WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.480
 Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for

00:00:08.480 --> 00:00:12.760
 Wednesday, February 15, 2023.

00:00:12.760 --> 00:00:19.000
 This is our work session and with the quorum present I will call us to order at 5.33 p.m.

00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:24.360
 I'll let the record show that Commissioner Smith is absent from this meeting.

00:00:24.360 --> 00:00:29.600
 There's one item on our work session and it is clarification of agenda items and we'll

00:00:29.600 --> 00:00:31.680
 go through those now.

00:00:31.680 --> 00:00:38.080
 Anything on the minutes for January 25th?

00:00:38.080 --> 00:00:40.120
 Okay.

00:00:40.120 --> 00:00:45.000
 Items for individual consideration, 3A is PE 230001.

00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:49.720
 Let's see, who is that, Sean?

00:00:49.720 --> 00:01:01.880
 Do you want to just give us a quick synopsis of that, please?

00:01:01.880 --> 00:01:05.320
 Good evening.

00:01:05.320 --> 00:01:07.200
 This is PE 23-0001.

00:01:07.200 --> 00:01:13.560
 This is a request for an extension of a preliminary plat that has been approved at the intersection

00:01:13.560 --> 00:01:15.680
 of Loop 288 and McKinney.

00:01:15.680 --> 00:01:21.160
 They are coming up on their expiration date in April.

00:01:21.160 --> 00:01:23.540
 They have been making progress throughout this time.

00:01:23.540 --> 00:01:27.960
 They have a CEP that is approved, another in review, a tech stop permit in review that

00:01:27.960 --> 00:01:31.000
 requires a TIA as well as a zoning compliance plan.

00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:35.880
 It's a complex project, involves coordination with a number of end users, shared drainage,

00:01:35.880 --> 00:01:40.560
 multiple rights of way, tech stop approvals which tend to add an indeterminate amount

00:01:40.560 --> 00:01:42.520
 of time to reviews.

00:01:42.520 --> 00:01:47.200
 So overall, the applicant does anticipate that this extension would enable them to reach

00:01:47.200 --> 00:01:50.480
 submittal and approval of at least that initial final plat.

00:01:50.480 --> 00:01:57.200
 And so staff reviewing this against our criteria is recommending approval of the one-year extension.

00:01:57.200 --> 00:01:59.280
 Happy to answer any questions.

00:01:59.280 --> 00:02:01.160
 Commissioner Dade?

00:02:01.160 --> 00:02:03.920
 Thank you, Chair.

00:02:03.920 --> 00:02:07.680
 I'm just curious as to what's being built on that time.

00:02:07.680 --> 00:02:12.920
 You say it was 2021, so I wasn't here and I'm just curious as to what's being built

00:02:12.920 --> 00:02:13.920
 on that time.

00:02:13.920 --> 00:02:22.160
 So they have, I believe, about four commercial lots along the front there as well as I believe

00:02:22.160 --> 00:02:23.880
 one behind if I remember correctly.

00:02:23.880 --> 00:02:28.760
 So right now, I know one of them is proposing to be an oil change place.

00:02:28.760 --> 00:02:32.680
 The others, the other lots, it'll depend on what comes in.

00:02:32.680 --> 00:02:33.840
 They're built as commercial lots.

00:02:33.840 --> 00:02:34.840
 All right, thank you.

00:02:34.840 --> 00:02:35.840
 That's helpful.

00:02:35.840 --> 00:02:36.840
 Yes, sir.

00:02:36.840 --> 00:02:37.840
 Anybody else?

00:02:37.840 --> 00:02:43.880
 Sean, so there was a plat denied like in 2020.

00:02:43.880 --> 00:02:44.880
 Is this the same?

00:02:44.880 --> 00:02:49.160
 Are we dealing with the same plat here from December of 2020?

00:02:49.160 --> 00:02:50.160
 So there, yes.

00:02:50.160 --> 00:02:51.160
 There was, yeah.

00:02:51.160 --> 00:02:52.160
 So this is the same entity?

00:02:52.160 --> 00:02:53.160
 Same?

00:02:53.160 --> 00:02:54.160
 Yep.

00:02:54.160 --> 00:02:55.160
 Yep.

00:02:55.160 --> 00:02:56.160
 They came back, they made the adjustments, and then they reached approval.

00:02:56.160 --> 00:02:57.160
 And then it was approved.

00:02:57.160 --> 00:02:58.160
 Yeah.

00:02:58.160 --> 00:02:59.160
 Yes.

00:02:59.160 --> 00:03:00.160
 So it got approved in, yeah.

00:03:00.160 --> 00:03:01.160
 In April.

00:03:01.160 --> 00:03:02.160
 Started in December, got denied.

00:03:02.160 --> 00:03:03.160
 Yep.

00:03:03.160 --> 00:03:04.160
 Eventually then came back in April of '21.

00:03:04.160 --> 00:03:05.160
 Mm-hmm.

00:03:05.160 --> 00:03:06.160
 Okay.

00:03:06.160 --> 00:03:08.240
 And then I gave them some additional time to work through.

00:03:08.240 --> 00:03:09.240
 Okay.

00:03:09.240 --> 00:03:11.840
 And they want a one-year extension on what they have now?

00:03:11.840 --> 00:03:12.840
 Yes.

00:03:12.840 --> 00:03:14.840
 Do you think it'll take that long?

00:03:14.840 --> 00:03:17.320
 There are a number of complex issues.

00:03:17.320 --> 00:03:20.920
 I think it's best to provide that, particularly because with textile approvals, we just never

00:03:20.920 --> 00:03:23.000
 know what's gonna be needed there.

00:03:23.000 --> 00:03:26.000
 They have a TIA they still need to submit, so.

00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:27.000
 Gotcha.

00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:28.000
 Okay, understood.

00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:29.000
 Any questions further?

00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:30.000
 Okay.

00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:31.000
 Thanks, Sean.

00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:32.000
 Thank you.

00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:33.000
 Appreciate it.

00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:44.920
 Next item is number 23B, FR23-0001, and that is, Ashley, hello.

00:03:44.920 --> 00:03:48.400
 Good evening.

00:03:48.400 --> 00:03:51.880
 This is FR23-0001.

00:03:51.880 --> 00:03:57.640
 This is a final replat on approximately 4.6 acres at the corner of Fort Worth Drive and

00:03:57.640 --> 00:03:59.040
 East Mission Street.

00:03:59.040 --> 00:04:02.480
 And at this time, we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested

00:04:02.480 --> 00:04:04.080
 extension to March 15th.

00:04:04.080 --> 00:04:05.080
 Okay.

00:04:05.080 --> 00:04:06.760
 Happy to answer any questions.

00:04:06.760 --> 00:04:07.760
 Perfect.

00:04:07.760 --> 00:04:10.040
 Any questions on that one, yeah?

00:04:10.040 --> 00:04:11.040
 Okay.

00:04:11.040 --> 00:04:12.040
 Thank you, Ashley.

00:04:12.040 --> 00:04:17.680
 That'll take us to 3C, so stay right there.

00:04:17.680 --> 00:04:25.360
 And this is FP23-0003, and this is an approximately 15.9 acre site, and they are final platting

00:04:25.360 --> 00:04:28.840
 to establish 12 residential lots out in the ETJ.

00:04:28.840 --> 00:04:32.480
 We do currently recommend denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension to

00:04:32.480 --> 00:04:34.520
 March 15th, 2023.

00:04:34.520 --> 00:04:38.560
 Happy to answer any questions.

00:04:38.560 --> 00:04:39.680
 I do not see any.

00:04:39.680 --> 00:04:41.080
 Thank you so much.

00:04:41.080 --> 00:04:45.280
 3D is PP23-0001.

00:04:45.280 --> 00:04:53.640
 Julie is not here, so Sean will be sitting in for Julie.

00:04:53.640 --> 00:05:00.760
 So this is a request for a plat from Denton ISD.

00:05:00.760 --> 00:05:06.200
 They have not at this time met all the standards for approval, and so staff is recommending

00:05:06.200 --> 00:05:10.360
 denial but has no objection to the request for an extension to a date certain to March

00:05:10.360 --> 00:05:12.360
 15th, 2023.

00:05:12.360 --> 00:05:13.360
 Okay.

00:05:13.360 --> 00:05:14.360
 Great.

00:05:14.360 --> 00:05:15.840
 Any questions on this one?

00:05:15.840 --> 00:05:16.840
 Okay.

00:05:16.840 --> 00:05:18.880
 Thank you, Sean.

00:05:18.880 --> 00:05:21.360
 Let's move to 3E, FP23-0002.

00:05:21.360 --> 00:05:23.720
 Oh, well, you know what?

00:05:23.720 --> 00:05:25.160
 That one's been withdrawn.

00:05:25.160 --> 00:05:32.640
 I just saw my note here, so we will not be taking action on that.

00:05:32.640 --> 00:05:38.120
 All right, 3F, CP22-0039.

00:05:38.120 --> 00:05:41.400
 Hi, Mia.

00:05:41.400 --> 00:05:43.400
 Hello.

00:05:43.400 --> 00:05:45.400
 Okay.

00:05:45.400 --> 00:05:54.440
 Good evening, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner.

00:05:54.440 --> 00:06:01.320
 So this is a zoning compliance plan within the Razor Ranch South Campus mixed use district.

00:06:01.320 --> 00:06:08.840
 The site plan is for a hotel on approximately 2.8, almost three acres, located at the northwest

00:06:08.840 --> 00:06:12.080
 corner of Panhandle Street and Heritage Trail.

00:06:12.080 --> 00:06:15.560
 Staff is recommending conditional approval of the request.

00:06:15.560 --> 00:06:21.120
 It does meet all of the requirements of the Razor Ranch overlaid district, but there is

00:06:21.120 --> 00:06:28.320
 a requirement for cross access that they are unable to meet on this site given some agreements

00:06:28.320 --> 00:06:32.220
 between the seller and the owner of the property.

00:06:32.220 --> 00:06:38.200
 With that, Razor Ranch does have some internal private drive aisles, so we are okay with

00:06:38.200 --> 00:06:44.100
 the removal of the cross access, but that conditional approval we are expecting an increase

00:06:44.100 --> 00:06:48.840
 in the pedestrian circulation on the site, and so that's a pedestrian path from the east

00:06:48.840 --> 00:06:53.320
 side of the building to the sidewalk along Heritage Trail.

00:06:53.320 --> 00:07:00.120
 And then also we are expecting that crossing and all sidewalks to be at least five feet

00:07:00.120 --> 00:07:05.760
 wide and that crossing to be clearly distinguishable for the safety of pedestrian circulation on

00:07:05.760 --> 00:07:06.760
 this site.

00:07:06.760 --> 00:07:09.840
 Of course, I have more detailed presentation that I can go into in the regular session,

00:07:09.840 --> 00:07:13.360
 but I'll stand for any questions that you have at this time.

00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:14.360
 For sure.

00:07:14.360 --> 00:07:16.320
 The applicant know about the conditions, I assume, right?

00:07:16.320 --> 00:07:17.320
 Yes.

00:07:17.320 --> 00:07:18.320
 Okay.

00:07:18.320 --> 00:07:19.320
 That's one of my questions.

00:07:19.320 --> 00:07:22.960
 The other one is, did you see the e-comment that we received on this item?

00:07:22.960 --> 00:07:23.960
 Yes.

00:07:23.960 --> 00:07:34.240
 That was -- Yeah, it had to do with the -- Oh, yes, the building material.

00:07:34.240 --> 00:07:36.880
 The brick stone that's in the overlay.

00:07:36.880 --> 00:07:43.240
 So the -- if you recall, via state law, staff can't enforce building materials as long

00:07:43.240 --> 00:07:46.520
 as it's approved under the current building code.

00:07:46.520 --> 00:07:50.840
 There is an architectural review board that Razor Ranch is under, but again, that's all

00:07:50.840 --> 00:07:52.240
 sort of a private thing.

00:07:52.240 --> 00:07:55.200
 So from staff's enforceability, that's why the mainstream.

00:07:55.200 --> 00:07:57.240
 So even with it being in the overlay, there's still --

00:07:57.240 --> 00:07:58.240
 Correct.

00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:01.240
 It is, yeah, not enforceable.

00:08:01.240 --> 00:08:02.240
 Okay.

00:08:02.240 --> 00:08:04.920
 Any other questions from you?

00:08:04.920 --> 00:08:05.920
 Thank you.

00:08:05.920 --> 00:08:10.920
 I think you're here for the next one, too, aren't you?

00:08:10.920 --> 00:08:14.640
 I am, yes, ma'am.

00:08:14.640 --> 00:08:15.640
 Yep.

00:08:15.640 --> 00:08:16.640
 3G.

00:08:16.640 --> 00:08:17.640
 Okay.

00:08:17.640 --> 00:08:20.160
 Good evening again.

00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:24.640
 This is a request for zoning compliance plan again in the Razor Ranch South Campus.

00:08:24.640 --> 00:08:28.920
 This particular site -- the development on this site is a multifamily residential development

00:08:28.920 --> 00:08:36.200
 on just over 3 acres located near the northwest corner of Panhandle Street and Bonnie Bray.

00:08:36.200 --> 00:08:39.480
 Staff is recommending approval of the request as it does meet all of the established Razor

00:08:39.480 --> 00:08:42.520
 Ranch overlay district requirements.

00:08:42.520 --> 00:08:47.680
 There is a gas well setback or reverse gas well setback that encumbers the majority of

00:08:47.680 --> 00:08:53.920
 this site, and so staff has reviewed this application in relation to that requirement,

00:08:53.920 --> 00:09:00.120
 and we've asked for some additional site design considerations to ultimately grant relief

00:09:00.120 --> 00:09:01.120
 for that.

00:09:01.120 --> 00:09:04.240
 And again, I'll go into more detail over that in the regular session.

00:09:04.240 --> 00:09:10.880
 But if you notice, there's this bound here, and then, of course, in the staff report,

00:09:10.880 --> 00:09:13.160
 we talked a little bit about that setback.

00:09:13.160 --> 00:09:19.400
 So they are seeking relief from the minimum reverse gas well setback, and we are recommending

00:09:19.400 --> 00:09:24.680
 approval of the site plan as presented with that relief being granted.

00:09:24.680 --> 00:09:30.040
 So with that, I will stand for any questions or comments you have.

00:09:30.040 --> 00:09:31.520
 Questions?

00:09:31.520 --> 00:09:40.640
 How did the staff come to wanting to make that adjustment with the gas well setback?

00:09:40.640 --> 00:09:45.540
 So we feel that -- and Tina can answer this -- but we feel that multifamily is a good

00:09:45.540 --> 00:09:50.360
 use for the site, especially this being a density zone within the Razor Ranch overlay

00:09:50.360 --> 00:09:51.360
 district.

00:09:51.360 --> 00:09:56.940
 So if there is anywhere to grant or to allow for the development of multifamily residential,

00:09:56.940 --> 00:09:59.320
 this would be a good site for it.

00:09:59.320 --> 00:10:06.520
 The gas well being encumbering more than 50%, that's why the relief measure, the administrative

00:10:06.520 --> 00:10:07.920
 relief measure is built in.

00:10:07.920 --> 00:10:10.280
 We have that flexibility for them.

00:10:10.280 --> 00:10:15.320
 And then with this site, we wanted to make sure that the building was brought up to the

00:10:15.320 --> 00:10:20.720
 building as close as possible as it could be given that setback, and then also that

00:10:20.720 --> 00:10:25.400
 the street frontage, that panhandle street frontage was still activated per the intent

00:10:25.400 --> 00:10:27.280
 of the Razor Ranch overlay district.

00:10:27.280 --> 00:10:30.720
 And so that's why we -- if you notice, there's an increased landscape area.

00:10:30.720 --> 00:10:35.880
 There's a bit of an active green space going on there with the gazebos and the pedestrian

00:10:35.880 --> 00:10:36.880
 path and all that stuff.

00:10:36.880 --> 00:10:43.760
 So there is enhanced street frontage for this site, whereas normally what we would be getting

00:10:43.760 --> 00:10:45.640
 would be a building closer to the front.

00:10:45.640 --> 00:10:49.520
 So there is -- there was some give and take on the relief measures, and like I said, Tina,

00:10:49.520 --> 00:10:53.720
 as the director could add to it.

00:10:53.720 --> 00:10:56.720
 And what is the setback going to be?

00:10:56.720 --> 00:10:57.720
 375.

00:10:57.720 --> 00:10:59.200
 So from 500 to 375 feet.

00:10:59.200 --> 00:11:00.200
 Okay.

00:11:00.200 --> 00:11:03.520
 I was going to say, I thought Mia did a great job at finding the justification.

00:11:03.520 --> 00:11:04.520
 Yeah, absolutely.

00:11:04.520 --> 00:11:05.520
 Absolutely answered my question, yeah.

00:11:05.520 --> 00:11:11.520
 Yeah, and furthermore, I mean, we evaluated it based upon the code provisions and took

00:11:11.520 --> 00:11:15.840
 that series with the fact that being able to reduce it down to the 375 measurement.

00:11:15.840 --> 00:11:16.840
 It's okay.

00:11:16.840 --> 00:11:17.840
 Yeah.

00:11:17.840 --> 00:11:18.840
 But great job.

00:11:18.840 --> 00:11:19.840
 Thank you.

00:11:19.840 --> 00:11:20.840
 For sure.

00:11:20.840 --> 00:11:21.840
 Commissioner Pruitt.

00:11:21.840 --> 00:11:22.840
 Thank you, Jared.

00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:29.840
 Just so I can put it together in my mind, it looks like those arcs drawn that the gaswell

00:11:29.840 --> 00:11:33.400
 location is basically just southeast of the site, across the street from Panhandle.

00:11:33.400 --> 00:11:34.400
 Is that correct?

00:11:34.400 --> 00:11:35.400
 Yeah.

00:11:35.400 --> 00:11:39.280
 If you could see in the aerial here, it's small, but it's located here at the south.

00:11:39.280 --> 00:11:44.000
 And that's the setback from the pad corner location, which would be the top left corner

00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:45.000
 of that?

00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:46.000
 Correct.

00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:47.000
 Okay.

00:11:47.000 --> 00:11:48.000
 Thank you.

00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:52.100
 Commissioner Cole.

00:11:52.100 --> 00:11:53.980
 That's from the wellhead, correct?

00:11:53.980 --> 00:11:54.980
 Not the...

00:11:54.980 --> 00:11:57.240
 I believe that's measured from the site.

00:11:57.240 --> 00:11:58.240
 From the site.

00:11:58.240 --> 00:11:59.240
 Okay.

00:11:59.240 --> 00:12:00.240
 Great.

00:12:00.240 --> 00:12:01.240
 Looking at our gaswell expert over there.

00:12:01.240 --> 00:12:02.240
 Sorry.

00:12:02.240 --> 00:12:03.240
 Okay.

00:12:03.240 --> 00:12:04.240
 Great.

00:12:04.240 --> 00:12:07.400
 And you're going to go over all of those details.

00:12:07.400 --> 00:12:08.400
 Absolutely.

00:12:08.400 --> 00:12:09.400
 Awesome.

00:12:09.400 --> 00:12:10.400
 Okay.

00:12:10.400 --> 00:12:11.400
 Thank you, Mia.

00:12:11.400 --> 00:12:12.400
 Absolutely.

00:12:12.400 --> 00:12:13.400
 Let's see.

00:12:13.400 --> 00:12:16.240
 That will move us into our public hearings for this evening.

00:12:16.240 --> 00:12:18.920
 So Mia, that is still yours.

00:12:18.920 --> 00:12:19.920
 Yep.

00:12:19.920 --> 00:12:22.920
 4A PD 220010.

00:12:22.920 --> 00:12:24.960
 Okay.

00:12:24.960 --> 00:12:29.960
 Last of mine, I promise.

00:12:29.960 --> 00:12:34.440
 So this is a request for a new overlay PD.

00:12:34.440 --> 00:12:40.780
 The existing zoning is a PDMN transition from a PDNRMU from the old code.

00:12:40.780 --> 00:12:47.240
 And so if you recall, we recently allowed for PDs to be split with standard and overlay.

00:12:47.240 --> 00:12:51.520
 This is the overlay PD, so you aren't going to see the typical development regulations

00:12:51.520 --> 00:12:56.580
 and phasing plan and development plan for this.

00:12:56.580 --> 00:13:01.800
 It's just those regulations, and in this case, it's a list of restricted uses and some additional

00:13:01.800 --> 00:13:03.840
 site consideration items.

00:13:03.840 --> 00:13:09.200
 So the site itself is located near the northwest corner of TZ Lane and Ryan Road.

00:13:09.200 --> 00:13:16.880
 Under the current PDMN permitted uses are those commercial uses categorized in the NRMU

00:13:16.880 --> 00:13:20.240
 zoning district under the former development code.

00:13:20.240 --> 00:13:24.880
 This request for the new overlay PD would permit certain commercial uses, and those

00:13:24.880 --> 00:13:28.920
 are included in Exhibit 6 of your backup.

00:13:28.920 --> 00:13:33.140
 For this item, it would also require compliance with the current DDC, so bringing them up

00:13:33.140 --> 00:13:37.520
 to code with our current site design and development regulations.

00:13:37.520 --> 00:13:41.240
 And then it would also require additional context-sensitive site design consideration.

00:13:41.240 --> 00:13:44.800
 So if you've looked at that PD regulation, you might have noticed some additional buffering

00:13:44.800 --> 00:13:50.120
 requirements adjacent to the existing single-family and multi-family residential lots to the west

00:13:50.120 --> 00:13:55.960
 there and then also some additional site consideration items along Hunters Creek Road and Teasley

00:13:55.960 --> 00:14:02.840
 Lane to get us a better site context-sensitive development for this site.

00:14:02.840 --> 00:14:08.200
 With that, staff is recommending approval, as it does meet all of our criteria.

00:14:08.200 --> 00:14:12.140
 I will go into more detail in the regular session, but at this time I'll stand for

00:14:12.140 --> 00:14:16.800
 any questions you have.

00:14:16.800 --> 00:14:23.600
 So with the base zoning change, do the overlay conditions remain that were put on that in

00:14:23.600 --> 00:14:24.600
 2014?

00:14:24.600 --> 00:14:28.160
 So we've actually carried some of those overlay conditions over.

00:14:28.160 --> 00:14:33.400
 One was no multi-family permitted on this site, and then the other was just the general

00:14:33.400 --> 00:14:38.560
 broad statement that commercial as permitted in the NRMU district is permitted here.

00:14:38.560 --> 00:14:41.800
 So those were the only overlay conditions with this site, and then it was subject to

00:14:41.800 --> 00:14:43.240
 our former code.

00:14:43.240 --> 00:14:50.640
 With this, there's those, so no multi-family permitted on the site, generally commercial

00:14:50.640 --> 00:14:55.600
 uses are permitted, and then there's a list of additional restricted uses that would usually

00:14:55.600 --> 00:15:00.080
 be permitted under the regular SC zoning district that are not going to be permitted under this

00:15:00.080 --> 00:15:01.280
 overlay district.

00:15:01.280 --> 00:15:08.560
 And again, that's to minimize adverse impacts, protect the, or prevent a larger commercial

00:15:08.560 --> 00:15:16.040
 type of, or more intense commercial type of use from being on this site.

00:15:16.040 --> 00:15:18.440
 And do we know what the applicants like endgame?

00:15:18.440 --> 00:15:24.000
 This one confused me a little bit, because, I mean, it is commercial, I mean, commercial

00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:30.160
 uses are in place now, and the conditions were put there on purpose, and, yeah, with

00:15:30.160 --> 00:15:31.600
 good reason.

00:15:31.600 --> 00:15:36.180
 So I'm trying to understand what they want.

00:15:36.180 --> 00:15:41.960
 So when they initially applied, and it's in their project narrative for their application,

00:15:41.960 --> 00:15:46.480
 they have an idea to put some drive-through restaurants in this location, some other retail

00:15:46.480 --> 00:15:50.080
 establishments that are not permitted under the current, either not permitted under the

00:15:50.080 --> 00:15:52.820
 current zoning, or would require a specific use permit.

00:15:52.820 --> 00:15:58.520
 So since they already have an idea of what they want for those uses for each site, to

00:15:58.520 --> 00:16:05.280
 avoid having to go through that process several times, they're just, they're adding a PD,

00:16:05.280 --> 00:16:07.440
 and then adding those additional site considerations.

00:16:07.440 --> 00:16:10.080
 And I think Tina had something to add.

00:16:10.080 --> 00:16:14.680
 And I was just going to add, it also furthermore provides for consistency in certain treatments,

00:16:14.680 --> 00:16:19.560
 particularly the buffers, with the adjoining residential uses that are to the west, if

00:16:19.560 --> 00:16:24.000
 I remember the source correctly, but Mia adequately explained, you know, the principal reason

00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:28.800
 for this is to go through the planned development district rezoning one point in time, establish

00:16:28.800 --> 00:16:35.320
 the standards that we want to ensure for continuity, and then, which then eventually would save

00:16:35.320 --> 00:16:39.520
 the applicant some time, instead of having to pursue a specific use permit request every

00:16:39.520 --> 00:16:42.000
 single time, if there was a use that triggered it.

00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:43.000
 Yep.

00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:49.240
 And I understand that, and I understand it's Teasley Lane and SC.

00:16:49.240 --> 00:16:53.440
 I'm just, I'm struggling with the request because it's so densely populated there with

00:16:53.440 --> 00:16:58.200
 single family homes, and MN certainly made more sense in this corner.

00:16:58.200 --> 00:17:06.080
 So certainly drive through restaurants, you know, by right, would be a huge concern for

00:17:06.080 --> 00:17:07.560
 the surrounding neighborhood.

00:17:07.560 --> 00:17:15.460
 And the fact that traffic right here is horrific, even with the, even with the road being done,

00:17:15.460 --> 00:17:25.280
 it's really bad, especially for the Summit Oaks neighborhood that has like two entry

00:17:25.280 --> 00:17:34.000
 points, that's it, for the entire neighborhood, one, yeah, and no signal there, and so, yeah,

00:17:34.000 --> 00:17:38.320
 lots of concerns, and we have no jurisdiction over signals because it's a textile road,

00:17:38.320 --> 00:17:39.320
 so.

00:17:39.320 --> 00:17:46.520
 I'll add, they will have to go through our traffic impact analysis approach and all those

00:17:46.520 --> 00:17:52.800
 things on this corridor once they, once they get those uses, every site would have to go

00:17:52.800 --> 00:17:55.960
 through the zoning compliance plan process, civil engineering plans and all that stuff,

00:17:55.960 --> 00:18:02.120
 so that'll be flushed out for the specific uses, just additional information.

00:18:02.120 --> 00:18:08.360
 And then one last question, on the initial overlay, it talked about track to be, what

00:18:08.360 --> 00:18:09.760
 is track to be?

00:18:09.760 --> 00:18:15.000
 Oh, that, so that is this site plus the multifamily site, so if you pull, if you pull that original

00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:19.680
 ordinance, it subdivides the existing single family as track to be, and then the track

00:18:19.680 --> 00:18:24.440
 to be was this site and the multifamily site, right, okay, alright, and the, that was later

00:18:24.440 --> 00:18:25.440
 amended.

00:18:25.440 --> 00:18:30.760
 As it was written in that ordinance, so, yeah, okay.

00:18:30.760 --> 00:18:31.760
 Commissioner Pruitt.

00:18:31.760 --> 00:18:39.240
 Thank you, Chair, just quickly so that I can absorb more of what, what staff is thinking

00:18:39.240 --> 00:18:45.500
 with the different considerations and the request, I mean, obviously TJ Teasley has

00:18:45.500 --> 00:18:51.720
 changed character remarkably since the 2019 code was passed, certainly since this original

00:18:51.720 --> 00:18:56.360
 PD was done.

00:18:56.360 --> 00:19:09.560
 Help me understand what that road in its character now, how that impacts what we think the correct

00:19:09.560 --> 00:19:17.000
 type of zoning and character and feel should be from a built environment perspective, does

00:19:17.000 --> 00:19:18.000
 that make sense?

00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:24.000
 'Cause some of the differences, right, between the SC and the MN are the, you know, setback

00:19:24.000 --> 00:19:26.600
 from the roadway and that sort of thing as well.

00:19:26.600 --> 00:19:33.120
 So, and I'm looking for my transportation notes here.

00:19:33.120 --> 00:19:43.640
 I was trying to find the mobility plan classifications for Teasley.

00:19:43.640 --> 00:19:52.320
 Yeah, I'd be shocked if it wasn't primary arterial.

00:19:52.320 --> 00:19:58.280
 I think it is primary arterial, I just didn't want to, I didn't want to speak out of term,

00:19:58.280 --> 00:19:59.280
 I'm sorry.

00:19:59.280 --> 00:20:00.280
 It is.

00:20:00.280 --> 00:20:01.280
 I found your report, yes.

00:20:01.280 --> 00:20:05.280
 Teasley is an existing primary arterial roadway which is 135 feet of right of way and then

00:20:05.280 --> 00:20:08.040
 ultimately would be constructed with six travel lanes.

00:20:08.040 --> 00:20:13.480
 Yeah, so ideally I think amongst or adjacent to those, those right of way, we are looking

00:20:13.480 --> 00:20:22.960
 for the more suburban corridor type of development, that level of commercial intensity.

00:20:22.960 --> 00:20:28.280
 And then also the density in this area is a lot of single family homes around you as

00:20:28.280 --> 00:20:34.440
 opposed to you have that one multifamily development to the west immediately of this site.

00:20:34.440 --> 00:20:39.480
 But the suburban corridor, and it's in our future lane use map as well, just kind of,

00:20:39.480 --> 00:20:44.720
 it fits better with the upgrade of Teasley as well as the secondary arterial designation

00:20:44.720 --> 00:20:48.040
 of Ryan.

00:20:48.040 --> 00:20:58.200
 Yeah, and again, like from what I said earlier, I get it, it's Teasley, but it's just because

00:20:58.200 --> 00:21:03.960
 of what was already here, it's like these things were here and then Teasley became the

00:21:03.960 --> 00:21:05.560
 Teasley that it is now.

00:21:05.560 --> 00:21:12.080
 I mean we've got elementary school on that corner, right, from what I, yeah, Nelson's

00:21:12.080 --> 00:21:16.000
 right there across from where we're talking about.

00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:19.920
 So probably one last question and then we can move on.

00:21:19.920 --> 00:21:24.280
 So you mentioned like restaurant with a drive-through which is an MN, it's allowed an MN, it just

00:21:24.280 --> 00:21:26.040
 needs a specific use permit.

00:21:26.040 --> 00:21:29.640
 So is that something that they just didn't want to entertain?

00:21:29.640 --> 00:21:33.640
 Because again, I'm trying to get to the end game here because to me I think it's a, it's

00:21:33.640 --> 00:21:39.000
 just a really interesting request for what's already in place and I feel like we're trying

00:21:39.000 --> 00:21:46.680
 to do something that, you know, that we need to be careful of because of what's, again,

00:21:46.680 --> 00:21:51.280
 what's already there and in place.

00:21:51.280 --> 00:21:56.560
 So well, and to me, I mean, that's something to ask the applicant, allow the applicant

00:21:56.560 --> 00:21:57.560
 to address it.

00:21:57.560 --> 00:21:58.560
 Oh, I definitely will.

00:21:58.560 --> 00:22:03.880
 We have listed the narrative and have done our assessment on it, you know, in this case

00:22:03.880 --> 00:22:09.000
 with rezoning it to a plan development district, they are obviously allowing for that particular

00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:12.960
 use by right but they're eliminating some of the other uses that would otherwise be

00:22:12.960 --> 00:22:18.040
 allowed under the existing zoning or even under the SC zoning, excuse me, but then,

00:22:18.040 --> 00:22:22.480
 you know, in this case presumably it's requiring a public hearing one time instead of bringing

00:22:22.480 --> 00:22:25.880
 everybody out multiple times if there were multiple, you know, let's say if they did

00:22:25.880 --> 00:22:30.520
 come forward with multiple drive-through tenants and then it also allows for continuity within

00:22:30.520 --> 00:22:35.960
 the development regulations instead of the neighborhood trying to have to address certain

00:22:35.960 --> 00:22:39.200
 requirements each time a specific use permit request comes through.

00:22:39.200 --> 00:22:43.560
 So it, you know, there's some trade-offs associated with it but, you know, ultimately if the commission

00:22:43.560 --> 00:22:50.000
 feels that this is not the, you know, appropriate, the appropriate zoning for the property then

00:22:50.000 --> 00:22:54.520
 you have the ability to, you know, be able to decide that accordingly but I would say

00:22:54.520 --> 00:22:57.600
 give the applicant an opportunity to be able to address the questions that you're asking

00:22:57.600 --> 00:23:00.240
 because they may be able to expand on it more than us.

00:23:00.240 --> 00:23:01.240
 Yeah, okay.

00:23:01.240 --> 00:23:06.680
 Yeah, and yeah, I think that's fair because to me the base zoning in there seems appropriate.

00:23:06.680 --> 00:23:12.600
 There's lots that can be developed commercially within, you know, the way the PD is now.

00:23:12.600 --> 00:23:19.200
 I mean, the only restriction on it is no multifamily and then it said commercial uses in the MN

00:23:19.200 --> 00:23:24.700
 district so we're obviously wanting commercial uses out of the MN district and so this is

00:23:24.700 --> 00:23:32.900
 what I'm churning in my mind is like is that really appropriate and again notwithstanding

00:23:32.900 --> 00:23:38.800
 that it's Teasley Lane, I get it but it's again everything that is already in place

00:23:38.800 --> 00:23:43.240
 is absolutely has to be considered and can't just be forgotten about because oh it's Teasley

00:23:43.240 --> 00:23:51.320
 Lane and it's now this wonderfully, you know, wide high-speed road, you know, so anyway.

00:23:51.320 --> 00:23:54.840
 Any other questions?

00:23:54.840 --> 00:23:59.280
 Thank you for answering all of mine and Commissioner Pritz.

00:23:59.280 --> 00:24:06.120
 Okay, we will go to 4B, Z220019.

00:24:06.120 --> 00:24:07.120
 Hello Ron.

00:24:07.120 --> 00:24:17.480
 Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Commission.

00:24:17.480 --> 00:24:22.360
 We have a request for an initial zoning of a property.

00:24:22.360 --> 00:24:25.760
 Just for a quick background, this subject property that's outlined in yellow was recently

00:24:25.760 --> 00:24:28.720
 annexed earlier this year, January 10th.

00:24:28.720 --> 00:24:30.760
 It's approximately 18.6 acres.

00:24:30.760 --> 00:24:37.280
 You can see that the area there is primarily agriculture or used as undeveloped.

00:24:37.280 --> 00:24:40.240
 It generally fronts 380.

00:24:40.240 --> 00:24:44.680
 Also to the west is Thomas Egan Road.

00:24:44.680 --> 00:24:53.560
 The proposed use is just again a quick presentation is the property just south of the area that's

00:24:53.560 --> 00:24:57.720
 outlined in yellow is also owned by the same property owner.

00:24:57.720 --> 00:25:01.560
 That property was zoned L.I. recently as well.

00:25:01.560 --> 00:25:08.600
 So what they're trying to do is zone all three tracts to L.I. again to develop a light industrial

00:25:08.600 --> 00:25:09.760
 use.

00:25:09.760 --> 00:25:15.440
 The future land use designation is a light industrial and again it is consistent to what

00:25:15.440 --> 00:25:17.400
 is being proposed.

00:25:17.400 --> 00:25:21.760
 Staff is recommending approval based on the criteria for approval in the development code

00:25:21.760 --> 00:25:27.120
 and I'll stand for any questions.

00:25:27.120 --> 00:25:28.920
 Any questions for Ron here?

00:25:28.920 --> 00:25:38.920
 Ron, there seem to be a lot on the site encumbered with the ESA, so making it undevelopable on

00:25:38.920 --> 00:25:40.440
 parts of it?

00:25:40.440 --> 00:25:45.800
 I would say almost a third of the property is undevelopable just because of the ESA and

00:25:45.800 --> 00:25:46.800
 the flip plane.

00:25:46.800 --> 00:25:52.480
 However, they have shown a conceptual site plan that shows the development more along

00:25:52.480 --> 00:25:54.320
 Thomas Egan.

00:25:54.320 --> 00:25:59.120
 Three entrances will be off of Thomas Egan, but yes, you're absolutely correct.

00:25:59.120 --> 00:26:05.280
 To the east portion of the property is inundated with ESA and flip plane, but they're able

00:26:05.280 --> 00:26:08.400
 to design it to be able to still fit what they're proposing.

00:26:08.400 --> 00:26:14.280
 Okay, so they're not looking for a feature infringement on that or some kind of alt?

00:26:14.280 --> 00:26:15.280
 No not that.

00:26:15.280 --> 00:26:18.640
 Again, based on their conceptual site plan, it does not appear that they'll be requesting

00:26:18.640 --> 00:26:22.280
 any alternative ESA plan.

00:26:22.280 --> 00:26:23.280
 Any questions for him?

00:26:23.280 --> 00:26:24.560
 Commissioner Cole?

00:26:24.560 --> 00:26:25.560
 Thank you Chair.

00:26:25.560 --> 00:26:35.800
 Ron, looking at this and this is kind of reminds me of Ranch Estates 10 years ago.

00:26:35.800 --> 00:26:36.800
 Okay.

00:26:36.800 --> 00:26:38.640
 Do you see what I'm saying?

00:26:38.640 --> 00:26:40.440
 Do you look at that?

00:26:40.440 --> 00:26:52.520
 But we also have a mud district proposed to this right Jason to it yes it's gonna be residential.

00:26:52.520 --> 00:26:56.200
 So here we are going again with these mixed uses.

00:26:56.200 --> 00:27:01.840
 You know we already have a use there, it's residential, we got rural residential.

00:27:01.840 --> 00:27:07.800
 All this creek bottom, this is what we see, all these trees we see, this is a large creek

00:27:07.800 --> 00:27:11.560
 system right here.

00:27:11.560 --> 00:27:30.880
 You know LI and R through R3 does not coexist, you see what I'm saying?

00:27:30.880 --> 00:27:38.000
 I do, I do and what I can tell you is obviously Thomas Egan serves as a secondary arterial

00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:44.320
 so it will be wide enough to the east you have like we discussed an ESA and a creek

00:27:44.320 --> 00:27:50.360
 to help buffer a little bit but you're right there'll be some buffering screening and setback

00:27:50.360 --> 00:27:57.180
 requirements as this development comes in and that will be to help alleviate that is

00:27:57.180 --> 00:28:04.080
 some of the potential impacts that any proposed use would have.

00:28:04.080 --> 00:28:05.080
 Thank you Ron.

00:28:05.080 --> 00:28:09.240
 I mean it's just I guess it's a little late too little too late you know for that area

00:28:09.240 --> 00:28:13.600
 the die is cast I suppose but hey thank you I appreciate it.

00:28:13.600 --> 00:28:19.060
 I mean there's definitely concern for infringement upon this rural area which we've talked about

00:28:19.060 --> 00:28:29.200
 multiple times about what this whole from 35 on down here is yeah what really has developed

00:28:29.200 --> 00:28:31.720
 because we've let it become LI.

00:28:31.720 --> 00:28:37.840
 Ron did you say that the the front track that is fronting University is owned by this?

00:28:37.840 --> 00:28:38.840
 Correct, same owner.

00:28:38.840 --> 00:28:41.840
 And it is LI, I saw that.

00:28:41.840 --> 00:28:42.840
 Yes.

00:28:42.840 --> 00:28:43.840
 Yeah.

00:28:43.840 --> 00:28:47.000
 Commissioner Prudt did you have your hand up?

00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:48.000
 Yeah thank you Chair.

00:28:48.000 --> 00:28:55.440
 Just for my information Commissioner Cole you mentioned that there's a mud coming in

00:28:55.440 --> 00:28:56.680
 to the west here.

00:28:56.680 --> 00:29:01.080
 Is that immediately to the west of Thomas Egan Drive or is it further to the west?

00:29:01.080 --> 00:29:02.080
 It's just immediate.

00:29:02.080 --> 00:29:03.080
 Immediately?

00:29:03.080 --> 00:29:05.280
 Yeah abutting Thomas Egan Drive, yes.

00:29:05.280 --> 00:29:06.280
 Okay.

00:29:06.280 --> 00:29:14.600
 I know that is a I don't know the status of that particular MUD but that is correct it's

00:29:14.600 --> 00:29:18.160
 just immediately to the west of Thomas Egan.

00:29:18.160 --> 00:29:25.400
 All right now thank you I mean just things to think through here I think my concern I

00:29:25.400 --> 00:29:31.960
 mean one about the compatibility but I'm just thinking through to what University Drive

00:29:31.960 --> 00:29:39.800
 10 miles east of Denton looked like 15 years ago and you know we when I look on the mobility

00:29:39.800 --> 00:29:46.920
 plan I don't see any east west roads north of 380 there so I'd hate to set up a situation

00:29:46.920 --> 00:29:53.720
 where everybody has to get on to 380 in order to get to the grocery store and you know that

00:29:53.720 --> 00:30:06.120
 kind of thing so okay thank you anybody else okay thanks Ron we'll talk more there oh you've

00:30:06.120 --> 00:30:13.960
 got the next one too so I will let you continue.

00:30:13.960 --> 00:30:19.600
 So presenting to you today a proposed code amendment related to outdoor storage and outdoor

00:30:19.600 --> 00:30:26.680
 display this item has been discussed and reviewed with the development code review committee

00:30:26.680 --> 00:30:33.000
 we met several times you can see the dates here specifically the purpose for this code

00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:39.200
 amendment was really to review it against some recent decisions as well as an interpretation

00:30:39.200 --> 00:30:43.200
 with the zoning board of adjustment but also to address the inconsistent language that

00:30:43.200 --> 00:30:49.080
 we have as it relates to outdoor storage and then also propose some additional languages

00:30:49.080 --> 00:30:55.400
 use specific standards that we felt would help clarify but also meet the intent of what the

00:30:55.400 --> 00:31:02.040
 outdoor storage was for the particular uses now those uses are listed to the right you

00:31:02.040 --> 00:31:07.160
 see the sections where their reference we are dealing with primarily automotive but

00:31:07.160 --> 00:31:13.200
 we also have equipment sales outdoor storage self storage and accessory outdoor storage

00:31:13.200 --> 00:31:18.620
 as well in addition to those uses we also propose some code amendments related to other

00:31:18.620 --> 00:31:25.480
 sections of the code as it relates to outdoor storage screening fencing and then also definition

00:31:25.480 --> 00:31:30.420
 amendments to help pull all this together.

00:31:30.420 --> 00:31:35.600
 So rather than go through all of the code amendments line by line I've prepared a couple

00:31:35.600 --> 00:31:43.120
 slides to summarize the languages that we're proposing the language that you see in front

00:31:43.120 --> 00:31:48.760
 of you or on the screen here are languages that are consistent throughout the same uses

00:31:48.760 --> 00:31:55.840
 or the uses that are listed to the right one way or another I'll point out that the second

00:31:55.840 --> 00:32:03.240
 bullet there and the third bullet are different in the sense that they are requiring the first

00:32:03.240 --> 00:32:09.120
 the second one is requiring more requirements for screening where it says with a minimum

00:32:09.120 --> 00:32:15.560
 eight foot tall wall fence or fence of masonry elevated or and sealed wood or combination

00:32:15.560 --> 00:32:21.560
 of such materials that is for zoning districts that we felt that needed a little bit more

00:32:21.560 --> 00:32:31.800
 protection such as the MN, MDN and R7 and the like where the third bullet where it is

00:32:31.800 --> 00:32:37.800
 a little bit less required means for screening basically just requires that it complies with

00:32:37.800 --> 00:32:43.760
 subchapter or subsection 778 which is the walls fences and screening are primarily really

00:32:43.760 --> 00:32:49.040
 more dedicated or more applied to the LI and HI zone district so just want to make sure

00:32:49.040 --> 00:32:53.960
 you understood the differences between the two requirements for outdoor storage because

00:32:53.960 --> 00:32:57.520
 again the differences here is because of the zoning district.

00:32:57.520 --> 00:33:02.920
 And then last bullet there is related to outdoor display this pretty much similar to all of

00:33:02.920 --> 00:33:08.600
 the uses that house has outdoor display as it relates to retail supplies and again those

00:33:08.600 --> 00:33:15.400
 are applied to the applicable uses where it applies and the full code amendment is in

00:33:15.400 --> 00:33:19.640
 your backup if you have any further questions or require more detail we can certainly go

00:33:19.640 --> 00:33:23.260
 into that as well.

00:33:23.260 --> 00:33:29.800
 In addition we've added additional use specific standards to the code amendments related to

00:33:29.800 --> 00:33:34.640
 the following that you see here and I tried to summarize it as best as I can essentially

00:33:34.640 --> 00:33:43.160
 where auto repair and servicing is proposed on a property it is constituted as an automotive

00:33:43.160 --> 00:33:49.840
 repair major or minor so they would have to fall under that set of criteria so if they're

00:33:49.840 --> 00:33:54.680
 proposing that as part of another use they also have to be permitted in that zoning district

00:33:54.680 --> 00:33:59.240
 for that particular automotive repair major or minor.

00:33:59.240 --> 00:34:05.780
 Noise levels we added that there not just to add more regulations but really just to

00:34:05.780 --> 00:34:10.920
 provide that reference so that they know that there's also noise compliance that has to

00:34:10.920 --> 00:34:14.260
 happen with their proposed development.

00:34:14.260 --> 00:34:19.120
 Similar to auto repair and servicing if there are any sale or leasing of motor vehicles

00:34:19.120 --> 00:34:24.680
 they constitute an automotive sale and leasing use so again if that use is not permitted

00:34:24.680 --> 00:34:31.560
 per that zoning district that use would not be permitted on that particular property.

00:34:31.560 --> 00:34:37.240
 Third rental of moving trucks and moving related equipment those constitute as equipment sales

00:34:37.240 --> 00:34:43.200
 and retail use and that is a specific use I'm sorry a use that's listed in our development

00:34:43.200 --> 00:34:49.320
 code and again it must be permitted in that zoning district either by right or SUP.

00:34:49.320 --> 00:34:54.120
 With regards to self-service storage we did add a little bit more clarity and more information

00:34:54.120 --> 00:35:01.640
 related to what can be used under that particular use so rental of storage units, rental storage

00:35:01.640 --> 00:35:08.720
 space for RVs and boats and the sale of moving related items are allowed under self-storage

00:35:08.720 --> 00:35:13.120
 however no other uses would be permitted under self-storage.

00:35:13.120 --> 00:35:18.040
 And last we have uses outdoor storage and accessory outdoor storage we provided some

00:35:18.040 --> 00:35:25.120
 languages there to determine or to delineate how where and what types of items can be stored

00:35:25.120 --> 00:35:30.680
 outdoors again for those two uses.

00:35:30.680 --> 00:35:36.480
 Carrying forward we also have languages that you that are part of other sections of the

00:35:36.480 --> 00:35:43.200
 code I'll just point to the first one a real simple edit there is just to change outside

00:35:43.200 --> 00:35:47.520
 to outdoor to be consistent with the other sections of the code.

00:35:47.520 --> 00:35:52.680
 The second one here list basically cleans up what was currently what is currently in

00:35:52.680 --> 00:35:57.320
 the code with the similar language that you saw earlier in the first slide so again just

00:35:57.320 --> 00:36:01.920
 making sure that we have consistent language and then the third one below here is really

00:36:01.920 --> 00:36:09.680
 to add a director's ability to grant an alternative height currently the maximum height under

00:36:09.680 --> 00:36:18.360
 the table 7.8 or dot H is 8 feet but the development code review committee felt that if there is

00:36:18.360 --> 00:36:23.320
 an opportunity to even raise that past 8 feet there should be the ability for the director

00:36:23.320 --> 00:36:31.120
 to make that decision as long as that there is no endangerment of the public safety or

00:36:31.120 --> 00:36:39.200
 adversely impacting the surrounding property so that is added again to allow for that alternative.

00:36:39.200 --> 00:36:43.480
 And then my last slide here is really just to list all of the definitions that we are

00:36:43.480 --> 00:36:47.760
 amending as part of this code amendment I won't go through all of them but again I wanted

00:36:47.760 --> 00:36:53.240
 to list them here and again per the backup you have in front of you or with you you can

00:36:53.240 --> 00:37:00.040
 see where those changes or what those changes are for all these zone or for all these definitions.

00:37:00.040 --> 00:37:02.200
 With that I'll stand for any questions.

00:37:02.200 --> 00:37:03.840
 Thank you Ron.

00:37:03.840 --> 00:37:04.840
 Any questions?

00:37:04.840 --> 00:37:15.340
 Yeah great presentation right there and great backup and I know it was hard and intense

00:37:15.340 --> 00:37:20.840
 work with the DCRC so yes I appreciate that yeah okay thanks Ron.

00:37:20.840 --> 00:37:27.640
 I think that was our last item on the agenda so I will go ahead and close our work session

00:37:27.640 --> 00:37:42.600
 at 6 10 p.m. and we will reconvene in council chambers at 6 30.

00:37:42.600 --> 00:37:45.960
 Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for

00:37:45.960 --> 00:37:54.140
 Wednesday February 15th 2023 with a quorum present I will call us to order at 6 37 p.m.

00:37:54.140 --> 00:37:57.420
 Thank you for your patience and us starting a little bit late today.

00:37:57.420 --> 00:38:01.600
 First item on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags.

00:38:01.600 --> 00:38:09.000
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

00:38:09.000 --> 00:38:17.000
 which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

00:38:17.000 --> 00:38:32.240
 Thank you.

00:38:32.240 --> 00:38:37.360
 Next item our agenda is the consideration of approval for our meeting minutes from

00:38:37.360 --> 00:38:40.920
 January 25th.

00:38:40.920 --> 00:38:54.040
 Commissioner Anderson we've got a first and a second for approval any discussion okay

00:38:54.040 --> 00:39:04.480
 let's go ahead and vote please.

00:39:04.480 --> 00:39:10.180
 That motion carries 6 0 that will take us to our items for individual consideration first

00:39:10.180 --> 00:39:24.200
 up is 3 a P.E. 23 0001 invite Sean for presentation presentation here all right.

00:39:24.200 --> 00:39:28.160
 Good evening chair and members of the planning and zoning commission my name is Sean Jacobson

00:39:28.160 --> 00:39:34.360
 associate planner I'm here to present P.E. 23 - 001 which is a plat extension request

00:39:34.360 --> 00:39:38.840
 for the 100 north loop 288 edition.

00:39:38.840 --> 00:39:44.360
 This is a request for an extension of a preliminary plat that was approved on April 21st 2021

00:39:44.360 --> 00:39:50.840
 the property is at the intersection of loop 288 and McKinney it's approximately 19.49

00:39:50.840 --> 00:39:56.120
 acres since the time that the preliminary plat was approved the project has continued

00:39:56.120 --> 00:40:01.160
 to move forward there is an approved set of civil engineering plans another set of civil

00:40:01.160 --> 00:40:04.800
 engineering plans on review as well as a tech stop permit that has been approved by the

00:40:04.800 --> 00:40:10.020
 city and is under review by tech stock and a zoning compliance plan.

00:40:10.020 --> 00:40:15.500
 The project is a complex project it involves coordination with a number of multiple end

00:40:15.500 --> 00:40:19.840
 users shared drainage multiple rights of way there's been a lot to work through and the

00:40:19.840 --> 00:40:24.640
 applicant has been consistently working on getting through those issues but they are

00:40:24.640 --> 00:40:28.280
 requesting the additional time in order to have an opportunity to do that and they do

00:40:28.280 --> 00:40:32.160
 believe that will enable them to reach the point of final plat at least for the first

00:40:32.160 --> 00:40:39.920
 lot. Staff has considered this request based on our approval for criteria and we do recommend

00:40:39.920 --> 00:40:45.000
 approval of the requested one year extension. That is my presentation I'm happy to stand

00:40:45.000 --> 00:40:46.000
 for any questions.

00:40:46.000 --> 00:40:53.960
 Thank you Sean. Any questions for Sean? I do not see any thank you very much. Commissioner

00:40:53.960 --> 00:40:54.960
 Villarreal.

00:40:54.960 --> 00:40:59.720
 I move approval of the one year extension.

00:40:59.720 --> 00:41:00.720
 Commissioner Cole.

00:41:00.720 --> 00:41:01.720
 Second.

00:41:01.720 --> 00:41:07.680
 We have a first and a second for approval of the one year plat preliminary plat extension.

00:41:07.680 --> 00:41:19.920
 Any discussion? Okay let's go ahead and vote please. That motion carries 6-0 that will

00:41:19.920 --> 00:41:26.480
 take us to 3B FR230001. I'll invite Ashley up for presentation.

00:41:26.480 --> 00:41:37.080
 Good evening. Ashley Eckstead assistant planner City of Denton. This is a final replat for

00:41:37.080 --> 00:41:42.920
 the Mission Street offices. This is an approximately 4.6 acre site on the corner of Fort Worth

00:41:42.920 --> 00:41:47.480
 Drive in East Mission Street. At this time staff is recommending denial but we have no

00:41:47.480 --> 00:41:53.960
 objection to the requested extension till March 15, 2023. Happy to answer any questions.

00:41:53.960 --> 00:42:00.040
 Thanks Ashley. Any questions on this? Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Pruitt.

00:42:00.040 --> 00:42:05.800
 I move to approve the applicant requested extension till March 15.

00:42:05.800 --> 00:42:06.800
 Commissioner Villarreal.

00:42:06.800 --> 00:42:07.800
 Second.

00:42:07.800 --> 00:42:12.160
 We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of

00:42:12.160 --> 00:42:25.640
 March 15, 2023. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none let's go ahead and vote please. That

00:42:25.640 --> 00:42:38.200
 motion item carries 6-0. That will take us to 3C FP230003. Hello again Ashley.

00:42:38.200 --> 00:42:43.360
 This is an extension request for a final plat of the Watson edition. This is an approximately

00:42:43.360 --> 00:42:49.960
 15.9 acre site to establish 12 residential lots in the ETJ. Staff does currently recommend

00:42:49.960 --> 00:42:54.120
 denial as they have not met the criteria for approval but we have no objection to the requested

00:42:54.120 --> 00:42:59.080
 extension till March 15, 2023. Happy to answer any questions.

00:42:59.080 --> 00:43:04.920
 Thanks Ashley. Any questions? I do not see any. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal.

00:43:04.920 --> 00:43:10.360
 I move approval of the extension to a date certain of March 15, 2023.

00:43:10.360 --> 00:43:11.360
 Commissioner Anderson.

00:43:11.360 --> 00:43:12.360
 Second.

00:43:12.360 --> 00:43:16.640
 We've got a first and a second for approval of the extension request to a date certain

00:43:16.640 --> 00:43:34.560
 of March 15, 2023. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote please. That motion carries 6-0. That

00:43:34.560 --> 00:43:41.200
 will take us to 3D PP230001. Sean will make a presentation on this item.

00:43:41.200 --> 00:43:49.560
 Good evening. So this is a request for a preliminary plat of the Riney Road Elementary edition.

00:43:49.560 --> 00:43:55.040
 At this time staff is recommending now because it does not yet meet our criteria for approval

00:43:55.040 --> 00:43:59.520
 but staff has no objection to the request for an extension to a date certain of March

00:43:59.520 --> 00:44:01.520
 15. Thank you.

00:44:01.520 --> 00:44:07.960
 I do not see any questions for you. Appreciate that Sean. Commissioner Anderson.

00:44:07.960 --> 00:44:12.960
 Make a motion to approve the extension to a date certain of March 15.

00:44:12.960 --> 00:44:13.960
 Commissioner Cole.

00:44:13.960 --> 00:44:14.960
 Second.

00:44:14.960 --> 00:44:18.680
 We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of March

00:44:18.680 --> 00:44:34.720
 15, 2023. Any discussion? Seeing none let's vote on the board please. That motion carries

00:44:34.720 --> 00:44:42.240
 6-0. Moves us to item 3E which has been withdrawn by the applicant so we will not be taking

00:44:42.240 --> 00:44:56.040
 any action on 3E. That will move us to 3F ZCP 220039. I will invite Mia up for presentation.

00:44:56.040 --> 00:45:06.200
 Good evening Chair, members of the Commission. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This item is

00:45:06.200 --> 00:45:13.560
 a zoning compliance plan located within the Razor Ranch South campus overlay district.

00:45:13.560 --> 00:45:18.120
 The request is approval of their site plan. Usually this body does not see zoning compliance

00:45:18.120 --> 00:45:22.760
 plans but because it is in Razor Ranch South campus that is why it is appearing before

00:45:22.760 --> 00:45:30.960
 you this evening. The site itself is approximately 2.8 acres located just at the northwest corner

00:45:30.960 --> 00:45:36.080
 of Panhandle Street and Heritage Trail. As for zoning for this site it is located within

00:45:36.080 --> 00:45:42.640
 the RCCD based zoning within Razor Ranch which is subject to the 2002 Denton development

00:45:42.640 --> 00:45:48.640
 code as well as the Razor Ranch overlay development standards. The permitted or the requested

00:45:48.640 --> 00:45:56.660
 use hotel is permitted in the sub area by right. So with this site plan we take a look

00:45:56.660 --> 00:46:08.960
 at Z20-0012C specifically exhibit C2 and D2 for the architectural and landscape requirements

00:46:08.960 --> 00:46:15.200
 for this site respectively and we took a look at the site plan, landscape plan and foresighted

00:46:15.200 --> 00:46:19.880
 building elevations as a part of the zoning compliance plan package. With that we weighted

00:46:19.880 --> 00:46:25.600
 against the criteria for approval found under the 2002 Denton development code specifically

00:46:25.600 --> 00:46:30.640
 we wanted to make sure that the site substantially complied with the concept schematic plan approved

00:46:30.640 --> 00:46:37.280
 by City Council which I'll get to these items in a second here. The site plan provided for

00:46:37.280 --> 00:46:40.720
 compatible arrangements of building and land uses. The site plan provided for adequate

00:46:40.720 --> 00:46:47.880
 and safe vehicular traffic and vehicular traffic and circulation and the plan fully complies

00:46:47.880 --> 00:46:52.400
 with all other sections of the overlay district. So here and included in your packet is the

00:46:52.400 --> 00:46:57.880
 site plan for this site. It's a four story hotel approximately almost seventy five thousand

00:46:57.880 --> 00:47:03.800
 square feet total. They are proposing the proper number of parking spaces associated

00:47:03.800 --> 00:47:11.480
 with that use and a driveway access point will be taken off of one off of I'm sorry

00:47:11.480 --> 00:47:16.000
 off of the private drive that's there to the west that's a typo in my presentation my apologies

00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:22.720
 and then one off of heritage trail there to the east. Cross access is required for this

00:47:22.720 --> 00:47:27.800
 development they have not provided it for this site on to the next but that private

00:47:27.800 --> 00:47:33.960
 drive being off of the public right of way does serve to improve the vehicular circulation

00:47:33.960 --> 00:47:39.000
 and so we are willing to waive that or approve this sort of alternative development plan

00:47:39.000 --> 00:47:43.320
 for this site. With that though we are and you'll notice in my recommendation a little

00:47:43.320 --> 00:47:48.240
 later requesting some additional pedestrian circulation elements that would not normally

00:47:48.240 --> 00:47:54.400
 be required for a site of this caliber. As for the landscaping they are meeting the minimums

00:47:54.400 --> 00:47:59.040
 as you can see there in the chart with the overall site providing an overall site landscaping

00:47:59.040 --> 00:48:05.080
 coverage area of 28 percent and an overall tree canopy coverage of 40 percent. Here and

00:48:05.080 --> 00:48:08.600
 again and included in your packet are the elevations for the site again we just made

00:48:08.600 --> 00:48:14.360
 sure that as far as building articulation placement they were meeting the standards

00:48:14.360 --> 00:48:19.160
 of the Razor Ranch Overlay District. And so with that staff is recommending approval of

00:48:19.160 --> 00:48:23.760
 the proposed zoning compliance plan subject to the condition that a pedestrian path be

00:48:23.760 --> 00:48:29.680
 added to the east side of the building or from the east side of the building along through

00:48:29.680 --> 00:48:35.160
 the parking lot on to the existing sidewalk on heritage trail as well all internal parking

00:48:35.160 --> 00:48:39.480
 area pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of five feet in width and be distinguishable

00:48:39.480 --> 00:48:47.040
 from areas used by vehicles. And so that's different materials different color clearly

00:48:47.040 --> 00:48:52.280
 identifying that this is a pedestrian path and cautioning vehicles in that area to slow

00:48:52.280 --> 00:48:57.360
 down and let pedestrians cross. So at this time I will take any questions or comments

00:48:57.360 --> 00:49:05.080
 that you have. Great. Thank you ma'am. Commissioner Cole. Thank you Chair. Mia I know it says

00:49:05.080 --> 00:49:12.840
 O'Reilly Hotel Partners but what chain is this? It's Home 2 by Hilton is the applicant

00:49:12.840 --> 00:49:25.320
 or the business name. Oh okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mia? Mia I asked

00:49:25.320 --> 00:49:29.880
 this at work session but if I'm going to ask it again in this public meeting so that you

00:49:29.880 --> 00:49:35.000
 can relay the answer again but we did receive a citizen comment on this regarding

00:49:35.000 --> 00:49:41.080
 building materials that are mentioned in the razor range overlay. So would you please explain

00:49:41.080 --> 00:49:46.960
 here the same as you did at work session. So absolutely. So under there are some minimum

00:49:46.960 --> 00:49:53.480
 building percentage materials for brick masonry things like that under the razor range overlay

00:49:53.480 --> 00:49:59.760
 district. However per recently adopted within the past four or five years state law the

00:49:59.760 --> 00:50:06.000
 cities can no longer enforce certain percentages of building materials as long as it's a permissible

00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:13.120
 material under the code we have to allow that building material to be used. Okay and then

00:50:13.120 --> 00:50:17.200
 you mentioned something that there is an architectural committee that's just a private committee within

00:50:17.200 --> 00:50:23.600
 razor ranch that what reviews designs as well. Yeah they're supposed to have a review architectural

00:50:23.600 --> 00:50:33.600
 review over certain developments within razor. Okay. Again that is that's a private thing. Right. That we don't have anything to do with. Okay awesome. Thank you I appreciate that.

00:50:33.600 --> 00:50:50.080
 Commissioner Pruitt. Yeah I'll move approval with staff recommended conditions. Awesome. Commissioner Anderson. Second. Okay we've got a first and a second for approval with recommended staff conditions. Any discussion? Okay let's go ahead and vote please.

00:50:54.480 --> 00:51:06.640
 That motion will carry 6-0. That will take us to 3G ZCP 220062 and I'll invite Mia up once again for presentation of this item.

00:51:06.640 --> 00:51:22.560
 Okay good evening again members of the commission. Mia Hines associate planner. So this is a consideration of a zoning compliance plan similar to the last item but for a

00:51:22.560 --> 00:51:30.240
 multifamily residential development located near the northwest corner of Panhandle Street and Bonnie Brace Street.

00:51:30.240 --> 00:51:41.360
 The site is just over three acres at 3.13 acres and I did want to mention up top that it is near a gas well pad site there to the southeast of this property.

00:51:41.360 --> 00:51:48.880
 With gas well drilling and production sites we do require a minimum reverse setback of 500 feet in our

00:51:48.880 --> 00:51:55.680
 DDC but with that if a site is encumbered by more than 50 percent of the gas well setback there are some

00:51:55.680 --> 00:52:00.560
 built-in relief measures that the director can grant per the DDC as long as certain

00:52:00.560 --> 00:52:06.320
 site considerations are taken into account. One being the applicant is allowed to increase the

00:52:06.320 --> 00:52:12.240
 overall height of buildings. This particular site the maximum height is 100 feet and so that would not

00:52:12.240 --> 00:52:16.880
 help them in this case and then they're also allowed to reduce the minimum number of parking

00:52:17.520 --> 00:52:23.440
 that is required for the specific use in this case the developer has taken that into account and still

00:52:23.440 --> 00:52:28.960
 needed that that reduced setback and so with that the the site plan that you'll see is being proposed

00:52:28.960 --> 00:52:35.040
 with the the administrative approval of that that reduced setback from 500 feet to 375.

00:52:35.040 --> 00:52:42.720
 As far as the zoning for this site it is located within the NRMU base zoning of the Razor Ranch

00:52:42.720 --> 00:52:48.960
 overlay district it is part of the Razor Ranch south mixed use sub area and the permitted

00:52:48.960 --> 00:52:56.800
 proposed and permitted use for this site is multi-family residential. For this particular

00:52:56.800 --> 00:53:04.160
 site we're looking at ordinance Z18-0026C specifically exhibit C to A for both the

00:53:04.160 --> 00:53:12.400
 architectural and landscape requirements for this site and those are specific to multi-family

00:53:12.400 --> 00:53:18.080
 developments located east of heritage trail so you may be fairly familiar there's an existing

00:53:18.080 --> 00:53:23.200
 multi-family there to the northwest but that's this is specific to that area and this use.

00:53:23.200 --> 00:53:28.960
 So with that we did weigh the zoning compliance plan package up against the

00:53:28.960 --> 00:53:36.480
 DDC requirements under the former 2002 development code to make sure that the site substantially

00:53:36.480 --> 00:53:42.480
 complied with those approval criteria. Here's and including your packet is the site plan as you can

00:53:42.480 --> 00:53:50.160
 see sort of in the red dotted line that's the the existing 500 foot to minimum reverse gas well

00:53:50.160 --> 00:53:57.840
 setback and it has been reduced to that green line there at 375 feet. The applicant is proposing a

00:53:57.840 --> 00:54:04.000
 three-story building with approximately I'm sorry with 105 multi-family units appropriate parking

00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:09.840
 there's a leasing office active green area as a courtyard and they're taking their driveway off of

00:54:09.840 --> 00:54:17.280
 panhandle street. So with that again here and including your packet is the landscape plan

00:54:17.280 --> 00:54:22.880
 they are exceeding the minimums with a overall landscape area of 22 percent as well as an overall

00:54:22.880 --> 00:54:29.440
 tree canopy coverage of 30 percent. Here and including your packet are the elevations I also

00:54:29.440 --> 00:54:37.120
 included a a cross section to show you give you a bit of an idea of what you would see on panhandle

00:54:37.120 --> 00:54:42.880
 street as you can see the the street is significantly it's a bit lower than the grade on the site and

00:54:42.880 --> 00:54:49.920
 then the applicant is proposing a landscape berm to sort of buffer that that parking area and also

00:54:49.920 --> 00:54:54.320
 this is a part of that that additional consideration that they're giving given that the site is

00:54:54.320 --> 00:55:01.280
 encumbered by 50 percent more than 50 percent minimum reverse gas will set back. So with that

00:55:01.280 --> 00:55:06.720
 stuff is recommending approval as it meets all of the criteria for approval of the Art Razor Rancho

00:55:06.720 --> 00:55:12.800
 Relay District and I will stand for any questions that you have at this time. Excellent Mia thank you

00:55:12.800 --> 00:55:19.600
 any questions for Mia? I do not see any great presentation and great backup material thank you.

00:55:21.680 --> 00:55:24.880
 Chair can entertain a motion or discussion at this time.

00:55:24.880 --> 00:55:34.320
 Commissioner McDade? I recommend approval. Okay Commissioner Anderson? I second. Okay we've got

00:55:34.320 --> 00:55:41.040
 a first and a second for approval any discussion? Okay seeing none let's go ahead and vote on the

00:55:41.040 --> 00:55:54.880
 board please. That motion carries 6-0 that will move us to our public hearings for this evening

00:55:54.880 --> 00:56:02.960
 first one being 4A PD 220010. I'll invite Mia back up to the podium for presentation

00:56:02.960 --> 00:56:17.520
 and I will open the public hearing. Okay evening again Mia Hines associate planner this site is a

00:56:17.520 --> 00:56:22.960
 request to rezone from a an existing plan development with a mixed use neighborhood

00:56:22.960 --> 00:56:28.080
 based zoning district to a new overlay plan development with a suburban corridor based

00:56:28.080 --> 00:56:36.560
 zoning district the existing PDMN transition from a PDNRMU to the of the former 2002 didn't

00:56:36.560 --> 00:56:42.080
 development code and so currently the site is subject to that code as well as the uses

00:56:42.080 --> 00:56:48.880
 and restrictions permitted within that PD. Under the I'm sorry the site itself is almost 13 acres

00:56:48.880 --> 00:56:54.880
 at 12.77 located at the northwest or near the northwest corner of Teasley Lane and Ryan Road.

00:56:55.520 --> 00:57:03.520
 Under the I'm sorry under the new the proposed PD permitted uses would be the certain commercial

00:57:03.520 --> 00:57:09.280
 uses as sort of defined and outlined in the DDC and the PD regulations that are a part of your

00:57:09.280 --> 00:57:14.160
 backup it would also require compliance with the current didn't development code as opposed to the

00:57:14.160 --> 00:57:20.640
 former outdated code and it would also require additional context sensitive site design

00:57:20.640 --> 00:57:28.400
 considerations for the areas abutting and adjacent to the existing residential uses to the to the west.

00:57:28.400 --> 00:57:36.640
 So if you recall recently we adopted a code amendment that separated or allowed for applicants

00:57:36.640 --> 00:57:42.320
 to apply for an overlay PD or a standard PD. The standard PD is the one with the PD regulations

00:57:42.320 --> 00:57:49.520
 PD development standards I'm sorry PD development plan and PD phasing whereas the overlay PD is

00:57:49.520 --> 00:57:54.720
 intended to address certain concerns of the neighboring property owners as well as allow

00:57:54.720 --> 00:57:59.920
 for developments that are more compatible with surrounding neighborhoods or less intensive uses.

00:57:59.920 --> 00:58:04.640
 So the applicant in this case is applying for that overlay PD to allow for those additional

00:58:04.640 --> 00:58:13.920
 restrictions add some additional again site context sensitivity design elements and ultimately allow

00:58:13.920 --> 00:58:23.520
 for certain commercial uses to be allowed are permitted on this site without or with taking

00:58:23.520 --> 00:58:27.760
 into consideration the existing uses as well as the existing adjacent thoroughfares.

00:58:27.760 --> 00:58:37.120
 So we did review this request up against the current criteria for approval in sub chapter two

00:58:37.120 --> 00:58:42.720
 throughout my presentation I'll talk about how the new PD would be subject to the development

00:58:42.720 --> 00:58:47.680
 of the current standards some of the benefits that that would come out of this plan development.

00:58:47.680 --> 00:58:55.440
 I'll also discuss the the sort of growth and changes that have happened in this area to

00:58:55.440 --> 00:59:01.680
 support the type of commercial that would be permitted on this site. I'll also discuss some

00:59:01.680 --> 00:59:10.960
 of the the proposed PD buffers that help to minimize the adverse impacts and then also

00:59:10.960 --> 00:59:17.120
 talk about how the the the proposed plan plays into the community mixed use future land use

00:59:17.120 --> 00:59:25.680
 designation for this site. So starting with that the didn't 2040 plan has this site designated for

00:59:25.680 --> 00:59:31.840
 community mixed use which is intended to promote a mix of uses where commercial is predominant.

00:59:31.840 --> 00:59:39.680
 It also is intended to encourage a wide array of economically viable uses as well as present

00:59:39.680 --> 00:59:43.280
 opportunities for higher density without impacting nearby single family neighborhoods

00:59:43.280 --> 00:59:49.040
 and the proposed PD SC is consistent with that future land use designation.

00:59:49.040 --> 00:59:54.560
 As far as impacts to surrounding properties this table shows you some of the permitted uses that

00:59:54.560 --> 01:00:05.120
 would be identified or allowed under the current zoning. If this were to transition to a base SC

01:00:05.120 --> 01:00:10.960
 zoning district without the overlay PD those uses it would be appropriate for given the current

01:00:10.960 --> 01:00:17.360
 future land use map designation. However there would be there are certain uses that are permitted

01:00:17.360 --> 01:00:21.120
 under the SC zoning district that might not necessarily be appropriate for this site hence

01:00:21.120 --> 01:00:31.200
 the overlay PD for with the SC base. Additionally there are some there would be a minimum 30 foot

01:00:31.200 --> 01:00:37.360
 wide setback with a minimum 30 points from the current DDC table 7 point G so there's some

01:00:37.360 --> 01:00:43.040
 flexibility in the design of the buffer whereas there is not any built into the 2002 code

01:00:43.040 --> 01:00:49.520
 and there's a minimum 15 foot wide buffer that would be required between the commercial site

01:00:49.520 --> 01:00:54.480
 and the adjacent residential as well. So this increases that overall buffer with sort of

01:00:54.480 --> 01:01:01.200
 incentivizing a natural drainage channel that's in that area or the preservation of that natural

01:01:01.200 --> 01:01:10.480
 drainage channel and ultimately allowing for that buffer area to be designed per our current standards.

01:01:10.480 --> 01:01:19.360
 So I just wanted to show you this map the one on your left is from 2017 the current

01:01:20.640 --> 01:01:25.680
 what's out there today or the current most up-to-date aerial is on your right. As you can see

01:01:25.680 --> 01:01:31.120
 there's been several single-family residential developments that have taken place over the past

01:01:31.120 --> 01:01:37.280
 six years including a multi-family residential development just to the west of the subject

01:01:37.280 --> 01:01:41.920
 property the build out of the single-family division or subdivision to the west of the

01:01:41.920 --> 01:01:49.120
 subject property as well as an update to Teasley Lane which at one point back in 2017

01:01:49.840 --> 01:01:55.680
 was a two lane divided when it has been updated to a six lane and is classified as a primary

01:01:55.680 --> 01:02:01.360
 arterial today and so with those changes the changes to the density the rooftops in the area

01:02:01.360 --> 01:02:08.240
 as well as the update to the the road suburban corridor is a is an appropriate zoning district

01:02:08.240 --> 01:02:15.440
 within the site and then of course those added overlay and since uses or added overlay restrictions

01:02:16.160 --> 01:02:22.000
 are meant to be more appropriate for these contexts as well as the adjacent single-family.

01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:32.000
 So we did perform a public outreach as per our code and per state law I did receive I received two

01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:39.200
 responses in opposition of the request one of them has since been rescinded and they had talked to

01:02:39.200 --> 01:02:46.080
 the applicant about about this project that has made a support of that project that came in after

01:02:46.080 --> 01:02:49.760
 this report was made and stuff like that so one of them has been rescinded and then one

01:02:49.760 --> 01:02:56.560
 response has been received in favor since the sending out of the notice and and staff reports

01:02:56.560 --> 01:03:04.720
 to you all. So with that staff is recommending approval of the of the request as it complies with

01:03:04.720 --> 01:03:10.320
 the appropriate criteria of the development code and I will stand for any questions you have at

01:03:10.320 --> 01:03:17.280
 this time. Thank you ma'am. I've got a question there was a neighborhood meeting correct do you

01:03:17.280 --> 01:03:23.680
 know any details on that? Yes so in that they gave the general presentation basically what I just

01:03:23.680 --> 01:03:29.680
 discussed with you all as far as citizen feedback there wasn't much there was general support for

01:03:29.680 --> 01:03:35.200
 the people who attended I think there was two neighborhood meetings there was one during the

01:03:35.200 --> 01:03:40.400
 day and I believe one person virtually attended that meeting and then there was another meeting

01:03:40.400 --> 01:03:46.400
 where two I believe two residents attended that meeting and again there was just general overall

01:03:46.400 --> 01:03:53.920
 support no major concerns were were noted. Okay great questions at this time for Mia.

01:03:56.000 --> 01:03:59.920
 Mia is the applicant here do they have a presentation at all? Yes hello Greg.

01:03:59.920 --> 01:04:04.000
 Well I will go ahead and invite the applicant up here.

01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:36.000
 Good evening.

01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:42.720
 Thank you for your service as always my name is Greg Johnson address is 3190 Teasley

01:04:42.720 --> 01:04:51.120
 Denton Texas 76205 just up the road from this parcel. I am representing the owner

01:04:51.680 --> 01:04:59.200
 the seller he is in Florida so I'm going to be here speaking on his behalf. I have a brief

01:04:59.200 --> 01:05:04.640
 presentation and then I'll certainly stand for questions so the current use as you may know

01:05:04.640 --> 01:05:10.160
 is a concrete batch plant that's been there way longer than it should have been for the widening

01:05:10.160 --> 01:05:17.280
 of Teasley. So why a PD overlay? Well we are PD overlay number one the first ever and that's

01:05:17.280 --> 01:05:23.200
 something that the council passed late last year with the idea being when you have a PD and you

01:05:23.200 --> 01:05:29.520
 want to make some modifications to it an overlay versus a whole new PD and so we're we're learning

01:05:29.520 --> 01:05:33.760
 along with the staff on this new process and I'm going to say they've been really really good to

01:05:33.760 --> 01:05:39.440
 work with on this. So a couple things about this this is a legacy PD meaning it was not a PD

01:05:39.440 --> 01:05:46.400
 originally it was straight zoned and as changes got made when the when the citywide rezoning happened

01:05:47.520 --> 01:05:53.760
 some of these properties that were zoned with conditions became PDs. It's old it falls under

01:05:53.760 --> 01:06:01.280
 the 2002 DDC it's an opportunity to clean up the PD and also dress up the secondary entrance to the

01:06:01.280 --> 01:06:07.840
 neighborhood. The single-family neighborhood to the west the main entrance is on Ryan Hunters Creek

01:06:07.840 --> 01:06:13.200
 Road was put in by Mr. Button the guy that owns this land he owned the big mobile home park that

01:06:13.200 --> 01:06:18.000
 used to be there many years ago and has just slowly sold off the parcels as it made sense the

01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:23.040
 single-family in the back the multi-family that buffers it and now it's time to start selling

01:06:23.040 --> 01:06:31.840
 the commercial lots on the front. We've worked very closely with staff on the I want to be clear

01:06:31.840 --> 01:06:37.680
 staff's recommendation was the modification to the SC zoning and I think in a minute you'll see why

01:06:37.680 --> 01:06:45.040
 that made sense but I think that what this overlay will do is eliminate the potential for any future

01:06:45.040 --> 01:06:50.160
 eyesores or uses that probably don't make sense there and provide similar services to the

01:06:50.160 --> 01:06:57.360
 neighborhoods as what you see in other corners up and down Teasley. We worked closely together

01:06:57.360 --> 01:07:03.120
 with staff and they were wonderful and we went through the SC zoning and basically carved out

01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:09.600
 everything that didn't make sense here and so these are small one-acre lots one to two acre lots

01:07:09.600 --> 01:07:16.480
 and uses that make sense to serve neighborhoods just like you see up and down Teasley today being

01:07:16.480 --> 01:07:20.480
 being a suburban corridor that it is. I'm not going to read all those to you but

01:07:20.480 --> 01:07:25.920
 staff actually had some suggestions we had some suggestions and we worked together to

01:07:25.920 --> 01:07:34.560
 come up with this list and that's all part of the PD overlay. So this corner this corner was zoned

01:07:34.560 --> 01:07:41.600
 in our MU forever ago when it was still a mobile home park and as the corridor has grown as many

01:07:41.600 --> 01:07:49.280
 of you know the the uses that make sense on corners like this have shown up so if you look

01:07:49.280 --> 01:07:55.440
 at similar corners up and down Teasley you'll see directly across the street from at Walmart

01:07:55.440 --> 01:08:02.400
 the retail across the street from Walmart to be clear that on the zoning map it was showing up

01:08:02.400 --> 01:08:07.200
 incorrectly so I created that square to show at the southeast corner of Teasley Robinson that's a

01:08:07.200 --> 01:08:13.440
 that's a PD but very similar uses to this Sprout Center, Walgreens, McDonald's, etc. So just trying

01:08:13.440 --> 01:08:18.320
 to illustrate that this corner is really exactly like the rest of these in terms of the corridor

01:08:18.320 --> 01:08:24.720
 with with the single family behind it. This one's pretty unique though and I'll show you why that's

01:08:24.720 --> 01:08:28.880
 just an aerial of the of those same similar corners to see what the area looks like.

01:08:28.880 --> 01:08:32.960
 So this this area is really unique in that there's a creek

01:08:32.960 --> 01:08:41.600
 that runs all the way through the property here and so you'll see a minute in the minute on the

01:08:41.600 --> 01:08:49.200
 on the approved permanent plat there's a big drainage easement here that runs all the way

01:08:49.200 --> 01:08:53.920
 through the property north to south so you can see sort of that natural separation that happens

01:08:54.480 --> 01:09:00.640
 between the residential and the commercial. So you don't often have something like this when

01:09:00.640 --> 01:09:06.480
 you're developing a commercial site up this close to a major road it just really worked out great

01:09:06.480 --> 01:09:14.000
 that way and frankly years ago when the single family was approved the city said hey we'd really

01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:19.040
 like to see a grocery store here which is what we set out to do probably 10 years ago and we recruited

01:09:19.040 --> 01:09:24.720
 every grocery store we could find they all had their spot with the exception of walmart and sprouts

01:09:24.720 --> 01:09:29.200
 they looked at this site the problem is you've got a creek running down the middle of it so you'd

01:09:29.200 --> 01:09:33.920
 have to capture all that under your parking lot it just doesn't make sense which is why we then

01:09:33.920 --> 01:09:39.360
 pivoted to multifamily is a great buffer between commercial and single family but we still have

01:09:39.360 --> 01:09:47.040
 this big green space here so it provides roughly 55 feet of separate of natural separation that

01:09:47.040 --> 01:09:53.680
 can't ever be touched because it's a drainage easement so this is the preliminary plat that's

01:09:53.680 --> 01:09:57.760
 already approved and as you'll see the apartments are already back here but you can see this big

01:09:57.760 --> 01:10:04.960
 drainage easement that rolls down the middle of it here and so the perspective use types we have a

01:10:04.960 --> 01:10:13.280
 coffee shop with a drive-through here we have a frozen custard i said frozen custard that we all

01:10:13.280 --> 01:10:20.000
 might be able to figure out who it is the the concrete batch plant is still here and so we've

01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:26.480
 not entertained any contracts on these lots yet because we can't really predict exactly when

01:10:26.480 --> 01:10:32.480
 they'll be gone we don't want to encumber those these north lots up here are not encumbered by

01:10:32.480 --> 01:10:38.560
 that at this time and so you know what you'll see is the depth of these lots is kind of your typical

01:10:38.560 --> 01:10:45.680
 small retail neighborhood service depth we're showing them all pretty much as one acre so small

01:10:45.680 --> 01:10:52.960
 buildings again with quite a bit of separation between them we did have two neighborhood

01:10:52.960 --> 01:10:58.960
 meetings i felt they were very productive and positive the comments from the neighbors were

01:10:58.960 --> 01:11:05.440
 actually a lot more positive than the typical neighborhood meeting so i was pleased that last

01:11:05.440 --> 01:11:13.120
 one i don't know like how that got in there none of them said that but on serious note the like it

01:11:13.120 --> 01:11:17.200
 was a very collaborative meeting one of the guys both of the people that attended neighborhood

01:11:17.200 --> 01:11:22.960
 meetings back up to the north lots so they just have the green space separating them from the

01:11:22.960 --> 01:11:30.320
 commercial they don't have the multifamily so they were this house and this house

01:11:31.840 --> 01:11:35.920
 and so one of the things they said was hey i know that's a big green space but during the winter

01:11:35.920 --> 01:11:42.080
 those leaves all fall we can hear the traffic from teesley do you think these users when they come

01:11:42.080 --> 01:11:47.680
 in would be willing to build a solid fence on their side of the drainage easement to block that

01:11:47.680 --> 01:11:53.120
 noise we thought it was a great idea it doesn't hurt the commercial developer it helps the

01:11:53.120 --> 01:11:57.600
 neighbors and so we just agreed with me hey just put that in obviously when they come in they're

01:11:57.600 --> 01:12:02.320
 going to have to go through the whole process site plan approval etc but that's a condition that we

01:12:02.320 --> 01:12:08.960
 we agreed we just never thought of that but we agreed and put it in so very collaborative

01:12:08.960 --> 01:12:15.200
 neighborhood meetings the teesley widening is finally finished amen they're pouring sidewalks

01:12:15.200 --> 01:12:19.760
 now so they should all be gone from out of there but six lanes abided my office is right up the

01:12:19.760 --> 01:12:23.440
 street from this and i can tell you it's completely different now i mean the traffic's flowing great so

01:12:24.080 --> 01:12:29.440
 now it's time to put this corner corner to proper use the use types are consistent with the future

01:12:29.440 --> 01:12:33.520
 land use plan there's still demand for additional services up and down here that's who wants to be

01:12:33.520 --> 01:12:39.760
 here similar to what you see at the same kind of corners up and down teesley and so that's that's

01:12:39.760 --> 01:12:48.160
 really all i have to share other than i just clarification so three respondents on in favor

01:12:48.160 --> 01:12:54.000
 or not two were in favor one was not in favor the one that's not in favor lives across the street

01:12:54.000 --> 01:12:58.800
 on the other side of teesley and he's not in favor as he wrote on his thing because he just doesn't

01:12:58.800 --> 01:13:05.280
 like greg johnson so that happens um but you know it made me feel good that the two people who back

01:13:05.280 --> 01:13:11.680
 up to it the closest listened really were appreciative of the fact that we've eliminated

01:13:11.680 --> 01:13:17.840
 all these other uses gave some input and they're both and they're both in favor so we appreciate

01:13:17.840 --> 01:13:25.680
 that so i'll stand for any questions thank you mr johnson uh questions at this time okay i have a

01:13:25.680 --> 01:13:32.240
 couple um so i asked him at work session so just a couple things with like what you said with your

01:13:32.240 --> 01:13:40.320
 beginning of your presentation so i mean we already have a pd in place here right so the

01:13:40.320 --> 01:13:47.280
 background is it was approved nr6 with overlay conditions back in the day 2014 because that's

01:13:47.280 --> 01:13:54.000
 what that's what we did then with restrictions right on a zoning case so that's what was in place

01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:59.840
 so with the new code it just transitioned since there were no more zoning with overlay it's now pd

01:13:59.840 --> 01:14:05.600
 whatever base zoning and the pd means that that's where all those overlay conditions are

01:14:05.600 --> 01:14:12.720
 so we have in place right now pdmn correct so that's what's currently that's what we're looking at

01:14:12.720 --> 01:14:20.800
 so what i want to know is and there's plenty of commercial uses in mn so i'm trying to understand

01:14:20.800 --> 01:14:28.800
 exactly the request what are you trying to get there that is not allowed as it's done right now

01:14:28.800 --> 01:14:36.000
 what you're trying to do yeah so you know when you have like one acre commercial lots along a

01:14:36.000 --> 01:14:40.240
 frontage road like teasley you don't really know who your users are ultimately going to be sure

01:14:40.240 --> 01:14:45.200
 right you're going to figure out about based on who wants to be there and so mn for an example

01:14:45.200 --> 01:14:50.560
 restaurant with drive-through can go there they have to get an sup for the drive-through right

01:14:50.560 --> 01:14:55.600
 well based on who we know wants to be there because that's the ones who are calling

01:14:55.600 --> 01:15:02.640
 and frankly what you see on similar corners all up and down teasley sc is what makes sense that's

01:15:02.640 --> 01:15:10.080
 why all those are zoned sc well we could allow really how this all started was the frozen custard

01:15:10.400 --> 01:15:14.560
 people had a pre-app and they called me and they said hey we're going to need more time

01:15:14.560 --> 01:15:21.120
 on our contract because we have to go get an sup frankly i didn't remember it's been so long

01:15:21.120 --> 01:15:27.840
 ago since the apartments went in and in the in the some of the language as per staff it could use

01:15:27.840 --> 01:15:36.080
 some cleaning up there's some gray so as i looked at it i said well so for we know for sure there's

01:15:36.080 --> 01:15:42.160
 two people that want to drive through so that's a neighborhood meeting or two public notices staff

01:15:42.160 --> 01:15:48.560
 time public hearing city council etc and the staff would really like to see this updated

01:15:48.560 --> 01:15:57.200
 because it's 2002 code and there's some gray in the writing of the pd and so staff's recommendation

01:15:57.200 --> 01:16:02.400
 was hey we have this new pd overlay thing that council just voted in for just this type of purpose

01:16:04.160 --> 01:16:10.720
 so in my mind rather than have two or three public hearings on sup's for drive-throughs

01:16:10.720 --> 01:16:17.360
 in mn because then mn has its own set of issues right building has to be on the front

01:16:17.360 --> 01:16:21.520
 you can't have a building on the front if you have if you have to circulate the building

01:16:21.520 --> 01:16:26.800
 so if you're going to circulate a building on an individual lot the building can't be on the front

01:16:26.800 --> 01:16:33.840
 because you can't circulate it so it brings up all these other issues right so my idea was

01:16:34.240 --> 01:16:39.440
 why don't we just fix this one time instead of having multiple sup's and then have to deal with

01:16:39.440 --> 01:16:44.240
 you'd have a variance on every one because you can't circulate a building if it has to be on the

01:16:44.240 --> 01:16:49.680
 frontage so let's just fix it and staff liked it because it allowed them to fix some of the old

01:16:49.680 --> 01:16:57.440
 issues and bring it up to the new code versus building under the 2002 lastly it gave us the

01:16:57.440 --> 01:17:04.480
 opportunity the city to do some special things on that hunters creek road which is really a secondary

01:17:04.480 --> 01:17:10.640
 entrance for the neighborhood but like they have to do pattern concrete they can't just do regular

01:17:10.640 --> 01:17:16.560
 concrete on the sidewalks and upgraded landscaping and the signs can only be eight feet so it gave

01:17:16.560 --> 01:17:21.360
 the staff the opportunity because it's a pd overlay to get some things that really make that entrance

01:17:21.360 --> 01:17:29.840
 look better okay and i understand that so you know but one thing that you know i take into

01:17:29.840 --> 01:17:35.760
 consideration especially here is all the density of housing that is there at that is there and

01:17:35.760 --> 01:17:44.160
 already in place and that we have already again there is a pd in place right now and the reason

01:17:44.160 --> 01:17:52.560
 we have specific use permits are to look through the site plan and make sure that it fits and we've

01:17:52.560 --> 01:18:02.320
 got protections in place per that use and that's going to go away and i believe that's the end game

01:18:02.320 --> 01:18:07.280
 is for that to go away by making this pdsc instead of pdmn because you can still get a

01:18:07.280 --> 01:18:10.960
 drive-through in there it's just going to it's just going to be a little more difficult

01:18:11.600 --> 01:18:17.120
 yeah sure i mean the the or the question is do you want to look at every one of these lots as an

01:18:17.120 --> 01:18:21.520
 individual project or do you want to look at the whole thing as a project and have the opportunity

01:18:21.520 --> 01:18:29.760
 to get some of the things that you want right and i would say if if what you saw up and down teesley

01:18:29.760 --> 01:18:36.320
 on all the corners was mn then i would say this is really an unfair request but the fact is all

01:18:36.320 --> 01:18:42.320
 the similar corners to it are straight sc without limitations and so it seems to me like that those

01:18:42.320 --> 01:18:47.760
 uses are the logical uses for the corner you know for the site because that's what's already up and

01:18:47.760 --> 01:18:56.320
 down the road and yes you certainly could leave mn in place and and have them build under the 2002

01:18:56.320 --> 01:19:02.160
 ddc and have each one who wanted to drive through come in but ultimately what you would end up doing

01:19:02.800 --> 01:19:08.400
 is every one of those sites would be a pd because you'd have to modify i mean mn zoning has a lot of

01:19:08.400 --> 01:19:13.040
 issues right and so it makes sense if you're in a green field and you know it's all going to be

01:19:13.040 --> 01:19:17.360
 office and you know there's going to be cross-excess across them all and nobody has to circulate all

01:19:17.360 --> 01:19:22.240
 those things but i think what you'd end up with on every one of these sites is like its own little

01:19:22.240 --> 01:19:28.240
 mini pd that would be an sup within the pd that's what it would be well yeah the sdp but then you

01:19:28.240 --> 01:19:32.160
 have to do all kinds of design changes i would think if you want to circulate the building

01:19:32.160 --> 01:19:37.200
 perhaps i mean that's yeah that's not what i do but i mean as far as yeah engineers who could

01:19:37.200 --> 01:19:43.840
 so yes but to answer your question the purpose is it's it's a legacy pd it wasn't really a pd per

01:19:43.840 --> 01:19:50.720
 the way they they get done no i mean it wasn't a pd to begin with it was a it was a zoning with

01:19:50.720 --> 01:19:57.680
 overlay conditions right so it was never it was a pd as we knew pd back then um okay so that answered

01:19:57.680 --> 01:20:03.040
 most of my questions um thank you and i i guess just to address what you had said about up and

01:20:03.040 --> 01:20:08.320
 down teasley being sc i understand what you're saying and i understand what teasley is now

01:20:08.320 --> 01:20:15.200
 i live right over there and i'm on that road often um this particular intersection however

01:20:15.200 --> 01:20:21.760
 with all of its housing with its elementary school it it's a little it just it works a little bit

01:20:21.760 --> 01:20:27.440
 differently than some of the other places up and down teasley um so i'll just say that for now we've

01:20:27.440 --> 01:20:34.240
 got another question for you commissioner pruett thank you chair um have you had any discussions

01:20:34.240 --> 01:20:40.640
 in the meetings or external to them with uh school officials or the the school district about the

01:20:40.640 --> 01:20:47.920
 school across the street and what the impact this would be to that um no i mean because

01:20:47.920 --> 01:20:53.360
 obviously the all of the alcohol provisions would be in place you know the the setbacks for that and

01:20:53.360 --> 01:21:01.760
 so we haven't we haven't really had a need to do that um the hunters creek road just so you know

01:21:01.760 --> 01:21:07.440
 when the apartments went in they did the traffic study to see if a signal would warrant it was

01:21:07.440 --> 01:21:14.160
 close to warranting for a signal and what what text dot said was probably once these commercial

01:21:14.160 --> 01:21:19.280
 lots develop maybe even one of them the signal will warrant so what i would expect would happen

01:21:19.280 --> 01:21:24.000
 is as soon as one or two of these things develop the signal is going to warrant you know they'll

01:21:24.000 --> 01:21:28.480
 have to make a contribution and then you'll have a signal hunters creek but in terms of the impact

01:21:28.480 --> 01:21:35.760
 of the school um you know the the benefit to the kids there obviously is if they live in this

01:21:35.760 --> 01:21:41.280
 neighborhood there's no sidewalk on ryan and there's a sidewalk now on hunters creek but there's no

01:21:41.280 --> 01:21:47.120
 sidewalk across the front so the idea here would be as these lots develop you'd have a sidewalk

01:21:47.120 --> 01:21:53.760
 that would run and so the kids could technically cross teesley take the sidewalk down teesley to

01:21:53.760 --> 01:21:57.760
 the sidewalk on hunters creek and be able to walk safely back into the neighborhood if that's what

01:21:57.760 --> 01:22:02.560
 you meant by a school district safety of the kids it's it's all encompassing so thank you that that

01:22:02.560 --> 01:22:10.560
 helps um i guess um since you mentioned you know the possibility of hunters creek and that sort of thing um

01:22:15.680 --> 01:22:22.400
 would this development i mean i think the the de facto standard would be everybody individually

01:22:22.400 --> 01:22:28.080
 applies to tex dot for right of way access permit onto teesley and and that sort of thing right

01:22:28.080 --> 01:22:36.800
 would this development still work if the access instead were taken off of hunters creek through a

01:22:36.800 --> 01:22:42.480
 light that's actually how it's designed so all of the access will flow um

01:22:44.880 --> 01:22:49.120
 you'll you'll have you see how you might be able to see how the engineers drawn it in so there's

01:22:49.120 --> 01:22:55.440
 cross access across all the lots and then access to teesley so all these lots would have to flow

01:22:55.440 --> 01:23:03.040
 internally out to teesley here or out to ryan here which would be a ride out only so these would all

01:23:03.040 --> 01:23:08.240
 have connectivity internally but then out onto hunters creek and then out of the line so there

01:23:08.240 --> 01:23:13.280
 wouldn't be any curb cuts between those lots and teesley directly i don't think any are shown i

01:23:13.280 --> 01:23:18.560
 mean i think there might there's certainly not room up here on the north side you know the distance

01:23:18.560 --> 01:23:24.800
 requirement between hunters creek and teesley i don't know there's probably a distance but it

01:23:24.800 --> 01:23:30.800
 would be a right in right out only here for sure okay but you'd have to have it like you know split

01:23:30.800 --> 01:23:36.080
 a lot in between two users right so if there was going to be one there probably would only be one

01:23:36.080 --> 01:23:40.160
 like down here somewhere in the middle right in right out only because the median break is up here

01:23:41.600 --> 01:23:50.480
 okay thank you any other questions at this time for mr johnson tina if i could add clarification

01:23:50.480 --> 01:23:54.320
 so i've asked hayley to come down because she understands the zoning history a little bit better

01:23:54.320 --> 01:23:58.640
 than i do and i went back and look at the report so i know we've had a fair amount of discussion

01:23:58.640 --> 01:24:03.360
 about pdmn and the use is allowed for within the mn district but it actually the way this plan

01:24:03.360 --> 01:24:09.440
 development district is structured it reverts back from uses standpoint to the nrmu and from

01:24:09.440 --> 01:24:15.360
 what i understand nrmu did require a specific use permit for drive-through uses at that given time

01:24:15.360 --> 01:24:21.040
 the other thing is um just wanted to um put a finer point on what mr johnson had mentioned so

01:24:21.040 --> 01:24:26.560
 you know if if they were to come in with a specific use permit on each of these sites

01:24:26.560 --> 01:24:31.600
 and were seeking to modify the the development standards to try and make the site work that

01:24:31.600 --> 01:24:36.160
 would put them in a plan development district situation because they would not be able to vary

01:24:36.160 --> 01:24:41.520
 any of the standards to the specific use permit process so hence why we went and we took some of

01:24:41.520 --> 01:24:45.600
 those factors into consideration is trying to determine what might be the better path forward

01:24:45.600 --> 01:24:51.600
 for this site to try and be able to address some continuity in the design standards and looking at

01:24:51.600 --> 01:24:56.720
 more from a holistic approach compared to a piecemeal site-by-site approach so hence why

01:24:56.720 --> 01:25:00.880
 our recommendation was for the plan development district with the sc base zoning and then working

01:25:00.880 --> 01:25:06.720
 with the standards as provided for in in the overlay pd

01:25:06.720 --> 01:25:15.040
 okay thanks tina i was just looking up um in some of the backup

01:25:15.040 --> 01:25:24.480
 yeah so i'm not sure where nrmu came from um i guess it's just not here in the history

01:25:27.120 --> 01:25:33.040
 oh maybe it is it's correct and and that's why i hate feeling understands it much better than i

01:25:33.040 --> 01:25:36.880
 do well i think it's i think it's just we're missing something in this chart here that doesn't make

01:25:36.880 --> 01:25:41.920
 sense in our backup because yeah there's a step that's that's missed um in that so thank you for

01:25:41.920 --> 01:25:48.480
 that explanation um any other questions right now for mr johnson we may invite you back up though

01:25:48.480 --> 01:25:54.320
 you're sticking around right okay um i do have a couple of cards wishing to speak on this item i'm

01:25:54.320 --> 01:26:03.920
 going to invite uh roger anderson good evening if you'll give us your name and address your time

01:26:03.920 --> 01:26:13.360
 will begin i'm roger anderson 2801 san philippe drive um i live in the summit oaks um a subdivision

01:26:13.360 --> 01:26:20.640
 which has an entrance um it's called heights boulevard which is directly um in line with

01:26:20.640 --> 01:26:31.920
 hutters creek um i'm in favor of the um proposal here that greg johnson has put forward um i'm

01:26:31.920 --> 01:26:39.040
 especially pleased that they have excluded things like uh smoke shops and tattoo parlors

01:26:39.040 --> 01:26:45.440
 um i hope the smoke shop is also excluding a vape shop we have plenty of those elsewhere

01:26:46.400 --> 01:26:53.760
 um the reason i came today is that i in paragraph 11 of the staff analysis

01:26:53.760 --> 01:27:00.640
 they refer to the traffic controls and greg also mentioned that it was close to being

01:27:00.640 --> 01:27:11.040
 required for the area based on the traffic studies and i very much encourage that we do get

01:27:11.040 --> 01:27:18.080
 traffic control lights at that intersection it's fairly dangerous to make a left turn out of heights

01:27:18.080 --> 01:27:24.960
 because of the site visibility people sitting in cars trying to pull out you have to pull out

01:27:24.960 --> 01:27:33.040
 all the way onto the walk path that's the marking for the sidewalk across heights to be able to see

01:27:33.040 --> 01:27:38.960
 both left and right and people are not driving the speed limit which i don't think has too many

01:27:38.960 --> 01:27:47.280
 postings up yet and anybody coming south on teasley if they have their lights on we get about five

01:27:47.280 --> 01:27:55.280
 seconds before they hit the cross street and then that's the amount of time we have to pull out

01:27:55.280 --> 01:28:04.400
 so anyway that's all i came for was to address that and i hope that staff the planning commissioners

01:28:04.400 --> 01:28:11.120
 and the city council will help push the state to approve traffic controls there thank you thank you

01:28:11.120 --> 01:28:17.600
 mr anderson for coming out to speak um i've got another card here um michael doranski

01:28:17.600 --> 01:28:27.360
 good evening if you'll state your name and address your time will begin you bet

01:28:27.360 --> 01:28:34.640
 thanks michael doranski i had the property at 39 24 teesley lane my experiences as mr johnson says

01:28:34.640 --> 01:28:38.880
 we don't tend to get along or see eye to eye with some things and it's not just because

01:28:38.880 --> 01:28:43.760
 i don't care for the man as to why i'm in opposition to this but i have had experiences

01:28:43.760 --> 01:28:50.480
 with him and my most recent not most recent but one of my first dealings with him was how we got

01:28:50.480 --> 01:28:55.440
 the buckies and denton in my property butted up right next to the back of buckies neighborhood

01:28:55.440 --> 01:29:00.240
 meetings were held mr hawkins came by talked to all of his neighbors said hey don't come to the

01:29:00.240 --> 01:29:06.800
 meetings tonight because i'm just going to get this postponed and it did not get postponed and

01:29:06.800 --> 01:29:13.440
 that was approved and as i said was my first experience i had a more recent experience with

01:29:13.440 --> 01:29:19.440
 him and his company and the sale of one of my properties off of there and i was really not happy

01:29:20.480 --> 01:29:25.760
 with the experience off of there i mean i paid this company over six figures even to represent

01:29:25.760 --> 01:29:33.120
 me in that process i he didn't even no one even showed up to closing didn't get a thank you card

01:29:33.120 --> 01:29:39.200
 none of those type of pieces and is that personal yeah it probably is personal but it is my dealings

01:29:39.200 --> 01:29:46.320
 of actual having a relationship of dealing with him and his company and part of this piece of this

01:29:46.320 --> 01:29:51.360
 property is that as you said part of it dumps out on the ryan road which is a two-lane road

01:29:51.360 --> 01:29:58.080
 that is going to increase the traffic dramatically off of there it already is kind of a confusing

01:29:58.080 --> 01:30:02.080
 piece already with the wal-mart in the neighborhood piece where all of a sudden it branches out into

01:30:02.080 --> 01:30:07.920
 like five different lanes from a two-lane road off of there there is an elementary school as everyone

01:30:07.920 --> 01:30:12.480
 has kind of mentioned off of there i do not know how the school feels about it but i do know that

01:30:13.280 --> 01:30:18.080
 that is not initially the most safest intersection if i had a kid walking home

01:30:18.080 --> 01:30:24.400
 from that school the speed limit is quite high i do not know if there's been i haven't seen the

01:30:24.400 --> 01:30:30.560
 proposals for any type of deceleration lanes to try to make sure that a child isn't hit or anything

01:30:30.560 --> 01:30:35.120
 along those lines even though it's one got the one interest i haven't seen or didn't see the proposal

01:30:35.120 --> 01:30:40.320
 off of there part of these protections that are put in place by having this zoning yes i understand

01:30:40.320 --> 01:30:47.280
 this market type pieces to it but i think the citizens they are having the ability to review

01:30:47.280 --> 01:30:52.560
 each proposal off of there to see if it meets what they actually expect to go in there is a benefit

01:30:52.560 --> 01:30:55.840
 to those people who have those houses that are budding up right next to it not to have to deal

01:30:55.840 --> 01:31:02.960
 with the light pollution or the smog from ireland cars or just the fact of just noise and whatnot

01:31:02.960 --> 01:31:08.080
 from having to hear either outdoor patios or whatever that could get possibly go in there so

01:31:08.080 --> 01:31:13.120
 having that is only gives them the protection to kind of review each individual piece of property

01:31:13.120 --> 01:31:20.000
 that would go in there you know mr johnson has my phone he didn't call me so it's not like i don't

01:31:20.000 --> 01:31:24.640
 know we could have worked this pieces out but it's not like he doesn't really i'm not a stranger to

01:31:24.640 --> 01:31:29.600
 him maybe it's the best way to put that and whatever concerns i had that was not reached out to me

01:31:29.600 --> 01:31:34.160
 off of these pieces i have no idea if he understood even my frustration to begin with

01:31:35.040 --> 01:31:38.160
 on these other pieces but that's why i'm here tonight to express my frustration

01:31:38.160 --> 01:31:43.840
 off of here and taking an elementary school like that that does have kids coming and going

01:31:43.840 --> 01:31:49.920
 neighborhoods backing up to it that buckies it was back then mr hawkins came by and basically said hey

01:31:49.920 --> 01:31:55.440
 a car dealership can go here a six-story apartment complex in here we can store nuclear radiation

01:31:55.440 --> 01:32:00.160
 which i know is funny but my point is is that hey you you guys should accept this because these are

01:32:00.160 --> 01:32:06.400
 your other possibilities out there and i understand this is not in the same realm this is not the same

01:32:06.400 --> 01:32:10.400
 type of piece but i do think that having the protections put in place for these citizens to

01:32:10.400 --> 01:32:14.880
 review each individual piece of proposal that comes out there it is important to them it's

01:32:14.880 --> 01:32:19.040
 important to me too knowing that i have a piece of property on ryan that basically this is also

01:32:19.040 --> 01:32:24.240
 an exit way for these people to exit off of that property and it's already extremely confusing when

01:32:24.240 --> 01:32:30.400
 you come out and it branches out from two to five lanes real quick thank you for sharing your thoughts

01:32:30.400 --> 01:32:36.560
 and concerns and and um yeah i mean i do concur with the you know the the traffic mess around there

01:32:36.560 --> 01:32:43.120
 um that's definitely not mr johnson's responsibility um but um certainly i know us as a city has that on

01:32:43.120 --> 01:32:48.960
 the radar to continue to see what we can do with text dot um because yeah a light is desperately

01:32:48.960 --> 01:32:55.440
 needed um somewhere i mean probably at that intersection of heights and and um hunters creek

01:32:55.440 --> 01:33:02.880
 um i don't have any other cards here in front of me is there anyone else here wishing to speak on

01:33:02.880 --> 01:33:13.680
 this item okay seeing none i will go ahead and close the public hearing and um open the floor

01:33:13.680 --> 01:33:19.200
 for discussion commissioner pruett thank you chair i have two short questions for staff me i think

01:33:19.200 --> 01:33:27.680
 you may be able to handle this um number one um in the applicant's uh presentation he mentioned

01:33:27.680 --> 01:33:36.480
 that the uh existing concrete batch plant uh one thing that the zoning for the purpose of of this

01:33:36.480 --> 01:33:42.160
 type of development would do would be to uh to make sure that another concrete batch plant couldn't go

01:33:42.160 --> 01:33:49.120
 there am i correct in understanding that if development were made to increase the size of

01:33:49.120 --> 01:33:52.960
 that batch plant or something then that wouldn't be allowed under the current zoning under the

01:33:52.960 --> 01:34:00.720
 current use um in other words can you give me a picture of what the risk is of that batch plant

01:34:00.720 --> 01:34:11.120
 getting worse with our current zoning restrictions so i know i know that batch plants currently are

01:34:11.120 --> 01:34:18.400
 permitted with you specific standards i know that with the proposed pd they would be um prohibited

01:34:18.400 --> 01:34:24.560
 so i can't imagine that the the expansion of the existing use would take place under the the current

01:34:24.560 --> 01:34:31.520
 or under the proposed pd right i guess i'm more interested to hear but with the current zoning

01:34:31.520 --> 01:34:39.840
 right um with the the pd and then from the overlay um i'm just trying to understand what our exposure

01:34:39.840 --> 01:34:47.440
 is from a risk perspective i'm not sure of the entire history on the current batch plant but

01:34:47.440 --> 01:34:52.000
 my understanding is it is there because it is text dot and as a state facility they were able

01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:56.320
 to put their batch plant where they needed to in proximity to their projects i don't believe it's

01:34:56.320 --> 01:35:00.400
 a matter of either current or proposed zoning actually permitting that used to be there it's

01:35:00.400 --> 01:35:10.960
 state preemption essentially okay thank you very much and then uh number two um would staff um

01:35:10.960 --> 01:35:18.560
 would it would it be within the bounds of these overlay pds that we're trying to understand here

01:35:18.560 --> 01:35:26.880
 since this is the first one um to put a condition such that uh direct access to Teasley lane on the

01:35:26.880 --> 01:35:34.800
 eastern side of these parcels uh is either not allowed or required to be closed at such point

01:35:34.800 --> 01:35:41.680
 when a signal would be added to uh help me out on the road sorry uh hickory hickory lane or whatever

01:35:41.680 --> 01:35:49.120
 uh that's the wrong name i'm sorry the east west road that divides the two parcels i'm going to

01:35:49.120 --> 01:35:54.720
 bring up our transportation planner to speak to that a little bit well and while Karina is walking

01:35:54.720 --> 01:36:01.760
 up so in terms of you know could a condition be added so because this is an overlay pd if the

01:36:01.760 --> 01:36:06.560
 commission were interested in restricting access to Teasley lane for example no access drive

01:36:06.560 --> 01:36:11.600
 approaches shall be provided to Teasley lane for you know the southern parcel the northern parcel

01:36:11.600 --> 01:36:17.360
 or both however you want to address it you know you could recommend that that condition be included

01:36:17.360 --> 01:36:22.320
 within the planned development district you may want to ask the the applicant whether or not they'd

01:36:22.320 --> 01:36:27.520
 be supportive of that condition or not but that is something that could be be added the other thing

01:36:27.520 --> 01:36:32.160
 and Karina may be speaking to this as well is that you know when the commercial development comes in

01:36:32.160 --> 01:36:37.760
 we evaluate the the trip generation associated with it and based upon and i went back and double

01:36:37.760 --> 01:36:42.320
 checked in our staff report that we did report that we would anticipate a traffic impact analysis

01:36:42.320 --> 01:36:45.600
 will be required for the development of the property but Karina i didn't know if you had

01:36:45.600 --> 01:36:51.440
 anything else on that yes so Karina Maldonado transportation planner um so to address the first

01:36:51.440 --> 01:36:56.720
 question about access off of Teasley so our development code currently restricts direct

01:36:56.720 --> 01:37:02.720
 access to an arterial which would be Teasley lane if they can take access from a lower classified

01:37:02.720 --> 01:37:09.120
 roadway which is hunters creek so we would already be restricting driveways off of Teasley

01:37:09.120 --> 01:37:15.120
 and request that they take their primary access off of hunters creek and then have a secondary

01:37:15.120 --> 01:37:21.920
 point of access with cross access to allow possibly on ryan which would be a lower classification

01:37:21.920 --> 01:37:30.320
 arterial of a secondary in relation to that or in addition to that there's also requirements for

01:37:30.320 --> 01:37:37.120
 spacing from an intersection and based on where their current intersection is approaching the

01:37:37.120 --> 01:37:43.360
 intersection they would have to be 150 feet on the north side and on the south side they have to be

01:37:43.360 --> 01:37:49.440
 200 feet and then again within our on arterials was already spacing requirements so they're

01:37:49.440 --> 01:37:55.520
 already restricted in a sense from having anything on this particular parcel and it would have been

01:37:55.520 --> 01:38:00.480
 evaluated at the time that it was preliminary plotted and since that's already approved it seems

01:38:00.480 --> 01:38:07.600
 that they at that time had met the requirements so there's already existing code requirements and

01:38:07.600 --> 01:38:12.560
 criteria minor requirements that would restrict that i think it would be up to the to the commission

01:38:12.560 --> 01:38:19.360
 to decide if you want to solidify that further and just absolutely restrict it but staff would

01:38:19.360 --> 01:38:26.240
 already be evaluating that and as a part of the normal development review process and then the

01:38:26.240 --> 01:38:31.600
 second point which tina brought up was the trip generation so when this request came in we did

01:38:31.600 --> 01:38:38.240
 look at the trip generation that would be coming from a commercial portion only so i know the

01:38:38.240 --> 01:38:43.760
 applicant did mention that there was a tia done in the past that was specific to the residential

01:38:43.760 --> 01:38:49.920
 portion so yes that that development did not trigger signalization at the intersection or

01:38:49.920 --> 01:38:55.920
 turn lanes but it did indicate that a turn lane would be required for the commercial portion

01:38:55.920 --> 01:39:01.120
 so based on the trip generation provided it's likely that they're going to need a turn lane at

01:39:01.120 --> 01:39:08.800
 the intersection into hunters creek so that traffic flow would kind of be taken outside of the main

01:39:08.800 --> 01:39:15.920
 through lanes and then they would have a one to serve their specific development but we would be

01:39:15.920 --> 01:39:23.840
 evaluating with the tia in a tia scoping meeting after this phase of the development okay yeah thank

01:39:23.840 --> 01:39:32.800
 you i i understand i'm opening up a can of worms so sorry if i if i'm being not specific enough i

01:39:32.800 --> 01:39:43.840
 guess what concerns me is um in many ways it it is what it is right now but looking back in history

01:39:43.840 --> 01:39:51.440
 we can see a typical archetype of this development pattern and that is that subdivisions come in

01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:56.000
 there's not a lot of land left the school district says well i need that parcel because

01:39:56.000 --> 01:40:01.280
 otherwise i'm going to have to bust these kids three miles they buy that parcel it's facing

01:40:01.280 --> 01:40:06.560
 backyards so nobody can walk there from the neighborhoods it abuts it's across the street

01:40:06.560 --> 01:40:11.760
 from a two or three lane road no big deal tech stock comes in and makes it a six lane highway

01:40:11.760 --> 01:40:20.800
 now what are you going to do right um and the prospect of having two to six high trip generation

01:40:20.800 --> 01:40:27.040
 drive-through restaurants i kind of understand that in that area that may be what's in demand

01:40:27.040 --> 01:40:33.040
 but i'm also thinking about the mom who's 15 minutes late to her appointment because her kid

01:40:33.040 --> 01:40:39.200
 was crying and she's trying to make the u-turn really quick to get her coffee and there's not

01:40:39.200 --> 01:40:48.000
 as much care in that type of a driving environment as i see it right um and so i'm trying to figure

01:40:48.000 --> 01:41:01.200
 out if there's a way um to to to to save what little left there is of safety to be able to cross

01:41:01.200 --> 01:41:11.280
 that road in the future if if kids do want to try it um while allowing a development type that may

01:41:11.280 --> 01:41:18.480
 be demanded in the area so that's kind of what i'm thinking so um yeah thank you i guess if i could

01:41:18.480 --> 01:41:29.040
 ask the applicant just directly um i know i kind of hinted at it but um if if the commission agreed

01:41:29.040 --> 01:41:35.840
 i can't speak for anybody else um that a restriction i just looked it up and it's about a thousand feet

01:41:35.840 --> 01:41:43.520
 from hunters creek down to ryan road um and so i think our criteria manual may allow an access

01:41:43.520 --> 01:41:50.480
 normally um if if the commission agreed that the the specifics of this area with the elementary

01:41:50.480 --> 01:41:58.080
 school across the street were concerning um and that we wanted to to prohibit direct access from

01:41:58.080 --> 01:42:04.160
 those middle lots out onto uh teasley drive is that something that you think you could still support

01:42:04.160 --> 01:42:09.920
 and and make work yeah we would do that okay i mean again so like we live here we work here

01:42:09.920 --> 01:42:16.160
 i'm on that street the the safety of courses i mean we have a great staff and they're going to

01:42:16.160 --> 01:42:22.080
 make sure that it's safe but things like this i mean having all of the i don't expect this to be

01:42:22.080 --> 01:42:29.360
 like as high traffic as what you'd see like you know a kroger you know a kroger anchored or a

01:42:29.360 --> 01:42:33.520
 sprouts anchored shopping center of these right these are going to be individual small

01:42:33.520 --> 01:42:37.200
 i would expect there's going to be a strip center of some sort kind of like you know neighborhood

01:42:37.200 --> 01:42:44.640
 services like you see up by my office on teasley by the library so i'm not sure you know what

01:42:44.640 --> 01:42:48.960
 drive throughs will be there i know we have two that want to be there today i don't see it being

01:42:48.960 --> 01:42:56.640
 four or five or six um and so that we would absolutely do that and make all the traffic

01:42:56.640 --> 01:43:00.560
 flow on the hunters creek in fact that's how it's designed um so they all have to

01:43:01.680 --> 01:43:07.040
 and i totally get where you're coming from which you see people do crazy things on the road every

01:43:07.040 --> 01:43:11.360
 day right so if there's things we can do to help mitigate that great i think the signal will happen

01:43:11.360 --> 01:43:16.320
 we hope it would have happened with the apartments but text out has the rules so i would expect as

01:43:16.320 --> 01:43:20.400
 soon as some of this develops it'll happen i do want to address the concrete batch plant question

01:43:20.400 --> 01:43:25.840
 so so that's a temporary use that's allowed in a variety of zoning classes and so what we did is

01:43:25.840 --> 01:43:30.960
 basically saying we could ensure it would never happen again because we put it in a eliminated use

01:43:31.920 --> 01:43:37.520
 meaning let's just say that the south lots don't sell and there's some other product because we

01:43:37.520 --> 01:43:42.320
 get calls at our firm monthly from somebody that's doing a road project and they need a

01:43:42.320 --> 01:43:49.520
 temporary site right a staging yard batch plant etc and so my point is do do i think it's likely

01:43:49.520 --> 01:43:55.920
 that one's going to come back here no but i didn't i didn't predict covid would happen and shut the

01:43:55.920 --> 01:44:01.440
 world down either right so sometimes lots just don't sell and then as a property owner you're

01:44:01.440 --> 01:44:07.840
 trying to figure out what do i do now and so by saying we can ensure that won't happen again we

01:44:07.840 --> 01:44:12.000
 even though it's a temporary use that's allowed we put it in the eliminated uses was my point

01:44:12.000 --> 01:44:17.520
 okay thank you and then and then zachary so the contractor that's doing teasley is a private

01:44:17.520 --> 01:44:24.960
 contractor at zachary and so they they leased the the ground from from mr button who made the

01:44:24.960 --> 01:44:28.640
 decision i don't want to go try to sell these lots while teasley's under construction let's wait for

01:44:28.640 --> 01:44:34.160
 it to be done so it's not a bigger traffic issue and all that so uh just want to clarify that for

01:44:34.160 --> 01:44:44.480
 you thank you thank you thank you um you know just just thinking through some of the questions and

01:44:44.480 --> 01:44:51.120
 and i know eric you are commissioner pro you made a comment about trying to preserve any remaining

01:44:51.120 --> 01:44:56.560
 safety potential um particular for pedestrians at that intersection with the development so

01:44:56.560 --> 01:45:01.360
 you know we'd just like to reiterate some of what kareena had mentioned is you know we put

01:45:01.360 --> 01:45:08.640
 development standards in place to be able to address not only automotive needs for ingress

01:45:08.640 --> 01:45:13.680
 egress decides but are also looking at pedestrian connectivity even bicycle connectivity you know

01:45:13.680 --> 01:45:19.280
 within development areas so we we work to rely upon those standards because a lot of thought and

01:45:19.280 --> 01:45:23.840
 effort has gone into that as we've worked through those to determine what's what's best and most

01:45:23.840 --> 01:45:30.640
 appropriate for for dentin and as we develop we also work very closely with tex dot in in trying

01:45:30.640 --> 01:45:37.920
 to ensure that all modes of transportation are addressed so the i would ask that you you know

01:45:37.920 --> 01:45:43.280
 trust the process trust the professionals that we have on staff to be able to address the ingress

01:45:43.280 --> 01:45:48.080
 egress needs based upon our existing standards that we have within the area you know i i realize

01:45:48.080 --> 01:45:53.840
 the context of teasley has changed over the years now um compared to you know as mea showed in her

01:45:53.840 --> 01:45:59.760
 presentation but again also note that our standards are put in place also to help address the changes

01:45:59.760 --> 01:46:04.320
 that have happened you know in this case with this roadway now being a primary arterial the

01:46:04.320 --> 01:46:08.640
 driveway spacing requirements that come into play access having having to come from a lesser um

01:46:08.640 --> 01:46:13.440
 i forget exactly the word used but i don't want to say lesser quality roadway but a

01:46:14.880 --> 01:46:19.200
 less classified thank you less classified roadway so we try to be able to put

01:46:19.200 --> 01:46:22.320
 appropriate standards in place to be able to address that

01:46:22.320 --> 01:46:33.840
 okay thank you tina um any other questions at this time um i do have one for staff so we

01:46:33.840 --> 01:46:39.440
 keep talking about these um not allowed uses that are are in our backup and that was in

01:46:39.440 --> 01:46:46.960
 mr johnson's presentation um how many of those uses that we're eliminating in sc are allowed in

01:46:46.960 --> 01:46:52.880
 what we currently have at zoned so like tattoo parlors and smoke shops are not allowed in mn to

01:46:52.880 --> 01:47:01.280
 begin with that's they're already not allowed and probably a great deal of that list i don't have

01:47:01.280 --> 01:47:10.800
 the count but i do have this uh a table to just sort of cover just give some of some of those some

01:47:10.800 --> 01:47:17.760
 of the uses that are different um under the the current zoning versus the proposed uh zoning versus

01:47:17.760 --> 01:47:25.520
 the um what would be what would be permitted under the existing sc and

01:47:31.120 --> 01:47:37.760
 so give you an idea um again multifamily under the existing nrmu and and and existing pd wouldn't

01:47:37.760 --> 01:47:43.440
 be permitted um isn't permitted but would be permitted with the with the sup enter the current

01:47:43.440 --> 01:47:52.080
 sc that's another restricted use um to specifically answer your question let me go through so like a

01:47:52.080 --> 01:47:59.360
 hotel for example um the the hotel is one of those uses that would be permitted under nrmu that is not

01:47:59.360 --> 01:48:07.840
 uh is a listed as a restricted use under the proposed um sc same with the temporary concrete

01:48:07.840 --> 01:48:14.720
 nassau batch plant uh so there are there are some some of those other uses that are that would be

01:48:14.720 --> 01:48:19.920
 permitted right okay and i mean i guess the reason i'm asking because i'm trying not to get lost in

01:48:19.920 --> 01:48:27.120
 that list because that list is not most of it's not permitted as it stands now anyway i guess

01:48:27.120 --> 01:48:31.280
 that's what i'm getting to you know so i don't want to get lost and like oh we're eliminating

01:48:31.280 --> 01:48:36.320
 all these which is great i mean if if the zoning does get approved that's great to eliminate all

01:48:36.320 --> 01:48:44.560
 those but all of those are are most of those are not allowed now with the current zoning so um

01:48:44.560 --> 01:48:49.120
 thanks i'm gonna flip my screen to see if anybody um

01:48:52.240 --> 01:48:58.160
 it's taking a moment to come back on okay um anybody else questions for staff applicant

01:48:58.160 --> 01:49:06.160
 okay thank you um i guess just a couple of things i'm struggling with i don't really have a question

01:49:06.160 --> 01:49:15.040
 is again we've got a mixed use neighborhood uh zoning in place which allows for commercial

01:49:15.040 --> 01:49:21.280
 development just maybe not some specific commercial development um it does allow

01:49:21.280 --> 01:49:28.560
 drive throughs with an sup probably could happen maybe multiple ones don't happen i don't know um

01:49:28.560 --> 01:49:36.080
 but i'm really having a hard time um eliminating these protections that are in place for this

01:49:36.080 --> 01:49:42.080
 particular corner and again i understand teasley lane and what it is now but i also understand

01:49:42.080 --> 01:49:48.320
 what's already in place right now on the ground with people living there on that corner um we

01:49:48.320 --> 01:49:53.040
 talk about all the time about how we just keep building rooftops and we don't have enough

01:49:53.040 --> 01:49:59.440
 neighborhood type things for people to go to and enjoy or walk to and what have you and then we

01:49:59.440 --> 01:50:07.280
 kind of have that here in place zone for that and somehow we can't hone that kind of course

01:50:07.280 --> 01:50:13.920
 development which is frustrating and so now we're presented with this request to just make it more

01:50:13.920 --> 01:50:21.280
 convenient to maybe more quickly sell a commercial lot because today everybody wants a drive-through

01:50:21.280 --> 01:50:28.480
 which is okay but is this the right place for the drive-through to go and and and again that's why

01:50:28.480 --> 01:50:33.440
 we have sup's because we're not saying you can't do it we're just saying you can do it if we look

01:50:33.440 --> 01:50:38.800
 at it and maybe it makes sense and maybe it doesn't so that's what i'm struggling with um and that's

01:50:38.800 --> 01:50:44.160
 where a lot of my questions um have come from today so thank you everyone for answering them

01:50:44.160 --> 01:50:51.680
 um i do see a mover on the board commissioner billy royale yeah i'm gonna move uh to deny this

01:50:51.680 --> 01:50:57.840
 project i want to thank staff and the applicant for their thorough presentation however just like

01:50:57.840 --> 01:51:04.320
 chairman alice was saying there are very much legitimate concerns regarding traffic in this

01:51:04.320 --> 01:51:09.840
 area regarding safety and of course regarding quality of life to the surrounding neighborhoods

01:51:09.840 --> 01:51:16.720
 so with that in mind i'm moving to nile i think we've got a first on the floor for denial

01:51:16.720 --> 01:51:23.920
 commissioner mcdade a second okay we've got a first and a second for denial of this request

01:51:23.920 --> 01:51:24.880
 is there any discussion

01:51:28.480 --> 01:51:34.640
 okay uh commissioner perot thank you chair yeah just briefly um i want to thank staff for bringing

01:51:34.640 --> 01:51:40.800
 this the way you did i think it's going to take some time before we have an oiled machine on the

01:51:40.800 --> 01:51:50.720
 the pd overlays honestly i think that if having drive-through businesses and and sort of the sc

01:51:50.720 --> 01:51:58.960
 style of development here was what's right for the area then i much prefer to do this overlay

01:51:58.960 --> 01:52:05.120
 zoning now instead of doing it piecemeal because what that affords the owner and the developer

01:52:05.120 --> 01:52:11.040
 is to be able to plan the whole thing out so that it works as opposed to saying well this

01:52:11.040 --> 01:52:16.960
 you know this person this party is interested in the corner lot this one wants the one in the

01:52:16.960 --> 01:52:23.040
 middle so i guess we'll build a temporary drive a foot between them and you know i just so so

01:52:23.040 --> 01:52:33.040
 you know i'll just say i i think the the goal and the idea behind bringing it as a package works

01:52:33.040 --> 01:52:42.800
 so i'm not i'm not opposing this on the grounds that i'd rather see an individual drawing for

01:52:42.800 --> 01:52:48.320
 every lot i think that's worse honestly um the question to me is really more of a

01:52:48.320 --> 01:52:56.000
 how do we manage um and and i do appreciate staff comments about how

01:52:56.000 --> 01:53:02.800
 there would be a clear concern for safety and there's a lot of things to to put in

01:53:02.800 --> 01:53:10.000
 there for analysis i understand then again by the by the uh transportation criteria manual it's

01:53:10.000 --> 01:53:16.240
 you know 150 or 200 feet from the intersection spacing and it's a thousand feet so you know

01:53:16.240 --> 01:53:22.960
 barring conscientious staff which i believe we have being able to kind of say hey in this area

01:53:22.960 --> 01:53:30.720
 that doesn't make sense because of xyz it's it's a concern to me um you know when when we have

01:53:30.720 --> 01:53:37.440
 text dot come through and build these highways through our town um it it changes the development

01:53:37.440 --> 01:53:46.240
 pattern and and we have to understand where it's appropriate to acquiesce and say that's what makes

01:53:46.240 --> 01:53:52.160
 sense because nothing else is ever going to go here um and and this would serve the local residents

01:53:52.160 --> 01:54:01.840
 and where to say uh that that's nice text dot but our residents would prefer to not be snarled in

01:54:01.840 --> 01:54:08.560
 traffic and so we want to take care to to not create additional turning movements and additional

01:54:08.560 --> 01:54:16.240
 issues uh by encouraging development right along the highway basically so thank you thank you

01:54:16.240 --> 01:54:22.320
 commissioner villarreal so just on the flip side of uh commissioner pruitt's point i think it's

01:54:22.320 --> 01:54:28.880
 important that especially for this area for this corner that we keep the sups in place uh process

01:54:28.880 --> 01:54:35.120
 in place for drive-thrus so that the neighborhoods who are going to be affected whose houses will

01:54:35.120 --> 01:54:41.440
 adjust to this property have a say in how their neighborhood and how their uh community is going

01:54:41.440 --> 01:54:45.920
 to look going forward so uh that's just my perspective i know there are other folks in

01:54:45.920 --> 01:54:52.720
 agreement there so i appreciate that i mean sups are in place for a reason um commissioner pruitt to

01:54:52.720 --> 01:54:57.680
 your point i mean this request is not really planning anything out on this it's it's just

01:54:57.680 --> 01:55:02.800
 changing the base zoning so i mean it's going to develop as it's going to develop as they can sell

01:55:02.800 --> 01:55:09.920
 pieces as they have interested um you know entities so it's it's not that this is like one tidy little

01:55:09.920 --> 01:55:16.720
 plan in place um it might yeah might be like that if there's a bunch of sups perhaps that

01:55:16.720 --> 01:55:22.480
 are being requested um which but this doesn't spell anything out it just changes the base

01:55:22.480 --> 01:55:27.920
 zoning of what it currently is the request anyway um is there any other discussion

01:55:27.920 --> 01:55:35.360
 okay our motion on the floor is to deny this request okay so let's vote on the board please

01:55:49.680 --> 01:55:52.480
 uh that motion carries four two

01:55:52.480 --> 01:56:05.360
 okay that will move us to four b z two two zero zero one nine

01:56:05.360 --> 01:56:08.160
 i'll invite ron up for presentation and open the public hearing

01:56:08.160 --> 01:56:13.520
 thank you madam chair members of commission ramageddon principal planning with development services

01:56:17.200 --> 01:56:23.200
 this item before you is a request for an initial zoning of this property that's shown here outlined

01:56:23.200 --> 01:56:29.200
 in yellow uh the initial zoning is as a result of an annexation that occurred earlier this year

01:56:29.200 --> 01:56:35.280
 uh january 10th to be specific it's approximately 18.6 acres currently used as agriculture

01:56:35.280 --> 01:56:42.000
 to the south is us 380 to the west is thomas egan which is a secondary arterial

01:56:43.040 --> 01:56:49.920
 the applicant has indicated that they are proposing an industrial use with this if this zoning is

01:56:49.920 --> 01:56:56.000
 successful and as i mentioned during the work session the property directly along 380 is also

01:56:56.000 --> 01:57:05.120
 owned by the property owner requesting this rezoning or zoning oops for the for the future

01:57:05.120 --> 01:57:12.000
 land use map it is designated as light industrial um obviously it qualifies for light industrial

01:57:12.000 --> 01:57:18.400
 activity access is important and also ensuring that there's adequate transitions to adjacent

01:57:18.400 --> 01:57:23.680
 sensitive land uses and again as mentioned during the work session including setbacks

01:57:23.680 --> 01:57:28.560
 buffering and screening all of which will be applied per the development code

01:57:28.560 --> 01:57:35.440
 staff did review it against the criteria of for approval under the development code sections

01:57:36.080 --> 01:57:42.000
 staff has provided a summary that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan

01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:48.400
 consistent with the land use statement in the development code and again all the zoning that

01:57:48.400 --> 01:57:54.560
 is it's not expected to generate any potential impact utilities and infrastructure is part of

01:57:54.560 --> 01:58:01.200
 the development process and will be served will be provided through extension to serve the subject

01:58:01.200 --> 01:58:08.640
 property notifications were sent out signs were posted as of this evening staff has not received

01:58:08.640 --> 01:58:17.680
 any opposition or in favor responses no neighborhood meeting was held but again notices were sent per the

01:58:17.680 --> 01:58:23.920
 texas local government code staff recommends approval of the initial zoning as it meets the

01:58:23.920 --> 01:58:28.800
 criteria for approval again under the dental development code and with that i'll stand for

01:58:28.800 --> 01:58:33.920
 any questions the applicant is here and is able to answer any questions as well thank you ron very

01:58:33.920 --> 01:58:42.000
 much uh commissioner cole thank you chair uh ron i brought this up in work session about the

01:58:42.000 --> 01:58:50.160
 single-family mud district that is to the southwest or i'm sorry yeah southwest

01:58:52.000 --> 01:58:59.520
 but aren't there two others there is one to the further west at 156 it's a sing going to be a

01:58:59.520 --> 01:59:10.080
 single-family mud district also at golden hoof is it not a mud district as well that is being

01:59:10.080 --> 01:59:19.120
 planned for single-family homes so it looks like we're dropping this lot industrial use

01:59:21.440 --> 01:59:24.560
 right smack because it's residential to the east

01:59:24.560 --> 01:59:30.400
 right smack in the middle of all these new single-family homes

01:59:30.400 --> 01:59:35.440
 because you know i forgot about the other two

01:59:35.440 --> 01:59:46.000
 is that the best uh i mean i don't know i i'm i'm kind of conflicted with that because

01:59:48.560 --> 01:59:53.760
 it doesn't go i mean this is a classic that i brought ranch estates up

01:59:53.760 --> 02:00:02.720
 i mean it just i know the front of it's li already i get that but i mean these are all going to be

02:00:02.720 --> 02:00:10.320
 single-family homes surrounding this thing in the future i don't know if they want to live across

02:00:10.320 --> 02:00:15.120
 the street from lot industrial and commissioner cole part of our staff analysis is obviously

02:00:15.120 --> 02:00:20.160
 looking at the future land use and the existing zoning of the area and i brought this slide up

02:00:20.160 --> 02:00:27.280
 anticipating you're trying to respond to your comment we do have line industrial we also have

02:00:27.280 --> 02:00:36.080
 industrial commerce to the south and generally west of thomas egan as you can see is low

02:00:36.080 --> 02:00:44.320
 residential and rural areas or rural yeah rural areas so yes you know the future lens helps us

02:00:44.320 --> 02:00:50.800
 guide where you know what zoning could be placed we when we did the future land use map one of the

02:00:50.800 --> 02:00:55.360
 things that we looked at was what can be a dividing factor and of course there's got to be a line drawn

02:00:55.360 --> 02:01:02.000
 so this happens to be just the furthest one to the west again when we looked at our staff analysis

02:01:02.000 --> 02:01:05.680
 we looked the future land use map but we also understand that the development code has

02:01:05.680 --> 02:01:12.560
 requirements related to providing those transitions and buffers and screening that we discussed

02:01:13.280 --> 02:01:19.920
 well ron if i could add to what you mentioned so i know this was an issue that we had to work

02:01:19.920 --> 02:01:26.160
 through with the adoption of the comprehensive plan last year and as you all are well aware of

02:01:26.160 --> 02:01:32.240
 we we have no land use control in the etj and so where the mud developments are happening

02:01:32.240 --> 02:01:36.400
 immediately to the west and even on the other side of the railroad tracks and 156 those are

02:01:36.400 --> 02:01:42.960
 all within the etj and so when we worked on the future land use map and in reviewing what uses

02:01:42.960 --> 02:01:48.800
 may be appropriate within the area you know hence why in this particular area we landed on industrial

02:01:48.800 --> 02:01:57.280
 being an appropriate land use designation for the area the area to the south shaded in purple more

02:01:57.280 --> 02:02:04.720
 we call it heavy industrial right or no i forget the designation industrial commerce which also

02:02:04.720 --> 02:02:09.600
 allows for a variety of other industrial uses but you know we're with the existing uses and

02:02:09.600 --> 02:02:13.520
 development patterns and pressures we have in the area couple that with gas wells that also

02:02:13.520 --> 02:02:18.880
 sprinkled on our west side you know through our update of the comprehensive plan we determined

02:02:18.880 --> 02:02:23.760
 that industrial uses were most appropriate in this area do we have pockets of residential from time

02:02:23.760 --> 02:02:28.800
 to time yes and and so we we rely upon the standards that are within the development code

02:02:28.800 --> 02:02:33.680
 to be able to address where we have those adjacency issues so you know in this case there's

02:02:33.680 --> 02:02:37.120
 there's still a parcel of land that actually separates these tracks on the single-family

02:02:37.120 --> 02:02:42.160
 residential neighborhood that's immediately to the east so you know that that's the parcel there that

02:02:42.160 --> 02:02:47.040
 has the responsibility for for if it develops to something else then comes into compliance and

02:02:47.040 --> 02:02:53.360
 addressing those compatibility issues from from a land use adjacency standpoint but you know the

02:02:53.360 --> 02:02:57.680
 request that's before us this evening it is consistent with the future land use designation

02:02:57.680 --> 02:03:03.200
 that's in our comprehensive plan that you know state law says that if we're going to enforce

02:03:03.200 --> 02:03:08.320
 zoning then we need to look to see if our zoning is consistent with our comprehensive plan so hence

02:03:08.320 --> 02:03:12.640
 the recommendations we put forth but i i understand your concerns regarding the mud developments that

02:03:12.640 --> 02:03:16.320
 are happening um because you're right there is a fair amount of single-family residential that's

02:03:16.320 --> 02:03:20.960
 happening but unfortunately they're not annexing within the city where i can where i can control

02:03:20.960 --> 02:03:24.960
 or we the city can control from a land use standpoint so it's i think we're going to

02:03:24.960 --> 02:03:30.240
 continue to have a little bit of this struggle in areas that we've tried to plan appropriately

02:03:30.240 --> 02:03:35.280
 for allowing for commercial development within the community but then yet we have this other force

02:03:35.280 --> 02:03:40.320
 that is in some cases trying to work against us and what we're trying to achieve for the community

02:03:40.320 --> 02:03:44.080
 with the single-family residential developments that are taking place that are that are not within

02:03:44.080 --> 02:03:49.040
 the city limits we're also you know we're working to try to get them to negotiate development

02:03:49.040 --> 02:03:52.880
 agreements with us so we can ensure better standards that are put in place and in trying

02:03:52.880 --> 02:03:59.360
 to be able to work through that but but at the end of the day right now we don't have any land use

02:03:59.360 --> 02:04:04.240
 authority with respect to the development that's happening on the etj from from a land use standpoint

02:04:04.240 --> 02:04:08.720
 residential subdivisions if it's an etj1 yes we have we can influence our standards there but

02:04:08.720 --> 02:04:13.680
 from a land use standpoint you know we unfortunately just don't have that luxury so again you know we

02:04:13.680 --> 02:04:19.760
 go back to we updated the comprehensive plan in 2022 we looked to see what were the recommended

02:04:19.760 --> 02:04:24.240
 land uses and development patterns that were put in place and and at that time we determined that

02:04:24.240 --> 02:04:29.920
 industrial was appropriate for this area so so so hence why we we have the recommendation that we do

02:04:29.920 --> 02:04:39.840
 commissioner perot thank you chair i appreciate that very much tina

02:04:39.840 --> 02:04:48.240
 because my memory is not great i do remember that process that we went through

02:04:49.280 --> 02:04:54.960
 and i'm not sure whether this question got asked during that process but as i look at the future

02:04:54.960 --> 02:05:03.760
 land use map as the there's a border between rural residential and light industrial kind of future

02:05:03.760 --> 02:05:12.400
 land use that goes north south down the vertical north south portion of mosh branch right and then

02:05:12.400 --> 02:05:19.920
 it kind of cuts over west just to enclose this property plus a few others and then down to 380

02:05:19.920 --> 02:05:30.080
 can you help me understand was it was it gas wells was it uh the facts other things what what made us

02:05:30.080 --> 02:05:38.960
 think hey we should have this little jut over right here and my my concern that may be unfounded or

02:05:38.960 --> 02:05:44.800
 may be pointless because there's not going to be that many muds out here um is that if there is a

02:05:44.800 --> 02:05:57.280
 lot of mud say there's 10 000 units west of mosh branch right um having no retail outlets west of

02:05:57.280 --> 02:06:04.160
 35 w uh would mean that we would need to get x numbers of thousands of cars through

02:06:05.280 --> 02:06:15.200
 35 and 380 interchange which gosh it's bad already right um so so just help me understand

02:06:15.200 --> 02:06:22.080
 what's what's the purpose of that little jut out what should i step on that says we feel confident

02:06:22.080 --> 02:06:28.480
 that that that portion should be light industrial so as we looked at the future land using our update

02:06:28.480 --> 02:06:37.200
 during the 2022 you can see that 380 is a mean factor gas wells is another one but also the

02:06:37.200 --> 02:06:44.560
 industrial commerce just to the south and future expansion of loop 28 in the airport so there's a

02:06:44.560 --> 02:06:51.920
 lot of trends that nathina referenced as part of what's what's happening in the area so we use that

02:06:51.920 --> 02:06:58.240
 as sort of our reasoning but also wanted to find you know what where that where that line could be

02:06:58.240 --> 02:07:05.120
 and should be so um so that's how we ended with this uh again because what's we're seeing south

02:07:05.120 --> 02:07:12.800
 of 380 but also along 380 and then hopefully or looking at what could be done north of 380

02:07:16.240 --> 02:07:24.800
 thanks run any other questions from run thank you um i don't have any cards on this item is

02:07:24.800 --> 02:07:37.920
 there anyone wishing to speak on this item hello there you can fill out a card later go ahead and

02:07:37.920 --> 02:07:42.240
 give us your name and address and we'll begin two additional points i wanted to make will you give

02:07:42.240 --> 02:07:48.160
 us your name first please can you give us your name and address just in tune yes um a little bit

02:07:48.160 --> 02:07:55.840
 3714 lenox drive in fort worth thanks i represent the owner so thank you there are two additional

02:07:55.840 --> 02:08:02.320
 points i want to make uh that that ron touched on but as it relates to the eastern neighbor

02:08:02.320 --> 02:08:10.160
 there's you know this is a 28 acre site and the eastern 14 acres it's almost an exact line in half

02:08:10.160 --> 02:08:17.120
 is a flood area to the east and so there's 14 acres on the eastern side of this that's a

02:08:17.120 --> 02:08:25.360
 natural boundary so that was one point and then the other was the future 288 loop that will be

02:08:25.360 --> 02:08:32.320
 coming just to the east of this property as well i think is another reason to his point of why

02:08:33.520 --> 02:08:40.800
 it was the future land use map was is the way that it is so great thank you very much for

02:08:40.800 --> 02:08:45.600
 your explanation appreciate that uh is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item

02:08:45.600 --> 02:08:51.120
 seeing none i'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open

02:08:51.120 --> 02:09:00.000
 the floor for a motion or discussion

02:09:01.600 --> 02:09:04.080
 commissioner cole i'll make a motion to deny

02:09:04.080 --> 02:09:13.280
 commissioner billy rail second we've got a first and a second for denial of this request any

02:09:13.280 --> 02:09:21.120
 discussion i think what i'll just add is um a lot of fair points that have been brought up here with

02:09:21.120 --> 02:09:27.280
 the way this whole area has developed and if you saw a quote of me probably almost six years ago

02:09:27.280 --> 02:09:34.480
 i talked about how um we should be mindful as a city on how this side of i-35 is developing

02:09:34.480 --> 02:09:40.240
 down 380 um because we didn't have a plan in place and so things just happened and unfortunately

02:09:40.240 --> 02:09:48.240
 there's probably a whole lot too much of light industrial happening in that area um however um

02:09:49.440 --> 02:09:57.840
 we look at each request and and um individually um this particular lot um i think with with the

02:09:57.840 --> 02:10:04.320
 way it's encumbered with the esa and whatnot um which is a natural buffer to the single family

02:10:04.320 --> 02:10:12.800
 um to the uh directly to the east on that um thomas egan will be a buffer on that side from

02:10:12.800 --> 02:10:22.160
 whatever might develop in the etj um you know i think the request is is reasonable honestly um

02:10:22.160 --> 02:10:28.000
 because um again not that i want to see continued light industrial down this area but again i mean

02:10:28.000 --> 02:10:33.840
 we're looking at this one particular parcel here so um i don't think personally we were mindful

02:10:33.840 --> 02:10:39.040
 enough as a city to make a plan in this area um and so we're having to do this um at a request

02:10:39.040 --> 02:10:44.160
 at a time as things get annexed and into our city and we do have jurisdiction so um

02:10:44.160 --> 02:10:49.760
 that's all i need to say on it uh commissioner villarreal yeah i just wanted to echo some of the

02:10:49.760 --> 02:10:55.440
 concerns uh commissioner cole brought up uh i understand the city can't control what's happening

02:10:55.440 --> 02:11:02.000
 out in the etj or outside the city limits but uh we should be mindful of the subdivisions coming in

02:11:02.000 --> 02:11:07.360
 of single family neighborhoods coming in and with that in mind i just don't view this as

02:11:08.000 --> 02:11:14.960
 something that makes sense in this area so i am supporting the motion to deny it okay thank you

02:11:14.960 --> 02:11:29.600
 commissioner perot thank you chair yeah i guess i um i i'm very much in agreement with uh chair

02:11:29.600 --> 02:11:38.560
 ellis's comments about how you know if if you look about at the the residential development to the

02:11:38.560 --> 02:11:45.600
 east of here um of all the sides that they could be encroached upon with light industrial uh this

02:11:45.600 --> 02:11:54.160
 is probably the the least imposing from a buffer and traffic impact etc sort of situation um

02:11:55.200 --> 02:12:01.200
 my my heartburn is really longer term what are we going to see in this corridor

02:12:01.200 --> 02:12:08.400
 and and how do we pivot if necessary when does staff think that that might be right

02:12:08.400 --> 02:12:20.000
 toward ensuring that there is enough distribution of services and retail in spaces that make sense

02:12:21.440 --> 02:12:29.360
 to to service people from coming out you know coming into denton um you know there's a there's

02:12:29.360 --> 02:12:37.520
 a sales tax revenue argument there especially in texas i understand that um i think because of

02:12:37.520 --> 02:12:45.600
 the specific location of this site um with the buffer and the fact that if i look just to the

02:12:45.600 --> 02:12:54.560
 east of here um in that future 288 380 area um there's still a decent chunk of undeveloped land

02:12:54.560 --> 02:13:03.440
 i think we have an opportunity to um to to see some things that are not light industrial distribution

02:13:03.440 --> 02:13:13.120
 centers if necessary uh obviously we can't push that um but uh i i think since this is in conformance

02:13:13.120 --> 02:13:20.640
 with our plan i'm gonna go ahead and support it uh with the statement that let's let's keep our eye

02:13:20.640 --> 02:13:29.120
 on the ball from a economic development perspective and um you know those discussions just to make sure

02:13:29.120 --> 02:13:35.840
 that we're we're not sending the message to the development community that we're not going to

02:13:35.840 --> 02:13:40.400
 support anything other than light industrial over here because i think in in certain places

02:13:41.040 --> 02:13:46.480
 that may be a very good thing thank you commissioner um okay the motion on the

02:13:46.480 --> 02:13:51.520
 floor is to uh deny if there's no further discussion then we'll go ahead and vote on the board

02:13:51.520 --> 02:14:08.720
 okay so we have a three three tie so the motion fails

02:14:11.520 --> 02:14:13.200
 um hillary

02:14:13.200 --> 02:14:21.840
 in our recently updated chapter two uh we promulgated a procedure for tie votes

02:14:21.840 --> 02:14:31.120
 and so the tie vote actually um i can pull it back up um i believe that it goes

02:14:31.120 --> 02:14:36.800
 to our next meeting as an individual consideration item okay because we have a missing um

02:14:38.240 --> 02:14:44.400
 person we've got an absence okay so um it will just automatically go to as an individual

02:14:44.400 --> 02:14:48.880
 consideration item and we would revote on this motion is that am i understand that correctly

02:14:48.880 --> 02:14:54.080
 uh yes ma'am okay and there's no further action that we have to take at this time now that will

02:14:54.080 --> 02:15:01.760
 just be automatically um it's up to your discretion if you want to entertain another motion at this

02:15:01.760 --> 02:15:09.760
 time but that's what would happen if we are unable to resolve the tie okay which um

02:15:09.760 --> 02:15:13.440
 yeah i would say it would

02:15:13.440 --> 02:15:19.120
 go to our next meeting because i don't know how we would resolve a three three tie because we

02:15:19.120 --> 02:15:25.680
 could try to vote for an approval but we're going to get a three three tie so uh in that case uh

02:15:26.400 --> 02:15:34.000
 we'll see this item at our next meeting um that will bring us up to our final public hearing item

02:15:34.000 --> 02:15:42.960
 of the evening that's 4c dca 22 0008 and ron will present and i will open the public hearing

02:15:42.960 --> 02:15:49.920
 thank you chair members of commission again um development services um let me put full screen

02:15:49.920 --> 02:15:57.520
 here this is a code amendment uh related to outdoor storage and outdoor display um the purpose of this

02:15:57.520 --> 02:16:03.280
 is to really us to address um a review of administrative decision as well as an interpretation

02:16:03.280 --> 02:16:09.760
 by the zba also to address any uh the inconsistency in language related to again outdoor storage and

02:16:09.760 --> 02:16:16.560
 outdoor display and lastly to propose additional language standards um as it fits within the

02:16:16.560 --> 02:16:24.080
 context of the code amendment in relationship to outdoor storage the dcrc didn't meet on this item

02:16:24.080 --> 02:16:29.760
 several times and the dates are shown here to the right is the sections of the code that we are

02:16:29.760 --> 02:16:38.880
 proposing to amend most of them are use specific standards related but there's also other sections

02:16:38.880 --> 02:16:44.800
 of the code as well as the definition section where we also are proposing some code amendments

02:16:46.320 --> 02:16:52.720
 i wanted to share with you that i've summarized the code amendment most of the or all the code

02:16:52.720 --> 02:16:58.320
 amendments are in your backup for more details but generally this slide here illustrates the

02:16:58.320 --> 02:17:03.840
 consistent language that we are proposing to apply to the uses that are listed here to the right

02:17:03.840 --> 02:17:12.240
 one way or another there are they're proposed as part of these uses the top two

02:17:12.240 --> 02:17:18.640
 bullets here the top two statements here are very similar except for the last part of the requirement

02:17:18.640 --> 02:17:26.640
 and the reason is the zoning that are more sensitive will apply to the top version which

02:17:26.640 --> 02:17:35.520
 states that the screening would be an eight foot wall or fence of masonry elevator sealwood or a

02:17:35.520 --> 02:17:41.360
 combination of and those zoning districts that it would apply to would be the following that you see

02:17:41.360 --> 02:17:49.440
 there in orange the second bullet is a little bit less restrictive and again similar to the the top

02:17:49.440 --> 02:17:55.840
 version the only difference is that it only needs to comply with such section 778 which is walls

02:17:55.840 --> 02:18:04.000
 fences and screening and that requirement would only apply in the lihi in the pf we also address

02:18:04.000 --> 02:18:10.480
 outdoor display allowing it where it is allowed that they have to follow the following requirements

02:18:11.120 --> 02:18:17.840
 and then as well as outdoor i'm sorry auto repair and maintenance services those are all proposed to

02:18:17.840 --> 02:18:24.480
 be entirely within an enclosed structure so again these statements or these requirements are pretty

02:18:24.480 --> 02:18:28.640
 much consistent throughout with all the different uses that you see here listed in the right on the

02:18:28.640 --> 02:18:36.960
 right we also added some use specific standards clarifying if they're proposed they they are

02:18:36.960 --> 02:18:41.600
 followed they must follow a different use or follow the use that is shown here so for example

02:18:41.600 --> 02:18:49.600
 auto repair and servicing must is cons constituted as an automotive repair major minor so that use

02:18:49.600 --> 02:18:55.760
 has to be allowed under that zoning district either by right or sup similarly the sales and

02:18:55.760 --> 02:19:01.200
 leasing of motor vehicles as well as rental of moving trucks and moving related equipment

02:19:01.760 --> 02:19:07.280
 again different use must be allowed in that zoning district we also added a noise level

02:19:07.280 --> 02:19:13.920
 standard or reference so that the user is of understanding that that particular use

02:19:13.920 --> 02:19:20.720
 must comply with a with the noise standards of the code of ordinance the last two bullets

02:19:20.720 --> 02:19:28.080
 refers to self-service storage we wanted to make it clear that self-service storage is only for

02:19:28.080 --> 02:19:34.640
 rental of storage units rental of storage space for rvs and boats and the sale of moving related

02:19:34.640 --> 02:19:40.320
 items no other activity is permitted within the storage units lastly outdoor storage and

02:19:40.320 --> 02:19:45.120
 accessory outdoor storage we provide additional use specific standards as it relates to how

02:19:45.120 --> 02:19:49.200
 where and what types are allowed to be stored outdoors

02:19:51.840 --> 02:19:58.800
 the next slide illustrates some of the languages that we amended or added to provide some consistency

02:19:58.800 --> 02:20:04.960
 in other sections of the code the first one really just a change outdoors sorry outside to outdoor

02:20:04.960 --> 02:20:11.280
 the second one the middle one again you can see that similar language is provided here again to

02:20:11.280 --> 02:20:18.240
 provide that consistency in terms of how outdoor storage is screened and then last item below is

02:20:18.240 --> 02:20:25.840
 related to fence height currently the fence height under table 7h is eight feet however

02:20:25.840 --> 02:20:31.440
 per the discussion with the dcrc there are opportunities where the height can be increased

02:20:31.440 --> 02:20:38.320
 to help provide even more screening therefore the director is given that ability to prove an

02:20:38.320 --> 02:20:43.680
 alternative height provided that that maximum height does not cause any adverse impact to

02:20:43.680 --> 02:20:49.760
 surrounding properties we also did some code amendment related to the definitions again

02:20:49.760 --> 02:20:54.560
 related to outdoor storage and display i won't go through all of them but i wanted to provide the

02:20:54.560 --> 02:21:01.120
 list of definitions that we did propose code amendments related to outdoor display and outdoor

02:21:01.120 --> 02:21:10.240
 storage with that i'll stand for any question and thank you thank you ron any questions for ron at

02:21:10.240 --> 02:21:18.640
 this time you're not seeing anyone thank you so much i do have uh one card in front of me wishing

02:21:18.640 --> 02:21:28.800
 to speak on this item uh justin heigl good evening sir if you'll state your name and address your

02:21:28.800 --> 02:21:38.000
 time i'll begin yes uh justin heigl 18333 preston road dallas texas um here just to show support for

02:21:38.000 --> 02:21:43.680
 this uh that's the change that's being proposed um we're obviously a real estate developer out

02:21:43.680 --> 02:21:49.840
 of dallas that we represent several uh major chains of automotive sales and service clients

02:21:49.840 --> 02:21:56.080
 that have been wanting to build new facilities in denton but with the way it's currently uh the

02:21:56.080 --> 02:22:01.600
 language currently that's there there's just no opportunities for it so just wanted to show my

02:22:01.600 --> 02:22:08.240
 support for it and uh that our company as well thank you for thank you for your time thank you

02:22:08.240 --> 02:22:15.920
 for sharing your thoughts yeah yeah i think uh this is another great reason why we have the um

02:22:15.920 --> 02:22:21.840
 development code review committee in place um it's for things like this that you know you just

02:22:21.840 --> 02:22:26.880
 you rewrite a code it's just not all going to be right and um it's going to have to be tweaked from

02:22:26.880 --> 02:22:32.640
 time to time and i know that committee um you know works very hard i sat on that committee for

02:22:32.640 --> 02:22:38.720
 quite a long time um and going forward i know that they're working diligently to um get these

02:22:38.720 --> 02:22:45.760
 needed changes and ron you are just such a champion on that and um thank you very much for all your

02:22:45.760 --> 02:22:51.840
 hard work in that and um for the great presentation um in helping us understand what was discussed at

02:22:51.840 --> 02:22:58.720
 that committee meeting uh commissioner perot thank you chair yeah i'm going to you know excuse me

02:22:58.720 --> 02:23:03.040
 i did not close the public hearing so i'm going to do that and then i will call on you again i

02:23:03.040 --> 02:23:09.440
 apologize um i do not see anyone else here in city hall um wishing to speak on this item and i don't

02:23:09.440 --> 02:23:15.680
 have any more cards so i will close the public hearing and now i will open for a motion or

02:23:15.680 --> 02:23:23.040
 discussion commissioner perot thank you chair um i would echo many of chair ellis's uh comments i

02:23:23.040 --> 02:23:31.120
 think we we spent way more time than i thought we could or should on this but always happens

02:23:31.120 --> 02:23:38.640
 i think uh as as evidenced by the fact that we had a member of the development community take

02:23:38.640 --> 02:23:45.120
 time out of his busy day to to come up and um and share his opinion um we must have done a few things

02:23:45.120 --> 02:23:50.080
 right you know just for the benefit of the rest of the commission i would say that the uh the

02:23:50.080 --> 02:23:57.760
 language that was in the the code at adoption for for 2019 and it may have been there from 2002 i

02:23:57.760 --> 02:24:08.160
 think it was some of that carryover language um was sufficiently stern but vague that it uh it put

02:24:08.160 --> 02:24:13.680
 both staff and applicants in a position of not really knowing exactly what would be allowed and

02:24:13.680 --> 02:24:19.760
 what wouldn't and it took a while to get through that process of what makes sense i think there

02:24:19.760 --> 02:24:25.680
 was a lot of a lot of opinions of do we really want to prevent that sort of thing so there was

02:24:25.680 --> 02:24:35.600
 definitely sort of how do we remain friendly to the the local dent in spirit while making sure that

02:24:35.600 --> 02:24:42.800
 the you know the businesses that show people other people's cars which nobody likes we only

02:24:42.800 --> 02:24:50.480
 like our own car are are not going to actually impose on on uh unduly especially from a new

02:24:50.480 --> 02:24:55.200
 development perspective so i think we did a good job and i'm glad we're moving on to other things

02:24:55.200 --> 02:25:03.760
 excellent and your motion is to to recommend adoption as stated excellent commissioner

02:25:03.760 --> 02:25:09.440
 villarreal as the other committee member present i do want to echo the length of time we spent

02:25:09.440 --> 02:25:17.280
 on this topic uh discussed ad nauseam but every potential use case every possibility was discussed

02:25:17.280 --> 02:25:24.560
 at length so i do think this code amendment uh captures every necessity uh for this

02:25:24.560 --> 02:25:30.560
 specifically so i am seconding the motion thank you and thank you both for serving on the committee

02:25:30.560 --> 02:25:38.560
 um we've got a first and a second for approval any discussion okay let's vote on the board please

02:25:39.440 --> 02:25:51.680
 okay that motion carries six zero thank you that will move us to our matrix so i will turn it over

02:25:51.680 --> 02:26:01.680
 to tina thank you so um as we usually report on a recap from the most recent city council meeting

02:26:01.680 --> 02:26:05.760
 regarding um variety of development projects that were on council's agenda so this would have been

02:26:05.760 --> 02:26:13.760
 from their february 7th meeting date so we had a rezoning request for use classification of light

02:26:13.760 --> 02:26:18.960
 industrial on approximately 83 acres that's on the north side of barthold road approximately 1300

02:26:18.960 --> 02:26:24.960
 feet west of i-35 if you recall this property actually went through an annexation procedure

02:26:24.960 --> 02:26:29.120
 actually started with city council this so this was to establish initial zoning on this property

02:26:29.120 --> 02:26:34.880
 and so um city council did rezone the property to the light industrial zoning district so that was

02:26:34.880 --> 02:26:40.480
 approved six zero we also had a request for a specific use permit for multi-family dwelling use

02:26:40.480 --> 02:26:46.160
 on approximately 16 acres of land located between north loop 288 and mayhill road approximately a

02:26:46.160 --> 02:26:51.440
 thousand feet east of mckinney we dubbed this this was the project the forest crossing phase two

02:26:51.440 --> 02:26:55.280
 project i know that the planning and zoning commission had received here recently

02:26:55.280 --> 02:27:02.720
 and so city council did approve that specific use permit by a vote of six to zero then we also had

02:27:02.720 --> 02:27:06.720
 the planned development district amendment that was for the preserve at pecan creek

02:27:06.720 --> 02:27:11.440
 to allow for an increase in lot coverage for the single-family homes that were

02:27:11.440 --> 02:27:17.840
 for that planned development district if you recall there was sections j and k part of that

02:27:17.840 --> 02:27:22.240
 development the infrastructure had already been constructed but they were running into an issue

02:27:22.240 --> 02:27:25.920
 with the lot coverage in the planned development district i believe it was at 30 so they were

02:27:25.920 --> 02:27:33.040
 proposing to increase it to 55 percent if memory serves me correctly and the city council received

02:27:33.040 --> 02:27:40.240
 that request and ended up approving that by a vote of six zero then we also had another zoning case

02:27:40.240 --> 02:27:46.160
 if you recall that ashley had presented to you all the the afcm rezoning this was from a rural

02:27:46.160 --> 02:27:52.400
 residential to an r1 district it was about four acres of land located roughly 2800 feet north of

02:27:52.400 --> 02:27:57.760
 swisher road and edwards road at that intersection so the applicant was requesting to be able to

02:27:57.760 --> 02:28:01.520
 drop down to the r1 zoning in order to be able to meet the minimum standards so that they could build

02:28:01.520 --> 02:28:06.800
 be able to build a single-family residence on the property had kind of some unique access associated

02:28:06.800 --> 02:28:14.080
 with it so that was approved by city council also by a vote of six to zero and lastly then we had

02:28:14.080 --> 02:28:19.280
 the planned development district amendment that julie had presented for the automotive expansion

02:28:19.280 --> 02:28:24.880
 used this was for the automotive dealership that straddled the city limit line with the city of

02:28:24.880 --> 02:28:33.120
 carent and so the council approved that request also by a vote of a vote of six to zero so

02:28:33.120 --> 02:28:39.200
 that summarizes the the zoning and development activity on council's agenda as it relates to the

02:28:39.200 --> 02:28:43.680
 matrix let me get back to my other sheet here so you'll see i made a couple of tweaks we did

02:28:43.680 --> 02:28:48.960
 not have anything new added but i tried to add a little bit finer point to some of these items

02:28:48.960 --> 02:28:53.680
 so the report on the notification process regarding properties within the etj originally we thought

02:28:53.680 --> 02:28:57.680
 we were going to do that this evening but since commissioner smith had requested that presentation

02:28:57.680 --> 02:29:01.600
 and gave us a heads up that he would not be here tonight we've since rescheduled that and

02:29:01.600 --> 02:29:06.960
 intertargeting to get that accomplished on on march 15th during your work session we also

02:29:06.960 --> 02:29:13.040
 i also added some additional clarification language related to removing the minimum parking

02:29:13.040 --> 02:29:18.080
 requirements i know this is something that the commission is interested in discussing so i did

02:29:18.080 --> 02:29:22.160
 add to make it a little bit finer that it's pending further discussion with the development

02:29:22.160 --> 02:29:25.920
 code review committee so the development code review committee just recently prioritized

02:29:25.920 --> 02:29:31.440
 my items i believe parking minimums was number three on the list and i'm trying to work through

02:29:31.440 --> 02:29:38.080
 some other items so so we've got that slated for their consideration and then lastly the other item

02:29:38.080 --> 02:29:43.680
 i added a finer point was for the the annual updates item so believe it or not it's almost

02:29:43.680 --> 02:29:49.200
 been a year since we update or since we adopted the update to the dentin 2040 conference plan

02:29:49.200 --> 02:29:55.120
 as well as the mobility plan also right it'll be a year come march 22nd so so i've already

02:29:55.120 --> 02:30:01.840
 talked to ron and i've tasked him with scheduling a discussion for the spring and to be able to

02:30:01.840 --> 02:30:07.760
 give the commission an update as to what progress we've made as it relates to that so as as you're

02:30:07.760 --> 02:30:11.840
 well aware of and we've talked in the past some major initiatives that the commission and council

02:30:11.840 --> 02:30:15.680
 directed us to work on were the development of the area plans so i know i've talked in the past

02:30:15.680 --> 02:30:21.440
 about how we've kicked off northeast and so already started stakeholder engagement hopefully our

02:30:21.440 --> 02:30:26.960
 contract will be approved on council's agenda next week for southeast dentin and then we're still

02:30:26.960 --> 02:30:31.680
 working through consultant selection on on downtown so that's been consuming a fair amount of our

02:30:31.680 --> 02:30:36.800
 time but i have asked ron to reach out to the other departments also as part of that overview

02:30:36.800 --> 02:30:41.040
 on the update of what progress we've made on the conference of plan to see what what additional

02:30:41.040 --> 02:30:47.200
 progress our colleagues have made since the the implementation of the conference the plan does not

02:30:47.200 --> 02:30:52.160
 solely rely upon the shoulders of the of the planning team so so know that we will be bringing

02:30:52.160 --> 02:30:57.760
 that to you sometime this spring probably be april-ish time frame is what we're targeting

02:30:57.760 --> 02:31:01.840
 just because of all the public engagement activities that we've also got slated balancing

02:31:01.840 --> 02:31:06.400
 that with the existing development so we'll we'll get that all brought back before you so other than

02:31:06.400 --> 02:31:12.320
 that i do not have anything else to report as it relates to the matrix so thank you is there anything

02:31:12.320 --> 02:31:17.840
 that you want to add to the matrix okay any concluding items

02:31:17.840 --> 02:31:27.280
 okay i'll just say thank you everybody a good discussion all the way around hard work by staff

02:31:27.280 --> 02:31:34.320
 in putting our agenda together so thank you very much with that i will adjourn us at 8 31 p.m.