Sep 26, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-09-26 4:30 PM

. , , , , . . . . . . . . >> All right. So this item is a site plan for a chase bank at razor ranch . So you can see the subject property is outlined in yellow on the map. This site is approximately 1.3 acres. It's a site that's been in use for a long time. It's a site that's been in use for a long time. It's a site that's been in use for a long time. It's a site that's been in use for a long time. It's a site that's been in use for a long time. It's a site that's been in use for a long time. So this site is approximately 1.3 acres. It is located on the south side of University Drive at the intersection of town center boulevard which is just down from heritage trail which you all may be more familiar with by name there. So the base zoning for the property is regional center commercial downtown. However, this map here reflects the boundaries of what's known as the south side of the property. So this property is part of what's known as the south RR2 district which is kind of the commercial perimeter for what will someday be the town center as this develops here in the RR1 region. And then the balance of the south side you have seen recently as a general development plan and preliminary plat which is kind of known as razor ranch east which is the south mixed use district that will be a mixture of residential and commercial. So as some of you are familiar with all site plans for razor ranch are required to come before the planning and zoning commission for approval. Specifically within the south RR2 district we have what's called exhibit C1 and D1 that dictate the architectural and landscape standards for these sites. So the site plan elements that come before you all are the site plan itself which shows the layout of the building and parking, the landscape plans and the building elevations. The overlay district does outline several criteria for approval. So it dictates that the P&Z shall approve a site plan and the P&Z shall approve a site plan if it finds that the plan is in substantial compliance with that concept plan that we just saw for the razor ranch overlay. So this is in conformance with the commercial uses permitted in the south RR2 district. The second criteria being that the site plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that wouldn't adversely affect any adjoining neighborhoods or properties. That it provides for adequate and safe vehicular circulation. And that it fully complies with all other sections of the overlay. So I'll kind of walk through the site plan and the different elements now so that you can see how it is in compliance with those requirements. So here's the site plan for this property. So you can see just one building of approximately 4800 square feet. The use is considered professional service as well as drive-through. Both of those are permitted in the south RR2 district. They're proposing just over 40 parking spaces. So about 42 are shown here. They are only required 16. As you've heard me say before, razor kind of wrote into the overlay that they don't have to comply with the city's maximum parking requirements. So they can't overpark a site without having to go through the ADP process that a normal site plan would. And they are providing one point of access here that will be from a shared driveway with the restaurant next door. So no direct access concerns because they're not directly tying into 380 or Town Center Trail here. They'll just have that one internal driveway. Looking at their landscaping, so this site's required a minimum of 10% landscaping and 25% tree canopy. So they are in excess of both of those requirements. The area outlined in yellow is where they would provide the required plaza elements. So they are exceeding the minimum plaza area. And this area will contain benches, shade trees, and planters to make it a more pedestrian-friendly space. And one of the other key components when there is a drive-through is the required screening. So to screen this from the adjoining drive aisles, they provided some extra landscaping in the form of shrubs here in front of the drive-through. And then they provided a low masonry wall here on the south side to kind of screen that, the drive-through lanes from the adjoining drive aisle. Here are the proposed elevations for the buildings. This is the west side on top and then the north elevation is there on the bottom. The primary building materials are limestone brick and stuc co. So these are in compliance with the architectural standards for RAZOR and consistent with the general theming of the native Texas stone and limestone throughout the town center area. Here you can see the other two sides of the building. So this is what the drive-through would look like. And that low masonry wall would sit approximately here just outside those drive aisles to screen the cars from the right-of-way. So staff is recommending approval of the request. We found it to be compliant with all of the applicable regulations within the overlay district as well as the criteria for approval. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. -Christine or Becky? -Just a quick question. Is this a relocation for Chase Bank? I believe they have one down on Inklund University. -I'm not aware of it being a relocation. But I believe the developer for RAZOR will be here this evening so you can answer that question. -Thank you, Abe. -Christine or Alice? -Thank you, Chair. Just curious on the 42 parking places, that is a lot for a bank. Did you ask? -It did seem like a high number. I'm not sure what their driving factor is for that, but they felt that that was the amount of parking they needed because there was some question about whether there should be a second dumpster location on the site. And that would have required them to lose parking, and they were very opposed to losing any parking spaces for their customers and staff. -Thank you. With that, with the drive-through traffic, is that coming in off of the Chili's parking lot? Is that how they're getting to the drive-through? -Correct. So the traffic would enter here from the shared driveway, and then when they exit, either loop around to the south or to the north back through the parking lot. -And they can go around the building when they exit? -Correct. They could maneuver either way when they come out of that drive-through. I would imagine most of them would go here to the south straight out back to the driveway. -Is the stacking on the site plan, is that accurate? -Yes. -At high times, I wonder how that's going to go as far as the line waiting for drive-through. -Yeah, I believe they did meet the adequate stacking distance for our engineers when they reviewed this. But I think with the four driveways, there wasn't generally a concern that it would back up too much because there's multiple options there. -It worked as long as it was looked at. Thanks. -Any other questions? I have two. One is along the lines of Commissioner Ellis. The bank operation is kind of inverse to the Chili's operation in terms of uses of parking. 42 seems like a whole lot to put a lot of concrete out there. So maybe I could talk to the applicant about that. If they put more green space or I don't know what options we have. But with that, I didn't hear, but can you talk about where they're putting bike stands? -I don't recall seeing bike racks. I'll try to look a little more closely here. -With their overlay, are they required to? -No, it's an option that they can include within the plaza area. But it's not a strict requirement that they have bicycle parking. It may be something that they'd be amenable to adding if you think that would make the site more consistent with the surroundings. I know many of the restaurants in the area do have bike racks. -I'm also thinking of Razor Rance East, which is about to be residential. They could easily ride their bike over to the bank. -Yeah, I'm not seeing bike racks. I don't recall if they have them. I'm not seeing them called out here on the plan. That's something I can look into for the regular meeting. -Awesome. Any other questions? Great. So that moves us on to our public hearing items. Item 5A has been postponed until the October 24th meeting. So has Item 5C has also been postponed to the October 10th meeting. So the only item for public hearing tonight is 5B, which is S18-6, which is Haley. -All right. So this is a specific use permit request related to a drive -through for McDonald's. So you can see the subject property outlined here in yellow . As I mentioned, the request is for a specific use permit to allow for a drive-through on this site. The site, as you can kind of see here with the faint white lines, is a combination of three kind of remainders after all of this frontage here was taken by textile to future right-of-way. So what was left was approximately 1.69 acres where McDonald's is proposed to go. So the zoning for the site is Downtown Commercial General. Within this district, the McDonald's itself is permitted by right. It's the drive-through that requires the specific use permit. And as we've looked at before, the criteria for approval of an SUP are very lengthy. Those are enumerated in your staff analysis, and I'm happy to go through them if you'd like. But kind of in summary, the main component of an SUP is requiring compatibility between this use and surrounding properties. So looking to see whether this use would impede any sort of normal and orderly development on surrounding properties, whether it would generate any nuisances in terms of access, traffic, odors, lighting, that sort of thing, as well as landscaping and architectural compatibility. So we'll kind of walk through the details of what's proposed here. So you can see outlined in blue, the building itself is just over 5,000 square feet. What they're proposing is a two-lane drive-through here on the east side of the site. So you can see cars would enter here on the south side. And then there are two lanes. I kind of use the yellow stars to indicate where those ordering points would be at the drive-through. And then this would funnel down into one lane that would wrap around the building. And there are two windows here, as is typical at a McDonald 's, where you pay at one window and then pick up at the other. They do have all the required parking for the site. So the size of the development requires 50 parking spaces, which they've accommodated. They do have three points of entry into the site. So you can see here one of the existing driveways is being maintained. If you drive by the site, you'd see there's also a driveway here that will be closed with this development. So they would maintain this driveway, as well as the existing pavement that's here off of South Locust Street would be another entry point. And then, as is required by code for commercial development to have cross access, they would have one point of shared access with the bank property to the north. In looking at the drive-through itself, the DDC has requirements for drive-throughs being screened from the right-of-way when you're in a pedestrian-oriented district. This isn't actually in a pedestrian district, but to make it more compatible and consistent with the area, we talked to the applicant about ways that they could provide screening along the right-of-way, you know, to just limit any visual nuisances that may occur here. It is typical highway development, but we thought enhancing it with landscaping would be appropriate. So what they were able to provide is the required type C buffer between commercial and multifamily development. They've included all of those elements here in the area in light green. And then they've accommodated the required street trees, as well as required parking lot screening here on the front, as well as providing some enhanced landscaping in some of these areas you can see around their signs, as well as some additional bushes and shrubbery here at the entrances to kind of enhance the visuals of this from the right-of-way. So they've accommodated all of the required landscaping, as well as provided excess in the number of total landscaping that's required. Fifteen percent is the minimum. They're at almost 30 percent. And then you can see here they've also proposed some enhanced landscaping along the drive-through to make that more visually pleasing as you're going through. So there are some color elevations, so just wanted to show the schematic drawings of the site here for your reference. The building is approximately 20 feet tall with a combination of masonry and architectural metal as the main materials. So looking here at the colored renderings, fairly typical prototype for a McDonald's. As I mentioned, they do have a combination of brick, some e phas on the upper portions of the building, which is a stuc co-like material, and then these architectural metal panels that have become rather popular at the McDonald's facilities. You can see here on the bottom what the drive-through itself would look like, so kind of the standard McDonald's prototype, as I mentioned. So some of the further analysis that we did for this case was looking at our future land use plan. So this area is deemed on our future land use map for community mixed use, so that is a predominantly commercial designation. It's an area where we're encouraging infill and attractive redevelopment, so that's fairly fitting. Three parcels were taken with the Tex-Dot right-of-way acquisition. And just in general, this is kind of a typical highway- style development that we would see in these areas at the intersection of two major arterials. Looking at surrounding land uses, as I mentioned, we have a bank just to the north. This is Impress Graphics, as the other northern adjoining property. And then we do have quite a bit of multifamily density here behind this use. So, like I mentioned, the McDonald's is not only consistent with what we typically see along a highway, but generally compatible with the mixture in this area. There's a gas station and other fast food just across the street from it. So it's consistent with kind of the auto-oriented development that's in this area. Notifications were sent out about this. We've received no responses to date. The applicant did post the required signs on the property, so you've probably seen those. They've been up since late August. And there wasn't a neighborhood meeting held for this case. They didn't really see that they would get a whole lot of response from the surrounding commercial development, which is consistent with what we saw with our legal notices. But I'm happy to answer any other questions. We are recommending approval of the case with one condition. Commissioner Beck. Go ahead and cite the condition. Okay. It's kind of our standard condition for SUPs that we consider these preliminary drawings as they go through the remainder of replatting the property. We would look at that time a full site plan would come in for review to make sure it's consistent with all of the other requirements of the code. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Chair. Concerning the text dot right-of-way, go back to your site location picture. So the yellow line, everything up the yellow line is the text dot right-of-way? That's correct. All of this property between the existing service road and here has been acquired by text dot. And that's for future use? Correct. Okay, which we don't know what that is right now, right? Yeah, I think they have some schematic plans out. But the future widening of both the actual I-35 corridor as well as the service roads. My only concern, and it may not be that big of a deal, is it'll draw in some extra cars there at feeding time especially. And you've got the three lanes. You've got one where you've got to turn left, one where you got to go straight, and the other one you've got to turn right. And I can see that stacking up at certain hours. It's too bad that McDonald's won't have the opportunity to put a little access lane there to keep the traffic flowing. So, I don't know. We'll just have to see how that goes. And I guess they're parking on the would be the north side. Are they sharing that with the bank next to them? Or is that theirs along that north line? Yeah. This is actually the bank property up here. So they're just showing that for... That's not in their parking account? No, sir. All of their parking spaces are accommodated on site. How many they got on site? They have 50, so you can see they have, you know, kind of parking on all sides as well as actually some parallel spaces, even over here and some back by the dumpsters. Are they over their limit? They're at exactly the required number. Okay, great. Thank you. And with respect to the driveways, they did do a full traffic impact analysis for this. And they've worked with PreTam extensively to make sure that these driveways are at appropriate locations. So, the spacing was a little difficult, but they were able to meet everyone's goals in providing what PreTam considers safe access to the site. Commissioner Sanchez. On what you talk about the vegetation, on the south side you have some trees right there. Now, is there any concern that as those trees mature, they'll hide the McDonald's and it won't be as visible? You know, it is possible, but as is typical with McDonald's , they have plans for all of their normal signs to make sure that their site is adequately visible from the right away. So they would have not only the sign here on Fort Worth Drive, they also have plans to apply for permits for signs along the freeway to make sure the site visibility is maintained. And then of course all these existing trees in this area are within the text out right of way. So, you know, that would be up to text out as to how long those trees maintain on the site. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. That raises another question. Are we going to put the tree protections around those existing trees, even though it's on text out, but I mean, because they could be impacted by construction. So are we, is the city going to be responsible for protecting those trees or is it text out? The tree protection would apply to the area that they're disturbing, which would just be within the boundaries of this lot. So there are several trees. There's one existing tree here within the buffer area as well as a few others that you can see called out here with these large circles, that they would be required to have protection around because those are on their tree preservation plan. So, if some of those existing trees on text out right away gets damaged, nobody's going to take responsibility for that? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe they would have any impact with their development in this area. It shouldn't, it should all be outside of their area of impact. Most of them do look like you've got the cluster right there. This driveway, the paving is already there, so they may do some improvements there, but their construction would be just within their lot. Okay, thank you. So a couple questions. The current exit ramp, is it right at, I'm trying to visualize. Okay, it got moved back. Okay, it used to be a lot closer before this. So that's good. The other question I have is, we just widened I-30, well we , not me. Text out is widened I-35 and the service roads seem to be in place, so it seems, I don't know the timeframe of extending that any further. But what's, who's required to keep that plot of land decent looking? Because it could be years before anything happens there, and we're going to have this text out owned property that is a pretty prime location to the entrance of our city, that no one has responsibility to put nice grasses or anything in? It is fully owned and maintained by TextDOT, it's my understanding. They have kind of the same situation all over the city where they've acquired all this future right of way, but it is owned and maintained by TextDOT. That's concerning. And then the last question I have is, just because we had McDonald's, maybe the same people come a couple years ago, closer to campus or on campus, depending on who you ask. There's a large backlash on signage. There's a lot of talk about the signs they get put up and how tall and where they go. Is that to be determined in this SUP or is that just, they just have to approve staffs or the city's requirements? How does the signage work? Yeah, so signs are, each individual sign would be a separate permit application, so it's not like if they apply for three signs that they'd all get approved or denied together. They're all looked at independently. And those, even though they showed their intended sign locations here on this plan, those are each subject to individual review and approval as they get further through the process. But correct me if I'm wrong, the signage on the primary arterial has a different standard than the freeway side, or is it based on zoning? It is both. It's by zoning and type of roadway. So the Fort Worth Drive sign would have different criteria than the freeway signage. I'm happy to look into what those limits are if you're interested before the regular meeting. Not a big deal. And then they are continuing to drive through TxDOT property. Are they required to maintain all the way up to the curb? Or where is their requirements to maintain that exit? I believe, you know, until something occurs here that this would be their driveway to maintain. They are, or they will be required to get a TxDOT permit for any work that they do on this property, but it would be their driveway to maintain, is my understanding. Okay, thank you. Christian Pernetta. So, I believe one of the entrances is shared by the bank, the one off of Locust. Is that entrance into the McDonald's , do they share an entrance with a, it looks like an apartment complex? I see if it shows up well on the aerial. I have a more zoomed in version. Their driveway would be just south of the apartment. So you can see here it doesn't show up very well. This, where I'm pointing with the cursor , is actually the apartments driveway, and theirs is just south of that. Okay. Kind of right in the in the bend of South Locust Street. So , it's not ideal. But, but it was the best suited location and it is actually existing paving for whatever used to be on that property. It was an existing driveway. Because that's kind of like a tight fit because, because I get around traffic all the time by bailing at Locust and going there. And that's, so it means a lot to me. But, but, so, so what you're describing is like right off the turn right before the bend would be the entrance into the McDonald's. Correct. And that's kind of two quick turns . I'm not, it seems like it might be a little bit dangerous. It was looked at in part of their traffic impact analysis, and what they found is the the apartment driveway has very low traffic volume so they didn't see that there would be any any you know inconsistencies or hazards there if you will between traffic competing between the between the two driveways. It is a quick motion but it being an existing driveway. It was kind of hard to say no you can't use the paving that 's already on your property. But, but all of this was looked at in depth because they were trying to determine, you know , which one of these two driveways here on the service road would be more appropriate. And this was found the southern one closest to that Locust Point was found to be kind of the safer where people would have more time to determine what they're doing as they're entering and leaving the McDonald's with these three lanes on the on the frontage road. But, but yeah that was a concern, but the volume of traffic that uses that apartment entrance wasn't high enough that they thought there would be any conflict there between people trying to get to McDonald's versus the apartments. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on this item. Is the applicant going to be present tonight. I believe so. Thank you. That ends our public hearing items so we will move on to our work session item to to a would be receive a presentation and discussion about project types. I believe this is a continuation from last meeting. Good evening I'm Julie Wyatt. And I am presenting the second half of boot camp for the second half of the introduction of boot camp. So, last meeting we, we started talking about the project type so my task was to talk to you to you about what types of projects that the city typically season that you see, whether or not that project type requires a public hearing, and then who approves it so if I if I repeat myself tell me to keep skipping forward but I think we talked about the pre development meeting and what that meant and what how developers use that pre development meeting. And we had, we started talking about the entitlement process. Had we finished it. I'll dive in and we'll, and we'll, if I repeat myself. That's all right so. So in the development process kind of the next step would be entitlement so. First of all, if a property isn't within the city of Denton , an applicant may choose to pursue an annexation. That's not something that comes before the planning and zoning Commission it would go straight to city council. But as you probably are aware when a property is annexed into the city of Denton, it gets kind of a place holding zoning designation it's not actually zoned. So, so they may have to do a zoning for that property, particularly if they're going to develop something other than a single family home on a five acre lot. So, the first thing the staff does when we receive a rez oning request is to look at the future land use map and the comprehensive plan. If the if a rezoning doesn't match the comprehensive plan. There are a couple ways that could be addressed. One is a comprehensive plan amendment. This is not something that we see terribly often within the city of Denton. The code is pretty specific that it can only be done four times a year and it actually lays out what months can be the comprehensive plan can be amended. But the code does allow for zoning changes that are not consistent with the comprehensive plan to move forward provided that they have additional criteria for approval that they have to, they have to meet so. So the second project type would be that comprehensive plan amendment, it would follow that that process you typically see where there is a public hearing. This group would recommend make a recommendation and then city council would either approve or deny that request a zoning change is something you frequently see and that is, it requires a public hearing. And this, this commission is a recommending body, and then city council would approve or deny that request. Master plan community is something you don't see often as well. If you're curious in sub chapter seven of the Denton development code it lays out that master plan community project type. It really is kind of, it's a plan development but it's a very large scale plan development so the code requires a minimum of either 300 contiguous acres, or 125 contiguous acres provided that it's under one ownership so it's a really large project. It includes the entire zoning, in that it would lay out the text as well as a map for that area the text would include the uses permitted, maybe the development standards, cohesive design, design standards. So, and then it would include a map that would say where those those uses would go so it is really just a very large plan development. We don't have a lot of those I think we have a couple of them within the city but to my knowledge we haven't had one actually developed. So, but they may come forward. Specific use permit, you just, you just talked about one, we see those from time to time. As you're probably aware specific use permit is is required for some uses within zoning districts that may be compatible, but that require a little extra scrutiny. Often there are design considerations associated with it so you saw that Haley talked about that we looked at that that McDonald's is kind of a pedestrian oriented so what kind of landscaping would be associated where would the driveways go how would we, how would those vehicles move safely in and out of the site to ensure that it is compatible with the adjacent development, and when all with also with the, the general character of the area so all those zonings often are just looking at the use and the development scale kind of that high level that specific use really does get into the weeds about where those trees are where those driveways are what the building looks like. That is reviewed by staff. It requires a public hearing, a recommendation and then council will approve a specific use permit plan development. You may or may not be aware we we had planned developments within the city of Denton in the 2002 code they got rid of plan developments but they retained a few of them, I think 16 or 15 of them. So, so we don't have a lot but we do have some and so this plan development amendment sometimes come before you. And typically what you see is the detail plan so it often looks kind of like a specific use permit it's really, there 's a lot of design considerations associated with that not necessarily talking about the use but of course the use would inform the design so. And how it's compatible with the adjacent property so that plan development amendment follows that that public hearing process that staff reviews it, it comes before y'all after that public hearing notification and then council approves or denies it. Yes, sir back. And I could be wrong this along the DC rewrite. The master plan communities. They're going away, aren't they, and being replaced by plan development. I believe so, yes. Okay. Okay, so the ones that exist now though, we still hold them to that criteria that they were formed under right, I'm going to, I would imagine that they're going to continue on as a plan development with those design criteria. Okay, yes. Thank you. All right, so if a developer has got their entit lement in place they've gone through those public hearings, they're looking to forward to developing the property. We start actually looking at the land and how it's going to be split apart or developed. So, so then plotting and environmentally sensitive areas come into play. If the property has an environmentally sensitive area something like a riparian buffer or upland habitat some forested area, they may need to do an environmentally environmentally sensitive area assessment that is approved at the staff level. But what it does is allow staff to go out and look for biological markers that would indicate that an environmentally sensitive area is in place, and then maybe what those boundaries are so that we can actually map it. So, so that would be one step that that the applicant may have to go through a subdivision variance would come before the planning and zoning Commission if they wanted to vary from sub chapter 16 of the Denton Development Code we don't see those very often. But it is a possibility if they wanted to vary from one of those criteria in there, it would, it would require a public hearing, and then, but the decision would be made here. So, the advance plots are a plot that would subdivide the property it doesn't give any development rights for developer it just merely cuts a large tract into several pieces, and that is approved by the planning and zoning Commission, as well as the general development plan, that's also approved by the planning and zoning Commission that would be for large tracks, where we talk about infrastructure and make sure that infrastructure is in place or where it's going to go preliminary plots are approved by the planning and zoning Commission, as are, and then amending and minor plots those are approved by staff, y'all don't ever see those. So just to let you know what a minor plot is a minor plot is a is a plot that subdivide the property into four or fewer lots that no public infrastructure is required, except for a sidewalk, and that would generate fewer than 1000 vehicle trips per day so that's what our code allows that to be approved at the staff level. And so does the Texas local government code. So if an applicant does find that they have an ESA and environmentally sensitive area on their property, they, they may want to impact it, because per the code they can't impact it unless they get approval of an environmentally sensitive area plan so I know we've seen a couple of them I think you just recently saw one that they, they needed to cross that so if if that's the case, staff would review it public hearing is required PNC recommend is a recommending body and then Council would approve civil engineering plans are not something that come here they're part of the final plot review. It's to review things like water and sewer extensions to any perimeter street improvements, any regional drainage. So replats. You're seeing a couple tonight, and that is approved here and then replats and residential replats. Those require a public hearing and they are approved by PNC. We're getting close to the end of an alternative development plan. So, so, a developer has their entit lements they have their planning and now they're looking to develop the site. If, if they cannot meet all the site design requirements or if there's something unique you know, something about their project that they can't meet all of them that are in sub chapter 13 and the development code. They can do something called an alternative development plan. And this is really site specific, it's you specific it's design specific and it is approved or approved or denied or approved with conditions are denied by the planning and zoning commission so essentially an approval by the planning and zoning commission. Often you'll see that maybe they can't meet a certain screening with, but they would come in here and say well I can't meet that with but I'm going to add this mini landscape elements so you can't. So, so there's there's a lot of discussion within the review of that to make sure that the intent of those design criteria are met, but that it provides some flexibility for that applicant, and that would be approved here. No public hearing, but it is a public meeting so that's that that's this razor ranch site plan that's approved you saw one tonight approved by PNC, and then a site plan if an applicant was coming in and they were going to meet all site design requirements in sub chapter 13, then it would just be a staff level approval. These. The next group doesn't come to you it goes to the zoning Board of Adjustment but a hardship variance just for your edification is reviewed by planning or by staff. It does require a public hearing, and then the zoning Board of Adjustment would approve that approve it with conditions or deny it. And then an appeal of an administrative decision is reviewed and approved by PN by ZBA. The historic landmark we see a couple of those come through every year or so that has an extra step to it and that it's it's they make an application with staff. It's reviewed by staff, it goes to the HLC the historic landmark commission, then it comes here and then it goes to city council because it's actually an extra layer of zoning on it on an individual property. So that is mostly all of the project. It generally the ones that we see most often. So this is just a summary and this is kind of a restating of section 35.4.1 and the development code, just as a shorthand PNC approves GDPs and plots, alternative eases plans razor ranch site plans and subdivision var iances. The planning and zoning recommends a is a recommending body and city council approved company comprehensive plan amendments zoning master plan communities SUPs plan development amendments alternative uses, and DDC text amendments, and then city council only looks at annexations. Any questions about that. Okay, I'll be very fast I know y'all are might be boot camp ed out but public hearing requirements we'll talk very briefly about those because I know it comes up from time to time and I know it's a really important part of that of the process. So just to recap there are four elements to the public hearing require or notification requirements. It has to be in the newspaper. There's a mailing component, the sign posting and then the website and then we'll talk briefly about the protest. So first of all newspaper. I don't know if y'all are aware but this is what the newspaper ads look like it has the caption. It has a map contact information and then the meeting information. It has to be in the paper. The day before the day before 15 days before the meeting so essentially 17 days before the meeting. We also have a mailing. The city of Denton goes above and beyond with the Texas local government code requires so the Texas local government require Texas local government code requires that the newspaper, and then a mailing to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. The city of Denton does do that mailing, and here is kind of a just to pull out of what that looks like. Recent projects have have caused some confusion for the public about what was actually being considered so we're always trying to improve our public notification and our public outreach and so recently we've added to our notification letters, a little blurb about kind of what the project, what's really being considered not just the caption the captions, fairly vague so we're trying to improve that make sure that we're providing the public with enough information to make decisions to make decisions about what kind of feedback they want to give. So, this, the 200 foot notification by the city of Denton is sent certified mail that is above and beyond with the Texas local government code requires. And it does have to be sent it 12 days, two days, the day before the day before 10 days before the meeting so essentially 12 days before the meeting, and that it's, it's male to each owner as indicated by the most recently approved city tax roll that can create some confusion, because houses are bought and sold all year long, and so, but this tax rolls are only certified once a year. So it. There can be some lag time and that, you know, sometimes you don't always get the most current information on there. Julie. Is there a reason that the city doesn't use the central app raisal district that seems to have more updated information about ownership. We do get that information once a year. I believe it's our DDC that that talks about that it has to be the most recently approved city tax roll so, and we've talked internally about having some sort of rolling where we get that most up to date information, but under current regulations, it's got to be that that once a year shot at those at those tax rolls, so. We also go beyond but this may, I think this helps it a little bit because the city requires an additional mailing that goes to the property address so we send it to the property owner, and then we also send it to the property address so if we don't capture them within that property owner, we at least get them on the address and they get the postcard and I think we worked pretty closely with this group here about how to best notify property owners within the 500 feet. And that does go both to the people within 200 and 500. Yes , sir, that whole so that entire boundary Yes, sir. So, so if you're within 200 feet you're getting a certified letter and you're getting a postcard from us. So we do residents. The postcard there was a lot of discussion about what do people open, how can we make sure that they see it. And it was the postcard we felt like was the best, the best way because it's it provides the caption . It provides a map, and it's a quick snapshot that they can look at and know that it probably. They probably need to pay attention to it. We also require the applicants to put signs on the property , so that as people pass by I know we've we've recently u pped the size of the signs because they were quite small and we're difficult to read. So we've, we've, they've generated a lot of interest and that's a good thing. And then our website, the all upcoming public hearings are put on our website so those are four ways we try to try to alert the public to what's coming up. So there's a protest component to this. And just to, we see this map a lot, and I don't know how often we explain it but just to go over it briefly. So, just this is a recent case this is the property in yellow. The boundary there is in red and then there's the 500 foot boundary per the Texas local government code property owners within 200 feet of the subject site, have the ability to protest, the, the action or the request. They have to provide the protest in writing. And, and the only portion that counts is the part that is actually. That 200 feet so. If you're this property owner only this part here counts toward that protest so it is, it is the the land area within that. If there is a protest that exceeds 20% of that land area, then it does require a supermajority at City Council. I would also say if this, if this group votes to deny or recommend denial of a request that would also trigger a supermajority at City Council, and that's six out of seven. Any questions. All right. I'm going to talk about maybe how that goes. Excuse me, up until the meeting. So it doesn't just stop it after the PNC hearing. That's a really good point those that goes up until when City Council votes and we've, we've been sitting at City Council before with our calculators so we've we've had some where they really got up to the wire, and then tie vote, I don't know if I could speak elo quently on tie vote I might ask legal or Scott to jump in here and just one piece that's important when we talk about the supermajority Scott McDonald director of development services that we're going to be bringing forward a piece that's going to address the tie vote provision that it will still continue to be a denial as this report is recognized to the past we've had a tie vote that ultimately was just going to continue perpetually unless we address this. So Council had been provided with the presentation, addressing the issue how they want to address it with a variety of boards or just specifically with PNC. Their recommendation was to bring forward that we would address it with PNC only we are going to provide a text amendment, which is going to address the fact that if there is in fact a tie vote. That tie vote would be a denial, and it would go forward to counsel. And then it would just be a regular majority with counsel. So, just kind of cool questions, Christopher Smith. Thank you, Chair. Did we model that ordinance or that text amendment on other cities who have that already put in place or where did we decide, not that I disagree with the deciding to make it a denial just that that is finite to the applicant that if there's a tie perpetual tie. Is, is it only in the case where there's a perpetual tie or is it, you know, Andrew's missing that one meeting, or type boom it's a denial whereas if we wait two weeks, Andrew's back, we could have a final decision, and perhaps we should leave this not not to steal any of your time away from what we're doing here today I just wanted to mention that that will be coming before you as a work session, or as it as an item that has to go through the process just like any other text amendment. I just wanted to reference that as we talk about simple majority that make sure that you're aware of where we're at this happened on September 11, September 11 meeting we just haven't had an opportunity to discuss that I think we have October 24 slated that that I don't will be come before you with a presentation. We'll grow you on them. Perfect. We're back. Thank you chair and to tag on to that, I guess. So if we do have a tie here, you're saying it can go on. Or let me, let me put this way, the applicant. Do they have the choice to not take it to city council at that time, and in anticipation of having a full PNC coming back later, or do they have to go forward at that point. I think I'll defer to our legal counsel but I would make the assumption that they ultimately could withdraw that item, but I don't know. I think that's one that we probably just have to research and bring back to you. I think we'll have to work out the details on that. But one of the interesting things also is, once it gets up to the city council that six out of seven or whatever the superma jority is if one of them is out. That doesn't matter. It's, it's, you have to have the super majority of the, the council members who are eligible to vote. So unless they're disqualified, you use the same percentage . Just for clarification, you mentioned, I just want to make sure I heard you right. If there's potentially a tie that goes to council it's just a regular majority as opposed to an outright denial at the commission. So, those denials kind of represent different voting at the council level. Did I hear that right. It will leave as a denial, but it will go, it will go to council and the staff recommendation will be the same or it 'll be clear that it's, that was a tie vote reason for the denial because in, I think it's in the local government code that states as a denial the tie. So, but rather than getting in too much of the detail just wanted to bring that back to light so that we weren't just so it was clear. Yeah, appreciate that. Thank you. All right. So we've talked about the land development process about the zoning and then the plotting comes zoning first and plotting and site plan. So, we won't, we'll kind of skip over this slide and just talk about what projects we've had in the last few years. Richard made this presentation at City Council I'm going to try to at least slightly describe it or I don't he might want to jump in and you want to give me. I can go ahead. All right. So, so this really lays out the types of projects that we 've seen and the numbers of scene that we've seen in the last few years so as you're probably where it didn't pretty busy and didn't growing so like for instance in 2016. We had 206 plats. This year we were up to 159 so far. This year. For zoning cases. We've had 35 this year so far, those may not have all come to you yet but applications that we've had 2016 was 57. And then last year was 43 of the zoning cases so you know you can see that we have a lot of projects coming through the city, Christian back. I'm sorry I'm confused. Did you say you had to hunt the blue. You said those are plants. Yes, sir. The indication is that there are alternate development plan . Oh, there's little time, the blues. Yeah, the ADP is the is the very orange. So we have a lot we see a lot of variety come through not only the city of Denton but that come before you as well. And then as part of our process we've we've tried to look at how, how long projects are taking to go through the city , and then how we can improve on that we want to make sure that we're moving things forward appropriately and that we 're not creating delays. So, for instance, pre development meetings in 2016 they were taking an average of 30 days for someone to get in and meet with staff for an hour. This year so far it's it's about 10 days. So from when they they call us and say I have a dream. And they can sit down with staff and and talk about it. Complete this review that's part of all of the applicant when we receive an application the first thing staff does is make sure all the parts are there that we need to review it and so that can, and then send it out to all the necessary reviewers in 2016 that process took 17 days in 2018 we're down to two. So, our leadership has made a lot of process improvements and and and in order to get things moving through the process more quickly, Julie what what happened in September 17. Oh, Richard. There was a change in leadership. And then this is the average days to approval. The blue is is 2016 the orange is 2017 and then the yellow is, is this year so rezoning cases are about 76 days, and you think about what goes into a rezoning they apply then staff has to review it make sure we've got all the necessary the legal description the correct project narrative, and then we've got to send out the public notification staff report staff analysis it 's got to go to PNC, and then about a month after PNC it goes to counsel so that's that's in about 76 days this year , SUP is down to 42 days. ADP is about 51 days site plans are about 74 days there's a lot that goes into reviewing a site plan and you know not only the planning part but also there's some engineering fire looks at those. So, our water administration group preliminary plots are about 85 and then final class so you can see that our, our review times are trending in a good direction. And then application types we compared some cities around us. So Denton's in the yellow and then and then the other communities are in other colors. So you can see how we stack up to to the surrounding develop or the surrounding communities rezoning Denton's about about average with what what the other communities are doing preliminary plots were a little, little, little higher than. Are these the numbers. These are on per month. Okay, sorry, the numbers per month see there's where I failed. So, Richard, you want to chime in here. So, applications per month. These, these were the, the, the length of review in months. So, okay, so what we did is we converted because some gave us numbers on business days some gave on calendar days. And so what we did is we just looked at it as on a monthly basis as, as opposed to trying to. Mr. Smith. Thank you, chair. What makes why why is you know if you look at some of those cities up there pretty all low like Louisville, why is it that that Louisville can keep their length of time shorter than hours, or, you know, another, another city what is it that makes a city faster more efficient with their processing time than it is another city. What what goes into that second chance how the sausage is made a little bit. I think a lot of that has to do with, with just how the code is drafted. Also on number of number of staff. One thing I want to point out, because I think it's, it's, it's really something that you know you saw those changes within that that I guess the last quarter of last calendar year, we only had two people doing the review so as we kept that ship around. I mean it really was just Haley and Julie that were handling all of those reviews I think they were at one point had like 70 cases each. So, it's a lot. It was a lot for those to handle so it's sort of a combination of both I think really when it gets down to when you start looking at at at platting that that 's probably the substantial. I would say reason is just processes and how the code has been updated. And I think I would add to that with our, our rewrite of our development code. I think with the, with the better organization of the code it will, it will further continue these improvements on being able to find where the reg, what regulations apply and when you're looking at the number of reviews. The goal is to kind of keep something at two reviews. That is the, that's that red line, or that's, that's what we're at right now. Correct. All right. Okay. So those just the average number of reviews and the type of application. So you see site plan ADP from that preliminary plat and final plat. We were at least at the average number of reviews for 16 and 17 or three. Right now we're at about two average of two reviews. One thing that's important. We'll get to the slides next is after the second review there's a third review fee that comes in. So there is an additional cost that gets passed off to the applicants who are trying to keep that within within the two reviews. All right. So here's the number of reviews by year. And that when you do go into that third review it can get kind of expensive, especially when you've got an engineering review fee. So, and the colors are just not. So, for instance, in 20 sorry, in 2018. And this is representative of projects that had greater than greater than three reviews. So we'll see where that we 're trending down that in 2016. We had 63 projects that had three or more reviews. And last year, it went down to 52 and now we're down to 34 so we're really trying to streamline that make sure we give them really good feedback up front, make sure that we help help them through that process, and that, and that we can, we can make sure that we're not creating process delays. So, you've gone through the hard part of the boot camp so. Why do I keep sorry. All right. So we'd like to keep this going, we'd like to continue the conversation with you about topics and planning, and what what you do here on Wednesday nights what what staff is doing, and then the types of the types of analysis that we 're doing within the city so really, suggesting some upcoming sessions first of all, talk about the comprehensive plan it's been several years since it was adopted to really have an in depth conversation about what all the parts are the comprehensive plan what we look at what the vision is and the goals of that comprehensive plan what did I do, can you put in a presentation mode just so the TV picks it up. I can. Thanks. There you go. Next, talk about zoning really dive into what we look at in a zoning and an SUV and a plan development amendment and, and what what compatibility means what the, you know what a rational nexus means for for conditions. All of those elements associated with those types of projects fundamentals of subdivision, when you look at a plat what are you actually looking at what are the parts of the plat. What does a plat do how does it help the city. grow and develop in an organized way. What urban design principles. We look at what urban design principles are within the code and what are good urban design principles mobility. It's not just for cars anymore. We have a bike peg coordinator. We've got transit oriented development within the city of Denton we have, we have rail so what does the mobility in the city look like what what mobility options do we have for our citizens, and how do those play into the decisions that are made here. Some creative zoning interventions that other communities have done things like form based code incentive code conservation and performance, and then topics in urbanism things like tactical urbanism or kid friendly cities. The benefits of street trees so all of those so like to keep this conversation going do some really fun topics and talk about how these topics play into the to the projects that we have so be coming forward soon. And then, finally, if you have any questions and then I've just suggested some further reading we have American Planning Association Texas APA. If you've never gone to the north central Texas Council of governments website, you should go it's got a ton of information on their Texas local government code it's kind of the standard by which we, we, we conduct ourselves and that that our code flows from some websites I don't know if you've ever looked at planet is in but it's got some really cool topics in planning strong towns and city lab or other one. And streets blog is another website street mix I don't know if you've ever been on street mix but you can create your own street street section which is really fun you can put put your bike lanes in there and your, your parking and your travel lane so that's sidewalks. And then some other places you may want to look just some, some planning interventions that have happened within our community recently near south side incorporated you may want to look at their website. They just want an award from APA for one of the great places in the in America, that Magnolia Street, I don't know if you've ever been down there in Fort Worth, but it's pretty cool. And then also the Trinity River vision authority in Fort Worth that was the plan they started making 20 years ago that's now starting to come to fruition so it kind of helps you see how the plans and those comprehensive plans really eventually do end up to be a place you can visit so that's all I have unless you have any questions. Commissioner Beck. I just want to do a big head tip to the staff are doing an excellent job of Lauren these numbers and these reviews and those developers appreciate it but time wise I think you've done a great job of election you so keep it up. Thanks. Thank you very much, Julie. So at 544 we're going to take a break for some food and then we'll return at 555. We'll return at 555 for presentation on trees. Thank you and welcome back to the plan and zoning Commission, it is 554. And I will turn it over to Richard presentation on the tree preservation and landscape code. Good evening, I just wanted to provide sort of another update. As far as where we are with the tree code update just kind of giving the running the running timeline. As you remember we were here about a month ago, and went went over some of the, some of the proposed concepts. We're still continuing to to refine those, we met with the committee on the environment on the 17th. And we have some additional additional homework to do that I'll get into, but at least wanted to provide kind of that that running running update as well as get get some guidance and input early on from from the commission. So now we were looking at going back to committee on the environment on the fifth of November. And then shortly thereafter, bringing it back, perhaps, you know work session but maybe it might, depending where we are at that point, it might warrant also having it as part of a discussion with the regular PNC meeting to get some initial input from from from residents and stakeholders. And so some of the discussion items again this this is some of the stuff you might have not have seen it already from from the last presentation but just kind of wanted to go over some of the discussion items that we had at the last, at least at the last meeting. Applicability canopy goal again tree tree classifications, and then really the revisions to the draft from this last draft that we had, and it was focusing really on limiting limiting clear cutting, but allowing for some mitigation, and then guiding the priorities to to preserving larger trees tree stands and habitat. And so we kind of took a step back also in preparing this and and kind of talked about let's let's think of these concepts in terms of being pragmatic and and and how how how can we actually enforce them. But also being practical and can they can they be implemented. And so let's let's have some common sense as we as you bring these forward but again guiding those priorities to towards larger trees tree stands and habitat. And then really looking at preservation restoration repl anting or payment in lieu. And so I still get asked a lot of you know is the current code that bad or or or things that we just haven't followed . And like most things I would say it's a little bit of both . So these are at least my my highlights of some of the negatives with with the current code inconsistent conflicting language. Oftentimes there's confusing or text is buried in sections where you don't necessarily think it should be. There's a lot of just insufficient to really support our overall goals of if we really do want to increase the canopy. There are components that are hard to enforce. There have been components that haven't been implemented as a result. There's not much in terms of mitigation. And where it really gets confusing is you have the choice of doing it by DB or canopy. And sometimes it's it's more beneficial to do canopy because it actually ends up being less DB which would actually require a greater greater canopy and I'll show some of the some of those examples. Positive of course it was well intentioned. It does require that that a notation on the plat be there identifying where those preserved trees are. I mean actually the code actually requires a bond for replacement trees and the city's required to hold on to that bond for three years and after that after that three years. If 90 percent of those replacement trees are in healthy or good condition and that bond is returned. If not, then that those that bond is there to to pay for those trees. This is something I don't believe we have have been doing. But again these are just requirements that we haven't done there. There is the ability to do a tree trust. Again I don 't think that's ever been ever been implemented. And this is one that I literally found about three weeks ago. The code does provide for administrative parking reductions for tree preservation. It doesn't dictate where it has to be. It just gives you a credit. One space for 12 inches of DBH and it allows really for an automatic 15 percent reduction. And then with the approval of the director up to 30 percent reduction in parking. And so that that was something that was buried underneath the table that that it just kind of caught my eye. And again just kind of that organization of it. If you're not really searching hard you can just kind of over overlook some of these things. And so again looking at at the applicability I know we had a discussion on this last time and what you see in red. These are changes as a result of the last discussion with with C.O.E. One thing that we did include into the applicability section rather than I think it was part of the permitting section is the exemption for single family and duplex lots with trees under 10 inches of DBH. And again this was this was something that's in the local government code as a result of that that bill. And so for me as we continue to go through it it just made more sense of rather than having it buried in in the permit section. Let's just put it right off at the beginning for applic ability. Commissioner back. Thank you chair. I still have a problem with exempting completely the me. I think there's time and I understand they need to have that room but it seems like we need to look at it as they move along. And if they run into a big tree or something like that that somehow we can work around. I think we ought to you know set something aside for that too instead of just giving them carte blanche and they're not anymore. So the directive was that's why I had it in red and with the strike through. So we did we also did strike DME from from. Okay. From the exempt list capital improvement projects and you saw the way to sell these two. So right now it would just be the agricultural operations. City Airport, and then the single family and duplex. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. So from the current draft that 's in our backup. These are changes from the result of that last correct. They're good changes. Thank you. And we, you know, we still have quite a quite of a lengthy discussion on on tree canopy goal and the 30%. I think you saw this. You saw the slide last time I think when I had presented looking at 2014 to where we are now. We did do some some additional analysis and I thought I thought this was interesting. We looked at when we first prepared this map. We then annex ed as a result we annexed the Creekside development the 47 acres. And just wanted to see how that how that 47 acres, because there was a substantial amount of those trees being preserved. And interestingly enough, it actually it reduced the overall canopy not by a lot. But again, it went from point nine seven twenty seven point nine seven to twenty seven point nine six. And so, again, as we continue to annex properties that that number that number starts to starts to go down again. This was a property that I think was preserving 80 80% of the canopy from that, if I'm not mistaken. So, again, that will slightly go down. But this was just purely based on on what we what we annexed and what's on the ground today. Again, so we then we looked at can interrupt real fast. Can you help me with the math there? The 47 acres have 80% coverage. How could that lower the city percent wouldn't that that 47 acres would have to be lower than 27. I'm sorry. Wasn't 80% of the of the can was 80% of the trees on the property. Gotcha. OK. Thanks. Yep. And then we looked at what's in the E.T.J. So so within the division one of possible annexations in the near future and how much of that area has a tree canopy tree canopy coverage. And it's approximately twenty seven twenty eight twenty percent twenty seven point six two. Then we looked again at city proper and then including that E.T.J. division one boundary just seeing again this is just purely kind of holding the line. And what that does for overall numbers and it does bring it up. But again, at that twenty eight point just over twenty eight twenty eight percent. And then we went we went further and looked at platted versus unplatted lots with with within the area and how much of that has canopy and and or what's the percentage of the canopy. Interestingly, the platted lots have have a greater percent of canopy coverage. I think part of that is a result of our landscape requirements. And so you'll start to see that that difference versus unpl atted lots. Twenty eight twenty eight roughly twenty eight and a half percent. Then we did look at at just our own city on properties that are that are undeveloped. And what do we have as far as tree canopy on our on our own properties. And currently we're almost at forty five percent forty four point eight. And so as we discussed this, we kind of went through the analysis of where kind of where we came up with a 30 percent and looking at U.S. Forest Services, particularly for the Eastern Cross Timbers and Grand Prairie. And since it kind of splits, I say we got very scientific. And when we came up with the thirty and really to split the difference between twenty and forty. That that brought up a an interesting conversation at COE. And they talked about having a really having a split. Interestingly, when I met with Texas A&M Extension Service, one of the comments that they gave to me is, have you has has the city looked, although it's not so like tree preservation, but actually preserving some of the prairie area out west. And that was that was a the same sentiment that that COE shared. And so what we looked at is what we're looking at right now is essentially having I-35W and I-35 North as kind of that dividing line with a canopy on the east side at 40 percent and prairie twenty percent. I know there was also a concern with with some of the species that are growing kind of in the prairie area that that really aren't beneficial for for that. Chris Rebecca. Thank you, Chair. Elaborate on that. What do you mean by not beneficial? Because are we talking about the way they look? Mesquite cottonwood, some of the trees that that really aren't aren't. Okay. And I, again, I don't have a problem when you're talking about trees that are going to be detrimental to other landscape areas, but are all mesquite trees and the hack berries in here. We're concerned about the thorns and the shallow rooting. Are all the mesquite trees and hackberries, you know, are they not the other type that are deep rooted and without th orns because those types do exist. Is dentin plagued with the thorn shallow rooting types? We're still going through the going through that tree list. We're doing an inventory. Okay. Good. Thank you. Chris Sanchez. Yeah. When you're talking about the prairie, you're talking more about grasses rather than woody vegetation. So you're talking about species that will be more susceptible or if you if you try to maintain those is more of a fire ecosystem because that's what the maintain the prairie. So if you're talking about something like your Indian grasses, those type of grasses, I mean, that's what you'll find in the prairie. And I think that's why it wouldn't be very beneficial. You don't want those type of grass inside the cities and burn the cities down. At least that's the way I look at it. And so this was another another change. This was one Heywood actually I thought had a good idea. There's there's what's called the Texas Big Tree Registry. And this is through again through through Texas A&M Forest Services. One thing I did want to make a clarification is from from what I understand. And again, I'm trying to get a little bit more information on this. But rather than just have the historic tree, we included it as a landmark tree. And so the landmark tree would include still the historic designation, which currently we have none. But also if if you are on this Texas Big Tree Registry again. So if an owner wanted to designate their property or design ate a tree on that on on their own property, it would provide for that that again another layer of or level of protection. Heritage trees, 18 inches or greater at DVH in all post o aks and blackjack oaks. I think Commissioner Sanchez, that was one thing you had mentioned at the last PNZ meeting. And then quality trees, six inches to to 17.9. I'll just say 17 because we tend around anyways. But those those would be the tree types. And so I know that we're as I said, we're continuing to sort of hone in on this list and have much debate about what what should or shouldn't be on or or not on the list. But again, looking at it in terms of what our what our existing canopy is. And so I know Haywood had initially come up with with the list that you see here on on the right and some of the concerns that he had shared related to those. But if you kind of look at all of those, as I have highlighted together, they do represent approximately 41 percent of the existing canopy. And so, again, there's also that trying to balance it out. There is also that concern with just allowing these to be completely removed. It does represent 41, 41 percent of the existing canopy. Richard, have you looked at where that lines up to the potential I-35 corridor split? It seems like some of the Mesquite would be in the areas in which you're maybe potentially be preserving less. And we're that's where we're starting to go on. I just finished. We just got the map today this afternoon on the split. And so that's where we're continuing to do some some additional some that additional analysis and exactly what that means. Chris, you're cold. Do you have a question? The honey Mesquite is that that's the thorny Mesquite. I believe so. I think that's. What's the other time? I haven't even seen the other type. Every one I see as a thorn in it. So that's all over. Is there a. Is there another there's another. Other than the honey. So what is this this year? This this this came from from this from the study that was done in 2016. They did a tree inventory. Is that 21 percent? I can guarantee is a lot higher now. Yeah, then it was two years because they do. Yeah, thank you. And so rather than we kind of change it to rather than have exempt just really protected trees and non protected trees. So, of course, any dead or unhealthy trees Mesquite, we initially had it as part of a conservation easement when we presented this to see we we took that off. If you recall, we had a concept of that preserved habitat, which was adjacent to an ESA. And so as we looked at it and so if it is a continuation of an ESA area and those trees, whether they be Mesquite, honey, locust, if they are providing some sort of benefit to to a habitat area, maybe it makes sense not to not to completely have those exempt if they are if they are included with with that extension. Again, that would be the extension of the ESA. Again, the boat are hack bearing cottonwood that continues to be the the three trees that are discussed the most. We looked at part of the discussion that we had at the last meeting with C.O.E. We had it that is that's less than six inches would be non protected. I know there was a concern with just the growth rate of I think the cottonwood and the hackberry that they grow pretty pretty rapidly. And so we we looked at one thing we're looking at now is if it's less than 18 inches, I think that's what we had on one of the initial drafts. And we kind of are coming back around on this. And so, again, we're still still analyzing this and seeing exactly what what it means and eventually wanting to get input from from a multitude of of individuals on on particularly these trees. Mr. Beck. Thank you. What was the rationale for taking these trees out of conservation easement. There was a concern that that we had, again, trying to promote the saving of a larger of the larger species, particularly the post oak or blackjack. If it wasn't a continuation of a habitat, if if if it happened to be part of a conservation area that only had mosquitoes on a section of that property, then you wouldn't consider it then then under this scenario, they would be. Again, the likelihood of that happening. But again, I would hate for it to happen. They could preserve the mosquitoes and not the oaks, it would still have to actually there would be no mitigation the way of conservation. And so we didn't want to have it as as as the possibility of being being abused. And so really if it was a continuation of the habitat. That was that was the intent. Thank you. And again, just going like to just recap again on on on the existing code and what we have today. Again, so this is these are our current info standard inf ill standards. So you see the the less than half acre half to one and then one one to two of what's required. So less than a half acre. There's really unless you have have a historic tree, there's no preservation requirement, no mitigation. And then if you're two acres, again, no minimum required. It's just a mitigation for protected trees and then quality quality tree stands is really not. So you have no no minimum requirement, no mitigation outside of the outside of or or non info lots again quality trees quality tree stands is where you kind of get into again less than an acre. None. And then once you get up to greater than two and a half acres, it's a minimum of 20 percent for single family duplex and 25 percent for multi family non residential. And then those can be reduced by 50 percent at a one to one and a half ratio. And so you could you could essentially drop that 25 percent down to twelve and a half percent. So it's not not a whole lot. This is current. And then this is the here's kind of that breakdown. Another another one that came up with respect to tree stands. This was a parcel that had a lot of blackjack and post oaks . They did have some preservation area, but they weren't required to to mitigate any any of the because they had to eat. There was no mitigation requirement for for the tree stand of current of the current remaining oaks on a property. And so, again, that'll be another one. Another area that's substantially lost. But again, they are they are complying with the code. And again, so we looked at at what should it be? Should we really should this really be the focus again? And I think I talked to to see initially kind of on the policy side of this. How do we want to what do we what are our goals? What do we want to achieve from this? Are we really looking to have sort of a mitigation approach to this or are we really looking at at restoration? And what's what's the focus? Because you can kind of go two different ways in how you how we structure it. And so we kind of took the we kind of took the approach of restoration. So if we're really trying to increase our tree canopy rather than have that that payment or some other method, let's look at ways that one we can we can meet our goals of trying to preserve the type of trees that you keep that aren't commercially available. Number one, but also then some of those other larger trees and again, looking at replacement of trees, whether they be on or off site, but still having that that payment in lieu option. And again, there's still that that policy question that we continue to discuss and how should those funds be spent from the from the tree fund. And so, again, this is just that that example current code. This is a site that went with a 25 percent of the of the canopy zero protected trees. But when you look at when you look at if they would have if they would have been required to go by DBH, it's substantially different. So it it result that 25 percent can be resulted in 11 percent DBH. This was part of an ESA. So there was credit for it. So as long as they as long as that was preserved, there were no additional tree preservation requirements required. Just to give you a proposed code example again, this is again looking at this practically minimum preservation 30 percent of DBH, which is essentially almost twenty two hundred inches restoration. Five thousand one hundred and fourteen. And then with that multiplier depend depending on the tree, it puts it up to fifteen thousand three hundred and forty two inches. Now, the likelihood of that even being able to be planted is slim to none. But again, the focus is allowing for credits to get focused on a certain type of tree size or species. But just thinking in terms of having to plant that many inches, you're looking at at almost seventy seven hundred two inch trees, which is quite a lot and probably not practical. And so that's where we started to look again at allowing for those credits for that restoration. And then so if you're depending on what you're preserving, being able then to pull a credit from what you're preserving. And so while while it's getting counted against you, you're also getting credited back. And so if you if you the larger you preserve or the type you preserve, the greater credit you get. So if you're a post or blackjack, you get a three three inches for every inch preserved and then and then kind of on down the list and then and then you get into into the restoration requirements. So the goal really is to is to try to focus on on again the larger trees and the post of blackjack and not requiring so much mitigation. We also looked at including some additional incentives, looking at an energy conservation credit for either mitig ated or preserved large canopy trees if they're on the western or southern exposure. If it's a landmark tree, really, really bumping up that that replacement credit to give them four times the DBH, which is which is pretty, pretty substantial. And then again, that that conservation easement allowing if those restoration trees or even preserve trees are are included, allow for a allow for a credit, a tree cluster credit. And this was another a newer one. And we still thought keeping that parking space reduction is is is is worthy. We didn't include the 30 percent, but we are we are recommending that we keep that that 15 percent required. And then this just gives you an example. We ran this one out again based on based on the incentives and this was this one was fairly easy to run because it was all blackjack and post oak. So we can understand what the credits were. And so with this, we get to a mitigation of 10,000 nine hundred and fifty nine inches. The mitigation credit again, because you have the preserved habitat. Again, this goes back to if you recall, we talked about the development impact area. So the ESA is excluded and then it will also be excluded from the from the landscape required area as well as preservation habitat. So if you look at what that what it brings it down to is this would actually result in a in a credit of 21 inches towards towards landscaping. And so that could be used whether it's on the buffer to the north or some other some other method. Christian Beck. Thank you, Chair. When we mitigate these trees, are they going on this development or are we putting those trees somewhere else that they're well, this one there would be no they would not they would not have to they would not have to plant any new trees as a result of preservation. So we're going to be playing them on some other area within the city. Well, they was well there would be no trees that would be required to be planted, because they would because they preserve the blackjack oak and post oaks right and then dedicated dedicated it within the preserved habitat. So as a result of the credits that they would receive. There would not be any additional trees that they would have to plan. In fact, they would actually result in a in a 21 inch credit. Okay. Thanks. And then this is just another example. This was one that had the majority of the trees on this site. This is sort of off a box this is Bonnie break south end of the city. Majority of the trees here were pack buried sugar berries. Total DBH 3260 inches. And so looking at, and I'll jump to the red first under the current code. They were required 14% of the DBH, there were some quality trees. So that amounted to 461 inches they mitigated, or, which was the equivalent of 1.14% of the canopy. And so they had to mitigate 150 inches, which resulted in a payment for $18 ,750. The proposed preservation 30% of DBH. Again, this is going to change but it just wanted to paint paint the example that restoration required, and then incentives for the conservation area, if they were to dedicate these areas that would account for 27.71%. And remember, as we discussed at the last meeting, you can take the 30% requirement down to 20%. If you, if you do either a conservation area or a preserve habitat. And so looking at, at, at the exempt tree so assuming that if we just looked at all of the hackberry and cottonwood and everything on that list, just as being exempt just to kind of give that example of what what that equates to of the total DBH 3260. A total quality trees of 200 inches. And so that that that was 6.13% of the total DBH. And so, 30% minimum required preservation off that 26060 inches. So you can see it's it's substantially less than than anything else so that's where we're, we're still in that discussion about which which trees and what size and. But again, there is this does not include the length in the landscape requirements that do have a percentage of of canopy that's required as a result of the landscape Richard help me understand, or maybe I already understand. It seems as though this this proposed preservation or restoration plan would actually allow properties to have less than a 30% tree, if they're all preserving landmark trees so if they have to gigantic landmark trees. So basically they could take away a ton of trees because the four to one credit is is one is that interpretation correct and two, does that mean the city is okay with not meeting like a 30% canopy coverage, as long as the 18% we have are all awesome trees. I think I think it's too but well one one theoretically it could happen if there's, you know, large large trees. It's a substantial. If you look at it kind of that that list. I went through it I don't think there's at least from I think it was last week was the last time I looked at it there's not one tree and Denton County. That's on that that's on that list currently, not to say there's not a tree that could make it there's just none that have been put on that trend, I do know Tarrant has some in Dallas County. Tell me the second part of class sorry. Well it just seems that the goal of 30% canopy could be less if we're increasing the quality trees and is the city. Okay with that under this. It would again they would still have their they would still have the the canopy requirements from the landscape code. And so this is just this is just one one component of it. And then again looking at the mitigation alternatives this is this is essentially the same language that we have today with respect to, to what the tree fund can can be used for. And then we're still having a. Chris are back. Thank you, go back. Okay. Let's talk about preserving property meaning naturalistic state and that's one thing I've touched base with you on I 'd like to expand on if we could. We have. I'm sure we do we have areas that we need to preserve as development comes into it. To be specific I'm talking about those trees between Br inker and mayhill, where there's a lot of development going on that's part of the upper habitat. And if we keep munching away at that. We're gonna lose a lot there so do. Are we trying to design ate some areas now that would qualify to preserve, we haven 't got to the point where we're, we've identified here's properties that we should, you know, identify for for purchase. We can we can certainly get to that point but but I haven't , I haven't, we haven't gone out and said here's, you know, here's a great stand up of post and I understand we have and that's my concern what, because the delay just prevents us from preserving a lot of these trees so what is the delay why can't we set something in motion now and designate some areas, and then debate it, you know, not say, okay, we're definitely going to do this, but let's pinpoint some areas right now one I 've already mentioned to you, and kind of go from there because if we just continue putting it off and putting it off. We lose a little bit by a little bit and we're dealing with it in these conditions when they come before us. We have these minimum requirements. So, don't mean to put you in the spot, but I mean, is there some way we could initiate something on this post haste. Yeah, what I can do is, is I will relay that back to the committee on the environment. Okay. I do know that that have they have they brought it up . It's about still having the ability to purchase land but we haven't got into a discussion about identifying specific properties. I do know that was discussed at one point in the past, but nothing, nothing. I don't believe anything resulted from that. No part of the concern is going to be cost and we've got so much money in the tree fun. Do we have any protection as a city in order to protect these trees to pay. What is the appropriate value for it instead of somebody jacking the price up and trying to get as much as they can which we understand but we're in a situation where we're trying to preserve trees for safety and health reasons, and we would pay them for it. And a realtor could probably help me. Thank you. Do we have anything. Does the city have any other than then, you know, an em inent domain proceedings I think would be difficult for market value. Right. And I'm okay with that what I'm worried about is we go in and we're trying to preserve an area, and somebody, you know, decides what they want more than that, because they have other plans for probably to and I understand that but. So we don't have any protection other than an eminent domain. Not not that not that I'm aware of. Okay. Thank you. Chris or Alice. Thank you, Chair. So y'all know I'm not a big fan of the tree fund. Just, it just makes it way too easy. The idea of just training people is okay but it doesn't help towards the goal of planting trees. So I would hope that if we're going to keep this as an option. Since we're giving them an option to pay into a tree fun. And then they can remove trees. We've got to have some kind of parameters that we're using that money to plant trees, it doesn't make any sense why we would use it for much else. That's the option is we're going to take these trees and we 're going to give you money into the tree fund, you would think that would go towards planting trees. And I, and it just has not been consistent in any kind of way and I would hope that if we're going to keep it that something gets written into there that we are planting a significant amount of trees with the tree fund every single year. I think I think the the the missing link to that is, is the sort of the tree management plan that was intended to be done. I think there was money budgeted last year again we requested it for this year. And really the goal of that plan is to identify where and what should should be planted. And so, so once we have sort of this, this tree management plan and where we're going to plant on within street trees or on city property, then it's easy to. Okay, here, here's what the plan identified of where we can and what should be planted where. And, you know, that was also just going through is concerned well how are we, where are we planting them in parks, and, and do we know that they're then going to be preserved and they're not going to be taken down at some some other in the future. And so I think that's where it goes back to having that having that plan and being able then to to go through okay yeah here here's what we accomplish here's here's where those funds were expended. I mean a plan is what I'm asking for because it just isn't one, we're just collecting money. And it's not helping the goal of what our tree code is supposed to be doing. And that that's something that with with engineering's latest. If you remember when they did the, the criteria manual they did change some of the street sections to go to more of the context sensitive corridors, which included having that having that streetscape design. But again, the missing component of that is is really that the plan. Richard I know it's, it's 630 and you have landscape code to go is that. Do you want to try to breeze through that or we can probably bring that. Bring it back at the next at the next meeting. What I just want to highlight really quick. I'm going to jump. There was some additional analysis I think I hit him into some of the stuff that we're doing but one of the things that we're that we were asked to do is, with respect to restoration again the type, the type of tree to be planted in the area needed, particularly a square, square foot of dirt. And then the cost for planning a tree and maintaining it. And then again where where these trees could be planted off site including within the rights of way and and and street trees kind of going back to back to that plan. Again, consider a credit for the prairie preserved area. If there if there's an ESO or some other mechanism so that 's something we're, we're looking at. Again the protected and non protected what species and size, native adapted and non native is really kind of looking at, at those three categories. And then getting into landscape credits and one one that came up at, at, at the last year we I guess we have the monarch City USA designation monarch butterfly. And so including a credit for a butterfly habitat or garden within your within your landscape, eliminating the ESA credits for for landscape and tree preservation, and then really finalizing how those preservation credits, then apply to the landscape credits just to kind of work work through those, and whether it's a full credit partial credit so those are some of the things that that we're going to be working on over the next over the next month, and then and then coming back. But I think I still would like to come back on the landscape code because this is one of those. It's always part of the presentation we never get to it so at least wanted to perhaps put that on for the next meeting. Christopher, do you have a question. Yeah, so I was a couple of things. So how do we assign value to the trees because I work in Frisco and there was a thing a few days ago where they were actually moving trees like full grown trees and it was a beautiful site. So I'm coming down the street. And, you know, these things full grown trees were somewhere around $25,000 each to put on a property yet we don't charge people $25,000 to take down, you know, these types of things out here. discussing canopy and what's removed and what's not. So I think that's where we go back to, to that to that list and that species list. There are some there are. There are some values that were assigned from that 2016 report. Interestingly, I came across a web application today need to dig into it a little bit more. But if you go if you go on the Texas and and Forestry Service. They actually have a. I think around. I still need to dig in. I don't know what the what all of the data means. I know they are looking at at 2012. I think property lines. But, but it does give you. I thought it was interesting because it gives you the current canopy, which was actually lower than a lot lower than where we are. But then it also there's a value that's assigned to it. And then it gives a regional canopy sort of canopy goals. And so it's just one of those things that I want to dig in a little bit more and see. But but it does assign a value to that to that canopy. What I haven't done is peel that back to see what that what that translates to. Again on on the speech. I think that was also one of the concerns with with the sugar bearer hackberry. If you go into the if you look in the report, it does provide a higher level than some of the trees for carbon sequest ration and other benefits. Of course, stormwater. And so again, it's just trying trying trying to balance that. But then again, tie a value to it. I had another thing you mentioned it or was on the slide a minute ago when we talk about landscaping and there was a whole idea of you know monarch butterflies and I don't know if anyone's ever kind of created a butterfly garden or whatever. Basically, it just looks like a bunch of weeds, you know, that attracts butterflies. I know as we develop more and we have more, you know, we have more houses coming in. HOA tend to not like things that look like weeds around their properties, even though they're great for the environment. Does the city have any plans or any approaches to ensuring that those types of things are not discouraged. I mean, what what what they ultimately put in in in HOA restrictions we don't we don't enforce it. Obviously, it would be up to up to the up to those two parties, but it's something that that at least we would we would include in in in the code. Chris shells. Thank you, Joe. Real quick, Richard. I know we had a draft in our backup. Do you want any comments from us on that. Please. Please. And again, it's continually changing. So it is a rough draft. But please, any any and all comments are would be greatly appreciated. Good point, Commissioner. Before we close out this would your presentation. So your backup is available to everyone online. Is there any other opportunities for the public to get involved apart from email and city staff or what are opportunities for the public to start feeding into this. I think as we as we continue to move forward, because this has kind of been on on on almost a parallel path with the D DC update. And so because this is such a has been a high priority and hot button topic through obviously it's been since 2014 and we're still talking about amendments to it. And so it might it might be just beneficial to include as part of the Web site where we have the the DDC update page, either having a sub page specifically for for tree preservation and landscape or just having having a standalone. So it's a little easier to navigate to navigate for folks. And then what we can do is and send that sort of send our blast email out to the to the folks that we have on our sort of on our, our ongoing collection of emails. Great. We'll look forward to the landscape. Next time. With that we'll close the work session at 636 and in interest of time for those waiting will reconvene in council chambers at 640. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting for September 26 at 2018. It is six forty seven. I'll call this meeting to order. First item on the agenda is to stand and give a pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. Allegiance to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivis ible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. Pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and indivisible. And before we get into the vote for the minutes, I just wanted to announce as a point of order on the agenda, public hearing item five a has been postponed to October 24 th. And so we won't have a public hearing or discussion on that matter tonight. And item five C has been postponed to the October 10th meeting. There won't be a public hearing or discussion on that item either. With that, we'll move it to agenda item two, which is a consider approval for planning and zoning minutes. We'll take these separately as we have one absent. Chair will entertain a motion or discussion. No buttons will do voting and motions by hand this evening. Commissioner Beck. Can you hit your mic? I move we approve the minutes for. What date are we talking about? August 22nd. August 22nd. I was here for both of them. Thank you, Commissioner Beck. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the matter? We'll call for a vote on the board for the minutes of August 22nd. That carries seven zero. We have minutes for September 12th. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I move approval of the minutes of September 12th. Thank you, Commissioner Sanchez. I second that motion. Perfect. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That carries six zero with one recusal. We'll move this to the consent agenda. We can have discussion or a motion on the item. Commissioner Smith. Motion and approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, we can vote on the board. Motion carries seven zero. That moves us to items for individual consideration. The first is SP18-0028. We do have a conflict on this, so I'll give Commissioner Pernetta a minute to clear. And the floor is yours, Haley. All right. Good evening. This is a site plan for a Chase Bank at Razor Ranch. The request before you is for approval of a site plan for the site outlined in yellow on the map. The use is a proposed Chase Bank location, as I mentioned. The property is approximately 1.36 acres, located on the south side of University along Town Center Boulevard. The base zoning for the property is Regional Center Commercial Downtown. However, there is an overlay for this particular area that you see colored and shaded on the map. This is all part of the Razor Ranch Overlay District. The subject property is part of what's called the South RR2 District, which is a primarily commercial kind of highway style development that outlines the town center of Razor Ranch. All site plans for properties within Razor Ranch are required to come to P&Z for approval. In particular, the South RR2 District is subject to the standards for architecture and landscaping with an exhibit C1 and D1 of the overlay. As part of the site plan, you will see not only the site plan itself, but also the landscape plan and the building elevations. The Razor Ranch Overlay District does outline criteria for approval. There are four, the first being that the site plan complies with that concept plan, which we just saw which outlined the districts and where the general use types would go within the overlay. The second being that the plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that wouldn't advers ely affect adjoining properties. Third being the site plan provides for adequate and safe vehicular circulation. And then finally that it complies with all other sections of the overlay. So now we'll go through these pieces in detail so that you can see how it is in compliance with these standards. So looking at the site plan, you can see the building itself is outlined in blue. It's approximately 4,800 square feet. The use itself is permitted within the RR2 District. Banks are considered both a professional service and in this case also a drive-through because it has four drive- through lanes you see there on the south side of the building. The site plan reflects 42 parking spaces. 16 are required based on the city's parking standards as the minimum. Razor Ranch is a little bit different than the rest of the city, whereas our minimum is our maximum for site plans elsewhere in the city. The overlay district for Razor Ranch actually excludes that maximum and allows for excess parking within the development. In terms of access to the site, they would have one primary entrance that's circled in red. This is off of an internal drive aisle within the overlay. It would be a shared driveway with the restaurant that adjo ins them to the west. And then off of that you can see where the cars would enter the drive-through here on the west side. There are four lanes there that would provide for adequate stacking space for vehicles. And then there is this kind of loop around the site, whereas once those vehicles exit, they could go either north or south to get out of the property back to the main drive aisle. Looking at the landscaping for the site, the overlay requires a minimum of 10% landscaping and a minimum of 25% tree canopy. So the site is providing 32% landscaping and 32% tree canopy, so well above that minimum. Another component of Razor is the requirement for plaza area to be pedestrian-friendly spaces. So outlined in orange on the map is where that plaza area would be. So it will include benches for pedestrian seating outside of the bank, as well as shade trees and landscaping plan ters to enhance the exterior area. An additional requirement that I wanted to point out is that the overlay requires screening of the drive-through from adjacent drive aisles. So they have provided additional landscaping in the form of shrubs and low plants here on the exterior in addition to their perimeter trees. And then they are providing a low masonry wall on the south side of the drive-through to screen it from that drive aisle. Also within Razor, there are architectural standards that requires kind of a uniform theming of the buildings. One of the key components being the usage of native Texas stone and limestone on the building. So you can see here they are using a mixture of limestone, brick, and stucco that are within the color palette for Raz or Ranch and generally consistent with the area. Just looking at the other side of the building here for reference, that low masonry wall would be located somewhere in this area just outside of the drive-through canopy. So staff is recommending approval of the site plan. We found it to be compliant with all the standards of the Razor Overlay District as well as the criteria for approval . I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. I do not see any. Thank you, Haley. This item is an individual consideration item. However, if you do wish to speak, we can certainly allow for speakers. Is there anyone wishing to speak on the item? If you could just state your name and address for the record. My name is Matthew Craig and I'm with CUNY List Design. We 're here representing the bank. My address is 2080 North Highway 360 in Grand Prairie. There was a couple items brought up and I wanted to just in the planning meeting. First, yes, it is a relocation of the branch that's at West University in Hinkle. The second one on the parking, because it's a retail and a financial center, it will be staffed from 11 to 18 employees. So there's the 42 spaces. We were expecting 20 of them to be used by staff. So that's why there's such a large number of parking spaces . The other item that was brought up, the bike racks. Yes, something we can definitely will add to the plan when we come forward with the CDs. Perfect. I appreciate addressing those issues brought up. Is there any other questions of the applicant? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Actually, not a question, but just thank you for listening to our concerns and thank you for addressing them. We appreciate it. Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, we can talk amongst ourselves or motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion for approval. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero with one recusal. That moves us to the Republic hearing. Now invite Commissioner Pernetta back to the dais. With five a being postponed, we will move to five B S eighteen dash zero zero six. I will open the public hearing and invite Haley for presentation. All right. Good evening. This is a specific use permit request for a McDonald's drive through. The subject property is outlined in yellow on the map. It is approximately one point six nine acres in size. As you can see, it's located at the northeast corner of the intersection of I thirty five east and Fort Worth Drive. I wanted to point out that the property and the one point six nine acres is actually comprised of pieces of three parcels that were all bisected by text dots right of way acquisition for their ultimate build out of I thirty five. The property is zoned downtown commercial general. So this is one of our kind of mixed use high dense high intensity districts. The restaurant use is permitted by right. The drive through is the component that requires the specific use permit. The DDC outlines numerous criteria for approval for an issue. They all kind of center around the idea of compatibility and consistency. So just to summarize these some of the key elements are that the use wouldn't impede the development of surrounding properties that adequate parking is provided for the site as well as adequate access. Nuisance prevention is a key element. So looking at things like odor fumes lighting nuisances that may be generated as well as landscaping and screening and architectural compatibility. So I want to kind of walk through the specifics of what's proposed here for this. So you can see in blue the building footprint would be just over 5000 square feet. They are proposing along with the building a two lane drive through. So the kind of yellow stars on the map indicate where those order points would be. So you can see it is two lanes of a drive through that funnel down to one with two windows in the building. So you would have the cash window and then the pickup window as separate locations on the building. They are providing 50 parking spaces which meets the DDC requirement for a restaurant of this size. And then there are three driveway locations which are circ led in red on the map. So one driveway would be this access point off of the I-35 frontage road here on the south side. The second point would be off of South Locust Street. And then the third would be a cross connection to the bank property to the north which is required by the Denton Development Code for commercial properties to interconnect. And then just also wanted to point out there is kind of a fourth access point if you look further north on the site there is a northern driveway in the bank property where traffic could also cut through and exit further up on Fort Worth Drive. Looking at the landscape plan, one of the key elements that staff analyzed on this case was kind of that screening and compatibility to kind of limit any visual impacts that the drive through may have. So I wanted to point out the site is exceeding the minimum landscape requirement of 15%. They have approximately 27% landscaping on the site. They are required a type C buffer because there's a multif amily use that adjoins them to the north and east. So outlined in light green is that buffer area where they 've provided all the required plantings. And then as I mentioned the screening at the right of way was one of our key concerns. So you can see here they've provided the minimum parking lot screening that the code requires which is kind of a shr ub row, some screening trees as well as a berm. They've also provided all of the street trees that are required as well as some enhanced landscaping around things such as their proposed signs and then the drive through itself has some enhanced landscaping that you can see there . Looking at the building itself, these are kind of the sch ematics for it. So it is a mixture of masonry and architectural metal components. It is one of the prototypes that McDonald's has out currently. So here are the color renderings of that. So you can see a neutral color palette with some accent colors of yellow on the building keeping with their branding. And then on the bottom side here you can see the actual drive through features themselves. So fairly standard for a restaurant of this type. Some of the additional analysis that staff did was look at the future land use designation of the property which is community mixed use. So this is a designation that applies to predominantly commercial areas. So it's something you would typically see along our major thoroughfare such as Highway 377 and the interstate. In this area we encourage infill and attractive redevelop ment of sites. So this checks that box as well since this is three sites that were taken out of commission with TechStops right of way acquisition. And then we found that the proposed commercial use is consistent with the parameters for community mixed use areas. Looking at what's surrounding the property we have a mixture of commercial and multifamily uses in this area. There's a bank as well as a graphic design facility to the north. Multifamily as I mentioned here to the north and east. And then across Fort Worth Drive we have a service station as well as some other fast food restaurants. So this is consistent with this type of development in the area. Unlikely to generate any nuisances for those properties since the uses are so similar. And it's also consistent with just kind of the auto oriented pattern that we have in this part of the city. Notification was sent for this request. We received no responses to that legal notice to date. The applicant didn't hold a neighborhood meeting in this case. And they did however post the required signs on the property since the end of August. Those signs have been up to alert the neighbors and drive by traffic. Staff is recommending approval of the request with one condition. That the provided site plan, landscape plan and building elevations be considered preliminary. Therefore a full site plan submittal would be required to ensure that the development complies with all requirements of the DDC. As they move through the engineering and design of the site with their platting. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you Haley. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Haley one thing we didn't talk about in work session was there was a drive through fast food place on one of these sites right? Correct. The middle one I think or something like that. If you look at the map I believe the taco comando is here. So there was previously a drive through that actually pred ated our current development code that requires the SUP. Okay thanks. I do not see any other questions. Thank you. This is a public hearing. We do have one card requesting to speak. It is the Red Plains professionals. If you could come down. As a group there's a total of 20 minutes to speak but 10 per speaker. 10 minutes per speaker. If you could state your name and address for the record. Greg Massey with Red Plains professionals 2933 South Bryant Edmond, Oklahoma representing the applicant McDonald's. Haley did such a wonderful job introducing this. I don't want to occupy your time regurgitating what she's already told you. Please be aware this is a relocation from their previous site which was located on North Texas Boulevard approximately a mile northwest of this location. There's been a lot of work done to come up with this location as an acceptable alternative for McDonald's. We will be happy to answer any questions that Planning Commission has of us. We do have a couple questions. Commissioner Ellis are you still? Okay. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Thank you Mr. Massey. Yes. Thank you for your presentation. Personally I'm glad to see that you're getting rebuilt there and filling in this area that's been vacant for so long. I'll miss the taco bueno. Looking forward to as you as you do develop this thing in the landscaping everything I appreciate the fact that you 're not only meeting city criteria but exceeding as far as putting your tree landscape up front. Just quick question about signage. What are you looking at for your I 35 frontage road sign and the Fort Worth Street site. Well, again, we're expecting. We're anticipating following city code as far as signage and based on the fact we have frontage on essentially three public streets we are only looking for two signs. We're looking for I believe 40 foot is the maximum on the I 35 frontage, and then a secondary sign. Excuse me, on Highway 377 Fort Worth Boulevard, 20 foot, I believe, and both of those. The one on Fort Worth Boulevard I believe is required to be a monument sign with, and we will be providing significant amount of landscaping around the base of both of those so you'll be doing the monument sign on the Fort Worth Street side. Yes. Okay, which is going to be 20 feet. I believe that's for that's the maximum. It will be per code and I believe that was identified as the highway sign could be 40 foot, and then the monument sign would have to be 20 foot maximum. Okay, very good. Thank you. I do not see any other questions. Thanks for coming in and being here available. Thank you. This is a public hearing, if anyone else wishes to speak on the item, more than welcome to do so. Seeing no one else to speak I will close the public hearing and open it for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith motion to approve s 18 dash 0006 with the condition. Yes, with the staff condition I apologize. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second is there any discussion on the item. Seeing none I will call for a motion on the board. Motion carries seven zero. Congratulations. Five see again has been postponed till October 10 meeting that moves us to our final item, which is our project matrix. Just wanted to provide just a little bit, a little bit update on. There were two memos that were attached, one from solid waste, and the other from from Heywood regarding . Excuse me. Regarding the tree protection standards. I know that that in speaking with public. I'm sorry solid waste. If there was additional information needed from that , in addition to that to what was provided in the memo. They could, I think would be willing to come. I just wanted to, I think what they want to do is at least provide that provide that memo to you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Jim. Thank you for that memo in there, Richard. I did have questions on it. So should I dress Mr Cox directly or or if you just want to, if you don 't mind just keeping me keeping me in the loop that way. I just have an idea. And then even for my own. Yeah, my own knowledge. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks. One other thing I want to point out. I know we initially were looking at having traffic engineering, most likely going to have them. I'm going to try to have them come on on 1024 for that update. And then with that I'll also include that update for for the notification process on on infrastructure projects. There are a number of traffic studies that the city is undertaking. I think it's probably a good idea at that point in time to have an update from from pre tem. One of those areas that we're looking at is along the Sherman corridor. North of essentially just south of the loop and north and just looking at the overall impacts as a result of the development that was really from Stark farms. If you remember. Additionally, a traffic study. It's actually somewhat begun . We are collecting traffic counts again. So this would be the area from Ryan Road south and then from Country Club over to I think it goes all the way over to T.C. I have to remember what that what the eastern eastern road is. But we are looking at that. We'll be looking at that area comprehensively. And so I know there we've actually planning staff has been I think this for the first time meeting with traffic engineering and talking planning and future and how to how to do this. So it's kind of it's it's daunting but it's fun in the same in the same token. And then we'll be gearing up to do the same same on the for that southern study. Trish or else. Thank you. Chair Richard with that. You know we used to have traffic engineering here back in the day at our meetings. I missed that because we often have have lots of questions with regard to that. But knowing that that may not be able to happen. I think if we could get engineering in our work sessions a handful of times a year maybe quarterly something like that to update us and keep us apprised of what's going on I think that would help tremendously and certainly help all of our knowledge bases. Especially as these projects come forward. And there's so many things sort of happening and changes I think it's it would be beneficial to just have that that update of what's going on and where the plan is. Chris Sanchez this will be what he issued. I know last time last meeting we had was an individual here and he was talking about how we're keep building and pushing all the traffic onto existing roads but we haven't I haven't seen anything any kind of planning. What's the long term plan on creating new roads to take not just push all traffic into the. Is there anything going on out there to address that issue. Yes. So there is my. There there's currently the city has a mobility plan that that we often refer to. It really needs it really needs to be updated and engineering I believe council had approved a request. I think they've already started putting the RFP together to do a traffic waste plan for the city. But but looking at all components of it so what roads need to be built and what which locations and where what's and what what what with but with that. So it's a little bit broader than just just the mobility but also then incorporating bike and pedestrian as part of that. And so that way we it's a little bit more there's a little bit more science to it. I think we often are challenged with looking at the mobility plan and if you ever look at it there there's lines on there that. Whether they make sense or not. It is what it is but but it definitely needs to be updated. And so that that's where they're looking at and particularly with the north sort of that North Sherman study and then the study off Orion Road particularly on Orion Road because there's that north north south there's there's it's limited. And so prior to product additional growth coming in there, really looking at what can be done for an additional north south collector. Question back. Thank you, Chair. Just a monkey on back there maybe it might not be a bad idea to hit is it PS that would come in and talk to us about the mobility plan. It would be pre temp. We work that into a work session sometime down the road because I think me and Andrew the only ones here now that we had any kind of presentation on that. What I'd like to do is have them come I'm going to try to get them here on 1024. Okay. Just to kind of give a kind of the lay of the land and all of the things that that that they're they're working on. And then perhaps at maybe after the first quarter of the year. Once we have the results from some of those studies with respect to Ryan road and then on Sherman, just to give an update. Because again, those are the questions that often shouldn't say often always come up when your task with with recommending a project within those areas. So they could be good to have have that have you involved in that earlier than later. The only thing I would add is 1024 setting up to be a an active meeting. If we just like to make sure the work session starts early enough. That's what I want to check this. Yeah, we're all available to get here earlier because. Anything else. Okay, with that we will close the plan and zoning Commission meeting at 710. Thank you.