straight zoning changes. Under the 2002 DDC, we did have the flexibility under the

00:33:33.080 --> 00:33:38.720
 mixed use residential protection overlay standard and that was used where necessary to address

00:33:38.720 --> 00:33:44.720
 the concerns of owners of existing adjacent residential uses and sort of apply maybe additional

00:33:44.720 --> 00:33:50.940
 setback requirements or additional landscape requirements and sort of to help provide flexibility

00:33:50.940 --> 00:33:58.800
 in areas where a developing use would have adversely impacted a neighborhood or to protect

00:33:58.800 --> 00:34:05.720
 environmental areas. There's different reasons to apply overlay districts, but mainly it's

00:34:05.720 --> 00:34:13.320
 to address development concerns or limitations within a specific area. Under the current

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,

00:34:22.640 --> 00:34:27.320
 like I said earlier, straight zoning changes and zoning map amendments. And then currently

00:34:27.320 --> 00:34:35.060
 under our current DDC and section 2.7.3, we have standards and procedures for rezoning

00:34:35.060 --> 00:34:39.520
 to a plan development, which is a completely other boot camp in itself and the complications

00:34:39.520 --> 00:34:44.320
 and things, complexities of things associated with plan development. So just to give you

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

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

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

00:35:03.560 --> 00:35:08.560
 going to discuss Fry Street, Unicorn Lake, Razor Ranch, Historic Districts, Denton Square

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

00:35:13.400 --> 00:35:19.640
 they regulate are parking, uses, density, dwelling unit size, things like that, specific

00:35:19.640 --> 00:35:24.580
 to those areas. So jumping straight in with the Municipal Airport overlay district, these

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

00:35:31.320 --> 00:35:36.800
 these are standards that restrict the height of structures and objects of natural growth,

00:35:36.800 --> 00:35:41.600
 land uses and implement state and federal rules regarding land uses in the vicinity

00:35:41.600 --> 00:35:46.520
 of the airport. And that's essentially to ensure safe travels and safe flight paths

00:35:46.520 --> 00:35:53.560
 for the planes using that airport area. Another overlay district that we have is the Unicorn

00:35:53.560 --> 00:35:58.720
 Lake overlay. So this is a district that was established, for example, to protect an environmentally

00:35:58.720 --> 00:36:06.600
 sensitive area while still allowing for density and development within an area. This particular

00:36:06.600 --> 00:36:14.160
 district was established via ordinance 2006-139 and encompasses approximately 47 acres allowing

00:36:14.160 --> 00:36:20.840
 for up to 112 maximum single family residential units. The Razor Ranch overlay district is

00:36:20.840 --> 00:36:26.140
 probably our most active overlay district. I think we have at least maybe two agenda

00:36:26.140 --> 00:36:32.240
 items on the agenda for tonight regarding Razor Ranch. This particular area encompasses

00:36:32.240 --> 00:36:39.160
 approximately 410 acres of land and allows for development of a mix of uses located near

00:36:39.160 --> 00:36:45.400
 West University and I-35. The last comprehensive ordinance for the Razor Ranch overlay was

00:36:45.400 --> 00:36:52.080
 adopted in 2016. Staff will be working with a consultant to provide another comprehensive

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

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

00:37:03.380 --> 00:37:12.000
 and the historic districts. Thanks, Mia. So moving on to Fry Street overlay, this is located

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,

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,

00:37:24.720 --> 00:37:29.400
 sites and properties within that district. It does allow for that multifamily dwelling,

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

00:37:34.720 --> 00:37:40.280
 and Hickory Street in the lower right hand corner. It does also regulate off street parking,

00:37:40.280 --> 00:37:45.640
 solid waste containers and signage and it does have district dimensional standards involved

00:37:45.640 --> 00:37:51.800
 and it does look at lot dimensions, setbacks and other standards such as height maximum

00:37:51.800 --> 00:37:56.600
 as well as coverage. In addition to that, we do have additional standards for sub area

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

00:38:02.320 --> 00:38:06.640
 site landscape and building and parking designs and those site plans are specifically shown

00:38:06.640 --> 00:38:15.720
 within the DDC. Moving on to our historic districts, we do have three local historic

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

00:38:22.480 --> 00:38:27.880
 Avenue Historic District, which used to be a conservation overlay and this is located

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

00:38:32.640 --> 00:38:37.960
 located in 4.9.6 and all of these buildings within the historic districts are reviewed

00:38:37.960 --> 00:38:42.440
 under our Secretary of Interior Standards, also known as the standards and they also

00:38:42.440 --> 00:38:48.680
 do within their overlays have additional individual architectural requirements that they that

00:38:48.680 --> 00:38:55.920
 are overseen by the DDC such as fencing, ordinary maintenance, window replacements, things such

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

00:39:01.640 --> 00:39:06.600
 are, I circled the square, the Oak Hickory Historic District is probably our most well

00:39:06.600 --> 00:39:12.280
 known historic district and that's located west of the square along West Oak and these

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

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

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

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

00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:39.640
 historic photo and then the building today. And then lastly the West Oak Area Historic

00:39:39.640 --> 00:39:44.020
 District, which is located a little bit further west along West Oak, generally between Houston

00:39:44.020 --> 00:39:51.200
 Place and Hickory Street. So moving on to the Denton Square District, this is located

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

00:40:00.640 --> 00:40:06.080
 I wanted to start the local landmarks within this district. These are properties that are

00:40:06.080 --> 00:40:12.240
 under HLC jurisdiction as local landmarks so I just wanted to highlight that. But when

00:40:12.240 --> 00:40:15.640
 it looks, when we're looking at the Denton Square District, this did get implemented

00:40:15.640 --> 00:40:20.960
 in June of 2019 and it also falls under the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic

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

00:40:26.280 --> 00:40:30.000
 DDC, but also in their own packet and that is the Denton Square District Standards and

00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:35.640
 Guidelines. And this really is regulating the built environment so that we're looking

00:40:35.640 --> 00:40:40.820
 at building orientation, setbacks, materials being used and ultimate goal of it is to promote

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

00:40:50.840 --> 00:40:55.640
 of wrapping this presentation up, we just wanted to share where you can find these different

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,

00:41:01.720 --> 00:41:06.240
 go under the subcategory to overlay districts and then you'll see all our districts there

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,

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

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

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.

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,

00:41:34.120 --> 00:41:39.080
 the Denton Square District Guidelines, Preservation Plan, Zoning Map, Comprehensive Plan and Community

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

00:41:44.720 --> 00:41:52.600
 from the commission? Mia, can you go back to the historical lake district for the downtown

00:41:52.600 --> 00:42:04.040
 area? Just a pure curiosity. So the STARD, the STARD properties have to fall underneath

00:42:04.040 --> 00:42:10.240
 the HLC guidelines, but then the entire, our entire historic overlay applies to all buildings

00:42:10.240 --> 00:42:16.840
 within there? Correct. So the STARD are local landmarks, so they have additional jurisdiction

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

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

00:42:28.680 --> 00:42:33.440
 from HLC. Gotcha. I'm guessing HLC is more strict than our standards are. Yes, correct.

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

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

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

00:42:45.360 --> 00:42:50.000
 your hard work. Appreciate it. Okay. That brings us to clarification of agenda items

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

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

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,

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.

00:43:19.440 --> 00:43:25.160
 And then on 4E, if approved for a vote with modifications as presented on some revised

00:43:25.160 --> 00:43:33.000
 ordinance text. So you guys should have all received that. Okay. First item then 2A, consideration

00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:40.560
 of the of the meeting minutes from August 24, 2022. Any comments or questions on that?

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

00:43:48.560 --> 00:44:06.400
 that one. Okay. Good evening again, members of commission. Mia Hines, associate planner.

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

00:44:12.640 --> 00:44:19.880
 a razor ranch medical office development phase three. The site is approximately 2.065 acres

00:44:19.880 --> 00:44:28.360
 located at the southeast corner of Panhandle and I-35 frontage. And staff will be recommending

00:44:28.360 --> 00:44:32.640
 approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. Just a brief reminder that the

00:44:32.640 --> 00:44:36.920
 reason that this is a zoning compliance plan, which is typically approved administratively,

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

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

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

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

00:45:03.720 --> 00:45:13.200
 PowerPoint and make it super easy. I should. I should. Okay. Good evening again. This is

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

00:45:19.700 --> 00:45:24.760
 south of university, east of I-35. At this time, staff is recommending denial as the

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

00:45:29.560 --> 00:45:40.440
 extension to a date certain of September 28th, 2022. Okay. Any questions? All right. Three

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

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,

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

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,

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

00:46:58.400 --> 00:47:08.640
 extension to that October 12th. Any questions? No questions? Okay. Thank you, Sean. 3E has

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

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

00:47:26.200 --> 00:47:33.840
 Loop 288 and Mayhill. The purpose of this plat is to facilitate a multifamily development.

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

00:47:37.680 --> 00:47:45.280
 items on that preliminary plat. They have submitted for those additional requirements,

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

00:47:48.560 --> 00:47:53.160
 happy to answer any questions. And we gave the extension last meeting, correct? Yes, sir.

00:47:53.160 --> 00:48:03.920
 Any other questions? All righty. Thank you, Julie. 3G PP 22-0007A, all you. All right.

00:48:03.920 --> 00:48:10.200
 So this is for a single-family residential development south of Audra. It is the second

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

00:48:14.680 --> 00:48:19.120
 on this preliminary plat, so we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to that

00:48:19.120 --> 00:48:26.560
 extension that they requested. Okay. Any questions from the commission? All right. Thank you,

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

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

00:48:38.840 --> 00:48:43.540
 a couple of weeks ago from this commission. They're now moving forward with their final

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

00:48:48.760 --> 00:48:53.880
 their final plat, so staff is recommending denial. However, we have no objection to their

00:48:53.880 --> 00:48:59.800
 requested extension, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Okay. Any questions

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

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

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

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

00:49:19.200 --> 00:49:23.120
 the attention of the applicant to be able to address? It seems like they're referencing

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

00:49:28.960 --> 00:49:34.960
 with that neighborhood association, and they were related to those overlay conditions.

00:49:34.960 --> 00:49:40.760
 So this zoning was approved a couple of years ago with overlay conditions with the adoption

00:49:40.760 --> 00:49:46.340
 of or the implementation of the 2019 Denton Development Code, those transition to a PD.

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

00:49:51.060 --> 00:49:56.320
 as well as screening and other open space requirements. We did go through their concerns.

00:49:56.320 --> 00:50:01.720
 A lot of their concerns were related to those amenities that are required of the development,

00:50:01.720 --> 00:50:09.120
 some trail systems, some park amenities. Those are things that are typically or those aren't

00:50:09.120 --> 00:50:14.200
 reflected on final plots. Those are reflected in the development of the site. So the applicant

00:50:14.200 --> 00:50:19.000
 has reserved those common area open space lots that are going to be maintained by the

00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:24.640
 HOA to accommodate those landscape buffers and open space amenities that are required

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

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

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?

00:50:37.200 --> 00:50:44.040
 They are. And staff, the way their plot does reflect, the phasing is a little unconventional,

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

00:50:49.360 --> 00:50:52.920
 going forward how that phasing is approached in those remainder areas.

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

00:50:58.600 --> 00:51:03.960
 applicant could address these. It's pretty open-ended in terms of our Denton Development

00:51:03.960 --> 00:51:08.080
 Code and the Texas Local Government Code, but we just want to make sure that however

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

00:51:12.680 --> 00:51:17.240
 on the plot. Got it. Okay. All righty. Any other questions

00:51:17.240 --> 00:51:23.080
 from the commission? Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Appreciate it. That brings us to item

00:51:23.080 --> 00:51:31.040
 number four, public hearings, 4A PD 22-0006 and Cameron Robertson to present. Good evening,

00:51:31.040 --> 00:51:35.920
 commissioners. Cameron Robertson, historic preservation officer and principal planner.

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

00:51:46.520 --> 00:51:52.800
 with MN-based zoning for an approximately 36,000 square foot home zone furniture showroom

00:51:52.800 --> 00:52:01.500
 at the southeast corner of University Drive or also known as US 380 and Ector Street.

00:52:01.500 --> 00:52:06.320
 It is consistent with other commercial development along US 380. The majority of the parking

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

00:52:11.280 --> 00:52:17.860
 be centered between that north and south property line along that western edge to mitigate impact

00:52:17.860 --> 00:52:22.560
 for those residential properties to the south. It is also staff found that it is consistent

00:52:22.560 --> 00:52:26.920
 with our Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and staff is recommending approval. And I can

00:52:26.920 --> 00:52:35.960
 take any questions. Any questions, commission? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, vice chair.

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

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

00:52:48.480 --> 00:52:55.520
 or wouldn't be sufficient for the proposed development? So currently it is an MN zoning

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.

00:53:01.920 --> 00:53:07.460
 The parking would be near the rear nor near those residential properties. Additionally,

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

00:53:12.760 --> 00:53:19.600
 this PD is trying to provide is proper infill, more contextual that is more compatible with

00:53:19.600 --> 00:53:23.800
 the properties, commercial properties along US 380 as well as to reduce the impact to

00:53:23.800 --> 00:53:30.800
 those residential properties at that southern edge. Okay. Thank you. Tina. And to that point,

00:53:30.800 --> 00:53:35.120
 I think Cameron explained that very well. Normally we would not advocate the planning

00:53:35.120 --> 00:53:40.020
 and zoning commission consider planning plan development district requests for single lots.

00:53:40.020 --> 00:53:45.400
 But in this case, as Cameron pointed out, we felt it was an appropriate solution to

00:53:45.400 --> 00:53:50.400
 be able to address this infill development. We understand why the MN zoning was put in

00:53:50.400 --> 00:53:55.700
 place, particularly from a land use perspective. But when it comes to the existing surrounding

00:53:55.700 --> 00:53:59.880
 development conditions, especially if you look at the existing grocery store that is

00:53:59.880 --> 00:54:05.320
 immediately to the West, that it would only be appropriate to consider this type of solution

00:54:05.320 --> 00:54:09.600
 as it relates for the development of that property. So otherwise you normally hear us

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

00:54:18.520 --> 00:54:21.840
 applicant have a presentation tonight, Cameron? They do not have a presentation, but they

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

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

00:54:29.480 --> 00:54:32.520
 this going to be a second location in the city of Dunlap? From my understanding, this

00:54:32.520 --> 00:54:37.840
 would be a second location. Okay. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other

00:54:37.840 --> 00:54:56.140
 questions? All right. For BZ22-0004A, Mia Hines to present. Thank you. Mia Hines, just

00:54:56.140 --> 00:55:03.200
 a brief description of this request. It is to amend the text associated with the Razor

00:55:03.200 --> 00:55:11.120
 Ranch overlay district's allowance of multifamily within the Razor Ranch South Campus. Specifically,

00:55:11.120 --> 00:55:18.960
 they are wanting to add 200 multifamily units. Currently, the Razor Ranch overlay district

00:55:18.960 --> 00:55:24.800
 standards allows for up to 1800 multifamily units within the Razor Ranch South Campus.

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

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

00:55:32.760 --> 00:55:38.680
 that. As part of this though, we wanted to further clarify, visually speaking, where

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

00:55:45.680 --> 00:55:49.840
 already listed within the standards where multifamily is, but just to visually show

00:55:49.840 --> 00:55:56.200
 and have a visual representation of where multifamily is permitted. With that, staff

00:55:56.200 --> 00:56:00.680
 is recommending approval of the request as it complies with the applicable sections of

00:56:00.680 --> 00:56:05.520
 our DDC and I will take any questions you have at this time.

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

00:56:12.200 --> 00:56:17.200
 on overlay districts a minute ago on work session reports. This feels a little bit of

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

00:56:21.480 --> 00:56:26.240
 of that Razor Ranch overlay district and is that correct in understanding what you said

00:56:26.240 --> 00:56:31.560
 earlier? Not a review, but a compiling of Razor Ranch ordinances the way that they're

00:56:31.560 --> 00:56:38.280
 amended. Every amendment doesn't include the entirety of the Razor Ranch district development

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

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

00:56:48.560 --> 00:56:52.680
 development standards within that specific ordinance. What we're wanting to do is compile

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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,

00:57:29.000 --> 00:57:35.640
 we don't want to cause any delay with the applicants project in this particular case.

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

00:57:42.080 --> 00:57:47.080
 the need. Got it. Thank you. Any questions?

00:57:47.080 --> 00:57:51.120
 Okay. Thank you, Mia. Thank you.

00:57:51.120 --> 00:57:59.240
 Brings us to 4C, S21-0008, Ron Megida to present for us.

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,

00:58:16.640 --> 00:58:21.040
 Ron Megida, principal planner of development services. The request is for a specific use

00:58:21.040 --> 00:58:27.640
 permit as introduced for an equipment sales and rental use. The equipment sales and rental

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,

00:58:35.640 --> 00:58:41.240
 as well as the equipment sales and rental uses as requested. It is located here, as

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

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

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

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

00:59:08.800 --> 00:59:16.680
 will be located with also warehouse spaces to store the U-Box containers. So that is

00:59:16.680 --> 00:59:22.520
 primarily what Building A will serve. Building B is the location of the self-storage units.

00:59:22.520 --> 00:59:29.200
 Those are individual units rented by individuals, again, to store their items. Similarly, Building

00:59:29.200 --> 00:59:37.260
 C will have similar type units for individual renters to rent those units. The specific

00:59:37.260 --> 00:59:44.400
 use permit, as again introduced, is really to allow for the equipment rental and sales

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

00:59:51.800 --> 00:59:59.040
 shading, one location here as well as the other area, which is shown over here. Also,

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

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

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

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

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

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

01:00:36.440 --> 01:00:42.160
 that is staff is recommending approval of the specific use permit with the following

01:00:42.160 --> 01:00:47.200
 conditions. Condition one is primarily making sure that the site plan as well as the landscape

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

01:00:53.200 --> 01:00:58.280
 use permit. Now, there is some allowances for some slight changes to the landscape area,

01:00:58.280 --> 01:01:03.920
 up to 5%, but again, all other changes will require a new specific use permit. Storage

01:01:03.920 --> 01:01:11.440
 of the U-Box containers are prohibited outdoors. They must be located within an enclosed structure.

01:01:11.440 --> 01:01:15.980
 Again, except for those that we mentioned earlier that you saw earlier, the display

01:01:15.980 --> 01:01:20.560
 one will be located in front. That will be outdoors, as well as those temporary stored

01:01:20.560 --> 01:01:26.760
 containers, again, right in front of building B. Those will also be outdoors if there is

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

01:01:32.040 --> 01:01:36.520
 in which those U-Boxes will be located. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for

01:01:36.520 --> 01:01:37.520
 any questions.

01:01:37.520 --> 01:01:38.520
 >> Commissioner Perot.

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

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

01:01:58.440 --> 01:02:00.520
 this area, or is it further north of this?

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,

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

01:02:10.980 --> 01:02:13.920
 our other engineering department, looked at that specific alignment.

01:02:13.920 --> 01:02:14.920
 >> Thank you.

01:02:14.920 --> 01:02:22.440
 >> Any other questions to the commission? I think the only question I have is I know

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

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

01:02:31.520 --> 01:02:34.800
 know, the changes and the recommendations that are within here are going to align with

01:02:34.800 --> 01:02:39.040
 some of those recommendations city staff was going to make to changes to outdoor storage

01:02:39.040 --> 01:02:40.040
 in the DDC.

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

01:02:43.640 --> 01:02:45.440
 want to make sure we don't get outside of that.

01:02:45.440 --> 01:02:49.520
 >> Sure, I understand. I guess more of is we're not going to create a nonconformity

01:02:49.520 --> 01:02:54.120
 if there is some sort of change, ultimate change that gets created in the development

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

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

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

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

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

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

01:03:21.280 --> 01:03:25.000
 are being contained to only the temporary areas and the display areas. Is there anything

01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:26.000
 I'm missing on that?

01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:30.560
 >> So, no, these will include trailers and trucks as well, and because these are displayed,

01:03:30.560 --> 01:03:34.160
 you know, for immediate rental and for sale, they will be allowed, and that is something

01:03:34.160 --> 01:03:38.760
 that the development code will allow and, or does allow and will allow in the future.

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

01:03:42.720 --> 01:03:44.280
 also be outdoors back there.

01:03:44.280 --> 01:03:47.240
 >> Correct. Correct. So, storage is a little bit, you know, different versus display, you

01:03:47.240 --> 01:03:48.240
 know.

01:03:48.240 --> 01:03:49.240
 >> Sure.

01:03:49.240 --> 01:03:52.360
 >> The ones that are not necessarily immediately for, you know, sale or rental, those are what

01:03:52.360 --> 01:03:55.600
 we're referring to as display, and I'm sorry, for as storage.

01:03:55.600 --> 01:03:56.600
 >> Yeah.

01:03:56.600 --> 01:03:58.840
 >> So, those are a little bit more stricter in what we would require.

01:03:58.840 --> 01:03:59.840
 >> Okay. Got it.

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

01:04:05.640 --> 01:04:10.360
 considered equipment, sales, and rental, and so, and then we also have outdoor storage.

01:04:10.360 --> 01:04:16.200
 So, in this particular instance, we've evaluated this as equipment, sales, and rental because

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

01:04:21.720 --> 01:04:25.480
 associated with this, and we felt like it aligned better with the equipment, sales,

01:04:25.480 --> 01:04:30.540
 and rental component of their business, but the standards that this request has been evaluated

01:04:30.540 --> 01:04:34.200
 against are based upon the requirements that we would have in place for equipment, sales,

01:04:34.200 --> 01:04:39.420
 and rental, which may have some differences compared to our standard outdoor storage regulations.

01:04:39.420 --> 01:04:43.480
 So, not to split hairs, but it does to some extent.

01:04:43.480 --> 01:04:45.480
 >> Gotcha. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson.

01:04:45.480 --> 01:04:49.600
 >> Thanks, Chair. Are there going to be open 24 hours to the storage units? Because, I

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.

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

01:04:56.400 --> 01:05:00.600
 understanding. So, there'll be business hours where there will be closed hours.

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

01:05:03.800 --> 01:05:05.920
 unit, all that stuff.

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.

01:05:09.840 --> 01:05:13.200
 My understanding is even with that, they will not be allowed to enter the building during

01:05:13.200 --> 01:05:14.200
 closed hours.

01:05:14.200 --> 01:05:25.440
 >> Okay. Any other questions for the commission? Okay. Thank you, Ron. Brings us to 4D, DCA

01:05:25.440 --> 01:05:29.080
 22-0005. Ron, your project as well.

01:05:29.080 --> 01:05:48.440
 >> All right. Okay. This is a development code amendment related to multifamily dwelling.

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

01:05:54.720 --> 01:06:00.320
 living. And those that are, you know, on the commission are familiar with these, these

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

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

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

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

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

01:06:28.720 --> 01:06:35.320
 use. So, therefore, staff is recommending that we categorize it as a multifamily, have

01:06:35.320 --> 01:06:40.240
 adjusted that by, you know, refining and clarifying the definition of multifamily so that it would

01:06:40.240 --> 01:06:46.040
 include this type of use. We're also adding additional standards to enhance the multifamily

01:06:46.040 --> 01:06:51.200
 development. Again, as a result of adding this, I want to make sure that we address

01:06:51.200 --> 01:06:56.800
 these other, you know, components such as a single family type of housing. So that is

01:06:56.800 --> 01:07:03.580
 what is under Section 533D. That will be included in there to address specifically those buildings

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

01:07:11.080 --> 01:07:18.720
 under MN where the housing, or sorry, the height limit is 41 through 65 would require

01:07:18.720 --> 01:07:24.320
 a specific use permit, and that applies to all uses. We are actually limiting that or

01:07:24.320 --> 01:07:29.920
 applying that only to where it's adjacent to residential uses, and I'll discuss that

01:07:29.920 --> 01:07:36.400
 in our presentation during the public hearing. The DCRC met on this several times, three

01:07:36.400 --> 01:07:43.760
 dates specifically. Therefore, after meeting with staff and reviewing the proposed code

01:07:43.760 --> 01:07:47.680
 amendments, they've recommended that this be moved forward to the Applying Zoning Commission

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

01:07:52.560 --> 01:07:57.980
 I described earlier, we were going to work on the definition of multifamily. We're proposing

01:07:57.980 --> 01:08:02.320
 some main amendments there, adding that use specific standards for those buildings that

01:08:02.320 --> 01:08:08.640
 have one to two units, and then also that MN district dimensional standards as it relates

01:08:08.640 --> 01:08:12.960
 to building, maximum building height. That concludes my presentation. I'll stand for

01:08:12.960 --> 01:08:24.240
 any questions. Any questions for Ron? Okay, seeing none. Thank you, Ron. Last one for

01:08:24.240 --> 01:08:35.680
 EDCA 22-0006. You all heard a little bit about plan developments

01:08:35.680 --> 01:08:40.640
 or overlay districts as it relates to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment

01:08:40.640 --> 01:08:49.200
 is really to develop a more comprehensive PD procedure from rezoning it to a plan development.

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.

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

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.

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.

01:09:17.240 --> 01:09:23.000
 That is what is being proposed. We're also looking at clarifying what submittal requirements

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

01:09:29.840 --> 01:09:37.720
 need for more clarification. Adding more information related to PD amendments. As we get more PDs,

01:09:37.720 --> 01:09:43.440
 more amendments will follow. Staff is recommending that we delete the notification requirements

01:09:43.440 --> 01:09:49.520
 for minor amendments. Currently, the requirement is to notify property owners. Again, we felt

01:09:49.520 --> 01:09:54.680
 that that was not necessarily needed for minor amendments as opposed to major amendments.

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

01:10:00.640 --> 01:10:06.680
 more information and more criteria so that when staff looks at it, when the Planning

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

01:10:10.800 --> 01:10:18.640
 in which to make their decision. That basically summarizes the PD code amendments.

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

01:10:25.560 --> 01:10:28.880
 amendment and a major amendment when it comes to a PD?

01:10:28.880 --> 01:10:34.760
 Sure. Generally, a minor amendment is something very simple where it doesn't affect the site

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

01:10:45.320 --> 01:10:51.160
 opposed to the major, which if they're proposing a change in their street configuration or

01:10:51.160 --> 01:10:58.000
 access, that sort of thing, a little bit more substantial. That is something that is considered

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

01:11:02.880 --> 01:11:06.480
 that up during now, or we can pull it up during the public hearing.

01:11:06.480 --> 01:11:10.000
 No, I just wanted to make sure you said it out loud.

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

01:11:15.080 --> 01:11:18.440
 text. Are you addressing that in your public hearing presentation, or was that sent out

01:11:18.440 --> 01:11:20.640
 previously? Yes, that will be part of the presentation

01:11:20.640 --> 01:11:27.440
 in the public hearing. Okay. Got it. All right. Thank you, Ron. Appreciate

01:11:27.440 --> 01:11:30.600
 it. Before we close work session, I just want to

01:11:30.600 --> 01:11:35.760
 recognize and say welcome back to Corina Maldonado for coming back from maternity leave and welcome

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

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

01:11:47.280 --> 01:12:03.400
 in council chambers at 630. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton

01:12:03.400 --> 01:12:10.240
 planning and zoning meeting on September 14, 2022. I'll call our public meeting to order.

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.

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

01:12:21.660 --> 01:12:28.720
 of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible,

01:12:28.720 --> 01:12:36.640
 with liberty and justice for all. Honoring the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the

01:12:36.640 --> 01:12:46.200
 United States of America and Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.

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

01:12:52.160 --> 01:12:57.800
 minutes for meeting of August 24, 2022. Commissioner Villarreal.

01:12:57.800 --> 01:13:01.520
 I move approval. I didn't see who the second was before I

01:13:01.520 --> 01:13:03.440
 got away. Commissioner Anderson.

01:13:03.440 --> 01:13:06.560
 Second. Okay. First and a second for approval.

01:13:06.560 --> 01:13:18.800
 Go ahead. Take a vote. Take a vote on the board.

01:13:18.800 --> 01:13:28.000
 That passes 6-0. Moving on to item three or item 3A, ZCP 22-0018.

01:13:28.000 --> 01:13:42.920
 I'll ask up Mia Hines. Mia Hines, associate planner.

01:13:42.920 --> 01:13:52.080
 This item is a zoning compliance plan for Razor medical office building phase three.

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,

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

01:14:00.040 --> 01:14:05.560
 any site plan within that development area requires approval by the Planning and Zoning

01:14:05.560 --> 01:14:09.560
 Commission. So again, this is a consideration or considering

01:14:09.560 --> 01:14:14.480
 approval of the site plan for medical office development within the Razor Ranch overlay

01:14:14.480 --> 01:14:19.680
 district South Campus. The site, as you can see there to the right,

01:14:19.680 --> 01:14:26.080
 is approximately, or located at the southeast corner of Panhandle Street and I-35.

01:14:26.080 --> 01:14:32.400
 It's approximately 2.065 acres, and the area specifically that we're concerned about this

01:14:32.400 --> 01:14:37.400
 evening is the area highlighted in green. Previous phases for this have already been

01:14:37.400 --> 01:14:42.640
 developed and are existing, and this is just the phase three of that overall development.

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

01:14:46.960 --> 01:14:53.360
 zoning, within the overlay are sub-districts, and then within those sub-districts are each

01:14:53.360 --> 01:15:00.600
 parcel is further subdivided for conceptual land uses allowed within that particular area.

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

01:15:07.240 --> 01:15:14.080
 District South Mixed Use District, and the uses permitted on this site, as you can see,

01:15:14.080 --> 01:15:19.960
 they're highlighted in the box, the red box, are hotel, retail, office uses, and multifamily.

01:15:19.960 --> 01:15:24.360
 And so with them proposing medical office, that use is of course permitted within this

01:15:24.360 --> 01:15:28.880
 particular site. For Razor Ranch site plans, and this is sort

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

01:15:34.960 --> 01:15:43.000
 particular site is Ordinance 2011-225, specifically the architectural standards established in

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

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

01:15:54.840 --> 01:15:59.960
 elevations. Additionally, the Razor Ranch Overlay District

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

01:16:06.520 --> 01:16:14.040
 Ranch, specifically the site plan should substantially comply with the concept and schematic plan.

01:16:14.040 --> 01:16:20.040
 The site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses. The site plan

01:16:20.040 --> 01:16:25.000
 provides for the adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and the site plan fully

01:16:25.000 --> 01:16:29.120
 complies with all other sections of the Overlay District. And so those are things that we

01:16:29.120 --> 01:16:33.240
 checked to make sure were addressed as we were reviewing this Zoning Compliance Plan

01:16:33.240 --> 01:16:38.120
 package. Additionally, with the development and the

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

01:16:45.720 --> 01:16:52.720
 to the eventual development of Phase 3. Specifically, one stipulation was that plant materials approved

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

01:16:57.920 --> 01:17:04.280
 could be successfully replanted using equivalent or similar material. Additionally, the minimum

01:17:04.280 --> 01:17:10.680
 open space requirement shall be maintained for all approved and future phases of land

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

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

01:17:21.440 --> 01:17:27.920
 provided within the backup. Existing on the site for the overall razor medical development

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

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

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

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

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

01:17:56.960 --> 01:18:01.080
 focusing on this evening, the applicant is proposing an approximately 9,000 square foot

01:18:01.080 --> 01:18:08.120
 medical office building on Lot 2, shown there in green, 37 additional parking spaces, and

01:18:08.120 --> 01:18:13.820
 then that driveway there to the northwest would be a full access point, right in, right

01:18:13.820 --> 01:18:20.480
 out, left in, left out, and straight ahead as well. So the landscape plan, in looking

01:18:20.480 --> 01:18:27.560
 and reviewing this particular plan, we wanted to make sure that the minimum requirements

01:18:27.560 --> 01:18:33.900
 as established in the 2002 DDC and the razor ranch overlay districts were met, namely minimum

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

01:18:38.960 --> 01:18:44.400
 of the lighter green circles are existing plantings approved with previous phases. If

01:18:44.400 --> 01:18:48.400
 you recall the approval criteria I mentioned earlier, one of the stipulations was that

01:18:48.400 --> 01:18:53.320
 anything approved within the previous phase should not be removed unless they could be

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.

01:18:58.200 --> 01:19:03.880
 They are adding two trees within the parking area and then some screening there along the

01:19:03.880 --> 01:19:09.880
 east. So those standards are being met. Excuse me. Additionally, within that, as you can

01:19:09.880 --> 01:19:14.200
 see by the table, those minimum open space requirements for the entire site are being

01:19:14.200 --> 01:19:20.800
 maintained as well. So here are the elevations with the proposed

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

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

01:19:33.560 --> 01:19:38.320
 elevations and color and material scheme match with what is existing within the razor medical

01:19:38.320 --> 01:19:44.040
 development. So with that, staff is recommending approval as the request does meet the established

01:19:44.040 --> 01:19:49.480
 criteria of the RROD development standards, and I will stand for any questions that you

01:19:49.480 --> 01:19:58.320
 may have at this time. Thank you, Mia. I don't see any questions

01:19:58.320 --> 01:19:59.320
 at this time. Thank you.

01:19:59.320 --> 01:20:07.760
 Does the applicant have a presentation or is that it? Nothing? Okay. All right. This

01:20:07.760 --> 01:20:11.080
 is not a public hearing, but as an item for individual consideration, anybody who would

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

01:20:17.800 --> 01:20:23.040
 a motion or approval. Commissioner Anderson? Make a motion to approve.

01:20:23.040 --> 01:20:25.800
 Okay. I've got a motion to approve. Commissioner Villarreal?

01:20:25.800 --> 01:20:31.000
 Second. Okay. I've got a second. Commissioner Perot?

01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:36.000
 I've got technical difficulty if I come back up. We're good.

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

01:20:40.680 --> 01:20:55.540
 vote on the board. Nothing? Okay. On this item, we'll take a vote

01:20:55.540 --> 01:21:02.240
 via roll call. We got a recusal. How should we handle that?

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

01:21:09.720 --> 01:21:12.720
 way. Okay. All right. We'll take a vote. Commissioner

01:21:12.720 --> 01:21:19.640
 Anderson, Commissioner Villarreal, will we make a motion again? Okay.

01:21:19.640 --> 01:21:37.720
 All right. Motion passes 6-0. Sorry for the technical difficulties there. Okay. Bring

01:21:37.720 --> 01:21:43.160
 this to item 3B, FP22-0028. Mia, your presentation as well.

01:21:43.160 --> 01:21:54.680
 Good evening again, members of the commission. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. So this is a

01:21:54.680 --> 01:22:01.400
 final plat request for Razor Ranch addition located at the southeast corner of West University

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

01:22:08.880 --> 01:22:15.280
 is recommending denial. However, we do not have any objections to the requested extension

01:22:15.280 --> 01:22:23.260
 to October 12th. Okay. Thank you, Mia. Commissioner Villarreal.

01:22:23.260 --> 01:22:25.960
 To approve the extension to a date starting of October 12, 2022.

01:22:25.960 --> 01:22:29.480
 Okay. Got a motion to extension. Commissioner, approve it.

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

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

01:22:51.080 --> 01:23:00.280
 Mia Hines come on back up as well. Thank you. Again, Mia Hines, Associate Planner.

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

01:23:07.840 --> 01:23:13.680
 not meet, I'm sorry, located at the northeast corner of Warshin and Green Valley Circle.

01:23:13.680 --> 01:23:17.920
 At this time, the property does not meet the standards and approval criteria within our

01:23:17.920 --> 01:23:24.120
 ordinance, and so staff is recommending denial. Okay. Thank you very much, Mia. Any questions?

01:23:24.120 --> 01:23:28.120
 Commissioner Anderson? Has there, was this brought up in the work

01:23:28.120 --> 01:23:33.280
 session? Was there already a previous? There was. Yeah, there was a previous extension

01:23:33.280 --> 01:23:34.280
 already given. That's correct.

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.

01:23:41.560 --> 01:23:48.160
 Commissioner Villarreal? Move to deny. Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner

01:23:48.160 --> 01:23:49.160
 Pruitt? Second.

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

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

01:24:02.600 --> 01:24:12.200
 passes 6-0. Item 3D, PP 22-0022, and Sean Jacobson to present.

01:24:12.200 --> 01:24:18.760
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, presenting

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

01:24:29.520 --> 01:24:38.480
 denial of this plat for a property on the southeast corner of Loop 288 and University

01:24:38.480 --> 01:24:43.080
 Drive because it does not meet our standard of approval. However, staff has no objection

01:24:43.080 --> 01:24:49.640
 to the requested extension to October 14, sorry, October 12.

01:24:49.640 --> 01:24:53.600
 Any questions for Sean? Okay. Commissioner Pruitt?

01:24:53.600 --> 01:24:59.080
 I'll move to approve the applicant's requested extension to date certain of October 12.

01:24:59.080 --> 01:25:02.040
 Okay. Got a motion to extend. Commissioner Anderson?

01:25:02.040 --> 01:25:03.040
 Second.

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

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

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.

01:25:27.440 --> 01:25:31.960
 Good evening. Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. I'm presenting PP

01:25:31.960 --> 01:25:40.480
 22-0021A. This is for a preliminary plat for the Forest Crossing Phase 2 addition. The

01:25:40.480 --> 01:25:46.240
 purpose of the preliminary plat is to facilitate a multifamily development. They do have some

01:25:46.240 --> 01:25:51.480
 items that they have to address with the preliminary plat, including moving forward with a specific

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

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.

01:26:02.120 --> 01:26:06.200
 Okay. I don't see any questions, Julie. Thank you.

01:26:06.200 --> 01:26:09.520
 I'll take a motion and discussion. Commissioner Villarreal?

01:26:09.520 --> 01:26:10.520
 Move to deny.

01:26:10.520 --> 01:26:12.480
 Okay. Got a motion to deny. Commissioner Cole?

01:26:12.480 --> 01:26:13.480
 Second.

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.

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

01:26:31.000 --> 01:26:32.000
 as well.

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

01:26:39.840 --> 01:26:44.160
 residential development south of Audre Oaks. They do have some items they do need to work

01:26:44.160 --> 01:26:48.960
 through in order for it to meet our criteria for approval. So staff is recommending denial.

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

01:26:53.240 --> 01:26:54.240
 answer any questions.

01:26:54.240 --> 01:26:58.040
 Okay. I don't see any, Julie. Thank you.

01:26:58.040 --> 01:26:59.040
 Thank you.

01:26:59.040 --> 01:27:03.280
 I see a motion and discussion. Commissioner Cole?

01:27:03.280 --> 01:27:08.360
 I make a motion extension to October 12th, 2022 meeting.

01:27:08.360 --> 01:27:11.000
 Okay. Got a motion for extension. Commissioner Anderson?

01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:12.000
 Second.

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

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

01:27:29.640 --> 01:27:30.640
 for that project.

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

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

01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:47.000
 can recommend approval. So we are recommending denial. However, we have no objection to the

01:27:47.000 --> 01:27:51.240
 requested extension to October 12th. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:27:51.240 --> 01:27:55.880
 I don't see any. Thank you, Julie.

01:27:55.880 --> 01:28:01.280
 Discussion or a motion?

01:28:01.280 --> 01:28:02.280
 Commissioner Pruitt?

01:28:02.280 --> 01:28:07.880
 I move to approve the applicant requested extension to a date certain of October 12th.

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

01:28:15.280 --> 01:28:16.280
 board.

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

01:28:30.160 --> 01:28:34.680
 and Karen Robertson to present. Evening, Karen.

01:28:34.680 --> 01:28:43.340
 Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Let me pull up my presentation real quick. So

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

01:28:52.120 --> 01:28:59.120
 retail use larger than 15,000 square feet. It is located on approximately 2.407 acres.

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.

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

01:29:11.840 --> 01:29:16.920
 single family dwellings along the southern edge.

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

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

01:29:25.880 --> 01:29:33.120
 through the PD process versus an SUP is to allow for consistent commercial development

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

01:29:38.720 --> 01:29:43.640
 our definition of infill development. Due to that fact, it has to be restricted with

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

01:29:48.680 --> 01:29:53.640
 bit more restrictive. So with the PD, this allows that commercial development to push

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

01:29:59.080 --> 01:30:04.820
 corridor to the north, east, and west with that Aldease. The applicant is also seeking

01:30:04.820 --> 01:30:11.300
 to allow for all general retail uses, regardless of size, to be permitted on the property.

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,

01:30:16.880 --> 01:30:21.240
 and it would be centrally situated along that western edge of the property, which is close

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

01:30:27.120 --> 01:30:32.520
 residential properties on the south and the east side. It does have a main entrance emphasis

01:30:32.520 --> 01:30:40.440
 along US 380. It also allows for vehicular access. Primary access would be from US 380.

01:30:40.440 --> 01:30:48.180
 There would be a drive along Ector Street and cross access along Primrose Street. The

01:30:48.180 --> 01:30:54.080
 development did reduce the parking number of parking spaces to 87 parking spaces, and

01:30:54.080 --> 01:30:59.980
 the primary parking, as I stated, would be located along the frontage of US 380, similar

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

01:31:06.200 --> 01:31:11.160
 preservation area that would be located along the southern edge. Those are those trees highlighted

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

01:31:17.920 --> 01:31:23.720
 and eastern southeast edges for those residential properties. The development plan is currently

01:31:23.720 --> 01:31:31.040
 providing 21% landscape area. The minimum for MN districts is 20%. They'd also be providing

01:31:31.040 --> 01:31:37.920
 a 74% new and preserved tree canopy, which that minimum is 40% for MN districts.

01:31:37.920 --> 01:31:43.280
 So looking at the provable criteria, just a summary, the project is consistent with

01:31:43.280 --> 01:31:47.280
 Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, which I'll delve a little bit more into in my slides

01:31:47.280 --> 01:31:51.760
 after this. It does provide greater level of design quality as compared to a specific

01:31:51.760 --> 01:31:56.640
 use permit. It is compatible with the surrounding area, especially that commercial corridor,

01:31:56.640 --> 01:32:02.520
 and it does provide public facilities adequate to serve the development.

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,

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

01:32:11.840 --> 01:32:16.080
 areas do accommodate greater density between that single family with neighborhoods and

01:32:16.080 --> 01:32:20.480
 commercial areas. And then low residential does include land uses that support residential

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

01:32:27.920 --> 01:32:34.880
 commercial thoroughfare in the city. It does implement, it is infill. It is basically filling

01:32:34.880 --> 01:32:41.120
 a gap in our neighborhood fabric along US 380. The property itself has been undeveloped

01:32:41.120 --> 01:32:45.080
 since the 1960s, except for that southern portion, which does have a residential property

01:32:45.080 --> 01:32:52.000
 on it. And it does provide context sensitive commercial infill. In regards to urban design,

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

01:32:56.600 --> 01:33:02.800
 access as well as onsite pathways to public sidewalks. And lastly, building scale and

01:33:02.800 --> 01:33:07.680
 orientation, it is centered in the property along that western edge, trying to reduce

01:33:07.680 --> 01:33:13.120
 the impact to neighboring residential properties to the south and southeast.

01:33:13.120 --> 01:33:18.320
 Moving on, it provides an additional commercial option in this established area. As you can

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

01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:29.040
 remaining properties on US 380. The existing size of the property does limit the size and

01:33:29.040 --> 01:33:33.800
 scale of development. The applicant has reduced the parking and has placed the majority of

01:33:33.800 --> 01:33:38.640
 parking towards the front of that property along that commercial corridor to keep it

01:33:38.640 --> 01:33:42.880
 away from the adjacent residential properties in the south and southeast. And it is a compatible

01:33:42.880 --> 01:33:48.800
 land use and scale and form considering the single family residential as well as the adjacent

01:33:48.800 --> 01:33:54.600
 commercial. There was public outreach done. There was a newspaper ad and property posted

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

01:34:03.440 --> 01:34:10.000
 receive one response in opposition at 1207 Primrose Street. Staff is recommending approval

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).

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

01:34:21.360 --> 01:34:26.200
 questions. Thank you, Cameron. I don't see any at this

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

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

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

01:34:49.620 --> 01:34:57.840
 Michael Clark. I'm with Winkleman and Associates, 6750 Hillcrest Plaza, Suite 215, Dallas 75230.

01:34:57.840 --> 01:35:02.720
 Here representing Jason Adams and Home Zone. Jason is unfortunately out of town. We've

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

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

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.

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

01:35:26.240 --> 01:35:30.280
 basically people come in, they look at furniture. Furniture is delivered from their warehouses

01:35:30.280 --> 01:35:37.140
 in Grand Prairie. So we have very little truck traffic, very little vehicular traffic actually.

01:35:37.140 --> 01:35:42.080
 Staff is in agreement with our parking request for a slight deviation in the required parking.

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

01:35:48.480 --> 01:35:53.600
 worked diligently with staff, worked trying to preserve trees, get the parking. To get

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

01:35:57.720 --> 01:36:03.320
 with the homeowners. They expressed some concerns. We, I think, alleviated many of them with

01:36:03.320 --> 01:36:08.920
 the low traffic and the showroom and the low trucks. I think...

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

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.

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.

01:36:26.280 --> 01:36:31.520
 If I did something incorrectly or obviously somebody didn't get invited, I apologize for

01:36:31.520 --> 01:36:37.080
 that. We have coordinated cross access with the commercial uses to our east as staff directed,

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

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

01:36:46.600 --> 01:36:51.680
 goes out to Prim Rose for anything other than for them to eventually, if they redevelop,

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

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

01:37:03.040 --> 01:37:08.280
 any questions and reserve any time I have left to answer any other questions possibly.

01:37:08.280 --> 01:37:14.760
 Are there any questions for Mr. Clark? How did you notify the neighborhood of the public

01:37:14.760 --> 01:37:24.360
 meeting you're going to be having? We, how did we, Jerry Clark was our contact

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

01:37:28.040 --> 01:37:34.320
 of months ago. Jerry Clark was our contact and he established the meeting with the Ector,

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

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

01:37:43.600 --> 01:37:46.720
 that coordinated it. Were you in attendance there? Yes, sir.

01:37:46.720 --> 01:37:54.600
 How many folks showed up? 15, 16, Gary? Perhaps 20. Okay.

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

01:38:00.360 --> 01:38:07.280
 are brought about the neighborhood? They were concerned about the homeowners immediately

01:38:07.280 --> 01:38:12.440
 to our south were concerned about the proximity. We discussed the height of the building and

01:38:12.440 --> 01:38:18.240
 the actual separation that we were preserving trees there and the lack of truck traffic.

01:38:18.240 --> 01:38:24.040
 I think made them feel more comfortable. The rest of the homeowners were, I think, generally

01:38:24.040 --> 01:38:32.320
 concerned about traffic and I think the showroom use and the seriously very limited amount of

01:38:32.320 --> 01:38:40.240
 traffic was what made them feel more comfortable. Okay. All right. I see other questions for

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

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

01:38:49.720 --> 01:38:54.160
 introduce yourself, give your name and the address and then you have for a public hearing

01:38:54.160 --> 01:38:59.960
 four minutes to speak. Okay. My name is Crystal Rainey Anderson and

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,

01:39:06.680 --> 01:39:11.200
 Denton, Texas, which is exactly right behind where they're proposing to build this home

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.

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

01:39:22.680 --> 01:39:29.680
 zone project. I brought my property in 2009 and have spent over $150,000 remodeling and

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.

01:39:35.200 --> 01:39:40.040
 My property value would decrease tremendously. Between the proposed retaining wall and my

01:39:40.040 --> 01:39:44.240
 back fence, there would definitely be a dead space where homeless people could and would

01:39:44.240 --> 01:39:49.400
 camp creating trash pileups and who knows what else. Right now, I have an uninstructed

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

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

01:40:00.080 --> 01:40:04.940
 are tagged trees next to my back fence that cannot be removed. These trees provide shade

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

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

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

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

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

01:40:29.000 --> 01:40:32.880
 a food service business, there would still be employee food trash and bathroom trash

01:40:32.880 --> 01:40:38.440
 that would attract rats and guess where they would end up. If this property is approved,

01:40:38.440 --> 01:40:44.600
 I would be concerned because of the outside lights and security cameras. The eight foot

01:40:44.600 --> 01:40:48.600
 retaining wall will not prevent these lights and cameras from shining into my backyard

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

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

01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:02.920
 an invasion of privacy. Home zone is a very affordable furniture store because the furniture

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.

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

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

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.

01:41:21.560 --> 01:41:26.440
 It's almost impossible to make a right-hand turn onto University from Ector. There have

01:41:26.440 --> 01:41:31.760
 been several wrecks there already. I understand that there was a neighborhood meeting of which

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

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

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

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

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

01:41:57.200 --> 01:42:02.040
 were five homeowners, three retirees, that would be greatly affected by this project.

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.

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

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,

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

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,

01:42:30.320 --> 01:42:35.080
 Mr. Kurt Anderson. You'll have four minutes to speak. Just state your name and address

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.

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

01:42:48.800 --> 01:42:57.200
 the easement behind the property. The tagged trees are an issue and also you have tagged

01:42:57.200 --> 01:43:10.320
 trees that go into approximately maybe 30 yards into those properties on the easement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

01:45:48.120 --> 01:46:00.240
 life. Okay? I have no problems with them. Their shelters being built, hopefully it accommodates

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

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

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,

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.

01:46:34.440 --> 01:46:47.080
 That easement. Like I said, I oppose this. And thank you very much for your consideration.

01:46:47.080 --> 01:46:55.640
 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Cameron, I have a couple questions for you based off

01:46:55.640 --> 01:47:01.920
 what the public comment was made on that. Traditionally when we have neighborhood notification

01:47:01.920 --> 01:47:10.920
 for any type of neighborhood meetings, are we providing the 205 foot, 500 foot radius

01:47:10.920 --> 01:47:15.600
 addresses to the applicant? How does that -- I've never actually ever asked before how

01:47:15.600 --> 01:47:20.920
 does an applicant get the addresses for inviting out neighborhoods? They source it themselves?

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

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

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.

01:47:37.840 --> 01:47:43.960
 Thank you. Another question I had. There was a question about lights and access at Hector

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

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

01:47:56.600 --> 01:48:05.480
 to predicate a stoplight. Let me grab the quick numbers real quick. Sure. I will provide

01:48:05.480 --> 01:48:14.880
 them. So in regards to our trip generation report, it would generate approximately 238

01:48:14.880 --> 01:48:22.560
 daily trips with 10 morning peak hour trips and 18 evening peak hour trips. Okay. Thank

01:48:22.560 --> 01:48:30.200
 you. Okay. Any other questions for Commissioner Anderson? On the presentation, can you go

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

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

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

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

01:49:02.960 --> 01:49:09.920
 to preface though that the egress and the ingress and the cross access can change as

01:49:09.920 --> 01:49:17.640
 part of the PD standard stipulations. So there is additional, I guess, wording included in

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

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.

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.

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

01:49:43.720 --> 01:49:49.560
 concerns they had were lights. Are there going to be tall lights facing the properties on

01:49:49.560 --> 01:49:59.980
 Primrose and Hector? Cameron, how do I bring it back up? No, go ahead. Unfortunately, they

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

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

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

01:50:16.640 --> 01:50:21.920
 at all behind the building. Everything will be on the building, wall packed, shielded.

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.

01:50:27.400 --> 01:50:33.760
 Okay. Now cameras, are there going to be cameras facing their property looking in their backyard?

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

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

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

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

01:50:55.520 --> 01:51:01.560
 questions if I could? Sure. Absolutely. Perfect. Thank you. The lights were one of them. The

01:51:01.560 --> 01:51:08.280
 garbage, actually we would just as soon not have a dumpster. They recycle all cardboard

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

01:51:43.400 --> 01:51:48.340
 night operation. So the lights on would be just for security reasons only. That's correct.

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,

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,

01:51:58.040 --> 01:52:03.280
 just shining and with a cutoff fixture, basically just, just like the drive. Okay. Okay. Thank

01:52:03.280 --> 01:52:11.640
 you. Terribly described, but not a bit as just answer your question regarding the lighting.

01:52:11.640 --> 01:52:15.840
 So as part of the DTC, we will be looking at lighting specifically during the building

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

01:52:21.040 --> 01:52:30.360
 out and it cannot shine on neighboring properties. Thank you. Any discussion? Questions for city

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

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

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

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

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,

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

01:53:09.040 --> 01:53:19.840
 or discussion? Okay. Commissioner Cole. I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. A motion to

01:53:19.840 --> 01:53:27.360
 approve commissioner Anderson. A second. And man, I just want to say one thing. Unfortunately,

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

01:53:32.200 --> 01:53:36.600
 traffic than something else. I believe that would eventually come in there. So I just

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

01:54:38.800 --> 01:54:46.000
 Members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. Um, this is, uh, this item on the

01:54:46.000 --> 01:54:52.640
 agenda is a zoning change for the razor range overlay district regarding the number permitted

01:54:52.640 --> 01:54:58.900
 number of multifamily units within the South campus. So the request is specific to specifically

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

01:55:08.800 --> 01:55:14.640
 overlay, uh, development standards. Currently the, those standards allow up to 1800 multifamily

01:55:14.640 --> 01:55:20.120
 units, um, within the South campus where multifamily is permitted. Um, and the applicant is proposing

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

01:55:25.800 --> 01:55:30.240
 campus. Um, as a part of this request, the applicant has provided, um, a, an exhibit

01:55:30.240 --> 01:55:35.040
 sort of clarifying where a multifamily is permitted. Um, they aren't changing any underlying

01:55:35.040 --> 01:55:41.000
 zoning or any, um, um, conceptual lean uses that are already existing and already permitted

01:55:41.000 --> 01:55:46.040
 within the razor ranch South campus. Um, they are simply sort of clarifying for visual purposes

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

01:55:51.720 --> 01:55:56.160
 about there. The area highlighted or the area in the center highlighted, um, in the sort

01:55:56.160 --> 01:56:01.520
 of light pink color is considered what we call the razor ranch town center area. Um,

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

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

01:56:12.480 --> 01:56:17.360
 it. Again, MF, multifamily is already permitted within the town center. This just visually

01:56:17.360 --> 01:56:23.440
 clarifies that point. Um, so in reviewing this request, since it is a simple text amendment,

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

01:56:27.800 --> 01:56:33.080
 criteria, um, and there, uh, was not within those overlay standards. Also anything within

01:56:33.080 --> 01:56:38.640
 the razor ranch, um, development that does, is not specifically listed, um, in the standards,

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

01:56:45.560 --> 01:56:51.760
 specifically related to amending overlay text, um, um, and regulations. And so with that,

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

01:56:56.800 --> 01:57:04.600
 request, uh, pursuant to the, um, uh, criteria for approval located in sub-chapter two of

01:57:04.600 --> 01:57:09.600
 the current DDC. Um, specifically, I just wanted to point out that, um, the, the future

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,

01:57:15.920 --> 01:57:22.280
 if you look in our 2040 comprehensive plan, the, um, intended, uh, area or that, that

01:57:22.280 --> 01:57:27.880
 area is intended for development, proposing residential commercial office entertainment

01:57:27.880 --> 01:57:33.400
 and other uses except industrial at the highest level of scale and density within the city.

01:57:33.400 --> 01:57:38.760
 So if there were anywhere to support and promote additional density and additional multifamily,

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,

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.

01:57:49.200 --> 01:57:56.040
 Um, additionally, there are, um, design standards, uh, specifically applicable to multifamily

01:57:56.040 --> 01:58:01.080
 developments within the Razor Ranch South Campus, namely a minimum of 7% parking area

01:58:01.080 --> 01:58:06.420
 landscape coverage, a minimum of 15% parking area tree canopy coverage, and a 15 foot wide

01:58:06.420 --> 01:58:12.020
 landscape screening buffer around parking areas. And that sort of aids in the, um, minimizing

01:58:12.020 --> 01:58:18.480
 adverse impacts on surrounding properties, wherever multifamily would develop. Um, so

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

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.

01:58:30.600 --> 01:58:34.880
 So given that, uh, staff recommend staff is recommending approval as it meets the criteria

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

01:58:40.880 --> 01:58:44.620
 essentially showing what those changes are. That has been modified a little bit just to

01:58:44.620 --> 01:58:49.040
 provide further clarification. It's still, um, that they are, the applicant is requesting

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

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

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

01:59:05.880 --> 01:59:11.400
 here and that would be the remaining 750, um, multifamily dwelling units can be built

01:59:11.400 --> 01:59:15.960
 within the density zone or outside of the density zone within any sub district in the

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,

01:59:20.860 --> 01:59:24.920
 but it further clarifies, cause as it reads currently, um, one would think that those

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

01:59:30.680 --> 01:59:35.440
 goal, um, here. So with that, I'll stand, oh, following the decision of the recommendation

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

01:59:40.440 --> 01:59:44.600
 questions or comments that you may have. The applicant is also here with a brief presentation.

01:59:44.600 --> 01:59:53.000
 Okay. Maybe questions for city staff. Okay. Uh, seating. Yeah. Thank you. Do I have one

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

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,

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

02:00:09.280 --> 02:00:13.040
 to share a couple of quick things with you all. I appreciate being here this evening.

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

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.

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

02:00:32.720 --> 02:00:38.400
 that really outlines the entire development. Um, it, it dictates the criteria for approving

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,

02:00:44.000 --> 02:00:48.900
 um, indicates development standards and permitted uses. And on the South campus, there are three

02:00:48.900 --> 02:00:55.320
 primary sub-districts, the town center RR2 and the South mixed use district. The South

02:00:55.320 --> 02:00:59.760
 campus development standards do define the number of and type of dwelling units allowed.

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

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

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

02:01:16.360 --> 02:01:21.380
 district is that the multifamily would be, um, clustered around the 10 acre public park

02:01:21.380 --> 02:01:27.560
 that was dedicated by, um, the razor ranch developer and, um, provide those amenities

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

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

02:01:38.440 --> 02:01:44.360
 within the text of those 15 pages. Um, the only substantive change is to increase the

02:01:44.360 --> 02:01:50.720
 number of total units by 200 and, um, to provide some corrective text or really clarification

02:01:50.720 --> 02:01:58.320
 text on, um, where multifamily is allowed outside of the density zone. And then, um,

02:01:58.320 --> 02:02:02.640
 Kevin Bankhead with Allegiance Hill View is here with me as well and, um, available for

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

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

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

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,

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

02:02:28.240 --> 02:02:33.160
 to stand for any questions. Thank you.

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

02:02:42.600 --> 02:02:47.240
 speak. Anybody who has wished this public hearing, uh, to speak publicly may do so and

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

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.

02:02:58.720 --> 02:03:03.840
 Okay. Got a first for approval. Commissioner McDade? I second. Okay. Got a second. Well,

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

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

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.

02:03:30.400 --> 02:03:32.920
 Thank you chair. My name is the commissioner Ron McGee, a principal planner with development

02:03:32.920 --> 02:03:45.760
 services. Get my presentation. This, uh, request is public hearing now around. Okay. Great.

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

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

02:03:56.520 --> 02:04:02.840
 business, um, that you see here outline in yellow, um, north of university and just east

02:04:02.840 --> 02:04:09.520
 of spring Valley drive. It's approximately 5.82 acres in size. Uh, the business will

02:04:09.520 --> 02:04:16.120
 consist of an office warehouse self storage, uh, units as well as the equipment sales and

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,

02:04:23.720 --> 02:04:28.360
 designates the area as community mixed use, uh, with some light industrial to the north

02:04:28.360 --> 02:04:32.960
 of the property. Uh, it was currently zone light industrial and as part of that light

02:04:32.960 --> 02:04:38.680
 industrial zoning district, the equipment sales and, um, rental use requires a specific

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

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,

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,

02:04:55.000 --> 02:05:00.840
 really quickly to illustrate what the site plan includes. It includes a building a, which

02:05:00.840 --> 02:05:08.240
 will be the, uh, location where the office and the rental, um, uh, activity will occur.

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,

02:05:15.040 --> 02:05:21.160
 this warehouse will be, um, primarily where they will be stored, uh, loading and, um,

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,

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

02:05:32.400 --> 02:05:38.040
 of the storage units where individuals are able to rent out, uh, individual units in order

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

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

02:05:48.960 --> 02:05:55.800
 be located. Um, the area where the equipment rental, uh, display areas, uh, primarily again

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

02:06:01.480 --> 02:06:08.160
 particular area, uh, along the, uh, western part of the property as well as this area

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

02:06:13.000 --> 02:06:20.040
 purpose of maneuvering large trucks and other, um, uh, vehicles. Uh, but again, the display

02:06:20.040 --> 02:06:24.720
 area and equipment rental area will be in this highlighted areas. Also important to

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

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

02:06:34.600 --> 02:06:40.920
 will be temporary storage of U box centers, uh, send, uh, sorry, containers that is, uh,

02:06:40.920 --> 02:06:46.440
 where individuals who want to unload or unload their items from the U box containers into

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

02:06:51.040 --> 02:06:58.480
 identified there and dimensioned as eight by 18 feet, uh, in size. The other area important

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

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

02:07:11.880 --> 02:07:19.320
 is. As far as the landscape plan, um, the landscape plan complies with the landscape

02:07:19.320 --> 02:07:24.080
 area tree canopy cover, uh, the street tree requirements as well as the buffer screening

02:07:24.080 --> 02:07:29.160
 and requirements, uh, per the development code. I want to make mention that the, uh,

02:07:29.160 --> 02:07:34.280
 applicant as well as staff have worked hard in order to provide that screening that's

02:07:34.280 --> 02:07:39.980
 required or that's part of this proposal. You see that the area along university is

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

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

02:07:52.400 --> 02:07:59.360
 just provides that additional landscaping that we would like to see on US 380. Criteria

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,

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

02:08:12.320 --> 02:08:17.040
 with the goals and policies of the den 20 40 comprehensive plan. Uh, it complies with

02:08:17.040 --> 02:08:22.600
 the ally zoning district purpose statement. Uh, the approval of the SUP is not expected

02:08:22.600 --> 02:08:28.480
 to generate any adverse impacts and the utilities and infrastructure is available as this area

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

02:08:34.240 --> 02:08:40.560
 developed already, uh, with other uses newspaper, I'm sorry, uh, notifications were sent out

02:08:40.560 --> 02:08:47.680
 on includes newspaper as well as a website. Um, notice this, um, were, um, published on

02:08:47.680 --> 02:08:55.320
 our city website as of this afternoon, staff has not received any written responses. Um,

02:08:55.320 --> 02:09:00.160
 one public hearing sign was posted on the property, um, in advance of the meeting and

02:09:00.160 --> 02:09:06.440
 there were no neighborhood meetings held for recommendations. Staff is recommending approval

02:09:06.440 --> 02:09:12.120
 with this, um, issue for this USP requests with the following conditions. The first one

02:09:12.120 --> 02:09:17.600
 is generally to comply with the attached site plan and landscape plan. And again, the attached

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

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

02:09:27.360 --> 02:09:33.000
 or the landscape plan, that will require a new specific use permit. Now there is allowances

02:09:33.000 --> 02:09:38.000
 for some landscaping, uh, adjustments up to 5%. But again, generally any changes will

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

02:09:44.280 --> 02:09:49.760
 or storage containers specifically, uh, they're not, they're not allowed to be stored out,

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,

02:09:57.280 --> 02:10:02.440
 um, the last sense that you see there, this does not include the one storage container

02:10:02.440 --> 02:10:07.080
 located by the front entrance of building A for display purpose only. So that would

02:10:07.080 --> 02:10:13.360
 be something that would be allowed and it would be just that one, um, storage container.

02:10:13.360 --> 02:10:18.320
 Number three, um, again, changes, um, that were sent earlier, uh, prior to this meeting,

02:10:18.320 --> 02:10:24.200
 um, include the following that in situations when their storage containers are, um, temporarily

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

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

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

02:10:41.960 --> 02:10:48.360
 that's where they would be located. Again, these changes, um, were made after the packet

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

02:10:55.120 --> 02:11:02.680
 plan. With that, um, staff, um, stands for any questions. The applicant is, uh, present

02:11:02.680 --> 02:11:07.880
 and does not have a presentation, but is, uh, open for questions or be available for

02:11:07.880 --> 02:11:08.880
 questions.

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

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

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

02:11:25.040 --> 02:11:34.320
 dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Cole. I make a motion to approve with conditions.

02:11:34.320 --> 02:11:38.920
 Okay. The motion approved with the conditions are presented. Commissioner Villarreal. Second.

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

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.

02:11:55.000 --> 02:12:00.560
 Yes, chair. Thank you. All right. Clarification of the motion. Uh, commissioner cold motion

02:12:00.560 --> 02:12:05.880
 to approve with conditions as presented and commissioner Villarreal seconds that. Okay.

02:12:05.880 --> 02:12:17.880
 All right. Any discussion? Okay. Call for a vote on the board. That motion passes six

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

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

02:12:30.320 --> 02:12:38.320
 a commissioner on the principal planner. Um, this item is a code amendment requests initiated

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

02:12:44.680 --> 02:12:51.120
 seen the last, uh, I guess past year, uh, regarding, um, uh, horizontal multifamily

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

02:12:58.440 --> 02:13:04.000
 you go to the full screen? I'm sorry about that. Um, these, uh, horizontal multifamily

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

02:13:10.360 --> 02:13:17.840
 that fit, um, what their role functions are. After review and further, um, you know, study

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

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

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

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

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,

02:13:43.920 --> 02:13:50.920
 they fit the multifamily desk, uh, definition as such. We have updated the, um, or proposed

02:13:50.920 --> 02:13:55.600
 update the definition of multifamily. Uh, and that's part of this code amendment. We're

02:13:55.600 --> 02:14:00.960
 also adding a use specific standard, uh, to multifamily specifically to, uh, provide a

02:14:00.960 --> 02:14:07.380
 little bit more design consistency for those buildings that contain one or two units as

02:14:07.380 --> 02:14:13.080
 part of a future multifamily development that more or less would resemble what you've seen

02:14:13.080 --> 02:14:19.120
 as a horizontal multifamily living type development. Uh, also in addition to the code amendment,

02:14:19.120 --> 02:14:24.040
 uh, this code amendment, we're looking at adjusting the, um, the, um, the dimensional

02:14:24.040 --> 02:14:30.080
 standards that is for the MN district, uh, where it requires a, uh, SGP for buildings

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,

02:14:36.240 --> 02:14:41.240
 but really just focusing on where those buildings are proposed adjacent to residential uses.

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

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

02:14:52.240 --> 02:14:56.640
 meetings specifically to discuss this proposed code amendments. Uh, as you see here, April

02:14:56.640 --> 02:15:03.920
 22nd, May 27th and June 24th, uh, they, the development code review committee has recommended

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

02:15:07.680 --> 02:15:12.720
 here tonight, uh, for this, uh, item, uh, summary of the code amendments. Um, again,

02:15:12.720 --> 02:15:17.120
 we talked about the multifamily dwelling unit being, uh, amended. Uh, we're also adding

02:15:17.120 --> 02:15:22.120
 residential condominiums as it is referenced in that, uh, in the code. We want to make

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.

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

02:15:33.960 --> 02:15:38.480
 specific standards for multifamily. And then lastly, uh, again, mentioning the dimensional

02:15:38.480 --> 02:15:44.020
 standards for MN, uh, we're looking to amend the, uh, height, uh, maximum building height

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,

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,

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,

02:16:03.160 --> 02:16:09.500
 so as, uh, proposed, the definition of multifamily dwelling will, will be as follows, a single

02:16:09.500 --> 02:16:16.760
 lot containing five or more dwelling units. This definition includes residential condominiums

02:16:16.760 --> 02:16:23.600
 developed on a single lot. We're also proposing as mentioned, uh, a definition for residential

02:16:23.600 --> 02:16:29.820
 condominium dwelling. And that is, is going to read as follows, a pop, sorry, a property

02:16:29.820 --> 02:16:37.160
 comprise of multiple individual dwelling units on a single lot where each unit is owned separately.

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

02:16:41.480 --> 02:16:48.560
 a special definition as it is referenced in the development code. The use specific standard

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,

02:16:55.220 --> 02:17:00.880
 it is for buildings containing one or two dwelling units. Uh, they shall comply with

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

02:17:06.760 --> 02:17:11.960
 building mass and form. Again, this would only apply for those buildings that are part

02:17:11.960 --> 02:17:20.360
 of a multifamily, uh, development that contain only one or two dwelling units. The item,

02:17:20.360 --> 02:17:24.280
 um, that you see here is related to, again, the build, uh, maximum building height for

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,

02:17:30.920 --> 02:17:36.760
 buildings between 41 and 65 feet. We've added the language adjacent to a residential zoning

02:17:36.760 --> 02:17:44.320
 district or adjacent to an existing single family detach dwelling townhome or duplex use

02:17:44.320 --> 02:17:51.320
 shall require a specific use permit pursuant to two five two of the development code. Now

02:17:51.320 --> 02:17:56.560
 the reason why you see, uh, single family detached dwelling townhome and duplex highlighted

02:17:56.560 --> 02:18:03.520
 is that this is something that was changed or amended and modified, um, after the development

02:18:03.520 --> 02:18:11.720
 code review committee, uh, made their recommendation. Um, the understanding of what we believe was

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

02:18:17.920 --> 02:18:24.000
 code review committee, it only stated existing residential use. Uh, we wanted to go a little

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

02:18:30.880 --> 02:18:36.560
 to, we wanted to see protected. And that again is the single family detached dwelling townhomes

02:18:36.560 --> 02:18:42.560
 and duplex uses. So that is different from what the DCRC recommended, but again, wanted

02:18:42.560 --> 02:18:49.080
 to make sure that we specify specifically those types of uses. Staff recommends approval

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

02:18:57.680 --> 02:19:02.600
 amendments under section two, seven, four D of the DDC. And that concludes my presentation.

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.

02:19:09.920 --> 02:19:16.960
 Anybody who was wishing to speak may do so. You thought a blue card afterwards. Okay.

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

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

02:19:27.960 --> 02:19:31.920
 that had the language with respect to the MN district? Something just caught my attention

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

02:19:38.800 --> 02:19:43.840
 feet, we have adjacent to a residential zoning district. We consider multifamily zoning districts,

02:19:43.840 --> 02:19:50.560
 residential districts, correct? It does include multifamily if yes. Okay. And given your explanation

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

02:19:55.800 --> 02:20:00.800
 use permit also for multifamily adjacent to multifamily. I believe we need to tweak the

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

02:20:06.680 --> 02:20:12.440
 excluding multifamily districts parentheses or adjacent to an existing single family detached

02:20:12.440 --> 02:20:17.680
 dwelling townhome or duplex use. So when he was presenting that, it caught my attention

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

02:20:23.960 --> 02:20:28.940
 permit adjacent to for a multifamily development adjacent to a multifamily development. So

02:20:28.940 --> 02:20:34.400
 the way this language that we have here is since we consider multifamily zoning districts,

02:20:34.400 --> 02:20:38.760
 residential districts, it's important that we make, we insert a parenthetical reference

02:20:38.760 --> 02:20:43.160
 that excludes multifamily districts. And my apologies that we did not catch that previously.

02:20:43.160 --> 02:20:50.400
 I guess going with our shorter presentations for work session, I missed that. And my apologies

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

02:20:54.680 --> 02:21:00.120
 and want to make sure that the commission would be in agreement with that change.

02:21:00.120 --> 02:21:08.160
 All right. Thank you, Tina. So this will have the change within there saying that footnote

02:21:08.160 --> 02:21:11.600
 number two adjacent to residential zoning district excluding multifamily dwelling use

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

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

02:21:23.560 --> 02:21:30.480
 Villarreal, commissioner Peru. Sorry. Just a point of clarification. I'm trying to recall

02:21:30.480 --> 02:21:36.120
 where in our code it defines a multifamily district. I think we have our one through

02:21:36.120 --> 02:21:42.920
 our seven and then the other districts which allow multifamily are mixed use districts.

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

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

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

02:22:09.320 --> 02:22:14.440
 requiring an SUP for multifamily development adjacent to multifamily. And since we consider

02:22:14.440 --> 02:22:20.160
 adjacent to a residential zoning district, is it appropriate then to say excluding multifamily

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

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

02:22:38.360 --> 02:22:45.320
 dwelling use is permitted in the residential zoning districts, but only in the R7 with

02:22:45.320 --> 02:22:53.560
 a specific use permit. So. Does that answer your question commissioner Peru? Yeah, I just

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

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

02:23:03.880 --> 02:23:10.360
 confusing my cities. So maybe what we do is on that language, excluding multifamily uses

02:23:10.360 --> 02:23:17.000
 in an R7 district. The whole intent was to remove that specific use permit requirement

02:23:17.000 --> 02:23:22.440
 for the additional height where it was adjacent to the, for multifamily uses where it was

02:23:22.440 --> 02:23:26.720
 adjacent to single family detached dwellings, townhomes or duplex uses, but also in our

02:23:26.720 --> 02:23:30.760
 code we were trying to be consistent with our language because we typically make references

02:23:30.760 --> 02:23:39.680
 to residential districts and then whatever additional qualifiers we add on there. So,

02:23:39.680 --> 02:23:43.720
 but I appreciate you catching me on that. So maybe it needs to be excluding multifamily

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

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

02:23:56.520 --> 02:24:02.480
 quick point of clarification commissioner. Sorry, apologies. A quick point of clarification

02:24:02.480 --> 02:24:09.440
 before I make the motion. What practical difference does adding the language about the R7 zoning

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

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

02:24:18.840 --> 02:24:25.560
 district and R7 being a residential zoning district and because R7 can allow for multifamily,

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

02:24:29.160 --> 02:24:33.520
 and it just says residential zoning district, then we would be requiring new multifamily

02:24:33.520 --> 02:24:38.560
 to obtain an SUP when they're a budding or adjacent to an already existing multifamily

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

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

02:24:48.880 --> 02:24:53.860
 zoning district when it just said excluding multifamily dwelling use. I think it's, I

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

02:25:32.920 --> 02:25:38.880
 as presented with the new changes. All right. Commissioner McDade. I second. Okay. Well,

02:25:38.880 --> 02:25:45.240
 first and a second. Any other discussion? Sometimes democracy at works feels like mommy

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.

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

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,

02:26:09.040 --> 02:26:13.680
 chair, members of the commission. This is another city initiated code amendment related

02:26:13.680 --> 02:26:18.960
 to plan developments. The reason for this code amendment is really to provide a more

02:26:18.960 --> 02:26:26.600
 comprehensive procedure for rezoning to a plan development. One of those changes is

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

02:26:33.740 --> 02:26:40.040
 that in my slides preceding this to provide a little bit more description of the difference

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

02:26:47.660 --> 02:26:52.840
 particular item and discussed it on July 8th. And per the recommendation, we are bringing

02:26:52.840 --> 02:26:57.920
 it forward to the planning zoning commission and ultimately to city council for consideration.

02:26:57.920 --> 02:27:04.120
 To summarize the code amendment code amendments, that is again, we're outlining and proposing

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

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

02:27:17.400 --> 02:27:24.960
 also looking at clarifying the submittal documents, just again, to help more further require what

02:27:24.960 --> 02:27:28.960
 we need in order to review plan developments. We're making sure that those documents are

02:27:28.960 --> 02:27:35.360
 provided. Clarifying when concurrent reviews are allowed. There are certain times when

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

02:27:39.000 --> 02:27:46.000
 proposed code amendment. Adding more information related to PD amendments. There is, as you

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

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

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

02:28:05.480 --> 02:28:11.560
 also proposing to delete, sorry, to delete the notification requirements for minor amendments.

02:28:11.560 --> 02:28:18.180
 The current requirement is that we, the city, notify adjacent property owners for minor

02:28:18.180 --> 02:28:24.120
 amendments to PDs. We feel that those are unnecessary and that those minor amendments

02:28:24.120 --> 02:28:29.520
 are typically minor in nature, of course, and the ones that are more substantial, such

02:28:29.520 --> 02:28:34.880
 as the major amendments, do still require those notifications and do still require public

02:28:34.880 --> 02:28:41.320
 hearings for those considerations. Lastly, we are proposing to add more clarification

02:28:41.320 --> 02:28:46.560
 as it relates to the approval criteria for rezoning to plan development. Again, to provide

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

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

02:29:00.960 --> 02:29:07.280
 that's on, that was submitted to the planning zoning commission. Those are included in your

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

02:29:14.840 --> 02:29:22.560
 you see on this slide, the description of an overlay plan development is presented,

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,

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.

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

02:29:42.600 --> 02:29:49.000
 more clarification to the description, and so the changes that you see here is what staff

02:29:49.000 --> 02:29:56.400
 is proposing. So an overlay plan development is a PD intended to address concerns of neighboring

02:29:56.400 --> 02:30:02.920
 property owners to ensure the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of are compatible

02:30:02.920 --> 02:30:10.000
 with surrounding neighborhoods or less intensive uses. An overlay PD may be used to restrict

02:30:10.000 --> 02:30:16.960
 or expand the uses permitted within a base zoning district, or to impose additional use

02:30:16.960 --> 02:30:23.480
 specific standards within sub-chapter five upon a proposed use, or to modify setbacks,

02:30:23.480 --> 02:30:29.040
 landscaping, screening, or buffering requirements to allow the borders joining residential uses

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

02:30:38.680 --> 02:30:47.440
 clarification that the last sentence on this description should not be included. I failed

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,

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

02:31:05.880 --> 02:31:11.720
 the course of reviewing any requested zoning map change to a base zoning under the section

02:31:11.720 --> 02:31:18.480
 272. The director of planning, as well as the planning zoning commission or city council,

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

02:31:23.680 --> 02:31:30.760
 compatible concerns. This overlay PD would be one of those options to utilize if that

02:31:30.760 --> 02:31:38.720
 is the direction of the planning zoning commission, the director, and the city council. So examples

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

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

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

02:32:00.760 --> 02:32:07.160
 adding landscaping and some trees and some screening. So that zoning change request would,

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

02:32:13.760 --> 02:32:18.640
 plan development. Another one is the Windsor 935 medical office. This one is a little bit

02:32:18.640 --> 02:32:26.760
 further ago, and where there were some uses that were identified as only allowed, and

02:32:26.760 --> 02:32:33.360
 so limiting just certain uses, that is another way an overlay plan development could be used

02:32:33.360 --> 02:32:42.600
 in the future, again, if the code amendment was approved. Standard PD is defined or described

02:32:42.600 --> 02:32:48.080
 as intended to be used to achieve greater flexibility than is allowed by strict application

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

02:32:55.180 --> 02:33:01.760
 of uses to propose, or to propose innovative or creative development standards. A standard

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

02:33:08.360 --> 02:33:13.600
 last sentence should not be included with this plan development or with this proposed

02:33:13.600 --> 02:33:22.480
 code amendment. That is something that will not be included. Examples of a standard PD,

02:33:22.480 --> 02:33:29.400
 obviously Robeson Ranch is one of those plan developments. The Christopher Todd communities,

02:33:29.400 --> 02:33:32.680
 which is the horizontal multifamily, again, as I mentioned earlier in the previous code

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

02:33:38.380 --> 02:33:43.280
 type of residential development is, so it was processed as a PD. Love First Community

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

02:33:50.840 --> 02:33:57.320
 development proposal where there were some additional housing types, and the way it was

02:33:57.320 --> 02:34:02.600
 laid out was a little different from your typical development, so that we felt was more

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

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.

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.

02:34:22.880 --> 02:34:27.960
 Overlay PDs, really what we're looking for is just a list of conditions or restrictions

02:34:27.960 --> 02:34:34.000
 that are proposed, again, hopefully to ensure that there is compatibility between the proposed

02:34:34.000 --> 02:34:38.000
 development and any other neighboring property, so that would be something that the staff

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

02:34:45.600 --> 02:34:51.200
 involved in that we require a little bit more information and require the following. One

02:34:51.200 --> 02:34:57.160
 is the PD regulation document, which will consist of the following. Also a PD development

02:34:57.160 --> 02:35:01.960
 plan, which is really their site plan for that particular development, and if they're

02:35:01.960 --> 02:35:06.360
 proposing any phasing, they will also provide a phasing plan as part of their submittal.

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

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.

02:35:18.940 --> 02:35:24.680
 With that, staff is recommending approval as the proposed code amendments are consistent

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

02:35:33.200 --> 02:35:36.880
 approval criteria. With that, I'll stand for any questions.

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

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.

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.

02:35:55.820 --> 02:36:01.720
 Commissioner Cole. Make a motion to approve. Okay. Commissioner

02:36:01.720 --> 02:36:10.000
 Cole, a motion to approve with the additions and changes that were created and presented.

02:36:10.000 --> 02:36:17.000
 Yes, with the conditions presented. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal.

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

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,

02:36:35.960 --> 02:36:41.360
 our Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix. I'll turn the dais over to Tina.

02:36:41.360 --> 02:36:46.620
 Thank you, Chairman. We have not had a City Council meeting since the Planning and Zoning

02:36:46.620 --> 02:36:52.960
 Commission last met, so no cases to report or provide any update on that. But wanted

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

02:36:57.440 --> 02:37:04.160
 and want you to be able to plan accordingly. On October 12th, we are anticipating that

02:37:04.160 --> 02:37:08.800
 the Planning and Zoning Commission will probably need to convene a meeting at approximately

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

02:37:14.400 --> 02:37:18.760
 more solidified, but just wanted to, you know, maybe have you put that on your calendars

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

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

02:37:28.960 --> 02:37:33.840
 planning team is working on an update to our roadway impact fee ordinance. The Planning

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

02:37:41.240 --> 02:37:45.880
 those letters stood for. I just know that's the acronym assigned to the alternate committee

02:37:45.880 --> 02:37:51.440
 that you would convene into to consider any changes to the roadway impact fee ordinance.

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,

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

02:38:01.640 --> 02:38:07.800
 Zoning Commission agenda packet that evening as well. But again, more importantly, just

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

02:38:11.680 --> 02:38:12.680
 you.

02:38:12.680 --> 02:38:16.240
 Okay. Commissioner Villarreal.

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

02:38:22.600 --> 02:38:26.760
 or at least a discussion about a potential amendment, and it was said that this would

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

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

02:38:39.440 --> 02:38:46.760
 sorry, a Development Code amendment regarding that, but I know there's a lot of discussion

02:38:46.760 --> 02:38:56.560
 and approval in the realm of removing parking minimums entirely, and I would like to kickstart

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

02:39:05.160 --> 02:39:10.000
 going to DCRC, not immediately, but sometime in the long-term future.

02:39:10.000 --> 02:39:11.000
 Okay.

02:39:11.000 --> 02:39:12.000
 That's it.

02:39:12.000 --> 02:39:13.000
 Got that in?

02:39:13.000 --> 02:39:14.000
 Awesome.

02:39:14.000 --> 02:39:16.120
 Okay. Commissioner Cole.

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

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

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

02:39:47.800 --> 02:39:52.160
 down a rabbit hole, but just handle the parking minimums.

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

02:39:59.320 --> 02:40:02.640
 sounds like we haven't gone to council yet. Say it again?

02:40:02.640 --> 02:40:04.640
 Go to council.

02:40:04.640 --> 02:40:09.240
 Okay. Go to council. Really, the discussion on that would probably have to be much later

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

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

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

02:40:26.880 --> 02:40:30.880
 are, then see where we go from there. Commissioner Pruitt.

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

02:40:37.440 --> 02:40:44.500
 like that is something that needs community buy-in, needs a longer perspective to understand

02:40:44.500 --> 02:40:52.720
 what the trade-offs are, and so I think I would look forward to those discussions.

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

02:41:01.960 --> 02:41:05.080
 meeting at 759. Thank you very much.