good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning work
session meeting for May 1st 2019 I'll call a meeting to order at 5 o 3 before
we jump into the consent agenda and public hearing is there any notes to the
minutes that we need to cover you won't have any changes to those and on the
consent agenda there was four different items is there any questions that we can
bring up staff to clarify yes Christian Ellis thank you mine has to do with
item B I guess B and C of the consent agenda I'll invite Karina is she here
you said both B and C well because they're related yeah so my question has
to do with the note in B about it being contingent and if it's contingent then
wouldn't see be contingent which note so it's it's note two talks about its
contingent and then it said it has to be the contingency has to be met before a
final plaque can be approved and yet we're got a final plaque for lot 10 so
yes it speaks specifically to lot 14 and 15 on the preliminary plat so when when
the developer would come into final plat those two lots they would need to make
sure that they comply with this note okay so the contingency is only for lot
lot 14 14 and 15 okay thanks okay sir back I just I think we've run into this
before but if you could clarify again while we're dealing with a final plan
this is on FP 19 oh hey where says preliminary plans being considered for
approval prior to action this on so we're dealing with a final plan but the
preliminary plats not been completed yet so the item B is the preliminary plat
and then item C is the final plat for only lot 10 okay that makes sense thank
you to sir all thank you can I go back to the other the contingency we talked
about is it noted on there and am I missing it that it's noted that the
sorry I mean the note reads preliminary plot is contingent I'm failing to see
where it specifies the lots so lot so you're correct on here on the specific
notes it doesn't indicate which specific lot however if you it's depicted on the
plat itself okay what are we looking at here because sorry this is not what I'm
looking at this is the preliminary plat and so the note that you indicated was
for the floodplain and so it's indicating that floodplain exists on lot
14 and 15 those notes don't yeah look like your notes are not the notes I'm
talking about I'm not sure what we've got pulled up here
Michelle she's looking at the last page sorry yes page 3 of the preliminary
plat shows all the notes unless we're talking about a different yeah I have
notes on page 1 so okay so this specific note is related to the need for an alt
ESA and that one should be specific to lot 14 on there they have a small
portion of ESA right here so it's indicating that at final plat for lot
14 they would need to do an assessment and then if it's needed they would have
to do an alternative ESA assessment or alternative ESA plan okay I guess my
question is does it need to be noted there that I know I understand that you
understand it yes I don't I don't know that I see that here okay and so that's
my question so not sure who needs to answer that or if there's something we
need to be that needs to be done about it but I didn't know what it was
referring to when I read it but that doesn't mean that would be everybody
we're talking note for the ESA note right I'm talking about yeah no two on page one
can you further clarify where you're not clear because on note two it says
specifically about the approval of an alt ESA plan and then the plan itself on
page two has the alt ESA okay there okay so what would no I mean I guess that's
okay that that would reference there okay
similar questions for item B or C thank you very much Karina is there any
questions regarding a or D great so we'll move on to the public hearings the
first item is for a I'll invite mark presenting fr 19 - 0 0 0 3 good evening
my name is Mark Laird I'm the associate planner city didn't not presented to you
case fr 19 - 0 0 3 the request is for the approval of lots 1r 1 2r 1 and 3r 1
block a hilltop branch edition it's a replat of lots 1r 2r the site is located
in the ET jail on Hilltop Road staff has reviewed the case and recommends
approval as it meets all the requirements of the development code this
concludes my presentation if you have any questions you don't have any
questions about this replat great thank you thank you next is item 4b it's
presented by Julie Wyatt FP 19 - 0 0 0 8
all right Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city and I am presenting a replat
not a residential replat it's just a replat of 12 acres approximately 12
acres it's actually replatting a previously platted lot and taking in
some unplatted property in order to facilitate a development for the city
of Denton I'll stand for any questions this is the utilities development or
what's going on offices I believe there's there's an existing office
building on this north side this this south side which is kind of the
unplatted property coming into the lot that's intended for some parking and
also some some outside storage that'll have to be screened in accordance with
the code great any questions for Julie thank you very much next item for
business is item 4c z 19 - 0 0 0 2 and Cindy Jackson had the item
I'll confirm and Cindy are you combining these two presentations or they'll be
separate okay yes so we'll also hear item 4d s 19 - 7 exactly Mike my
presentation actually it's like two for the price of one to request one
presentation 4c and 4d you must approve foresee the rezoning presentation in
order to consider the SUP application which is 4d and let me change the view
here okay first up we've got z 19 - 0 0 0 2 it's a request to rezone a site
from downtown commercial neighborhood DCN to downtown commercial general DCG
the request is pursuant to the redevelopment of the site for a bank
they are also requesting for an SUP to have a drive-thru associated with that
bank and that is s 19 - 0 0 0 7 banks are currently permitted in the DCN
designation however in order to have a drive-thru it has to be zoned DCG in
order to get the the opportunity to apply for the specific use permit the
proposed site has noted is zoned DCG excuse me DCN and the applicant is
requesting to rezone it to DCG which is a continuation of the DCG that is
located to the east of the site the Denton development code the 2002 Denton
development code contains a zoning criteria for approval of a zoning
request the proposed rezoning must conform to the future land use
designation and the proposed zoning facilitates the adequate provision of
transportation water sewer schools parks and other public requirements and public
convenience criteria one the conforming to the future land use designation this
site is unique in that it's on the edge of two future land use designations it
is as such it is zone it is designated as both downtown Denton and neighborhood
University compatibility the purpose of the downtown Denton is for moderate and
high density residential commercial office and entertainment uses tailored
to encourage greater levels of activity in the downtown area and the purpose of
the neighborhood University compatibility area is to create compatible form and
land uses for those areas both to serve both established neighborhoods and the
universities the proposed DCG district is consistent with the intent of both of
these designations as it permits office and residential service uses of the
types encouraged by both designations excuse me now the second criteria is
adequate public facilities since the site is currently developed with the
Denton funeral home and crematorium it already has access to water and sewer
the if this is approved that the funeral home is planning to just close and the
site will be redeveloped for the bank with the drive-through the site has
access to both West Carroll and to West Mulberry West Carroll is
designated as a primary arterial and Mulberry Street is designated as a
collector Street and both both streets are capable of handling the traffic
which would be generated by the proposed use other findings as noted previously
this is a logical continuation of the DCG zoning that is located across Carroll
Boulevard with regards to relationship to the residential area the proposed use
is less intrusive than the existing funeral home it doesn't generate the type
of traffic that funeral homes do particularly during services and the
design standards that we have today are much more protective adjacent
residential uses then were the design standards back when this the funeral
home was developed in the 70s specifically we have route we require
buffers and setbacks and landscaping from the residential where if you look
at it today you can see that the the parking is right up against the house
there's no screening there's there's nothing there's just a parking lot in a
house so we will be able to better adequately buffer the residential uses
staff recommends approval of this request as it is consistent with the
goals and objectives of didn't plan 2030 and complies with the zoning criteria
for approval now we'll move on to the SUP request the SUP is a request for
approval of a drive-through facility in association with the proposed bank
pressure back thank you correct me here if I'm wrong I'm looking at this table
of allowed uses or we got the conversion saying so I don't know if I've got a
good one here not but for banks or financial institution now DCN and DCG
will be MD is that right okay I mean okay then I probably got screwed up chart
here because it's showing it should be MD but under either the DCN and DCG right
now on this shows that these are not a bank is not allowed a bank is an office
use and it is permitted it's a professional office okay we don't have a
criteria specific category for bank in the 2002 code so we use professional
office for bank so and that that actually is going to be part of my
presentation as well we do have SUP criteria for approval in the 2002 DDC
section 3564 which requires it to conform to all standards within the
zoning district the Denton plan and to other applicable law and a compatibility
analysis between the surrounding properties the requested and the
requested use and I went into great detail in this compatibility in your
backup and in my presentation I'm just going to kind of touch the high points
now the applicant has submitted a site plan there we go the request is for a
drive through facility in association with the bank you can see the drive
through is located on the west side of the bank there will be three lanes a
pass-through ATM and drive-through window and ATM and drive-through window the
site actually conforms with the approval criteria in section 364 the applicant is
proposing to construct a 12,000 square foot two-story bank building on the site
currently on the site is a 13,000 square foot funeral home which has been located
on this site since 1970 so the the building is going to be smaller than it
currently is on the site the proposed scale of development in terms of lot
coverage for area ratio and building height will comply with the requirements
for the DCG district the DCG district permits a maximum lot coverage of 85%
and buildings up to 100 feet in height however the applicant is only proposing
a two-story building the property has approximately 228 feet of frontage along
West Mulberry Street and 181 feet of frontage along South Carroll Boulevard
and will have access to both the proposed drive-through use is consistent
with the mixture of commercial uses that are located along South Carroll Street
and also along West Mulberry on the east side of Carroll Street the proposed
drive-through is compatible with the future land use designation of the
downtown Denton and neighborhood University compatibility area and
complies with the SUP criteria as noted in your backup other findings the
proposed bank use is less intrusive than the existing funeral home particularly
if it's like most banks nowadays that are closed on Saturday and Sunday
whereas the funeral homes that's usually when they do their have their services
and such and you'll see a lot of on-street parking and for the services
the as I noted the bank is smaller than the existing funeral home the design
standards particularly required buffers adjacent to the residential use which is
located on this side and this portion of the site will help protect the property
and the provision of on-site parking the applicant will provide enough parking
such that their on-street parking should not be needed at all for this site now
for both note both applications we sent public notices to 17 within 200 feet of
the site and courtesy notices went to 88 people within 500 feet of the site and
we received one back in opposition which represents 2% of the area within the 200
feet two signs were posted on the site and the applicant did have a
neighborhood meeting to which one attendee was present staff recommends
approval of the SUP with the following conditions that one the landscaping in
the attached site plan reflects an intent to comply with the DD require
DDC requirements for parking street trees minimum landscape and canopy areas
and compatibility buffers with administrative approval of an
alternative buffer with elements that are permitted in accordance with DDC 35
13 8 minor alterations to the depicted locations of the individual plantings
may be approved by city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted
complies with the attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations
as well as all in elements of the DDC and number two notwithstanding the
limited administrative approvals authorized by condition one the city
reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the
SUP the attached site plan and the elements described in section 3 below
including those referenced in condition 1 while section 3 below was in your staff
report and that concludes my presentation
Cindy I'm kind of cloudy on something that can you clarify they're not required
to have front parking parking in front of the building no they're not required
their parking can be behind or to the side this is in our our downtown CBD area
and that is considered in addition to the in our districts those are
pedestrian oriented areas because I think in a medical city they all have
front parking that's a different that's different yes okay great any other
questions for Cindy Chris Ellis thank you chair Cindy I assume they're gonna be
developing this from the old code yes they are discussed at all they are when
when the new code was approach was approved last week the applicant
requested to come in under the new code and since and we advised him since we've
already been working on this for months we'll just go ahead and go through with
it and was it discussed at all with the drive off a mulberry I mean it's high
pedestrian there high bicycle I mean because I mean it's just constant
especially when when UNT is in session exactly at that intersection there and
well maybe it's less if the funeral home you know I mean the funeral home has a
service it's kind of one and done and not sure when it's gonna happen again a
bank's gonna have a little bit more consistent traffic would be my opinion
was that discussed at all with that well driveway off a mulberry no at this point
no because the we will discuss that further when the site plan comes in for
approval when the site plan comes in for approval we will discuss access more
thoroughly and ensure that the safety of the pedestrians but at this point we did
not this property required two entrances to curb cuts I mean it already has it's
already there but take Michelle's point is it is it legal for them just to have
one turning off Carol or do they have to have two entrances you know that I'm not
sure if to be honest with you I can check on that and get back to you in the
morning that would be enforced or considered at site planning though that
yes that would be considered during the site plan it's at that point that
transportation will look at all the entrances because they actually have
more than two entrances and and make a determination there's two on Carol I
believe okay any other questions for Cindy hey Richard has some yeah I did
want to mention we did have traffic look at this and I believe these are the
existing ingress and acres points that are that are there today so that they
are existing and I think it's it's it's even a less the square footage of the
building is about a thousand square feet less it is what's there right and it's
only right in right out mm-hmm off Carol thank you right and it's always out on
it's both ways out on Mulberry correct correct I believe so I'm good I just I
just have a lot of concern has anyone ever been on Mulberry Street when when
the light is backed up at certain times I mean it's a nightmare and Commissioner
let's just maybe one other piece to that that we were discussing Mulberry in
particular and we were talking about as we work through the mobility plan and
looking at how it is that we can redevelop Mulberry and as part of that
was really what that right of way was there and ultimately some grander
changes so when we took we took that into consideration as well and how it is
that we would take care of pedestrian and bicycle traffic so just keep in mind
that we we did have an extensive conversation with traffic engineer to
make sure what we were doing is most appropriate and I think there is a code
requirement also where you've got two streets you take access off of the less
lesser the two minimize the traffic off of Carol and then Carol was a right in
right out because primary arterial and then I guess then my only other concern
was in changing the zoning in the bank doesn't decide to build was it discussed
about other things we're opening this corner up to if we make that zoning
change well that there would be they would still have to follow the uses with
would still have to follow the design standards with regards to protection of
the residential areas and so I from my understanding the bank is just about
chopping at the bit to get started if I'm correctly I understand that nod yes
or no we've kind of all been there before and things haven't so so yeah we
appreciate that my understand that but it's happened before yeah well I
understand that and anything that goes in there besides the bank would have to
comply with all of our design regulations which would to protect the
existing residential the transition for this property would be MN and I guess
that was going to be my next question so it's going to automatically switch to MN
if regardless whether it's whether the zoning changes or not it's going to go
to MN so by the time our meeting can I didn't see any I saw the comparative
chart with DC and DCG in there maybe do we have a slide for MN the work
session might provide a little bit more clarity to this so when we talked a
little bit about the transition table I saw Commissioner Beck trying to get to
his sheet so in short answer this use will be allowed with the transition
table so the action whether you took it or not they ultimately be entitled to do
the same at some point in the future correct yeah correct so inevitably it's
going that way okay and I understand what you're saying there because it's
allowed a bank used to be allowed drive-thru within a CP just like what
we're requesting correct my thing is is DCG is all of DCG MN no MD and MN
correct depending on the D tip or not and it is not in the D tip so it will
not be MD it'll be MN okay so if we change it and it's DCG it's still going
to go to MN. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Senator can you go back to the
preliminary outlook of what the I guess the site plan it's not final it's
not it's not nothing binding here it is final that right there to us to that
way I mean there might be some minor adjustments specifically the flow of
the drive-thru away from Mulberry cycling back towards Carroll essentially
mm-hmm is that that is final. One of the conditions seem like that it
has to be has coordinates with this it has to be in accordance gotcha I just
wanted to I could remember which way I was flowing I saw one to confirm that it
is flowing away from there so it wouldn't be you would you wouldn't see as
much you'd see entrances off of Mulberry but you wouldn't see as much exits
because the drive-thru doesn't right the drive-thru traffic wouldn't it'd be
unnatural if turn back around and come back to the parking lot rather than
going back out there not saying they can't do it but just that it's it's
pointing it away it's pointing it out away from Mulberry rather than towards
the easiest way to exit from the drive-thru is just go back to Carroll.
Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank You Chair. You mentioned a while ago that there were
three means of ingress and egress but looking at your diagram. That's
currently what they've got. Okay. If you look at the aerial. This is the site plan
that the. This is the site plan that is proposed for the site. Okay but it's only
showing two. That's right. Right. I said as it stands now but this is the
site plan that is proposed. Site plan has two. Okay gotcha so you're saying there's
three now. Yes. Okay thank you. Any other questions for Cindy? Thank you very much
Cindy. That concludes the agenda for tonight's plan and zoning commission. We
will end the meeting at 532 and oh we do have a work session report. I was just
gonna skip right over that. Darn. Thank you Richard. Yes we'll go to work session
report 1A. Good try Mr. Chair. Scott McDonald director of development
services. Of course one more time we need to talk about what we have for the
Denton development code or the development code 2019 edition. So for
clarity we're gonna try to reference as the development code 2019 rather than
saying old proposed new or anything else. So for clarity we have a current code
which is our existing code or we have the 2019 edition of the development code.
Great. A couple things have occurred since we came before the commission. One
is is that we have the council has adopted. When they adopted they adopted a
transition table. The transition table is slightly different. Through DCR
C that and Ron's gonna pass that out here directly. We made some changes to
minimize the some of the what was an error when we made the transition from
DCG our dr1 dr2 NRMU and NRM never mind 12 and so what we did is we found that
that we had some r7s that shouldn't have been and and so we just cleaned clean
that up. So that transition chart is part of the code. It is an appendix of the
code and that is really going to guide as we move forward and bring the city
initiated rezonings. So we we most closely followed what was in context on
the ground and and made that transition. We will be coming forward with a series
of city initiated rezonings. We're gonna focus on highway corridor. We're gonna
focus on some of the split zonings and then as we look at really some of the r7
MD MR MN some of those areas as well as some of the residential areas. So we're
gonna bring those in I think Richard I don't know that Richards ready to speak.
I guess I can ask the question not that I'm looking for an answer of course is
we're considering calling special meetings of the planning and zoning
commission to try to do this weekly instead of running the meetings
incredibly late every other week. I visited with the agenda committee today
to talk about council and doing a similar function with council. We're
gonna go to a work session in May to discuss what the options are with
council whether we want to have some special called meetings whether we're
gonna do those every week or whether we'll just run them long and what times
those will be. But I think first and foremost all of those items are gonna
come before this body and so then it would be really a request of meeting
weekly so that we can try to minimize the amount of time. We're looking at
trying to do these geographically so we'll take IE highway corridor we may
take as a lump sum so we can talk about highway corridor overall or we might
talk about 35 East and 35 North and just treat those two separately and then
we'll look at maybe quadrants of town or particular zoning districts that we can
have some sort of relationship with. We intend on bringing these presentations
forward in groups so when we talk about a rezoning it's not going to be an
individual parcel some may be an individual parcel but we'll bring them
in groups each of the actions will come as an individual item or we're
discussing whether that's going to be meets and bounds if we were to take
something like Lakeview they have I think a request in there NR 2 want to go
to NR 1 and so if that's the case and by meets and bounds we could take all of
those parcels rather than individual parcels and each of those have an
individual ordinance so we're vetting that out currently. Just trying to
simplify for the public trying to simplify for the Commission and
simplify for council the best way to do this we are going to provide notice to
everyone within 200 feet of any affected property that we're proposing these
rezonings I don't know if we have an actual number of parcels as of yet an
estimate number of parcels I have to venture it's less than 300 I don't know
that but that's a lot so as we work through that the other change on the
development code when it was adopted of course we came before P&Z then we met
with DCRC we had made the change to NR 3 to R3 and we had the component in there
of single-family duplex triplex fourplex town homes and we removed the
opportunity for anything other than single-family residential and our four
we removed the component of triplex fourplex in NR 4 so that was done with
council there was an errata which I think Ron has passed out as well the
errata went with council as far as a part of what the draft code was and that
was any and all changes that that we had made as we were discussing those with P&Z
and council and beyond that I don't believe there are any substantive
changes that had occurred part of the ordinance also included the fact that we
will continue to work on the code if there are errors that are non-
substantive they will be approved by the city attorney's office as
non-substantive anything that's a substantive change will come before P&Z
is a text amendment and council as any other text amendment would come forward
Ron has an entirety of a presentation I just want to kind of give it a brief
background on where we're at and how we got there and thank you
Commissioner Smith make sure about one with those weekly meetings start I think
that we determined it would be May 29th okay thank you okay no further ado Ron
has his favorite slide
thank you chair members of the Commission I apologize that we were a
little late but wanted to share with you as Scott already mentioned I'm gonna
highlight a couple things and if I repeat a couple of them I apologize but
just want to go through this this is my favorite slide and it shows that then
plan 2030 very proud of the plan and really why we're here in updating our
development code in our zoning map so Scott mentioned a number of them among a
number of what I was going to discuss already but just to kind of reiterate
some of that the cleanup edits the errata sheet that you have in front of
you as Scott mentioned was presented to City Council and that was part of their
motion for approval or adoption of the 2019 DDC the adoption was April 23rd
with an effective date of October 1st I think everyone it's kind of clear on how
that's gonna work that the 2019 won't be effective until October 1st however a
development that comes in a developer or property owner that comes in can choose
between the 2002 or the 2019 development code but they have to pick one they
can't pick and choose between one or the other or pieces of one or the other we
as Scott mentioned we are in the process of doing additional review as we go
through this process between now and October 1st we'll have an opportunity to
see how it's working and if there are any substantive changes or any changes
to the code of ordinances that we're working on we'll have to bring that part
of a public hearing in ordinance but that again we're making sure that we
address everything in the DDC moving forward and that's why we still have more
time to review the the code itself okay so the transition chart you have a copy
of that in front of you Scott mentioned it earlier I'm gonna skip to the next
slide this really here illustrates the changed of what happened between PNZ and
City Council you see that in the green we've moved NRMU 12 up to the R7 we
clarified that any DCN DCG within the D tip is now an MD any that are outside
the D tip boundary and I apologize I don't have a map of the D tip it's
primarily Carroll to the west Parkway to the north
Sycamore to the south and exposition across the tracks to the east so that's
the boundary of the detail the core of the area I think we have seen it
probably it's hard to see on that map but it's the one that's shown there in I
believe dark purple those that are outside the detail are going to
transition or have transition to MN so the case that you heard earlier it's
just outside it's on the west side of Carol would or has been transitioned to
MN going further the dr2 RC 1 RCR 1 and RCR 2 those were originally going to
transition to R7 they have now moved down and are going to or are sorry
transition to MN so that is the changes that happened after PNZ and then PF yes
thank you Scott PF we made sure that any publicly owned property is now a PF and
you can see from the map over there those are represented in blue so there's
a lot of them that includes the city's property own city own property unit UNT
TW and any other public property such as the state and federal so you see that
most of the city that are in blue are represented there as PFs any question on
the transition chart and this was again a chart that was presented to the City
Council and that was part of their motion for approval
Chris Ross thank you chair with PS run did that does that mean all parks went
to PF or not all parks yes any see own property went to parks fire stations and
like mr. Beck thank you chair well ago you mentioned the pick-and-choose
developers could still do but that stops effect at the effective date of October
1st right correct they have to make that pick and choose prior to that correct
any completed submittal prior to October 1st they can still pick and choose
however after that they would have to comply with a 2019 okay so as we are as
Scott mentioned again earlier we are in the process of our efforts in conducting
research for our city initiated rezoning and those are represented on this map
over here to my on my right these are areas that were transitioned per the
transition chart but don't necessarily fit the area or don't fit the context
of the area that is Scott mentioned highway corridor and those are shown in
the red alone I 35 most of those areas that are shown in red were transitioned
to either mr. R7 or something lesser than a highway corridor and so staff's
bringing forward those as part of a public hearing process which will be
coming forward to you as early as May 29th as public hearing items in addition
to staff recommendations push Alice thank you chair Ron the transition chart
is that adopted or is that proposed it was adopted it is actually part of the
cleanup edits and I believe it is number two number two on the edits it's a it's
added as appendix B yes so that was added as part of the motion so the
example as I showed earlier spoke of earlier the HC along the highway makes
sense that if that each that is HC and that will actually help make some of the
uses along the corridor along I 35 quarter such as the car dealerships
conforming because under the MR they're not conforming and that the HC would
clean that up and make them conforming again that is just the first of many we
will be also taking other areas around town on the west side and north of
University is another area that we're going to be looking at I know we've
heard some comments we've we've this slide over here shows we've noted 194
comments regarding the zoning map through emails calls and walk-in visits
we've also received 294 response forms of that 294 37 referred to they don't want
the zoning that they were given or want a different zoning district so we're
going through that as part of our research we receive a total of 99
speaker cards between the Planning Zoning Commission and City Council we're
going through that as well a number of the speakers that spoke the majority of
them I believe there were 22 speakers the majority of them did not speak so
we want to make sure we go through the through those speaker cards and document
any ones that mentioned a zoning that they didn't agree with in if it fits
within what we felt is a city initiated we will move those forward if not we
will direct them to submit an application for a rezoning to serve
back thank you chair I thank you answered what was going through my mind
here if I'm looking at this right the areas in red are the ones that you're
currently considering for city initiated correct right because there was
some areas out on 380 I believe and there was a gentleman who owns some
property off Austin just south of the downtown square area and I didn't see
that in red so those will probably be a couple of areas that correct this was
our first staff's recommendation obviously we still have to go through
this has not been updated to reflect of those others that we have are currently
researching okay great thanks yes just clarify because I think it's all of the
colors I don't want you to just so all of the colors represent a change not
just the red red is the color for highway quarter suburban quarter is the
pink which I think includes that that's why I was confused no no no I apologize
so all that are called that is color is staff's recommendation that we should
look into city initiate rezoning the one that you're referring to Larry we
haven't updated yet the one near downtown or the one out on 38 yeah just
because we we printed this before the public hearings we will update it to
reflect but generally that's the area that we're looking at yes okay thanks
as part of the motion so that was a separate motion on the zoning map it was
a separate item so similar to the P and Z you all recommended separately on the
development code and the zoning map the City Council did the same they
recommended I'm sorry they adopted the 2019 development code however the zoning
map they continued to August 6 and the idea here is that we will work on these
zoning citywide city initiate rezoning's through a public hearing process where
we'll notify the property owner we'll we'll send out notices to properties
within 200 feet of the subject properties and bringing forward to the
planning zoning Commission as we had talked to earlier trying to get those
going quickly as possible because again we have an August 6 deadline the hope is
that we get those through P and Z and City Council once we have completed all
of those public hearings we will then bring forward to City Council the zoning
map and because those prior public hearings hopefully were considered and
were approved we can just fold those in as part of the citywide zoning map update
amendment any questions on the process that is really yeah I have some other
items here that I was just going to share with the planning zoning Commission we
obviously adopted the 2019 DDC in it there is the administrative in process
chapter subchapter we are in the process we the staff are in the process of
updating our checklist and our applications because we have added a
couple of new applications we're in the process of updating our administrative
criteria manual which will have new fees a process intake procedure
development review process as well and site plan checklists and other criteria
manuals that will be reflected because of the new DDC our water wastewater our
environmental folks are also working on criteria manuals so just to let you know
that just that we are finished with the DDC update but there is more that has to
be done to follow up what was approved or adopted that concludes my
presentation I'll be happy to answer any questions further questions if I may
does the does May 29th work for everyone I know that that Monday is Memorial Day
it's a holiday and so I wasn't sure if anyone was planning a vacation that week
of I'll be gone on work travel on the 29th so I will not be in town I have a
currently scheduled event that to be at that night and and I don't know if it
would be simpler if maybe we send out a zoom ring with a series of dates so then
we could perhaps have staff then have each individual respond to staff with
particular dates of availability to see if we'll have a quorum on those dates
and then really we wouldn't set the dates by we could use that as a guide to
what we would be able to set dates by if that would be acceptable and then for
start time does any do we want to keep it at 630 do we want to move it up a
little bit if we're if we're talking I think it's the special call but you have
a standing meeting that's a 630 which we could change I mean it's the code
doesn't prescribe it in the charter because you're back thanks chair so
we're trying to set a date that's not a planning and zoning date correct you'll
be a special special meeting correct okay it and I will say one other
consideration would be even if it were beneficial don't shoot the messenger if
if a Saturday might even be one of those that you might want to entertain just
saying yeah I think sending out the option to for us to give feedback will
be a great next step okay fine a date we'll do that mr. chair thank you any
questions for this presentation great okay with a little bit of hesitation I
think it's we're ready to close the meeting for work session so at 654 we'll
close the work session will reconvene in council chambers at 630 good evening
ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting
for May 1st 2019 I'll call the meeting to order seen that we have a quorum at 631
the first item of business is to stand and give the pledge allegiance to the
u.s. flag and Texas flag
the next item for business is item 2 consideration of the minutes we'll take
these in two different votes the first one is for April 3rd 2019 to mr. Smith
moved to approve we have a first for approval to mr. Beck second we have a
first and a second for approval any discussion on the minutes seeing none a
call for vote of the board motion carries 6-0 with one recuse next we'll
consider the minutes for April 10th 2019 to mr. Smith moved to approve we have a
first for approval to mr. Ellis second we have a first and a second for approval
any discussion seeing none a call for a vote on the board motion carries 7-0 the
next item for consideration is the consent agenda item 3 commissioner back
moved to approve consent agenda we have a first for approving the consent agenda
mr. Pernetta a second we have a first and a second for approval of the consent
agenda any discussion seeing not a call for vote on the board motion carries 7-0
this will bring us to our public hearings the first item is 4a we'll take
a minute let Commissioner Smith step out this item is fr 19 - 0 0 0 3 I'll call
mark for presentation and open the public hearing
good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm with the associate planner with the city
didn't to not present case fr 19 - 0 0 3 and is the request for approval for
hilltop additions lots 1r 2r 3r blockade it's a replat of lot 1r 2r hilltop
addition properties located within the ETJ along a hilltop road staff has
approved staff has reviewed and recommends approval of the case since it
meets didn't development code this includes my presentation if you have any
questions be happy to answer I don't see any questions this is a public hearing
anyone wish to speak may do so
seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for
discussion or motion customer back I move to approve fr 19 0 0 0 3 we have a
first for approval Commissioner pernetta I second we have first and a second for
approval any discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the board
motion carries 6-0 with one recusal the next item of business is item 4b fp 19
- 8 I'll invite Julie wife presentation and open the public hearing
good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am
presenting to you a replat of the Mayhill Road addition the total acreage
is a little over 12 acres and the purpose of this replat is to add previously
unplatted property to a platted lot in order to facilitate city of Denton
offices and some storage facilities and I'll stand for any questions
this is a public hearing anyone wish to speak we do so seeing none I'll close
the public hearing and turn to the dais for a motion or discussion kisser Smith
vote for approved we have a first for approval
Mr. Ellis second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing
not a call for a vote on the board motion carries 7-0
next item for business is item 4c and we'll combine this with item 4d so I'll
go ahead and open the public hearing for 4c z 19 - 2 as well as open the public
hearing for 4d s 19 - 7 and I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation Cindy
Jackson for the record with the planning division z 19 - 0 0 2 is a request to
rezone from downtown commercial neighborhood DCN to downtown commercial
general DCG and s 19 - 0 0 0 7 is a request for a specific use permit to
allow allow a drive-through facility in association with a bank the 0.9 6 for
acre site is located at 120 South Carroll Boulevard which you can see right
here is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Carroll and
Mulberry the applicant is requesting approval for the rezoning to permit the
redevelopment of the site with a bank and the applicant is requesting it
because the DCG district permits a drive-through upon approval of a
specific use permit whereas the drive-through is not permitted in the DC
and district as noted previously the current zoning is DC and as you can see
on the first picture the second slide picture shows how it would look if this
were approved it would be a logical extension of the existing DCG across the
street onto this site there are is zoning criteria for approval of a zoning
request in section 35 3 4 the proposed zoning must conform to the future land
use designation in the Denton plan 2030 and the proposed zoning must facilitate
the adequate provision of transportation water sewer parks and other public
requirements and public convenience first criteria is with regards to the
future land use designation the site is located on the edge of two future land
use areas neighborhood University compatibility and downtown Denton so the
site is a blend of both of them downtown commercial is intended for moderate and
high-density residential and commercial uses office entertainment and other uses
tailored to encourage a greater level of activity downtown and in Denton's
historic core the university neighborhood university compatibility
area is intended to create a compatible form and land uses which for the areas
that serve both the established neighborhoods and the universities the
proposed DCG district is consistent with the intent of both land use designations
that permits the office and residential service types of uses encouraged by
both designations the second criteria is with regard to the adequate provision of
public facilities the site is currently developed with a funeral home adequate
water and wastewater facilities are already available to the site the site
will have access to both South Carroll Boulevard which is a primary arterial and
West Mulberry which is designated as a collector Street both can accommodate
the anticipated transportation demands of a bank other findings this is the
logical continuation of the DCC CG zoning district as previously mentioned
additionally the zoning of the subject site will transition to the MN district
with the approval of the new zoning map a bank is permitted in the MN district
and a drive-through in the MN district would also require the approval of an
SUP the proposed use is less intrusive than the existing funeral home and the
design standards we have in place today particularly regarding buffers to
adjacent residential will help in protecting the adjacent property from any
incursions from the proposed bank and will provide the bank will provide
adequate on-site parking so that parking on the street will not be required
staff recommends approval of this request as it is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030 and compliance with the zoning
criteria for approval next up is the specific use permit this is as noted
previously this is specific use permit is for the provision of a drive-thru in
with the bank the section 3564 of the 2002 DDC contains the criteria for
approval that we are using it requires that use conform to all standards within
the zoning district to the Denton plan and to other applicable law and a
compatibility analysis between surrounding property and the requested
use including the following as you can see here is required that analysis was
done in detail in your backup and I will just kind of hit high points in my
presentation and this is the proposed site plan for the drive-thru as you can
see there are two lanes that are proposed there is a pass-through lane and
then two lanes that have ATM and drive-thru teller access there is currently
inside is a 13,000 foot one-story building the applicant is proposing a
two-story building which will have a 12,000 square foot footprint which is
smaller than the existing footprint I want to clarify that that is the
footprint the total will be 24,000 square feet in gross floor area because
it's two stories the the use is permitted in this in the DCG with SUP as
well as in the proposed MN district the property has approximately 228 feet of
frontage along West Mulberry Street and approximately 181 feet of fringe along
South Carroll Street the drop proposed drive-thru and bank are consistent with
the types of uses that you can see along Carroll Boulevard and also on the west
side of Carroll Boulevard along Mulberry Street the site complies with the
criteria for approval of an SUP as noted in your backup the proposed bank is as
noted less intrusive than the existing funeral home the proposed 12,000 square
foot bank footprint versus the existing 13,000 square foot funeral home
footprint so the footprint of the bank is is smaller and the bank is actually
moved to the front corner of the property the design standards
particularly required buffers adjacent to residential and the residential is
located along here and along here will protect the adjacent property and as I
noted previously the all parking will be on site no on-street parking will be
required for notification for both the zoning and for the SUP we sent out
notices within 200 and 500 feet we received one response in opposition
representing 2% of the land within the 200 foot boundary two signs were posted
on the site and the applicant held a neighborhood meeting to which one one
person attended staff recommends approval of the SUP with the following
conditions landscaping in the attached site plan reflects an intent to comply
with the DDC requirements for parking street trees minimum landscape and
canopy areas and compatibility buffers with administrative approval of
alternative buffer elements permitted in accordance with DDC 35 13 8 minor
alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings may be approved by
city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted complies with the
attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as all
elements of the DDC number two notwithstanding the limited administrative
approvals authorized in condition one the city reserves the right to require
approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP the attached site plan and
the elements described in section three below including those referenced in
condition one and that concludes my presentation and the applicant is
present to answer questions thank you Cindy commissioner back as a question
thanks chair Cindy the landscape requirement are they on the point system
for that applicant said that he intends when he goes through site plan approval
to go underneath go go with the MN requirements okay that would be under the
point system okay so I'll talk to him then about what we can do thank you see
other questions thank you very much this is a public hearing anyone wishing to
speak may do so we do have a card representing the group Lee Allison we be
presenting and since this is two different topics technically we'll give
you 20 minutes if you need it I gotta find my slides first that's a how do I
get out of here I'm sorry
there you go
it's in the red bar
no no to your right one more nope nope there we go
good evening I'm Lee Allison with Allison engineering group I'm obviously
not an IT person 2415 North Elm Street with Allison engineering group Marty
Rivers is with me this evening but before we begin or get into this I'd
like to make an apology and a correction during the workshop I
misunderstood our own drawings the bank is a 6,000 square foot two stories for
12,000 Cindy had presented the 12,000 square foot building in there and I was
thinking oh wait times two is 24 so I got messed up mentioned it to Cindy she
came in here and corrected slides made a correction to you and I'm the one that's
wrong so it is a 6,000 square foot building two stories and 12,000 square
foot total with that I'd like to turn it over to Marty and let him discuss some
of the changes in the banking industry today good evening Marty Rivers 120
industrial Street I'm the Denton market president for American National Bank we
are new to Denton I'm not new to Denton this is the fourth time I've been in
front of this Commission for SUP for a drive-through at the bank over the years
and they're getting smaller our intention is to comply with any and all
rules that are in the development code and we want a landscape correctly we
have designed the site plan that you're going to see today specifically with the
neighborhood in mind I live downtown I've worked downtown and in Denton for
25 years and we want to be good neighbors you'll notice that the the two
drive-through lanes are really large looking ATMs we have the lanes going
north so that any light or sound will move away from the neighbors to protect
them these will actually be ITMs you may not have heard of that that's an
interactive teller machine it's basically an ATM with a video screen
that where you can talk to somebody inside the bank via video our intention
is not to have tubes if because that's going out of style if we end up doing
that those will go underground and not be noisy it won't be overhead so I'll be
similar to the two ITMs that are out in front of Wells Fargo they have a two
lane drive-through right there although they won't be bright yellow they'll
match the building to work with that so we need two lanes primarily because if
one of those goes down we need to make sure we have one that works so it's
really more of a backup plan I can't imagine a scenario and you probably
haven't seen a scenario where you have people stacked up in drive-through lanes
at banks anymore that's a thing of the past if we had four cars all at once out
there I'd be shocked and happy at the same time I guess but the drive-throughs
are kind of a thing of the past you've seen several or a couple of banks in
downtown that have torn down or left their large ATMs or drive-throughs so
I'll let I'll be here for any questions anybody has we want to comply with
everything we can and I'll let Lee do the rest of the presentation very good
as always staff has made an excellent presentation regarding the technicalities
and planning considerations I'd like to try and put this in context maybe a
little more the current zoning is DC in which allows for a bank but it doesn't
even allow for a drive-through with an SUP so in order to move forward with an
SUP we asking for the rezoning to DCG DCG allows a bank but it allows a
drive-through only with a specific use permit however the new zoning code has
been adopted there is a transition table with it and in reality either DCG or DCN
goes to MN which allows a bank and allows a drive-through with an SUP the
question we had asked staff previously was not which code to work under but if
we even needed to move the zoning process forward tonight I would just soon
move the zoning forward and hopefully get it approved and have belts and
suspenders let's make sure we got it covered and not out here coming back
later because we didn't get that done we did have a neighbor neighborhood meeting
on February 20th it was a come and go from 6 to 8 we felt like that would give
more people time to attend really no one attended except family and friends I
think one person did sign the deal that they attended but they weren't one of
the neighbors with interest Marty did run into not run in that's not if came
across the person who turned in the one in opposition we have some question it
sounds like that was really a person who lives there and rents the property and
doesn't own it so I'm not sure that there truly is one property owner in
opposition but it doesn't matter too much because it doesn't drive the 20%
rule it could affect your decisions but I don't know that matters much if it's a
property owner a resident they did not turn in an opposition to the SUP the
only submitted an opposition to the zoning but I think in all fairness there
is opposed to the SUP as well so we'll move forward that way there's our site
plan and you can see on there I've got written a 6,000 square foot floors by
footprint with two stories 12,000 square feet it has the two ATMs it only has two
drives the building is moved to the southeast corner the parkings in the
back if you have parking in front of buildings along these streets by the time
you deal with the 20 foot public utilities and the 15 foot parking lot
screening buffer etc it puts our building in the northwest corner and that
doesn't work this is the existing site what's there today it's an older building
built around 1970 I'm sure it was a great facility in its day it has lots of
parking and pavement three drives one of those drives is here front-end parking
off the street we had extensive discussions with transportation actually
this was the drive we had to argue for the most this one they wanted but they
wanted us to move it over here and line it up with the other which we have done
in our planning process and of course the building will be more in the corner
and a lot more landscaping than this has there's a view from Carroll this tree is
dead and I hope gone by now it's dangerous and the parking right up
against the parkway here's looking at the other lane here as well as the four
parking spaces one of the cons for conversations with transportation had to
do with the future improvements to Mulberry and keeping our building set
far enough back that there would be enough room for right away and
improvements and we made sure we did that so we're working to deal with those
issues as well these are some photographs and some similar buildings
no I take it back these are the renderings of the building we're
proposing and Fates Martin locally is the architect you can see in this lower
corner a very different looking drive-through type facility again back
to the site plan and the landscaping buffers there's been discussion about a
possible fence along here which we'd like to do we don't have any cars facing
that direction for lights etc but still a fence I'm pretty much along here I
don't know that I'd want to go all the way to the front I think our landscaping
would be good but if that's something somebody's interested in we may put a
fence in there anyway we just haven't made a final decision yet but are
leaning that way just of interest if you go on Carroll Boulevard from University
Drive to Eagle Drive there are four existing banks point bank 9400 square
feet seven lanes drive through three different buildings independent bank two
story one building 10,000 square feet five lane drive through first state bank
three stories 10,000 footprint no drive-throughs our proposed bank we're
the only ones on the west side too if that makes any difference and then
another bank here two stories much larger five drive-throughs here's point
bank and their facilities there's their drive-through again you can see an empty
parking lot now I got these off of I should say I got them Sue got them off
of Google Earth I don't know if she picked particular times when they were
empty or what but we had a hard time finding even the bays full much less any
lines backed up independent bank same thing they have a drive-through that's
also detached I think there might be a motorcycle in one of those the lanes
come out this direction first state bank no drive-through taller building access
bank five drive-through lanes now you can't see it through the tree but one
of their trucks is parked in the bay here and they've actually got an access
bank vehicle parked over here which normally you would want it full of
drive-through customers but they're just not they're just not there anymore and
they do have a remote ATM that's out on Carroll Boulevard and that's what it
looks like this is the building in Fort Worth so those renderings that Bates
Martin drew up are not far off of anything they've really done that's
specific these are Wells Fargo ATMs in downtown matching their colors but just
I say ATMs they're ITMs I got to get used to that interactive teller machines
the teller they interact with could be in Timbuktu they don't even have to be
on site or in the building so you're not going to see the drive-through windows
and things on a building like you typically would why an SUP well first
of all is to allow a drive-through facility that's really the only reason
not for a lot of other reasons it's gonna be two lanes behind the building
it's gonna be separate from the building but the building in the southeast corner
we'd like to meet either of the DDCs either the current or the earlier one we
have not had a this got passed after we had already submitted and we haven't had
a chance to work through to see which makes for the better site but we would
like to be able to do that and under the option allowed at the time of site plan
determine which code rules we actually develop under we're here tonight
primarily for the zoning and the SUP not to pick which code the DDC requires
that a plan be submitted with an SUP it doesn't specifically say what kind of
plan and it makes sense how can you approve any kind of an SUP if you don't
have some idea what the site's going to look like but it doesn't require a site
plan not by definition or specifically the checklist requires a site layout
exhibit and we provided that with all the check items on there and a landscape
plan they have a checklist for each one of those and we we comply with those
we are recommending some different conditions than what staff is
recommending again based in context and what's going on here we feel like for
this site and for an SUP for a drive-through these would be a little
better the site plans will be in general conformance with the site layout exhibit
and the landscape plan these typically get attached to in reference with the
ordinance I realize that on small pieces of paper these can be hard to read but
with today's electronic technology maybe we can pull up to an ITM and pull up the
site plans for this in the future but there's no reason not to be able to get
a clear understanding of what on those plans we submitted and I think they
provide a clear intention one of the difficulties is when we look at the
plus or minus five percent take building coverage we're at 72 percent plus or
minus five percent of 72 might get us to about 75 on the other hand it only lets
us go down to about 70 percent what if we wanted to take say we found a good
reason to get rid of the bypass lane because the second lanes extra and it's
not really needed we can't get rid we got to have pavement there just so we
stay above the 70 percent the minus five percent so we're not sure that kind of
criteria is is the most effective we have no problem with specifying that the
building be in the southeast corner that the drive-through facilities are on the
west side of the building we're limited to two a two-story building maximum a
lot coverage of 80 percent DCG that we're going for allows 85 percent MN is
at 80 percent so we don't mind limit it to the 80 and allow the applicant to
develop under either DDC to be determined at the time of site plan
application based on the responses we've had the neighborhood meetings etc we
don't believe that this additional level of control is necessary we think that
the intent is obvious I think there's no question that we're going to be tearing
down the the existing building and demolishing the site just not sure that
that level of of minute control is necessary we did a comparison to look at
MN versus DCG MN has a minimum square footage of 2,500 we're at 41 it has lot
widths of 20 and 50 we far exceed those front yard setback is 10 we're at ten
point four and eight point eight the eight point eight is pencil which one's
the front yard Carol and Mulberry we do have the ability on this site plan to
move it back to 10 feet again I'd hate to be stuck to a five percent of eight
point eight feet allowable without coming back for an SUP side yard we put
a question mark because we're not sure which is the side rear or back maximum
FAR we're well below the max lot coverage I said 72 we're at 73.6 versus
an 85 or 80 no problem with an 80 limit landscape area we're at 26.4 it's not
applicable in the new code because it's got to be 20 that's no reason to put all
that on there building height new code is 65 DCG is 100 we're proposing 48 I
wouldn't have any problem if we wanted to add another limitation to say a 65
foot building height max we feel like the primary reasons for the conditions
associated with an SUP is first is to address the concerns and impact of the
surrounding community we think we're making a very positive impact to the
sound surrounding community and we haven't had any feedback other than one
individual who doesn't want a bank there even though it's already allowed their
primary concern has to do with parking because right now with parking an issue
there there's a lot of people parking in the funeral home parking lot that may
not be allowed to if the funeral home is very busy there's not gonna be parking
there the city's planning street improvements so we think we're in good
shape with the surrounding community but at the same time we need your approval
so you may have some things you want to put on there as conditions such as
having a fence on the west side or putting a maximum building height of 65
feet so as appropriate we'd like to open up and discuss those with you as well
but we've been honor any questions you have and would appreciate any feedback
that's ends my presentation thank you for the presentation we do have some
questions Christian Smith thank you chair mr. Allison where was the
neighborhood meeting held it was at axis realty group on South Elm Street okay
when was notification sent for that just asking there's only one person who
showed up just wanted to see what we at least two weeks in advance of the meeting we make
sure that happens I don't have dates but that's ours so in regards to your
recommendations what you wouldn't have changed the biggest sticking point is
that 5% alteration there that's your issue is that is because they're
certain that you mentioned something about that the setbacks being all 8.8
depending upon which to be looking at whether it's Carol or Mockingbird you
had an issue with that saying that you know when I have to come back in front
of us if only given yeah I mean wiggle room there that's primarily it I mean I
don't care if you put on there that the funeral home has to be demolished or not
that's going to happen but I think sometimes we get a little bit too
minute in trying to control a site and I can see that more when you have a real
tall a big difference between the two uses and scale and different things and
you're trying to make up for it the neighbors say oh I don't want to look at
this ugly thing so you agree to put something special there but we're not
dealing with those kind of things on this site and this evening and I guess
my biggest thing is that I'm trying to get clarification from you because from
your recommendations didn't seem really clear what you had an issue with staff
recommendations what additions and subtractions you wanted to make it in
all to be real simple I'd like to eliminate all the staff recommendations and put ours in there we think ours are more we don't feel like the staff recommendations were based so much on the
context and the nature of the project and where it is and how it works with the
neighborhood as it was maybe more of a standard way to try and deal with SUPs
but the reason you have an SUP is one of the reasons is kind of like an ADP or a
future PD because every sites different unique and has special things so let's
address the special things associated with that site not not some general
conditions can you put your recommendations back up there then for
presentation just for us to discuss as we kind of go through all right thank
you mr. Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. Allison I guess a couple questions
with the proposed site plan what is the current height that you've got it at 48
feet 48 feet okay okay because that you know for me my concern on this side of
Mulberry is I mean this side of Mulberry is residential I appreciate all the
examples with the banks up and down Carol totally true but this particular
side you know of Carol Boulevard on Mulberry Street is definitely
residential mainly tenants but the entire street is residential and and
that's my concern that's what I want to protect you know putting the building in
that front corner I think is a great idea you know putting buffers on the
back making it look prettier than the cement that is out there now is ideal
because I don't think it's an X a normal extension of DCG DCG is on the other
side of a divided roadway so to me it's it's DCN because it is DCN I mean it's
it's it's a residential street on that side so that's my main concern the other
the other concern I have is and I've passed mr. Rivers walking in the
neighborhood so I know he's well aware of how difficult Mulberry Street can be
what's the time frame on building has that been looked at at all because
there's gonna be some impact when you know with a tear down and a rebuild and
all of that and obviously when you and teasing session it's a lot busier on
that area so I just I didn't know if you had a time frame yet if I would say by
next fall we'd like to be under construction if not sooner there's a
major drainage analysis that has to be done and of course the site symbols and
the architectural so there could be four to six months right there we're trying
to Marty doesn't like me saying that he wants three or four weeks but that's how
the process is generally work and I'd like to suggest and I understand where
you're coming from and we looked almost put some slides in here on Google Earth
from Mulberry and how it's creating that taller corridor I suggest with this site
plan we could specifically call that some of the buffer trees be large trees
with mature heights of 20 30 feet or taller and that would break that that
line of sight to a larger building on the edge there if that needed to be put
as a condition I don't see an issue with that I'm not going to turn around and
check Marty he might stare me down I'm not what has staff seen these
recommendations yet or is this the first time for them to we didn't get they
weren't available till Friday and contrary to what Marty thinks I did not
look at this over the weekend and we just got into this money and trying to
develop our whole presentation so you didn't get staff's recommendations till
Friday no well Friday night right yeah okay I think that's all I have at the
moment thank you chair Lee I have a comment for you we discussed her and I
may have something that maybe Marty's better suited to answer because I'm not
familiar with the ITM sorry the ITMs a 24/7 operation are they the fact that
they got an individual on the screen there does that mean there's limited to
when people can access those well the ATM part of it would be 24/7 just like any
ATM anywhere else and whether you're talking to a person we don't have the
staff to talk to people 24/7 okay so it's a combination of ATM and ITM then
yes you can do both you can press literally it's an ATM you can press a
button it says I want to talk to somebody and see them on a computer
screen those people can be in the bank or not okay okay but the operation can be
24/7 then without the individual on the screen right okay that being so as we
discussed earlier briefly Lee the fact that we've got the drive-through next to
the neighborhood there I would encourage a fence or a wall or something like that
if you could just to create that greater privacy between the two so that would be
my recommendation to you too and then I think I have one for Cindy if I may while
she's coming up we have no problem with that even if you want to make it a
condition that's okay well I may do that then looking at his recommendations do
you have if we were to agree to these conditions do you have any problem you
think the city would have any problem with these if you had a chance to
consider I haven't really had much of a chance to consider them it just looks
like they are trying to ensure that they the building and the block coverage and
such will be as they are showing the minimum requirements it okay then you
have no real concern that if we well I can't say that because I really haven't
looked at them thank you I'm gonna call mr. Drake for his points yeah this is a
little bit awkward for me to kind of deal with stump the lawyer because there
was no indication that I received that mr. Allison was going to be making
recommendations different from what was written in the staff report or are
suggesting different interpretations of code requirements than what was written
in the staff report and I haven't had a chance to look at those and it's it's
contrary to what my understanding has been with SUPs so for whatever that's
worth an answer to Commissioner Ellis's question it's it's certainly news to me
that that these items are being proposed and that the interpretation of a
different requirement from the typical SUP site plan was being proposed and I'm
not in a position to advise the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight on mr.
Allison's proposals
Christopher and I yeah so I just had a question because I was you know with the
fact that it's butting up right against residential and unlike a funeral home
which isn't which isn't a 24-hour a day thing I imagine that we're gonna have to
maybe some lighting considerations because people are gonna be having money
around on there is there what's the design gonna be like in terms of making
sure that you're not bleeding out light to the neighbors in accordance with the
city codes we're limited to one half candle power at the property line and
we would make again with the buffers and the trees along the west side that would
help stop some of the light and we can make some extra efforts to minimize the
amount of light needed there even have I don't know Marty I don't know why we
couldn't put motion sensitive so maybe the lights were very very low okay well
the reasons we don't have a six lane drive through is that very thing we
don't have to have all those lights we do have to have lighting underneath the
canopy of those two eight items and we're required by law to have it bright
enough where it's accessible so we the city may have codes around the perimeter
which we'll comply with but we're required to have enough light so that if
you walk to go up there you can see the buttons to do that and we get tested on
that so that's the same of every bank that's in town and we haven't talked
about the number of banks that back up to residential's with drive-throughs
larger than this all over town you guys just did an SUV for Dacu over on Emory
Drive that is right across the street and it's six lane ish drive through so
their independent bank over in Unicorn Lake backs up to those there's a credit
union that backs up in Unicorn Lake there's there are banks with drive
throughs a little way larger than this all over town that that are next to
houses yeah I just wanted to ask is uh you know with regard to the ITMs versus
you know a traditional drive through where there's a big canopy so so these
will have a canopy over the draw over the ATMs so it's kind of yeah there's a
picture there's a can we show the picture of our Fort Worth branch there's
the rendering and shows what it'll look like we go the right way that's that is
our that is our Fort Worth branch on West 7th Street and that is what we did
there on the lower right hand corner that's that's the that's actually not an
ITM that has a tube that goes down underground and goes back into the
building that was built two years ago okay thank you very much Chris Sanchez
during the work session I know the question was brought up as to why didn't
wait for the MN being classified as an MN rather than see see DCG at that time
we were told that basically you you were fine with instead of waiting for for the
MN and go ahead and go with this the DCG are you fine with that or because you
were making a comparison in your chart you were talking about the MN but yet
it's it I have almost felt like you really wanted the MN rather than the the
what is it DCG are you comfortable with the DCG somehow we need to separate the
zoning from the development code for all practical purposes since the development
code has been approved and with the transition table as far as zoning goes
we should be the same as in the end right now that allows for a drive-through
bank and a drive-through facility with an SUP then the question is
which set of rules do we finish the site by when we developed this site plan we
were working under the DCG rules and we're fine with working with those but
there may be some things in the new code that would make it better to use those
rules for the site not necessarily for us for example the idea of putting a
fence in that's a lot easier to do under the new development code zoning
related but under the development code 2019 instead of under the current
development code okay but at my understanding is you choose one or the
other and it seems like you're wanting to use a little bit of both no we're not
wanting to use both and typically you would find which which set of codes you
picked was usually done at the time of the site plan itself not with zoning or
with an SUP if it needs to be picked tonight we'll pick one and live with it
but I don't know that that's necessary tonight
so maybe a clarification from staff the recommendation actually references the
2002 DDC so to mr. Allison's point we are selecting the DDC that would be
controlling this SUP this evening because if the condition is referencing
the 2002 DDC they would not have an option to use the 2019 DDC is that
correct let me pull up my presentation again well in my recommendation I said
it's that it's consistent with the goals and objectives oh that's the zoning
where's SUP permitted in accordance with DDC 35 13 8 that does reference the 2002
DDC so if you follow my recommendation then the landscaping would be in
accordance with the 2002 DDC right just verification if we agree to the staff's
conditions placed upon them they do not have an option to use the 2019 DDC
now if you wish you can change my recommendation to state whichever code
that the applicant desires to develop under or you can state that the 2019 MN
code we'll have the same results it's also possible just to state in
accordance with a selected that's correct okay great that's all the
question I had to push Alice thank you thank you chair Cindy Mike my question
follows I guess the same with the adoption of this 2019 code that we now
have yes what does staff do with developments coming in when is it
decided typically we haven't had an opportunity to really do that yet we did
have a pre-development meeting actually today where the applicant has said they
they were specifically waiting for the new code to develop so we knew they were
going waiting for that the new code requirements we are right now we are in
the process of revising our forms and applications so that when the applicant
comes in with a pre-development meeting request they will check which code they
want to come in under this particular site is kind of in the middle of
everything so we reviewed it under the requirements of the DCG district
because at the time the MN district was not approved however the applicant if the
Commission and Council decide that the applicant may have that choice that the
other people are having then you you can specify to change the requirement to
just specified code requirements and the applicant when they submit their site
plan application can indicate which code they want to go under mr. Allison can
answer your question I know Commissioner Smith kind of alluded to this but I want
to make you a little pointed where is the contradictions between the staff's
recommendation and your condition I know the idea would be take your
recommendation but I'm trying to pinpoint where there is a disagreement
in your potential project and how the conditions are currently written as far
as I can tell the only one I can see is the 80% lot coverage but I maybe have a
different insight let me walk through staff presentation and discuss it
briefly when it comes to the landscaping that code was actually adopted landscape
tree ESA etc several couple of months ago and it's the same under either code
right now we don't have vesting into a code prior to the one that this
landscape code is there in this though one thing now is we have opportunities
for using a point system versus a specified buffer of 15 feet with so
many trees and bushes every hundred feet the point system one thing we could put
in a fence that presides provides a more opaque barrier but it also allows us to
put in I could have done that now sorry you know so as far as the landscape
that's the difference may be that we may be visiting with staff about an
alternative buffer plan instead of using a point system to deal with adding a
fence when we don't have to have one and adjusting for that expense again you can
look at the site if anything we'd want to be going less coverage not more
coverage so that buffer on the west side would tend to get larger not smaller
to me with this one with the site plan we have now being part of the ordinance
and attached to it I think that very clearly gives the intent here and if we
were to try and come in and say we wanted to remodel the existing building
and add drive-thrus that wouldn't be in content of what's on the site plan the
staff would be telling us to come back for another SUP and I'm going the wrong
am I out that's it there's two well there was oh there was more than oh for
the SUP okay the bigger deal I think had more to do with the zoning then and so I
was looking at the two together and the idea about the five percent difference on
stated square footages etc. I mean if you got a 12,000 square foot building to add
subtract 600 square feet that's not much to have any flexibility at this
stage of the design and we're comfortable enough I think that we could
go with the staff recommendation and run with it we just had some items in here
that we felt would be more appropriate with this site than the way it's stated
gotcha that helps clarify my thinking on it so I appreciate that
Cindy there's no conditions on the zoning
it's consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan and
complies with the zoning criteria we did not add it add any other conditions
I think I was on the bottom of the first page of the EIS there's a recommendation
section that was off of mr. Allison's referencing yeah under I'm sorry under
recommendation staff should have the ability to approve an increase or
decrease up to five percent that's the SUP yeah that is the SUP but that wasn't
up there right here this is what I put right here what it how does this apply
that should have been added in on my slide I did not add that in one of my
slide if you look at your staff report if you look at your staff report under
recommendation I have the attached site plan and landscape plan provided in
exhibit six and seven specify the attack the following which will be incorporated
as part of the SUP ordinance and staff will have the ability to increase or
decrease up to five percent of any of the amounts specified in item
requirements two through six provided the applicable requirements of the DDC are
met and the first one is the existing thirteen thousand square foot funeral
home shall be demolished the approved site use of the site shall be the
twelve thousand square foot two-story bank with a drive-through facility
consisting of one drive-up ATM lane and one drive-up ATM teller lane but now I
know that they're ITM so 33 parking spaces with the additional space being
pervious shall be provided on the site and any additional parking spaces shall
be of pervious paving material and the site plan specifies the total of 71% lot
coverage and 29% landscape area which includes the type C landscape buffer
along the western and northern property lines the plan reflects an alternative
buffer along with the proposed ten point five foot wide buffer the DDC grants the
director the ability to approve the alternate buffer the director may
approve an alternate buffer that is equivalent to or more restrictive than
the buffer specified in exhibit six through eight and then it goes on to list
the other recommendations that was my error I just put part of it onto my
slide instead of all of it so for clarification Cindy this should be
numbered one through six not one through four than one and two there's six
continuous it should actually be re-numbered one through six okay this is
putting the pieces of this puzzle together quickly Mr. Smith so I
apologize what why are we why would why was the recommendations to be so
restrictive on that then I'm sorry why was why are the recommendations so
restrictive rather than just going with what was provided in the SCP drawings
and everything else before was there a reason behind this is language that the
legal department has devised for SUVs and we've used it previously in two other
SUVs one was from McDonald's and I'm sorry I don't remember which the other
one was razor Windsor the Windsor apartments and so we're using it with
this one as well this is something that legal is it was and Jerry possibly get
you put in there but just ask you a question before you respond so you're
saying that in the past SCPs which I don't think I remember from these past
us SCPs that being that restrictive of saying exactly how you've presented is
exactly how it needs to be held to rather than just it just seems like we're not
giving anybody any wiggle room whatsoever at this point in the process
whenever they're asking for an SCP at the zoning plan it seems like this should be
more of a conversation happens at site plan I know this is an SCP and it's
different I get that part but it seems like some of these things that we're
addressing here you know the number of parking spaces the evening I guess even
lot lot coverage setbacks what the buffer is landscaping those all seem
more like site plan issues rather than SCP issues why are we being so
restrictive on the SCP side well I can't say as far as why I mean that's that's a
policy issue but you know I a couple of things first of all you know I really
wish that I could have been confronted with this issue of how to interpret this
before tonight and and and having it kind of dropped in my lap but it but it
wasn't you got that come on I do my best but it's completely unnecessary I could
have easily looked into this but I guess the second issue is like with the
McDonald's drive-thru SUP that went forward it did go to City Council a
couple of times and the the City Council as I recall did want to see some detail
on that SUP and so with the direction that we received about what the City
Council expected and wanted on that then we did work with the planning staff to
come up with some language that would clarify exactly what the expectations
were and so whether that's you know restrictive or not restrictive I guess
is a matter of judgment and opinion I it's not for me to say which way to go
all I can say is that in the past it has traditionally been the requirement for
an SUP to bring forward a site plan so that the City Council can know how each
of these issues is going to bear upon such concerns as traffic mobility how
the how the sites go to perform with respect to customers coming in and and
leaving how traffic may possibly stack thanks to that nature okay well well I
wanted to let Richard speak about maybe some clarification questions similar to
what Jerry had added that as we presented these a council there's been
times where for lack of a better way to put it they were afraid of a bait and
switch not that necessarily this is what's going to happen but they want to
make sure what they see is what what's going to get built so that's why this
this specificity has been added items one through four really are representative
of what's on what's on the plan that that's provided I don't think we would
be opposed of whether it gets approved with this recommendation under the
current code if it's decided to go with an alternative code I don't think it
would change the layout of the building I don't think it would reflect the
change in the parking perhaps the only thing that would change would be the
landscape area so whether or not we have some alternative language with respect
to that I think that's something sort of on the spot that that we could we could
live with so something along the lines of letting maybe even letting landscape be
decided between now and council because I was gonna say and thank you Richard
for your comments I was gonna say is even though I'm probably the first and
loudest commissioner say I hate taking this commission saying let's let's kick
the can to council at council decided because our job is to be a little more
interactive than that and I don't want council to usurp us and what we were
able to do and be able to get some things figured out before it goes to them
it doesn't seem like staff and and applicant have had long discussions yet
about these types of specificity and the details that we're gonna be putting in
there and so I would hate to put restrictions on something that the
applicant hasn't had much time whenever we could move it through without any of
these details and let council put those on after staff and applicant and visit a
little bit more and staff can make a more thorough recommendation before
council sees it and votes for it so well I'd hate to kick the can down the road
that way that that kind of seems to be a smarter play in this area but there you
go in appreciation of what mr. Drake said about last minute it would help us a lot
to have staff recommendations a week before this gets published so that we
could sit down and have these discussions now we're at the last second
trying to figure out how do we adjust all of that related to that McDonald's I
don't know what the issues were on that but SUPs are different they're almost
like a PD or an ADP and they're site specific and use specific and we feel
like that the site plan that we submitted as well as the landscape plan
is a good basis for determining if anything in the future is reasonably in
conformance with that or not and doesn't need to be given a 5% limitation it's
definitely limited to whatever the code allows we also feel like building
coverage is better limited to 80% like MN requires than it is to what we've
shown plus or minus 5% we've not shown anything on our site plan that was
intended to be a mitigation or an adaptation to any concerns that have
been brought forward because none have been brought further forward other than
what you have brought this evening and we have expressed a willingness to put
those on our own conditions on our zoning and SUP request as on the previous slide
I had to that effect at the same time once it gets to council with this
particular site council may have some things I'll change that last side to
provide the City Council sufficient comfort to approve the SUP they may have
conditions and concerns with this specific site that are not generic to
every site in the town that seeks an SUP and we can discuss adding those at
that time so again for tonight we could go either way but we made our
recommendation and mr. Beck you had asked me to put those up earlier and
there they are and we think those with a couple other items that give you concern
related to this specific site would be certainly well accepted by the bank
mr. Austin we have a couple more questions real fast has your team done
all the work necessary to do a preliminary plot have you done engineering
traffic drainage has all that been taking place no so at this point there
are some extra steps to understand exactly what that footprint would look
like is that correct yes and that's pretty common I look at site development and
planning in the form of a pyramid where you start with with a dream to a
feasibility to do diligence to entitlements to planning to designs and
you never know what the final detail is until you do the record drawings after
it's built there's always something that comes up something's underground
somebody's here a neighbor speaks up you try to accommodate them and we feel like
at this stage of the game yes we need to dare it down to a point but or further
but not we can't get to a point yet that's it
Christian Beck thank you chair I guess my question is probably for staff here I
hate to sound like a squeaky wheel on this fence but moving forward if we to
get that fence if they're willing to do it I recommend that they do it for the
privacy sake is the current code not gonna allow that to happen or does it
need to be part of the 2019 code before a fence can even be considered a privacy
fence on the west side it's either or with the new code if you recall it was
based on based on a point system right they certainly could right do that
depending on on how they wanted to structure that but if we didn't go forward
with that we went forward with the odc the fence is not part of the landscape
is not included in a landscape package is that right I've got to confirm the
type C I've been working so much on the new code I don't recall the the current
the existing okay so offense is not in the works on for a type-c buffer no it's
not required but they could put one in okay okay there you go okay so I'll deal
with that when we decide just for clarification the type-c buffer is a
15-foot landscape area with six trees every hundred feet a mixture of
deciduous and evergreen and twenty-five shrubs very good
kiss your Sanchez I guess I'm still wondering sometimes I'm getting I'm
getting a feeling that you you want to see you want us to wait on this and move
it forward or nothing you know not move forward with this because there's there
hasn't been some good communication between you and staff or would you be
happy with what staff has recommended I'm still kind of confused as to where
you're coming from and the discussions you and staff had based on what we were
told at the work session that everything had been pretty much discussed and you
were fine with going with the 22 2002 recommendations and so that's what they
were giving us right and that was a misunderstanding because the only thing
we had asked staff was do we need to move forward with the zoning request or
not since the transition table renders it in me and either way we weren't
having any discussions about which code to operate under now we did have a
landscape plan and a site plan and obviously they were developed using the
2003 code I'm gonna get my numbers wrong here but we also feel like the site
plans we presented can work very well under the 2019 DDC with there'd be some
fairly minor differences we showed you some of the site restriction limitations
there but some things with the landscape but I feel like that we can probably go
tonight with staff recommendation with an understanding that we might want to
discuss this more before it gets to council and staff may or may not have
reason to revise it but they've also got to put in there what your
recommendation is as well there's no other questions yes Cindy based on what
he just said I mean do you think there's that there's some wiggle room on based
on what you your recommendation and what and what they're they'd like to see is
there some there's still some room it's a word where you can still compromise in
there okay I guess I guess this is the first I've seen this counter proposal
right and I I'd rather take a look at it thoroughly before I say yes or no we
can kind of put together a hybrid of both if you if you wish as a
recommendation as a as a recommendation if you if you wish that what but yeah you
know we're going to have to just make this is one of those odd cases where it's
come it came in before the code was approved and we didn't review it with
the new code because we didn't know how much it was going to change before it
was approved and so the applicant asked after the code was approved if they
still needed to move forward with the zoning case because it's going to go to
the MN district and the decision was made yes we're just going to go ahead
and go through with the zoning case because of the fact that you're ready to
go we've scheduled you we've sent out notices you're ready to go and the
applicant can if he wishes he can he can make the determination which code he
wants to do the site plan under when we go through with the site plan and we
can revise the code to just say the recommendation to take out code sections
and just say needs to comply with with the landscape requirements are and so on
thank you okay so we have a couple more questions here
Commissioner Pernetta my questions are more procedural right because we have
kind of some vagueness between between staff and you know what mr. Allison's
proposing is there an issue or based based on the disconnect or the divide
that we have between the two of them if we were to push this out you know for to
give everybody like an extra two weeks is this are the differences that they
have right now something that would have to be renoticed or anything like that
would or could we just you know have them confer come back in two weeks and
based on everything that we've established right now be able to devote
without having to put anything else to the public would it be like simply an
extension of this public hearing right now or motion to postpone before you
close the public hearing and and then just bring it back up at a date certain
and reconsider at that time without having to read notice would that be
would that be some would that be something amenable to you or or okay
another discussion and mr. Kanon may have some items here that'll help take
care of all this it might be really beneficial at this point if there's no
opposition from the dais to call brief recess because there is some side
discussion happening if there's in a way to have the sidebar wrapped up and we
can figure out what the next step could be whether it be a postpone for the
record before we go into this recess what I would like to see is something
made sense tonight the the idea of someone working really hard to get caught
in the postponement due to code confusion seems a little unsettling to me
that that confusion of what code to apply when MN is is eminent I would like
to see a resolution that's not a postponement but perhaps if the board
votes to actually progress this forward but let's have the recess if there's an
opposition to that Commissioner Ellis you want to speak real fast go for it thank
you chair just a couple words before recess some of staff recommendations to
me are just reiterating the proposed site and landscape plan that that we have
here in the SUP discussion we've gotten burned in the past by general conformance
are significantly conformant significantly similar to what is
proposed and we've I think staff is trying to get away from that because I
asked very early on in my appointment four years ago what does general
conformance mean and no one has an answer to that and so while I understand
what you're saying I think when staff gives some of those recommendations it's
to pull in that site and landscape plan that's been presented so that we
understand going forward what general conformance means so that's kind of my
interpretation of a couple of those so I just wanted to throw out that and I
think better after the break there'll be some comments that might address that
but related to that one of our concerns is what if the bank wanted to come in
and through their budgeting and different things said well we want to go
to a 10,000 square foot building with a 5,000 square foot footprint and that
would add a thousand square feet to landscape but we can't do that because
of the plus or minus 5% so that's the other side of that but I think after the
break we may have a solution all right thank you at this time I'll call recess
for 15 minutes at 746 thank you for your patience we will reconvene this meeting
at 812 first thing I'd like to do as we saw in the public session is it seems
like we have some revised staff suggested conditions so I'd like to put
those on record for the Commission to listen to and consider so I'll have
Richard can only can you present those on the magic I sir
able to see those yes a little too dark and so that the first sentence is really
just a modification it's essentially that same if you if you look at if you
look at the heading it's essentially that that same language and then
condition one remains the same condition two is modified slightly it references
the 12,000 square foot building two-story bank with drive-through
facility consisting of a maximum of two lanes quite honestly whether it's a
teller or an ATM ITM at the end of the day it's still drive-through lanes that's
really what we're what we're here for so the site plan has three lanes or can we
specify two drive-through lanes there I think it was two in the bypass lane
that's excluded from the drive-through the language here is specific enough
that's drive-through of two lanes right okay correct and then what we what we
added in there is that if they wanted to reduce the building square footage
beyond the 5% that that would be permitted so if they wanted to reduce it
10% 20% as long as it was a decrease in intensity we were comfortable with that
condition number three essentially remained the same what we did is we took
out that reference to previous paving material right now I think there were one
space over if they decide to go under the new DDC if you will if you recall
the parking permits up to 125% of the of the of the required parking and so we
didn't so we just did in accordance with the DDC want whichever they choose the
maximum lot coverage this one is what probably changed significantly but not
really maximum lot coverage of 80% and 20% landscape area the lot coverage may
be reduced beyond 5% in landscape area increased by any amount and so that way
again it's it's in increasing the landscape and open space decreasing the
intense intensity not having a limitation with respect to that just to
give you an idea of the of those numbers if they do decide to go under the DCG
that 20% is actually greater than the 15% required the MN if you recall with
the MN we don't regulate in the new DDC by a lot coverage which only by building
coverage but it does have a minimum landscape area of 20% which that would
which that would meet and then we just sort of modified five and six just to
rather than specify a certain section we referenced just in accordance with the
DDC and then of course there are some administrative approvals like the
alternative buffer that was previously mentioned depending which which route
they go but but we referenced the the I think initially was referencing one and
four this just referenced those modifications of two and two and four I'm
sorry
the best your knowledge is agreeable by by both city staff and the applicant yes
okay commissioners do you have any questions or clarifications needed for
these conditions Chris you're back I think I'm gonna stay with the fence okay
I think I'd still like to see your fence I feel obliged based on that
announcement for the record if the tornado sirens do go off the protocol is
to go downstairs in the basement so below this chamber you'd go out take a
U-turn there's a staircase there anyway squisher back continue thank you chair
I'm still leaning towards a privacy fence on that one side I was looking at
the site and there was a concern that maybe the fence would be too close to
the residential driveway but I didn't quite see it looks like there's plenty
of room there so I'd still like to if we could insert that into this we could
certainly require that that fence and I believe they they gave the thumbs up
that they have no problem providing that fence so we can incorporate that into
the condition
Mr. Ellis thank you chair and I'd just like to entertain mr. Allison about his
the tree discussion we had a little bit ago where you talked about planning some
higher trees for neighborhood protection you mentioned that earlier in your when
you were up here yes the buffer trees on the west side we
could require that those be the larger trees I would like that incorporated I
mean that's I don't have a problem with this development at all my my issue is
that that side of Mulberry remains what it is it's a neighborhood and and we
just need the development compatible with a neighborhood and it protected as
such
Christian back you know concur with Commissioner Ellis - I think though what
we're gonna have to do is fight this battle one development at a time and we
ought to be willing to do that but this this particular development it could be
worse it could be a you know a drive-through hamburger place and we
know how those go so this this particular development in my opinion is
compatible shouldn't all set the neighborhood area there but by rezoning
this yeah we're gonna have to each development down the road if these come
in along that strip there we're gonna have to deal with it development by
development so at this time I feel obligated to say this is a public
hearing so if anyone does want to speak it is open to the floor but there's no
one else to speak which I do not see any movement I'm gonna go ahead and close
the public hearing for both items that we've been discussing both for C and for
D at this time we have the ability to have further discussion or a motion can
we clear the first and second off the board okay I don't know if that's
accurate Chris you're back okay so we're clear I thought before before they came
back and presented this I was under the I was feeling like we needed to postpone
this and let them hammer this out but it appears like they've got this both sides
seem satisfactory and at this point I don't see a problem with it I'm not
gonna make a motion on it but my first inclination was to postpone this to a
date certain which would be the next B and Z but all the issues I think they
were bothering both sides or concerned both sides have been worked out so we
can move forward as far as I'm concerned
Christopher Sanchez I just want to comment that yeah I also thought I was
kind of confused and on on the feeling of other developers and and I was
thinking well maybe we have to postpone it but at the same time I think it's one
of the things that has we understand is we have the old code and the new code
and there's things there that I think they're still somewhat confusing but I
think it's just an example of these things can be worked out and I think
getting together figuring out going and talking about it shows that these things
can be worked out and so I'm glad it happened but one of the things you
mentioned was that you got to pay the information I think on Friday or
something I think it's important to start getting that information a little
bit give you a little bit more leeway so that developers can make those
decisions and discuss with you prior to this meeting
Mr. Smith I'm assuming we still need to make we still need a motion to adopt
these separately correct correct so at this point we'd take a motion for the
zoning request yeah I'll move I'll move to approve the zoning case Z 19 - zero
zero zero two no staff recommendations for this this item so no no
recommendations on that we have a first for approval of the zoning request
Mr. Cole second we have first and second for the zoning request any discussion see
not a call for a vote on the board
motion carries seven zero next will be the SUP Mr. Smith motion to approve the
SUP with the revised staff recommendations that were not in the
back up and Mr. Smith for clarification are you including a condition for a
fence yes I am and the trees from in the trees yes okay so we have a first with
the revised conditions with the addition of two for the West fence and the trees
of mr. Ellis noted commissioner Cole second but a first and a second with the
revised conditions and additional any discussion Christian Pernetta I just
wanted to verify someone we say the trees we're ensuring that they are the
larger trees right in this as far as they say okay correct so without any
discussion I was gonna make one note thanks for the patience for the
applicant I know we are as a as a commission and as a council and as staff
trying to get used to new development codes and so I appreciate the
applicants patience as well as see staff working to be nimble and appreciate
both sides of the discussion and find common ground I certainly appreciate
that I think in the future if it's the city staff's prerogative and City
Council's prerogative to be more specific on SUPs I think that might be a
good move away from general conformity or substantially conforms but with that
if we're going to hold the applicants on any SUP with more rigor you provided
them a heads up so they know exactly what their concept plan is actually be
holding them to I think would be important because I think historically
that hasn't been the case and if we're making a shift be cognizant of the
timing for applicants I think would be appreciative so with that we have a
first and a second call for a vote on the board
motion carries 7-0 congratulations next item on the agenda is our matrix and I
will have Richard begin and then we'll have discussion just I'll be brief on
this item a couple things I wanted to highlight the discussion on the upland
habitats maintaining those long-term if you recall we talked about bringing that
at the same time at a work session at the same time that we would discuss the
criteria manual for ESA they're currently in the process of going through this
month to the committee on the environment and so will my most likely
move that date to 619 what I will do on the on 515 what I'd like to do I know we
all got any Kathy had sent an email out earlier today on the attendance and while
that wasn't on the agenda unfortunately weren't really able to discuss that what
I'd like to do is if it's if it's okay with with the Commission include that as
part of the work session discussion under our draft policies and procedures
just to have that so I'll include that on the agenda for 515 the only other
item that I'll just mention the 515 meeting as it stands right now we're
looking at and again this may this may change within the next week or so but
right now we're looking at at approximately eight public hearing items
and two consent items and that's the result of unfortunately the meeting we
had to cancel as a result of the weather any discussion
just a comment from what we experienced tonight can we ensure that on our
presentation what goes on the monitor is all of the recommendations because that
definitely got confusing today and that's just that's we need that in the
public needs that so that we know exactly what we're voting on because
that definitely was a source of confusion and then on the record as I've
said this off the record too but whatever you can do as part of staff to
get Mulberry Street on some kind of somebody's radar this development is
going to add problems to that corner especially if it's going to get started
in the fall if nothing is done right now at that intersection so if there's
anything we can do to move that up somebody's priority list it definitely
needs to be done
seeing no other discussion items I will close this meeting at 826