Feb 20, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2019-02-20 2:00 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Work Commission for February 20th 2019. Having a quorum present I will open the meeting at 2.09. The first item in our work session agenda is to receive a presentation from the Denton Independent School District and I believe Paul Andrus is here to present. The floor is yours. My name is Paul Andrus. I'm with the Operations Department, Denton ISD. I've got Gary Ryan here with our Construction Department, Denton ISD. Ray Bledsoe and Bob Templeton with Templeton Demographics. So we're here to talk about construction planning and growth. I believe at your request or for sure Julie's request. But what we're going to do is present our fourth quarter of 2018 growth report that we use every day. That's how we plan for future. We see all the developments. Julie does a good job of keeping us up to date when new ones are coming in. So I'm going to have Bob present that and then we'll be available to take questions afterwards. Sounds great. Well thank you. It is my pleasure to be with you this afternoon. Templeton Demographics, we are a consulting firm. If I can interrupt, I apologize, they want you on the mic. Thank you. Sorry about that. Templeton Demographics is a consulting firm. We specialize in working with school districts across the country. We work with about a hundred school districts. Most of those are suburban, fast growth school districts that are adding literally thousands of homes per year. We've been fortunate to work with the Denton School District for about the last ten years where we have helped them with understanding the housing growth, turning that into population growth. We model out how to change the attendance zones and we are affiliated with MetroStudy. So we are a part of the MetroStudy family. The MetroStudy companies literally track 93% of all of the housing construction across the country. So in every major market across the country, their employees are physically driving active subdivisions. They're counting how many homes are being started, how many homes are being occupied. They interview the cities, they get the preliminary plats from the cities. We put it into this giant database so then we can then turn that into relevant information for the school district. So this afternoon I'm going to go over our fourth quarter report that we presented to the Denton School District and show you what we're seeing with the housing market and how that translates into enrollment growth for the school district. We're very fortunate in the DFW region. When I mentioned DFW region, that's all of the major counties within the metropolitan statistical area which does include Denton and we're 3.4% job growth. We literally are either first or second depending upon which month that you look at the data in job growth across the country. That 3.4% job growth represents about 127,000 jobs that were added during the last 12 months ending in December. I don't see that changing in the short term. Within the next couple of months, like several months, we still have many relocations that are coming to the DFW region so the job growth is in a very strong position to continue. Right now the number one city has been Houston so Houston has jumped back up the list due to the growth in energy related jobs. We're also very fortunate in Texas. San Antonio and Austin continue to be in the top 25 cities for job growth but that 3.4% job growth literally is one of the highest percentages and net job growth cities in the country. Unemployment rates very low. These are almost 50-year lows that we're seeing in terms of the unemployment rates. The US rates at 3.7%, Texas is at 3.6%, the DFW MSA is at 3.3%, and Denton County is at 2.9%. So very low unemployment rates. These can be a little bit of a problem for the service industry markets in terms of food service, janitorial, logistics, transportation, construction. All of the service industries tend to have a challenge filling their jobs when the unemployment rates get this low. And so this is a little bit of a concern as it is having an impact on the cost of construction. It's raising the cost because the subcontractors are charging a premium to do their work. The housing market is also continuing to be very strong. Across the DFW region we have started about 34,752 homes. That's an annual number across the DFW region. That's up about 1,490 from the fourth quarter of 2017. We do think we're near the ceiling. So that 35,000 is about the maximum number of annual homes that will likely be seen added to the DFW region. Now when you look at the job growth, so that job growth is continuing to cause a need for additional housing. So we do expect that the housing market to be very healthy over the next year to two years. Now here's a look specifically at Denton ISD's housing picture. Now this is you know the full Denton ISD which is several cities. So it's multiple municipal jurisdictions. So we're able to track that looking at deed transactions as well as the metro study survey. And you can see back in 2010 we had about 1,500 home sales in the Denton School District and since that time it's gone up about 41%. So we've seen a 41% increase in existing home sales. Now the yellow part of that bar graph and the dark green of that bar graph represent what I'm going to call distressed property sales. Foreclosures. REO stands for real estate owned sales which is basically bank owned sales. And you'll notice back in the 2010 we had a significant amount of distressed property sales and today it's almost nonexistent. And that's because the housing market is so hot right now when properties become distressed either through health or loss of a job those families can sell those homes very quickly so therefore it doesn't go to foreclosure or a bank owned real estate sales. So the market is very healthy. Yes sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Let me just get one clarification. Were we talking about single-family homes here? Single-family. Multifamily is not in this picture. Great. We do track the multifamily very closely as well but this is looking specifically at single family. Thank you. Now here's a map of the school district and we looked at home sales the dark blue areas the dark blue neighborhoods where we have the highest concentration of home sales. Now we do track the Robeson Ranch home sales even though they don't have an impact of students. It's age restricted but we do track that so that the district can see how many homes are being added to the the appraised value records. You can also see that 380 corridor. So the 380 corridor is probably the strongest or the highest volume of new home activity is taking place in that part of the Denton School District as Frisco builds out and as that growth continues to move north and also the improvement of the 380 infrastructure will be very helpful to allow that growth to continue driving down 380 is a little bit of a challenge at times and so as that roadways as those roadways get improved and we see more lanes it will continue to push growth into that part of the school district. So you know Little Elm is in that area but Little Elm is getting closer to build out. Frisco is slowing down. Actually Prosper is the number one school district now in the DFW region for new home starts so for many many years it was Frisco. So Frisco is already dropping down that list. I want to show you a ranking report. This is where Denton ISD ranks in the DFW Metroplex based on annual closings. So Prosper is number one. 2,715 annual closings per year and Denton is second with 2,234. Frisco has dropped to third. VDL stands for vacant developed lots. Those are lots that are on the ground ready for builders to build on today and you can see Denton ISD has 3,815 vacant developed lots ready for builders. Denton ISD has the highest amount of future lot activity or future lot inventory in the DFW region. 29,087 future lots. Now future lots are preliminarily plotted developments. They're future phases of existing developments. They are concept plans that developers have started to groundwork on through different P&Zs. So it gives us an indication of the amount of land that is in some part of the development cycle. Now there is a large amount of raw land that this does not include. So raw land that's ranch or ag land that hasn't had any development interest on would not be in this number. So that 29,000 does give us an indication of the development interest into Denton ISD. Yes sir. Is the plans of Hunter Ranch and Cole Ranch would those be included in that 29,000? That's a significant number. I do have the information on Cole Ranch. I know that the two are merging. So this is where our numbers are estimates. Okay. And as it goes further into the platting process we'll get some refinements. But right now I want to say our estimate is for about 11,000. Okay. And so your number may be a little different. But that 11,000 be included roughly in this 29,000. Okay. That makes sense. Yes. So I mean you've got two really large futures. The Cole Ranch in the hills of Denton is also I want to say about 4,900 to 5,000 lots. So yes those are roughly in the future but it would not include when we see the map and you see where the active and future subdivisions are there's still a tremendous amount of vacant land that would not be in this picture. In my estimations Denton ISD is going to be a fast growth school district for probably 25 to 30 years. You can see if we're building 2,200 homes a year and there's roughly 29,000 lots that's about 12 to 15 years of supply of lots. So just in this amount we've got 12 to 15 years of supply. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. Bottom double asterisks table does include age restricted communities of communities like like Robeson. That's correct. There's 55 and older restriction there. So how many of the homes included in the 29,000 do you think are age restricted? You know I have some details on that. I know from the it's not it's not a very large amount. It's not. There's probably no more than a thousand. That's correct. Of the 2400 starts yeah about 300 of that is from Robeson Ranch. Okay. So roughly I'll just round it down to 2,000 homes a year are being built that are not age restricted. Okay. Which that's what's going to continue to put Denton ISD is one of the fastest growing school districts in the state for 15 to 20 plus years. And that's it. I think that's good news. I would much much rather be in a community that's growing and adding population. We do have clients that are declining and built out. Well not necessarily built out but Wichita Falls is one of our clients. The economy in Wichita Falls is not strong enough to add enough job growth to keep young families moving to Wichita Falls. So our picture in Wichita Falls is a picture of how do we close schools how do we get more efficient and those are much more difficult challenges I think than the challenges of okay let's figure out where do we build schools and how do we how do we handle the growth that's coming. But you can see right now Denton is second in the DFW region based on annual closings and Denton will be in that top three for the foreseeable future. Now you can see you know Prosper is relatively new to this fast growth picture within the last ten years. Prosper has jumped in here but within about ten years Prosper is going to be winding down because geographically they're not as large. The number of square miles in Prosper is not anywhere close to the number of square miles that Denton ISD is. We track the new home market this is new home activity every quarter so every quarter we're tracking the activity and you can see in the fourth quarter we started 571 homes in the fourth quarter which was the highest fourth quarter total that we've seen in Denton ISD. 571 and for the year for 2018 we started 2,490 this does include Robeson Ranch but in a little bit I'm going to show you a table where we remove Robeson Ranch. So when we start looking at the data based on the elementary schools we take it out so because those homes will not impact students. Now here's a map of your school district based on your annual closings you can see the red attendance zones have the highest amount of activity they're closing more than 300 homes a year that's in that 380 corridor it's the Union Park area it's the Savannah area you know those particular elementary zones have the highest amount of activity we've mapped the top ten most active subdivisions a majority of the single-family activity can be found in the top ten so this is a real quick way to see where the most activities taking place right now Wind Ridge is your most active subdivision building about 205 homes a year second is Paloma Creek South that's just the Denton ISD portion 184 Savannah 171 Robeson Ranch is fourth at 161 and you can see the top ten list there but a majority of that is concentrated in the eastern quadrant along 380 so that's where the school district is seeing the highest concentration of single-family growth this map is based on vacant developed lot supply when we build our enrollment projections we're looking at each elementary zone where are they building and closing the highest concentration of new homes new home growth is the main driver for enrollment growth so that's what helps us build those projections in the short term based on where the closings are the vacant developed lots show us where the growth is going to be in the next two years so when we see where the lot concentration is we know that's where the builders are going to be building next so we study vacant developed lot supply for that and then next we look at future lots and so the future lot supply gives us an indication of where the growth is going to be headed beyond three to five years that's where you'll notice the coal ranch pop up on the screen coal ranch is still several years away from delivering lots they've got to go through a lot of hoops to get get checked before they can deliver streets get builders building but we do know it's now taking another step forward it's moving in the direction to get development sooner rather than later and we also just recently heard about the joining of efforts between coal ranch and hunters is a hunter's ranch hunter ranch so and I don't know one of them is owned by Hillwood and we have a lot of experience with Hillwood I'm not sure who the other developer is but as those plans get processed through P&Z and get going through the the the process will then get more clarity so then we can share with the school district how many school sites are needed how many elementary middle and high school sites when you see an 11,000 home project that's almost a feeder pattern of schools so every 1,500 to 2,000 lots equals one elementary school 1,500 lots will fill up an elementary so you can add 10,000 that's roughly five elementaries that's literally two to three middle schools and that equals a high school so coal ranch the hunter ranch that could easily be one whole feeder pattern of growth for the Denton school district now this is where we remove the we do take out the age restricted lots when we break it out by elementary zone and as I mentioned we build the projections at each elementary campus and then let them migrate up into the middle schools and then ultimately up into the high schools so you can see Union Park is starting more than 730 homes so they're roughly growing more than a hundred elementary kids a year just in that particular elementary school the second most active area is Providence also along 380 227 and then your third most active area is Ryan Elementary with 205 but keep in mind anything any zone that's building more than a hundred homes a year is really experiencing strong growth and you've got you know roughly seven to eight elementary zones that are building more than a hundred homes per year so the growth is spread throughout several areas of the school district here's a map that just kind of gives you that 30,000 foot picture the green outlines are active subdivisions that are building homes the yellow outlines are where some of those future lots are you can see the the coal ranch here hills of Denton up here you know those are your two largest concentration of future lots I want to say this was close to 5,000 lots estimate now that'll that'll get refined as they go through the platting process but down here this is close to 11,000 that does include some potential multifamily that could result in this area as well you can also see this concentration east along 380 literally the fastest growing part of the district right now and then you know a few years ago this area was also one of the fastest growing parts of the Denton School District this is primarily was primarily driven by Lantana master plan community had approximately 5,000 home it's nearing build out her right at build out you do have some futures down here in the very southern tip which would be categorized as larger lot higher price point definitely lower yielding students here high yielding this is some of the most affordable product in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex so keep in mind in Frisco the average new home price is over 430 for new home average new home price so the average new home price in this area is a little less than that so this would be considered a product that would be attractive for families with kids elementary kids which is why we're seeing such growth at the elementary and middle school campuses in this particular area some of the details Windridge about 1,300 lots there were 50 homes under construction during the fourth quarter dr. Horton is the main builder in this development they're starting a hundred and fifty four lots for phase one streets are paved in section 2a with a hundred ninety two lots that price range is 230 to 335 very affordable product for that particular area that's also in that 380 corridor Union Park 2,832 total lots about 30 homes under construction during the fourth quarter and home building is underway for a age-restricted section so there will be some age-restricted lots here that we will then pull out of our student mix we estimate that they're going to be building about a hundred and fifty to two hundred homes a year that price range on the low end is 270 could get as high as five hundred thousand in Union Park just to the east of that area is Arrowbrook it's almost 1,700 lots 52 homes under construction during the fourth quarter and they built about 140 homes during the last four quarters that price range is 260 of the to 340 they're building about a hundred and thirty to a hundred and fifty homes a year in Arrowbrook Wensong Ranch it is split between prosper ISD and Denton ISD the Denton ISD portion is about 393 total lots there were 11 homes under construction and this is a little bit of a the the lots are actually right in here the lots aren't down here this whole piece here is Park Road trails and green belt area and so even though this green outline is very large the Denton ISD section is only this corner right here which represents that 393 lots Oak Hill Ranch 391 future lots the groundwork is underway on phase one with 142 lots first residents expected end of 2019 building about 30 to 40 homes per year and then we've got Prairie Oaks 985 total lots 275 vacant developed lots are ready for builders building about 140 to 150 homes a year you kind of get the idea and that corridor building well over 500 homes a year so the largest portion of the school districts single family construction right now is in that East corridor of the 380 area with all that said and done here is what this looks like in terms of the forecast for the Denton School District now you can see over the last four years they have added roughly look at my notes here about 3,000 kids almost 3,100 kids have been added in the last four years and the housing market is still expanding in Denton ISD over the next five years we're forecasting about 3,709 students of growth during the next five years the yellow box is the largest grade per year the green box is the second largest grade per year you can kind of see the wave or the bubble as the larger classes are heading their way toward the second secondary campuses there's a couple of reasons why this is happening one is the price points of the new homes have gotten a little more expensive so it's older families that are slightly older that are buying the new homes in Denton ISD the second factor is the Millennials are not having their children as early or as young as the previous generations for Gen Xers and so we have seen a slow down at kindergarten because of the change in birth rates now that's a national issue it's not a localized issue but with this said in the next 10 years the district will likely add seven thousand five hundred and thirty additional students that'll put the district's enrollment in twenty twenty eight at thirty seven thousand six hundred and thirty seven now I'm often asked how certain am I that these projections are actually going to happen and for Denton ISD I'm a hundred percent certain that their enrollment is going to get to thirty seven thousand I'm a hundred percent certain the only question is is it going to happen in eight years nine years or ten years it's not a matter of if they're going to get that big there's so many lots so much vacant land the economy is so strong that for districts like Denton and prosper the forecast models are going to happen it's just like the weather is the front going to get here in you know two days or is it going to get in here in three days and so it is a challenge for the school district because of the need to get bonds passed get buildings built that does require a lot more lead time they can build a house in six to nine months it takes two years to build a school by the time you go through platting getting it permitted and getting it actually constructed so that's the reason why we do our best to keep them so informed about the housing market and what it looks like and what it does to the projections now this is focusing in on that East 380 corridor it's the Braswell High School feeder zone so that feeder pattern roughly is building about a thousand forty nine homes a year so almost half of their homes are being built in the 380 corridor they've got about sixteen hundred and sixty eight vacant develop lots and over ten thousand futures so literally you know this area is going to continue to be the fastest growing portion of the school district it is roughly about five thousand additional students will be added to this feeder pattern in the next ten years so if you remember I was forecasting about seven thousand students of growth in the ten years five thousand of it's going to be right here so this is where they're going to have to have new facilities expanded facilities to take care of the growth in the Braswell High School attendance zone next area is the Denton High School attendance zone there again we've got a lot of futures here so we've got eleven thousand four hundred and fifty seven futures we're only building about 300 homes a year right now but down the road this is going to be an attendance zone that is going to grow for a very long time but it's still in the early stages of its rapid growth here's what the projections look like within the Denton High School zone so in the next ten years the Denton High School zone is going to add about two thousand kids over the next ten years now should the coal ranch hunter ranch accelerate and maybe they deliver their lots in three years I don't know that that's kind of about what we're thinking that there's still two to three years away from being able to deliver lots and so it might accelerate a little bit but the reality is we're planning on about two thousand students growth in the Denton High zone now the Geyer zone is basically South Denton and kind of in that flower mound Argyle area of the school district you know Lantana this was the driver for growth historically in this theater pattern they're building about 363 homes a year but they only have 443 vacant develop lots and about 348 futures and there might be some infill stuff that might pop in here but what I see for the future for this zone is a little bit higher price point larger lot sizes high lower yields because of the price point of the homes in this area right through here so our forecast for growth in this area actually is calling for a slight decline so we do have areas that are declining what causes decline in an area like this gentrification so those families as those kids go off to college and they stay then the school-age population starts to shrink while those kids are off at college when do they move because that's going to be the key factor for Lantana is when do the kids go off to college and the parents finally that sell the house and leave so that a younger family might come in behind them with school-age children so we start to watch for gentrification and mobility in areas like the guy or high school attended zone next would be the Ryan attended zone the Ryan attended zone is kind of the north east quadrant that doesn't include the 380 quadrant there is some growth in this area they're building about 360 homes a year 768 vacant develop lots almost 2400 future lots and in the next 10 years we're forecasting about a thousand kids of growth in the Ryan high school attended zone now these are some of the specialty schools that don't have attended zones that are schools of choice and over the next 10 years you know we really don't forecast much growth for them because they don't have an attended zone but right now we've got about 753 kids that are attending the either schools of choice or schools that are specific to their needs I'll summarize and be happy to answer any questions we're very fortunate in the Dallas Fort Worth area and in Denton we've got very low unemployment rates so the economy is very healthy the most growth in home sales over the last five years were seen in Ryan and Union Park Elementary attended zones Ryan Savannah Union Park zones account for about 60% of the district's total closings during the last 12 months didn't ISD started and closed over 2,200 homes in 2018 and we expect that the district will grow about 3,700 students during the next five years and 2023 that'll put the Denton ISD's enrollment projections at 33,807 students and in 10 years we expect the district will likely have 37,600 students within the school district I'd be happy to answer any questions Mr. Beck thank you chair thanks for presentation I'm just curious to be any way we could get something like this just to have his general information for us down the road is that possible yes we have not actually presented this to the Board of Trustees we're doing that Tuesday but it will be online or I'd be happy to send it to Julie and then she can pass that on after next Tuesday okay and I did want to make a couple clarifications we are working with hunter and coal ranch currently to place school sites on on both of those pieces so we've got a great relationship with Hillwood that's Union Park and also with OC vest at Stratford so we're working with those folks already and I know you saw Union Park elementary under that's our brand new one that's going to open in August that's number 24 elementary 24 elementary 25 is in the current bond that we just passed of 750 million we believe that will probably be in the Sandbrook area which would help for Sandbrook and Erlebrook it's out east also and I don't know if you remember on the Denton high zone where you saw Ryan elementary getting to numbers sooner than later we own a site in country lakes kind of an Argyle you guys won't know where that's I think but we don't have that one in the bond yet but that could be the next elementary site so yeah quick question for you sir you mentioned you're 100% certain that your projection rates would fall now is that presuming that everything stays it is I mean if we have another serious recession or something like that that's gonna throw a monkey wrench well if and when a recession happens it doesn't mean that we're not going to hit the projection it's going to delay when you hit the projection that's why I make the comment of I'm a hundred percent certain so anything that from economy or job loss or slowdown in housing it just instead of it happening in year 10 it happens in year 12 so I'm hedging myself a little bit when I say I'm a hundred percent certain well the reality is for a district that has so much growth ahead of it it's you're going to get to that number it's just a matter of when not if now when we work with Keller down the road Keller is near build out those I do not make that statement for Keller because they are subject to different factors that could cause that number to go down because they're at the end of their building cycle Keller wasn't on the top 10 list anymore but between the 80s 90s in the early part of the 2000 decade Keller was in the top five in the region for growth well now they're built out and they really don't have much left to grow so and I meant I did not touch on and I wanted to touch on the multifamily picture we track multifamily just like we do single-family and I've got these little bitty turquoise areas that represent the multifamily projects now one thing that's different about Denton is you've got a lot of multifamily this college related so therefore it has no impact on kids as well but we do track the multifamily we track it to see if it's a lifestyle or a college or affordable it's the affordable multifamily that do have the highest concentration of students per unit and those are the ones that we see that have the greatest impact on the district but I wanted to mention that because you asked earlier and yes we do track it but a majority of our growth is a result of single-family housing being added to the area I'm not sure if you guys are aware I don't know how many square miles the city of Denton is but Denton ISD is a hundred and eighty square miles when you're looking at that map Keller is 43 to give you a comparison and Keller's enrollment is about 34,000 that's the enrollment of Keller right now so to give you a sense of the densities you know you didn't ISD really does have a 20-year horizon for growth because of this the sheer size of the district how does that size get set is it does DISD control whether it expands based upon need or does that set somewhere else these were set school district boundaries were typically set in the early 1900s so they get set they were set many many years ago and they are independent of municipal jurisdictions and so but once a boundary gets set it becomes very difficult to change the boundary so typically districts can't just annex DNX property there's a little bit of room to do it if it's unincorporated or uninhabited so an area that's uninhabited can be moved a little but once an area is inhabited with residents it's too difficult to change the boundaries because of all of the legal hoops that have to be jumped through to get the area changed but to Jerry's point it does seem like the eastern part was brought in with these developments is that accurate no they were those boundaries were already here crazy yeah no actually Robeson Ranch was originally Argyle ISD and they dis annexed it but that was before there were any people there and so I think the school district would contend that they got a good deal on that that was a good situation for the school district because the amount of property value that it added to the school district's appraisal values so I have a question just jump and I don't know if it was your line can you tell me about when a development comes in that will ultimately come to our Commission do you know at what point you see it and once you see it does that just go to the futures or how do you take a consideration and know when okay we need to actually consider this or thanks for the heads up but we're not even considering this right now you're eight years away can you tell us about that timeline as soon as it comes through as a preliminary plan as soon as it goes through the planning process we pick it up as a future okay now because of relationships with Hillwood if we start to see a concept plan that has a lot count we will sometimes go ahead and pencil in or drawing like coal ranch so even though coal ranch has not been formally plotted we do have an estimate built in for coal ranch so it's a function of if we pick it up through the platting process we enter it in as a future if we pick it up from conversations with the developer we enter it in as a potential future and is that in that example of Hillwood do they just come down their own volition to you or how does that actually sometimes through the district where they have contacted the district and then the district will send us a concept plan initially we see a concept plan first but the concept plan won't necessarily have the details of the lot right it'll just have 200 acres 600 homes and so when we see that concept plan we will sometimes enter that in as a future and is there ever a time or is there a consideration so on a large property where it's 5,000 homes or lots is there ever a time where your office the district gets this like no like we do not have the capacity is ever pushback or you're receiving like okay this is a curveball we're gonna have to swing at it well that's where I typically encourage the school districts position that's not our role to deny whether something is viable or not our role is to the school district roles to educate the kids as they come and so we don't typically advise our clients to voice opposition to development plans we that's the city's that's the PNZ in city's role to work through that as far as I know we've never said no to a development I agree and my senior here haven't seen it but there is seemingly conversations about what is the school or how does didn't perceive this and if it's just I doesn't know how entered related that a process was but if I'm understanding you correctly if the commission the city says yes economically zoning wise this is feasible then your then task to kind of figure out how it's actually gonna play out and that's when we take that information and build it into the enrollment projections so then the school district can see how many new kids are going to result from these developments and then that allows them to start to plan the box next bond election for you know three or four or five elementaries to middle schools and a high school based on the available housing information that we have this current bond is the first time in a long time we've done any development within the city limits actually as you guys probably know we've got the new Denton High School coming up we've got a rebuild of what was this pull the mic up sorry I've got a rebuild of Woodrow Wilson's kind of a rebuild of Strickland and eventually a rebuild of Newton razor probably so that's what a lot of this bond was so the next bond will probably be growth again we do have another middle school in this current bond and we've also got elementary number 25 which I mentioned and that brings about an interesting point in other municipalities it's do you go and task them to raise the money for school and through their bond process or so out in Union Park that's not the city of Denton is it no it's not so how how do those funds work to build schools well since it's Denton ISD it's pretty much the Denton taxpayers that fund the Denton schools they're painted that didn't ISD tax though right you know I would imagine yes okay okay that's a whole different topic I think mr. Smith was up thank you how does the estimates for future growth and having homes change if there's a shift in desire for single family residentials to be rezoned so the multifamily can be built instead is there is there kind of fail-safe put in place to kind of adjust for that is so yeah all this area here that's all that's all developed land that you know for single-family residential what there's a big shift and change and we start seeing so we've seen a lot more and more of zonings come in front of us to hey we want to take this area that's single-family residential or commercial and take turn into multifamily so it's not things that are zoned right now for that multifamily high density area well as soon as we saw the change we would immediately change our model based on the density now I don't see as much single-family land going multifamily there tends to be more resistance to the zoning up like that yeah the practicality is well I need to find out is it class a multifamily is it I guess even expand the question from you know what we see maybe it's not taking in our you know in our to and turning it into in our MU and we're turning it into big high density but it's taking in our two and turning it in our six and so an area that was designated for two units per acre is now 60 minutes an acre so it's not necessarily multifamily at that point in time but we are increasing density how reactive is these estimates are they very reactive gotcha so because we get the data on a quarterly basis so each quarter we are tweaking the model based on how we see it change you know it's very interesting there's a lot of misconceptions about products and you know what we see is it really has to do with a number of bedrooms yep so if a multifamily project has 400 units that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to have 200 kids so what I really need to see is what are the mix of three two and one bedrooms in Capella ISD we work with that district and you know they've got a huge Cypress water Cypress yes and they have a restriction on the number of one bedrooms that they have to build like 70 percent of the units have to be one bedrooms because meant to be kind of commercial I guess so what they call yes that commercial work and work and live right so it really doesn't matter how many units they are it's not going to generate very many kids because of the one-bedroom restriction but if you have a lot of two and three bedrooms then there is more potential for higher students per unit and then after you guys present this to the board how available are you or is there is denies states of presenting this to other community organizations if it's so they're open to do very open very open yes okay all right got it we're doing three three around the fourth quarter right now okay so we presented to the bond facility committee the facility committee we presented here who should we contact you can send it to me thank you Mr. Beck thank you chair and I appreciate chairman Rozelle's questioning about how y'all react as a new development comes in so if I understand this right then when we face a group of citizens where new developments going in and their big concerns the school district can't handle it we are we can feel comfortable now that you guys are aware of it that yes schools will be able to handle any growth there is that what I'm here you say so far yes okay okay good thank you Mr. Sanchez based on the information it's all projections there's a school ever fought the district never find itself not having enough rooms or capacity in a school and what do they do in that event I've kind of heard that's happened before so I was just curious if we get in a bind there's always those dreaded portable classrooms that we move around the district has I think we own about 97 of them right now and they're they're decent they're good classrooms they have their own heat and air we put them close to the building so that they can use the facilities inside and that's how we do it on a temporary basis and that's when we start planning for additions or another school any other questions from the commission I don't see any thank you very much for coming and presenting this information extremely helpful thank you the next item on the agenda for business is to receive a report on the development code update thank you chair members of the Commission this presentation shouldn't take too long provided to you in the backup sent out last Friday and then delivered on Monday is the latest draft of the DC update I know that you all have looked at it and reviewed it and have tons of questions so really I'm here to help take your comments so look seriously I have a presentation but I just want to just kind of lay it out a little bit I mean the work sessions that we've scheduled for the Commission is really to get your feedback on the draft DDC so today and then we've got one schedule for next Wednesday as well so we have an opportunity to do that so let me open up my presentation and we'll start with the den plan 2030 how's that , thank you. Okay so as a start I wanted to just share with you and as a recap I know that some of you are very familiar with the den plan 2030 and really is the guiding document in which we started this effort with a DDC update I know some of the new members I provided you all with copies of the den plan 2030 that's really an important document in which we should use as a guide in our decision-making how we manage growth how we we look at development coming into the city so the plan 2030 as shown here is the city's comprehensive plan again it's our guide document related to decision-making it's really sets the the vision for the next 15-20 years and that's we started back in 2012 looking at you know 15-20 years 2030 as our planning time frame included in the den plan 2030 is the community vision statement we went through a number I think a total of nine community forums in which we gathered as much input as possible to create the community vision statement it was later shared with the public went through a number of iterations and again that vision statement is in den plan 2030 and also included in your backup if you haven't already seen it. The plan itself has ten elements I won't go into each one of them the ones that I think are most notable are the lane use mobility community character and housing and neighborhood those are the ones I picked out but again there are other elements here that are important that everyone should be familiar with when considering the decisions that you all make. The first one plan framework just to give you a gun an idea of what went through what went in the preparation of den plan 2030 we we went through a number of iterations or drafts again we went through developing with the community vision statement the themes included in the plan itself were highlighted in mobility community character sustainability and community health those were the things that we made sure that we kept going we kept going back to when we were drafting the den plan 2030. Involved in that process was a citizen advisory committee a then plan ambassador group as well as a technical advisory committee went through a number of phases through the plan it took about two years starting 2012-2013 and ended up in adopting this back in 2015 February of 2015. I'm gonna go through this really quickly just again to give you all a sense of why the den plan is such an important document and how it shapes the den code 2030 update. The first phase was really starting the process kicking it off. Phase two was the information gathering process we again we talked about the community vision statement and the input that was gathered was during phase two. Community forums there was surveys both phone surveys as well as online surveys. Phase three is when we start to put together the growth trend scenarios and I think you've seen this in past presentations the future land use map the preferred growth concept all of which is back to the community vision statement and really that's what drove how we we drafted the future land use map and again we'll be talking about how the future land use map in the zoning map the drive zoning map should be consistent. We had a lot of participation and we ended up with a preferred growth. We took the alternatives of a growth trend, a center alternative, a corridor alternative, and then a compact alternative and ended up with a preferred growth alternative concept that is and again that is in the den plan 2030. Phase four is really just putting the stuff together putting the document together and then over a thousand participants in the process and it was interesting I don't have my my plan here but if you look at the plan itself on the back cover there's a list of those individuals that participated so there was some ownership in the plan because they were involved we want to make sure that they were acknowledged and so in the plan itself if you flip to the back page those participants that were involved have their name listed in the plan itself. Again I went through this or mentioned this earlier phase five related adoption process we took this to the planning zoning Commission it was approved or recommended for approval that is 5-2 and then City Council soon after that in February of 2015 and that was approved 7-0. Okay so how does this then plan 2030 relate to then code update? Again we look at the den plan 2030 as the guide in which we implement or update documents. So land use is one of the elements I mentioned earlier and in the land use element are land use goals and these goals here are listed in the den plan 2030. Grow compactly so what does that mean that means we want to make sure that we have areas in the city that are developed with a more higher intense or intensity and density so that's why you have the mixed use districts identified. Grow with purpose we want to make sure that we have an idea of where we want to go so again we talked about you know zoning you know some of the areas around north of the loop we do we want to make sure we preserve those areas so we want to grow with purpose and protect those areas. Grow our assets our assets are for example the downtown our focus areas are established neighborhoods we want to protect that so you see in the development code buffers setbacks screening so those are those are related back to the the goals of the den plan 2030 and how that translates to the den code update. Grow resourcefully kind of goes back to you again do we want to start building out past the loop or do we want to you know reserve or you know reserve as much as we can and our resources are actually are important the tree I'm gonna I'm gonna just tie into that the tree code again ties back to our resources our environmental insensitive areas again our resources so we want to make sure that whenever we make an update or amend a code we want to go back to these goals grow with character it's not just protecting the character that we have now such as the downtown it's also creating character in areas that we don't know we don't necessarily have today our nodes our commercial nodes areas that are you know our employment hub those are areas that we want to increase you know the character how do you achieve character you look at the the sidewalks the architecture the the landscaping the parking all of which goes back to you know growing the character of the city of Den and lastly growing with balance balance of course we want to make sure we have a balance of housing a balance of commercial and also employment a big part of the den plan 2030 was this idea of business innovation an area in this in the city where there's a place where corporate you know businesses business parks can locate and and that's really what we're trying to do we want to identify areas within the city that's residential that's commercial that's industrial but also for employment so I think that's a big part of what we want to strive for and when we went again when we're looking at the den code update community character I kind of touched base on that a little bit we talked about character long-term sustainment we want to protect our established neighborhoods we want to make sure our new development are sustainable we want to make them last so it goes back to some of the standards that are found in chapter 6 community is that interaction having a linkage of networks open space amenities all of which again is in the den code when you think about the standards of sidewalks walkways open space those all come back to how we want to build communities in our city and then we talked about creating character already mobility another element in the code that plays an important factor in the den code itself access and circulation are big components and that's actually chapter 6 of the development code if you look at the standards that are required under that it goes back to the goal and the actions and the recommendations from the den plan 2030 transit is another goal of the mobility element we want to make sure that again we provide accessible linkages to transit facilities throughout the the city making sure that when we approve developments there's there's some connection to those transits building and creating mixed-use developments and we go back to mixed-use developments we often talk about you know providing mixed-use developments in an area where there's transit gives the person an opportunity to live and not have to get in a car and just be able to access their their way through the city or even to the region through transit I think this is the last of the elements that I'm going to highlight neighborhood and housing obviously this is a big one because one of the things that we talked about is housing we've seen a lot of development that come into the city that go through the planning zoning Commission that use a development code when they propose or come through with a project we want to see a diversity an array of housing types so included in the draft that you have today are new housing types we have of course single family duplexes townhomes we want to increase I believe another more robust townhomes development in the city we have triplexes four plexes we also talk about multifamily and last week or last time we met the rent by the bedroom those those are all housing types that are you know what we want to make sure we have available for those citizens and lastly I know we we talked about this as well and it is also covered in the dang code twenty I'm sorry the den code is the proposal and inclusion of tiny home development so again going back well why is that there well it's something that we we thought about when we were talking about the damn plan 2030 as we thought we were thinking about housing types again the housing and neighborhood elements bless you also talks about established neighborhoods protecting our established neighborhoods they don't have to be historic they can just be just neighborhoods we want to make sure that we protect those neighborhoods and when we started drafting the zoning map that was one of the things that we paid attention real attention to because we knew that a zoning proposal or a new zoning district in an area adjacent to a single-family established neighborhood could impact that area so we were sensitive to that and lastly livability I mean livability is a lot of different you know things that can be said about it just making sure that there's open space for for people to walk to enjoy amenities and then and then just generally be able to have shopping or employment those all play an important part in what this development code should be so as you look at that code and start reading it remember that there's there's there's a goal in which this code is trying to achieve so that brings us up to where we are today I really just wanted to share that portion of the plan 2030 because it is an important document and it is important in making sure that when we review the DEN code and prove it in the near future it is consistent with the DEN plan 2030 and that is really what we're trying to do you've seen this slide already I want to pause here and ask if you have any questions before we move forward on the DEN plan 20 or the development code itself Tricia Cole thank you chair I got a question about okay how much of the population projections changed since three four years ago when this was sure well you know that's an interesting question because I get asked all the time every year you know what's our population projection and when they when I say they the consultants put the plan together which we were involved in they were projecting close to 200,000 people by 2030 and I was like well that's a lot of people in you know 15 to 20 years that's an increase of about 60,000 people right we're currently at a hundred thirty five hundred forty thousand but when you look at the master plan communities that are there now and that can come and you just heard the presentation from Templeton there's a there's there's gonna be an increase and as far as population projection I don't think it's changed I think the DEN plan 2030 got it because they knew that those master plan communities will be coming in the near future in fact we identified it in our future land use map and highlighted not highlighted but rather represented it in our future land use map because we knew that that was something that was gonna come soon maybe not not in the next three four years but as you all know in recent discussions or recent City Council meetings Cole and Hunter are looking at starting that development and if that does come come through that's 15,000 units that's not population that's just a unit so multiply that by whatever factor it is 2.8 per unit persons per unit we will see 200,000 in the long term so we're we're getting there so to answer your question has it has it and has it been affected I would say we planned for it and I don't think it's changed we may see more actually than what was projected back in 2015 okay all right well really this is an opportunity I I'm not gonna go through the code you know page by page we have identified some major topics and major changes that we have already discussed through the presentation with Clarion I'm happy to go over those same topics with you if you have specific questions I'll be obviously available to answer those questions but really wanted to give this Commission the opportunity to ask questions that may not have been covered or need further clarification when it comes to those topics so I'm just gonna go through this and if you have any questions please let me know so we've already again this is a something that you've seen already through the Clarion discussion we won't talk about the following items here that will be something that will be discussed as a separate discussion the tree code there is the late not the latest but the version up to where we had it last week in the version there in the development code today so if you're looking at the landscaping and conservation ordinance what you have in the code itself is pretty close but note that there are still changes being done to even more refine that ordinance and we will discuss that at a later time as I'm just going to go through this the topic of discussion that you see here on the fourth bullet is really the chapters one two and three the general provisions the administration and procedures chapter as well as the zoning district chapter the zoning district chapters are probably a big one that the Commission may be want a little bit further clarification and we can prepare that or do that for you all as we continue this presentation I'm gonna skip these because these are just gonna be something that will be coming up in the next planning zoning Commission work session that again is scheduled for February 27th okay so I've prepared the list and this list is similar to what Clarion presented I'm gonna start with chapter one and the big one that we discussed when I say we that's the Denton code review committee the DC RC was in chapter one was nonconformity right that's a big part of it and it was directed or determined that we are not going to create nonconformities for single-family detached dwellings duplexes or town homes if those established existing homes were developed and constructed legally they will remain legal even if the zoning map changes or the development standards changes they will still remain illegal and not be considered nonconforming Ron I have a question about that we talked last week Clarion that existing structures I think we're talking commercial if they meet certain thresholds 50% or a thousand square feet would trigger that portion of the update to meet new codes if it's above those thresholds that all of us we were able to code how does that play into the residential home if there's a renovation or a tear down can you talk about do those same thresholds apply across all residential zoning categories as well yes so the the residential for example an expansion you know they're still going to be the requirements that they have to comply with when it comes to the new code right because they can't encroach now if they were already encroaching over that the new setback line that's that that structure would be considered nonconforming but we're saying that for financial purposes or whatever you know legal purposes they're not considered nonconforming there was still remain legal so to you answer your question if they're expanding and they're encroaching into that setback they can't it's only if they were there prior to this code so they will still be required to comply with all the requirements of the DC it's just that if they're currently outside those requirements currently then they would not be considered nonconforming so they're moving say for like an NRR 4 I believe has the two from six feet to five feet right if they were encroaching that it's still not listed as a nonconforming if they were to pull a permit on that one foot encroachment they're still okay to touch that property or fix the property that would be encroaching they just can't take something that was outside six feet and now put it in that zone so if it will if they're expanding they would not be able to go past five is that if they're already past the six if they're already past six they would not be allowed to expand even further okay yeah we're not we're not we're not encouraging more you know outside but we recognize that those that have already been established have been legally constructed would not be considered nonconforming and I guess my point is if they touch what would have not been nonconforming and now they've updated that they're still protected by the nonconforming status lose that if they have to fix it fix oh yeah you know I mean if it's if it's something that they're they're just we you know you know touching or you know maintenance those those and there's actually a section on maintenance those would continue to be able to to remain there it's just when they're expanding you know where it is currently not there they would not be able to okay that makes sense thank you okay Christian Sanchez so what I know he has a question about tear downs what happens on a tear down if they there's a there's there's a believe a 50% I mean if you're gonna tear down voluntarily yeah if you're gonna tear down and say you're you want to rebuild a house where normally you wouldn't put a house and they tear it down completely at that point can they build in another house yeah well yes they can okay and but they have to comply with it I thought you were asking a different question okay yes you can build back but it's got to comply with the code that's currently in place I thought you were asking if it was you know they wanted to go past the really question again in chapter one pending applications and approved projects we obviously have a lot of activity today and that's not going to stop where we were not going to hold those projects to get this code update so as as those projects come in they will be able to continue and we talked about you know a time period between the adoption and the effective date the ability to select which one of course we would hope that they would choose the newer document but they still have the option to to stick with the existing one but again those projects will continue and we're not we're not stopping progress is I guess what I'm saying and the last item or last bullet just follow up on what you were just saying to Commissioner Sanchez when you were saying that if you voluntarily tear down a structure and you're saying they could rebuild they could rebuild an allowed use correct under the new code but even though the prior use may not be allowed anymore so they may be restricted if they had a prior use that's no longer allowed under the new code if they voluntarily tear it down so build back in other words they could build it allowed to use that they can't necessarily build a use that's no longer allowed correct it was obviously voluntary there there's no conformity there's the non-conforming uses you know but there's a there's a provision in chapter 1 that talks about if it was damaged through natural disaster I don't there's a there's a there's a lot of factors that play into that answer that question if they're doing it voluntarily then they have to comply with whatever use is permitted they have to comply with whatever design standards that's currently in place thank you chair okay so on the same topic Ron just to clarify so we're not going to call single-family homes non-conforming but they will have to adhere to the non-conforming going forward with the renovation percentages correct or rebuilds right correct yes okay so if it's existing it's fine but it's still going to fall into non-conforming parameters right you mean we're talking about you know existing homes that have been there for a while the zoning change made them non-conforming we don't we didn't want that the committee did not want that however if there are plans to expand build whatnot they have to comply with the code we're not increasing the non-conforming transition mr. Beck thank you chair just to confirm my understanding too is that once say it is a house that's now in a mixed-use area once it's destroyed either by so-called acts of God a fire or just abandoned they can't rebuild them because it's now in a new zone is that right there there is there's again there's those provisions there's the natural disaster there's 50% 50% is the it's completely wiped out that's what I'm saying by either and I believe and I believe there's provision if they want to to go through the board of adjustments to ask for a variance but the intent is to not a lot of them unless you know there's there's other you know the ZBA for example where they're less than 50% okay thanks again those those are all under chapter one chapter before I leave chapter one that is there's a provision or a discussion on new zoning districts and I know that that's an important thing we are also working very hard on making sure that those zoning districts that are going to go away comply or are similar in the new zoning district so for example we started this exercise with some zoning districts in combining them and we combined in our two and our three and made it our three well that didn't really sit well with the public and the committee decided which I think is a fair comment where we wanted to make sure that we didn't have a lot of those so what you see today in the draft map and in the development code is that if it's in our one it's gonna be our one and our two it's gonna be our two and so on and so forth nothing's gonna change for those neighborhood residentials one through six so if you are an NR six you will get an r6 and the hope is that it's not gonna impact that property owner as much because we're not changing much when it comes to those zoning districts now we do have a new r7 which is the combination of the dr1 the dr2 the rcr1 and the rcr2 so as you can see we have four zoning districts that we either use or don't use as often and we're combining that into one zoning district that is referred to as r7 that's that's just another explanation of how we transition from the current code or the current zoning district into the new line of zoning districts there is a table I'm gonna skip down to three so can there is this table I think you all seen this before and again this is all right this is an outdated I apologize this is already an outdated version this should be the what I just described earlier so don't look at this part in fact don't even look at it that that new chart really will will reflect where the existing zoning district is going to be in line with the new zoning district again the CMG the commercial mixed-use is going to be your suburban corridor zoning district your mixed-use NRMU NRMU 12 is going to be your MN mixed-use neighborhood zoning district so we're combining making it more concise a little bit more clear and really just allow I hate to use the word flexibility but it really is an opportunity to you know reduce the number of zoning cases or applications because really what is the intent you can go on back to the den plan 2030 we want to see more mixed uses we want to see more housing types we want to see more walkability and that's what's covered in the den code update any questions on chapter one okay chapter two which is another important chapter includes all of the processes the important document or important table there is the list of application types and you see that in that table then if I can refer if you guys have your book with you refer to page 16 and on that page see if I can do this there's a spell word here here we go I wanted to pull it up for the the viewing audience for those that don't have a copy in front of them I will I just wanted to highlight that because I think that's an important table and for those that are viewing it's den code 2030 comm to be able to access the latest draft and there we go so this is the table the top part of the table you see that we've listed all the application types that we see come through the planning zoning Commission and ultimately City Council not all of them but most of them it identifies a reference of where you can learn more about the process or procedures for each of these types when public notices are required if a pre-application is required if a citizen participation is recommended who the approving body is the reviewing and approving body is if it's an R there they're really reviewing and making a recommendation if it's a D then that is the decision-making body and if there's a bracket around it that means there's a public hearing that's required for that application so a specific use permit for example you we notify every way we can online mail publish as well as posted signs on the property we require pre-application and then we recommend a citizen participation from the applicant ultimately it goes through the planning zoning Commission for their recommendation and then to City Council for their consideration so this table is very handy it provides the citizens the development community really the the plan or the process a map of what really is going to be required if they decide to apply for a for an application type mr. Beck thank you chair okay I'm looking at under planning and DDC amendment zoning amendment yes sir so we're talking about a zoning change request right correct okay at the map the zoning amendment map that's changing the zoning of the map on on the map okay over in the column where it says citizen participation it's recommended that is correct what happened to would be well that's a that's a comment we can obviously take note of but we've heard from several several folks in and that is currently the proposal moving forward it's all folks be like developers everybody okay because last time I thought the conversation was and I thought it was even written down that at least on zone change and maybe even SUPs that neighborhood meetings would be required I can just say that there's been a lot of discussion on this topic if it's the Commission's purview we we can take direction from the Commission and identify which one if that is the case will require a public hearing or I'm sorry a citizen participation but we're we're recommending we're encouraged encouraging applicants to participate in a neighborhood meetings one or two pressure else thank you chair we but you're not taking away the public hearing no no that's that's that's a separate this is this is citizen participation is having the applicant hold neighborhood meetings one before they submit or they get comments from staff and then one before the the first public hearing which would be the Plain Zoning Commission for example well to continue again and if this is something the Commission would like to discuss I kind of thought we were in favor of requiring neighborhood meetings because it eliminates a lot of hassle by the time the public gets to the public hearing and a lot of questions get answered where if we wait till the public hearing then and only then does a developer kind of lay out things where citizens probably wouldn't come to the public here so if I'm gonna let Richard hop in real fast if I recall also I know the way we had originally brought it forward I know there was some I think some legal concerns with having it as a requirement before somebody somebody could submit an application and so that's where we had left it sort of moving forward as as a as a voluntary action I wasn't familiar with that so legal could you elaborate on you want to or you want me to jump in if you want to there's there's two issues really you know one is that that a required was called permit under chapter 245 can create a vesting event and certainly that's a that's a policy decision in there but you know it's something to be aware of that it could create that and the second issue is oh geez it just jumped out of my head oh as far as non-discretionary decisions that that having that participation meeting with the neighborhood could create a false expectation that that their input and their their thoughts one way or another could have a an impact when legally it cannot so for example if you're talking about a plat application you know for for a final plat just use a simple case that has to be approved if it meets the standards of the Denton Development Code and if if you if you have a participation meeting and have the citizens come out they're likely to be kind of upset about it if if they come out there and and realize that it doesn't really just spent their time for nothing because it's it's not a discretionary decision now on zoning cases that's a different matter you know there the the the citizen input is a very important part of that discretionary decision of whether or not to allow a particular zoning change to occur or to allow a change in it say a text amendment okay thanks thank you chair well what I'll just add to that Commissioner Beck in my opinion is that sometimes there's not a neighborhood to have a meeting with as well so if it's required I mean you know I mean that doesn't make sense either highly recommended and I think I think we've shown to where developers are certainly willing to do that at the recommendation of staff and so I think the requirement factor is I mean not only for legal purposes but it may not make sense either well clearly where there isn't a group of people that can sit on or there's one person that that goes without saying but we're talking about areas where generally when it gets to the public hearing the public's just now founding out about how things are going to be laid out and what their plans are and creates a lot of grief there where it could be eliminated at a meeting if they just sit down and talk with them then so but clearly where there's there's no public outcry or anything like that I wouldn't expect one to be able but if I could hop in before Commissioner Smith to two points it'd be really hard to write recommended or required unless there's only one person attendance like that becomes a little nuance in the language but to Commissioner Ellis's point we have the public hearing and for the Commission and for counsel it's certainly in the best interest for the developer and understand what's about to be brought towards the public it's in their best interest to have that meeting which is why we're recommending it so they're not blindsided at the meeting so I think I would hope that developers would still pursue that practice because if I was a developer and I come to an open hearing I would want to know what the public's about the rail against me right so I have a defense for it which is what the public hearing in essence allows them to do so I'm fine with it being recommended but not required but I know Christian Smith had some words I think just added we've you know it was it wasn't but maybe till a year ago or so that there was really being stressed to developers they have these neighborhood meetings and so I remember the decision seen before this Commission year and a half two years ago where we know said hey we're gonna table this conversation till you have a neighborhood meeting and so I don't I don't think recommendations a good way to go on this because you would end up forcing people into having to have neighborhood meetings when it's not necessary it's an expense and a restriction on a developer that it may not be needed in all situations but if we know as we as a Commission are gonna obviously see it zoning cases SUPs that look like hey have you talked to the neighborhood yet and the applicant says no okay well you're gonna need to go do that before we even give you a decision because we want nothing of it till we hear with the with the neighborhood ones so just you I mean just add to what Commissioner Smith was talking we have a pre-application conference and you see here it's it's required in most of the complex projects and we will obviously stress to the applicant at that time that hey this is what the Commission has done this is what we highly recommend so there will be opportunities for that but I do see both sides and of course ultimately it's a policy decision on how we want to move forward all right more on chapter 2 and again you've heard this presentation from Clarion I'm just gonna repeat it just so that we have opportunity if we need to to bring up any questions or further clarification we already talked about the pre-application we already talked about the citizen participation there's a site plan review and put it into presentation looks for AV thank you for that there is a site plan procedure included in the DIN code in fact all of the applications that you saw on that table has a separate procedure section so you can see what is required what you need to do and where it will end up and being considered included in those procedures are application criteria for approval and so you as a commission or a citizen or a developer you can see what that application criteria I'm sorry approval criteria is is for that application type let's see here another procedure or another process is PDs this is a new thing that is not currently in the code that is something that is being proposed and for some of you that are familiar with PDs you know that we have several currently in the city and what is being proposed is that it be brought back and this is to allow for development types or development that is that cannot necessarily meet some of the design standards but way but wait wait through PDs be able to provide more in one respect while less than others so that's an option that is a available to the applicant to submit if they choose to does anybody have any questions on PDs I know that we've heard several presentations in the past where PDs have come in for amendments but we're again this is going to be new this is something that an applicant apply for a new PD for a part of the city for sure back thank you chair so we're not limited to five acres or anything like that anymore that's any size correct that that is the the direction that we receive and again that is obviously open for discussion but right now the proposal is that PDs would not have a minimum acreage so property that is less than five can come in and request PD and of course there's gonna be a lot of work that goes into the PD so hopefully we can address it when when we're in that stage okay thanks included as well in chapter 2 is a list of flexible or relief procedures and those are in the form of minor modifications interpretations and development agreements I really want to focus on the minor modification that is what we're hoping would reduce the amount or eliminate the amount of alternative development plans in fact there will be no alternative development plans if you are not able to develop even with a minor modification you're going to be directed to your options are PD rezone or comply with the code we hope that they are able to comply with the code but if not there are other options so again minor modification is the other flexible option Ron is ZBA involved into that process or is it minor modification goes to staff if not it comes to P and Z based on a PD or rezone the the way it is and if I pull up that the the chart and I can explain further from that chart so bear with me just need to get to it real quick hopefully I haven't passed it it's way in the back there we go so this chart here for for those are watching are the standards that can be modified and it is up to 10% so for example if you want to if you want to propose a lot area lower than what's the minimum you can go down to 10% of what that requirement is vice versa if you want to increase your lot coverage 10% higher than what is required then you can go up to 10% and the way to answer your question chair Roselle is that if the application is going to be approved by staff then staff can make that determination or approve that if it is a more of a P and Z or even City Council then they would have to go through them to get that minor modification make sense yep so thank you I think it's gonna avoid the ZBA but hopefully we we can look at it and approve it without having further you know alterations great anybody have any questions on minor modifications again just setbacks you know someone was saying earlier well what's 10% of five feet you know so I mean there's there's there's there's obviously room and this allows some flexibility again what we were talking about earlier for someone that may not be able to meet it and then they just need that 10% this is one way of doing it and not have to go through the whole process of a ZBA or even a zoning change that's that was the intent of this process okay and just the two last bullets here the special exceptions is not being carried forward and the subdivision variance is not moving forward again the intent is that it's it's available the way it's the code is drafted there's ways to get there through other options okay chapter three this was that Richard sorry Ron okay can you go back maybe explain a little bit about the zoning certificate of compliance and how that really will replace what we do now with with certificate of certificates of occupancy which really are more of a building code matter where this will actually as it should take the place of that and explicitly say what you can and can't do with that site as that use changes with a zoning certificate as opposed to that certificate of use so I just wanted to point that out because that will be something new that that has never been done currently it all gets wrapped into a CO which really isn't or certificate of occupancy which really isn't a land use or zoning function that's really a function of the building code so they've been separated out they'll have a CEO and if it's just a change of use so say it's it's going from you know it's within that same building type and maybe Scott can can talk a little bit more on the on the building classifications whether it's mercantile assembly I mean that that's really a CEO as opposed to whether it's a restaurant or church and I think there's even there's three pieces to this one is is we we may have a piece of land or a parcel that someone's going to occupy or use that we can't issue a certificate of occupancy to because there's nothing to occupy but they but they're able to use that so ie if it were let's say a flea market so they're going to utilize the land as a flea market is it an appropriate zoning district so to be able to issue that number two is then when we have a structure in place and we have a certificate of occupancy which says then the building classification and the type of use within the building meets the zoning requirements and meets the building code and then the third piece to that would be what we do today is if we have a change in ownership or a change of a business we issue another certificate of occupancy which is not accurate because it's not a change of the building type or the over the business use it really is a licensing procedure so it's a business license so we're just trying to clarify so we don't create confusion and I'll give you an example if you have a business on the square if it's a if it's a B use in the building code that could be an accountant's business it could be a chiropractor or I could change between it whether it's a bank to a chiropractor and I'm issuing a new certificate of occupancy which may then in turn change the date of that certificate of occupancy etc which legally could create some problems so we just want to separate to say no it's not changing anything on the land use not changing anything on the building use it's just the person in the building is changing so three pieces to that if it makes sense any other questions on chapter 2 before we go to chapter 3 all right chapter 3 this is the exciting one it contains the zoning districts in includes the purpose and a description of each of the zoning districts I will be happy to go over each of those and I actually will pull up that if we want to just wanted to get your your input the zoning districts are condensed and when we started off with there are new ones as well so if no questions I'm gonna go ahead and get to the zoning districts I think we're good apologize for going back and forth but I think it's important to you see the plan the the code that is so the first one is our rural I'm sorry I'm kind of stuck with it for our existing zones the residential rural district the RR in that is the lowest intense zoning district that we have proposed so this is the area that primarily is around the periphery of the city in areas that have large lots and the minimum lot size for an RR is five acres the lot width the minimum lot width lot depth is 100 and 200 and then your your setbacks are shown here your maximum building height is 65 and lot curvers just maximum lot coverage excuse me is 35 so it's meant for those large track large lot developments along the periphery of the city yes so currently when a land is annexed and it comes in as an already 5x they have to have it zoned again before development go yeah it was never zoned not to being good with it was just given that as a designation so going forward if the city annexes land it's going to come in zoned as an RR there's still gonna be a holding well the plane is to if the city area annexes a property either voluntary or involuntary most likely be voluntary that we zone that a month later immediately after so but in between it will have the RR as kind of like the designated one but the intent is to zone that property immediately to the appropriate zoning district and most of the time you see annexations that come in they immediately want to zone that property and that's the hope agree but it will be RR but it does seem going forward and annexation could it would be zoned a full zone as soon as it's annexed with the hope of soon after rezoning it but it it will be annexed into the city with a zone of RR the process is separate it has to be annexed first okay before we can zone it because technically it's not in the city sure so when we notice we can only notice properties within the city or you know the application and so it would have to be annexed first so that's what I was saying earlier that after a month later or so when we can get it scheduled we'll have a rezoning of that property okay so it seems like we're not providing enough time for someone to come in with a plat or anything as an RR it would still kind of go through the formal zoning process before development was to commence correct zoning has to be in place before obviously otherwise they would have to plat according to the RR and most of the times they they don't want to do that they want to do something more in line of what they were thinking of when they first considered annexation okay so that's RR any questions on RR just let me know if you all have any questions R1 is again what we currently have as the NR1 zoning districts one of the things that I failed to mention and I'll pull up in this chart one of the things that is missing or is not included is density there is no density requirement you just have to develop within the development standards that are shown here that also includes the development standards that are in chapter 6 when it comes to parking as well as open space and landscaping so the idea is you're you you're not tied to density but you're tied to the development standards which we sort of have today but again moving forward the density is not going to play or is not outlined as it is currently does that make sense and I know there's a lot of faces that are like what are you talking about no density development standards is what we're going to be using so the development standards for R1 minimum watt area is 3200 square feet and if you know the R1 that's what it's currently 32,000 excuse me thank you and I'm not going to go through that list but you can see what is being proposed and a lot of times the density is kind of controlled by the minimum lot area so you can only build so much because you can only put so many lots within that minimum lot area with that minimum lot area okay I'll continue with R2 the same thing in R2 is being proposed to be R2 and minimum lot area there is 16,000 square feet maximum height is 40 and lot coverage is 30 R3 is your NR3 10,000 square feet maximum building height is 40 a 50 percent maximum lot coverage R4 is your NR4 zoning district minimum lot area is 7,000 you're getting you're getting smaller in lot area so that means you can build more lots on a property so that again we're going from low to high maximum building height is 40 a higher lot coverage maximum of 60 percent we don't have our five because we do not have our our NR5 and we didn't want to confuse everyone so we jumped in our R6 so the R6 is what we have currently as NR6 minimum lot area there is 6,000 square feet again the building height is 40 and lot coverage is 60 percent R7 is the new zoning district that we described earlier as being a combination of the dr1 dr2 RCR 1 and RCR 2 and you see that the minimum lot area there is 4,000 and that's that's a substantially dropped from 6,000 to 4,000 the intent here is that you're looking at smaller type developments in the form of townhomes or duplexes something to that effect and again building height is 40 maximum lot coverage is 65 a little higher because of the lower or the smaller lot area that's all of the residential dimensional standards after residential we go into mixed-use districts so does anybody have any questions on the residential districts all right mixed-use districts we've got three districts in here the first one is the mixed-use neighborhood this replaces the NRMU the NRMU 12 zoning districts and you'll see here that the lot area is minimum water is 2,500 again for higher density type development the height here is 65 feet and there is a lot coverage up to 80% moving on to MD MD replaces your DCN and DCG zoning district primarily the areas close to downtown and again the dimensional standards you see here are none primarily because it's in the downtown area and there is more room less room that is to develop so requiring setbacks and a lot with for certain areas in the MD is not feasible and you probably are probably wondering where that MD is located it's really concentrated in the downtown area so if you haven't had a chance to look at the zoning map it's Parkway exposition Carol and sycamore so just that general area around downtown Mr. Beck thank you chair what is the distance in this case from the I guess that'd be the curb at the front of the building then is there a minimum from the curb to the front of the building there so the curb there said there has to be sidewalks and typically that's gonna follow the property line so the building can only encroach up to the property line right and so it wouldn't hit the curb it would it depends okay I guess what I'm gonna have going after is what kind of walkways are we looking at then in conditions like this or five foot six it all depends on the right the right away classification so depending and again there's not I mean looking at downtown you've got Elm Locust Hickory Oak or some of the major streets those are not gonna change the properties are not gonna encroach far into the right away it is already established so the intent is to build right at the property line okay thanks and the last mixed use district is the MR this is your RCCN and RCCD primarily along I-35 the Golden Triangle Mall the medical city area those are primarily MRs are proposed to be MR they are obviously high intense mixed use districts again going back to the Denim Plan 2030 there is a lot of goals and actions to create more walkability more mixed use more compact and so this is a result of that you can see that the maximum building height is up to a hundred feet and can cover up to 90% I'm gonna make an assumption but clarify so I'm not assuming the difference between MD and MR is is 5% lot coverage the reason I'm assuming they're separated out is for the uses in those locations correct okay so list of uses in both zoning districts differ because of the the area and the intent of those zoning districts okay we're leaving the mixed use districts and getting into the non-residential zoning districts unless there's any other unless there's questions on the mixed use districts okay so the first one under the non-residential zoning districts is SC which is suburban corridor those are the ones that you see or will see part of the draft zoning map along University Teasley the loop those are the areas that we see more of the SC they're primarily for commercial corridors of course and then also commercial nodes where major corridors intersect you'll see a lot of the SC proposed in those areas with that we've got dimensional standards associated with them the maximum height is 55 and maximum lot coverage is 80% highway corridor is your larger corridors that's primarily I 35 you know I 35 east west as well as north and I wish we can show and we'll look at the zoning map and hopefully this will make more sense when we see the zoning map to mr. Beck thank you chair you're going back suburban corridor yes sir was there any dwelling residential type dwelling that's allowed in there multi-family that that's that that's covering face over business right that's covered in chapter 5 where we have the list of uses and I can tell you that multi-family is permitted in the SC with a specific use permit and then work live dwelling is permitted by right okay thanks highway corridor even higher intensity maximum height a hundred feet maximum lot coverage is 80% geo general office this is your I see I'm sorry ECC and ICE zoning districts your light industrial your office little bit more intense commercial uses are permitted here the intent of general office when we go back to the den plan 2030 is where do we create more employment employment hubs you'll see more geos along the west side of town north of 380 that is an identified area for business innovation we want to see that area grow not necessarily heavy industrial but we can see potentially light industrial or even more corporate business parks that sort of thing that's something that we want to promote as a city dimensional standards for that are as follows you do see a height up to 100 feet and again locker which no more than 80% and then we've got three more here on the next one is light industrial that's your you know you're lighter than than compared to the heavy that is your ICG no ECI and ICE zoning districts maximum height here is 75 and up to 85% your heavy industrial is a maximum height of 75 and a maximum of 75 I'm sorry 70% and again this is your ICG primarily the area west of I-35 by the airport is where this HI is located and then the last zoning district that we have identified is PF and as you heard from the presentation in by clarion this is to capture all the governmental as well as institutional properties your universities your FEMA parts of the county buildings as well building county properties as well so that's that's under the PF zoning district and these are the lot or the dimensional standards for PF okay well that is the summary of all the zoning districts that we have proposed does anybody have any questions okay well I'm gonna go back to my presentation because I think the next step if the Commission would like to again we're going to turn this on to slide show we're gonna skip this slide we're gonna go to we're not going to go to four now it really is something that we will discuss at our next meeting but I wanted to give an opportunity since we just talked about the zoning district is to go to the map and kind of just show a little bit what we talked about where where those zoning districts is because when you consider the development code update you're also considering the zoning map so just want to make sure that when that time comes you guys are familiar and comfortable with the zoning map as well so I want to and again this map is available currently online at den code 2030 comm for those that are viewing you can search your property and see what's being proposed mr. Ellis thank you chair on that note Ron can we maybe get that website link on the city's website okay everybody may not know the Dutton code 2030 I know I couldn't remember it off the top of my head and I went to the city website and it was very difficult to find to eventually get so linked in the front the main page absolutely it should be on the front page if we want public input and we want it fast which we do because I think we want it by next week I mean let's get it out there as easily as possible for people to find it that's a good comment I appreciate that and thanks we'll make sure we get that thank you you know have a link on the front page is that already there Charlie it was missed by me if it's there thank you so if you landed on here the header scrolls through a couple ones but didn't code is the I saw that the link on it said attend a meeting which is not seemingly not quite the same as hey look at your map you know it's a little bit misleading I did eventually click on that and eventually got to the links I was looking for but we may want to tweak that a little bit right yes we can get that corrected we were trying to drive traffic to go to those public meetings but we can make it more prominent yeah what I might hear yeah right I'm gonna say keep that so we can get them to attend the meeting because that's what we want to but somewhere put it just another button that says hey view the the draft zoning map view the draft code give us your opinion that kind of thing yeah thank you thank you okay so those that are able to go online the draft zoning map is available for for you to view and make comments provide input as we just discussed briefly there are public meetings set for next week the 25th and the 27th there more information on the on the website but if you don't have an opportunity to come to those public meetings you can come visit the Development Services Center at 215 West Hickory so here is the draft zoning map and you can see that the area that is in red I'm gonna start with that because that's the most prominent one that's the HC that's the highway corridor and you can see that it's a long I-35 on all fronts the next one is kind of hard to see is the suburban corridor the pink you see that along University you see that along the loop and if we scroll down a little bit on Teasley as well as Fort Worth Drive the other zoning district that looks that's prominent here is the PF which is again the public facilities you see that the area here is shown here is Texas women University this is UNT the city-owned property the landfill the airport and the large parks the regional parks North Lakes as well as South Lakes Park over to the west side of the city you have the heavy or high industrial the purple here again I was telling you earlier that's the heavy industrial and then you have some light industrial that front I-35 and some on the north side of that area the geo which is your general office you see that along this area here which is again that area that's currently undeveloped but can see a potential proposed development of maybe a corporate office but we also have them here along Shady Oaks right by the loop and that's an area that can see a general office as well it's it's there's a lot of stuff going on we encourage those that are watching those are playing zoning Commission if there is a particular area that you guys want to look at knowing that there's those zoning districts available if we have this right we are certainly open for feedback to thank you chair Ron you you were pointing out the geo so that is a hundred foot height was that discussed at and that seems kind of high in some of the places that we have geo particularly right there yeah where I could see a hundred feet not necessarily working so I don't know if that was I think it was intended to allow for high taller buildings but of course if it's adjacent to a residential again again wanting to protect those established neighborhoods there are provisions such as setbacks if we go back to the dimensional standards if they are adjacent to a single family of course they're going to be stepped back away from them but we can always obviously revisit a hundred feet seems high and I don't know if we have examples of them yeah not only for there but kind of off Shady Oaks I mean that kind of changes that whole area if that was actually going to develop that high anyway it was just a thought and then like like we said earlier parking is going to play a factor and a lot of landscaping requirements so the height is there but it's it's gonna it may not be able to be maximized and we've got other provisions that help protect those sensitive uses as well so the MD I was telling you guys earlier sorry where we are looking at downtown it's it's it's really here this is a darker purple so this is not the MD this is actually the MR but the MD primarily MD is in this area here that shown that is shown around or within the downtown area and then everything else is either zoned the residential zoning districts the NR 1 through NR 6 the brown that you see here are the R7s so you can see that they're close to the universities primarily because they are higher intense and there there are opportunities there for serve several types of housing close to the universities one key feature here if you are watching if you want to type in your address you can type in your address here and it'll take you to your parcel and then once you find your parcel you can click on it using this tool here to determine what your current zoning is which is dr2 and what the proposed zoning is which is our seven upcoming we will have a link to show those dimensional standards that we went through so you don't have to go back to development centers you you can actually click directly onto it and know what is being proposed such as the maximum height the maximum lot garbage for that proposed zoning district so anybody any questions on the zoning map the only question I have and it's not necessarily directly to the map but you mentioned that all the residential zones are 1 through 7 will be exempt from non conforming issues the single-family single-plex in townhouse yes every other piece of property and and then could be subject to be non conforming have we done an analysis on what that looks like of how many buildings and properties will be considered non conforming so to answer that question no we have not however I can tell you that we will create nonconformity but we will also clean up some nonconformities created back in 2002 okay so it's not having never gone through the nonconformity is there a timeline or action on property owners when they have a nonconforming property what's the consequence and remediation for that if they don't change their use they can continue as a nonconformity if they are they keep it vacant or remain vacant as long as they market it they can continue as such however again that's covered in chapter 1 if they do not market in they became becomes a vacant or under or not used they could potentially use their nonconformity gotcha any other questions it doesn't have to be the chapters that we just went over I really wanted to focus on these three chapters and the zoning map for this work session and then we'll cover the other chapters at our next commission work session so any questions on what we've covered so far or if there's any other topic that you all want to discuss we can just wanted to add to to what what Ron had just talked about we were very strategic sort of in this in this draft of the map to really go through and make sure sort of methodically to ensure that we didn't have those nonconform those nonconforms particularly single-family right I think if you compare this to that first draft you'll see it's substantially substantially different and Ron this draft has been made public for five days do y'all have any metrics on how many people have viewed this website and any initial feedback or inertia from with this um I haven't I've initially with the the public meeting that we had on Wednesday last week we had a lot of people that had called in and discussed but not recently not after this was published we anticipate that we would get more when we have those public meetings and that's I think we'll get a lot of comments then but today I am not aware of any certainly we can certainly check on that and see if there has been activity we hope there is we want people to look at this and we want people to make comments Christian back you mentioned five days it's what was that well the public was on Friday right the draft was made available to the public so it but it's staying there for a while right as in the last five days it's been public I was just curious but there's no time limit on though it's there until we reach an approval till till we get a new drop-down yes okay thanks so just just an example you know this is a zoning district in the Nile again I'm going to click on it and you can see the NR 3 it's zone R3 and that that was again what Richard Richard was talking about we wanted to make sure that we kept the zoning as close as to what it is today with regards to residential so any other questions I don't see any okay feel free to give me on just one note if you got questions if you got requests if you want to send that to me before our next meeting so that I can prepare for it I'll certainly appreciate that as well thank you thank you Ron so the next item on the agenda is work session 1c we'll have Richard lead out a discussion on establishing policies and procedures and then just put on the radar I was thinking out after that we'll take a short break before we dive into the agenda up until dinner public hearing Richard take it away and this item is really I don't have anything prepared it was just more of a some some direction that I'm looking for there's been obviously a number of things that have come up I know in one regard it was even when we were electing a new chair it was you know what what's the policy and procedures how do we how do we do that and there was really nothing written that was sort of early early on I think last year and then where it really got to me is over the last couple meetings where we get the request for for deferral or postponement from from an applicant and we have kind of been and of course I hate to say it's because we've always done it that way but we've always done it that way where we just kind of put it on the agenda and I know in the particular the last two or three meetings some residents have been very upset by that by that fact and so really it's you know as I think about it more it's really shouldn't be a staff determination it should be something that that that the commission wants to if they want to grant that deferral it shouldn't just be an automatic and so again wanted to get your thoughts on that and should we create formal policies addressing some of these items. Mr. Smith could you possibly go through the right now with regards to deferrals and that kind of stuff the timeline that leads up to the public agenda being published just so we kind of know in regards to what deadlines applicants have coming up and when they have to notify for to be able to be on public record by Friday be able to be published for Open Meetings Act and kind of what things we could possibly think of to put in place leading up to that. Advertising we typically have you know 10-15 days before when we post the signs and then we publish it the agenda that Friday a lot of times sometimes letters letters sorry but letters go out sort of when it's servants of zoning or SCP those go out those go out well in advance those are at least two you know roughly two weeks before the meeting signage 15 days out same thing with the signage it's in the newspaper and so a lot of time and then the agendas obviously publish that Friday as soon as those items get posted that that that that puts it on the agenda posted I'm sorry what when it gets advertised okay gotcha that essentially that essentially puts it puts it reserves its spot on the agenda so essentially we're talking about roughly 15 days out it is that the agenda is built 15 days correct this correct so and we have a draft that we work on in well in advance sure but once once it gets advertised it's pretty much on there sure unless there's something that that just sure it was incorrect and then as soon as the agenda is posted on Friday there's nothing that city ever has right now for any notification after that agenda has been posted on Friday whatsoever it's not really to get it out in that it that amount of time I mean it's one thing if they tell us within a week and so we can we can include it in that in the agenda when it goes out that this item has been postponed but it's when the I when the agenda is already out and we get the call on a on a Tuesday or a you know a Wednesday morning asking for the idea to be postponed that that's where it gets a little if it's before the agenda comes out I don't have that big of an issue with it but it's when it's that Tuesday or Wednesday or even an hour before the meeting that I think it's probably more more appropriate like my personal opinion just to give feedback would be all the way up until Friday at 5 when the agenda is posted I think that the applicant should reserve the right to be able to withdraw their item from an agenda yeah that until it's published and put on there and yes the signage has been put out in the layers we put out but there's no way to really mitigate for that if there's something that happens in that short period of time but it's almost like saying that you know hey applicant if it's it's posted on Friday it's gonna be heard on Wednesday whether you want it on there or not and it's after the agenda's been posted that and we have to I think the biggest complaint I think we see is that if it's you know people are coming in and they're grabbing the agendas on the way in and it's saying hey this has been postponed it's not on there but it's actually been postponed that just that and that that protects us as a commission because we've been we've had you know knives figuratively thrown at us from the crowd of collusion and making your decision before you get in there and blah blah blah and so it almost would help if it's only you who's been only paychecks are huge guys you should check them out but that's that's my personal opinion is leading up to to publishing on Friday at 5 and after that creating support process for us as a commission really is the procedure that says it's on the agenda it's being discussed and if the applicant wants to make a come up at their section after the staff presentation has been made in requests that the Commission tables it then we as a commission could consider it but if you're posted in the agenda your public hearing and conversations allowed to happen so yeah I just need a clarification so this would be specifically when the applicant is you know withdrawn or something does this in any way impact say like we had a forgot what the long discussion was a couple of weeks ago I think it's SRO's where we were tabling to a date uncertain would we be just making all of those a date uncertain until staff could provide you know a date put it on a future agenda there I think it's I think if it if it comes up really as an applicant's request for an item I would most likely probably have it go to a specific a specific date yes sometimes I think with with this it really depends I think if it's a if it's a code amendment I think that we're bringing forward and something comes up in between whether we want to put it to a date certain or or keep it open until until when ready I think we'll just have to play that by ear really it's those those items if it's withdrawn it's withdrawn but it's on those items where where we get at the last minute and particularly when this when it's been postponed a number of times I think it starts almost to send the wrong message to to the to the to the residents and they start having this this assumption that all of a sudden we're in cahoots together and we're continuing to push this item off and I just I just don't want to give that that appearance so this is just to avoid the appearance of a battle of attrition where they're waiting for a time when people are not going to eventually correct okay well yeah please please understand that this is all of this is a policy decision and I'm not meaning to argue with anybody on this but I did for the benefit of the Commission and those watching I did hear something about the applicant reserving the right to postpone there is no right to postpone the the zoning case is one that could be brought by an applicant or requested by an applicant it could also be requested by the city and so it's certainly within the the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue forward with considering the zoning case and perhaps even denying it so it's not something that the applicant necessarily controls once they make the application for a zoning case it comes before the Planning and Zoning Commission that it could be an act of grace that it be postponed and brought again at a later date it's not necessarily a matter of the applicant's right to postpone it and just so we're clear on that I wanted to clarify and and and let the Commission know that you do have the option of continuing forward not withstanding the applicant's request to postpone the item so the floor and I just wanted to clarify on that one because you just mentioned that there's no right to postpone that technically we could go forward at any point I being reasonably new on the Commission I don't know that we've ever done that before knowing that there is a practice going on that that you know at a request to postpone we traditionally do that would it seem odd if we suddenly seemingly arbitrarily decided to move forward on you know with the case that has been requested that a postponement has been requested on well just to add again it's all a policy decision that the Commission can you know make their preferences known to the staff on that if you feel that it's odd and you would prefer not to create a precedent or I don't know whether it is a precedent there may be precedent in the past for all I know but it's it's certainly something that you could give feedback on and and let the staff know what your if you do desire to set up a policy one way or another you could and and so it's it would assist staff and scheduling matters if it knew what your preferences were if you wanted to treat it as if it were a right to reschedule you certainly could there's absolutely nothing wrong with that but it's just I think the staff is trying to feel out to see what what the Commission's preferences are are there any kind of automatic rules you open a place where somebody has say one right to postpone two rights to postpone you know if you decide to set it up that way you you certainly good just to hop in two things and Commissioner Smith for clarification if we change the policy that staff no longer can decide postponements then when they call in at the ninth hour to staff they Richard could say that's not my call P&Z will make that call tonight so hopefully we give them a heads up saying it's it's no or go based on P&Z that night but I understand Commissioner Parnetta's points well taken they don't have the right to reserve a postponement they do have the right to withdraw an item and they can withdraw an item up until public hearing actually takes place there's not even when they're their items called could they not withdraw it or what's the cutoff for them pulling the item from us that's more of a staff push as far as the pragmatic there's no legal requirement for that but you know certainly can withdraw it but you know they would have to resubmit an application I don't know if there's an extra fee associated with that or not yeah once an application is withdrawn we treat it as a as a brand new we we close it and then require a new submittal Commissioner Smith just a clarification this is a this is a procedural change is not we're not not new code new ordinance being passed just a internal procedural that's it okay thank you pressure else okay so we just have no policy on this is what you're saying correct Richard okay so I guess my suggestion would be is can you bring solid concerns as a staff in front of us and then let's talk about them when we don't I mean we've got just a packed agenda I know this and I'm thinking we can't necessarily work through this yeah it was more just to get the appetite if it was yeah no I think it's a great idea that because clearly it's a concern to you and the staff and and maybe if you can present a work session that has these concerns and then we can maybe hash out suggestions possibly establishing policy if if need be that would be my suggestion I completely grew with Michelle it's actually had a note to understand what other items maybe need bolstering I know we focused on the postponements tonight but you also mentioned nominations and so without encourage if the Commission knows of policies that we can we can provide to you and then at a work session you congregate those together to provide kind of filling in all gaps if possible great effect I'll just I'm gonna add it to the matrix and then just get a date in that way prepare and well in advance so it's just not right I just more or less wanted to see if there's an appetite to even have that discussion there's an appetite from from me as he's eating any other question oh any other questions on item 1c then if it's agreeable with the Commission can we take a five-minute break and then we'll pick back up with the agenda we'll pause the work session at 433 call us back to order at 442 we'll dive into the work session item to the clarification of agenda items that will go over to this evening it's worth noting that item 2a has been no not to a 3a 3a has been withdrawn by the applicant 3b is seeking a postponement to the March 6th meeting and item 3c has been withdrawn as well so a B and C are not going to be heard this evening that will start us with 3d at the public hearing but first we have items for individual consideration yes clarification is a 3c is requesting it's been withdrawn it has been okay 3c is withdrawn and then a and B have also been withdrawn and/or postponed okay a is withdrawn B is postponing to the March 6th meeting any other questions about the agenda this evening any other additions to add Richard just just on item 3 I can see an eye because I need my glasses on item on item 3l on on the tree code what staff is going to be requesting is that this item also be continued to to March 6th but actually put open that item and that way if if anyone is here to give comment have them give comment and then we're just requesting a continuance to March 6th we had met with the Denton County Developers Alliance on Monday who raised a number of concerns that they had we had a four and a half four and a half hour meeting with them on Monday and gotten some other some other comments and we just want to make sure that that we address all of those and make whatever necessary changes prior to in addition we'll be going back to I know that that council council member Briggs requested that we go back and have a special call committee on the environment which they're also looking to do which will happen before the next meeting when this comes back on on the six I just want to make just kind of wanted to give you a little bit of background on that as to the reason why great thank you with that let's start with the items for individual consideration that's item 2a Julie Wyatt's item good evening I'm Julie Wyatt this is ADP 188 the request before you is for an alternative development plan for a proposed office development on about three acres and the purpose of the alternative development plan is they would like to deviate from some of the site design requirements in section 35 dot 13 dot 13 dot 4 in the Denton Development Code the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Teasley Lane here and Lillian Miller so it's this property here in yellow some background on the property the zoning for it was approved in 2006 they zone to NRM you with overlay conditions your backup has that ordinance it has all the overlay conditions enumerated but specifically I want to talk about a couple of them that restricted the uses to professional services and offices administrative or research facilities or medical centers it restricted the development on the site to single-story construction and each building had to be either equal to or less than 9,000 square feet required minimum 80% masonry pedestrian scaled lighting and a landscape 30 foot buffer on the north and west property lines between the property and the residential development I'm just to talk about what the purpose of NRM use owning is it's it's it's a neighborhood scaled service higher density residential and commercial zoning district so it it's meant to provide some day-to-day service and commercial uses for surrounding neighborhoods but it is supposed to be pedestrian scaled in design and so that's why it's got additional site design requirements in sub chapter 13 is to make sure that any development on the site really does push toward a walkable environment so specifically what they would like to deviate from we'll just it's all in your backup but just we'll go over it briefly first that the ground floor wall would have to be within any ground floor wall within 30 feet of the street would have to have 50% of the wall area in displays or windows or doorways their buildings have less than that they're at 26% and 28% typically we see this type of transparent building walls in retail or restaurant type uses those uses aren't permitted under that overlay so that's why they're actually proposing some more office or medical use medical offices so they're really those those numbers of windows and doors aren't aren't really that type of building design at least 60% of the street frontage shall have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line this property is on a text dot road and is with all of our text dot roads in the city there is a public utility easement adjacent to that right-of-way so just by virtue of the fact that there is a 25-foot easement outside of the right-of-way they could not put buildings where the code requires a development shall have a minimum Florida area ratio of 4/10 because of that increased landscape buffer as well as the restriction on the building heights and building lot building area they really can't meet that requirement so their proposed Florida area ratio is 3/10 buildings cannot be set back more than 15 feet from the street unless it's used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside easing areas they do have proposed setbacks of 26 feet for the buildings adjacent to Teasley and then 186 feet for that building at the back once again due to that that easement they really just can't pull those buildings up to the front and then NRMU requires 40% tree canopy outs or 40% tree canopy and trees planted within a buffer can only count toward 40% of the minimum tree canopy because this property has such a large landscape buffer it really is making it difficult for them to meet that that requirement however they are proposing that that tree canopy outside of the buffer at 35% so we'll go over that in a minute hopefully it'll make more sense so let's go over the site plan I'm just look we're just looking at the the proposed buildings here there is an existing building here at the corner they're proposing three buildings 9,000 square feet or less single-story they are proposing adequate vehicle parking associated with the uses 8 bicycle parking spaces also they're proposing pattern and color concrete walkways located in strategic areas that's right here and then also some pedestrian connections in the back to alert the drivers to possible presence of pedestrians so if you're familiar with the area there's a lot of students that walk on Teasley to get to the elementary school across the street so they wanted to provide that pedestrian that pedestrian connectivity particularly in this location right here and make sure drivers are aware that that students may be walking it's not a part of this request but there are drainage concerns in the area so just wanted to go over those briefly there is there are some drainage improvements associated not only with the private improvements but also the city is undertaking some drainage improvements in the area and in particular the the parking lot will actually be graded lower than than that 30-foot landscape buffer which is in this location to make sure that that water drains toward toward the south and then toward the street like these these blue lines are showing there's also a retaining wall in this in this location to direct the water away from the homes particularly in this area and then the city in the purple they're under design for some drainage improvements right now they've got a flume that they're looking at putting in in this area to get the water to Teasley so the intent is to have the parking lot water and and this buffer water drain toward Teasley. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair. Julie is this where the sandbags have been for forever? Yes ma'am. So the city is working on that? Yes ma'am. Nice to hear. Yes. Commissioner Smith. What's a flume? It is it is a pathway for the water to actually go under the sidewalk. I've probably seen it before. It's going to be like a concrete. So they will have underground detention as a part of this development so this water is going to be collected underground and then it'll be piped out to the street and it's supposed to be released slowly. Their landscape plan was also included in the request this this lighter green this is that landscape buffer and you can see what plants they're using a combination of preserved trees on site as well as tree plantings and that buffer is actually already in place it's already there. They're also proposing foundation plantings between the right-of-way and the buildings as well as street trees. Now under current code NRMU requires that forty percent of the lot be under tree canopy. Buffer trees are only allowed to be counted toward four or forty percent of the buffer trees may count toward that overall canopy so it actually reduces the amount that could be included in this area. So so they're by by this design they're actually not meeting that minimum forty percent because they are only counting forty percent of these trees. However at maturity the trees that are planted both in the buffer within the site and on the street as well as preservation over the minimum will count will be about sixty seven thousand square feet of canopy. So they will exceed that it just it it's made a little differently and how they are calculating that. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair. Julie has it been discussed with where these landscape trees are going that it doesn't shield the the driver from being able to see I know we're gonna have the colored but I mean it this is highly walked multiple times a day. I agree. By a ton of children. There so the sidewalk is in this location down here and it's actually it's so the side is actually elevated in the sidewalk kind of there's some elevation changes to the site. There aren't any actually street trees being proposed in this location they're proposed for right here and they are I talked with engineering and it does meet all their site requirements for visibility. So the only street trees that are going to be adjacent to the right-of-way will be in this location. So if a driver's pulling out sorry if a driver's pulling out and turning right so if they look to this direction that a tree won't won't impede their vision. Okay so right you said if they're turning this way but we've got trees that way you're saying they're gonna be high enough because I mean kids are walking both ways right and to in from I think I think only a right out it's only right out there. Right but what you said was they they're gonna look to the left and be able to see. They'll be able to look they'll be able to look to the left and see that there there won't be any trees impeding their vision of pedestrians. I want them to see kids who are coming from their right. Well these trees are actually going to be planted between yes they will be and then they will also be planted between the sidewalk and the right-of-way. So they'll actually be outside of that line of vision so it's great question. Chris Rebecca do you have a question? And here are their elevations sorry it's a little unclear I had to blow them up quite a bit but as I said they're proposing 100% masonry buildings and they are gonna have residential character and that's something that's required in the ordinance that they have pitched roofs on their single story. They do have four-sided architecture so all around it will it will have that that masonry and the architectural detail and then if you could see that these these are the the elevations that will be adjacent to Teasley and they have things like awnings and and wall sconces architectural detail to really present well to the street to to provide that character and the and those details for pedestrians. So the criteria for approval for alternative development plans are in sub chapter 13 of the debt and development code. So first is it does it preserve existing neighborhoods? The proposed design and uses are compatible with the adjacent with the adjacent neighborhoods due to that overlay requirement as well as the the interventions that they're proposing. They are proposing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Drainage improvements not only on the private portion but also the city drainage improvements and then they also had a neighborhood meeting. Typically neighborhood meetings aren't something that that applicants do for alternative development plans but due to the the closeness to the neighborhood we require that the applicant have a neighborhood meeting so they did have that neighborhood meeting I attended and a lot of the discussion did did center around that drainage component. A sure quality development the request is not intended to lower design standards but would it would facilitate full development of the site and the overlay conditions as well as the proposed landscaping are in excess of what the debt and development code requires. So the debt and development code doesn't actually require those foundation plantings for the building or that minimum masonry requirement. So they're actually going above and beyond what the code has. Focus new development on activity centers. This is an area that's that's been built up over decades and this is really kind of one of the last pieces of property in that general area for commercial development and so this would not contribute to sprawl but it really would be infill for an existing lot. Ensure if infrastructure can accommodate the development. There's the necessary infrastructure in place for the transportation. You've got Teasley and Lillian Miller and then there are also the city drainage improvements that will hopefully help that that water situation and direct the water and where we want it to go and then does it result in a high quality development meeting the intent of the standards. The overlay conditions are intended to increase the harmony with the neighborhoods but it but they did introduce design challenges particularly the the limiting of the scale of the buildings as well as that increased buffer. So what the applicant has done is is proposed alternative elements such as 100% masonry, minimum bike parking, foundation plantings, pedestrian interventions and then that overall tree canopy in order to meet the intent of why we have those pedestrian oriented site design. So based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends approval and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Ellis. So Julie I'll just bring up what I had emailed to you that what they're naming the project violates the ordinance in place so have we talked to them about I haven't had an opportunity to call them but but we will make sure and I've put a restriction on the site that they'll have to any signage would have to would have to comply with that and and what Commissioner Ellis is talking about is in the overlay conditions there's actually a prohibition for the applicant to use any neighborhood surrounding neighborhood names in the branding of their site. So there is a Hunter's Ridge adjacent to the property and they did has their shorthand for this ADP name the project is Hunter's Ridge so that will have to be scrubbed for any future development and they'll have to brand it or name it something else. And does that have to be part of this approval recommendation tonight? It certainly could be sure and it where we really at the staff will need to make sure that we're that we're complying is to make sure any signage on the site is is consistent with that with that ordinance. Thank you. I have one question the existing buildings of an emergency is there anything in code to protect ambulance egresses and right now there's no parking on this west side so an ambulance can can come in a pretty good speed and get to the building. I imagine once you have cars and parking spots there could be potential impediments to safety is there any consideration of how an ambulance considering the use that's on the land functions within that parking lot? I know that they have a port-a-cachet for that emergency I'm pretty sure they have that and I don't know where their ambulance actually parks. So you know that wasn't a part of the request in terms of that parking lot design because the parking lot design is particularly on that side has already kind of been designed put into place. So you know that since that wasn't a part of the request for that emergency but you could certainly you know add a condition. Why does it know if the city had any provisions like at hospitals it's like they almost have their own road to get back to their own place and the let I understand from Lillian Miller that's built out if they're coming south but they're coming from the west on Teasley and taking a left into right now it's a single drive with no cars and that's that's gonna change drastically. We don't have any site design requirements specifically for emergency vehicles or or hospitals they have to meet fire obviously they have to meet the fire lane requirements but there's nothing within the code. Okay any other questions for this item? Yes, Commissioner Beck. So there will be a left turn lane coming from the west on Teasley that they can turn into but coming out of that development they can't cross over Teasley and head east can they? Because that was the concern. Yeah I think you're right I think they can. Okay yes you're right. Now that I'm thinking about it I think it is a full access I think they could turn left out of that. Okay that was Commissioner Ellis's concern with that tree that now I you know tend to agree with because if it was only a right turn coming out it wouldn't be a problem because they can because they're looking left but now if they've got a if they're gonna make a right on the Teasley coming out. This is an existing tree so this one's already here. These are these are smaller canopy trees so but you know if the Commission feels like that might create a safety issue for for students that that could certainly be something that could be removed. Well for cars just pulling out and wanting to get onto Teasley. Something to consider. Thanks. Any other questions for this item? Thank you very much Julie. I'm sure you have others tonight. The next is item 2B another ADP. I'll invite Haley for presentation. All right good evening so this is a request. This is a request for an alternative development plan for a facility just north of the existing Peterbilt plant. So you can see the location of the property and outlined in black on the map. The requested ADP is to deviate from three sections of sub chapter 13 one being the fencing and screening requirements the second being the access parking and circulation requirements and then third some of the non-residential site and building design standards. So the property in question is just over 12 acres it is located in an industrial center zoning district as you can see on the map and the proposed use as I mentioned is a truck sales facility that would be a supporting use for these existing Peterbilt facility. So these are all outlined in detail in your backup so we'll just run through briefly what their specific requests are. The first standard that they are seeking to deviate from is our permitted fence materials. The DDC has a very specific list of what materials can be used for fences currently. So the wire mesh security fencing they're proposing on three sides of the property is not among those permitted materials. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. First of all when we say wire mesh are we talking about chain link? No sir it is slightly different from chain link. Okay what does wire mesh look like? I've got a picture of it later on in the presentation actually. Okay great. Okay let's wait until we look at it because it seems like if they want that as opposed to what was required for security reasons seems like a weaker fence for some reason but let's wait and see your picture. Again and the code does allow for security fencing such as it specifically calls out razor wire and barbed wire but that's only for industrial uses and what they're proposing is a commercial use so it's still even if this were a permitted security fence material specifically listed in the code it still wouldn't have been permitted for a commercial use. Okay but yeah I do have photos of the fence materials later on. So the second deviation is for a requirement in the code that limits the height of a fence that is located forward of the front building line so if you want a fence along your front property line it can be no taller than three and a half feet which seems like it would only apply to residential but the code doesn't expressly say that so the way it's written it applies to all fences and what they're proposing is a seven foot tall ornamental wrought iron fence along the front property line and then third as I mentioned the parking lot screening so when you do have vehicle spaces located in front of a building between the building and the street the code requires that very prescriptive 15 foot wide area containing a berm a combination of trees and then either zero scaping a shrub row or a three foot high wall. What they've proposed is a 15 foot wide area containing a berm and shrubs. They are proposing to push their street trees back to the backside of that area but then they couldn't quite fence fit the street trees along with the required screening trees so they've proposed to relocate those screening trees to along that wire mesh fence on the north and south sides of the property and then finally the code only allows front parking along arterial roadways the property is located on precision drive which is a collector street so that is an additional deviation to have that vehicle parking between the building and the street and when you do have front parking the code prescribes that your building not be set back further than 85 feet from the street and their building is 148 feet. So looking in detail at some of these things they have just over 5,000 square feet of building it's a combination of an office building in this area and then what they're calling an undecking facility and I asked for a little more detail on what that is but haven't received it to date I believe it's where they would take the tractor and trailer apart but I'm not positive on that but the applicant should be here this evening to provide more details on that operation. They did confirm there's no vehicle maintenance of any sort that would occur in that building. They have employee and customer parking located here in front of their office building with 12 parking spaces. The rest of the site is approximately 400 truck spaces that would be storage and display area for the vehicles that are for sale. Overall they have 38% landscape area their zoning district only requires 10% so they're well in excess of that because the property does extend further to the south here for their detention facilities. And then they are providing the 15% required tree canopy. So looking at the fencing and landscaping now the solid orange line demonstrates where the wire mesh fence would go that we'll look at in just a second. The dashed orange line is where they would have that wrought iron a little bit dressier fence along the frontage to present better from the street. It would be a gated facility so the gate would cross this primary entrance point here and then looking at the trees you can see here's where they have that 15-foot area with all the required street trees along the entire frontage and then on the north and south property line they're accommodating the required screening trees that would have been required here but they're proposing it along the fence to further screen the north and south sides of the property. And then in the back they've accommodated all the other required trees to hit that 15%. Thank You Chair. Haley on the east side of Precision there is that where the that large development is going in. Correct. Student housing development. Chris you're back. Thank you Chair. So Precision is the only road that has access that there's nothing on the north side? Correct. So if you back out and look further north there is a parcel between this site and Oak Street here so they they have no frontage other than Precision which is currently under construction as part of this residential development. Okay great thanks. All right so here's kind of the examples of what the fences looked like from what they provided so this is the the front wrought iron screening fence with the gate that would be along Precision and then this is the wire mesh you can see it's a it's a tighter knit I guess linkage than what you would get with the chain-link fence that is proposed to be a black coated fence so it would be you know a little above and beyond the typical aluminum chain link security fence that you would see in a facility but it is as you can see here a much tighter weave than what a chain-link fence would be. So again as Julie walked through there's the five criteria for approval in sub chapter 13 for an alternative development plan so we'll go through those. The first being preservation of existing neighborhoods as I mentioned this is a supporting use for existing industrial development. There is as Commissioner Ellis pointed out a multifamily under construction across the street. The code when there's right of way between a commercial and multifamily use doesn't require a buffer but they are proposing as you saw in the landscape plan to screen this facility and they will have that security fencing to prevent anyone from that residential development from being able to access the site. The second criteria is to assure quality development. The request as you see here isn't intending to lower the development standards they're needing the fencing for security purposes for the vehicles and then they are still accommodating all of the required landscaping on site just in alternative locations. The third criteria is to focus new development to activity centers. This is within our West Park Terz area so it's an area intended for industrial development and supporting uses so this is well within what we would expect to see in this area. Fourth criteria ensuring or ensure infrastructure can accommodate the development. The infrastructure is not on the ground today but it's all under construction so the dashed lines on our map here indicate a water and sewer facilities that are under construction. As I mentioned precision drive is also currently being built from its current terminus here at the north boundary of Peterbilt's existing facility all the way up to Oak Street and that development is going in along with the residential development here. It is a collector street correct. And then the final criteria is that the results would be a high-quality development that meets the intent of the standards. So as I mentioned their their fencing is not an attempt to provide a lower quality material than what the code would require it's just something different that I suspect probably wasn't a popular material at the time our code was drafted in 2002 and it is for security purposes. They are coating it in black so it wouldn't be a reflective material that could potentially distract a driver as they go by and they are also proposing to relocate their trees in a way that would help screen the fence and the trucks from the north and south sides. Thank you chair. Hayley on that student housing development that's being just the east of that there. Do we have a site plan for that yet? We've already approved that. That was approved with a specific use department. I couldn't remember. Do you remember vaguely where the entrants and exits were for that and if this facility at all is gonna be next. What I'm thinking is if there's an undecking I don't know what that is I don't know we're gonna ask the African tonight but if there's trucks moving in and out of there and that's student housing back there as well and on a collector's tree that doesn't seem like a whole lot of room for trucks to be moving in and out of long with students driving in and out of there too. Correct it's slightly off-map here but you can see their primary driveway for the student lines with this which is what's required within our criteria manual for safe maneuverability so that there's not driveways offset just enough that someone could sure miss someone else coming in or out. And then finally staff is recommending approval of this request because we found it to meet all the criteria for approval in sub chapter 13 and happy to answer any other questions. The only question I have Haley is is truck defined like they have a truck sales office is is that a definition truck? It is 18-wheeler tractor trailer rigs is my understanding is what their definition of a truck is. I think I understand what they're saying is a truck what I'm wondering is are we putting in place that it will only be tractor truck trailers and not pick up trucks in a used lot in three years from now I'm wondering yeah are we protecting against a used car lot going in or are they limited to what I imagine is Peter built trucks being sold in their lot? Well the code loosely defines all things of this sort is auto and RV sales so this falls within that definition so any anything within that realm could be permitted under that use definition. So apart that's I guess by right I mean correct so apart from the ADP they they could actually put a car lot there correct? Correct I think based on their site plan and just the way they have it configured can tell these spaces are 100% intended and sized for 18-wheeler I suspect Peter built trucks. With ADP's they're being bound to the substantially close to the site plan correct? Correct yeah they would have to amend the ADP in the future to reconfigure the site. Okay that's helpful enough okay thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Smith? Jerry's gonna punch me because I know this is not this is is there any way before public hearing we could see how that site plan for that that student housing developments being done and what the what the the entrance and the exit from that area is just in relation to this project and the only reason why I know Jerry's gonna punch me is because this is an ADP this has nothing to do with the use as Commissioner Rossell already brought up they could put a car lot there just as soon as they do anything else so we're talking about fences and buffering here not about use of the area but I don't know maybe maybe I just didn't talk something off it online about about what it looks like just because this seems it seems like a dangerous area to have to have semi trucks coming in and out of there with it being right there. And that was something that our traffic engineering department looked at with this the driveway for this is actually a little wider than what would typically be permitted to allow that extra maneuverability there but precision drive to my understanding is a road that was intended even within the towers to always be built to accommodate industrial traffic. Okay. Richard do you have anything to add to this? Haley do you know if the driveway to the east of the the entry into the truck lot is that is that the entrance into the shown on the slide? This is the only thing I have that shows where that driveway is I believe the apartments had two drive two driveways on the northern end of their property was the primary entry I believe this may be the gated southern entry but I'm not positive on that I'd have to pull up the plans. Good no worries that's fine. As I'm understanding your question essentially you're asking whether the the alternative plan would be justifiable given the configuration that you're asking about. The alternative plan is not something that you would have to grant necessarily and so you perhaps you know what you're actually expressing Commissioner Smith is you know that that could be a factor that bears upon whether you feel that the alternative plan would be justifiable under the under the criteria that are set forth in the code. Okay thank you. Any other questions on this item? Great thank you very much Haley. The next order of business brings us into the public hearing again public hearing A B and C are not going to be heard tonight so we will jump right into 3D which is the final replat and I invite Cindy Jackson for presentation. Okay thank you yeah you can see that Cindy Jackson FR 18 - 0 0 1 5 is a request for approval of the final plat of a lots 1a - 1 and 1a - 2 of the gray forest edition. This is actually a residential replat of lot 14 block D Park West edition which is this lot right here and lot 1a block A of the DeWeerd edition which is this large lot right here. The property is located within the neighborhood residential in our 4 district. One of the lots this lot along Chisholm is actually developed already with a single-family house. The applicant plans to subdivide this large lot and replat half of the the western half of it onto this lot leaving the remaining lot vacant with plans to develop with residential use. The plat actually meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance. We sent out notifications since this is a residential replat we this is a public hearing. We sent out notifications within 200 and 500 feet and we we had notice published in the newspaper. All is we didn't receive responses back I did receive some phone calls from people who received the notices just asking what was going on what what they were trying to do with the lots. The applicant will be here later on to discuss this however that concludes my presentation. Mr. Beck thank you chair thanks Cindy just for clarification it appears to me that lot 182 is simply going to be the backyard for that house that's right but there's probably an intent to build on the house on the other lot which faces Stewart. Yes. Okay okay thanks. Any other questions? Thank You Cindy. Thank you. Next item for business is 3E and I invite Haley for presentation. The floor is yours. All right so this is a proposed detail plan for a self storage facility. So the request before you is to consider making a recommendation to council regarding this detail plan for a self storage use within plan development 176 which is also known as Wheeler Ridge. The property you can see on the map outlined in yellow. It's located on the west side of 2499 north of Hickory Creek Road and south of Robinson. The property is just shy of three acres in size. So a little bit of background on this site as I mentioned the properties within PD 176 which is Wheeler Ridge. This PD was originally approved back in 1999. The PD is a large area containing the subject property in many of the homes in this area. It was proposed to contain a maximum of 628 residential units and it also called for two commercial tracts which includes the parcel which the subject property was a part of as well as the property at the corner of Teasley and Robinson. A plan development requires a kind of two phases of planning. The first is the concept plan that outlines the very general terms of what can go where within the property. That was approved in 1999 with the with the original PD and outlined what uses could be built on these commercial tracts which was essentially everything permitted within the commercial zoning district in the 1991 code. So a very long list of uses. The second part of the planning for a PD is the detail plan for each specific parcel that determines how the site will be developed. What configuration of site design and landscaping and building is required there. So that's where we're at tonight is looking at how this particular site can be developed for a use that was permitted on the property as far back as 1999. So looking into the the details of what's proposed here. This is the site plan so you can see here in blue are the four buildings that are proposed on the site just under 85,000 square feet total between the four buildings. The only actual vehicle parking proposed are these five spaces outlined here in red that are for the office that's generally located in this part of building A. You'll notice there's only one driveway on the site so that would be a shared point of entry off of 2499 for this use and the car wash which you may remember last year we had a detail plan for the car wash that council approved. Once they get into the property there are gates proposed at these two points so you know you could visit the office and then beyond that you have to enter through one of the gates and all of the circulation is internal in between the building so there's no drive aisles that would abut or potentially have glare onto the residential uses surrounding this. In orange on the map I've outlined where they're proposing fences so the building walls would kind of form the back of much of the property but they are proposing in between there an eight foot masonry wall that would have a couple of gate locations there's one here as well as I believe one in this area that would be wrought iron gates and then up here surrounding the detention pond on the far north end they would propose that that fence transition into an eight foot wrought iron fence to allow for drainage flow through that area. So this is kind of a colored rendering of what the buildings would look like from the streets so this is that office portion here with the glass windows so building A that you saw here would be two stories all of the remaining buildings would be single story. Looking at this in a little more detail that the PD had some requirements for commercial developments to either be constructed of glass stone stucco tile concrete wood or similar materials so you can see here they've proposed a combination of brick and stone veneer some brick accents there is some ifas which is a material similar to stucco proposed just along the tops of the buildings for the cornices so it would be full masonry construction. The building height the PD permitted up to three stories and the story was defined as eleven and a half feet at that time so the highest point of building A here above the office is thirty two and a half feet so it's within what's permitted within the PD and then just looking at some of the other sides of the building here this is actually what would face along the residential side so you can see solid masonry construction no windows very few points in which any any visuals from the inside the site could be there there you can see one of the gates and the fence that would be between the buildings. So now looking at their landscape plan the PD as I mentioned adopted in 1999 so they follow the 1998 landscape code that was in effect at the time the main requirement there was for 15 trees per acre so based on the size they are required 45 trees they're proposing 50 trees total on the site 17 of those would be planted here along the backside of the building so they have a 25 foot gap between this utility easement and where the building starts and they're proposing the landscape that heavily to provide again some visual variation and buffering between them and the residential uses. Total their site would have 27 percent landscaping and 21 percent new tree canopy and they are meeting the DDC the current DDC regulations for tree preservation so they're preserving just over 40 percent of the quality and secondary trees on the site. So the 1991 code outlined the criteria for a detailed plan approval the first of those is that the plan complies with the general concept plan or development plan approved for the property. So what you see here is the highly detailed concept plan that was adopted in 1991 it basically broke the PD into three tracks commercial development on track one here at Teasley and Robinson. Track two was single family where they had that approximately 600 units of residential planned and then track three is this triangle that we're looking at tonight which again was designated for commercial development. So the use and standards that they've proposed here are within what was originally approved with the PD. And then the next criteria is that the plan provides for a compatible arrangement of buildings and uses that wouldn't adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties outside of the PD. So this development is in line with what we would typically see along a highway it is kind of standard highway commercial development but in terms of the adjoining neighborhoods they are providing a 25 foot setback as required in the PD between them and the adjoining residences even though there is approximately 175 foot of easements providing additional separation there between this commercial tract and the nearest residences. Site lighting and signage are not directly addressed in the plan development standards so staff feels that there could be some potential for nuisances there with commercial development having signage and lighting. So we did recommend some conditions that we'll look at later related to that. The third criteria is that the plan provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic. We felt that the detail plan meets that it has all internal circulation so again no potential for nuisances from glare or lighting for the adjoining residences and they are meeting tech stops requirements that one singular driveway that they're sharing with the car wash has already been approved by tech stop as have the plans for a turn lane into the site on 2499. And then finally that the plan is in substantial compliance with landscaping sign subdivision and other regulations of the city or that it offers corresponding benefits if it's proposing deviations. We again generally found that it is in compliance with the PD regulations our current regulations that would apply such as tree preservation and again the two pieces where we felt there was some room for concern signage and lighting we have proposed conditions related to. So we this case was noticed we sent the the mailed notices received no responses to those to date and the applicant did hold instead of one large neighborhood meeting they set up individual meetings with each of the HOA's in this area so Wheeler Ridge and the two phases of Oakmont. I was able to attend the last of those with the Oakmont West group and there were approximately 20 people in attendance that had relatively mixed feelings about the development. So as I mentioned we are recommending two conditions for the approval of this the first the no exterior lighting on the building should face a single-family residential use or if such lighting is proposed it be screened from view of adjoining residences and then a photometric plan be provided with their building permit application to demonstrate compliance with the current DDC site lighting requirements. The second criteria is again due to the close proximity of residential uses to this and the majority of the PD's in this area allowing for residential uses that these developments should comply with the current code of ordinances sign regulations for a non-residential district and specifically that no illuminated wall signs face any adjoining single-family use. The applicant hasn't proposed that what we felt as we did with the car wash that that was important to provide that protection and I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have. Thank you chair. Pardon me. Sorry to have my mic on. Thanks. Thanks Amy. A couple of things the two gates in the back is that just for access to get back there and mow the grass? Can you go back to the site plan show that? I'm assuming that where at the other side of the easement there's probably a fence line that the houses have. So there's no direct access if they went through that gate? Correct. These are all rear property lines here and then that hundred and seventy five foot electric easement. Right so there's fences there where if they got into that area through those gates they couldn't go directly through the houses or anything. Okay then the other thing I noticed on the site plan up on the I guess it'd be kind of the north west corner there. It says that there's a proposed eight foot high wrought iron fence on top of the wall. How tall is that wall? Are you I guess referring to the wall that would be here? Well see I believe there's a retaining wall there associated with the detention pond. I'm not sure of the exact height of it but I could certainly find out. It's probably going to be a small wall then if you're going to put an eight iron. I believe so. Okay I think it's just for the detention pond. I thought we had the six or eight foot masonry wall in there. No sir. Okay thanks. Any other questions? Thank you Hailey. At this time dinner is here for us to grab a quick bite. I would hope and suggest we do a quick break. We still have a lot of items left about an hour to go and then with that I'm certainly not discouraging questions in work session but hopefully over the next hour we can use our discretion of what's asked here. First to tap asks in public hearing just to facilitate an efficient move through the schedule once we get back from getting our food. So let's try to do a five minute grab food. It's 531 we'll break now. Thank you and welcome back to the work session. It is 537 call it back to order at this time. We are on item 3F. Julie White for presentation. I'm not sure this is possible on this item and other items might be more possible but if there isn't an abbreviated presentation if we get at the high notes we do that much preferred and then we'll stand for questions for sure. Absolutely. Thanks Julie. All right I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting a portion of the alternative ESA plan. Christy Upton is actually going to be doing the technical part. So I'll just briefly talk about the request and the location. The request is for an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan. The areas are outlined here in yellow. It's to restore across timber's upland habitat on approximately two-tenths of an acre and restore a riparian buffer on approximately one acre. Just a brief background. Some of you probably remember this this area was subject of an alternative ESA plan back in 2016 as part of the Villages of Carmel development of phases 4B and 5B. So the preliminary plat shows the areas here outlined in red and as part of the development the the applicant did an ESA assessment on this this upland habitat here which is the tree portion that was actually removed as an ESA prior to the preliminary plat because it did not meet the minimum dimension requirements of 10 acres. The riparian buffer was confirmed as an ESA prior to the preliminary plat because that there was an intermittent stream there. So in the the plat was approved in 2015 the applicant knew at that time that they wanted to pursue an alternative ESA plan in order to remove the protections for the riparian buffer. Let me go back to that map I think that's better. So they wanted to remove the protections for the riparian buffer. In exchange they they proposed to to preserve the the upland habitat that no longer was an ESA but still had the the trees there and the the the the understory and all of those factors associated just didn't meet that that 10 acre minimum. That alternative ESA was approved by City Council and and so then the development went forward with final plats. In 2018 in the summer the applicant approached the city and said we made a mistake and we cut down about two-tenths of an acre of trees and actually these areas the the areas these two lots that were part of the preliminary plat but the that the trees were preserved on these as part of the alternative ESA and so these these lots were never final platted so those weren't supposed to be graded but they did end up cutting down the trees and grading it and removing the topsoil. So they approached the city and we talked about it and tried to come up with the best plan of action for them to move forward and so they are now before you and will ultimately go to City Council with an alternative ESA plan to restore not only the area that they removed that was preserved but then they're also proposing to restore that riparian buffer. So with that I am going to turn it over to Christy Upton to talk about the technical aspect. Thank you Julie and commissioners and I will try to also speak through some of the information here. I did want to add we have some visuals about the encroachment this is the upland habitat that was removed and inadvertently in addition to the 0.2 acres or so of upland habitat that was part of those two lots there was also some encroachment with a sidewalk that was put along harbor mist and during that construction the the construction crews pushed the dirt work up into the the upland habitat removing all the understory and also we wanted to explain to you what happened with the riparian buffer. This was inadvertently filled greater than what was approved by the nationwide permit that allows for 300 linear feet of ephemeral streams to be filled and they had filled 702 linear feet and with that information once they realized that they had exceeded that linear feet allowance they went back to the Corps and the Corps and and the applicant are working through a mitigation project for the core purposes and that's an important part of what's going to be occurring with this project. The criteria for approval is to create and expand or improve preserved areas, improve encroached habitat, maintain habitat continuity, maximize public access and utilization, preservation of the protected area in perpetuity and to create a high quality development. In this case staff feels that they have met this criteria except for improving encroached habitat or environment which we did not feel applied to this project. Their restoration strategy and just to to help you keep track of which one is which we're calling the riparian buffer area the original ESA and they are going to restore for 402 linear feet of the original riparian buffer for the Corps purposes and they had that those that part of the lot where they intend to restore and there was area on the outskirts of that riparian buffer and what they have proposed is to recreate an upland habitat along the riparian buffer that they are creating for the Corps purposes. In that project that part of the project it will be using 177 of the 195 tree caliper inches that they removed from the original I mean from the alternative ESA the upland habitat the 0.2 acres that unintentionally graded. So they'll be putting 177 inches into this area here and then they will also be trying to recreate an understory habitat by using an American Beautyberry shrub, post oak seedlings and a mix of black lamb prairie seed mix. And then in the Alta ESA area which was the little over 2.2 acres of upland habitat that was inadvertently removed they are going to place trees along harbor mist trail to harness the lot and kind of create a barrier there and a visual barrier but also to create a sense of that this lot is not to be maintained and in the same manner as you would maintain other grassed areas and that they will be putting a black lamb prairie seed mix in to kind of create a savanna area within that upland habitat. An example of the black lamb prairie mix the additional mitigation strategies will be to bring topsoil in to the restored areas to promote plant viability to landscape use landscape irrigation and to either use infrequent or no mowing schedule to implement and will be implemented to promote a natural habitat progression and they will be installing educational signs that promote this is just an example of what the sign would look like they had a number of choices to choose from but the sign will be promoting crest timbers upland habitat. The long-term management and monitoring of this will be a three-year monitoring period the applicant will place any den material during that three-year application and monitoring period they'll repair any eroded land and remove any trash the annual report will be generated for environmental services to review and after three years there will be a final acceptance and staff is recommending approval with the following conditions I won't read everything I'll just kind of hit the highlights for you to replace the 195 tree caliber inches that they removed inadvertently from the upland habitat to place 0.5 acres adjacent to the Corps of Engineers project with the upland habitat restoration and the 0.23 acres of the Crest Timbers upland habitat along the alternative ESA section and then the annual reporting plants to be installed will be maintained and then they are also an agreement of a either a bond a letter of credit or an escrow in the amount of twenty four thousand three hundred seventy five which is currently the hundred twenty five dollars per tree caliber inch that is within our code and then then to this was not in your packet we have added this since we're proposing that there be a homeowners association document that be created and filed us to establish the maintenance of these lots in accordance with accordance with our ordinance and Julie has added some information about the notification public notification for a public hearing was sent out we have received three letters in opposition primary concerns that we've heard about our drainage the the lots there a few lots there on Delray who have some concerns about drainage the proposal would not add any impervious area to the site so it wouldn't wouldn't increase any runoff to the site so but but that's what we've heard from the neighbors so far and that is the presentation we'll stand for any questions mr. Beck thank you chair Julie would you know if the enforcement rules that are coming up that'll be on the new DDC will those be the ones used to make sure nothing goes awry this time well maybe that's a question for Richard I could speak to what's proposed on this one okay because we've got some lesson learned on enforcement with ease this because we've we've tried to figure out the best way to enforce that and and we felt like it actually it was Richard's suggestion to have to put in that bond letter of credit or escrow in that amount for that three-year period and to make sure that if if they aren't alive that we have a mechanism to support or to support the the requiring them to go back and replant or that we would replant ourselves if they didn't so we felt like that was probably the best way to approach it and then in addition to the HOA documents so the city will have some kind of trigger to after three years yes yeah if after three years if ninety percent aren't thriving then that's where the enforcement would kick in he has and we've kind of been both both groups water administration and planning have been working with them that the homeowners association he was he was fine with that he did have some current concerns about that bond or letter so we added in the additional or escrow the city of Denton has a provision that that developers can sometimes escrow money for sidewalks so it's something that happens kind of frequently with development so he he understood why we were requesting that condition and he felt like the escrow was probably the best the way he would want to approach it so that's why we left some options in there for him when you're talking about the ESA maintaining in perpetuity you're talking about the creek right you're not talking about the upland area both oh both yes sir is there anything in there that would state that the ESA especially the upland be maintained say like moing to maintain the you know the flowers and all that if you just let it go over time you're gonna lose them I'm gonna let Christie answer that okay during my discussions with the applicant about this HOA idea he he said and we might ask him during this evening's meetings more if he's still in agreement with this he he said that right now he's the declarant of the HOA documents and he can put in that document anything that that the city has proposed at that time so I think right now it's open for for him to add in whatever information we would like to request and the long term you also want to make sure that you're managing that not just okay we're preserving it and that makes a big difference any other questions on this item all right thank you very much next time we have is 3g zoning case presented by Julie Wyatt this is my last one all right so I'll be I'll be quick about this one as well so this is for a zoning case Audra Heights the request is to rezone about 8.7 acres from neighborhood residential mixed-use 12 to neighborhood residential mixed-use the subject property is located on the north side of Audra near the loop 288 corridor under current zoning you could see that NRM you 12 here that's in that orange hatched and then NRM you is adjacent to it that's that red the surrounding zoning includes an NRM you 12 to the south as well as some NR for for our single family neighborhoods surrounding you've got NR to which some pretty large lot single-family and then NR three to the to the west of the subject property there's PD across the loop and then you've got a little bit of community mixed use there at the loop in University the applicant is proposing to extend that NRM you toward the west to take in that 8.7 acres before we talk about the background but we'll go really quickly so the maximum lot coverage in NRM you 12 is 60% lot coverage within the city of Denton includes all buildings and impervious surface so driveways that walkways anything rain can't get through townhomes are a permitted use in NRM you 12 at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre so based upon this the applicant preliminary plotted the property in December of 2017 and you'll see it right here you'll see it's a townhome development with alleyways this layout was actually based upon a misapplication of the Denton development code which relates to lot coverage so in in sub chapter 13 there is a provision that driveways that are constructed with a pervious surface are not counted toward lot coverage but counted as landscape area so that is the way they proceeded with their plat and it's the way actually a lot of townhome developments within the city have proceeded in early 2018 the city embarked upon some update to the parking rags and they went back and and and looked at that provision within the code and determined that though that provision had actually been misapplied and that in actually in the code it specifically prohibits single family and duplex lots from taking from from using this provision so so that single family and duplex lots even their driveway would have to count toward the lot coverage so when they came in for a final plot we alerted them to that fact and that there it was going to be difficult for them to develop the site with the adequate parking in the building under the lot coverage requirements so because this affects the develop ability of it they have requested to rezone to NRM you because that permits an 80% lot coverage the criteria for for rezoning is in subchapter 3 of the Denton development code so the first criteria is the Denton plan 2030 what's the future land use so this area is has two future land use designations that affect it moderate residential and neighborhood mixed use moderate residential is is for residential development 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre think of kind of infill and inner-city neighborhoods a variety of housing types maybe single family with smaller lots but so you get that moderate density but but it is a residential future land use designation neighborhood mixed use can include residential development with a variety of housing types so once again that townhome or duplex development but it also folds in the commercial uses and retail services those day-to-day uses in both of them scale and compatibility is important when we look at the design so if you'll just look at the future land use here's the subject property in black you've got that orange here that's the moderate residential the pink is the neighborhood mixed use and then you have the surrounding to the to the west of the subject property you have low residential you got business innovation across the loop and then community mixed use along along University so as we look at the future land use and remember the future land use is a guide it's the 30,000 foot view of how the city of our vision of our city that zoning pattern that's where we start implementing some of those goals so when we look at that future land use we we we see that the zoning patterns must protect the existing scale of neighborhoods within that future land use and so even within this you want transition areas to allow development to either gradually increase or decrease and this is an interesting area because you really can see this in action so if you follow the red line you can see this is low residential the intensity the intensity grows as you get toward loop 288 as you get toward that commercial corridor so you go from low to moderate to then neighborhood mixed use as you get up to University you even get more intense to the community mixed use because it's not as close to residential neighborhoods so that that transition and that gradual scale change is really important the proposed townhome use is consistent with both future land use designations but staff feels like that NRM you may it could disrupt that progression of intensity that it it it wouldn't allow it to flow as well that NRM you really is more consistent with that neighborhood mixed use so future land use rather than that moderate residential and that really that the existing zoning is more consistent with with both future land use designations it really does do a good job bridging the gap between the moderate residential and that neighborhood mixed use because it still allows a wide variety of housing and some commercial but a really reduced scale so a use comparison this only pulled out what what is different in the few in the two different zoning districts so for instance places that we looked at duplexes and single-family are permitted under current zoning they're not under NRM you so it kind of takes away that residential component NRM you does allow some more intense uses like hotels or bars or restaurants things that may introduce incompatibilities with with those surrounding single-family neighborhoods NRM you also permits building height up to 65 feet so it's quite a bit taller than what is what's out there now the second criteria for approval is adequate public improvements it's important to know that the proposal would not increase the density but the intensity on the lot so we would increase the lot coverage but not necessarily the the density they did there the trip generation for the townhome use is is 604 trips during a 24-hour workday or weekday so it doesn't trigger that TIA here's some site photos this is the subject property right here I was standing across the street so there's the site and this is kind of standing on the corner and looking back at those residential neighborhoods this is the the duplex development just adjacent to the subject property and then here's the single-family neighborhood to the south of that duplex development there is adequate water and and wastewater within within the area for them to connect to so just other findings so stuff based upon the future land use designation based upon the the development in the area and that zoning pattern staff feels that that NRM you would reduce the transition area between the loop 288 the high-intensity commercial development you would normally see on a highway corridor and that low density residential to the west however if the planning and zoning Commission does opt to recommend approval we recommend some overlay conditions first that the uses would be restricted to the townhome use with that limitation 40 which is in which is what's existing for NRM you now which essentially limits the density or the number of townhomes that you can do to 12 per acre so it essentially limit the density to what's existing reduce the maximum building height to 40 feet and then also provide for common area lots owned and maintained by an age an HOA adjacent to Audra to provide some screening to provide that transition through design mechanisms between the single-family neighborhoods and and the and the zoning and that would include a screening wall as well as a type B buffer which is five trees and 20 shrubs or I'm sorry 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet notification was sent out we've received one letter in opposition and I passed that out to you signs were posted on the side and they did have a neighborhood meeting and based upon the the criteria for approval the future land use staff recommends denial of the request and I'll stand for any questions Christopher Smith thank you so the the record the staff recommendation if there is approval is pretty much to keep it in our new 12 but the density and just add an HOA requirement and then the only reason why they're even requesting an RMU in the first place is because they're trying to get to that 80% lock coverage standpoint so you think that even the applicant are probably okay with the density requirement that's being enforced upon that or has that been a discussion the applicant will be here this evening so you can talk with them about their the they haven't given any indication that they are in disagreement with with the restriction on use or building height I think they may have some concerns about the the screening along Audra but but they haven't given us any indication and you're just saying right now because that lot is so thin that there is no way for them to be able to do the density be able to provide the driveway and the 80% lot coverage correct there's just not there's no feasible way for them to do that so they would have to reduce density or change they'd have to change their lot sizes they may have to revise their their building layouts maybe go taller so there are you know there may be design interventions they could do to meet the lot coverage but it would change the it would change the site plan that was originally submitted what was the height from those back in 2017 we don't have it's because it's residential we don't have a site plan they would just have to meet the requirements what was that this is a preliminary plot they would just have to follow current which is 40 yes sir did this meet the requirement before the change in 2018 when it was no it never met the requirements it was approved the preliminary plot was approved and and and the preliminary pat plat meets zoning so as it's laid out it meets the bulk the dimensional requirements within the zoning district for lot size and density where it doesn't meet the zoning is lot coverage and that really comes in at the development of the site so when they came in with the final plot we alerted them to hey you can get a plot approved but you may not be able to develop the lots the way you would like to because of that lot coverage so what you're saying if they go ahead and increase a lot size then they like you just said 12 units per acre they would be able to meet the requirements right as proposed they're actually under 12 units per oh so so you know it and and this is an issue that staff is aware of because it really does it does affect townhome developments and it's something with the new didn't development code we're looking at trying to look at different standards for townhome developments because it does restrict the develop ability of that use I guess for clarification that bullet DDC was misapplied by whom staff any other questions thank you very much Julie sure next item is item 3h this is Haley and Haley as Julie so graciously did any brevity to the presentation yes appreciate it I think this one's a little easier to try to breeze through so this is an SUP request for dent one and if you look right outside the windows across the street you will see their existing facility so the request before you is to hold the public hearing consider making a recommendation to council for an SUP for a vehicle repair use the property as I mentioned is just across the street here on the south side of McKinney Street the property is zone DCG this zoning district does require an SUP for vehicle repair this use has been an operation on the site for a little over a year and a half this request actually came to light because our zoning enforcement officers became aware that this facility was operating without a certificate of occupancy so through that they determined that the best course of action to bring them into compliance with the code would be to pursue the specific use permit so that it meets the use regulations for this district there are multiple aspects of the site as it exists today that are outlined in your backup that aren't in compliance with the current development code regulations because development on the site dates back to the 1970s so as part of this SUP we worked with them to determine ways they could at least bring the site closer into what the DDC would require in terms of site design so we won't run through all the criteria for approval but they're outlined in detail in your backup just a quick look at their site plan the vehicle repair use although there are multiple buildings on the property is confined to the 600 square foot building outlined in blue so located just behind the new taco shop on the property this is the secondhand sports building here and then this is a vacant building some of the improvements as I mentioned that they're proposing to make to help bring this more into compliance would be the installation of a six foot wood screening fence here with gates to allow their cars to move in and out this would screen the vehicle storage area that they have on the site it's currently just a gravel lot and the code requires that any inoperable inoperable vehicles or outdoor storage be screened from the right-of-way so that fence would help accomplish that goal and then additionally they are proposing to install the required type C landscape buffer here between this use and the multifamily use that's located just to the south of them and in addition staff recommended that that buffer be continued up the eastern side of the property because there are concerns from the neighbors about noise and other potential nuisances generated by this use that's been there as their neighbor for about a year so we felt over time at least that addition of landscaping there could help mute some of the noises from the side the future land use for this property is a down the downtown Denton area so this does call for high density residential with other supporting commercial uses so while vehicle repair does have potential nuisances that they are working to mitigate with some of these side additions it is a necessary use in a full service downtown area where you want people to be able to live and work and have all their needs met as I mentioned just a little bit of background the site has been developed and like it is currently since the 1970s as far as we could tell this use has been there for about one and a half years so there's there's no increase to the traffic or anything like that that would occur with this approval because the use has been in place for it so long we did provide notification regarding this request as of the time I had put this together I had received one opposition from this property prior to the meeting I did pass out two additional responses that we received today one is for the owner of the secondhand sports facility adjoining this who owns the entire subject property is in support of the request and then the most recent notice that was passed out is for this property here at the corner who is also in opposition to the request and that would bring the total opposition up to 12% and the applicant did not hold a neighborhood meeting in this case so staff is recommending approval with several conditions I won't read through all of those here but they're generally related to limiting the use to the what's shown on the site plan today in terms of building footprint vehicle storage areas parking and things of that nature and in addition as I mentioned the increase of that landscape buffer up the east side of the property to help screen them from there the offices next door and then no storage of inoperable vehicles on the side so I'm happy to answer any questions and I'll go through all this in a little more detail at the public hearing any questions great job next item is 3 I Sean Jacobson for this zoning case good evening chair members of the Commission the case before you is a request for a city initiated rezoning of the 15 properties that make up the Denton Service Center note there along mingo Road the challenge we've identified is we have 15 properties in three different zoning districts that make up the service center two of which do not even allow the use that is currently on the site and our hope is to accomplish a number of things through rezoning this first of all under a DCG zoning district the community service use would be allowed on all 15 tracks we would bring all those properties under one United Zoning District instead of three you there would be the option to then replat that into one property instead of the 15 that it is currently and it would also allow with the dimensional standards higher lot coverage the necessary sorry parking area repairs as well as the expansion of the fleet services facility both of which are badly needed on the site so again when we're looking at a rezoning we continue consider our two key criteria future land use map and then that we have the adequate public services the intended use for this is government and institutional and we believe this meets the use because this site provides exactly as future land use calls for shared and efficient provision of public services and DCG the zoning proposed would allow the continued use on site and therefore it is in line with the future land uses intention for this area in addition for criteria to water sewer have been in place for many years and there's no expected major increase in trips generated eventually there will be a few more vehicles added on site but they're not even expecting to do that right away the new building is just to meet the capacity they already have compatibility of zoning for the area this is actually a continuation of the DCG zoning that begins slightly to the south along mingo and this would permit the use that is on site we did send out public notices and courtesy notices we received three responses in opposition to in favor we did hold a neighborhood meeting to which no one came and we also did post 13 signs around the perimeter of the site staff is recommending approval of the request as it meets the criteria in the Denton Development Code with that I'll answer any questions you have great time another presentation Mr. Smith how did the city start you start doing use in an area they weren't zoned to be doing you said in the first place my understanding is that the city has the option to do what it needs to do in the areas where it needs to be done and in this case we're simply choosing we're saying you know what it's better that we follow our own rules that's just the right thing to do you say the city gets to choose whether or not wants to play by the rules or not that was a misstatement withdraw that from the record Richard we are going to do anything that's required of any public or I'm sorry private property we're no different and so we want to ensure that whatever we're going to do we're going to have the consistent zoning I don't know for sure what the zoning was on the site before but I think that you see even in the citywide rezoning that happened in 2002 how did that not get swept up in that no clue okay I might be just kicking kicking rocks around for the Kega K rocks around but just think if we want developers to come in here and what not and compose projects and you know say well cities holding us to a higher code this is a pretty good example what time when say didn't hold itself to a higher code here and so I want to make sure that it's just some clarification and I might like to speak to that that actually we are holding the city to you're gonna get a code so absolutely facilities requested there they intend on adding bays to the existing fleet services building its interior to the property but we identified the problem so those sins of the past we're trying to rectify and say well if you choose to redevelop then you have to follow the code like everybody else okay I will tell you that city management's philosophy is is that we're going to be held equal to or to a greater standard than what the code speaks to so with this development they intend on doing parking lot improvements as well as improving the landscape and buffering on the property okay good sir back thank you chair just so the purpose of changing this zoning to one DCG is not with plans to build something there at this point it's for consideration in the future the only intended building at this time is the expansion within the actual footprint currently at the site of that fleet services building about 16,000 square feet look same height as what's there okay there's nothing on paper anywhere about any okay great thank you push for Sanchez Scott you mentioned something about the buffering is that once it gets rezoned is that something that that would be looked at it within a certain amount of time because what when you drive by there I mean the neighbors have to face it and it's a lot of it doesn't look very neighborly it doesn't look very nice it doesn't it kind of brings a neighborhood down unless they start fixing the boundaries and doing something to to the neighborhood to that area so that that rest of the neighborhood can probably look a little bit better so my my question is how soon would any kind of buffering be done once this thing gets changed first of all going forward the intent would be to follow as Scott said all the standards within the development code in terms of putting in buffering with all new work as it's called for at this time I don't believe their plans to immediately with the rezoning put in any additional buffering but going forward any new project would be looking at that as the development code calls for I know that the city's intent is is the first phase of this would be to address that the bays so the bays are interior to the property no one's gonna see or really even know the difference that they're adding those on however with that being said there's also intent to repair the parking lot it's it's I don't know if you've ever been on that property it's it's a mess so we have every intention of putting a plan together I think they're trying to craft that as we speak and with that will be that buffering so I can certainly attempt to find a date to say if we have a timeline of when we think we're gonna do some of that buffering but I know that our intent is to do that I think we've talked about sometimes when we do rezoning one of the requests or one of the things we require is for them to do certain things and you know that's to me that should be a a no-brainer is because those neighbors have to look at all that old some of his old equipment big equipment sitting right next to him and it really doesn't it doesn't do justice I mean not that that's I'm not saying it's it's not one of the best neighborhoods but again it you have to if you start somewhere and maybe if the city fixes their problems maybe the neighborhood will take a little bit more pride in their own neighborhood we treat it as residential is a residential neighborhood and we want to be good stewards in the community so we have every intent of doing the right thing that's why this is coming forward rather than what has happened in the past in the recent past of truly just permitting the work the work being performed so we're trying to we're trying to do what it is that we're we're holding others to be accountable for so we have every intention of doing the right thing I'll work to get you a date Richard you know the only thing I wanted to add is this is really the first step the second step is really to have this property replatted there's a multiple you know as Sean alluded to there's multiple parcels out there but we can't plait that into one because it it's not consistent with the zoning so we need to have the zoning before we can get to the to the plating stage Commissioner Pernetta and we'll probably go into this more in the you know in public hearings but to your point I mean actually I guess this would be a question for you guys would the approval on this could this be based on an amendment to actually ensure you know standard beautification along this to you know to the area that faces the neighborhood so that way we can kind of discuss or address the neighborhood's concerns about how it affects the look of their neighborhood or would that be something we do at a later date I guess it's would it be like it's an overlay overlay I don't want to call it a restriction but an overlay requirement that the that the landscape be put in if I'm understanding yeah that was the question would that be something we could address as part of this vote or would that be a later thing that we have to do it would it would be required I've got to look at the the applicability table but if you increase I think the expansion applicability table if you increase a thousand square feet or I don't remember the percentage it kicks in a number of kicks in a number of requirements one of those are the landscape requirements I just can't recall and it would be it's a 16,000 square foot expansion I mean within the footprint but that might we can look at it before we get the public hearing I think that can where we have to just watch is because there's so many parcels so it would be applicable to that parcel but but we can look at whether we can get that to apply across the property any other questions we can certainly flush this out more in public hearing thank you for the presentation next up is item 3 J rezoning by Ron and Guitta job chair you got my last name correct I'll stress not about that else well I'm gonna try to be as brief as I can this is a rezoning for a property north of Robertson Street just east of Skinner Road it's for a zoning to go from NR for to NRM you the applicant has stated that the purpose is to use the home or the structure at 511 as a restaurant it is currently a non-residential use it is used as a catering establishment which is different from a restaurant so the current zoning is NR for that was established in 2002 but prior to that it was zone SF 7 both SF 7 and NR for does not permit restaurants the applicant is seeking a zoning of NRM you NRM you does permit restaurants with a limitation that it'd be no more than 4,000 square feet and not have a drive-thru use just just want to explain that part of our analysis was looking at the den code update and zoning map draft zoning map and we see that this area could potentially be served as a focus area it's currently in the area there's currently NRM you on Skinner Street and then just to the south of the subject property is the Fred Moore High School again a non-residential use so looking at this area this could potentially be a focus area on a neighborhood servicing type area for the residents of the southeast den area here's an aerial of this site and again I mentioned some of the existing zoning but there are existing non-residential uses in the area the church to the west railroad to the east Fred Moore to the south and the drainage channel to the north and some underutilized properties within the area something to consider and you've you've heard this two requirements already that does it conform with the future land use a map but generally the the land use element it is in our future lanes map as a low density residential however there is provisions in the den plan 2030 that talks about promoting walkability increasing other mixed uses in the area so we looked into this as well as the other criteria and that is does the proposed rezoning could that facilitate infrastructure and services and it will I'll cover this more in my presentation at the public hearing notice this were sent out as of today no response was received just some photos of the site itself you can see that the home here is the requested structure that the applicant is wanting to do have a restaurant use staff is wrecking recommending approval of the zoning change requests and I'll be happy to stand for any questions any questions on this item fantastic great job Ron thank you before moving on decay I would like to invite Scott McDonald back out to address a landscaping clarification on the previous items the 1827 be yes just for clarity as far as being able to commit to what it is that we're doing in kind of a time frame that we're doing and of course it's not exact as of yet the first phase of this would be that we'd take care of the the fleet base so we would do any vertical construction prior to do anything with the parking lots the next phase and that would be taking care of the parking lots with the parking lots we would be doing all of the the buffering and landscaping around those parking lots so I make that commitment to the fact that we already have we intend to even in those areas where we're not necessarily required to that we're going to take care of the buffering all around that parking lot so where it is that we might be taking about or talking about having to address those requirements because we're the one of the particular areas that we're rezoning we're committing to taking care of that in the entirety of the site because we'll be doing parking lots on both north south east and west basically if that makes sense so rather than rather than creating another overlay for the for the city or for the zoning map to contend with if we can just address the fact that that will be required by the the code itself with the parking lots and we intend to do the parking lots and anticipate that will be in 2020 so that construction for the vertical buildings would be in 2019 and then we'd commence into the parking lots which really would be 2020 so it'll be addressed so all those projects are planning and zoning or they just so that who's gonna over oversee that there's all that that the staff so as far as for the approvals because it wouldn't come before this body on either of those so it's just the typical permitting process where we require those things to occur so if they if for some reason that wasn't the case and again why we're here today is because we've already told those in in in the city that were wanting to do this work that they had to comply with a code so we're here for the very reason somebody asked to do something we said that you need to do that the second piece to that when they apply for their building permit and construction permits for the vertical buildings as well as for the parking lots then we'll make sure that they comply with the code again city management's direction is is that we're gonna do everything possible that we we set the example for the rest of the community no different than what we did on the McKinney Street parking lot thank you clarification thank you that moves us to item 3k it's SUP presented by Sean Jacobson and for the sake of time so we can do public session if there's no disagreement from the Commission can I ask Sean to skip to recommendation and questions yes sir and we'll save the full presentation for public hearing does anything can everyone okay with that absolutely do you want me to even open the present PowerPoint yeah if you could just show us the recommendations from the city and yep so the recommendation is for approval this is a request for a specific use permit for a accessory dwelling unit which will be used as a cabana behind a residence the neighborhood had a meeting they've expressed overwhelming support I had one person say this will enhance our neighborhood meets all the criteria we recommend approval great is there any questions so a building next to a pool where you can have sleeping eating cooking any other questions on this item okay thank you very much Sean for keeping that brief so with that we are gonna close our work session at 628 will reconvene in council chambers at 635 good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning public hearing for February 20th I will call us meeting to order at 641 seeing that we have a quorum I appreciate your patience and getting us started this evening we'll try to get right into it I just wanted to clarify before he hopped into the agenda that there are some changes if you are here for some items I wanted to clarify that item 3a which is z 18 - 8b has been withdrawn item 3b s 18 - 5b is being postponed to the March 6th meeting and item 3c z 18 24b has been withdrawn and will not be heard so item 3a 3b and 3c we will not be hearing this evening or discussing with that our first item of business is to stand if able and provide a pledge allegiance to the US and Texas flag The next item of business will begin our individual consideration items 2a 80p 18 - 0008 and I will call Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting 80p 18 - you this evening so the request before you is an alternative development plan for a proposed office development on about 3.4 acres the purpose of the alternative development plan is to deviate from site design requirements for non-residential and mixed-use buildings in a pedestrian oriented district in subchapter 13 of the Denton development code the subject property is shown outlined here in yellow and it's located on the northwest corner of Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller Parkway some background on the site the existing zoning was approved in 2006 and within that zoning case there were overlay conditions put on the property those are outlined more fully in your backup but just want to hit the high notes it did limit to limit the uses to professional services and offices administrative or research facilities and medical centers any development on this side has to be single-story construction and it has to be either equal to or less than nine thousand square feet per building 80% minimum masonry requirements on the exterior pedestrian scale lighting and then as part of it also a landscape 30 foot buffer on the north and west property lines these were intended to increase compatibility with the adjacent residential development the purpose of NRM you is is to provide services and higher density housing but but as at a pedestrian scale and to encourage walkable environments in context so and that's why they have within the Denton development code additional site design guidelines for those pedestrian-oriented districts like NRM you so within sub chapter 13 as I said it has some other site design requirements and due to the the some of the site constraints that were put on the property with that overlay conditions and in particular the 30 foot buffer and also the limitation on the building size it's made it difficult for the applicant to meet those right requirements so the first one being the ground floor wall within 30 feet of the street shall contain greater shall have more than 50% of that wall area in display areas windows or doorways because these uses are our office or medical office and not some retail or restaurant use that that amount of transparency isn't really something you typically see in those offices so the applicant is requesting to have 20 26% windows and doors in building 2 and then building 3 that 28% another requirement is at least 60% of the street frontage shall have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line unfortunately they can't achieve that in this location the property is on a text dot highway and in all text out roads in the city of Denton have a public utility easement outside of the right-of-way which scoots those buildings backs back away from the street so they are proposing to put those buildings adjacent to that 25 foot easement right there adjacent to that so it'll be 25 feet from that property line developments must have a minimum floor-to-area ratio of four tenths they are proposing three tenths floor-to-area ratio with that easement the limited building size and that buffer it really is difficult for them to meet that four tenths buildings cannot be set back more than 15 feet from the street unless it's used for pedestrian activities once again with that easement there's a problem there they just can't scoot it up into that easement and then NRMU requires 40% tree canopy they are meeting the overall tree canopy on the side where the where the the issue comes in is in subchapter 13 the trees that are planted as part of the buffer only 40% of those trees can count toward the overall canopy because they are required to have such a large buffer that 30-foot buffer makes it difficult to meet that overall canopy netting out essentially 60% of the trees within that buffer so they're requesting a deviation from that so we'll go over the site plan there is an existing building here at the corner with parking associated with it in the dumpster is also existing as well in the green we've got that 30-foot buffer there to the north and west the blue are the are the three buildings that they're proposing there are 9,000 square feet and under they're also proposing bike racks eight bicycle parking lot spaces here outlined in in red and then they're also proposing some pedestrian facilities to to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians and that is in in the form of pattern and colored concrete here at this driveway intersection and then also within the side as well it's to meet that pedestrian oriented that the intent of those site design requirements it's not a part of the ADP but but the applicant did have a neighborhood meeting and at that meeting a lot of drainage was discussed there's a lot of drainage issues that go to these these residential dwellings right right in this location so so there there are two two ways that the drainage is being attacked in this in this instance first the private improvements they are proposing to grade that parking lot lower than that landscape buffer to to divert the water toward and some underground detention in this location and then it would be it would be released onto the right-of-way onto Teasley and then also there is as part of the private improvements there is a retaining wall proposed here between the parking area and that landscape buffer to once again keep the keep the water from the parking lot from going into that buffer and the adjacent properties and then the city is also looking at some drainage improvements a flume in this location to direct the water that's coming in from this buffer towards easily and away from those residential properties and they also proposed a landscape plan you can see here in this green area that is that landscape buffer it includes a combination of planted as well as preserved trees and that's already in place what's not in place is this this green area and those are foundation plantings that they're proposing between the right-of-way and the buildings to kind of activate that sidewalk to kind of add additional interest and visual interest for pedestrians and to really meet the intent of the pedestrian oriented district as I said there is a mature canopy that will meet the code requirements and based upon their plantings and the preservation in excess of the minimum they would have at maturity a tree canopy of about 67,000 square feet we did talk and work session about the trees plant those street trees planted particularly in this location due to the sensitivity of the the pedestrians there's a lot of school children that walk in this location we check the code based upon you based upon the concerns and those street trees do have to be set back a minimum of five feet from driveways these do meet that requirement if you can kind of use those parking spaces as a as a guide the parking spaces are 18 feet deep so so they're probably about 25 feet those street trees from that that intersection in order to give those drivers the visibility that they need and then we also talked about it in work session about let ambulances we don't have any specific requirements for ambulance location or driveways but they will have to meet all all access requirements for fire for emergency vehicles so that that won't change they still will have to meet that emergency vehicle requirement I'm here they're proposed elevations sorry they don't look that great they didn't reproduce well but they are proposing that 100% masonry with a residential character that's part of that ordinance with the pitched roofs four-sided architecture within the development also adjacent to Teasley in order to provide visual interest for any pedestrians to add their adding awnings and wall sconces on those those front elevations criteria for approval or in step chapter 13 of the didn't development code first is it preserve existing neighborhoods the proposed design and uses are compatible with those adjacent neighborhoods they provide those necessary services but they are limited based upon that overlay they are proposing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in order to meet the intent of that pedestrian oriented design element the drainage improvements both in the public and private side will are intended to help those adjacent property owners and then they also held a neighborhood meeting should the second criteria is to sure quality development the request is not to lower the design standards but to facilitate full development on the site and actually the overlay conditions in their proposal actually exceed the code requirements in terms of things like foundation plantings masonry requirements residential design standards focus new development to activity centers this is this is kind of a developed area this is a one corner that hasn't been developed in an area that has a lot of a lot of neighborhoods and so this would expand that existing development wouldn't contribute to additional sprawl is the infrastructure adequate to accommodate the development there are Teasley and Lillian Miller are there and so there is adequate transportation once again that city drainage component is something that will help help the the adjacent property owners and then finally does that result in a high quality development meeting the intent of the standards the overlay conditions were put in place to increase the harmony with those adjacent neighborhoods but it does it did introduce design challenges particularly with the the building size and that increased buffer in addition to that easement along the roadway so the applicant has proposed alternative elements to meet the intent of the pedestrian oriented site design standards and that's the masonry the bike parking those plantings around the buildings those pedestrian interventions and as well as the overall tree canopy so based upon the criteria staff does recommend approval of the request I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is also here thank you Julie for the presentation I do not see any questions at this time this is not a public hearing but we do invite individuals wishing to speak to do so we just ask that you would fill out one of these blue cards after you speak if possible we do have a couple cards of individuals who are wishing to speak so I'll just call them out and the order I receive them the first one is SL Montse Montgomery if you could please come to the mic take your time and then when you do get to the mic if you just say your name and address for the record we'd appreciate it and you'd have three minutes to speak my name is SL Montgomery I reside at 1117 Ellison Park Circle I'm concerned with Adam J the drainage and this original section two Adam J said the applicant will provide detention ponds on the side as site as needed we need them now I've had my house flooded once in May of 2015 and almost again in 2017 had not the city place sandbags there I probably would have had it flooded last year I think the the applicant need to do care care of the existing runoff right now not after all of these buildings are built but let's take care of the water system problems now thank you very much the next card I have is Charles Parker and if you could just state your name and address for the record and appreciate it and you'll have three minutes as well my name is Charles Parker I live at 1524 Hunter's Ridge Circle immediately north of the of the proposed site I'm showing you here the very first section of the Denton Development Code that basically says no development will be approved in the case where there are violations of the Denton Development Code already in existence and that's the gist of my my speaking to you here first of all the emergency room is not zoned for the place where it is it is permitted as a medical office at the time the building took place there was no such designation of a medical office at this point the Denton Development Code has been updated to call that a medical clinic and it specifically defines a freestanding emergency room as a medical clinic that clearly and directly violates the Denton Development Code the Denton Development Code allows the overlay allows a doctor's office but not a 24-hour freestanding emergency medical center and we have filed that objections to that our neighborhood has but those have been turned down because we were supposed to have filed our objection within either 10 or 15 days of the initial approval which we couldn't have known about because that was not something that was publicly available we did file an application to the ZBA to fight this when when the certificate occupancy was issued we argued that that was contrary to law so that's the elephant in the room is that the existing use of this one piece of property in our neighborhood violates the code the second issue that mr. Montgomery brought up is the drainage and that is a very valid point if you look at item J of the overlay as he mentioned there was substantial earth work done when they built phase one the the freestanding emergency room if you look there was substantial earth work done and the the code J requires that the drainage be improved and it specifically says the existing drainage be improved so that's my concern about that and as mr. Montgomery mentioned you know there's the sandbags that are in place today right now that didn't have to be made until after the freestanding emergency was there so there are two large violations of code the third violation of the overlay code is will be heavily landscaped and miss Wyatt mentioned that the heavy landscaping is in place this is what it looks like today and I think if you look at the language of the landscaping requirement in the overlay code it says heavily landscaped and will include evergreen someday that will be a beautiful live oak tree I appreciate very much you bring those concerns and I'll invite staff up here in a minute to see if we can clarify some of the current structures and how they meet code what I want to do is get through the cards and we'll have city come up and we'll make sure to address those questions the best we can the other card I have for speaking I also have a card saying they didn't want to speak so I hate to push on the spot if you don't want to speak but Connie guess are you wishing to speak or not okay no not at all if you just states your name and address for the record we'd appreciate it and you have three minutes my name is Connie guess and I live at 1504 hunters Ridge Circle I just wanted to speak in opposition of this one of the things that I have been concerned about as I drive by and see the orange bags over there I do I think that they are an eyesore as far as the the community is and particularly with the kids walking by I do think that they need to be there for the problem that exists there but I think that there is should be a better solution and I think that solution should have been taken care of before that they ended before while they were working on the the building the the the clinic over there that they did and I guess one of the main things that I have that I'm concerned about is the the pitch of the building I understood that there was to be a pitch and not a flat roof line there and I just wanted to know how they got away with doing the flat pitch there based on what I understood that there was going to be what she had what Julie had showed earlier that there was going to be nice pitches and everything and not a flat pitch it's what we are seeing here and it looks like that what they're proposing in their design also is going to be one of the other buildings is going to be a flat flat pitch there how was that approved how did they get along with that whenever they say that the code says that there will be not to be that but yet they built it and they got a lot they got away with it I think it's a valid point the elevations are a pitched roof are you talking about in internally like in the center of the roof there's yes the flat space yes well and it's you drive by and it's it's it's flat it's on top though right okay and it was to be flat it was to be pitched as look and looking like it's to be a house or anything else there and it's it doesn't look like that at all whenever you drive by and you look at it and also wanted to make a comment as far as it and it not it doesn't look the canopy that they're talking about as far as it being lush like Charlie had talked about it's very bare the trees and everything else over there as far as it being lush and the percentage that they were talking about if it was to be a sixty percent or canopy I think it needs to maintain a sixty percent canopy and I don't think they need to look at reducing that at all if that was a small lot and they knew that was a small lot going in there I don't think they need to try to reduce it down they need to take their their buildings that they're wanting to build and try to reduce those down with the area of the land that they have there thank you I appreciate it thank you very much the only the card I have is an individual in opposition that is wishing not to speak but I wanted to read it into record Catherine Parker at 1524 Hunter Ridge Circle is in opposition to the project at this time the applicant is here is the applicant wishing to speak or hold for questions and again if you could state your name and address for the record yes please my name is Matt Craig and I'm with cumulus design I'm the civil engineer on the project I wanted to briefly discuss the water situation with the new development the initial portion of that development would be to do the underground detention because it's under the paving as well as the landscape areas it would need to be installed first just to so things can be built over the top of it and the owner is currently working with the city to address the drainage at the corner they prepared a plan for that and upon completion we were going to work with them to get that addressed as well Gary McCullough I'm the architect on the project that one image of the flat roof area is not accurate so they all are all three of the new buildings are sloped roofed all the way to the top she's right that the building one did out of a flat area that you can't see because there's mechanical equipment hidden behind that but it is a pitched roof up to hide that so that's the way it is but there are pitch roofs on all four buildings in the end all residential style and it's certainly the three that we're proposing tonight or that way yeah I think the drainage thing is it's important to know that a lot of the water that hill is further out into our site and so we're stopping all the water from running towards there happen 85% of the water that now goes to their house is going to be stopped by our little retaining wall there in our parking lot so most of the water issue is going to go away when our develop our project is developed you know that that last 30 foot buffer which is a natural buffer that we're leaving as a it's got a lot of big huge nice trees we don't really want to cut those down I don't think anybody wants us to cut those down certainly if it rains in that area in successive rain then you know that's the issue that I think the city is working on but we're not touching that area it's because we don't I mean that's really right up against their out there back fence but everything else from the 30 foot buffer over we're handling all of that water which now runs towards their house so it's really eliminating most of that potential problem so we're here for any any other questions you may have we do have a question in question back thank you chair and I'm sorry what was your name again yes Gary okay Gary are y'all the developer of record of the first building the building that's there now the 24-hour so so you know I think the overall land developer is the same guy apologize for not exactly knowing the ownership structure that's a freestanding emergency center these are our office buildings it's kind of a different project for us okay so y'all didn't have anything to do with that initial well we did we did do it but it's that that's kind of a this is a whole new deal okay were you aware of the drainage issue that well so so again when I mentioned that kind of that ridge on that property well I mean that they're saying now that it's a problem and I put sandbags up there yeah I understand that so there's a ridge down the middle of the property it's a drainage area map okay sure you're familiar with yeah that water on the east side of the property goes the other way so we didn't actually affect anything on the west side of the property okay now we're trying to I can now that you're building over there we can we've actually been meeting with city engineers since May okay on this issue to try to resolve it and I think we've you know appeased that process it's taken a while because it is a difficult issue okay and certainly understand their concern that that's not to not to not agree with them once your new development gets started you'll be taken care of yes that's correct thank you for clarification the sandbags were installed after the emergency building went in but you're saying that your project did not affect that I'm just wondering the coincidental timing of those two things I don't mean to address the particular flood issue that they had because I'm not I'm not burst on it frankly but I will say that we added no other water to that area because we're on the other side of the ridge and to some of that flooding was occurring so long ago as well before we were involved in it at all okay I think I think that you know that piece of land is kind of unique in that regard we do have one more question to Mr. Sanchez yes and I speak to one of the previous individuals that were talking about the and that was my question could yeah yeah sure one of you okay he mentioned that the flooding some of that flooding was occurring and because of the layout of that of that lot a lot of that water was already running in that area are you guys aware of that were you guys were you having that problem prior to prior to the construction of that building absolutely I believe the issue dated back and was addressed when the zoning overlay was passed back in 2006 because if you look at the goat the zoning overlay in 2006 it required whoever developed that to address existing flooding and that's why I argue that it applied to the first building that's already been built and has not been addressed and should not necessarily apply to future promises when we build the rest of it it's fairly easy to do detention ponds before you build that out and I think if you look at the photograph that I showed you the Google Earth photo there was extensive re-leveling and changes done to the the flow of the property I don't disagree with the architect when he says that they didn't affect that drainage but the code says existing drainage okay thank you so at this time can I ask Julie I don't know if the other commissioners have any other questions for you but I have two based on the feedback heard tonight can you speak to the conformity of the ER functioning and the approved overlay and secondly that the drainage because they would have to go through engineering at the platting can you talk to can you tell me more about how that drainage was not resolved to the engineering stage if or if it was can you elaborate on that process well I can try I don't know if I could speak to the the drainage improvements that were associated with the the E with the ER but I can try to talk through what's going on now so that that ER the the overlay allows medical centers and at that time that ER came in the didn't development code had a little bit different definitions for the medical type uses and one of them was medical centers and so it was pretty broad broad use we we sense then have revised the didn't development code to actually be a little more scout a little more strategic about what the the medical uses are so we actually delineate the hospitals medical clinics and then medical offices so that medical centers really did encapsulate a lot of different uses including the use on the site drainage so the the ER operator now is conforming to the approval overlay conditions it it conformed to the use as they were defined at the time but since like I said it's since then we have had a didn't development code update to redefine those medical office and offices and be a little more specific about what we mean okay and then can you tell me the information you know about the drainage or what what the issue might be here sure go back to the it's not very so I can't speak to what what was done with the with the the ER but I can say for this project the applicant is proposing underground detention and so the intent of that is to capture the water the runoff particularly from the parking lot and then and then divert it from those adjacent properties and release it on to Teasley I believe that there's still the matter of the buffer and if you've seen the site the the buffer area does kind of slope to those residential properties we've talked a lot to the applicant about how to you know either grade that buffer or burb that buffer and it still may be an option but there are trees there are post oaks in that in that buffer area which are being preserved and disturbance of the soil could certainly affect their their ability to live so it's kind of we're looking at I mean we can we can look at all options for them of course they still have to meet all the landscaping requirements so if there were any trees that did need to be removed they would potentially need to modify their preservation plan or their landscape plan but but thus far we have in working with the applicant not felt comfortable with burming or grading of it just because of the preservation of those existing trees I appreciate the clarification we do have a couple questions Commissioner Ellis the sandbag area is that what the city is currently working on I'm sorry say that again so this this area of sandbags that has has gone up and has been there for quite some time is that something the city is working on yes so the city and the city is working on that and they are communicating with the applicant the city is looking at putting a flume in this area to drain the water from this landscape area toward Teasley so the water would go under the sidewalk in and out who is doing that work that it's our engineering group so they're they're working in through the design right now and I don't his name escapes me but I could certainly get it for you okay but that's a separate thing that's being worked on aside from what we're discussing today correct correct now they're working though the groups are communicating because of course it makes sense for all of this to to happen so that it addresses the problem comprehensively Commissioner Sanchez so when you're talking when they're talking about the retaining pond or retaining structure that's gonna keep a lot of that water plus I think you also said there was going to be a retaining wall on that side on that west west side so that should both be between the retaining wall and the and the what I call it retaining area or pond with that they're gonna build that should reduce the number of the amount of water draining into the into the neighbors the applicant's engineer may may be better at explaining that but my understanding is that they will have underground attention which is a series of pipes that collects the water and then would then I'm released it out to to the right-of-way so that is my understanding yes sir okay I think Commissioner Beck thank you chair thanks Julie one of the speakers mentioned that about the loss of the tree canopy and that was my concern that you explained to us in work so would you explain to her how we're gonna be meeting that tree canopy in the long run we're not gonna meet it initially is that right but and it is tough at the development because they plant they typically plant two-inch caliper trees and so it takes a while to recover that canopy so when we look at a site we look at what the mature canopy would be and so we look at the types of trees that they're proposing and then we we look at their average canopy and that's how we arrive at that mature canopy so you're right you know at the initial at the outset it it is it looks different but the intent is for it to those trees to then then grow up and provide that that canopy coverage we're looking at about 15 to 20 years for that happens but it'll be okay thanks Julie thank you Julie I don't see any other questions at this time the chair will entertain a motion or further discussion if needed Tricia Ellis thank you chair can I talk to the applicant for just a second yes please I don't think you were in our work session but one thing that had come up in work session is that per this ordinance this development cannot be called hunters Ridge office park are you aware of that I'm not sure that's not a problem in in the ordinance as written okay it can't reference any name of of adjacent subdivisions and hunters Ridge is a subdivision this I'm sure that it's not a problem okay we'll correct that while the chair waits for a motion or discussion can I get clarification from the city does that need to be in the conditions for approval the name or because of ordinance will that be already taking place by the ordinance so you can certainly be handled that way but you there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't specify it here as well perfect Chris or Sanchez just listening to what you know some of the history it seems like there was already an issue there with it with the drainage and I don't think the the developer or the person there is totally responsible for that that should have been some of that should have been probably even addressed by the previous developer that developed him those that developed those houses if you already had an issue then I mean he may contribute somewhat but I don't but my understanding is that that issue has always already in existence my personal opinion is non personal opinion but from the information I've received I would have to vote for for the project I think that the city is with a new drain there is going to help the drainage issue and also the pond the retaining pond and that system that they're trying to create is going to help if it doesn't there's other I guess they can go back and see if what else they can be done but at this point they are trying to address that issue and and along with the city hopefully they'll be taking take care of it if they don't somebody's gonna have to take I mean long term whatever they develop there that issue is always going to exist until they take care of it so I think they're doing a trying to work on it and so I'm gonna vote for the project Christian Pernitta yeah and I just wanted to clarify Julie you mentioned that they were building some flumes below and you referenced the the bags the the eyesore bags that were out there so with regards to the objections as far as runoff and everything goes what we're seeing right now would actually kind of mitigate some of the issues that we're having right now am I misunderstanding that or do we not want to go on the road I'm not an engineer but it has been it's it's been communicated to me that this is going to help reduce that problem or go in the right direction to make it better so that's my understanding as well as the city city working as well to to mitigate those drainage issues and with regard to the flims and everything as I understood in the work session and it's flims right okay anyway as I understood in the work session that would that would eliminate the need for the bags there would they still be there do we haven't it's the city's intent to to to put that flume there to direct the water in that location so that those bags can be removed the intent is for the city is to make those drainage improvements within the public right of way to get those bags out of there and solve the problem okay thank you very much that's all that so I appreciate everyone coming out who did come out to you to speak on this it seems as though the drainage will actually improve from what I understand once this project moves forward and and I don't feel that the developer should be held to maintain an ordinance that they weren't approved under initially so if the Medical Center was able to be done initially and at the time they were approved and I think that that should be kept so seeing that those two things I think have resolution in my mind I move for approval of item 2a with the statement that going forward Hunters Ridge nomenclature is removed from the project Christian pernetta a second your motion with the statement we have a first and a second any discussion Christian Ellis thank you chair can I maybe make a friendly amendment to possibly address some caution with regard to the school children that will be crossing nearby a thought I had is to possibly have a sign in that landscaping to say caution children crossing something like that I'm really concerned if this gets developed that that we're going to have an issue there with these school children at some point with cars coming out of this development so my hope is to get something in place here other than just the colored cement that is being proposed is the applicant amenable to having additional signage for school crossing at the crossing on the south side of Teasley Lane I don't know if I can point at this but I'm looking at the Southland are you talking about another drive there yeah I am yeah we're certainly a sign I'm not sure exactly what the sign says but we're we're open to that okay I don't know what the area there is a tremendous amount of school children walking that area two times a day right and it's a lot of children and and with cars coming out of there and something needs to alert people to just be aware I'm that yes so we're okay with a sign if that if that if that's what if that's what you're asking if we put a sign there the sign can be there the applicant is certainly agreeing that we want to take precaution in that regard so I don't know exactly what the right answer is but we're you can put that as a stipulation that we will address that okay thank you very much and I will make an amendment to my motion that I approve the ADP with the statement that hundred ridge title be removed from nomenclature of the project as well as additional signage on the south interest on Teasley Lane identify that there is children crossing Commissioner Burnett are you okay with that amendment I second with the amendments yes and Commissioner back thank you chair and I want to thank everybody for coming out and speaking to this tonight these are legitimate concerns and to mr. Parker's point about drainage doesn't need to be dealt with after developments done it shouldn't negatively impact your property so you have that on your side as far as the code goes when they're through this development if it's gotten worse you need to come to the city and point that out to hopefully it won't suspect they're gonna do everything can I get the indication it's not gonna get rid of a hundred percent of it but it's gonna be better than it is now so but it can't negatively affect it from where it is now so do follow up on that if it does thank you see no other discussion I'll call for vote on the board motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is item 2B ADP 18 - 0009 and I will call Haley for presentation Good evening this request is also for an alternative development plan for a truck lot associated with the Peterbilt facility on the west side of town specifically the request is to consider approval of an ADP to deviate from three sections of subchapter 13 specifically the perimeter fence and screening requirements the access parking and circulation requirements and the non-residential and mixed-use building standards specifically the parking section so you can see the subject property outlined in black on the map so this property is just over 12 acres it is located south of Oak Street along the future extension of precision drive which is currently under construction the property is owned industrial center general and the proposed use is a truck sales facility which falls under the the broad umbrella of auto and RV sales within our code which is a commercial use so looking at the proposed deviations from the code in a little more detail there there are four specific proposals the first is requirement within the DDC that perimeter fence materials be constructed of either wood wrought iron masonry brick vinyl PVC or composite material so it is a very exclusive list of permitted materials the applicant is proposing an eight foot tall wire mesh security fence on the sides and rear of the property so it's a material that I suspect wasn't popular at the time of code adoption it wasn't included in that list of permitted materials the second proposed deviation is also associated with the fence the DDC has a maximum fence height of three and a half feet for any fence located forward of the front building line and the proposal here is for a seven foot tall ornamental wrought iron fence along the front property line again for security purposes the third proposed deviation is from the front parking screening requirements so when there is parking located between a building and the street the DDC has a very strict set of requirements for that area to be screened it has to be a 15 foot wide landscape area it must contain a berm either one large tree for every 40 feet or three small trees clustered every 30 feet and then it has to contain either zero scaping a three foot high continuous shrub row or a three foot high wall what the applicant has proposed is to provide that 15 foot wide area that will include the berm and the continuous shrub row but because of constraints on the site they're locating their street trees on the backside of that landscape area instead of along the right of ways would typically be required and then because of that there's not room for the screening trees that are required in addition to that so they've proposed to relocate those to the north and south sides of the property along the fence line and then finally the DDC actually only permits parking between a building and a street along arterial roadways the precision drive which this property has frontage along is actually a collector road so it doesn't meet that requirement and then in addition to that when you do have that front parking your building can be set back a maximum of 85 feet from the road the buildings in this case are 148 feet from the street so we'll look in a little more detail at their site plan now what you can see here in red is just over 5,000 square feet of buildings that includes an office and a truck undecking facility they do have 12 traditional vehicle parking spaces located to the front of the building with a few of those spaces here on the side so that's the front parking that I was referring to and then the remainder of this site where you see the striping those are proposed truck parking spaces so they're much larger than traditional car spaces and they would be used for storage and display of the vehicles that would be for sale on the site and there's just over 400 of those overall the site will have a 38 percent landscaping which is much higher than the 10% required for the ICG district and it will meet the 15% tree canopy requirement so looking at the fencing and landscaping the the dashed orange line would represent where the wrought iron fence would go along the front property line there would be a gate here at this entry for controlled access and then the solid orange line around the remainder of the site would represent where that wire mesh fence would go the the green areas indicate the here along precision drive that would be where they're providing that 15 foot wide area with the street trees and the shrubs as well as the berm and then the other two areas these are the locations of the proposed or the proposed alternative locations for those parking lot screening trees so you can see they're located here along the fence line so they would actually in these alternate locations help screen the vehicle storage area and the proposed fence specifically these are the specifications provided for the fence so this would be the ornamental wrought iron fence along the front edge and then this is an example of what the wire mesh fence would look like and it's my understanding that all of these would be black coated materials so not reflective as you would typically see with chain link or something else so there are the five criteria for approval for an ADP the first being preservation of existing neighborhoods this this is an industrial area so this truck lot would be a supporting use for existing industrial development in the vicinity there there is multifamily located across the future precision drive in most cases you're used to seeing a compatibility buffer when there's commercial and multifamily but in this case the right-of-way provides that separation so the the screening that they're providing is actually you know above and beyond what will be required by the code with that right-of-way there the second criteria is assuring quality development the request as you've seen here is not intended to lower our design standards but to allow enhanced security on the site for the vehicles that they would be storing there third criteria is focusing new development to activity centers this is intended to be one of the city's large industrial activity centers so it's consistent with that by providing a supporting use for some of the industrial development in this area the fourth criteria is to ensure infrastructure can accommodate the development although there is not infrastructure in place today if you drive out there on Oak Street you'll see a lot of construction in this area so the the water and sewer lines you see here in blue and red respectively are the extensions of infrastructure that's currently underway from the current terminus of precision drive up to Oak Street to provide a connection and a loop there and the precision drive itself is being constructed as a part of the multifamily development that's underway so all of that would be in place by the time this development we're ready to move forward and then finally the last criteria is that the design would result in a high quality development that meets the intent of our standards as I mentioned the the fencing options that they're proposing are not necessarily lower quality materials they're just alternative materials and it is for a valid security purpose that they're seeking this and then in addition with the landscaping alternatives that they've proposed again they're meeting their minimum standards for tree canopy and for landscaping but they are proposing to relocate these trees to a location that would actually help screen the truck lot itself from the right-of-way so with that staff is recommending approval as we found it to meet the criteria outlined in sub chapter 13 happy to answer any questions thank you very much Haley I do not see any questions thank you just like the other item this is not a public hearing however we do invite anyone to speak who wishes to do so we do have a couple cards filled out we will start with Rick Jones perfect which do you know which item and I would assume that Tom Brandt is the same item this Tom Brandt here are you're on that the plane development item great okay so we have no cards for this item Mr. Smith Haley you see the applicant was here tonight can we speak to the outcome yes I'm Ashley Reynolds with Pacheco Coke what is an undecking building the contractor is going to speak great if you just set your name and address for the record Craig Wiedemann 609 Gannett Trail Northlake decking building is actually a building that the trucks are stacked on top of each other and so the stacked trucks come into this building there's a Gantt crane that they take those trucks on and off and where they process that got it I know you're the contractor you say you're the contractor for the actual build out that's correct actually what is your role okay so neither of you guys know anything about how the utility of this site is it's not how many how often there's gonna be on decking what times are the good stuff yes actually I do okay yes so the trucks will come in frequency is about 15 trucks a day that would be coming in to be decked and undecked it's not 15 trucks linked together or 15 right and typically there are three trucks that are decked so you'd have basically five loads of those trucks coming in per day it'll be 24 hour no it'll have normal business hours for that it's it's got a normal auto sales type of feel to it a lot of the sales are actually not online there is some the client did want to value some of that visibility to the street which is why they went back and forth with the landscape they do want to display the trucks but they also wanted to adhere to you guys in that development and then the the entrances in in and out of there with the fencing everything else we're putting up wide enough people take me if it's if it's three trucks decked up on top of each other getting in and out of there won't don't think it'd be an issue that the drive will be wide enough for those turns off off a collector Street like precision yes sir we feel that it is we actually are wider than what is required for that reason so good and we did provide enough clearance between the actual decking process and the gate itself so that we don't have any kind of stack gotcha gotcha Russia thank you thank you very much mr. Cole we have a first for approval mr. Smith second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries seven zero congratulations as a reminder going into the public hearings item 3a 3b and 3c will not be heard tonight so the next item of business will be item 3d fr 18 - 0 0 15 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and also open the public hearing thank you chairman and commissioners oh come on trying to get this open here we go there we go fr 18 - 0 0 1 5 is a request for approval of the final plat of lots 1r excuse me 1a - 1 and 1a - 2 block a of the gray forest edition being a residential replat of lot 14 block D of the Park West edition and lot 1 a block a of the de weird edition the site which totals a hot one point one five acres is located on the west side of Stewart and the south side of Chisholm Trail the applicant is requesting to replat the site into into two lots currently it's two lots but they're reconfiguring it splitting the large lot here into two adding it to this lot which is on the south side of Chisholm and this will be a standalone lot that will front on Stewart Street the site is in the NR4 zoning district and meets all the requirements of the zoning district also meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and staff recommends approval thank you very much Cindy this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may do so we just ask that you fill out one of the blue cards so we have it on record we do have a couple individuals wishing to speak the first one will be Lynn is it Beck fork Beckford if you to state your name and address we'd appreciate it and you're provided four minutes my name is Lynn Beckford I live at 1009 Stewart Road in Texas and I own lot 3 block a and my concern is with the survey I think that they might be taking some of my land and I didn't know how to go about protesting that and having them clarify with me so I got the letter and I'm here to hopefully maybe work with them to get some clarification because it's about five feet that I'm seeing that they might be taking of my land I've been there since 2012 and I had the land surveyed and I know they sold the land one other time and I'm sure it was surveyed and I never saw the steak before until they just surveyed it so I'm just concerned that I'm gonna lose some land rightfully so what lot are you I am lot 3 block a I'm the long one right behind right next to it the big long unfortunately it's out of our purview tonight but we can't get you in connection with the right people to go about setting up the protest and get you down that path okay and so what I'd like you to do is talk to Cindy Jackson and she can direct you to either she can handle it or she will get you the right person okay but that's the next course of action all right great thank you good luck much the other card I have here is Gail frisbee scale here and if you could just say your name and address for the record we'd appreciate it and you have four minutes my name is Gail frisbee I live at 1112 Abbots Lane in Denton but I own the property at 613 Cordova and if you look on the map Cordova circles not really a circle it's kind of a big L and my property is I guess on that big L it's the one on the left and it kind of goes up to a point I think I need a definition of what replating means and is there something going on this property are they just moving a line from lot to lot will there be any improvements on this property and the reason I asked this is because where my property is my property is lower than this property and water just shoots right down that hill right into my the house that I own and I was just wondering if they're gonna be any any improvements on this or is this just a moving of a line it's a great question the only thing we're looking at tonight is the moving of a line moving of a line there's nothing under consideration apart from taking and rearranging just the division of where the land and plat so anything not that's being heard tonight okay thank you of course this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so seeing no other speakers I will close the public hearing and offer the dais a conversation or motion Commissioner Smith motion for approval and Commissioner Beck second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for a motion on the board or vote on the board motion carries seven zero the next item for business is item 3e PDA 18 - 0009 I'll call Haley for presentation open the public hearing good evening this is a detailed plan for a proposed self storage facility located along 2499 so the request before you is to hold the public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding a detailed plan for property located within plan development 176 you can see the property outlined in yellow on the map it's just shy of three acres total and as I mentioned is located on the west side of FM 2499 in between Hickory Creek and Robinson the current zoning for the property is PD 176 which is also known as Wheeler Ridge this particular PD was a first approved in October of 1999 at that time the PD allowed for a maximum of 628 residential units and provided for two commercial tracts of land that totaled about 16 acres so a PD just for reference does require kind of two steps to the development planning the first of those is the concept plan that determines generally what uses are permitted and where would those uses go so that was approved along with the original PD back in 1999 the second part of that is the detail plan which is what we're here to discuss tonight which are the specifics of how are the sites designed how its landscaped and how it's going to look so now we'll go into that in some detail this is the proposed site plan which is just a portion of the detail plan it also includes landscaping and building elevations what you see here outlined in blue on the map are the the four proposed buildings they total just under 85,000 square feet total there are five parking spaces for customers and employees located here adjoining the office which would be the corner of this this front building there is one driveway location to the property it would be shared by this use as well as the use to the south which you may recall we had a detail plan proposal for last year for a car wash on that part of the property and that was approved by City Council so they would share that one driveway and there are text out approved plans for the installation of this driveway as well as for a turn lane here on 2499 into the site all driveways internal to the earth within this development would be internal to the buildings there are gates proposed at these locations so aside from the parking the majority of the vehicle maneuvering would be within the confines of the buildings as you see it here there is some fencing proposed the PD requires a masonry wall so there is a 25 foot set back here between the property line and the buildings and then where there are gaps between the buildings there's a proposed masonry fence along this portion of the property that would be eight foot in height it would have wrought iron gates to allow access to that 25 foot landscape buffer that would be back there and then on the north end of the property there's a detention facility so around that in lieu of the masonry they're proposing a wrought iron fence around the detention pond these are the proposed elevations for the building so just a color rendering and then we'll look a little more closely at the materials so the PD requires that commercial developments be constructed with either glass stone stucco tile concrete wood or similar materials what they've proposed here falls within that category they've proposed a combination of brick and stone so it would be all that would be a masonry building facade they do have some EFAS which is a stucco like material around the top of the buildings but overall it would be brick and stone that would be seen the PD allows a maximum height of three stories a story in the 1991 code was defined as 11 and a half feet on average so the highest point of this building is at 32 and a half feet that's on the building fronting 2499 all the other buildings are much lower than that down to as low as 13 feet in height just another look at some of the other angles of the building here again this would be the office portion for running 2499 this is the back side so you can see the building here with some architectural details and brick variation and then this is an example of how that masonry wall would connect the buildings so now looking at the landscape portion of the plans this PD again as it was approved in 1999 references the 1998 landscape code that code required 15 trees per acre so based on their property size they're required 45 trees the site or the landscape plan reflects a total of 50 trees 17 of those are what our code considers medium or large canopy and they're proposed here on the back side in that 25 foot landscape buffer that I referenced earlier overall the site would have approximately 27 percent landscape area and 21 percent new tree canopy they are preserving a few trees on the site here around the detention pond and then one that was fell within the buffer area so they do meet and exceed the current DDC requirements for tree preservation as well so looking at the criteria for approval which again are outlined in the 1991 code rather than our current DDC the first of those is that the plan comply with the general concept plan or development plan approved for the property so this is the concept plan that was approved in 1999 it broke the property into three tracks the first commercial or the first track was commercial here at Teasley and Robinson the majority of the property was designated as track two for single family development that's where those 628 units I mentioned would go and then here on the opposite side of the utility easement was tracked three which was designated for commercial development at that time because even then it was known that FM 2499 would be going through this area so the use and development standards outlined here conform with this concept plan the use is permitted within the PD and it meets the development standards as I've described them the second criteria is that the plan provide a compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that wouldn't adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties outside of the plan so what we see here is an example of kind of typical highway commercial development it's in line with the other approved development on this property in terms of scale in terms of it being compatible with adjoining neighborhoods in addition to the hundred and seventy-five foot wide electric easement that separates this from the nearest residents they're also complying with the requirement for a 25 foot setback where they adjoin residential development two things that staff identified that aren't discussed in the PD or lighting and signage we felt that both of those for any commercial development have the potential for some nuisances so you'll see later that we've recommended some conditions related to that and then the next criteria is that the plan provides for an adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic so as I mentioned there is one point of access from FM 2499 for this site the text dot has already approved the plans for as I mentioned the turn lane as well as the driveway location and how it would be constructed all of that was approved even before the car wash development came in so they're just complying with those text on approved plans and then internal to the site as we saw on their site plan they're providing mostly internal circulation so there won't be any glare or lighting from headlights of cars visiting the facility that would be visible to the surrounding neighbors and then finally that the plan is in substantial compliance with the landscaping sign buffer or sign subdivision and other regulations of the city or offers corresponding benefits if it deviates from them staff found through our review that it is in compliance with all the regulations within the PD within the 1998 landscaping code and then as well as with other requirements of the DDC today such as true preservation a notification was sent regarding this request I received no written responses to date the applicant did hold meetings individually with each of the HOA is in the area it's my understanding they had three meetings one with Wheeler Ridge and then two with the separate sectors of the Oakmont subdivision and so staff is recommending approval of the request with two conditions the first be that no exterior lighting on the building should face a single-family residential use or if such lighting is proposed that it be screened from the view of adjoining residential properties along with that we would request that a photometric plan be provided with the building permit application so that it demonstrates compliance with the current DDC site lighting requirements in subchapter 13 the second criteria is that due to the proximity of single-family residences the residential nature of the PD and the lack of signage regulations within the PD that the project and said comply with our code of ordinances sign requirements for non-residential districts as well as the limitation that no illuminated wall sign face and adjoining single-family use well that's not proposed we felt that that protection was important just because of the residential nature of all the surrounding properties and with that I'd be happy to stand for any questions we do have a question for you Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Haley you mentioned HOA meetings do you know what took place at those meetings in the discussion I was I was able to attend one of those the last one they held with Oakmont I believe there were between 15 and 20 people in attendance that that heard the presentation that the applicant will give tonight it seemed like there were kind of mixed reviews some felt the use was kind of the lesser of a lot of things that could go on the site that may be more more traffic or more noise generation that others had concerns with the design of the site as it was proposed thank you very much Haley this is a public hearing if anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so we just ask that you fill out a card after before you speak I believe Rick Jones this is your item we have it right this time yes that's right perfect can you set your name and address for the record okay and as the applicant you have ten minutes thank you my name is Rick Jones I'm a principal with advantage storage and commissioners I appreciate your time tonight and Haley did a great job of giving you an overview of the project some of the slide material that I have may be redundant so I'll skip through that as quickly as I can to be respectful of your time a little bit about us advantage self storage is a local storage developer and operator since 1996 we we develop we construct and we own and operate storage facilities and we have the slide indicates 40 storage developments in the Dallas Fort Worth area we currently own and manage and/or manage 45 facilities most of them in the Dallas area but we also have them in other municipalities in Arizona and Colorado some people get the idea that storage is a lesser use and it certainly is and can be and has been but with some of the modern standards and architectural designs that we have today this is more consistent with the type of although this is a four storey building it's consistent with the quality of the facilities that advantage develops the proposed as Haley has indicated consistent with the general concept plan approved for the property and it provides for the compatible arrangement of improvement so it's not adversely affect the adjoining neighborhoods we believe and provide for safe circulation vehicular traffic as she covered in detail and complies with all of the ordinances that are required for the development of the site self storage is an allowed use under the provisions of PD 176 would also indicate that some of when I met with the homeowners associations there were several people had you know individual concerns but one of the more consistent ones was that it would be a traffic problem this one driveway that goes in and out is directly across the street from I think Pine Hill Lane and several people indicated that that's a problem getting across Pine Hill since the traffic on 2499 has increased and all I would say that is we're taking three acres and as a as a commercial user of three acres we produce about the lowest amount of traffic that of any use that we know about 60 cars a day so and also compared to other types of retail that would generally have their fire lanes on the exterior perimeter of the development our fire lanes and our traffic patterns are internal to the building so it's it makes our buildings if you will buffer to the to the net neighborhood beyond so it really is a nice compatible buffer commercial use with adjacency to to single-family residential not to mention that in this case there's the hundred and fifty foot utility separation so that gives you kind of an overview of what the car wash how our proposed site plan melds with the car wash Haley kind of covered the the layout of the site plan but I didn't want to point out a few things is just you know as if storage is an approved use there's a lot of ways you can configure storage but we took care to place this two-story building along 24 99 and put basically the primary entrance is this this gate right here you go in loop around that building and go in behind that building so when you drive down 24 99 or if you're exiting on Pine Hill Lane you're not going to be looking through a gate down a driveway which is a typical in fact many of our facilities are configured that way but we took care in this case to to have that driveway configured so that it doesn't impose on the neighborhood or on 24 99 we talked a little bit about this buffer 150 foot buffer plus the 25 foot setback here so 175 feet really to the backs of the houses there in Wheeler Ridge and I think she's covered the size of the buildings and the set it's 85 thousand gross square feet it'll be about 70 thousand net rentable and that equates to approximately 560 individual storage units you can see that we've used a mix of brick and stone cast stone and ethos to design the project we had the architect provide this slide for us to especially when we met with the Wheeler Ridge folks that that is a scale drawing if you will if you were on the fence line of those houses that back along that 150 foot utility easement looking back at the back of the property so you can see you can see the proposed landscape trees the single storey building here and then two storey building beyond and then this is the tall architectural feature that goes up to the 32 feet that that Haley mentioned I think she's covered the elevations sufficiently I did want to share with you some slides of other projects a lot of times when you know developers stand here with architectural drawings some guys do really well at you know executing those and some don't this is a facility that we just finished in Plano that is similar scale this is a two-story building that is on Independence and McDermott in Plano and it's similar in in many respects the architecture is a little different but the scale is the same in the interior shows you the quality that we developed the interior that's the office there's the entrance gate to that facility two storey building on your left single storey building on the right that'd be the same as the proposed scale this is the internal driveways again you can see the two-story building now on your right and the single storey buildings on your left this is the loading area and elevator access for the two-story buildings this is another project that we completed and it's a similar scale two-story scale completely different kind of architecture but just to show you the top of a scale that you know storage can have I wanted to close with a few slides that show what we've in the past we've proposed and what we've delivered in a few communities around the Dallas Fort Worth area this is a facility that we proposed across the street from Stoneburg Country Club in Frisco many years back and this is the project that we delivered here's a rendering of a project that we proposed and a master plan community in McKinney called Craig Ranch and this is the property that we delivered this was a quirky project that we worked with Lake Highlands Homeowner Association it's on Northwest Highway in Dallas and actually the Homeowner Association designated one of their residents an architect to guide the architecture of the building and this is what he and our architect came up with it's very unusual but this is the project that we delivered there on Northwest Highway and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have Mr. Jones I don't see any questions so great job we do have individuals wishing to speak the other card we have here is for Tom Brandt if you just state your name and address for the record my name is Tom Brandt I live at 6600 Hailing Way it's just across the street adjacent to this proposed business on right of a pine hills at Hailing Way our main concern to some even prior discussions on other businesses is property value unsightliness to the neighborhood that already exists apparently and we're finding out too that all these essential first zoning laws were implemented in 1990s our neighborhoods have developed since then but the zoning laws haven't changed to fit the criteria of developed and established neighborhoods that's mainly my concern I appreciate the people's businesses a while back we had another similar issue and we confront our the unanimous decision of Wheeler Ridge Oakmont West Oakmont which is a suburb I live we're adamantly against any industrial type related businesses to no avail some of the council people here showed pictures of other developments that others says he's had to accept none pertaining to Denton our concern is being residents that live there we've been there they're adding this into an existing neighborhood and that's just our effect I am NOT against his business I'm not against car washes put them where they should be in an industrial type area where there's already existing non-residential surrounding the total environment of a commercial business that's three stories tall whatever that is so now we've got a car wash and a storage unit and next we'll probably have maybe a pick and pull car parts if that's eligible we don't want it in our neighborhood and that's not for any particular reasons against that business it's not appropriate for that environment that they are allowed to have it in because of obscene zoning laws and apparently no one wants to change that we tried to dispute it we even appealed and successfully had a chance to appeal the other businesses that got overwritten because they overrode our neighborhoods right to decline and not have that type of business in the neighborhood so essentially it didn't mean anything because most of the attitude was that's your neighborhoods not on our neighborhood I mean that's that's how the existing residents feel about the City Council right now not all you because some of you backed it up and you have your right to your votes the only thing we can do as citizens is get the people that will endorse and support land homeowners and property owners to protect them so we're just against there's other executive professional buildings that could go in here that meet the contour of our existing neighborhood like I said the businesses are great not in our neighborhood and traffic is always an issue that needs to be addressed there but that's not the issue I'm trying to press with this business it's just the existing residents and their property values and nuisances are going to have with these types of businesses there's a business right down where I work nearby of Russell Newman it says and it's a nice-looking storage unit surrounded by industrial buildings that's what we don't want in our neighborhood it seems like we're gradually having to accept our neighborhood becoming the next industrial park of Denton that's good for people who don't live there not for the people that reside and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on their homes and the residents just be in a good school district and everything we like about Denton so Denton is making the changes the people the residents aren't I appreciate it I just did want to have a question are there any restrictions on business hours and times of days seven days a week people have access all night long into this area of our neighborhood or is there going to be any constraints on that so there's not any current restraints on 724 I'm not sure the hours of operation I think I appreciate you coming on speaking I think that the challenge we're going to have to your points as a commission is in the year 2000 Wheeler Ridge came in and planned out a development and they at that time said this area is for commercial this is for houses this area's another section of it is for commercial which is what we're hearing tonight so 18 years ago a neighborhood came through laid out this plot of land and designated this particular property for commercial use and so I certainly appreciate and understand your concerns I had relatives that lived on pine hills I'm aware of that traffic flow but again the challenge will be it's been designated for 18 years that that property is to be used as commercial so I just want you to see where our challenge will be tonight in this vote when our problem is - we're only allowed in typical H ways that we all have and had to abide by is height of our privacy fences when you put a 30-foot building behind an 8-foot privacy fence ain't going to hide it so anyhow I appreciate it my concern would be access hours and days of the week and you know it's going to be something that people can go in and out all night long and and and security issues for the local neighborhood understand these types of businesses no nothing personal but some of the things they attract make people want to go shopping for storage units so he puts things in that aren't theirs bottom line sir I understand your points I appreciate you coming out and localizing them okay thank you very much thank you this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for conversation discussion or motion Commissioner Smith thank you I live in the neighborhood just writing that the very last didn't edge of Oakmont but I bought my home I knew that 2499 was gonna be expanded from where it ended at 2181 all the way up to 35 then across 35 and would eventually will be taking over all of Mayhill all the way to 380 but that area is is designed and and is best use is going to be commercial and this neighborhood I think understood that knowing that the textile right away was there in existence 18 years ago so I want to make a motion in support of the project we have a first for approval Commissioner pernetta a second that motion we have a first and a second for approval seeing no discussion I'll call for a vote on the board the motion carries seven zero congratulations the next item of business is item 3f a esa 18 - - I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open to public hearing all right I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner I'm going to start out discussing this ESA or alternative ESA plan and then I'm going to have Christy Upton come up to and talk to you about really the the the meat of the request and the technical aspect so so this is alternative ESA 18 - villages of Carmel so the request before you is to consider a recommendation for an alternative ESA plan environmentally sensitive area it's to restore a cross timbers habitat upland habitat on approximately two tenths of an acre and then to also restore a riparian stream buffer on about one acre and you can see that the subject property it's in two places here it is in yellow this is the upland habitat and then there is a riparian buffer in this area so just give you a little bit of historical context and then I'll I'll turn it over to Christy so the preliminary plot for phases 4b and 5b were approved in 2015 and within that included two areas a an upland habitat or a tree stand an isolated tree stand in this area and then a riparian buffer in this area as part of that development the applicant wanted to to pursue an alternative ESA plan so they came before the Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately City Council and within that plan they they wanted to swap property the riparian buffer for some trees in that tree stand that upland habitat they wanted to develop that riparian buffer with some houses so so that was approved in 2016 that swap of land and met the criteria for approval and they and it moved forward the development move forward the final plot for 4b was approved as well as 5b as part of grading for 5b the the applicant inadvertently took down some trees that were in that upland habitat that was intended to be preserved and also remove the topsoil this was a result of a grading plan that was done with the preliminary plot that then didn't follow over to the final plot but that grading plan was was in the mix and it did a result in the loss of those trees so the applicant approached the city in 2018 last summer and said we cut down some trees what do we do and so we we met with them we talked internally and we felt like the best course of action was for them to move forward with a revision to that original alternative ESA plan and and come forward with a restoration plan so that's where we are today and and they're moving forward that restoration plan and now I'm gonna have Christy talk to you about the parameters of that plan thank you Julie Christy Upton environmental compliance coordinator and I'm gonna give you a little bit more details about this timeline so bear with me I'm gonna try to go over some of what Julie explained and give you more details so in 2008 the city conducted an assessment of the upland habitat and one of the criteria for this upland this cross timbers upland habitat to to continue its designation is that a it remain ten acres or greater and by the the time that this assessment was done there was five point eight acres of that tree stand and it was so the designation was removed because it no longer met that criteria and we're now going to refer to this as the eight ESA which will be important as we we go forward in this presentation in 2015 the city conducted another assessment and of the riparian buffer it was an unnamed tributary of pecan Creek and it was considered an ephemeral stream and the riparian buffer that the city has set for this because of the drainage area to it is 50 feet on each side of the creek and thus it's a hundred hundred feet back to back it was rated in fair condition using the rapid stream assessment tool that the city had uses for assessing riparian buffers and we'll consider this the original ESA as Julie mentioned there was the ADP in 2016 and this was approved with the original ESA being swapped for the all ESA so they removed the approval was to remove the riparian buffer in for in exchange to preserve two acres of the original I mean of the all ESA sorry now I'm getting myself mixed up all right so what happened with the upland habitat as Julie explained was that due to an inconsistency between the grading plans and the final plot there was approximately 0.23 acres of the all ESA that was graded and prior to that grading occurring the applicant had conducted a tree survey and that showed 195 caliber inches in that graded area so we do know that there was 195 inches of trees that were in that area what we do not have is trees that were less than six inches and any understory this is some photographs that were taken a few days after the encroachment occurred kind of give you an idea and then in addition to that and think somewhere around 2018 and there was some earthwork for the sidewalk construction along Mist Harbor trail that resulted in some understory impacts where the contractors as they were building that sidewalk used or moved some of that earthwork into the understory and thus removing the understory in in that general location also with that ADP 16 2001 I mean sorry one that they was approval to remove that riparian buffer designation they also received approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to get coverage under the nationwide permit that allows for coverage and allows for fill of up to 300 linear feet of the ephemeral stream there was inadvertently there was 702 linear feet filled of that riparian of that femoral stream so the applicant is the is proposing to mitigate for both the riparian buffer and the upland habitat and the criteria for approval for this all isa is to create and expand or improve preserved areas to improve encroach and habitat or environment to maintain habitat continuity to maximize public access and utilization to preserve create preservation of the protected area and perpetuity and create a high quality development and staff feels that they have met these criteria except for the improved encroached habitat or environment because we feel that this does not apply to this particular project the restoration strategy is to restore 402 linear feet of the original isa riparian buffer which they have worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to restore that buffer so that part will will be down under the Corps of Engineers mitigation plan what they are proposing for the city of Denton is to take 177 of the 195 tree caliber inches and to recreate an upland habitat at the edges of that riparian buffer so that it will increase the entire area of the restoration the the 177 tree 177 tree caliber inches plus an American Beautyberry shrub and post oak seedlings and a blackland prairie seed mix will be used along that area to recreate the upland habitat the other strategy is along the all isa portion of the property the the two acres that were preserved and the point two three acres that were encroached upon they will be restoring that to upland habitat by creating a mix of savanna and trees and they will be using the blackland prairie seed mix and the remaining 18 tree caliber inches that were removed to harness the lot and this is an example of the blackland prairie mix additionally the applicant will be bringing in topsoil to restore the the area and to promote plant viability and we'll be bringing in landscape irrigation to both sites to promote plant viability and to implement an infrequent or no mowing schedule schedule to promote the natural habitat progression and then install educational signs along the sidewalks so to help the community understand the importance of the cross timbers upland habitat this is an example of a sign public sign the applicant is also offering long-term management and monitoring to ensure viability of the of the plan the applicant will replace any dead plant material and will repair any eroded land and remove any trash and will create an annual report to environmental services for up to three years where the report will include work performed the current survivability of the plantings and any condition of the trees at the edge of the all ESA clearing and after three years the city environmental services staff will conduct an inspection and will issue final acceptance based upon the conditions being met staff is recommending approval with the following conditions that 195 tree caliper inches 35 American Beauty berry shrubs and blackland sea and prairie seed mix and riparian recovery seed mix be planted half an acre of adjacent that is adjacent to the Army Corps of us Army Corps of engineer restoration project will be planted according to the alternate ESA plan and the point two three acres of crest timbers upland habitat will be restored to call according to the alternative ESA plan annual reporting during the first three years describing the cumulative mitigation work performed and the survivability of plants will be submitted for staff and inspections plants install as part of the proposed native flora vegetation are to be installed and maintained for that three year period to achieve a 90% survival rate in addition a bond letter or credit or escrow and the amount of $24,375 which is $125 per tree caliper inches are to be to be planted should be provided to the city within the 60 days of this approval and then upon completion of that three-year landscaping establishment period the city will inspect the trees and we'll be looking for that 90% survival rate and that bond would be returned upon that success then the last recommendation is a new recommendation that staff has added and we are recommending also that the homeowners Association documents be created and filed for the two lots so that the homeowners Association purpose will have the purpose of preserving the ESA in perpetuity and any maintenance of these lots will be done in accordance with sub chapter 17 ESA standards and a copy of those HOA documents be provided to the city no longer than the final annual report and with that I'll turn it back over to Julie real quick to add in some information about notifications the city did send out notification of the request we have received three letters in opposition and you can see it's kind of tiny but it is right in this location and I provided those to you this evening and it seems like that their main concerns have to do with drainage in the area the proposal wouldn't add any additional impervious surface so so just to let you know about what what those concerns were and I believe the applicant is here perfect we actually have a question I'm not sure who it's for Commissioner Beck it can be either one of you thank you chair thank you Julie thank you Christy well done it was well it was thorough presentation appreciate it I was here when this development removed that repairing buffer in the beginning so I'm delighted to see we're getting part of it back looks like we're getting 402 of the 702 that was there originally is that correct yes sir okay and of that alt ESA up there that it's two acres is that correct the original alternative ESA was for two acres the impacted area is only two-tenths of an acre so just where the tree is a small portion of it yes sir so everything well that little square you just showed them is that the acre is that so the entire alternative ESA was this area right here right the area we're talking about is just about this little area right okay what about the rest of these is it not there anymore intact okay so that's still there and will be preserved correct okay good deal thank you I do not see any other questions we this is a public hearing and so if you wish to speak on this item you're more welcome to do so we just ask that you fill out a card we do have one card here and is the applicant Justin Bono Bono and as the applicant you have ten minutes to speak if you just state your name and address for the record yeah thank you commissioner and chair and commissioners Justin Bono I'm the manager of Astra Carmel LLC the developer of the project I actually don't have anything to add I think Julie and Christy did a great job of covering a complex situation on two tenths of an acre of land so that we've been working through for the last several months but be glad to stand for any questions that that you do have sure I appreciate being here for that I do not see any questions at this time well nevermind Tricia Smith are you guys willing are you guys willing to take on the new recommendation and for the HOA yes and I think it's that's I appreciate you raising that issue it's important to note that on our final plat both of these areas are already labeled as common areas on our final plat so there's really no change in intent of having the HOA maintain those areas it was already the intent for the HOA to do that we'll obviously need to put some belt and suspenders in the documents depending on what ends up moving forward through you guys and through council as to the specifics of what they need to do but but the intent was always for the HOA to maintain these areas that are labeled as common areas on the final plat. Do you, in case of just a response to that, do you feel like the recommendations being made by staff has got enough detail in there where you can have the direction to how to put in the belts and suspenders as you? I think so well yeah and we obviously submitted a detailed proposed report on how to deal with this and the details are in the report in our proposed report that the staff is recommending approval of too. Thanks. Thank you. This is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve with staff recommendations. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. We have a second for approval with those conditions. We have a first and second for approval. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is 3G Z18-0028A. I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing. All right. All right this next item is a zoning case. It is Z18-28 Audre Heights. The request before you is for rezoning for 8.7 acres from neighborhood residential mixed use 12 to neighborhood residential mixed use. The subject property is located on the north side of Audre just to the west of loop 288. This is a this is a depiction of the current zoning. Under the current zoning is the NRMU 12 and you can see that in orange. Adjacent to it you have NRMU between the subject property and loop 288. NRMU 12 is also to the south of the subject property. There's also NR4 which is one of our residential zoning districts. NR3 and NR2 which are are also lower density residential zoning districts. You have NRMU to the north as well. The applicant is proposing to extend that existing NRMU to the west for the existing development as you can see in this picture right here. A little bit of background on on how we got here. So as I said the subject property has a zoning designation of NRMU 12. The applicant is proposing a townhome development. As you can see there was a preliminary plat that was approved in 2017 that depicted townhomes as well as a right-of-way and an alleys. The maximum lot coverage under current zoning is 60% and in the city of Denton lot coverage includes all impervious surface. So that is buildings and any driveways sidewalks. This layout that they proposed was based upon a misapplication of the Denton Development Code and actually in subchapter 13 of the Denton Development Code. That section states that pervious driveways, if they're constructed with grass creed or pavers or something that rain could get through, would not count toward lot coverage but would instead be counted as a landscape area. And so that was how townhome developments really went in the city of Denton for a very long time is that that application of that provision that they would put make the driveways pervious and that way they met the lot coverage requirements. Early last year the city reevaluated the parking standards for residential development and and as part of that analysis and as part of looking in the code we went back and looked at that provision and and determined that that that provision was actually misapplied and in fact that the part of it actually states that it it removes single-family and duplexes from that provision and so that driveways even if they were made with a pervious surface would still count toward lot coverage. So so with that discovery the applicant submitted for a final plot because they had the the approved preliminary plot they submitted a final plan we let them know it's gonna be difficult to develop your site because you because meeting 60% lot coverage on your lot sizes is is gonna be hard to do. So we discussed what their options were and they have proposed to rezone the property or request to rezone to NRMU because that would allow 80% lot coverage that would allow them to get the driveway in the building and so that so that's that's why we're here tonight. So the criteria for approval are in subchapter 3 of the Denton Development Code and it we look at the the future land use element in the Denton plan and then also the public facilities. So we'll look at criteria number one the Denton plan 2030. There's two future land use designations that actually apply to the property it's really on the edge. We have moderate residential and neighborhood mixed use. Moderate residential is one of our more urban residential future land use designations. It allows densities up to 12 dwelling units per acre. It encourages a variety of housing types and smaller single-family duplex town homes. But development should maintain that scale and character of the surrounding area. Neighborhood mixed use is is more as you get toward loop 288 and that really folds in that commercial and service component. So it it looks to add those those essential services the day-to-day uses to for those those surrounding neighborhoods. So it's not a a primarily residential zone or future land use designation. So when we look at this and when we analyze our across we really had to borrow from both future land use designations and really look at and look at both of them as a guide as where to go and and when you look at the future land use. That really is the high level view of the way that the city should develop. So as you get closer to zoning you really need to look at that pattern of development and how that how that zoning affects the pattern of development. And in this instance what you can do is look at how the future land use and then the resulting zoning should allow transition the area to transition in development scale and intensity and in particularly from the west toward the east. So if you'll look at the low residential in this area here the yellow as as you move toward loop 288 you really can see how how the the future land use scale increases and then the zoning increases as well. So so that that those transition areas are really important because it does allow for that gradual increase or decrease. The proposed townhome development is consistent with both future land use designations. However staff feels like NRMU is just a little too intense for this area that it could disrupt that progression in that transition area and increase the intensity in a place that it really shouldn't be increased. We feel that NRMU is more consistent with that neighbor the purely neighborhood mixed use rather than the moderate density moderate residential or at that cusp of the moderate residential and neighborhood mixed use. We feel like the the existing zoning is more consistent with both future land use designations because it does bring in both elements. It brings in the variety of housing but with the reduced densities the reduced reduced building heights and it pulls out those commercial uses. We look at the use comparison. I'm only showing the uses that actually are different between the two zoning district but I think it highlights that NRMU 12 permits things like duplexes and single-family dwellings whereas NRMU doesn't and it really goes more to that commercial side. NRMU permits things like hotels, restaurants, bars, those those a little higher intensity commercial type uses that could be incompatible with the surrounding residential areas particularly our low density residential areas to the south and to the west of the subject property. NRMU also permits a maximum density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre which really is increases that density and then building height goes up to 65 feet which is higher than the existing 40 and the surrounding 40. We also look at adequate public improvements. While the proposal does not increase the density of the development it would increase the intensity of development so keep that in mind. The trip generation analysis did not rise to the level of a TIA and and essentially that the uses that are that they're requesting are consistent with what could be developed today. Here's some pictures of the subject property. This is looking across the street toward the subject property and toward loop 288 off in the distance. This is kind of near the subject property looking then on the south side of Audra and clipping that that residential neighborhood to the south. This is from across the street looking at an existing duplex development that is adjacent to the subject property and then here's that that lower density single-family dwelling or a single-family neighborhood to the south of Audra. There are adequate public improvements in the area in terms of water and sewer they could tie on to existing connections. So just other findings that the staff looked at. So we feel like if approved NRMU would reduce that transition area would increase the intensity of development in the subject property in a way that would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. However if you did opt to recommend approval we do request we would suggest some overlay conditions just to increase that conformance. First to restrict the use permitted uses down to that townhome with that limitation 40 which limits that maximum number of dwelling units to 12 per acre. To reduce the building height to 40 feet which is consistent with what is out there what is what is permitted today and then also to to have common area lots adjacent to Audra to provide that transition from the development to the single-family to the south. Provide that buffer area and those common area lots to include a screening wall as well as landscaping in the form of a type B buffer which is a ten foot strip with five evergreen or and deciduous trees and 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet. Notification was sent out we did I did receive one written notice one in opposition. It's outside of the 200 foot buffer it's it's to the it's off of Audra to the west of the site. Signs were posted on the site and they did have a neighborhood meeting. So based upon the criteria of approval and conformance with the comprehensive plan staff recommends denial of the request. I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. Thank you very much Julie we do have a question. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You Chair Julie I'll ask you were you at the neighborhood meeting? Do you know? I was at another meeting that night so I got in at the at the very end so I really didn't hear a lot of the discussion regarding it. I believe there were concerns about traffic and but but I don't know all of the concerns. Okay and I assume I'm sorry one more question that rezoning was the only option that you saw for it's the cleanest option in this in this scenario. They have you know it was the way for for the community to to to hear what they're wanting to do and also to for them to seek to get that lot coverage that that would be that would be consistent with their regulations. And did you go over with them any of your recommendations if it was approved? Your overlay because I assume that would impede the project as initially intended. Well I have provided it to them. I don't think they have any concerns regarding the restriction of the uses. They may have concerns about that buffer area along Audra. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. To answer Commissioner Ellis's question and to come to the aid of our illustrious Julie Wyatt, I was at the meeting for the full deal and the main concern was how Audra would handle the traffic. It's a poor road right now. It ends into loop 288 and you can only turn right. I think there's projections of looping it around where it will connect with another street where they can cross over but that was their main concern. The other concern that I think the developer alleviated some was you know too many people. Right now that where those duplexes are is mainly students. They're noisy. They're messy. They're rowdy. They thought this development was going to be similar to it but we were pretty well assured that it was going to be something totally different. So that was the gist of it and there were about six people there. Julie I have a question for you. Looking at the geography of the lot, it's skinny and long and it appears to mimic nearly exactly the same sort of original platting on the street to its west. The city believes that MRMU 12 is better. Am I understanding correctly that you think that's a better preferred, not you, but staff believes that that is the preferred zoning not the MRMU, correct? Well in the request and this one is is is challenging because there's a really specific project that they're they're moving forward with but when we analyze a rezoning request we have to look at all of the factors associated with that zoning district and and and what it could bring. So our analysis looked not only at what their request was in the background of that request but how that NRMU fit within the future land use and and and and the the NRMU coming closer to those single-family areas. It's just it's pushing closer to those neighborhoods. We felt like there was wisdom in the existing zoning of NRMU 12 and and that they could pursue the use under current zoning and so it really wasn't in terms of that use it was in their specific use but in terms of you know the entirety of that zoning district. And for clarification they can pursue the use under current zoning by changing their lot size primarily I mean there might be other factors like height and stuff but one of the rates is to change their lot size. They they could yes there would have in order to meet all parking and and and and building size requirements there would it would have to be a change either the lot size go make a taller building you know something of that nature there would have to be a design intervention. And help me process this that by rights the city's okay with the building taller but not that that's an okay transition is a taller building but the city is not okay with a more dense building under an MRMU because it's shorter it's just seems that height that's a perceived density you talked about intensity of use I'm understanding that the city in a sense would prefer a taller building over the change in zoning to increase density. That may result from the case and that is that is a possibility and and we understand that this is a concern the way our code really is written it allows town homes but then it it constricts them to a point where you really it makes it difficult to develop them so so I and that is certainly something that we're looking to correct with the new didn't development code. But we have to look at we have to look at those at the neighborhoods adjacent and see how zoning decisions affect them and and and sometimes if you if you approve a zoning district and and enlarge it then you have adjacency to to change the zoning in the next lot so so what we have to look at is even just beyond that specific case and look at the you know what that zoning means and what it would mean for the surrounding zoning pattern. Okay thank you Julie I don't see any other questions. This is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on the item I certainly do so I have one card to speak in one card not to speak we'll start with Alan Hermaly. And if you could just state your name and address for the record appreciate it you have four minutes. Good evening my name is Alan Hermaly I live at 1401 Brandywine Circle and I thought I was going to speak about let me get this right. S18005 did I not get that correct? So we don't have an S18005 because that was scheduled for this evening according to the public notice. That was a 3B that was that was postponed to the March 6th meeting. Yeah that item has been postponed we're gonna hear it on March 6th. March 6th okay so so you not taking any comments on this? Not this evening. Okay well I would like to take this moment just to bring up one point. I really like the idea of considering the impacts of the adjacent neighborhoods on zoning changes and so I would like to like the council least consider the impacts of multiple changes adjacent to the neighborhood. We have this this this change to the east of the Oakshire neighborhood there's another proposed zoning to the to the excuse me to the to the west of the neighborhood and another change the one I wanted to speak to the S18005 to the north in their neighborhood. So you have all these multiple changes occurring which I consider be cumulative impacts on the neighborhood that that that at one time you thought was appropriate to protect through through zoning. So I'd like you to consider these multiple changes that occur adjacent to the neighborhood as opposed to individual changes but that's all I have to bring up tonight. Well I appreciate being here and adding that input as the areas as you said or they're all kind of mixed in together in a way so I appreciate the feedback. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you on March 6th. Yes March 6th thank you so much. Thank you. We do have a card marking opposition and I'm gonna try I think it says Mandy Carson. I don't know I apologize if not. Nancy I'm sorry I should know that. Nancy's marking opposition address is 2908 Oakshire Street not wishing to speak this evening. This is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. The applicant is here. Is the applicant wanting to present or just here for questions? And if you could just state your name and address for the record. As the applicant you're welcome to 10 minutes. Good evening my name is Earl Escobar with Cranel Engineering address is 2570 Justin Road in Highland Village Texas. I just want to quickly go over some slides maybe to help shed some light on the exact reasoning why we're requesting this zoning. Our project entails the development of 89 town homes. The lot sizes are 24 feet wide by 100 foot deep. These lots are alley-loaded and our main roadway is actually a residential collector which is a little bit wider than a standard residential street. Our pavement is going to be 36 feet wide which will allow parking on both sides and still accommodate two-way travel. We have an open space located at the north end because primarily because of a existing creek that runs along that that area. We currently have a final plat and a set of construction plans for this development that has been reviewed and approved by city staff and the use that we're proposing town homes are they're permitted under both the current zoning NRMU 12 and the zoning that we are requesting to be rezoned to NRMU. Primarily we are requesting this rezoned to allow the 80% lot coverage that's needed to develop a town home lot the way it's supposed to look like. With the NRMU I know we have a limitation 40 of 12 units per lot or 12 lots per acre and right now we are standing at 8.6 lots per acre density wise which is you know closer to NR6 than we are to the maximum NR12 or NR12 the current zoning and I think Julie mentioned that the town home use does meet the definition of moderate residential land use and just wanted to go over some several several items that are creating somewhat of a hardship on the development of town homes in general in the NRMU 12 zoning. The first one is the definition of lot coverage. Denton defines lot coverage as Julie mentioned as anything basically impervious within the lot and under NRMU 12 it allows for 60% which is quite low for a town home site. There's only only one other city that defines it the same way as Denton that's Fort Worth but they allow up to 85% which is the norm. There's some other research with other cities on what their lot coverage requirements are for town homes and they define it differently. First they defined lot coverage as just the percentage of the lot covered by just the primary and accessory buildings. The paving for driveway sidewalks leading from the house to the public sidewalks aren't counted towards that lot coverage and these other cities range from you know 60% up to 90% really and that's for the building itself and the way we're proposing it based on our building size and our lots that we're proposing. We're at 57.5% which puts us under the 60% lot coverage under Denton's requirements but once you throw in the driveway and the sidewalks we're going to be well above that. Some other items or factors that create a hardship for us are the misapplication of the previous paving counting towards landscape area which we did not know until we were in the final plat stage after we received our preliminary plat approval back in 2017 and then also the parking requirements requiring four parking spaces per dwelling unit. That results in a wider driveway which kind of prohibits the building being pushed back towards the street especially for alley-loaded lots because the driveway has to go with it from the alley to the to the rear of the house and that would penalize us even more or lot coverage. There's just throughout two examples with some pictures showing I guess the misapplication of subchapter 13. One was the Villages of Carmel which is built out now and the way they got around to developing their townhomes was with that misapplication subchapter 13 and there's a couple of buildings and this new development off of Riney Road called Vista del Royale. They were able to develop two of their buildings with the same pervious material for their driveways to meet that lot coverage requirement but then since then since the misapplication of subchapter 13 they had to recently get a ZBA approved to allow that 80% lot coverage which is the reason why Julie did not attend our neighborhood meeting because she was at the ZBA meeting with this case. So wanted to show you what our lot layout would look like if we did receive approval for NRMU rezoning again with our 24 foot by 100 foot lots. Our structure is 1380 square feet building footprint wise total square footage with the two-story be about 2,100 square feet including the garage and with flat work and driveways our drive our lot coverage would be about 77 and a half percent and that would be right below the 80% max lot coverage for NRMU. In order to have a code compliant layout under NRMU 12 with the same building footprint our lots would have to be 24 foot wide by 145 feet long or deep and we would have to set back the building 65 feet from the right-of-way line from the street because we could not push the building closer to the street because the driveways would have to go with it and penalize us with the lot coverage. So with that said our lot coverage under this scenario would be at 58.6% which is below that 60% threshold and again these houses would be almost 200 feet apart from face-to-face which is not the intent of a town-owned development. In order to make this development compliant with NRMU 12 and using the lots that we're proposing at 24 by 100 we'd have to go vertical. We'd have to go with a 900 square foot structure with three stories. We will be well below the 40 foot height and with that we would it we would be right below 60%. Just to give you a little building elevations of what we're proposing each lot or unit will be constructed with distinct materials and colors so it'll have that look of individual units or lots versus having a uniform look and look kind of look like multifamily and this is the rear and that concludes my presentation. Any questions? We have some questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In regards to staff recommendations if we were going to if we wanted to approve it with NRMU but with the restrictions the staff recommendations were restricting at 12 units per acre making the 40 foot requirement and then they said that both of those things were not not not difficult things for you to accept too but on the the the buffer areas said that was hard. Can you explain a little bit more about that? Yeah. So the buffer requirement there is an existing gas main I believe it's an Atmos gas line that runs along Audreau Lane and there is a I guess some sort of a 50 foot or variable width easement I'm not sure what the average width is about 40 to 50 feet wide from Audreau to accommodate that gas main and so the open space we understand we could do that but the screening wall I mean the screening wall couldn't be adjacent to Audreau Lane because of the gas main location but we could certainly push it further back. Couldn't be or couldn't be well while preserving the amount of units that you guys want to put in or could you guys remove one band of units? We would be able to preserve the number of units as shown we just have to dedicate an open space along Audreau but the actual construction of the wall would have to be set further back then. So engineering wise it can be done it's not not preferable but it can be done. It can be done it's just will it how will it look aesthetically because that wall would actually be set back about 40 feet from Audreau Lane so is it really it's pretty it's an awkward setback. How close would it how close would that be then to your first units there those first lots that that 40 foot setback? It would be six feet which would be the setback for that first unit. Six feet so pretty sure enough to give a side yard. That's still pretty small. Okay thank you. Mr. Beck. Thank you Chair. Thanks Earl. Good seeing you again. First met Earl at the meeting I didn't recognize. How many units are there altogether Earl? How many units are we proposing? Yes 89. 89 okay. One of the things I heard at the meeting other than Audreau Lane which is something y'all can't control it is a bad road it needs improvement but it's going to add to traffic and that was one of the concerns but their other concern was they were comparing what they thought you were going to potentially build to the duplexes just to the west of you there which as I mentioned earlier had students and they were rowdy they were transient and tended to be messy so they claim. So could you characterize the population that you're going to be releasing to would you mind? We have the developer and the homebuilder and the management. 2717 Gold Lake. I'm sorry you said characterize. Yeah can you characterize the tenants you're going to be leasing to or you guys is it going to be similar to what the duplexes are? I think the duplexes kind of target specifically students from what I can gather. We're going to be targeting young families you know I think they they may be doing by the bedroom type of leasing which we don't want any part of okay so it's certainly not our intent to do it that way if a student wanted to lease a place and with their parents and they were strong enough to do that they certainly could but they'd have to be able to afford the whole place in order to do that so because we don't do by the bedroom leasing. Okay and I like a lot what I saw that you were doing like the fact that the alleys are there so it takes the streets off the takes the car off the streets and at the end unlike the area over the duplex it closes that area off where people and I think you were agreeable to putting the gate in there to sure prevent absolute traffic running through there so I was to be honest with you I was kind of surprised when I saw Steph was considered denial this I thought what you're doing was a good deal but I understand and I guess if there were more people here protesting and I might line up on the side of the city but based on what I've heard you say and what I see and and considering what could go in there you know it could be worse yeah so we're not increasing that's it we're not asking an increase in density we're gonna we're gonna build these one way or the other they're gonna be three stories and set back further and in my opinion an uglier product same square footage or we can put a nice looking product on the ground and you own the property directly to the east of it to yes to how far up to the loop all the way to the loop okay what were your plans for that we've got a submittal in or about to be in for a hundred hundred sixty bed assisted living facility eight building our ten building 16 beds each okay so it'll be really really nicely landscaped we're gonna have a lot of trails and whatnot up in that part where the power lines are right anyway sounds like a good development me that as opposed to what could possibly go in there so thanks mr. good I have a quick question for Earl I think maybe it may not first welcome back there was some lament even last meeting of the lack of your presence here at meetings so you've been missed so it's it's good to see you back presenting I said like the project but I have a question if you just help me out if we're looking at this this graphic here the southern most lots in purple yes are wider than the rest yes those are in the easement and will not be developed my understanding correctly or there will be developments on those last two ones the bottom two yes there is enough room to construct a unit oops between the easement and the neck and a lot one right so the contention perhaps not contention I'm just trying to stand we either you're either putting a fence at the where the purple and blue meet or you're setting it back all the way to that first building and you would prefer to have the fence more south than what staff is potentially suggesting my understanding the fence situation the gas main is located pretty much at the bottom of this lot and so it is that lot planned on being developed no it's not defined and so I mean really if we we were planning on just setting it back I think 50 feet is that what we I think 50 feet on there but there's other if you go down the street there's other ones that are much closer to that gas pipeline we were just giving adequate space going off of the other development next door and the working plan is to put your masonry fence basically right on that gas line or the gas easement exactly yeah but you're saying that if you had to move it to go all the way back up to that six foot set back on the first building being constructed well I mean it could go closer to what we've proposed and on the northern boundary of that lower lot okay but I guess it could go about 10 feet closer I mean it's a variable with the easement so there's it's not defined how close you're allowed to be and we can only go off of what other people but it would be your preference to keep that fence as close to Audra as possible rather than putting it up against that those first two yeah not have 50 feet off of the road and then have a like an empty lot just there and then a wall but I mean we're open to whatever you know the council thinks is best I think that clarified at least my confusion so I appreciate that Mr. Smith thank you chair staff could you give a clarification here on why the setbacks be requested that far back there is that easement there and staff is not it's not prescriptive on where that goes the intent is to provide a screening wall as you typically see on on residential developments adjacent to arterials or or you know arterial roads you often see that masonry wall that separates a residential development from from that traffic area and then also between the the wall and the in the right of way to provide that that landscaping to provide that that softening of the wall in the sense of arrival for not only the residents but then also to add that transition area from the subject property to to the neighborhoods surrounding it so so the intent is not only a screening wall but to have that type B buffer to add that softening to add that gateway so I guess maybe give me clarification on this this easement that's not it's not it's not like a traditional easement where it's it's got a hard number that you have to abide by it's it's very it seems like it's it's it's it's a little fluid here is that what I'm hearing or my well their preliminary plot does show the limits of where they're showing that easement so their preliminary plot does show that easement and and it's my understanding and talking the applicant and then and then reviewing the preliminary plot and I'll just use their there's as an example so that these these actually are lots that would have a townhome on them but that that lot is oversized in order to have that easement on that on that individual lot so staff's contingent is to have have a a community-owned lot an HOA lot adjacent to the the right-of-way in whatever configuration but to provide that screening wall and that entrance feature in there to provide that transition in that buffer area. Thank you. Mr. Good, this is not to do with the easements and walls. Average price of the home you guys primarily leasing or leasing okay all right thank you. I think I would like to follow up with Commissioner's question Commissioner Smith's that maybe it's gonna be hard to answer because they're not selling them you're leasing them but what's the opportunity cost associated with losing two lots that you could build on if the city is suggesting not to build because if they're outright buys of 200,000 we could we could concurrently put a value of 400,000 two lots is it possible to help us evaluate them so based on the cap rates that these would be actually valued at they'd be around 210,000 a unit something like that based on some of the other developments that we have had appraisals on. Okay that's helpful thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you Chair okay so I'm still confused okay not with the project but with some of staff recommendations and what what can you do in in their recommendations what can we because yeah I mean for me to to go with the rezoning we'd have to have some overlay conditions on them or I just wouldn't be comfortable no no no creating an RMU district here so so you saw what she or we can put him back up no no no I and I actually I'm completely fine with them the only concern we were saying is that we'd we'd hate to we were fine with everything up there it was the the screening wall thing was not even a problem because it was a screening wall it was more like well I mean losing two lots and then it being kind of unattractive because we've already got 50 feet there is kind of we felt kind of silly about but if if that's what you guys think that is what it would take and I mean we're open to it we're definitely not saying that's a hard no by any means I just feel like you've already got a buffer kind of there I think it's tough because we've got the variable with easement right and so we designated 50 feet nobody told us go off 50 feet and if you talk to if you talk to the gas company they want 150 feet when you have a variable with easement they'll ask for as much as they can get so it's really one of those things I mean we could probably take it down to 40 feet and then provide that 10 feet in between and still not lose anything I mean there's other houses that are 20 25 feet off this pipeline right down the road which I mean you think that's doable yeah so if that helps like with the buffering it's just it's really weird having this old archaic variable with easement like they don't like them courts don't like them the gas company tries to bully with them like they when I originally went to them they try to ask for 150 feet but their their current reg you know goes as small as 25 feet so we were just trying to kind of play it safe a little bit so I mean we could read redesign it where we're 40 feet and then we have the 10 feet buffer and then we've got all the rest as proposed and as far as like you know restricting use and restricting all that we're we were always good with that we never intended to this to be anything else in fact we were gonna build it we were still gonna build it regardless it was just gonna be a three-story product with bigger front yards I don't see any other questions appreciate it I know we've been talking for a while but it still is a public hearing if anyone is wishing to speak on this item more than welcome to do so we just asked to fill out a card seeing no other individuals wishing to speak I'll close this public hearing and turn to the days for discussion or motion Commissioner Smith I'm gonna make a motion for an approval of this project with the limitations are recommended by staff we did do an approval of 12 units an acre 40 foot height and then when it comes to this buffer with this easement prefer if we didn't put a number down on the recommendation we make to City Council and instead just make a recommendation that a buffer in the screen will be done that before City Council sees this for final approval that applicant and staff come to an agreement on something and then present that to City Council so we both agreed to this rather than saying staff is this way and applicants we could do whatever we'll just get a fixed number we don't really care as long as you got a fixed number for the City Council it matters to us so that's a weird motion but that's it we have a first to approve with conditions Christian back second we have a first and a second I do have some discussion I I'm I'm I'm opposed to requiring common area lots I'd prefer to keep the type B buffer and then they can work with the easements to figure out how that 10 feet is going to work with the the two southern lots but I think asking them to abandon two lots could affect aesthetics but also I just don't think it's necessary on the Audre Lane if there's a just looking at map and 200 feet to the west there's a garage that would be significantly closer to Audre then then their property so I just don't I can't support requesting the applicant to abandon two lots so I guess it's worth asking for a friendly amendment or I would motion a move to amend the first motion I think my motion really came down to the fact that the easement requires 50 feet staff is recommending much more than that and just help me understand make sure I'm correct on this so I guess more along once my motion wasn't necessarily for so much of the common area as it was just there's going to be aesthetics that has to be put in because there's a 50-foot there's a 50 foot easement there no matter what that the deciding point on where that easement is set or where that wall is set can be decided between applicant and staff before council if I'm missing something I'd appreciate the clarification yeah so on item C it's saying common area lots owned and maintained by homeowners Association you're wanting to leave in there that there are two lots left for what the applicants presentation showed is that there was going to be those two those two much larger augmented last two lots closest to Audre were already going to be designed that way for the preliminary plat and that it was so much about they're gonna that those two lots were gonna be there no matter what those developments are gonna be there no matter what and so if whether whether we whether the ease what the easements at 50 feet is a minimum correct something like that right can you say come to the mic yeah sorry what we're saying is I think you're on the right page as far as like changing like not putting a definite code because we can decide later on that part that doesn't eliminate you from having those two homes there that's the motion that I have it as of right now doesn't eliminate you from being able to have those two lots correct right there's got to be an easement of some sort and it's got to be some sort of minimum we've kind of declared 50 feet it's like our safety minimum but what we're saying is we could probably take that down to 40 feet and then still provide what we need to provide in that 10 feet and not lose any lots I guess what I'm trying to say is that what my motion was the way that I worded it and the way that it is what staff and applicants work with before they go to City Council so I motion doesn't eliminate the ability to use those two lots and that's what mr. correct is agreeing is that the way that it's motion that easement they were dead lots anyway they're dead lots matter what that those for those two correct the discussion be done before City Council doesn't get effect whether or not he's gonna have those two two lots to be used for appreciate the clarification I could have sworn and this is a good clarification those last the southern lots are wider to accommodate both a townhome and the easement I know is that lot actually have a townhome on it Earl can you that's correct they are oversized lots to accommodate the gas easement and to also accommodate a townhome on the north side of that easement right so what I'm what I'm concerned about is if this says it leave a lot yeah it's an essence saying those two oversized lots are now common areas and that's that's what I'm saying oh I see what you're saying yeah no no no so you'll yeah I think you're both saying the same thing it's just I misstated so that first lot does actually have a unit on it and it's just oversized to adjust for the so there wasn't a dead lot actually okay so the way the motion stands I'm by by we approve this motion the way it stands it does not remove any any any units from being able to be within the project correct correct if we do adjust the that lot to be smaller or basically but yeah can I just ask Mr. Smith to restate your motion yep and I think that would be really helpful yep yep so the motion is to approve the rezoned NRM you but restrictions that were made by staff recommendations of 12 units per acre 40 foot and height restriction and then an easement or I'm sorry a wall and screening to be decided upon and setbacks between applicant and staff before this project is brought to City Council as on motion okay okay and question back do you agree with that motion still second yeah okay for that question part I will make sure to get to you a question all this had on the board I want to make sure respect you chair what I'd like is for Julie to please put staff recommendations up thanks D you're gonna get Mr. Burnetta okay I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what what the motion is because I was I was under the same understanding that you are that the staff recommendation includes a common area a lot that would take these out does your motion say that we are not requiring the common area a lot is that what we that's that's correct okay all right I feel kind of like we have to have the stated on that's I'm wondering if we need to clarify item C further Jerry or do you think Commissioner Smith has articulated the changes to point C adequately enough I'm sorry you're good the the recommendation C was for an overlay on the zoning conditions I think that even if condition C were not there at all it would still be a complete recommendation for zoning and so whether it's sufficiently stated to allow the case to go forward I think kind of depends upon your judgment as a commission as to whether you feel comfortable with those that issue of the of the setback requirement being left as a fluid item to be filled in prior to going to the City Council but I think the idea is that the recommendation is to approve at least the land use with at least the first two overlay conditions into and to put up the the six-foot masonry screen wall and and buffer as stated I but I do hear that the common area lots are are not necessary as far as part of the motion okay that's correct I want to ensure that all commissioners understand the motion the second and what we will be voting on is there any ambiguity that we need to clear up in terms of what the same motion is Krishna Ellis thank you chair so just to clarify on here with the recommendation bullet point three we are removing common area lots from that and keeping the rest of the yes the recommendation my motion is my motion is for regards just a point C or three or whatever we're calling this is for a buffer to be decided upon between applicant and staff before City Council and whatever the setback is is up to their discretion and they come to agreement upon before this is presented to City Council nothing in regards to common common area lots is being referenced can I make a recommendation if it might help I don't know Julie if you could come forward take this out of presentation mode and maybe edit the third item you know while Commissioner spit Smith is speaking make sure that it I think the states the spirit this the spirit of the bullet point there was to create a buffer is for what it seemed like from discussions with staff was that was to create a transition from what will be considered essentially a high density area within this neighborhood from the road back to this high density area and so you needed that that little buffer to be there and something that the applicant decide whether that is you know 50 feet away from the road or what staff was recommended which much further back and that's you know shrubs and walls and everything else involved in there rather you know that discussion become to an agreement rather than having staff just throw something up there willy-nilly so that was some phenomenal buffering about 10 at the point here is I'm not suggesting that the staff is changing his recommendation at all you know the recommendation was as it was but just for the purpose of making sure that the Commission understands what your motion is is that accurately stated you know with with those three conditions or is it that's correct yeah there is there is no there is no definition within there about about how far from bag from Audre that's being set and that'll be a distance that can be decided between staff and applicant so yes that is accurately depicting my motion okay and just for absolute clarity Commissioner Beck do you second the amended motion as written I do okay do you have other discussion apart yeah I just want to mention in support of this a couple of things a based on what the applicant is presented I think we've got a good product here we've got a density if I can use that word anymore that's much less than an NRMU 12 which is good because that's the whole intent of creating the buffer anyway as Julie mentioned is to good start with a lower density and work towards a higher density so it does that and it does better than if we had actually had the NRM 12 the prospect of building next to it the retirement home is a good deal this is land infill area that you know again we're looking to get filled and this is a good good project for that so for those reasons that I just think it's a good deal Commissioner Ellis thank you chair just real quick for the developer so as we kind of rewrote this and all this sure how does this look I mean does this work absolutely no I guess I mean that you can accommodate this if this is the recommendation going forward so any other discussion on the item well I appreciate your patience and working through this and and it seems like there is an ongoing conversation over a year and a half so I appreciate your patience and I'll be in support of this there's no discussion call for vote on the board motion carries 7-0 congratulations before moving to item H we've been here for three hours so if there's no objection by the Commission I'd like to propose a short break we'll break at 922 thank you thank you for that short break providing us that time it is 932 and I'll call the meeting back to order the next item on our agenda is 3h is s 18 - 0 0 0 7 B invite Haley for presentation and open the public hearing all right so this is an SUP request for a vehicle repair facility so the request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding an SUP request to allow a vehicle repair use on approximately 0.57 acres that's located on the south side of East McKinney Street and you can see the property location outlined here yellow on the map so a little history about this particular location the property is owned DCG the existing development on the site that includes four buildings has been in place since approximately the 1970s as far as we can tell from our records the this particular use actually exists on the site today it has for about a year and a half now however within the the current zoning DCG that zoning has been in place since 2002 vehicle repair uses require and a specific use permit this request actually initiated as a code violation case when our zoning enforcement officers found out that this facility was operating without a certificate of occupancy so the the means of rectifying that and bringing them into compliance with the current code is to obtain the specific use permit required by the DCG district as part of this request we analyzed the site's current compliance with our code regulations and what we found was as noted that the use requirements are not being met as there's not a specific use permit there's currently no screening provided at the right-of-way for the storage area the there's a large part of the site dedicated to vehicle storage and that does require screening per the Denton Development Code the site is required for the within the DCG district we require 15% landscape area minimum the site does not currently comply with that but with some of the improvements they're offering to make they would come up to 16.8 percent landscaping and then DCG district also requires a minimum of 20% tree canopy there's currently no trees on the site so with the improvements that are proposed on their site plan currently they would come up to a 10% tree canopy and then street trees are also required for for all developments there currently are no street trees on the property everything up to the right-of-way is paved on the front half of the property so they're also not proposing any street trees with this with this SUP so I won't go through these in detail but the criteria for approval of an SUP are outlined in detail in your backup and we'll have them here if we need them in general it provides for a compatibility analysis to determine if there's any nuisance potential and what could be done to mitigate for that so looking in detail at their site plan in blue I've outlined the the 600 square foot of building on the site that is currently dedicated to the vehicle repair use the building just to the north of this adjoining it is currently a restaurant we have here a retail facility on the western side of the property and then a vacant building exists on the eastern side of the property one of the improvements the applicants proposed to bring them into compliance with our screening requirements is to install a six foot high wooden fence here where you see the orange line and that would include gates at this location as well as here at the back of the parking lot to allow for vehicle maneuvering throughout the storage area that's this located here so that would provide the required screening from the right-of-way for the vehicles that they store on site another substantial improvement they have volunteered to install is this type C buffer that's the code requires between commercial and residential uses there is a multifamily development just south of this currently it's separated only with a wood fence so they would be proposing the type C buffer that would be the 15 foot wide area containing six trees and 25 shrubs per hundred linear feet so that's that improvement is what would help bring them into compliance with the minimum landscaping for the zoning district and get them up to that ten percent canopy in addition to that staff is also recommending that that buffer be extended up this eastern side of the property currently there's a wood fence there between them and an office building it contains things such as an accounting firm and we've heard from that neighbor that there are issues with sound from this property and from this use in particular with noise issues so the installation of that buffer in addition to the fence would at least provide some additional separation there and as those trees grow they would mute some of the sounds from the site part of our analysis is also to look at the comprehensive plan so the Denton plan 2030 designates everything you see on the map and read is designated as downtown Denton so this area is intended to be high density residential as well as have a mixture of supporting uses commercial office civic uses basically everything necessary to have a full service downtown where people can live work play and have all of the services they need within close range so while this use does have some potential nuisances such as noises and odors that should be mitigated for it's also one of those necessary services that people would need in an area where they live and work this site as I mentioned has been developed for several decades with this current use as far as I could tell from our historic records this building was originally a fuel station and at least for the past year and a half dent one has operated their vehicle repair facility here so with the continuation of this use in the potential granting of the SUP there's not wouldn't be any increase in vehicular traffic or other nuisances such as that there is no additional parking required for the use it's within the central business district so we don't have a parking requirement there however there are nine parking spaces on the site for the three uses that exist there today to share and two of those are designated on the site plan for use by this facility so while the site today is not entirely compatible with the surrounding uses at this time the screening and buffering that they're proposing and the staff is recommending would help bring it into compliance and mitigate those nuisances notification was sent regarding this request as of the time this presentation was put together we had received one opposition from the property to the east as well as one in favor from the subject property just today we received a second opposition that was provided to you at the work session that's from this property here at the corner of Austin and McKinney and that does bring the total percent opposition up to 12% there was no neighborhood meeting held for this request and staff is recommending approval with several conditions the first being that vehicle repair would be limited to the 600 square foot one-story building shown on the site plan the second that all customer vehicles for this facility for either repair or pick up following repairs would be kept behind that fence so that those two parking spaces would be left open for you know more short-term traffic all storage of vehicles would be behind the fence the third would be that the proposed six foot wood fence as shown on the site plan would be installed and maintained so long as the vehicle repair use is located on the property unless that storage area is paved and striped as a parking lot which is another option they could do to bring the site into compliance fourth would be that the proposed type C landscape buffer shown on the site plan along the southern property line be installed and maintained in accordance with the city's landscape code in addition staff recommends that the proposed type C buffer be installed also along the eastern property line along the existing wood fence up to the southern edge of that existing building that's shown on the site plan and if you if you look at the details on the plan you'll notice that the the buffer contains as they propose it smaller deciduous ornamental trees so staff additionally recommends that those be replaced with either medium or large canopy trees from our approved planting list so that that would help the site come into compliance with that 15% minimum I'm sorry 20% minimum tree canopy the fifth condition is that no storage of inoperable vehicles would be permitted on the subject property and then six that failure to adhere to these conditions could result in revocation of the SGP in accordance with the DDC provisions in subchapter six and with that I'm happy to answer any questions thank you Haley we do have a question Mr. Smith thank you chair Haley if the SCP is approved does the business owner or the or the I guess the lieutenant the building they still need to send a CEO completed as well before where's the SP wipe that out no they would still need the CEO they've actually applied for a CEO and it's it's declined at this point pending approval of the SGP thank you I do not see other questions thank you Haley this is a public hearing if anyone's wishing to speak you should may certainly do so we just ask that you fill out a card do you have one individual wanting to speak CJ moyo moyo okay he was here I think he stepped out during the break and I haven't seen him come back in I can go look for him if you'd like or yeah let's check real fast looks like Scott is looking into that here he is perfect mr. moyo if you can state your name and address for the record we'd appreciate it sure it's CJ moyo 8712 Swan Park Drive in Denton Texas like to thank the chair and the commissioners for this time thank you thank you Haley I just had ten quick points that I wanted to I'll read them quickly about what auto hail repairs is trying to do first of all this company applying for the SUP because we're trying to get this overlay on the property depth one was established in 2005 in Denton and we do somewhere in the tune of about 600 to a thousand cars a year auto hail repair wise it's a great team great service also we signed the lease for numerous years at this property 208 which is actually just across the street I don't know if you had a chance to take a look at the property there so we actually share the same area general and a lot with the taco shop in a secondhand store we're proposing some developments there that are gonna kind of make it a little clearer what we're trying to do but we signed a lease for numerous years there and you know really just to do auto hail repairs because at the time we're not aware of the new DDC and and things of that nature so our understanding was because of the specific characteristics of this building we figured you know it would be a straight shot for a CEO but um we submitted numerous applications for a CEO and finally learned that we could seek the SUP tool to address our request for continued use of this property we started using this property actually in April 1st of 2017 so we've had to you know kind of learn the process with dealing with this particular lease this facility great building though auto hail repairs are seasonal in nature due to spring and summer hailstorms PDR process which is what we propose to use at this facility does not involve any paint whatsoever no chemicals or substances in the case of Bondo for example these substances and such things are never used to achieve repairs of auto hail repairs it's spent it's through a special tools which are all made out of steel and it's really an art craft by the technicians so this means an environmentally safe use of the property and no stress on drainage etc to protect our neighborhood and pedestrians in that general area why why did we request to use this particular property this property and building on site as the site plans show is very compatible with the requested use for auto quick servicing which we believe was actually the reason why that building was built way back then access doors are out of the main traffic flow of McKinney Street so we think that's going to be a great thing in the sense that we don't interfere with McKinney traffic flow auto hail repairs are not intended as a permanent use of this property so the sub tool the SUP tool may allow use to achieve property owners desire to establish an event center and restaurant on the on a long term basis we've already seen the establishment of the taco shop so our use of the two garage bays and the proposed storage area would pave way for future developments there in conclusion having a had a chance to attend hearings on the new DDC draft in our relationship with property owners we feel that the proposed flat brings development and conformity to all the DDC standards for the property which will promote the city's 2030 plans for increased pedestrian traffic in this area with that I can take any questions thank you we do have a couple questions Commissioner Smith a chair definitely want to support small business down the downtown area and so I think that no I've gone over to second sports and Eastside and didn't kind of brewing over there it's a hey you guys fit in over there I think my only my only problem that I want to stress to you is that you know you kept operating after multiple times of being told to stop operator that you're operating without a CEO and we've had a case like this had come to us in the last couple months with another auto service shop operating out of a storage unit over off University the same thing you know just you can't whenever this whenever there's rules that we have to abide by it says the city for the safety of those around us got to abide by the rules and so you know I think it's much more of a scolding than it is a you know saying we're not going to vote for you but the but let's not do that okay thanks thank you Chris you're back thank you chair and mr. more you just pronounce that right that's perfect I'm not gonna shake hell damage repair help me understand your neighbor to the east I guess it is was concerned about the noise factor so what do you what do you do there that would make noise I mean you said you don't paint so there's not that but what kind of equipment would you use that would you know develop this noise that he's concerned about um you know I don't believe I'm aware of any noise complaints they may have been they didn't reach me but that generally the process involves a technician accessing the underside of the panel and basically just finessing the metal until it thanks okay so there's no heavy-duty equipment yeah noise equipment it may have been perhaps maybe some of the traffic going in and out something and okay well that's what I thought okay thank you mr. Sanchez now ale doesn't you know like you say it's kind of sporadic so in between there say you don't have hail for a couple years what and I mean in this area what would it be considered using it for something else no sir we have not used it for anything else we don't intend to but generally you figure there's a hailstorm event for about 10 minutes 30 minutes and that will damage a hundred thousand cars in an area so there's a lot of work to do for a long time so in general you'll find that you know the use of this property could go on months and months after the event okay I do not see any other questions I appreciate you being here thank you this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so seeing no other individuals wanting to speak I'll close the public hearing and turn it to the dais for discussion or motion Commissioner pernetta like to make a motion to approve can we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on the matter motion to approve with recommendations yes second thank you for the clarification mr. Beck any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries seven zero congratulations the next item of business is item three I z 18 - 0 0 2 7 B I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing good evening mr. chair and members of the planning and zoning Commission the request before you tonight is for a city initiated rezoning of the 15 tracks of land that make up the Denton Service Center just off Mingo Road about 45.13 acres of land the issue we're seeking to resolve with this rezoning request is that currently those 15 parcels are covered by three different zoning districts dr1 and r4 and NRM you 12 we would like to unite all of those parcels under one zoning district DCG part of that goal there is to bring the zoning into line with the longtime use you'll see that I've highlighted the community service use which is what is ongoing at the site now is actually not permitted in two of the current zoning districts that cover this site so goal one is to bring that site entirely under one zoning district that actually it permits the use what that will allow then is a replatting of that site so that we don't have 15 different properties we have one property making up the service center DCG is also important because what to the things that need to be done on the site are resurfacing of the parking lot which you talked about a lot of parking lot there there requires more lot coverage than is permitted in the current zoning districts and also there is a need to expand the fleet services center on site and this will facilitate that it won't go outside the boundaries of the site but it'll simply provide for a slight expansion of the building that's on site now so when we look at a rezoning there are two key criteria we consider does it match the future land use and can we provide public services to it future land use designation for the service center is government and institutional use so that's listed the intent is for government owned land should include buildings and sites meant to serve a particular service for the city of Denton and were encouraged to locate them in a way that provides for shared services and efficient use of land this is actually a great example of that because a wide range of departments are able to use this one location and it's central to the city therefore because DCG provides both the use and the standards that are necessary for that current and ongoing service center use it is compatible with the intentions of the Denton plan 2030 in the future land use of that area our second criteria is adequate provision of public improvements this site has been developed for a long time water and sewer are already available and there's no expectation of an immediate increase major increase in trips from there in the long run there will be some vehicles added to the site but even the additions to the fleet services center right now are simply to deal with they don't have enough capacity for the buildings they already have on site so we're not expecting a major increase in trips from the site either finally compatibility with the area DCG necessary would actually be a continuation of the zoning that is already a long mingo and the railroad there you can see to the southeast it does permit the use that is on site and so it's more appropriate than the current three zoning districts that are covering the site at this time we did send out notifications both the 200 and 500 foot distances we received three responses in opposition to in favor we did have a neighborhood meeting on Monday staff does recommend approval of this request it meets our criteria and it achieves that goal put forward by the future land use with that I'll take any questions y'all have we do have some questions commissioner back thank you chair thanks Sean can you go back to a site that is a pretty clear picture of keep going okay go back for okay I need the biggest picture you can give me of the site all right as best you can show us where the fleet service center is and which direction are you going to be expanded in yes sir so the fleet services center is here okay and the expansion we go from about here to about there so it's going away from the residential area yes okay yes all right about 16,000 square feet okay thank you commissioner pernetta so when we're addressing the zoning basically we're consolidating everything based on what I'm seeing right now the character of what's already there isn't going to be changing drastically that is accurate sir okay and the responses that we got negatively tended to raise the point of property values and everything what was bought up in the work session was that as work is done on the parking areas and things like that at that point it triggers the fact that buffers and things like that would go in which would tend to beautify and actually cover that area from the residential which would kind of address the the issues that we're seeing with the opposition right that would be opportunity yes sir according to our standards because we'd be putting in an institutional use next to a residential use there would be landscaping buffering requirements yes sir okay excellent there's just things I wanted to clarify thanks to mr. Smith why'd my finger mr. Morris I know I gotta wipe my finger the city I said in work session I'll say it again pretty disappointed that the city just went ahead and started doing development whatnot without regards to the zoning but I am very very happy the city is willing to play by their own rules and to not not continue going forward in that manner of saying well zoning doesn't matter us we are the city so glad glad we're getting this all unified and we're we're playing with it on parameters so thank you absolutely sure mr. Sanchez yes I also wanted I just want to reaffirm what Smith said you know kind of disappointed but long term you know there's some small buildings that are going to be constructed but you're we're looking at a pretty large area which is I think 45 acres and when you look at that hole at 45 acres and you kind of drive the boundaries you see where there where there's a lot of as a neighbor and looking into that area whether it's my back in my backyard I think it's pretty depressing for the city not to put some kind of buffer around the whole area there's there's big neighborhoods right there if you look where you talked about the where they're going to be building those what did you call the fleet services services if you look to the right of that and then go up going north and then take you know just follow that line the boundary there's a lot of neighborhoods right there that probably you know don't deserve to be looking at all these all this big equipment I drove by there today there's a barrels of I don't know probably diesel or whatever sitting in there and you can see it right from the road it I'd like to see the city do a little bit more and instead of just waiting till the project comes and until they do a project and start building buffers around their whole property line so that neighbors don't have to look at that we wouldn't allow that in any other neighborhood you wouldn't allow that in any neighborhood except that one because the majority those people you would probably consider I don't know what their income is but it's not the upper end of the of the neighborhoods so I think it's allowed because because of the neighborhood and I think it's a shame that the city allows that they wouldn't do that up on North Denton or up a forest hill you know so I think it's time the the city wake up and put a buffer all the way around that okay Christian Pernetta I will be voting to prove this having said that one of the reasons that problematic is because in a way this is a complete right if we don't approve it nothing changes this area looks exactly the same way as it does and actually by voting you know by voting for it at the very least as they do more work on that we'll get those buffers and things like that but like I said I'll be voting for it I'm not sure you know what the rest of the which is going to be doing but I do want to stress to the people who live in this area and I'm not legal they want to jump in here I just wanted to say something on behalf of the city real quick as a 30 year employee this this facility the service center was out there when I first started working here 30 years ago and the last citywide rezoning was in 2002 so I don't think it was the the idea that the city built the structure in violation of the zoning necessarily it's that the last zoning failed to account for the existing uses Christian Ellis thank you chair yeah I just I guess want to add a little bit more that I think this will allow improvements to get started by by changing the zoning at first I was a little bit concerned going DCG but looking at our draft zoning map for our new code and new draft it is labeled public facility which would eliminate other uses from from happening there so I was happy to see that and and I and I did question development services why are we doing this now knowing we're rewriting the code but this allows things to get started if we do it now we don't have to wait for ample implementation of a new code so make sense thank you Sean I don't see any other questions this is public hearing so anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so we just ask that you would fill out a card we do have some cards here that we'd love to hear your your thoughts on this the first one is Leonard Chavez the view to state your name and address for the record you would have four minutes to speak right next to the surface in I've lived there for about 50 years and my biggest concern is drainage I've been after the city for at least four or five years drainage still runs across my property they allowed some people up on the hill to build some homes all that water came down so what bothers me is when they go in there to start building that all this water is going to come right my direction and I know there's a lot of traffic that comes in and out of there which I can understand that but I also have 18 wheelers coming in that sometimes at midnight doing deliveries you know and in 2017 my house got flooded because of the hill before I never had that problem until they built Paco trail and then the water all started headed towards me now they've raised the road level up to where my property is lower than the road so everything comes to me and basically I just want to know what the plans are for the future of that property I don't have that answer as far as we've been informed there's not any changes in use going forward but if Scott would like to add clarity to that Scott McDonald director of development services mr. chair that ultimately the plan is this will have some interior renovations to the fleet services building and along with that will be parking lot improvements with those parking lot improvements the drainage will be taken into consideration so I think that if there are any conditions that exist today it's as a result of however many years that that's been existence and I don't know that when that was put in if there was any sort of plan ultimately I to look at that my personal opinion it was just a hodgepodge of of buildings and storage of equipment this is going to be a more pragmatic approach to how we address the parking situation the traffic situation and ultimately drainage I will tell you that the city's doing everything that it can do on any of its projects to be a good steward to our community to be representative of what it is that we're asking others to do in the community and and drainage is a big component of that so I most certainly will speak with a city engineer directly and and make sure that we look at this particular situation as well as I know to the future that we'll be addressing off-site drainage I appreciate the clarification thank you thank you Christian back thank you Scott quick question according to cave is do our 18 wheelers do they have a means of the ingress and egress in the back back there coming off Ruedale trap that let me let me say this I don't think that there's been a traffic management plan there so I think for the for the most part that there hasn't been much attention given to that I will say that we have been looking at that and I will say that we've made an awful lot of investments in the new streets in the area we've resurfaced and made repairs and we do not want those large trucks going over that so rather than making that commitment to say where they're going I will say that we are curtailing that and I know that we're gonna look at that even more so to the future as we make the improvements to the parking so ingress and egress is an important component I would say if that's going on that seems like it should be a violation of use that street that's a that's a small street we're we're attempting to correct the sins of the past so we're making any number of improvements to try to to make sure that that we are good neighbors and and we recognize that's a residential neighborhood and I don't know that it's been respected in the same way that we intend to do that to the future okay to be continued thank you thank you thank you we have another card here it says Pat Nash and Carolyn if you can just say it's your name and address for the record I reside at 1508 Santos drive and I'm here about the property at 916 Northwood this was my parents house they bought it 60 years ago they're now deceased so my sister my brother and myself held the house the house is two houses down from Texas Street which crosses over right next to the city my brother's living there now and he says that and I know it is it's very noisy he says they start like at four o'clock in the morning with loud trucks and I will tell you this they may have fixed Paisley Street but Wood Street and probably Ruedell they're a wreck they're just horrible you can't even go down it hardly and the main concern was and I think y'all addressed that was there going to be a buffer of any sort they we've dealt with this for years with my parents but there's just no buffer and it's just getting worse and worse and worse and I just wanted to know if they're going to improve the roads over there put a buffer in and I wanted to know what was going to be done y'all said that and again we were worried about the property value was it being so close to where it is obviously doesn't help the property value so those are my concerns and I think that's all I have well I appreciate you coming out and vocalizing those thank you very much if you have another card Commissioner Pernetta sorry I did have a question for for you real quick so you mentioned some of the questions that you had speaking to you yes you mentioned some of the questions you had were addressed based on the condition of the you know the zoning in the area right now compared to what you we believe will be going forward are you are you more comfortable with what would be happen if we approve this then if than if we didn't are you I'm sorry could you kind of start okay I'm sorry so you mentioned that some of the questions that you had were addressed previously you mentioned buffer and you know basically the condition of the property is as adjacent to it to where you are based on what you've heard are you more comfortable with what you think what we what we all believe will be the case like what they said they're going to pay a little bit more attention to that neighborhood I mean it has run down over the years yes because a lot of the people that live there are now deceased and people buy the houses and and so it's not what it used to be but the people that still own the houses I remember it as my childhood home right and I hate to see that the road I mean it just just run down you know and I've been over there when the trucks city trucks they just go barreling down it's like they don't have any respect for that side of town right and I don't know I do feel better with what the buffer I do feel better about that and and if y'all could improve the roads that would be really be good I mean I thought when they did Paisley Street they were going to go ahead and go down wood but they didn't all right well thank you very much it looks like we have one more question for you ma'am because you're saying just yes you said noise is a big issue it starts pretty early in the morning 4 o'clock in the morning 4 o'clock in the morning so do you think what would be a good time to and that I know that they get to work pretty early but there is it is a neighborhood and that kind and that kind of a traffic is I'd say six at least I mean at least six okay most people are getting up at six or so to go to work you know unless they work nights and they've come home to go to bed but I would say I mean I just think four clocks pretty early okay I think it'll be an improvement what they're doing but I think there's certain things like noise that has to be addressed because it is a neighborhood and we have to look at that consider the neighbors okay we appreciate that very much like I said I don't I don't live there but I would go if I live there I'd be much noisier than I am now thank y'all thank you absolutely if you just come down and state your name and address for the record my name is Patsy Nash I live in Lewisville 1102 Pelville Brook Drive and and that's my sister but another concern will the city trucks be coming down Wood Street because you have the house that my mother has it's just the second house right there up where Texas where it goes down to the service center so will they be coming down Wood Street I think they have before and I'm I agree with picture Sanchez that their hood is you know run down it was our home when we were growing up it's all run down my brother lives there right now because we haven't done anything with the house but anyway that was that's a concern is to all the traffic because it is so close I mean I mean you just go you just go a little ways and take a left and you're about there at the service center you know thank you I appreciate you coming on it's asking the question absolutely if you just come forward and state your name and address for the record I'm Karen Rodriguez and I live at 821 North Roodale Street down this road from him and yes Roodale Street is tore up that's where all those trucks run through is right down Roodale Street and they do start early in the morning those of us that have little kids and yes I may be older but I haven't adopted a little girl and I mean it's just terrible and then the streets we get charged on our electric bill for the runoffs that we don't even have runoffs on our street we have no curbs we have no no I mean it's just a street and then when they fixed everybody else's they skipped our part they started from Paisley and went all the way down to McKinney on Roodale but when they got to Paisley they just quit from our street on down to Mingo they left it because that's where they traveled from and those big trucks are always right there on Roodale it's a mess it's a big mess and we keep wondering Leonard said he's talked to several people and they keep telling him we're on the road or we're on the list to be fixed and it's never gotten done I certainly can understand the frustration where are they gonna be parking around there because we also have issues with the rats and the raccoons and I've seen several coyotes my little girl thought they were puppies they seen the big dogs and then the little puppies they thought they were puppies she's mommy I wanna pass no no no don't touch those you know you gotta stay away from them there's just lots of coyotes over there and I have big issues with I don't want rats I don't want roaches I don't want any of that stuff from those those trucks sure certainly understand Scott I know you mentioned traffic can you clarify the intent of the city and using those roads perhaps well there's there's several things that are occurring simultaneously and and and I will say that I think there's some plans to use the site more appropriately than maybe what it is you so some of that land that that has been used for storage of materials is probably going to turn into parking I think much more of that is going to move towards the railroad tracks rather than the residential so I think there'll be some changes in use it's going to take a while to get to that point and I say that meaning that the building expansion will occur first than the parking so that we're not tearing up the parking to address the the progress on streets I know that there are and I can't tell you the specifics but some of those streets have been rebuilt and others will be rebuilt so those are all those are all scheduled to be done I just can't speak specifically to the schedule I will have staff collect their their information as far as contact information and I'll make sure that we get back with them with some specifics on what the plans are for each of those streets great as far as addressing the noise I'll also address that with staff is to again if we have equipment on that side of the property then we need to be more respectful and obviously try to use it in a different way so I don't know how much of that's been communicated but I'll certainly make sure that it is I appreciate that and I think the buffers would help sound as well just to piggy back on on what Scott had just talked about we actually have an additional neighborhood meeting scheduled prior to this going to council that's scheduled for March 18th and so what we can try to do is make sure that we have the staff members city engineer and those involved at that meeting to answer some of these questions that way everyone's there at one point in time and so we'll reach out to you again and provide you with that that information I know we don't have this going to council until April 2nd sorry can you repeat the question and then answer it just so the audience can hear yeah so that's going to be okay the question was where will the neighborhood meeting on March 18th be held and that that meeting is going to be held at the City Services facility center on Woodrow okay Woodrow Street and I'll be happy to make sure what we do have that posted on the website and we have sent that information out but I'll be happy to make sure we communicate that exact address perfect thank you Sean this is a public hearing we've had some great feedback if there's anyone else who would like to speak on the item certainly can do so seeing none I will close public hearing and turn to the dais for discussion or motion Commissioner Smith make a motion for approval we have a first for approval Commissioner Pernetta let's second the motion we have a first and a second for approval is there any discussion the only thing I would like to add is is I think I can speak on the entire behalf of the Commission by thanking you for coming out and providing context to this I think it's the right thing to move forward to consolidate that but it seems in tandem with that the city has some obligations and some opportunities to help the surrounding neighborhood so I would encourage you to go to the both the neighborhood meeting and the council and let them know and your vocal pressure can help ensure that the task being done with buffers and rearranging of parking and streets and traffic that stays ever-present on the council's mind and on city staff to move that forward so thank you for coming out I appreciate it tremendously I will be in support of this but with the hope that some of those ancillary streets do you see some remediation with that I'll call for a vote on the board the motion carries 7-0 the next item for business is item 3 JZ 19 - 0 0 0 1 call Ron Minguita to present and open the public hearing thank you chair members of the Commission bring forward for your consideration is a rezoning change request for a property located north of Robertson just east of Skinner Road and west of the railroad tracks the property is being considered for rezoning for the purpose of the applicants request to establish a restaurant use on 509 and 511 Robertson the approximate acreage is 0.82 acres as shown here on the aerial a line in yellow by way of background the subject property prior to 2002 was zone SF7 in 2002 it was then rezoned part of the zoning change of this entire city to NR4 but just before 2002 I skipped 1996 the applicant or the property here at the time requested that the property be zoned for commercial or restaurant use that was not accepted or approved the owner was given the option to rezone they opted to seek a variance through the Zoning Board of Adjustment and again in 1996 the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted not a restaurant not a restaurant but rather a catering establishment and so that was the use that was carried forward from 1996 to present recently in September of 2018 a property owner I'm sorry a business owner I wanted to again try to apply for a restaurant use for the subject 509 and 511 that application was denied again for the fact that the zoning did not permit for a restaurant use working with the applicant between December and January we concluded that the direction that the applicant needed to do was a zoning change request and that is why we are here today the zoning that they're requesting is NRMU which is a zoning district that will permit NR will permit a restaurant use there is a limitation because it is a neighborhood mixed use that the restaurant use cannot exceed more than 4,000 square feet and that it's only a sit-down type restaurant just want to make mention that the property owner through another venue we had several public open houses as you all recall back in early of 2018 where we were talking about the zoning map the property owner approached the staff and asked that the property be rezoned as part of the upcoming zoning map update we thought that was a good idea with it being a focus area a commercial corridor the area which I'll describe a little bit further is is with some non residential uses however that zoning map as you all heard during a work session is not for some time looking at April for its consideration we explained that to the to the applicant they were not really wanting to wait they rather rezone the property so that they can get started on their restaurant use and so we're bringing that forward in front or in ahead of the DDC DDC update in the zoning map request so here is the aerial that shows the site the restaurant or the proposed restaurant use proposed zoning area is generally in this area here there is already NRM you in the area these two lots north of Robertson as well as South Robertson is currently zone NRM you and you can see that between Skinner to the railroad there are some single-family however some of the areas that you can see here are currently under developer under are not currently used so this would lend itself for a possible commercial note if that is what is being accepted to the south is the Fred Moore Learning Center and again according to the applicant this property has been used as a restaurant prior to 1996 the city just does not have any records she does have and she has provided proof via documentation and I'm sure she'll be able to share that with you all but again looking at this area between Skinner the railroad south to the Fred Moore Learning Center and north of the towards the channel it would serve to community as a focus area and we're certainly looking at this as a potential mix use area for any rezoning requests there is considerations that we need to require to look into as far as approval criteria there are two and you've heard several past cases and the same criteria apply does it conform with the future land use element the future land use element shows this area as residential low however there are other parts of the dental plan 2030 that promote community neighborhood services as well as walkability and we see that again looking at the area site specific there is an opportunity here that we can certainly support some mixed uses does the proposed area can facilitate the adequate provision of services and the answer is yes there are currently services in the area and the use that is being proposed and hopefully in the future can serve the the uses that we'll see if that again is the case with the proposed rezoning section 35 3 3 b3 also provides additional review for zoning requests that are not consistent with the future land use map and the items that's listed here are covered in your backup looking at existing land use patterns through considering it is in an isolated zoning district encouraging you know again the most appropriate use of the land and based on staff's analysis and based on what's currently on the ground so that feels that that is the case and for that reason I'm sorry I kind of jumped ahead the public hearing notices were sent out you can see that the area here in this exhibit shows the boundaries or the buffer areas where the 200 and the 500 foot radiuses are as of this evening we have not received any response either in opposition or in favor some photos of the site shown here the larger exhibit or photo shows the restaurant or the building that is currently used as a catering establishment and is the subject of what is being requested to be a restaurant if again the zoning is approved so with that again it per the the criteria for approval and the additional requirements for looking at zoning that is not necessarily consistent with the future land use map we the staff is recommending approval of this zoning change requests and I'll be happy to stand for any questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you chair. Ron why aren't there any overlay restrictions being put on this by staff recommendations for NRM uses there are other uses whatnot and of course this area is specifically an area that we think that this building would be used for just restaurant use but why a staff are recommending any restrictions to just make it down just that just the restaurant use alone. We didn't see a need again looking at the area let me zoom back here we feel that the area would not need an overlay I mean if we were to consider obviously one would would be the height but I don't think that would be the case we feel that that is something that would be handled through the development standards and again there has been no opposition or any responses so not sure if there would be any need for it. My only my only fear is 15-20 years down the road this area gets gentrified some says well that's lots in RMU we wipe out this building here and put a put an apartment here because I can or whatever it is and there's or puts put not necessarily apartment but you know what I'm saying is that go delve into some of the higher uses and so you know we've we've seen things like this but from us as a commission before and and restricted the limp the use down to specifically what the applicants wanting and kind of almost a moral memorializing them the restaurant itself is always being a restaurant always going to be a restaurant no matter what. Right and and and that that can be a pro and a con right if we if we do an overlay sometimes that would limit any potential other uses that could potentially be in this area so again we want to make sure that this serves as a neighborhood servicing area so if it's a different use and it's permitted in that zoning district we certainly want to encourage that as well and just just by way of again we will be talking about this more during our discussions with the den plan update I'm sorry den code update MN would be the suitable NRM you transition from from NRM you and we are certainly going to look into any limitation as far as MN when it applies to areas within a neighborhood such as what you see in this area. Got it. Thanks. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair and thanks Ron. Just curious and not that I'm lying that it the NRM you it's being requested here encompasses the residents next door to it too but why just wondering why it didn't focus on the area where the restaurant is going to be at the parking lot and in the house or the restaurant it it encompasses that house next to it too. Was there a reason for that? The my understanding is the the applicant I'm sorry the property owner owns all four lots and they're they're wanting to make this again I'll let the applicant speak to their future plans my understanding is that they all they own all four lots that are identified. Four lots there's three that face Robertson then one and then the one in the back and that could potentially be used as you know either additional areas for seating or just storage associated with the restaurant use. Well and I hope this goes forward I really do I when I my wife from St. Louis and when I go up and visit with her you go to those older cities like that and in the neighborhoods on the corners there's little restaurants there's pubs there's little bakeries and everything like that it's all within walking distance so I'd love to see this area develop into something like that. Right and I think there's some history back to this and I know it doesn't it hasn't carried forward like we would like to see but I think that's something that well as we move forward yeah it's gonna have to come up to code and everything that's right exactly any would any any restaurant use would have to come in and apply for a CEO and go through the inspections and related code requirements. Sure okay thank you Ron. Ron I have a couple questions for Commissioner Burnett I have some questions can you tell me what is the definition of spot zoning? Well spot zoning is looking at if you were to look at a larger area and you identify an area obviously spot of that area that's generally what it's referred to there's obviously a lot of different ways of looking at it there is a lot of literature that talks about what's considered spot zoning what's not we we don't see this as as a spot zoning we look at this and we'll again part of our recommendation is that we're going to be looking at this at a larger area scale when we're looking at the den plan sorry den code update as well as the draft zoning map. Thank you for that the other question I have is it seems too hard for me not to notice that three items ago we had in NRMU 12 have pushed back from the city to go to MRNU I know it wasn't your item per se but there was two concerns stated on that was one the staff felt that by changing MRMU 12 to an MRMU could potentially start cascading other zoning this idea of zoning creep was a concern that was expressed by the city and then the other concern was just the general transition from one zone to another just like the overall density from moderate and to high density as you approach loop 288 but yet in this situation the city to Commissioner Smith's point did not put an overlay on this it's not an MRMU 12 to an MRMU it's an NR4 to an MRMU and I understand that there's a restaurant there now but without any overlays there could be a lot a vet a middle school a hotel a bed-and-breakfast elderly housing center and so I'm trying to understand the consistency from the city's perspective as I walk through this and that's not necessarily a question but sure something I'm gonna hopefully hear out as citizens provide feedback but it is something that I'm trying to process through and I understand the context of future zoning happening but we just saw a case where the city was proactively zoning I just don't know how a future zoning potentially on the road should affect a zoning tonight and then I just got two responses to that and just wave looking at it one we understand the the creeping right but I mean we look at the area the existing area I think that those are two separate locations and we really want to focus in this area the other thing is that what what we have as far as history and we know that this area has been used for non residential uses and so that gives us a little bit more of a reason for for looking at a non residential zoning district in the past we we we look at not only what could be adjacent to this area what potentially could be used in this area and again based on what we have as far as history and what we want an invasion for the future I think that the NRMU fits of in this particular area okay thank you Commissioner Burnetta yeah and I kind of want to piggyback off of you know what what the chair just mentioned what Commissioner Smith mentioned a little while ago and he raised a very good point about gentrification I am for allowing this but I'm a little nervous about how we go about doing it I like the idea of an overlay because that would be very specific to this building and specifically what they're doing as we know Denton's growing property values are going up we are this area is ripe for gentrification and I want to make sure that whatever we do preserves the character and the history of this area and protects the people who live here from that kind of encroachment we know that you know the you know the development codes are going to be changing very quickly now you mentioned that this would be getting ahead of that off the top of your head based on what's going to be coming in the code is is what we're voting on here going to be essentially something that would be happening anyway in that area or is there something if we were to try and take the route of an overlay would we be doing something that would protect that area but eventually would wind up being overridden by it by that code yeah just just again some again these are all preliminary discussions you know nothing is final until the the council approves the code but I know that as far as a committee that meets on this specifically they talked about the MN because this would transition to an MN if that is the proposed zoning gets approved NRMU transitions into MN any building that's over 45 feet requires a specific use permit that's something that's being discussed so that's that's a limitation on height if this were to go forward as an MN in the in the draft zoning or the zoning map update so that that's another you know that's a way of looking at as well and I don't think that's been the purview of the planning zoning Commission because it's still being discussed but anything again under the MN where where the building is proposed to be over 45 feet I believe would require a specific use permit that's going to be built in with all MNs throughout the city so so when you're mentioning that and you're talking about and I think the reason you're talking about the height is to basically address the idea of there being the you know the the type of developments like they have on Fry Street where apartments on top of what you know on top of the mixed use ranks but outside of the height so the MN like I said is basically the replacement for the NRMU so in essence this would it be this this strip that would now be an M right that's that's that's something that we're we're looking into actually this would be this is what we're considering tonight this area here and you can see that this is already zoned NRMU this parcel and then this parcel here this is actually a non-residential use we do have some residential use there I understand but there's also some underutilized properties here and then you got the railroad on one side and that that creates that focus area that we're referring to okay so in a sense in a sense the what we're voting on is essentially coming to the whole area what we're looking at tonight is simply expediting that particular location is that is that accurate say that one more time is it in a sense you know you kind of drew a circle around us that this would all be and everything so in months or whatever you know a few months that that essentially is going to be applied to this in the whole area what we're basically getting down to is expediting that applied to this particular business is that right that is that is correct in that you know we explained to the property owner that we would be considering this for a zoning district that would allow mix of uses they they would have they rather move this move move forward sooner than later again as I explained earlier because the that zoning map update is unsure we're unsure as far as when that will actually occur and so they wanted to move forward sooner than later okay if I can address real fast the the draft zoning map does not have that as em in oh it doesn't it is not okay so it would have to be rezoned to em in that isn't right that that's something that we're currently looking into it's it's it's not again something that that draft map that we have is just that it's just still a drought okay so all right so that's just okay it's a preliminary conversation and in theory if we were to take the the tact of doing an overlay specifically to this property in essence it wouldn't be a moot point as of now right we we will take your recommendation when I say we the staff will take your recommendation to City Council if there is an overlay that is that is up to the Commission to make a recommendation but again staff did not see a need for an overlay okay for this particular zoning case all right thank you that's all I had Commissioner Sanchez yes I'm looking at the there's already some and an NMRU properties there the historical I guess what I look at is that there's some historical justification for making it a restaurant and the community that we're talking about is Southeast Denton it has some unique characters that you're not going to find in other in other areas of the city simply because it is Southeast Denton in Southeast Denton you have your own barbershop you have we not recently we approved the funeral home expansion and we've done some because those were historical uses for the for that area right it has history and so that's why I look at this is that these are historical uses for this area just like Fred Moore school across the street so I just wanted to mention that is that Denton is and that not only is Robertson Road it's kind of like the entrance into that come into that neighborhood it's it's kind of the corridor so having a restaurant in that area kind of invites you into the rest of this into the rest of Southeast Denton so I just want to say is then Southeast Denton is not what the rest of Denton is it's unique in that they had there because of their situation they had it own unique restaurants their own barbershops and this is one of those historical uses that occurred in that neighborhood and I think it has to be remembered that's what it was and and I know I've heard people talk about that in about that restaurant and when they used to go to Fred Moore school and stuff so I think it's very important to bring that back to remember what what this is that what that area was and before you go to Commissioner Alex real fast I think Jerry I wanted to interject real quick if I could just kind of synthesize some of the comments that are being made here in terms of what we often see in terms of an analysis on this this is obviously not an ideal case as far as you know looking at a proposed use and comparing it to a future land use map that this is as clear as we would like for it to be but you know as we saw with with people's funeral home and I know Mr. Prunetta was was basically articulating the the the analysis that you would typically go through to look at a future land use map what are we going to do with the future well essentially you were asking what are what are the future land uses that are that that are viable here and as we were looking at the people's funeral home situation a while back you know we were looking at what was in the the comprehensive plan that that really talked about this because the future land use is only one element of the comprehensive plan it's probably one of the more important elements of the comprehensive plan with respect to rezoning cases but there's only one element of the comprehensive plan and and and I think that the part of that is the realization that over the years that perhaps you know past rezoning cases and comprehensive plan analyses haven't really taken account of as Mr. Sanchez said the history of the area as much as it should have that that that that along Roberson Street there were some businesses that that they came along and I don't know that that was fully considered in the preparation of the future land use map and in assigning zoning back in 2002 and and so to a certain extent it's it's a matter of trying to come up with something that is supportable by the comprehensive plan even if it's not the ideal case of a future land use map matching perfectly with with the proposed use so I think with that in mind going back to the chair's question what is spot zoning typically spot zoning is when you have a rezoning that's not supported in some way by the comprehensive plan and and so the the key element is it's not withstanding the the issue with a future land use map can staff articulate some of the some of the you know the the concern some of the goals that are stated in the comprehensive plan that that would support a diversity of business uses recognize the history of the of the land you know recognize how it's been used over the years talking about one of the other cases that we had tonight the chair was asking about an NRMU development I think this is probably a little bit closer to the case we just saw with the city service center where you know perhaps the the the comprehensive plan and and the zoning that occurred back in 2002 really didn't take into account what was out there why because it wasn't legally important to this recognize it from a legal standpoint the city could operate out there notwithstanding the the the zoning that was eventually put into place it wasn't important to challenge it and and I think that in a similar sort of way that perhaps past efforts to define future land uses in this region we're not sensitive enough to the needs of the neighborhood and the realities that were out there so I think that it's important to look at this not only from the standpoint of the future land use but also to the the goals and the and the purposes that are articulated in the comprehensive plan you know that that underlie our overall zoning goals for the city thank you for the word Kirstie Ellis thank you chair I guess I just wanted to offer I understand that the concerns raised with you know why didn't staff recommend overlay and whatnot but I think for me you know every tract of land is different and and offers its own set of unique circumstances with it so I would say this looks like a revitalization opportunity revitalization of history revitalization of neighborhood services going forward so I mean that would be my opinion as to as to why crystal back thank you chair yeah in my cell earlier to go for this I appreciate the chairman's and Commissioner Smith's view about the gentrification and how to overlay and I tend to agree I didn't really think about that but protecting this area is important but if I'm here and again I appreciate Jerry's comments on you know probably focusing in a little bit more where we can get by with this but are you saying that when this eventually if it does speaking hypothetically goes in man if we do an overlay now to protect this is that gonna throw a monkey wrench into it would carry forward as any other zoning that has an overlay or a condition we will have to evaluate that and make sure that those conditions that are more restrictive would would have to follow obviously that again that's something that we didn't see a staff but certainly if the Commission wants to make a recommendation again we'll take that forward and ultimately City Council will make that decision I would be willing to consider that because you know this this area is bordered off by Bell on the on the West Hickory on the north I think as far as Woodrow on these and but there's encroachment now already as far as gentrification when you go up bill you've got the apartments going up there it wouldn't take long for them to work their way in there so protecting this with an overlay seems like a sensible thing to do right now so I just wanted to put that out there when we start considering the vote thanks Ron for sending in for questions I don't see any more at this time but I would be close the applicant and property owner are both here if you have any questions for them perfect yeah we have several cards this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to speak we certainly do so and we'll work through these cards as I as I receive them I want to be mindful of the applicants here they certainly have an opportunity to speak I don't I don't think I have a card for the applicant if you're wishing to speak I'm more than welcome to and if you could just state your name and address for the record I do want to start off by reading a saying by Martin Luther King for years now I've heard the word wait it rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity that this weight has almost always meant never we must come to see with one of our distinguished jurors that justice too long delayed is justice denied this location at 511 Robertson if you hear the elderly and seniors talking about it that this is the only place that they can go and eat back in 1940 1950 it's it's not trying to have it something else this is this is history for Southeast Denton this is something that I want my grandkids to be able to say my grandparents came here this is something that before we could go to another area this is the only place we could go to we're asking if you took you know to look at it we're not we're wanting it to be this is a historical landmark we want to leave it as that I have pictures of the actual location from way in the beginning in the beginning to what it looked like this is not a home this was a restaurant this was actually put in and the first started out in 1938 as Sweetwise they had hamburgers and fries for 25 cents you had all of Denton County not just didn't all of Denton County said that went to Fred Moore high school they could only go to this restaurant and eat are we trying to change it no we're just trying to keep that history there to where this is for Southeast Denton we want somewhere where you can come and feel comfortable be able to have something in the neighborhood to be able to just go and enjoy yourself and come back and you know feel the feel like family feel a vibe there I do have other pictures from 1996 and before 1996 when touch of Q was there it was a restaurant operating as a sit-in restaurant as well you can see that even before there was the little pond in the back wasn't there previously what we're asking is to for you all to vote that we do get a recommendation to be able to have this as a sit-in restaurant my spouse was supposed to be here with me today and taught but he was admitted into the hospital today at 430 so you have me we appreciate you being here thank you any questions for me we do Commissioner Pernetta I don't really have a question so I want to thank you for coming out I think overall I know me and several others appear to be very supportive of this there's a lot of talk right now and I think I want to make sure that you know that what doesn't get lost in the whole discussion of zoning and how we do this is is that we we support you know I support this I don't speak for everybody support this and I wanted to go through I think right now the the main discussion that we're having is how do we do this and make sure that we preserve the character of the neighborhood and that's it but I do want to thank you for coming out you know in some way or other I'll be voting to make sure that you get the restaurant that you want it's well said Commissioner Christopher Sanchez you mentioned some that the restaurant was in operation in the 1990s yes so it was a restaurant now some of the stuff we read we read that you know had closed down for so many years and some of the stuff we have we're given but there's probably a lot of times it was in operation and probably didn't have an operative OCO because you know it wasn't really paid much attention it was in Southeast Denton who cares so I think it's probably you was not I was a restaurant a lot more than that then it has been written simply because of the location and so I think the people in Southeast Denton really realize how important that that was a restaurant in the history that like you just said it wasn't closed in 1960 completely for 30 years I don't believe that myself when I was reading it and being from that area it probably kept operating but didn't get the paperwork simply because of its location and and I really appreciate that the history behind that I think it's Southeast Denton is very unique from the rest of the city thank you thank you and I do want to mention that we did have a petition online petition and paper petition that we had over 300 signatures of everyone wanting to bring this to Southeast End so I don't see any other questions I certainly appreciate you being here thank you if we have any questions we'll call you back up okay next card I have is Raymond Redmond good evening planning and zoning members my name is Raymond Redmond I live at 724 Moore Street in Denton I just want to thank everyone for the support for my grandparents restaurant over the last I guess 20-30 years of my adult life I've somewhat worked on the attempt to get this zoning corrected that was rezoned from my grandparents restaurant to SF7 back then the newspapers was the legal notice and the property owners didn't have to know that they were going to be rezoned something different than what they were operating under so this was an attempt to finally correct that we had tenants that have not been able to open up and get their CEO because of this particular zoning and so that's why we're here in front of you tonight and by doing this NRMU would give them that zoning to go ahead and get their CEO this building has has been approved in the past for their health inspections and through the building inspections as far as the codes for opening up a restaurant it has the grease traps it has the commercial venerhood and those are not cheap so it has always been a business it hasn't been a home in the past we have always wanted in some parts to improve the property the building inside looks just like except for beautification it looks just like when my grandparents were there and as you know restaurants have in the tent and the trends have changed the reception area is all a lot bigger the kitchen areas are a lot bigger and so by the restaurant itself is a thousand square feet and it does have a lot of history there we would like to do some type of expansion so like in the summertime where everyone likes to eat in restaurants that the kitchen area can have cool air conditioning and that takes a lot of planning and a lot of and a lot of money and so that's why you can see we've we've worked over the years to acquire the four lots so that we could eventually expand and modernize the building so we're just asking that the planning a zoning take that into consideration we're not trying to do anything out of character of the neighborhood we still want to function as a neighborhood services and just to answer your question I've lived with spot zoning I've heard that quite a bit when my kind of definition of spot zoning would be and I thought about it when you were talking about it it's sort of like a giraffe standing in the middle of elephants and this would not be that consideration because this particular property services the neighborhood a lot of the neighborhood that people that live there come to this particular restaurant so it's kind of like still within that same checklist just maybe not totally off just a house I just like to ask that y'all approve this and they can move on and get their CEO and open up if there's any questions I appreciate that there is questions Mr. Smith thank you chair mr. Reben correct my grandfather opened up Jim's diner on Fry Street back in the 1980s and so I think I know what it what it's like whenever your grandfather opens up a restaurant that means a lot to a community and unlike your establishment mine was torn down I think they put a Chipotle up on top of it so if you want a burrito we can go on down there but thank you for coming out you're the property owner correct do you have any restriction if we were to make a motion to just restrict the use to restaurant only sounds like you got another intention then to use those restaurant as long as you own it I think I think our intention is to make sure that 20 25 years from now no one no no planning and zoning Commission's looking back and saying well those idiots do by just letting it be in a more you without letting a restriction be on there so you're okay with it with a restaurant where the restaurant restriction is that great awesome thank you very much we have one more question commissioner Pernetta yeah and I just want to clarify you know it's funny is what when I talked about you know maintaining the character of the neighborhood that that's exactly what I was talking about because I used to I used to love Jim Steiner it's it's now like a cookie plays or I don't have some apartments for rich college students I don't know anyway but that's that's the whole thing that you know I guess we're kind of talking about you know it's like you know respect when I talk about the character of the neighborhood wanting to make sure that you know we do this and when we do this we we honor and preserve history and we don't open up the door for someone to come and put some you know abomination there and and it's it's our fault but anyway once again totally support what you're doing and thank you for coming out if I might say that you know Jim Steiner the engine behind the economic development for that area is UNT I'm assuming okay it's not no it's not hidden but for that neighborhood there's really no engine and I'm not saying there won't be later on but you know we're just trying to say we would like to get the building back into the commercial zoning and that NRMU is the use that they could have that commercial commercial use for sit down yes I just wanted to say I think you made a good clarification there is the engine for that restaurant up there was totally different the engine to southeast end is much different the people there won it because it's a community restaurant it's not something that that occurred at UNT it you know you're gonna you want to make money up there out of the you know here you want to bring something back something that that the community wants to enjoy as a historical issue or event thank you thank you very much the next card I have is Mary B Wright if you could just state your name and address for the record you have four minutes to speak my name is Mary black right and and I I'm I'm from Denton and and I was raised in southeast Denton and all the classmates all the churches I'm just standing for Tammy because I like to support whatever's taking place in in the community even though I've got to state my address is 2745 Mill Pond Road my parents still live there everybody I went to school with is still there and during the time I remember growing up I don't think we really left out of the neighborhood because when you step I didn't understand why we didn't leave out of the neighborhood because I know we had a Dairy Queen nearby and my only memory of that is going to the back door and food being handed to us probably burnt and and so that's why we mainly cook but everything in the neighborhood as far as Tommy's there was a barbecue place we could go to it on Friday and Saturday nights I just remember those memories meeting up and feeling like that's my community and that's what I like to do is support anyone trying to take care of work where I'm raised and so I'm I just support it and thank you for your time appreciate you here this powerful testimony next card is George Ferry furry if do you just say sure perfect say your name and address yeah hi good evening my name is George Ferry I live at 2932 Stockton Street I'll be quick because it sounds like everyone's kind of on the same page here I just want to harken back to community and being a person who builds that and even looking at this space and what we'll bring with you with any expansion it's nice to have what mr. Beck said is like that that neighborhood place on the quarter that you can go to that's super important to remember especially in southeast Denton and then with the question about creeping I just want to say like each each planning and zoning thing is unique as miss Ella said it's different you have to take them they meet all of the qualifications and all the requirements and as a small business owner myself I know how hard it is to save money to have to wait for permits to come through and how costly that weight can be so the sooner this can happen the sooner they can start making money and expanding that and growing that neighborhood more thank you so much for your time thank you very much next individual I have a card to speak and to not speak so Jennifer Lane are you wanting to speak okay perfect good evening if you could just state your name and address for the record yes Jennifer Lane 1526 Willowood Street Denton yeah the reason you have the two cards is because I wanted to register my support in case I couldn't be here but the item came up later so I could be here I've eaten the food that's currently available through the catering and it's a great place and that's a wonderful gateway entrance to southeast Denton very inviting I super super support this and I agree that it should be expedited if the city wants to planning and zoning Commission or the city wishes to make an overlay district there's nothing to stop the city from doing that later there's a areas other areas in the city that I hope would become an overlay district as well which means that there's a little bit of control over the whole commerce type of commerce in the whole area when it's a budding a neighborhood and that could be handled at a later date at this point the the you have pioneers who are sort of pioneer restorers regenerators who are all unified the residents the business operator and the landowner are all so united that it's inspiring to see that's it I appreciate you have a question Christian Alice thank you chair hi Jennifer did you know that the overlay that they're talking about is it actually a zoning overlay yes so it's different than what you're talking about you're talking about overlay for an area mm-hmm this discussion has been about putting restrictions on the zoning yes and that would be something that could be addressed at a later time even if this is approved I would imagine no well well I think we're talking we're just talking about two different things the overlay for an area yeah that I mean that right done right but what this is is when you go to rezone a property we can put zoning restrictions oh yes yes there are yes also on the specific property I understand that yeah so it's just because the larger the larger area too I imagine is also something that you're looking at as part of the Denton code but this this particular instance seems to need addressing immediately and I support thanks I appreciate it Jennifer it's one moment we have Commissioner Beck thank you and the other reason to look at on the back of chairman else's deal by putting overlay on this specific area we're kind of sending signal out to anybody else's hey you got an NRM you there I want to build a 10-story well we've got an NRM you there with a restriction so we're telling them that we're saying that it's limited things you can do so that's right the type of thing that you're right it's to you know kind of set a standard for and also a kind of even a guideline in a way as to how to approach something like this yeah it's a beautiful idea thank you this is a public hearing I don't have any more cards at this time but anyone wishing to speak they certainly do so does anyone else wanting to speak on this issue at this time we'll close the public hearing and I'll turn to the dais for discussion or motion Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the zoning change with an amendment to restrict the use of the NRM you area to restaurant use only we have a first for a approval with the condition Commissioner Beck second we have a first and a second discussion we'll start with Commissioner Pernitta but I just kind of had a question for you every guys because I know we're putting a overlay with a restriction for a restaurant you mentioned buying a having a couple of lots attached to it was the purpose for that anything other than than a restaurant would we be impeding this in any way by placing that overlay what we did have what the when we gathered the properties together the four lots it we had like a tiki bar in the back and we had like customers that would like to come back in the evening hours and sit on the umbrellas and eat barbecue and so we had the four lots that we fenced off but those are four properties and so code enforcement asked us about our fence and so we asked with this in our emu that we consolidate the four properties so we could just put one commercial fence up all the way around our property okay and I guess with the overlay if we were to apply the overlay to as a restaurant if they wanted to basically return to to to that would there be a problem with that would if they were to want to open a bar some some sort we would it would have to come back through this process to amend that overlay so it okay they would have to go through the re-noticing the signs P&Z and City Council and that's just standard that's just okay all right first and a second discussion to Commissioner Smith yeah and clarification a bar a bar within the code is defined as 51% of their sales is derived from alcohol sales that's correct correct so it's a bar restaurant yeah if it's still a restaurant that meets that it's still a restaurant so that's not that's on issue yeah thank you I'm gonna hop into this discussion quickly but miss Bradley do you have a question area for a positive area for like the kids to come to like put in a volleyball court or anything like just a net back there for them to come play with that overlay prevent that I don't think so long it was affiliated with with the restaurant sort of an accessory use to it it wouldn't I mean yet the primary use is really the restaurant if it's just an area for kids to play while the parents eat or enjoy it wouldn't require anything additional I appreciate you bringing that up because my discussion item was going to be related to that I know I started this discussion initially questioning spot zoning which was one pendulum swing to the left but now as I think about it and understanding the future and you can sit down I don't you don't need to stand I appreciate it though looking at the the draft zoning map apart from apparently the understand this draft map is already out of date apart from from me trying to process that it seems like this area three square blocks is moving to an MN trajectory and so as I think about like all of that area and their neighbors being general MN it seems highly restrictive to say all your neighbors can do whatever they want them in but we have an overlay on you as just the restaurant and it sounds like a restaurant should be there considering the history that seems like a used to persist further but if they ever want to put a bed and breakfast in or have a house above the restaurant then they have to come back through this entire process which even the question of a volleyball court I'd rather for me just rezone this to MRM you and they don't have these questions and they have more freedom to do this especially since it seems like the trajectory the momentum is that the neighbors will be able to have that benefit soon it does seem like a restaurant needs to be there just for the for the sake of the property the neighborhood but there's four lots and I feel hesitant just to say that restaurant that's all you get and then there's questions about what they can and can't do so I'm in full support of getting this rezoned so we can get a CEO issued that sounds like priority number one but I would I would like to see if Commissioner Smith would would consider removing that condition I'll consider it but my my only my only hesitation there would be our decision tonight is final whereas what happens to the DDC is not and so if yes right now everything's headed towards MN there's no there's no definite that's that's that's gonna happen and so if I had to say what's what's the safest play for us as a Commission I think the restriction of a restaurant is the safest play with no guarantee the fact that an MN is going to have to go there because it's all drafting right now it's all conversation so that's my only that's my only quandary about that so so before I go to further discussion I just want to maybe ask for clarification of Roberts rules at this point if if I put forth a amended motion that takes priority to be voted on and if failed goes back to the original motion right you would put forth an amended motion a motion to amend in one way or another see if it gets a second then you would vote upon that to see whether or not your amended motion supersedes the original okay then I would like to move to amend the motion that the rezone would be from in our for to MRM you with no conditions second okay I don't I don't know who said so as we update the board to show my mover and Commissioner Cole secondary I do want to have the discussion so we'll go to Christian Sanchez yes I agree with you I I was in the same I had the same thinking is why limit that whole area is that that's a corridor to southeast end and there are already some other properties there and so I think I don't see anything happening there in my lifetime and and I think it's just I think we have to be respectful of that area and the corridor that once existed the businesses that once existed in that corridor and and eventually I think it will happen that's all I want to state Commissioner Smith yeah I think just a reiteration of what I said a second ago not against the not against the use whatsoever I just think that it's a safer play for us as a commission and we're gonna make a final decision you know what what happens if we do approve it as NRM you and then for some reason through public hearings that that would come back and the the citywide update doesn't make it MN it just keeps us as a spot zone of NRM you right there in the middle and 20 years down the road there is just we can't predict what's gonna happen in 2005 everyone thought Unicorn Lake was gonna be this razor ranch right and then that a an economic change caused everything to slow down and shift we don't know and of course southeast didn't has been southeast didn't you know as anybody who's lived over there it's been been that way for for a long time but that's not to say that we don't know what's gonna happen in the future and I feel a lot safer if we had the restriction on there so that's why I I don't think that a move of approval of just NRM you alone is a good decision I would rather prefer the restriction of restaurant mr. Beck thank you chair ditto what Mr. Smith said it's I don't and so the owners don't misunderstand this isn't to bind you or tie you up the fact that you want to do a few extra things but a volleyball court in there I don't think that's gonna be a problem there's things you can do to restaurant that still keeps a restaurant even though other restaurants may not do it but what this is intended to do is to protect you in the future protect that neighborhood in the future because once you put an NRM you in there then you're saying that other things can go in there that you really wouldn't want in there and we don't want people to come in there say well you gave them an NRM you you know I would like one too to build you know a four-story building or something like that so this isn't to bind you if that's what you want as a restaurant and all the little extras it entails this protects you from doing that to do that so I would vote against the amendment Chairman Roselle suggested to for that purpose to protect you in the future and that neighborhood in the future there's another building literally a couple of feet away that's NRM you so and then with the zoning change which is going to happen in a couple of months or a few everyone will be able to do it once again as I stated why restrict one location from what everyone on the block would be doing well and that's that's a good point but and maybe we need to look at that too because once you open the door to NRM you you are open the door to the gentrification of having these apartments come in and build because it would allow them in our immune allows a variety of things that are acceptable in other locations but in southeast didn't probably wouldn't work too well especially long Roberts there that's that's the only thing I'm saying but it isn't meant to single you out and you know tie your hands unless it's just really meant to protect the neighborhood I'm just trying to understand due to the fact that there's two locations on that street that are in NRM right and when something comes in that wants to build there we want to look at it in relationship to that neighborhood so we may put an overlay on them too if depending on what it is that comes in that could happen okay real fast we have several people still want to talk but Richard wanted to just wanted to provide a little bit more perspective on on staffs analysis and why we didn't have have any overlay conditions on this if you look at it I know we don't have the have it up on the map but to the north of the property they're bordered by a canal to the to the east you have a railroad you have the school and almost I mean right away in a large parking lot and then to the to the far west I'm sorry just to the west of the property where that vacant area is that's actually city right away that's platted right away that has an easement through it so I don't think in the near future will be vacating that and anything being built there and so when we really looked at it it really is almost like an island within within this neighborhood and that's where looking at compatibility and adjacency it really is it's really its own area and so that was part of that that that analysis and part of that that rationale as to why we did not have a an overlay for this property just wanted to provide that perspective Commissioner Pernetta and these all kind of go back to I guess the questions that I had earlier on whether or not if we put an overlay on it you know would eventually we have a change to an MN and I kind of and I guess right now if we place an overlay on this if it all you know moves for zoning to MN then they would be the only ones that would have the overlay and if they want to do anything differently they would have to go through a process that nobody else would do whereas if we go ahead and and I think to Commissioner Smith's point we don't know what's going to happen with this because the you know we're still in a draft but I would guess that if we have an RMU right here and we put MRMU right here we would pretty much be defining that in essence this island would wind up becoming an MN and in that point we would be driving exactly where it's going to go and the next few months are creating a case for them to actually make that MN so yeah I guess with that I I guess I'm kind of supporting the amendment because in essence if if we were to make this an RMU we would be helping define what everyone else in that neighbor would be and I guess when you look at what's along there you know I don't know how many you know how apt gentrification would be for property right next to a railroad and a canal and everything so so maybe in and of itself the natural geography and the natural you know characteristics of the neighborhood would protect it so that's I guess that's it thank you Christian Ellis thank you chair yeah just a couple of things that I wanted to add we just don't want to impede their development of this we're all in support of this restaurant becoming viable again this restriction goes with the land number one so it would always have to be a restaurant and we don't want to impede from their growth on these parcels we don't they don't exactly know even how that's gonna necessarily develop and we may be by putting that kind of restriction on all those parcels may just be impeding exactly what they want to do is they're revitalizing history here mr. Smith just to make clarification I want to make it seem like if the code the DDC code update and the city was citywide rezoning did not go through with an em in this area did not want to make it seem like I was inferring this would be spot rezoning but rather there'd be an isolation here but I think Richard's point about this area itself once you really understand the context of where it is that it is in its own right its own area and as legal mentioned this whole area has already been operating in a mixed-use operation array so I want to make that clarification on points earlier thank you and mr. Beck okay I understand everybody's point of view and I mean if that's the direction we're going okay I just don't want us to regret we're crossing our fingers that nothing happens here that can happen here so I mean I I don't want to restrict anybody either and if that's the way we want to goes in NRMU without a restriction okay but I don't have to look back 15 or 20 years of fortunately here still in that you know somebody moves in and takes advantage of the zoning that we created there and disrupts the neighborhood that they want to protect so all right the board has been cleared it was close to being cleared Christian Ellis thank you chair actually it's just because I forgot to say how much I enjoyed the project narrative that was included in our backup so thank you it was wonderful it made me smile it was great thank you so with that I just want to add clarification for both the Commission and those in the audience about what's about to take place there's a motion to amend the original motion that voting yes for this would recommend to City Council the change of zoning from an NR forward to an NRMU with no conditions if this motion passes this item passes if this motion that we're both about to vote on fails we'll go back to Commissioner Smith's original motion and vote on that so with that one one clarification if if this motion to amend passes then you would put the amended motion forward for a vote yeah right it becomes the primary motion and then you vote on it again sounds great somebody might vote differently for the two of them it's possible it's not it's not likely so let's vote on the board if the amended motion becomes the primary motion right so now motion carries 6-1 yours is the primary motion to approve yes yes so I move that the motion now is what the amended motion was in our fourth MRMU with no conditions Commissioner Cole a second we have a first and a second for approval of the rezone any discussion seeing none I'll call for go to the board motion carries 7-0 congratulations I'm gonna provide two minutes for the chambers to clear welcome back to the plan and zoning commission public hearing it is 1131 I'll call back to order and invite Sean Jacobson for item 3 k s 19 - 0 0 0 1 I'll open the public hearing system planner the request before you tonight is for a specific use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit about half an acre at 606 Robert Street this area is zoned in our three and so it requires a specific use permit for an accessory dwelling unit in this case the accessory dwelling unit is a cabana it'll be next to the pool behind the residence and it because it will contain living sleeping eating quarters it counts as an accessory dwelling unit and therefore needs this specific use permit when considering a specific use permit we have a number of criteria including general compatibility the neighborhood architectural compatibility with the main building and some concerns about avoiding nuisance parking generation of traffic you can see here the site we've assessed all of those concerns so we're talking about roughly 672 square foot ADU behind a 1634 square foot house there's more than enough space around that meets a lot coverage meets landscaping parking is more than adequately provided it's designed well to match the architecture of the main residence the surrounding uses many of the nearby properties have accessory buildings of a variety of kinds so this is in keeping with the pattern of development in the neighborhood it won't impede the orderly development vacant properties in the area because there are no vacant properties in the area and it's a well-developed neighborhood there are no nuisances for the surrounding properties it's well screened there are trees and a fence around the property we've looked at the lighting there are no nuisances odors being created by this we did send out notifications to the neighborhood and we received three responses all in favor and you'll note there from the residences on either side and behind the ones would be most directly impacted the applicant held a neighborhood meeting which I did attend and the neighbors were heartily in support I believe this would be a benefit to the neighborhood therefore because this does meet our criteria for a specific use permit staff is recommending approval with that if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them and I do believe the applicant is also here fantastic I think for the presentation there are no questions this is public hearing we have a couple cards listed here the first one will be Lee Allison who is listed as the applicant which means you have ten minutes if you would like to indulge us not for ten minutes Lee Allison Allison engineering group 2415 North Elm Street Denton Texas with me this evening are the property owners Frank and Anthony we did have a neighborhood meeting I thought it was quite interesting about 18 people showed up and I don't think anybody came concerned about the pool house they all wanted to see the in house of that inside of their house it was so immaculately well done and refurbished a couple of comments about this they could build another bedroom onto their house they've got about a 1600 square foot house two bath two bedroom and they do need a place for other guests to stay as well as something to complement the swimming pool they've recently finished interestingly you could build another master suite onto this house with an exterior door and not have to be here for a permanent at all so now we're adding another multiple use room onto the site that accomplishes what they could do otherwise additionally I'd like to say that at first I've wondered why an SUP would even be needed for something like this but after visiting with some of the guests that were there that evening and other concerns in the past sure if there had been a garage apartment with somebody up high that it makes a good reason to come forward with an SUP so we're glad to do that but this is a one-story building that's what's not raised up high there are no windows on the back of the building and it'll be real easy to not very easy at all for anybody to be looking out into other yards or being an intrusion to anyone else and the architecture I'm sorry I didn't bring some exhibits but I think some may have been in your backup was just incredible how it matches the 50 style of this house and and works well with it so I'll be glad to answer any questions at this time or later if you so be but we're excited about this project there are no questions for you right now I thank you thank you the other card we have is Sonya Whedon Sonya my apologies I am Sonya Whedon and I live at 528 Robert Street which is just two doors west of the applicants home of first of all I want to say that what they have done to this house is absolutely gorgeous and has improved the neighborhood not only their own house but the whole neighborhood and it'll probably make their taxes go up and mine too but that's okay it'll help the salary of my son I do want to say that I do support this it I was fortunate enough to know the original architect or one of them Ray Goff from the 50s and it seems almost as though the plan with the swimming pool the deck that they put on and this maybe a guest house is all part of a master plan that just appeared 70 years later but it works beautifully as a unit I have seen I have seen it seen the pictures of it and it is really quite lovely our neighborhood is a unique neighborhood I am probably the oldest living fossil in the neighborhood having lived there for 54 years and during the 70s and during the 80s I had my many trips to these chambers for preserving our neighborhood and keeping it as nice as it is it is also a very critical neighborhood it's unique but it's also critical it's bound on the north side by Sherman Drive it is bound on the south side by University Drive and it is bound on the east side by a block of duplexes that were emergency housing post-war houses that were put in in 1945 I believe or 46 somewhere around there so it's very critical I have been down here to preserve our single-family neighborhood it's a neighborhood that has relatively large lots there are many of the neighbors have multiple buildings out little houses tool houses garden houses dog houses detached garages maybe out houses I don't know but I don't think we have any guest houses now my question is that the special use permit will that affect the zoning because so far it is a single-family zoning area and we do have duplexes to the east so my question is how inviting would this special use permit be for changing the zoning in the area from a single family to whatever comes next this wouldn't have any impact on zoning it is pardon me it would have no impact on zoning would have no impact zero I really support this and I think it'll be it is a beautiful beautiful arrangement very well planned very well designed Ray Goff who was a friend of mine and a colleague would be so pleased it looks as though it were part of a master plan and I do approve of it thank you thank you and I feel it's worth noting what a testament is to your neighborly I just wanted to compliment your neighbors that they have a neighbor here at midnight supporting their project that's strong all of the neighbors in the neighborhood are very nice and we keep our properties very nice but I am concerned about the change of zone sure it sounds like a great neighborhood thank you we have another card it's not wishing to speak Gary Hayden and Deb Conti they are in support their address is 2106 North Bell Avenue this is a public hearing so anyone wishing to speak they certainly do so see none I'll close the public hearing and move to the dais for discussion or a motion Commissioner Pernetta make a motion to approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval is there any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries 7-0 thanks for staying up with us and congratulations next item for business is our concluding item of the public hearing item 3l DCA 18 - 0 0 0 8 I will invite Haley down for a presentation and I'll open the and I'll open the public hearing no just wanted to mention as Richard did at work session we don't have a presentation prepared for tonight based on the latest draft that was in your backup I think you've all heard most of what we would have to say already a couple of times probably but wanted to let you know that where we're at currently with the draft we're still taking in a lot of feedback from the local development community and want to make sure we have adequate time to read through all of that address it make any necessary changes so the draft is still somewhat in flux we anticipate that we'll have a new draft ready for you all to consider and hopefully vote on on March 6th I appreciate that the public hearing is open if someone wanted to speak on the item they certainly can do that this evening is Rick Baria wanting to speakers okay that being said while the public hearing is open the chair would entertain a motion to a date certain to table this to date certain of March 6th Commissioner Smith make a motion to table this discussion till dates we have a first Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and second to table the item to date certain of March 6th seeing no discussion I'll call for vote on the board motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is the concluding item of the evening it is the planning and zoning Commission project matrix I will turn it over to Richard for clarification and then we'll open up for discussion just wanted to highlight a couple items on here I know we had for three six I have invited pre-tem to come and give that update so he is he is planning on being here I know we had 320 to talk about the rezoning you know that continue that discussion on RD 5x it might be appropriate that we we kind of bifurcate maybe some of that and tie that into the discussion that we have planned for the next special session next week with the DDC update so as we get into the use tables and again begin looking at that at the zoning map to start to start to have that discussion with that what time do we want to start I know that do we want to do we want to solve that now or or or get back get back to us tomorrow other than that the only I know I will be adding the item on the policy discussion that we had earlier but after ten hours today do you have a a target start time we think in like two we're thinking four do you I certainly don't think we need to go as early as two unless unless it's it's really up it's really up to up to the Commission we'll probably go a couple I would assume a couple hours two three hours at least so whether you want to start in the afternoon or early afternoon mid-afternoon or evening it's really it's really up to you great three o'clock four four would four be enough time or do we need more than that for three selfishly speaking it's my son's birthday so if the earlier we can get out the greater for me personally that's selfish but so like three or four would work great so I can start dinner next week next week great this for work can we go two hours the next 27th this for work for sure and if we need to push it to three we can send an email for fun with me good okay what's the newly planned for four kiss her back he was gonna talk on the he'll speak someone on the mobility plan I have that coming back once they once they have a consultant lined up but he'll be here to talk about those special study areas that we did that the traffic analysis for Sherman where we are with Ryan Road where we're with Hickory Creek just to give them give an update I believe they're gonna be bringing that to a work session here in the near future but at least I think that by that time they'll have some counsel direction and then that way they can provide an update update to to the Commission and the roundabouts my contribution to the matrix is I know this is not a PNZ area but is there some way we can get something in motion to deal with the issue that folks over there behind the service center with the roads and the big trucks coming down that putting up signs is there whoever handles that now understand there's gonna be the okay there's gonna be that neighborhood meeting there's gonna be an engineer there so maybe that would be the opportunity to do it but I just want to get something on record so we can address it that's that's appalling that the even lamb come down the street I think there's a weight load for certain streets anyway they'd be violating that I would think but when we first talked about this rezoning for that property it was really kind of like I said earlier the first step in getting it cleaned up the next would really start looking at at correcting the platting if you really look at the map there's rights of way that actually kind of zigzag throughout their old easements so it's really just consolidating that getting it cleaned up and and just being good stewards okay okay you'll give us notice on when that neighborhood meetings gonna be okay Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Richard can you give me like an immediate update on Bernard Street please sure I was on it today between Sycamore and Mulberry and it is appalling it is dangerous it is a it's it's a massive problem waiting to happen if it hasn't already happened with hurting someone it is awful so I would love an update on what is going on there please um secondly with what happened with this long meeting today is there a way that staff or maybe us at the beginning of a meeting can look at our public hearing items and possibly adjust I feel bad that the item we heard basically last tonight was the easiest was very much yeah a no-brainer and should have certainly been probably at the very top of our public hearings I don't know how that is done when we craft our agenda or how easy that is to make adjustments but I think I feel like we kind of know you certainly do at staff know how many people have reached out to you so what is probably going to to garner a lot of discussion and that so maybe I don't know if it's something we talked about with procedures maybe it's just something we look at every meeting or but I think it needs to be looked at even when as we were kind of structuring this item and you know speaking with all the staff and who was at the post you know who was at the neighborhood meetings is there a lot of you know so we kind of adjusted knowing that there's going to be a lot of citizens because the neighborhood was all in support I really didn't think there would be anyone here for the item and that's what I think we can adjust even for the applicant yeah even if we didn't have anybody stay I mean even the applicant to stay that long is for what it's worth rich and I do try to sidebar beforehand and re that didn't happen today but we there is a conversation between chair and staff to try to look at that but I agree completely feel bad for them being here about four hours and this was a long agenda I think one of our longest ever yeah Mr. Smith nature not really something we add to the matrix but just well we're doing the DDC updates everything else can we just look out for any other properties that are owned by the city that are zoned wrong or have multiple zonings or something like that so do we can just include that in the conversation with the DDC update and just you don't have to come bringing it for us but just put in the city why we're zoning just make sure it's being done don't need an update on the matrix just absolutely it's not let's not I was pretty pretty surprised I got my packet on a Friday say oh that's cool part of it why we're having a specific category for the only thing I'd like to add is this formally add to the conversation we had in workstation about policies trying to identify what policies are lacking and then how we go about drafting some procedures around some of the things we're thinking of and then I'll just encourage the commissioners if there are items that you feel lack policy or confusion that we get them over to staff so we can kind of as comprehensively as we can try to figure out what to do in these situations that are ambiguous any other discussion fantastic I will close this meeting at 1151