WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.040 good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning work 00:00:04.040 --> 00:00:11.500 session meeting for May 1st 2019 I'll call a meeting to order at 5 o 3 before 00:00:11.500 --> 00:00:14.700 we jump into the consent agenda and public hearing is there any notes to the 00:00:14.700 --> 00:00:21.540 minutes that we need to cover you won't have any changes to those and on the 00:00:21.540 --> 00:00:25.780 consent agenda there was four different items is there any questions that we can 00:00:25.780 --> 00:00:32.720 bring up staff to clarify yes Christian Ellis thank you mine has to do with 00:00:32.720 --> 00:00:42.720 item B I guess B and C of the consent agenda I'll invite Karina is she here 00:00:51.840 --> 00:00:57.400 you said both B and C well because they're related yeah so my question has 00:00:57.400 --> 00:01:07.200 to do with the note in B about it being contingent and if it's contingent then 00:01:07.200 --> 00:01:27.480 wouldn't see be contingent which note so it's it's note two talks about its 00:01:27.480 --> 00:01:33.180 contingent and then it said it has to be the contingency has to be met before a 00:01:33.180 --> 00:01:37.680 final plaque can be approved and yet we're got a final plaque for lot 10 so 00:01:37.680 --> 00:01:46.600 yes it speaks specifically to lot 14 and 15 on the preliminary plat so when when 00:01:46.600 --> 00:01:50.560 the developer would come into final plat those two lots they would need to make 00:01:50.560 --> 00:01:55.400 sure that they comply with this note okay so the contingency is only for lot 00:01:55.400 --> 00:02:08.960 lot 14 14 and 15 okay thanks okay sir back I just I think we've run into this 00:02:08.960 --> 00:02:13.720 before but if you could clarify again while we're dealing with a final plan 00:02:13.720 --> 00:02:20.840 this is on FP 19 oh hey where says preliminary plans being considered for 00:02:20.840 --> 00:02:26.720 approval prior to action this on so we're dealing with a final plan but the 00:02:26.720 --> 00:02:32.080 preliminary plats not been completed yet so the item B is the preliminary plat 00:02:32.080 --> 00:02:39.600 and then item C is the final plat for only lot 10 okay that makes sense thank 00:02:39.600 --> 00:02:44.240 you to sir all thank you can I go back to the other the contingency we talked 00:02:44.240 --> 00:02:50.120 about is it noted on there and am I missing it that it's noted that the 00:02:50.120 --> 00:02:56.800 sorry I mean the note reads preliminary plot is contingent I'm failing to see 00:02:56.800 --> 00:03:13.000 where it specifies the lots so lot so you're correct on here on the specific 00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:19.140 notes it doesn't indicate which specific lot however if you it's depicted on the 00:03:19.140 --> 00:03:24.080 plat itself okay what are we looking at here because sorry this is not what I'm 00:03:24.080 --> 00:03:29.640 looking at this is the preliminary plat and so the note that you indicated was 00:03:29.640 --> 00:03:35.000 for the floodplain and so it's indicating that floodplain exists on lot 00:03:35.000 --> 00:03:41.840 14 and 15 those notes don't yeah look like your notes are not the notes I'm 00:03:41.840 --> 00:03:46.400 talking about I'm not sure what we've got pulled up here 00:03:46.400 --> 00:03:51.320 Michelle she's looking at the last page sorry yes page 3 of the preliminary 00:03:51.320 --> 00:03:57.320 plat shows all the notes unless we're talking about a different yeah I have 00:03:57.320 --> 00:04:20.560 notes on page 1 so okay so this specific note is related to the need for an alt 00:04:20.560 --> 00:04:31.800 ESA and that one should be specific to lot 14 on there they have a small 00:04:31.800 --> 00:04:36.880 portion of ESA right here so it's indicating that at final plat for lot 00:04:36.880 --> 00:04:44.880 14 they would need to do an assessment and then if it's needed they would have 00:04:44.880 --> 00:04:49.080 to do an alternative ESA assessment or alternative ESA plan okay I guess my 00:04:49.080 --> 00:04:52.200 question is does it need to be noted there that I know I understand that you 00:04:52.200 --> 00:04:56.960 understand it yes I don't I don't know that I see that here okay and so that's 00:04:56.960 --> 00:05:02.720 my question so not sure who needs to answer that or if there's something we 00:05:02.720 --> 00:05:06.700 need to be that needs to be done about it but I didn't know what it was 00:05:06.700 --> 00:05:10.680 referring to when I read it but that doesn't mean that would be everybody 00:05:10.680 --> 00:05:19.240 we're talking note for the ESA note right I'm talking about yeah no two on page one 00:05:19.240 --> 00:05:31.640 can you further clarify where you're not clear because on note two it says 00:05:31.640 --> 00:05:38.840 specifically about the approval of an alt ESA plan and then the plan itself on 00:05:38.840 --> 00:05:45.560 page two has the alt ESA okay there okay so what would no I mean I guess that's 00:05:45.560 --> 00:05:55.320 okay that that would reference there okay 00:05:57.760 --> 00:06:12.040 similar questions for item B or C thank you very much Karina is there any 00:06:12.040 --> 00:06:22.180 questions regarding a or D great so we'll move on to the public hearings the 00:06:22.180 --> 00:06:42.600 first item is for a I'll invite mark presenting fr 19 - 0 0 0 3 good evening 00:06:42.600 --> 00:06:45.800 my name is Mark Laird I'm the associate planner city didn't not presented to you 00:06:45.800 --> 00:06:55.640 case fr 19 - 0 0 3 the request is for the approval of lots 1r 1 2r 1 and 3r 1 00:06:55.640 --> 00:07:02.920 block a hilltop branch edition it's a replat of lots 1r 2r the site is located 00:07:02.920 --> 00:07:08.680 in the ET jail on Hilltop Road staff has reviewed the case and recommends 00:07:08.680 --> 00:07:13.720 approval as it meets all the requirements of the development code this 00:07:13.720 --> 00:07:18.040 concludes my presentation if you have any questions you don't have any 00:07:18.040 --> 00:07:25.880 questions about this replat great thank you thank you next is item 4b it's 00:07:25.880 --> 00:07:32.000 presented by Julie Wyatt FP 19 - 0 0 0 8 00:07:38.920 --> 00:07:46.640 all right Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city and I am presenting a replat 00:07:46.640 --> 00:07:52.440 not a residential replat it's just a replat of 12 acres approximately 12 00:07:52.440 --> 00:07:56.600 acres it's actually replatting a previously platted lot and taking in 00:07:56.600 --> 00:08:01.040 some unplatted property in order to facilitate a development for the city 00:08:01.040 --> 00:08:06.680 of Denton I'll stand for any questions this is the utilities development or 00:08:06.680 --> 00:08:10.420 what's going on offices I believe there's there's an existing office 00:08:10.420 --> 00:08:14.520 building on this north side this this south side which is kind of the 00:08:14.520 --> 00:08:18.480 unplatted property coming into the lot that's intended for some parking and 00:08:18.480 --> 00:08:22.080 also some some outside storage that'll have to be screened in accordance with 00:08:22.080 --> 00:08:29.720 the code great any questions for Julie thank you very much next item for 00:08:29.720 --> 00:08:38.560 business is item 4c z 19 - 0 0 0 2 and Cindy Jackson had the item 00:08:38.560 --> 00:08:54.960 I'll confirm and Cindy are you combining these two presentations or they'll be 00:08:54.960 --> 00:09:01.800 separate okay yes so we'll also hear item 4d s 19 - 7 exactly Mike my 00:09:01.800 --> 00:09:08.000 presentation actually it's like two for the price of one to request one 00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:14.200 presentation 4c and 4d you must approve foresee the rezoning presentation in 00:09:14.200 --> 00:09:20.280 order to consider the SUP application which is 4d and let me change the view 00:09:20.280 --> 00:09:35.440 here okay first up we've got z 19 - 0 0 0 2 it's a request to rezone a site 00:09:35.440 --> 00:09:41.200 from downtown commercial neighborhood DCN to downtown commercial general DCG 00:09:41.200 --> 00:09:46.680 the request is pursuant to the redevelopment of the site for a bank 00:09:46.680 --> 00:09:53.680 they are also requesting for an SUP to have a drive-thru associated with that 00:09:53.680 --> 00:10:02.360 bank and that is s 19 - 0 0 0 7 banks are currently permitted in the DCN 00:10:02.360 --> 00:10:08.320 designation however in order to have a drive-thru it has to be zoned DCG in 00:10:08.320 --> 00:10:15.960 order to get the the opportunity to apply for the specific use permit the 00:10:15.960 --> 00:10:24.000 proposed site has noted is zoned DCG excuse me DCN and the applicant is 00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:30.040 requesting to rezone it to DCG which is a continuation of the DCG that is 00:10:30.040 --> 00:10:37.600 located to the east of the site the Denton development code the 2002 Denton 00:10:37.600 --> 00:10:42.640 development code contains a zoning criteria for approval of a zoning 00:10:42.640 --> 00:10:46.280 request the proposed rezoning must conform to the future land use 00:10:46.280 --> 00:10:50.960 designation and the proposed zoning facilitates the adequate provision of 00:10:50.960 --> 00:10:56.160 transportation water sewer schools parks and other public requirements and public 00:10:56.160 --> 00:11:03.960 convenience criteria one the conforming to the future land use designation this 00:11:03.960 --> 00:11:09.320 site is unique in that it's on the edge of two future land use designations it 00:11:09.320 --> 00:11:17.400 is as such it is zone it is designated as both downtown Denton and neighborhood 00:11:17.400 --> 00:11:22.760 University compatibility the purpose of the downtown Denton is for moderate and 00:11:22.760 --> 00:11:28.200 high density residential commercial office and entertainment uses tailored 00:11:28.200 --> 00:11:32.840 to encourage greater levels of activity in the downtown area and the purpose of 00:11:32.840 --> 00:11:37.480 the neighborhood University compatibility area is to create compatible form and 00:11:37.480 --> 00:11:42.440 land uses for those areas both to serve both established neighborhoods and the 00:11:42.440 --> 00:11:49.400 universities the proposed DCG district is consistent with the intent of both of 00:11:49.400 --> 00:11:54.720 these designations as it permits office and residential service uses of the 00:11:54.720 --> 00:12:03.840 types encouraged by both designations excuse me now the second criteria is 00:12:03.840 --> 00:12:08.360 adequate public facilities since the site is currently developed with the 00:12:08.360 --> 00:12:15.600 Denton funeral home and crematorium it already has access to water and sewer 00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:22.920 the if this is approved that the funeral home is planning to just close and the 00:12:22.920 --> 00:12:29.240 site will be redeveloped for the bank with the drive-through the site has 00:12:29.240 --> 00:12:36.120 access to both West Carroll and to West Mulberry West Carroll is 00:12:36.120 --> 00:12:40.480 designated as a primary arterial and Mulberry Street is designated as a 00:12:40.480 --> 00:12:47.560 collector Street and both both streets are capable of handling the traffic 00:12:47.560 --> 00:12:54.160 which would be generated by the proposed use other findings as noted previously 00:12:54.160 --> 00:13:00.440 this is a logical continuation of the DCG zoning that is located across Carroll 00:13:00.440 --> 00:13:05.760 Boulevard with regards to relationship to the residential area the proposed use 00:13:05.760 --> 00:13:12.120 is less intrusive than the existing funeral home it doesn't generate the type 00:13:12.120 --> 00:13:17.680 of traffic that funeral homes do particularly during services and the 00:13:17.680 --> 00:13:22.960 design standards that we have today are much more protective adjacent 00:13:22.960 --> 00:13:28.160 residential uses then were the design standards back when this the funeral 00:13:28.160 --> 00:13:33.280 home was developed in the 70s specifically we have route we require 00:13:33.280 --> 00:13:37.600 buffers and setbacks and landscaping from the residential where if you look 00:13:37.600 --> 00:13:42.840 at it today you can see that the the parking is right up against the house 00:13:42.840 --> 00:13:47.240 there's no screening there's there's nothing there's just a parking lot in a 00:13:47.240 --> 00:13:54.760 house so we will be able to better adequately buffer the residential uses 00:13:54.760 --> 00:13:59.800 staff recommends approval of this request as it is consistent with the 00:13:59.800 --> 00:14:04.680 goals and objectives of didn't plan 2030 and complies with the zoning criteria 00:14:04.680 --> 00:14:11.360 for approval now we'll move on to the SUP request the SUP is a request for 00:14:11.360 --> 00:14:16.080 approval of a drive-through facility in association with the proposed bank 00:14:16.080 --> 00:14:22.680 pressure back thank you correct me here if I'm wrong I'm looking at this table 00:14:22.680 --> 00:14:25.440 of allowed uses or we got the conversion saying so I don't know if I've got a 00:14:25.440 --> 00:14:31.480 good one here not but for banks or financial institution now DCN and DCG 00:14:31.480 --> 00:14:44.520 will be MD is that right okay I mean okay then I probably got screwed up chart 00:14:44.520 --> 00:14:51.640 here because it's showing it should be MD but under either the DCN and DCG right 00:14:51.640 --> 00:14:56.680 now on this shows that these are not a bank is not allowed a bank is an office 00:14:56.680 --> 00:15:02.160 use and it is permitted it's a professional office okay we don't have a 00:15:02.160 --> 00:15:08.120 criteria specific category for bank in the 2002 code so we use professional 00:15:08.120 --> 00:15:17.480 office for bank so and that that actually is going to be part of my 00:15:17.480 --> 00:15:24.740 presentation as well we do have SUP criteria for approval in the 2002 DDC 00:15:24.740 --> 00:15:30.000 section 3564 which requires it to conform to all standards within the 00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:34.960 zoning district the Denton plan and to other applicable law and a compatibility 00:15:34.960 --> 00:15:38.660 analysis between the surrounding properties the requested and the 00:15:38.660 --> 00:15:43.680 requested use and I went into great detail in this compatibility in your 00:15:43.680 --> 00:15:52.700 backup and in my presentation I'm just going to kind of touch the high points 00:15:52.700 --> 00:15:59.800 now the applicant has submitted a site plan there we go the request is for a 00:15:59.800 --> 00:16:03.680 drive through facility in association with the bank you can see the drive 00:16:03.680 --> 00:16:08.200 through is located on the west side of the bank there will be three lanes a 00:16:08.200 --> 00:16:15.000 pass-through ATM and drive-through window and ATM and drive-through window the 00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:24.000 site actually conforms with the approval criteria in section 364 the applicant is 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:29.840 proposing to construct a 12,000 square foot two-story bank building on the site 00:16:29.840 --> 00:16:36.440 currently on the site is a 13,000 square foot funeral home which has been located 00:16:36.440 --> 00:16:43.160 on this site since 1970 so the the building is going to be smaller than it 00:16:43.160 --> 00:16:48.600 currently is on the site the proposed scale of development in terms of lot 00:16:48.600 --> 00:16:53.480 coverage for area ratio and building height will comply with the requirements 00:16:53.480 --> 00:16:59.480 for the DCG district the DCG district permits a maximum lot coverage of 85% 00:16:59.480 --> 00:17:04.120 and buildings up to 100 feet in height however the applicant is only proposing 00:17:04.120 --> 00:17:09.680 a two-story building the property has approximately 228 feet of frontage along 00:17:09.680 --> 00:17:14.560 West Mulberry Street and 181 feet of frontage along South Carroll Boulevard 00:17:14.560 --> 00:17:19.520 and will have access to both the proposed drive-through use is consistent 00:17:19.520 --> 00:17:24.600 with the mixture of commercial uses that are located along South Carroll Street 00:17:24.600 --> 00:17:32.440 and also along West Mulberry on the east side of Carroll Street the proposed 00:17:32.440 --> 00:17:37.600 drive-through is compatible with the future land use designation of the 00:17:37.600 --> 00:17:41.120 downtown Denton and neighborhood University compatibility area and 00:17:41.120 --> 00:17:49.600 complies with the SUP criteria as noted in your backup other findings the 00:17:49.600 --> 00:17:55.600 proposed bank use is less intrusive than the existing funeral home particularly 00:17:55.600 --> 00:18:00.320 if it's like most banks nowadays that are closed on Saturday and Sunday 00:18:00.320 --> 00:18:04.480 whereas the funeral homes that's usually when they do their have their services 00:18:04.480 --> 00:18:10.640 and such and you'll see a lot of on-street parking and for the services 00:18:10.640 --> 00:18:17.440 the as I noted the bank is smaller than the existing funeral home the design 00:18:17.440 --> 00:18:21.800 standards particularly required buffers adjacent to the residential use which is 00:18:21.800 --> 00:18:28.440 located on this side and this portion of the site will help protect the property 00:18:28.440 --> 00:18:34.680 and the provision of on-site parking the applicant will provide enough parking 00:18:34.680 --> 00:18:42.000 such that their on-street parking should not be needed at all for this site now 00:18:42.000 --> 00:18:50.760 for both note both applications we sent public notices to 17 within 200 feet of 00:18:50.760 --> 00:18:57.200 the site and courtesy notices went to 88 people within 500 feet of the site and 00:18:57.200 --> 00:19:04.640 we received one back in opposition which represents 2% of the area within the 200 00:19:04.640 --> 00:19:08.480 feet two signs were posted on the site and the applicant did have a 00:19:08.480 --> 00:19:18.560 neighborhood meeting to which one attendee was present staff recommends 00:19:18.560 --> 00:19:23.320 approval of the SUP with the following conditions that one the landscaping in 00:19:23.320 --> 00:19:26.860 the attached site plan reflects an intent to comply with the DD require 00:19:26.860 --> 00:19:31.880 DDC requirements for parking street trees minimum landscape and canopy areas 00:19:31.880 --> 00:19:36.040 and compatibility buffers with administrative approval of an 00:19:36.040 --> 00:19:41.560 alternative buffer with elements that are permitted in accordance with DDC 35 00:19:41.560 --> 00:19:46.760 13 8 minor alterations to the depicted locations of the individual plantings 00:19:46.760 --> 00:19:51.040 may be approved by city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted 00:19:51.040 --> 00:19:55.480 complies with the attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations 00:19:55.480 --> 00:20:00.840 as well as all in elements of the DDC and number two notwithstanding the 00:20:00.840 --> 00:20:03.960 limited administrative approvals authorized by condition one the city 00:20:03.960 --> 00:20:08.040 reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the 00:20:08.040 --> 00:20:14.200 SUP the attached site plan and the elements described in section 3 below 00:20:14.200 --> 00:20:20.240 including those referenced in condition 1 while section 3 below was in your staff 00:20:20.240 --> 00:20:25.080 report and that concludes my presentation 00:20:25.080 --> 00:20:31.960 Cindy I'm kind of cloudy on something that can you clarify they're not required 00:20:31.960 --> 00:20:37.480 to have front parking parking in front of the building no they're not required 00:20:37.480 --> 00:20:50.160 their parking can be behind or to the side this is in our our downtown CBD area 00:20:50.160 --> 00:20:54.200 and that is considered in addition to the in our districts those are 00:20:54.200 --> 00:20:59.000 pedestrian oriented areas because I think in a medical city they all have 00:20:59.000 --> 00:21:05.520 front parking that's a different that's different yes okay great any other 00:21:05.520 --> 00:21:09.560 questions for Cindy Chris Ellis thank you chair Cindy I assume they're gonna be 00:21:09.560 --> 00:21:14.200 developing this from the old code yes they are discussed at all they are when 00:21:14.200 --> 00:21:17.280 when the new code was approach was approved last week the applicant 00:21:17.280 --> 00:21:26.720 requested to come in under the new code and since and we advised him since we've 00:21:26.720 --> 00:21:29.560 already been working on this for months we'll just go ahead and go through with 00:21:29.560 --> 00:21:39.840 it and was it discussed at all with the drive off a mulberry I mean it's high 00:21:39.840 --> 00:21:45.120 pedestrian there high bicycle I mean because I mean it's just constant 00:21:45.120 --> 00:21:49.560 especially when when UNT is in session exactly at that intersection there and 00:21:49.560 --> 00:21:55.800 well maybe it's less if the funeral home you know I mean the funeral home has a 00:21:55.800 --> 00:21:59.880 service it's kind of one and done and not sure when it's gonna happen again a 00:21:59.880 --> 00:22:03.640 bank's gonna have a little bit more consistent traffic would be my opinion 00:22:03.640 --> 00:22:09.560 was that discussed at all with that well driveway off a mulberry no at this point 00:22:09.560 --> 00:22:14.120 no because the we will discuss that further when the site plan comes in for 00:22:14.120 --> 00:22:21.360 approval when the site plan comes in for approval we will discuss access more 00:22:21.360 --> 00:22:28.800 thoroughly and ensure that the safety of the pedestrians but at this point we did 00:22:28.800 --> 00:22:36.880 not this property required two entrances to curb cuts I mean it already has it's 00:22:36.880 --> 00:22:41.080 already there but take Michelle's point is it is it legal for them just to have 00:22:41.080 --> 00:22:46.520 one turning off Carol or do they have to have two entrances you know that I'm not 00:22:46.520 --> 00:22:50.840 sure if to be honest with you I can check on that and get back to you in the 00:22:50.840 --> 00:22:57.480 morning that would be enforced or considered at site planning though that 00:22:57.480 --> 00:23:00.680 yes that would be considered during the site plan it's at that point that 00:23:00.680 --> 00:23:03.640 transportation will look at all the entrances because they actually have 00:23:03.640 --> 00:23:08.440 more than two entrances and and make a determination there's two on Carol I 00:23:08.440 --> 00:23:17.320 believe okay any other questions for Cindy hey Richard has some yeah I did 00:23:17.320 --> 00:23:20.760 want to mention we did have traffic look at this and I believe these are the 00:23:20.760 --> 00:23:26.360 existing ingress and acres points that are that are there today so that they 00:23:26.360 --> 00:23:29.760 are existing and I think it's it's it's even a less the square footage of the 00:23:29.760 --> 00:23:34.200 building is about a thousand square feet less it is what's there right and it's 00:23:34.200 --> 00:23:42.120 only right in right out mm-hmm off Carol thank you right and it's always out on 00:23:42.120 --> 00:23:53.000 it's both ways out on Mulberry correct correct I believe so I'm good I just I 00:23:53.000 --> 00:23:56.280 just have a lot of concern has anyone ever been on Mulberry Street when when 00:23:56.280 --> 00:24:05.280 the light is backed up at certain times I mean it's a nightmare and Commissioner 00:24:05.280 --> 00:24:09.320 let's just maybe one other piece to that that we were discussing Mulberry in 00:24:09.320 --> 00:24:13.920 particular and we were talking about as we work through the mobility plan and 00:24:13.920 --> 00:24:18.920 looking at how it is that we can redevelop Mulberry and as part of that 00:24:18.920 --> 00:24:23.280 was really what that right of way was there and ultimately some grander 00:24:23.280 --> 00:24:27.560 changes so when we took we took that into consideration as well and how it is 00:24:27.560 --> 00:24:34.040 that we would take care of pedestrian and bicycle traffic so just keep in mind 00:24:34.040 --> 00:24:37.600 that we we did have an extensive conversation with traffic engineer to 00:24:37.600 --> 00:24:42.800 make sure what we were doing is most appropriate and I think there is a code 00:24:42.800 --> 00:24:47.240 requirement also where you've got two streets you take access off of the less 00:24:47.240 --> 00:24:54.240 lesser the two minimize the traffic off of Carol and then Carol was a right in 00:24:54.240 --> 00:25:03.280 right out because primary arterial and then I guess then my only other concern 00:25:03.280 --> 00:25:10.800 was in changing the zoning in the bank doesn't decide to build was it discussed 00:25:10.800 --> 00:25:14.760 about other things we're opening this corner up to if we make that zoning 00:25:14.760 --> 00:25:22.080 change well that there would be they would still have to follow the uses with 00:25:22.080 --> 00:25:28.920 would still have to follow the design standards with regards to protection of 00:25:28.920 --> 00:25:37.440 the residential areas and so I from my understanding the bank is just about 00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:43.160 chopping at the bit to get started if I'm correctly I understand that nod yes 00:25:43.160 --> 00:25:47.400 or no we've kind of all been there before and things haven't so so yeah we 00:25:47.400 --> 00:25:52.240 appreciate that my understand that but it's happened before yeah well I 00:25:52.240 --> 00:25:56.880 understand that and anything that goes in there besides the bank would have to 00:25:56.880 --> 00:26:00.880 comply with all of our design regulations which would to protect the 00:26:00.880 --> 00:26:11.960 existing residential the transition for this property would be MN and I guess 00:26:11.960 --> 00:26:15.840 that was going to be my next question so it's going to automatically switch to MN 00:26:15.840 --> 00:26:21.280 if regardless whether it's whether the zoning changes or not it's going to go 00:26:21.280 --> 00:26:27.720 to MN so by the time our meeting can I didn't see any I saw the comparative 00:26:27.720 --> 00:26:36.280 chart with DC and DCG in there maybe do we have a slide for MN the work 00:26:36.280 --> 00:26:40.120 session might provide a little bit more clarity to this so when we talked a 00:26:40.120 --> 00:26:43.920 little bit about the transition table I saw Commissioner Beck trying to get to 00:26:43.920 --> 00:26:49.920 his sheet so in short answer this use will be allowed with the transition 00:26:49.920 --> 00:26:55.360 table so the action whether you took it or not they ultimately be entitled to do 00:26:55.360 --> 00:27:00.560 the same at some point in the future correct yeah correct so inevitably it's 00:27:00.560 --> 00:27:08.720 going that way okay and I understand what you're saying there because it's 00:27:08.720 --> 00:27:13.080 allowed a bank used to be allowed drive-thru within a CP just like what 00:27:13.080 --> 00:27:21.080 we're requesting correct my thing is is DCG is all of DCG MN no MD and MN 00:27:21.080 --> 00:27:26.800 correct depending on the D tip or not and it is not in the D tip so it will 00:27:26.800 --> 00:27:37.480 not be MD it'll be MN okay so if we change it and it's DCG it's still going 00:27:37.480 --> 00:27:43.840 to go to MN. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Senator can you go back to the 00:27:43.840 --> 00:27:51.000 preliminary outlook of what the I guess the site plan it's not final it's 00:27:51.000 --> 00:27:57.720 not it's not nothing binding here it is final that right there to us to that 00:27:57.720 --> 00:28:04.120 way I mean there might be some minor adjustments specifically the flow of 00:28:04.120 --> 00:28:07.920 the drive-thru away from Mulberry cycling back towards Carroll essentially 00:28:07.920 --> 00:28:14.800 mm-hmm is that that is final. One of the conditions seem like that it 00:28:14.800 --> 00:28:19.480 has to be has coordinates with this it has to be in accordance gotcha I just 00:28:19.480 --> 00:28:22.360 wanted to I could remember which way I was flowing I saw one to confirm that it 00:28:22.360 --> 00:28:25.600 is flowing away from there so it wouldn't be you would you wouldn't see as 00:28:25.600 --> 00:28:29.720 much you'd see entrances off of Mulberry but you wouldn't see as much exits 00:28:29.720 --> 00:28:33.480 because the drive-thru doesn't right the drive-thru traffic wouldn't it'd be 00:28:33.480 --> 00:28:36.480 unnatural if turn back around and come back to the parking lot rather than 00:28:36.480 --> 00:28:39.760 going back out there not saying they can't do it but just that it's it's 00:28:39.760 --> 00:28:43.840 pointing it away it's pointing it out away from Mulberry rather than towards 00:28:43.840 --> 00:28:46.520 the easiest way to exit from the drive-thru is just go back to Carroll. 00:28:46.520 --> 00:28:51.200 Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank You Chair. You mentioned a while ago that there were 00:28:51.200 --> 00:28:56.680 three means of ingress and egress but looking at your diagram. That's 00:28:56.680 --> 00:29:03.560 currently what they've got. Okay. If you look at the aerial. This is the site plan 00:29:03.560 --> 00:29:08.040 that the. This is the site plan that is proposed for the site. Okay but it's only 00:29:08.040 --> 00:29:15.480 showing two. That's right. Right. I said as it stands now but this is the 00:29:15.480 --> 00:29:19.760 site plan that is proposed. Site plan has two. Okay gotcha so you're saying there's 00:29:19.760 --> 00:29:32.080 three now. Yes. Okay thank you. Any other questions for Cindy? Thank you very much 00:29:32.080 --> 00:29:39.360 Cindy. That concludes the agenda for tonight's plan and zoning commission. We 00:29:39.360 --> 00:29:45.520 will end the meeting at 532 and oh we do have a work session report. I was just 00:29:45.520 --> 00:29:53.520 gonna skip right over that. Darn. Thank you Richard. Yes we'll go to work session 00:29:53.520 --> 00:29:59.880 report 1A. Good try Mr. Chair. Scott McDonald director of development 00:29:59.880 --> 00:30:06.800 services. Of course one more time we need to talk about what we have for the 00:30:06.800 --> 00:30:11.560 Denton development code or the development code 2019 edition. So for 00:30:11.560 --> 00:30:15.480 clarity we're gonna try to reference as the development code 2019 rather than 00:30:15.480 --> 00:30:21.500 saying old proposed new or anything else. So for clarity we have a current code 00:30:21.500 --> 00:30:26.520 which is our existing code or we have the 2019 edition of the development code. 00:30:26.520 --> 00:30:33.760 Great. A couple things have occurred since we came before the commission. One 00:30:33.760 --> 00:30:39.720 is is that we have the council has adopted. When they adopted they adopted a 00:30:39.720 --> 00:30:45.360 transition table. The transition table is slightly different. Through DCR 00:30:45.360 --> 00:30:51.320 C that and Ron's gonna pass that out here directly. We made some changes to 00:30:51.320 --> 00:30:59.680 minimize the some of the what was an error when we made the transition from 00:30:59.680 --> 00:31:14.680 DCG our dr1 dr2 NRMU and NRM never mind 12 and so what we did is we found that 00:31:14.680 --> 00:31:21.400 that we had some r7s that shouldn't have been and and so we just cleaned clean 00:31:21.400 --> 00:31:26.800 that up. So that transition chart is part of the code. It is an appendix of the 00:31:26.800 --> 00:31:32.520 code and that is really going to guide as we move forward and bring the city 00:31:32.520 --> 00:31:39.360 initiated rezonings. So we we most closely followed what was in context on 00:31:39.360 --> 00:31:48.400 the ground and and made that transition. We will be coming forward with a series 00:31:48.400 --> 00:31:54.960 of city initiated rezonings. We're gonna focus on highway corridor. We're gonna 00:31:54.960 --> 00:32:00.720 focus on some of the split zonings and then as we look at really some of the r7 00:32:00.720 --> 00:32:08.480 MD MR MN some of those areas as well as some of the residential areas. So we're 00:32:08.480 --> 00:32:14.840 gonna bring those in I think Richard I don't know that Richards ready to speak. 00:32:14.840 --> 00:32:20.200 I guess I can ask the question not that I'm looking for an answer of course is 00:32:20.200 --> 00:32:25.040 we're considering calling special meetings of the planning and zoning 00:32:25.040 --> 00:32:29.600 commission to try to do this weekly instead of running the meetings 00:32:29.600 --> 00:32:36.320 incredibly late every other week. I visited with the agenda committee today 00:32:36.320 --> 00:32:40.080 to talk about council and doing a similar function with council. We're 00:32:40.080 --> 00:32:44.700 gonna go to a work session in May to discuss what the options are with 00:32:44.700 --> 00:32:48.600 council whether we want to have some special called meetings whether we're 00:32:48.600 --> 00:32:51.560 gonna do those every week or whether we'll just run them long and what times 00:32:51.560 --> 00:32:55.440 those will be. But I think first and foremost all of those items are gonna 00:32:55.440 --> 00:33:01.800 come before this body and so then it would be really a request of meeting 00:33:01.800 --> 00:33:06.960 weekly so that we can try to minimize the amount of time. We're looking at 00:33:06.960 --> 00:33:11.920 trying to do these geographically so we'll take IE highway corridor we may 00:33:11.920 --> 00:33:17.160 take as a lump sum so we can talk about highway corridor overall or we might 00:33:17.160 --> 00:33:22.860 talk about 35 East and 35 North and just treat those two separately and then 00:33:22.860 --> 00:33:28.280 we'll look at maybe quadrants of town or particular zoning districts that we can 00:33:28.280 --> 00:33:32.960 have some sort of relationship with. We intend on bringing these presentations 00:33:32.960 --> 00:33:38.480 forward in groups so when we talk about a rezoning it's not going to be an 00:33:38.480 --> 00:33:43.240 individual parcel some may be an individual parcel but we'll bring them 00:33:43.240 --> 00:33:49.440 in groups each of the actions will come as an individual item or we're 00:33:49.440 --> 00:33:52.920 discussing whether that's going to be meets and bounds if we were to take 00:33:52.920 --> 00:33:58.660 something like Lakeview they have I think a request in there NR 2 want to go 00:33:58.660 --> 00:34:03.780 to NR 1 and so if that's the case and by meets and bounds we could take all of 00:34:03.780 --> 00:34:07.040 those parcels rather than individual parcels and each of those have an 00:34:07.040 --> 00:34:11.920 individual ordinance so we're vetting that out currently. Just trying to 00:34:11.920 --> 00:34:15.360 simplify for the public trying to simplify for the Commission and 00:34:15.360 --> 00:34:19.680 simplify for council the best way to do this we are going to provide notice to 00:34:19.680 --> 00:34:25.000 everyone within 200 feet of any affected property that we're proposing these 00:34:25.000 --> 00:34:30.400 rezonings I don't know if we have an actual number of parcels as of yet an 00:34:30.400 --> 00:34:37.320 estimate number of parcels I have to venture it's less than 300 I don't know 00:34:37.320 --> 00:34:43.320 that but that's a lot so as we work through that the other change on the 00:34:43.320 --> 00:34:48.800 development code when it was adopted of course we came before P&Z then we met 00:34:48.800 --> 00:34:57.120 with DCRC we had made the change to NR 3 to R3 and we had the component in there 00:34:57.120 --> 00:35:04.840 of single-family duplex triplex fourplex town homes and we removed the 00:35:04.840 --> 00:35:11.320 opportunity for anything other than single-family residential and our four 00:35:11.320 --> 00:35:19.480 we removed the component of triplex fourplex in NR 4 so that was done with 00:35:19.480 --> 00:35:24.720 council there was an errata which I think Ron has passed out as well the 00:35:24.720 --> 00:35:30.040 errata went with council as far as a part of what the draft code was and that 00:35:30.040 --> 00:35:36.000 was any and all changes that that we had made as we were discussing those with P&Z 00:35:36.000 --> 00:35:40.240 and council and beyond that I don't believe there are any substantive 00:35:40.240 --> 00:35:46.840 changes that had occurred part of the ordinance also included the fact that we 00:35:46.840 --> 00:35:53.040 will continue to work on the code if there are errors that are non- 00:35:53.040 --> 00:35:56.200 substantive they will be approved by the city attorney's office as 00:35:56.200 --> 00:36:00.160 non-substantive anything that's a substantive change will come before P&Z 00:36:00.160 --> 00:36:05.360 is a text amendment and council as any other text amendment would come forward 00:36:05.360 --> 00:36:09.920 Ron has an entirety of a presentation I just want to kind of give it a brief 00:36:09.920 --> 00:36:15.080 background on where we're at and how we got there and thank you 00:36:15.080 --> 00:36:20.860 Commissioner Smith make sure about one with those weekly meetings start I think 00:36:20.860 --> 00:36:33.940 that we determined it would be May 29th okay thank you okay no further ado Ron 00:36:33.940 --> 00:36:38.480 has his favorite slide 00:36:38.480 --> 00:36:50.120 thank you chair members of the Commission I apologize that we were a 00:36:50.120 --> 00:36:55.320 little late but wanted to share with you as Scott already mentioned I'm gonna 00:36:55.320 --> 00:36:58.960 highlight a couple things and if I repeat a couple of them I apologize but 00:36:58.960 --> 00:37:02.560 just want to go through this this is my favorite slide and it shows that then 00:37:02.560 --> 00:37:07.880 plan 2030 very proud of the plan and really why we're here in updating our 00:37:07.880 --> 00:37:15.040 development code in our zoning map so Scott mentioned a number of them among a 00:37:15.040 --> 00:37:19.520 number of what I was going to discuss already but just to kind of reiterate 00:37:19.520 --> 00:37:23.720 some of that the cleanup edits the errata sheet that you have in front of 00:37:23.720 --> 00:37:27.800 you as Scott mentioned was presented to City Council and that was part of their 00:37:27.800 --> 00:37:37.000 motion for approval or adoption of the 2019 DDC the adoption was April 23rd 00:37:37.000 --> 00:37:42.560 with an effective date of October 1st I think everyone it's kind of clear on how 00:37:42.560 --> 00:37:51.120 that's gonna work that the 2019 won't be effective until October 1st however a 00:37:51.120 --> 00:37:55.000 development that comes in a developer or property owner that comes in can choose 00:37:55.000 --> 00:38:00.760 between the 2002 or the 2019 development code but they have to pick one they 00:38:00.760 --> 00:38:07.600 can't pick and choose between one or the other or pieces of one or the other we 00:38:07.600 --> 00:38:11.460 as Scott mentioned we are in the process of doing additional review as we go 00:38:11.460 --> 00:38:16.120 through this process between now and October 1st we'll have an opportunity to 00:38:16.120 --> 00:38:23.240 see how it's working and if there are any substantive changes or any changes 00:38:23.240 --> 00:38:26.200 to the code of ordinances that we're working on we'll have to bring that part 00:38:26.200 --> 00:38:33.000 of a public hearing in ordinance but that again we're making sure that we 00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:38.200 address everything in the DDC moving forward and that's why we still have more 00:38:38.200 --> 00:38:45.200 time to review the the code itself okay so the transition chart you have a copy 00:38:45.200 --> 00:38:50.360 of that in front of you Scott mentioned it earlier I'm gonna skip to the next 00:38:50.360 --> 00:38:57.320 slide this really here illustrates the changed of what happened between PNZ and 00:38:57.320 --> 00:39:06.040 City Council you see that in the green we've moved NRMU 12 up to the R7 we 00:39:06.040 --> 00:39:16.860 clarified that any DCN DCG within the D tip is now an MD any that are outside 00:39:16.860 --> 00:39:20.480 the D tip boundary and I apologize I don't have a map of the D tip it's 00:39:20.480 --> 00:39:26.120 primarily Carroll to the west Parkway to the north 00:39:26.120 --> 00:39:32.640 Sycamore to the south and exposition across the tracks to the east so that's 00:39:32.640 --> 00:39:36.960 the boundary of the detail the core of the area I think we have seen it 00:39:36.960 --> 00:39:41.840 probably it's hard to see on that map but it's the one that's shown there in I 00:39:41.840 --> 00:39:48.360 believe dark purple those that are outside the detail are going to 00:39:48.360 --> 00:39:53.400 transition or have transition to MN so the case that you heard earlier it's 00:39:53.400 --> 00:39:58.120 just outside it's on the west side of Carol would or has been transitioned to 00:39:58.120 --> 00:40:08.840 MN going further the dr2 RC 1 RCR 1 and RCR 2 those were originally going to 00:40:08.840 --> 00:40:14.240 transition to R7 they have now moved down and are going to or are sorry 00:40:14.240 --> 00:40:26.960 transition to MN so that is the changes that happened after PNZ and then PF yes 00:40:26.960 --> 00:40:33.720 thank you Scott PF we made sure that any publicly owned property is now a PF and 00:40:33.720 --> 00:40:38.720 you can see from the map over there those are represented in blue so there's 00:40:38.720 --> 00:40:44.520 a lot of them that includes the city's property own city own property unit UNT 00:40:44.520 --> 00:40:52.480 TW and any other public property such as the state and federal so you see that 00:40:52.480 --> 00:40:58.720 most of the city that are in blue are represented there as PFs any question on 00:40:58.720 --> 00:41:06.940 the transition chart and this was again a chart that was presented to the City 00:41:06.940 --> 00:41:09.540 Council and that was part of their motion for approval 00:41:09.540 --> 00:41:14.280 Chris Ross thank you chair with PS run did that does that mean all parks went 00:41:14.280 --> 00:41:20.560 to PF or not all parks yes any see own property went to parks fire stations and 00:41:20.560 --> 00:41:29.240 like mr. Beck thank you chair well ago you mentioned the pick-and-choose 00:41:29.240 --> 00:41:34.040 developers could still do but that stops effect at the effective date of October 00:41:34.040 --> 00:41:38.600 1st right correct they have to make that pick and choose prior to that correct 00:41:38.600 --> 00:41:43.400 any completed submittal prior to October 1st they can still pick and choose 00:41:43.400 --> 00:41:53.000 however after that they would have to comply with a 2019 okay so as we are as 00:41:53.000 --> 00:42:00.000 Scott mentioned again earlier we are in the process of our efforts in conducting 00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:05.680 research for our city initiated rezoning and those are represented on this map 00:42:05.680 --> 00:42:13.960 over here to my on my right these are areas that were transitioned per the 00:42:13.960 --> 00:42:20.000 transition chart but don't necessarily fit the area or don't fit the context 00:42:20.000 --> 00:42:24.440 of the area that is Scott mentioned highway corridor and those are shown in 00:42:24.440 --> 00:42:30.440 the red alone I 35 most of those areas that are shown in red were transitioned 00:42:30.440 --> 00:42:37.760 to either mr. R7 or something lesser than a highway corridor and so staff's 00:42:37.760 --> 00:42:43.160 bringing forward those as part of a public hearing process which will be 00:42:43.160 --> 00:42:51.560 coming forward to you as early as May 29th as public hearing items in addition 00:42:51.560 --> 00:42:56.920 to staff recommendations push Alice thank you chair Ron the transition chart 00:42:56.920 --> 00:43:02.360 is that adopted or is that proposed it was adopted it is actually part of the 00:43:02.360 --> 00:43:11.320 cleanup edits and I believe it is number two number two on the edits it's a it's 00:43:11.320 --> 00:43:19.720 added as appendix B yes so that was added as part of the motion so the 00:43:19.720 --> 00:43:25.640 example as I showed earlier spoke of earlier the HC along the highway makes 00:43:25.640 --> 00:43:31.080 sense that if that each that is HC and that will actually help make some of the 00:43:31.080 --> 00:43:36.480 uses along the corridor along I 35 quarter such as the car dealerships 00:43:36.480 --> 00:43:43.640 conforming because under the MR they're not conforming and that the HC would 00:43:43.640 --> 00:43:49.520 clean that up and make them conforming again that is just the first of many we 00:43:49.520 --> 00:43:54.560 will be also taking other areas around town on the west side and north of 00:43:54.560 --> 00:43:58.760 University is another area that we're going to be looking at I know we've 00:43:58.760 --> 00:44:05.600 heard some comments we've we've this slide over here shows we've noted 194 00:44:05.600 --> 00:44:12.400 comments regarding the zoning map through emails calls and walk-in visits 00:44:12.400 --> 00:44:21.760 we've also received 294 response forms of that 294 37 referred to they don't want 00:44:21.760 --> 00:44:26.880 the zoning that they were given or want a different zoning district so we're 00:44:26.880 --> 00:44:31.600 going through that as part of our research we receive a total of 99 00:44:31.600 --> 00:44:35.080 speaker cards between the Planning Zoning Commission and City Council we're 00:44:35.080 --> 00:44:39.760 going through that as well a number of the speakers that spoke the majority of 00:44:39.760 --> 00:44:44.440 them I believe there were 22 speakers the majority of them did not speak so 00:44:44.440 --> 00:44:48.080 we want to make sure we go through the through those speaker cards and document 00:44:48.080 --> 00:44:54.460 any ones that mentioned a zoning that they didn't agree with in if it fits 00:44:54.460 --> 00:44:59.480 within what we felt is a city initiated we will move those forward if not we 00:44:59.480 --> 00:45:03.320 will direct them to submit an application for a rezoning to serve 00:45:03.320 --> 00:45:06.120 back thank you chair I thank you answered what was going through my mind 00:45:06.120 --> 00:45:11.900 here if I'm looking at this right the areas in red are the ones that you're 00:45:11.900 --> 00:45:15.920 currently considering for city initiated correct right because there was 00:45:15.920 --> 00:45:20.480 some areas out on 380 I believe and there was a gentleman who owns some 00:45:20.480 --> 00:45:24.600 property off Austin just south of the downtown square area and I didn't see 00:45:24.600 --> 00:45:29.440 that in red so those will probably be a couple of areas that correct this was 00:45:29.440 --> 00:45:33.520 our first staff's recommendation obviously we still have to go through 00:45:33.520 --> 00:45:38.520 this has not been updated to reflect of those others that we have are currently 00:45:38.520 --> 00:45:44.840 researching okay great thanks yes just clarify because I think it's all of the 00:45:44.840 --> 00:45:48.480 colors I don't want you to just so all of the colors represent a change not 00:45:48.480 --> 00:45:55.360 just the red red is the color for highway quarter suburban quarter is the 00:45:55.360 --> 00:46:00.920 pink which I think includes that that's why I was confused no no no I apologize 00:46:00.920 --> 00:46:04.400 so all that are called that is color is staff's recommendation that we should 00:46:04.400 --> 00:46:10.160 look into city initiate rezoning the one that you're referring to Larry we 00:46:10.160 --> 00:46:16.800 haven't updated yet the one near downtown or the one out on 38 yeah just 00:46:16.800 --> 00:46:21.480 because we we printed this before the public hearings we will update it to 00:46:21.480 --> 00:46:26.360 reflect but generally that's the area that we're looking at yes okay thanks 00:46:26.360 --> 00:46:34.840 as part of the motion so that was a separate motion on the zoning map it was 00:46:34.840 --> 00:46:39.680 a separate item so similar to the P and Z you all recommended separately on the 00:46:39.680 --> 00:46:44.640 development code and the zoning map the City Council did the same they 00:46:44.640 --> 00:46:51.720 recommended I'm sorry they adopted the 2019 development code however the zoning 00:46:51.720 --> 00:47:00.080 map they continued to August 6 and the idea here is that we will work on these 00:47:00.080 --> 00:47:06.960 zoning citywide city initiate rezoning's through a public hearing process where 00:47:06.960 --> 00:47:10.720 we'll notify the property owner we'll we'll send out notices to properties 00:47:10.720 --> 00:47:15.240 within 200 feet of the subject properties and bringing forward to the 00:47:15.240 --> 00:47:17.840 planning zoning Commission as we had talked to earlier trying to get those 00:47:17.840 --> 00:47:22.920 going quickly as possible because again we have an August 6 deadline the hope is 00:47:22.920 --> 00:47:28.360 that we get those through P and Z and City Council once we have completed all 00:47:28.360 --> 00:47:32.960 of those public hearings we will then bring forward to City Council the zoning 00:47:32.960 --> 00:47:37.640 map and because those prior public hearings hopefully were considered and 00:47:37.640 --> 00:47:45.400 were approved we can just fold those in as part of the citywide zoning map update 00:47:45.400 --> 00:47:59.120 amendment any questions on the process that is really yeah I have some other 00:47:59.120 --> 00:48:03.600 items here that I was just going to share with the planning zoning Commission we 00:48:03.600 --> 00:48:12.720 obviously adopted the 2019 DDC in it there is the administrative in process 00:48:12.720 --> 00:48:18.120 chapter subchapter we are in the process we the staff are in the process of 00:48:18.120 --> 00:48:21.600 updating our checklist and our applications because we have added a 00:48:21.600 --> 00:48:26.160 couple of new applications we're in the process of updating our administrative 00:48:26.160 --> 00:48:32.360 criteria manual which will have new fees a process intake procedure 00:48:32.360 --> 00:48:38.280 development review process as well and site plan checklists and other criteria 00:48:38.280 --> 00:48:44.280 manuals that will be reflected because of the new DDC our water wastewater our 00:48:44.280 --> 00:48:48.400 environmental folks are also working on criteria manuals so just to let you know 00:48:48.400 --> 00:48:53.800 that just that we are finished with the DDC update but there is more that has to 00:48:53.800 --> 00:49:01.480 be done to follow up what was approved or adopted that concludes my 00:49:01.480 --> 00:49:09.080 presentation I'll be happy to answer any questions further questions if I may 00:49:09.080 --> 00:49:16.320 does the does May 29th work for everyone I know that that Monday is Memorial Day 00:49:16.320 --> 00:49:20.840 it's a holiday and so I wasn't sure if anyone was planning a vacation that week 00:49:20.840 --> 00:49:29.320 of I'll be gone on work travel on the 29th so I will not be in town I have a 00:49:29.320 --> 00:49:35.420 currently scheduled event that to be at that night and and I don't know if it 00:49:35.420 --> 00:49:43.240 would be simpler if maybe we send out a zoom ring with a series of dates so then 00:49:43.240 --> 00:49:50.820 we could perhaps have staff then have each individual respond to staff with 00:49:50.820 --> 00:49:55.000 particular dates of availability to see if we'll have a quorum on those dates 00:49:55.000 --> 00:49:59.760 and then really we wouldn't set the dates by we could use that as a guide to 00:49:59.760 --> 00:50:07.200 what we would be able to set dates by if that would be acceptable and then for 00:50:07.200 --> 00:50:10.680 start time does any do we want to keep it at 630 do we want to move it up a 00:50:10.680 --> 00:50:22.960 little bit if we're if we're talking I think it's the special call but you have 00:50:22.960 --> 00:50:31.060 a standing meeting that's a 630 which we could change I mean it's the code 00:50:31.060 --> 00:50:34.320 doesn't prescribe it in the charter because you're back thanks chair so 00:50:34.320 --> 00:50:38.480 we're trying to set a date that's not a planning and zoning date correct you'll 00:50:38.480 --> 00:50:45.080 be a special special meeting correct okay it and I will say one other 00:50:45.080 --> 00:50:49.920 consideration would be even if it were beneficial don't shoot the messenger if 00:50:49.920 --> 00:50:55.840 if a Saturday might even be one of those that you might want to entertain just 00:50:55.840 --> 00:51:02.200 saying yeah I think sending out the option to for us to give feedback will 00:51:02.200 --> 00:51:07.960 be a great next step okay fine a date we'll do that mr. chair thank you any 00:51:07.960 --> 00:51:19.700 questions for this presentation great okay with a little bit of hesitation I 00:51:19.700 --> 00:51:28.080 think it's we're ready to close the meeting for work session so at 654 we'll 00:51:28.080 --> 00:51:33.880 close the work session will reconvene in council chambers at 630 good evening 00:51:33.880 --> 00:51:36.520 ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting 00:51:36.520 --> 00:51:42.440 for May 1st 2019 I'll call the meeting to order seen that we have a quorum at 631 00:51:42.440 --> 00:51:46.000 the first item of business is to stand and give the pledge allegiance to the 00:51:46.000 --> 00:52:14.440 u.s. flag and Texas flag 00:52:16.840 --> 00:52:22.480 the next item for business is item 2 consideration of the minutes we'll take 00:52:22.480 --> 00:52:28.200 these in two different votes the first one is for April 3rd 2019 to mr. Smith 00:52:28.200 --> 00:52:32.760 moved to approve we have a first for approval to mr. Beck second we have a 00:52:32.760 --> 00:52:36.880 first and a second for approval any discussion on the minutes seeing none a 00:52:36.880 --> 00:52:50.040 call for vote of the board motion carries 6-0 with one recuse next we'll 00:52:50.040 --> 00:52:55.080 consider the minutes for April 10th 2019 to mr. Smith moved to approve we have a 00:52:55.080 --> 00:52:59.560 first for approval to mr. Ellis second we have a first and a second for approval 00:52:59.560 --> 00:53:12.600 any discussion seeing none a call for a vote on the board motion carries 7-0 the 00:53:12.600 --> 00:53:18.440 next item for consideration is the consent agenda item 3 commissioner back 00:53:18.440 --> 00:53:23.800 moved to approve consent agenda we have a first for approving the consent agenda 00:53:23.800 --> 00:53:28.560 mr. Pernetta a second we have a first and a second for approval of the consent 00:53:28.560 --> 00:53:41.280 agenda any discussion seeing not a call for vote on the board motion carries 7-0 00:53:41.280 --> 00:53:44.760 this will bring us to our public hearings the first item is 4a we'll take 00:53:44.760 --> 00:53:56.920 a minute let Commissioner Smith step out this item is fr 19 - 0 0 0 3 I'll call 00:53:56.920 --> 00:54:00.960 mark for presentation and open the public hearing 00:54:00.960 --> 00:54:21.320 good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm with the associate planner with the city 00:54:21.320 --> 00:54:28.080 didn't to not present case fr 19 - 0 0 3 and is the request for approval for 00:54:28.080 --> 00:54:35.920 hilltop additions lots 1r 2r 3r blockade it's a replat of lot 1r 2r hilltop 00:54:35.920 --> 00:54:41.680 addition properties located within the ETJ along a hilltop road staff has 00:54:41.680 --> 00:54:46.080 approved staff has reviewed and recommends approval of the case since it 00:54:46.080 --> 00:54:52.200 meets didn't development code this includes my presentation if you have any 00:54:52.200 --> 00:54:57.440 questions be happy to answer I don't see any questions this is a public hearing 00:54:57.440 --> 00:55:00.600 anyone wish to speak may do so 00:55:00.600 --> 00:55:06.320 seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for 00:55:06.320 --> 00:55:14.400 discussion or motion customer back I move to approve fr 19 0 0 0 3 we have a 00:55:14.400 --> 00:55:19.160 first for approval Commissioner pernetta I second we have first and a second for 00:55:19.160 --> 00:55:25.040 approval any discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the board 00:55:25.040 --> 00:55:41.120 motion carries 6-0 with one recusal the next item of business is item 4b fp 19 00:55:41.120 --> 00:55:47.440 - 8 I'll invite Julie wife presentation and open the public hearing 00:55:47.440 --> 00:55:57.560 good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am 00:55:57.560 --> 00:56:05.560 presenting to you a replat of the Mayhill Road addition the total acreage 00:56:05.560 --> 00:56:11.640 is a little over 12 acres and the purpose of this replat is to add previously 00:56:11.640 --> 00:56:15.520 unplatted property to a platted lot in order to facilitate city of Denton 00:56:15.520 --> 00:56:20.880 offices and some storage facilities and I'll stand for any questions 00:56:20.880 --> 00:56:33.280 this is a public hearing anyone wish to speak we do so seeing none I'll close 00:56:33.280 --> 00:56:36.360 the public hearing and turn to the dais for a motion or discussion kisser Smith 00:56:36.360 --> 00:56:39.480 vote for approved we have a first for approval 00:56:39.480 --> 00:56:46.200 Mr. Ellis second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing 00:56:46.200 --> 00:57:03.440 not a call for a vote on the board motion carries 7-0 00:57:14.400 --> 00:57:20.040 next item for business is item 4c and we'll combine this with item 4d so I'll 00:57:20.040 --> 00:57:24.800 go ahead and open the public hearing for 4c z 19 - 2 as well as open the public 00:57:24.800 --> 00:57:37.160 hearing for 4d s 19 - 7 and I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation Cindy 00:57:37.160 --> 00:57:46.920 Jackson for the record with the planning division z 19 - 0 0 2 is a request to 00:57:46.920 --> 00:57:53.600 rezone from downtown commercial neighborhood DCN to downtown commercial 00:57:53.600 --> 00:58:01.520 general DCG and s 19 - 0 0 0 7 is a request for a specific use permit to 00:58:01.520 --> 00:58:09.160 allow allow a drive-through facility in association with a bank the 0.9 6 for 00:58:09.160 --> 00:58:14.240 acre site is located at 120 South Carroll Boulevard which you can see right 00:58:14.240 --> 00:58:18.640 here is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Carroll and 00:58:18.640 --> 00:58:26.200 Mulberry the applicant is requesting approval for the rezoning to permit the 00:58:26.200 --> 00:58:31.920 redevelopment of the site with a bank and the applicant is requesting it 00:58:31.920 --> 00:58:36.360 because the DCG district permits a drive-through upon approval of a 00:58:36.360 --> 00:58:40.280 specific use permit whereas the drive-through is not permitted in the DC 00:58:40.280 --> 00:58:46.620 and district as noted previously the current zoning is DC and as you can see 00:58:46.620 --> 00:58:53.800 on the first picture the second slide picture shows how it would look if this 00:58:53.800 --> 00:58:58.360 were approved it would be a logical extension of the existing DCG across the 00:58:58.360 --> 00:59:06.120 street onto this site there are is zoning criteria for approval of a zoning 00:59:06.120 --> 00:59:11.920 request in section 35 3 4 the proposed zoning must conform to the future land 00:59:11.920 --> 00:59:19.160 use designation in the Denton plan 2030 and the proposed zoning must facilitate 00:59:19.160 --> 00:59:24.060 the adequate provision of transportation water sewer parks and other public 00:59:24.060 --> 00:59:31.280 requirements and public convenience first criteria is with regards to the 00:59:31.280 --> 00:59:36.920 future land use designation the site is located on the edge of two future land 00:59:36.920 --> 00:59:42.080 use areas neighborhood University compatibility and downtown Denton so the 00:59:42.080 --> 00:59:48.080 site is a blend of both of them downtown commercial is intended for moderate and 00:59:48.080 --> 00:59:53.000 high-density residential and commercial uses office entertainment and other uses 00:59:53.000 --> 00:59:57.760 tailored to encourage a greater level of activity downtown and in Denton's 00:59:57.760 --> 01:00:02.080 historic core the university neighborhood university compatibility 01:00:02.080 --> 01:00:07.920 area is intended to create a compatible form and land uses which for the areas 01:00:07.920 --> 01:00:12.320 that serve both the established neighborhoods and the universities the 01:00:12.320 --> 01:00:17.360 proposed DCG district is consistent with the intent of both land use designations 01:00:17.360 --> 01:00:23.160 that permits the office and residential service types of uses encouraged by 01:00:23.160 --> 01:00:30.520 both designations the second criteria is with regard to the adequate provision of 01:00:30.520 --> 01:00:35.080 public facilities the site is currently developed with a funeral home adequate 01:00:35.080 --> 01:00:40.200 water and wastewater facilities are already available to the site the site 01:00:40.200 --> 01:00:44.920 will have access to both South Carroll Boulevard which is a primary arterial and 01:00:44.920 --> 01:00:49.720 West Mulberry which is designated as a collector Street both can accommodate 01:00:49.720 --> 01:00:57.000 the anticipated transportation demands of a bank other findings this is the 01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:02.960 logical continuation of the DCC CG zoning district as previously mentioned 01:01:02.960 --> 01:01:08.600 additionally the zoning of the subject site will transition to the MN district 01:01:08.600 --> 01:01:13.240 with the approval of the new zoning map a bank is permitted in the MN district 01:01:13.240 --> 01:01:18.520 and a drive-through in the MN district would also require the approval of an 01:01:18.520 --> 01:01:27.480 SUP the proposed use is less intrusive than the existing funeral home and the 01:01:27.480 --> 01:01:31.800 design standards we have in place today particularly regarding buffers to 01:01:31.800 --> 01:01:37.960 adjacent residential will help in protecting the adjacent property from any 01:01:37.960 --> 01:01:43.800 incursions from the proposed bank and will provide the bank will provide 01:01:43.800 --> 01:01:50.480 adequate on-site parking so that parking on the street will not be required 01:01:50.480 --> 01:01:55.080 staff recommends approval of this request as it is consistent with the 01:01:55.080 --> 01:01:58.880 goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030 and compliance with the zoning 01:01:58.880 --> 01:02:06.000 criteria for approval next up is the specific use permit this is as noted 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:13.320 previously this is specific use permit is for the provision of a drive-thru in 01:02:13.320 --> 01:02:23.160 with the bank the section 3564 of the 2002 DDC contains the criteria for 01:02:23.160 --> 01:02:28.680 approval that we are using it requires that use conform to all standards within 01:02:28.680 --> 01:02:33.120 the zoning district to the Denton plan and to other applicable law and a 01:02:33.120 --> 01:02:37.020 compatibility analysis between surrounding property and the requested 01:02:37.020 --> 01:02:45.360 use including the following as you can see here is required that analysis was 01:02:45.360 --> 01:02:50.160 done in detail in your backup and I will just kind of hit high points in my 01:02:50.160 --> 01:03:00.240 presentation and this is the proposed site plan for the drive-thru as you can 01:03:00.240 --> 01:03:04.800 see there are two lanes that are proposed there is a pass-through lane and 01:03:04.800 --> 01:03:14.440 then two lanes that have ATM and drive-thru teller access there is currently 01:03:14.440 --> 01:03:19.160 inside is a 13,000 foot one-story building the applicant is proposing a 01:03:19.160 --> 01:03:24.560 two-story building which will have a 12,000 square foot footprint which is 01:03:24.560 --> 01:03:28.520 smaller than the existing footprint I want to clarify that that is the 01:03:28.520 --> 01:03:33.420 footprint the total will be 24,000 square feet in gross floor area because 01:03:33.420 --> 01:03:43.120 it's two stories the the use is permitted in this in the DCG with SUP as 01:03:43.120 --> 01:03:49.240 well as in the proposed MN district the property has approximately 228 feet of 01:03:49.240 --> 01:03:55.200 frontage along West Mulberry Street and approximately 181 feet of fringe along 01:03:55.200 --> 01:04:00.920 South Carroll Street the drop proposed drive-thru and bank are consistent with 01:04:00.920 --> 01:04:07.680 the types of uses that you can see along Carroll Boulevard and also on the west 01:04:07.680 --> 01:04:13.720 side of Carroll Boulevard along Mulberry Street the site complies with the 01:04:13.720 --> 01:04:21.560 criteria for approval of an SUP as noted in your backup the proposed bank is as 01:04:21.560 --> 01:04:27.600 noted less intrusive than the existing funeral home the proposed 12,000 square 01:04:27.600 --> 01:04:32.440 foot bank footprint versus the existing 13,000 square foot funeral home 01:04:32.440 --> 01:04:38.040 footprint so the footprint of the bank is is smaller and the bank is actually 01:04:38.040 --> 01:04:43.240 moved to the front corner of the property the design standards 01:04:43.240 --> 01:04:49.700 particularly required buffers adjacent to residential and the residential is 01:04:49.700 --> 01:04:56.800 located along here and along here will protect the adjacent property and as I 01:04:56.800 --> 01:05:02.560 noted previously the all parking will be on site no on-street parking will be 01:05:02.560 --> 01:05:10.160 required for notification for both the zoning and for the SUP we sent out 01:05:10.160 --> 01:05:15.080 notices within 200 and 500 feet we received one response in opposition 01:05:15.080 --> 01:05:20.940 representing 2% of the land within the 200 foot boundary two signs were posted 01:05:20.940 --> 01:05:26.000 on the site and the applicant held a neighborhood meeting to which one one 01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:31.880 person attended staff recommends approval of the SUP with the following 01:05:31.880 --> 01:05:36.680 conditions landscaping in the attached site plan reflects an intent to comply 01:05:36.680 --> 01:05:40.780 with the DDC requirements for parking street trees minimum landscape and 01:05:40.780 --> 01:05:45.440 canopy areas and compatibility buffers with administrative approval of 01:05:45.440 --> 01:05:52.120 alternative buffer elements permitted in accordance with DDC 35 13 8 minor 01:05:52.120 --> 01:05:56.920 alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings may be approved by 01:05:56.920 --> 01:06:01.080 city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted complies with the 01:06:01.080 --> 01:06:04.880 attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as all 01:06:04.880 --> 01:06:11.160 elements of the DDC number two notwithstanding the limited administrative 01:06:11.160 --> 01:06:15.800 approvals authorized in condition one the city reserves the right to require 01:06:15.800 --> 01:06:20.040 approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP the attached site plan and 01:06:20.040 --> 01:06:24.200 the elements described in section three below including those referenced in 01:06:24.200 --> 01:06:28.320 condition one and that concludes my presentation and the applicant is 01:06:28.320 --> 01:06:31.760 present to answer questions thank you Cindy commissioner back as a question 01:06:31.760 --> 01:06:37.400 thanks chair Cindy the landscape requirement are they on the point system 01:06:37.400 --> 01:06:42.920 for that applicant said that he intends when he goes through site plan approval 01:06:42.920 --> 01:06:48.880 to go underneath go go with the MN requirements okay that would be under the 01:06:48.880 --> 01:06:56.040 point system okay so I'll talk to him then about what we can do thank you see 01:06:56.040 --> 01:07:00.680 other questions thank you very much this is a public hearing anyone wishing to 01:07:00.680 --> 01:07:04.200 speak may do so we do have a card representing the group Lee Allison we be 01:07:04.200 --> 01:07:12.920 presenting and since this is two different topics technically we'll give 01:07:12.920 --> 01:07:19.160 you 20 minutes if you need it I gotta find my slides first that's a how do I 01:07:19.160 --> 01:07:22.680 get out of here I'm sorry 01:07:30.800 --> 01:07:37.120 there you go 01:07:37.120 --> 01:07:46.880 it's in the red bar 01:07:46.880 --> 01:07:57.120 no no to your right one more nope nope there we go 01:07:57.120 --> 01:08:01.120 good evening I'm Lee Allison with Allison engineering group I'm obviously 01:08:01.120 --> 01:08:08.600 not an IT person 2415 North Elm Street with Allison engineering group Marty 01:08:08.600 --> 01:08:13.040 Rivers is with me this evening but before we begin or get into this I'd 01:08:13.040 --> 01:08:17.160 like to make an apology and a correction during the workshop I 01:08:17.160 --> 01:08:22.800 misunderstood our own drawings the bank is a 6,000 square foot two stories for 01:08:22.800 --> 01:08:27.440 12,000 Cindy had presented the 12,000 square foot building in there and I was 01:08:27.440 --> 01:08:32.680 thinking oh wait times two is 24 so I got messed up mentioned it to Cindy she 01:08:32.680 --> 01:08:36.360 came in here and corrected slides made a correction to you and I'm the one that's 01:08:36.360 --> 01:08:42.880 wrong so it is a 6,000 square foot building two stories and 12,000 square 01:08:42.880 --> 01:08:46.720 foot total with that I'd like to turn it over to Marty and let him discuss some 01:08:46.720 --> 01:08:52.920 of the changes in the banking industry today good evening Marty Rivers 120 01:08:52.920 --> 01:08:56.520 industrial Street I'm the Denton market president for American National Bank we 01:08:56.520 --> 01:09:00.800 are new to Denton I'm not new to Denton this is the fourth time I've been in 01:09:00.800 --> 01:09:05.320 front of this Commission for SUP for a drive-through at the bank over the years 01:09:05.320 --> 01:09:11.560 and they're getting smaller our intention is to comply with any and all 01:09:11.560 --> 01:09:17.280 rules that are in the development code and we want a landscape correctly we 01:09:17.280 --> 01:09:22.320 have designed the site plan that you're going to see today specifically with the 01:09:22.320 --> 01:09:27.960 neighborhood in mind I live downtown I've worked downtown and in Denton for 01:09:27.960 --> 01:09:32.880 25 years and we want to be good neighbors you'll notice that the the two 01:09:32.880 --> 01:09:39.280 drive-through lanes are really large looking ATMs we have the lanes going 01:09:39.280 --> 01:09:44.960 north so that any light or sound will move away from the neighbors to protect 01:09:44.960 --> 01:09:51.280 them these will actually be ITMs you may not have heard of that that's an 01:09:51.280 --> 01:09:56.440 interactive teller machine it's basically an ATM with a video screen 01:09:56.440 --> 01:10:00.760 that where you can talk to somebody inside the bank via video our intention 01:10:00.760 --> 01:10:05.800 is not to have tubes if because that's going out of style if we end up doing 01:10:05.800 --> 01:10:12.840 that those will go underground and not be noisy it won't be overhead so I'll be 01:10:12.840 --> 01:10:20.000 similar to the two ITMs that are out in front of Wells Fargo they have a two 01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:24.000 lane drive-through right there although they won't be bright yellow they'll 01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:32.040 match the building to work with that so we need two lanes primarily because if 01:10:32.040 --> 01:10:35.400 one of those goes down we need to make sure we have one that works so it's 01:10:35.400 --> 01:10:40.000 really more of a backup plan I can't imagine a scenario and you probably 01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:43.560 haven't seen a scenario where you have people stacked up in drive-through lanes 01:10:43.560 --> 01:10:48.560 at banks anymore that's a thing of the past if we had four cars all at once out 01:10:48.560 --> 01:10:54.200 there I'd be shocked and happy at the same time I guess but the drive-throughs 01:10:54.200 --> 01:10:58.200 are kind of a thing of the past you've seen several or a couple of banks in 01:10:58.200 --> 01:11:05.880 downtown that have torn down or left their large ATMs or drive-throughs so 01:11:05.880 --> 01:11:11.800 I'll let I'll be here for any questions anybody has we want to comply with 01:11:11.800 --> 01:11:19.240 everything we can and I'll let Lee do the rest of the presentation very good 01:11:19.240 --> 01:11:23.280 as always staff has made an excellent presentation regarding the technicalities 01:11:23.280 --> 01:11:27.800 and planning considerations I'd like to try and put this in context maybe a 01:11:27.800 --> 01:11:33.920 little more the current zoning is DC in which allows for a bank but it doesn't 01:11:33.920 --> 01:11:38.360 even allow for a drive-through with an SUP so in order to move forward with an 01:11:38.360 --> 01:11:47.000 SUP we asking for the rezoning to DCG DCG allows a bank but it allows a 01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:55.280 drive-through only with a specific use permit however the new zoning code has 01:11:55.280 --> 01:12:03.880 been adopted there is a transition table with it and in reality either DCG or DCN 01:12:03.880 --> 01:12:11.440 goes to MN which allows a bank and allows a drive-through with an SUP the 01:12:11.440 --> 01:12:15.440 question we had asked staff previously was not which code to work under but if 01:12:15.440 --> 01:12:19.800 we even needed to move the zoning process forward tonight I would just soon 01:12:19.800 --> 01:12:22.960 move the zoning forward and hopefully get it approved and have belts and 01:12:22.960 --> 01:12:27.080 suspenders let's make sure we got it covered and not out here coming back 01:12:27.080 --> 01:12:32.000 later because we didn't get that done we did have a neighbor neighborhood meeting 01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:37.200 on February 20th it was a come and go from 6 to 8 we felt like that would give 01:12:37.200 --> 01:12:42.960 more people time to attend really no one attended except family and friends I 01:12:42.960 --> 01:12:47.000 think one person did sign the deal that they attended but they weren't one of 01:12:47.000 --> 01:12:52.200 the neighbors with interest Marty did run into not run in that's not if came 01:12:52.200 --> 01:12:58.400 across the person who turned in the one in opposition we have some question it 01:12:58.400 --> 01:13:02.720 sounds like that was really a person who lives there and rents the property and 01:13:02.720 --> 01:13:06.800 doesn't own it so I'm not sure that there truly is one property owner in 01:13:06.800 --> 01:13:13.560 opposition but it doesn't matter too much because it doesn't drive the 20% 01:13:13.560 --> 01:13:17.820 rule it could affect your decisions but I don't know that matters much if it's a 01:13:17.820 --> 01:13:22.800 property owner a resident they did not turn in an opposition to the SUP the 01:13:22.800 --> 01:13:26.120 only submitted an opposition to the zoning but I think in all fairness there 01:13:26.120 --> 01:13:31.640 is opposed to the SUP as well so we'll move forward that way there's our site 01:13:31.640 --> 01:13:36.600 plan and you can see on there I've got written a 6,000 square foot floors by 01:13:36.600 --> 01:13:42.320 footprint with two stories 12,000 square feet it has the two ATMs it only has two 01:13:42.320 --> 01:13:47.200 drives the building is moved to the southeast corner the parkings in the 01:13:47.200 --> 01:13:52.000 back if you have parking in front of buildings along these streets by the time 01:13:52.000 --> 01:13:57.160 you deal with the 20 foot public utilities and the 15 foot parking lot 01:13:57.160 --> 01:14:01.440 screening buffer etc it puts our building in the northwest corner and that 01:14:01.440 --> 01:14:07.880 doesn't work this is the existing site what's there today it's an older building 01:14:07.880 --> 01:14:14.000 built around 1970 I'm sure it was a great facility in its day it has lots of 01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:21.240 parking and pavement three drives one of those drives is here front-end parking 01:14:21.240 --> 01:14:26.960 off the street we had extensive discussions with transportation actually 01:14:26.960 --> 01:14:31.920 this was the drive we had to argue for the most this one they wanted but they 01:14:31.920 --> 01:14:35.240 wanted us to move it over here and line it up with the other which we have done 01:14:35.240 --> 01:14:39.760 in our planning process and of course the building will be more in the corner 01:14:39.760 --> 01:14:46.840 and a lot more landscaping than this has there's a view from Carroll this tree is 01:14:46.840 --> 01:14:51.560 dead and I hope gone by now it's dangerous and the parking right up 01:14:51.560 --> 01:14:57.280 against the parkway here's looking at the other lane here as well as the four 01:14:57.280 --> 01:15:02.400 parking spaces one of the cons for conversations with transportation had to 01:15:02.400 --> 01:15:06.920 do with the future improvements to Mulberry and keeping our building set 01:15:06.920 --> 01:15:09.880 far enough back that there would be enough room for right away and 01:15:09.880 --> 01:15:13.640 improvements and we made sure we did that so we're working to deal with those 01:15:13.640 --> 01:15:18.480 issues as well these are some photographs and some similar buildings 01:15:18.480 --> 01:15:21.440 no I take it back these are the renderings of the building we're 01:15:21.440 --> 01:15:27.880 proposing and Fates Martin locally is the architect you can see in this lower 01:15:27.880 --> 01:15:36.720 corner a very different looking drive-through type facility again back 01:15:36.720 --> 01:15:42.920 to the site plan and the landscaping buffers there's been discussion about a 01:15:42.920 --> 01:15:49.080 possible fence along here which we'd like to do we don't have any cars facing 01:15:49.080 --> 01:15:56.760 that direction for lights etc but still a fence I'm pretty much along here I 01:15:56.760 --> 01:15:59.720 don't know that I'd want to go all the way to the front I think our landscaping 01:15:59.720 --> 01:16:03.800 would be good but if that's something somebody's interested in we may put a 01:16:03.800 --> 01:16:07.560 fence in there anyway we just haven't made a final decision yet but are 01:16:07.560 --> 01:16:14.960 leaning that way just of interest if you go on Carroll Boulevard from University 01:16:14.960 --> 01:16:22.960 Drive to Eagle Drive there are four existing banks point bank 9400 square 01:16:22.960 --> 01:16:27.640 feet seven lanes drive through three different buildings independent bank two 01:16:27.640 --> 01:16:32.480 story one building 10,000 square feet five lane drive through first state bank 01:16:32.480 --> 01:16:38.320 three stories 10,000 footprint no drive-throughs our proposed bank we're 01:16:38.320 --> 01:16:42.160 the only ones on the west side too if that makes any difference and then 01:16:42.160 --> 01:16:48.280 another bank here two stories much larger five drive-throughs here's point 01:16:48.280 --> 01:16:52.240 bank and their facilities there's their drive-through again you can see an empty 01:16:52.240 --> 01:16:56.760 parking lot now I got these off of I should say I got them Sue got them off 01:16:56.760 --> 01:17:01.880 of Google Earth I don't know if she picked particular times when they were 01:17:01.880 --> 01:17:06.920 empty or what but we had a hard time finding even the bays full much less any 01:17:06.920 --> 01:17:11.880 lines backed up independent bank same thing they have a drive-through that's 01:17:11.880 --> 01:17:16.640 also detached I think there might be a motorcycle in one of those the lanes 01:17:16.640 --> 01:17:25.320 come out this direction first state bank no drive-through taller building access 01:17:25.320 --> 01:17:29.360 bank five drive-through lanes now you can't see it through the tree but one 01:17:29.360 --> 01:17:32.720 of their trucks is parked in the bay here and they've actually got an access 01:17:32.720 --> 01:17:37.240 bank vehicle parked over here which normally you would want it full of 01:17:37.240 --> 01:17:41.000 drive-through customers but they're just not they're just not there anymore and 01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:45.520 they do have a remote ATM that's out on Carroll Boulevard and that's what it 01:17:45.520 --> 01:17:51.800 looks like this is the building in Fort Worth so those renderings that Bates 01:17:51.800 --> 01:17:54.840 Martin drew up are not far off of anything they've really done that's 01:17:54.840 --> 01:18:02.400 specific these are Wells Fargo ATMs in downtown matching their colors but just 01:18:02.400 --> 01:18:09.040 I say ATMs they're ITMs I got to get used to that interactive teller machines 01:18:09.040 --> 01:18:13.240 the teller they interact with could be in Timbuktu they don't even have to be 01:18:13.240 --> 01:18:16.480 on site or in the building so you're not going to see the drive-through windows 01:18:16.480 --> 01:18:22.680 and things on a building like you typically would why an SUP well first 01:18:22.680 --> 01:18:26.440 of all is to allow a drive-through facility that's really the only reason 01:18:26.440 --> 01:18:30.080 not for a lot of other reasons it's gonna be two lanes behind the building 01:18:30.080 --> 01:18:34.160 it's gonna be separate from the building but the building in the southeast corner 01:18:34.160 --> 01:18:39.120 we'd like to meet either of the DDCs either the current or the earlier one we 01:18:39.120 --> 01:18:43.520 have not had a this got passed after we had already submitted and we haven't had 01:18:43.520 --> 01:18:49.560 a chance to work through to see which makes for the better site but we would 01:18:49.560 --> 01:18:53.720 like to be able to do that and under the option allowed at the time of site plan 01:18:53.720 --> 01:18:58.120 determine which code rules we actually develop under we're here tonight 01:18:58.120 --> 01:19:04.320 primarily for the zoning and the SUP not to pick which code the DDC requires 01:19:04.320 --> 01:19:09.480 that a plan be submitted with an SUP it doesn't specifically say what kind of 01:19:09.480 --> 01:19:12.880 plan and it makes sense how can you approve any kind of an SUP if you don't 01:19:12.880 --> 01:19:17.960 have some idea what the site's going to look like but it doesn't require a site 01:19:17.960 --> 01:19:23.400 plan not by definition or specifically the checklist requires a site layout 01:19:23.400 --> 01:19:28.360 exhibit and we provided that with all the check items on there and a landscape 01:19:28.360 --> 01:19:33.600 plan they have a checklist for each one of those and we we comply with those 01:19:33.600 --> 01:19:39.360 we are recommending some different conditions than what staff is 01:19:39.360 --> 01:19:47.080 recommending again based in context and what's going on here we feel like for 01:19:47.080 --> 01:19:51.280 this site and for an SUP for a drive-through these would be a little 01:19:51.280 --> 01:19:56.640 better the site plans will be in general conformance with the site layout exhibit 01:19:56.640 --> 01:20:01.000 and the landscape plan these typically get attached to in reference with the 01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:05.680 ordinance I realize that on small pieces of paper these can be hard to read but 01:20:05.680 --> 01:20:11.140 with today's electronic technology maybe we can pull up to an ITM and pull up the 01:20:11.140 --> 01:20:14.620 site plans for this in the future but there's no reason not to be able to get 01:20:14.620 --> 01:20:18.380 a clear understanding of what on those plans we submitted and I think they 01:20:18.380 --> 01:20:22.720 provide a clear intention one of the difficulties is when we look at the 01:20:22.720 --> 01:20:29.680 plus or minus five percent take building coverage we're at 72 percent plus or 01:20:29.680 --> 01:20:36.340 minus five percent of 72 might get us to about 75 on the other hand it only lets 01:20:36.340 --> 01:20:42.000 us go down to about 70 percent what if we wanted to take say we found a good 01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:46.400 reason to get rid of the bypass lane because the second lanes extra and it's 01:20:46.400 --> 01:20:50.320 not really needed we can't get rid we got to have pavement there just so we 01:20:50.320 --> 01:20:55.960 stay above the 70 percent the minus five percent so we're not sure that kind of 01:20:55.960 --> 01:21:02.000 criteria is is the most effective we have no problem with specifying that the 01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:06.160 building be in the southeast corner that the drive-through facilities are on the 01:21:06.160 --> 01:21:11.360 west side of the building we're limited to two a two-story building maximum a 01:21:11.360 --> 01:21:19.000 lot coverage of 80 percent DCG that we're going for allows 85 percent MN is 01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:23.740 at 80 percent so we don't mind limit it to the 80 and allow the applicant to 01:21:23.740 --> 01:21:27.960 develop under either DDC to be determined at the time of site plan 01:21:27.960 --> 01:21:33.040 application based on the responses we've had the neighborhood meetings etc we 01:21:33.040 --> 01:21:38.120 don't believe that this additional level of control is necessary we think that 01:21:38.120 --> 01:21:42.960 the intent is obvious I think there's no question that we're going to be tearing 01:21:42.960 --> 01:21:48.000 down the the existing building and demolishing the site just not sure that 01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:55.360 that level of of minute control is necessary we did a comparison to look at 01:21:55.360 --> 01:22:04.520 MN versus DCG MN has a minimum square footage of 2,500 we're at 41 it has lot 01:22:04.520 --> 01:22:09.240 widths of 20 and 50 we far exceed those front yard setback is 10 we're at ten 01:22:09.240 --> 01:22:14.520 point four and eight point eight the eight point eight is pencil which one's 01:22:14.520 --> 01:22:18.880 the front yard Carol and Mulberry we do have the ability on this site plan to 01:22:18.880 --> 01:22:24.520 move it back to 10 feet again I'd hate to be stuck to a five percent of eight 01:22:24.520 --> 01:22:29.520 point eight feet allowable without coming back for an SUP side yard we put 01:22:29.520 --> 01:22:34.760 a question mark because we're not sure which is the side rear or back maximum 01:22:34.760 --> 01:22:41.320 FAR we're well below the max lot coverage I said 72 we're at 73.6 versus 01:22:41.320 --> 01:22:48.480 an 85 or 80 no problem with an 80 limit landscape area we're at 26.4 it's not 01:22:48.480 --> 01:22:55.320 applicable in the new code because it's got to be 20 that's no reason to put all 01:22:55.320 --> 01:23:04.120 that on there building height new code is 65 DCG is 100 we're proposing 48 I 01:23:04.120 --> 01:23:08.040 wouldn't have any problem if we wanted to add another limitation to say a 65 01:23:08.040 --> 01:23:14.240 foot building height max we feel like the primary reasons for the conditions 01:23:14.240 --> 01:23:18.360 associated with an SUP is first is to address the concerns and impact of the 01:23:18.360 --> 01:23:22.480 surrounding community we think we're making a very positive impact to the 01:23:22.480 --> 01:23:26.800 sound surrounding community and we haven't had any feedback other than one 01:23:26.800 --> 01:23:31.000 individual who doesn't want a bank there even though it's already allowed their 01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:36.640 primary concern has to do with parking because right now with parking an issue 01:23:36.640 --> 01:23:41.080 there there's a lot of people parking in the funeral home parking lot that may 01:23:41.080 --> 01:23:46.240 not be allowed to if the funeral home is very busy there's not gonna be parking 01:23:46.240 --> 01:23:49.880 there the city's planning street improvements so we think we're in good 01:23:49.880 --> 01:23:54.400 shape with the surrounding community but at the same time we need your approval 01:23:54.400 --> 01:23:57.920 so you may have some things you want to put on there as conditions such as 01:23:57.920 --> 01:24:02.520 having a fence on the west side or putting a maximum building height of 65 01:24:02.520 --> 01:24:07.920 feet so as appropriate we'd like to open up and discuss those with you as well 01:24:07.920 --> 01:24:13.680 but we've been honor any questions you have and would appreciate any feedback 01:24:13.680 --> 01:24:18.000 that's ends my presentation thank you for the presentation we do have some 01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:22.280 questions Christian Smith thank you chair mr. Allison where was the 01:24:22.280 --> 01:24:29.840 neighborhood meeting held it was at axis realty group on South Elm Street okay 01:24:29.840 --> 01:24:34.160 when was notification sent for that just asking there's only one person who 01:24:34.160 --> 01:24:40.720 showed up just wanted to see what we at least two weeks in advance of the meeting we make 01:24:40.720 --> 01:24:49.040 sure that happens I don't have dates but that's ours so in regards to your 01:24:49.040 --> 01:24:51.960 recommendations what you wouldn't have changed the biggest sticking point is 01:24:51.960 --> 01:24:55.720 that 5% alteration there that's your issue is that is because they're 01:24:55.720 --> 01:24:58.520 certain that you mentioned something about that the setbacks being all 8.8 01:24:58.520 --> 01:25:02.480 depending upon which to be looking at whether it's Carol or Mockingbird you 01:25:02.480 --> 01:25:05.240 had an issue with that saying that you know when I have to come back in front 01:25:05.240 --> 01:25:11.160 of us if only given yeah I mean wiggle room there that's primarily it I mean I 01:25:11.160 --> 01:25:15.720 don't care if you put on there that the funeral home has to be demolished or not 01:25:15.720 --> 01:25:20.240 that's going to happen but I think sometimes we get a little bit too 01:25:20.240 --> 01:25:25.280 minute in trying to control a site and I can see that more when you have a real 01:25:25.280 --> 01:25:31.080 tall a big difference between the two uses and scale and different things and 01:25:31.080 --> 01:25:33.800 you're trying to make up for it the neighbors say oh I don't want to look at 01:25:33.800 --> 01:25:37.480 this ugly thing so you agree to put something special there but we're not 01:25:37.480 --> 01:25:40.480 dealing with those kind of things on this site and this evening and I guess 01:25:40.480 --> 01:25:43.520 my biggest thing is that I'm trying to get clarification from you because from 01:25:43.520 --> 01:25:46.800 your recommendations didn't seem really clear what you had an issue with staff 01:25:46.800 --> 01:25:50.040 recommendations what additions and subtractions you wanted to make it in 01:25:50.040 --> 01:26:03.920 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 01:26:03.920 --> 01:26:07.720 context and the nature of the project and where it is and how it works with the 01:26:07.720 --> 01:26:12.040 neighborhood as it was maybe more of a standard way to try and deal with SUPs 01:26:12.040 --> 01:26:17.240 but the reason you have an SUP is one of the reasons is kind of like an ADP or a 01:26:17.240 --> 01:26:21.480 future PD because every sites different unique and has special things so let's 01:26:21.480 --> 01:26:26.240 address the special things associated with that site not not some general 01:26:26.240 --> 01:26:29.040 conditions can you put your recommendations back up there then for 01:26:29.040 --> 01:26:38.840 presentation just for us to discuss as we kind of go through all right thank 01:26:38.840 --> 01:26:44.920 you mr. Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. Allison I guess a couple questions 01:26:44.920 --> 01:26:49.280 with the proposed site plan what is the current height that you've got it at 48 01:26:49.280 --> 01:26:55.040 feet 48 feet okay okay because that you know for me my concern on this side of 01:26:55.040 --> 01:26:58.760 Mulberry is I mean this side of Mulberry is residential I appreciate all the 01:26:58.760 --> 01:27:03.160 examples with the banks up and down Carol totally true but this particular 01:27:03.160 --> 01:27:06.960 side you know of Carol Boulevard on Mulberry Street is definitely 01:27:06.960 --> 01:27:12.080 residential mainly tenants but the entire street is residential and and 01:27:12.080 --> 01:27:15.800 that's my concern that's what I want to protect you know putting the building in 01:27:15.800 --> 01:27:19.880 that front corner I think is a great idea you know putting buffers on the 01:27:19.880 --> 01:27:26.240 back making it look prettier than the cement that is out there now is ideal 01:27:26.240 --> 01:27:32.720 because I don't think it's an X a normal extension of DCG DCG is on the other 01:27:32.720 --> 01:27:39.320 side of a divided roadway so to me it's it's DCN because it is DCN I mean it's 01:27:39.320 --> 01:27:45.360 it's it's a residential street on that side so that's my main concern the other 01:27:45.360 --> 01:27:49.120 the other concern I have is and I've passed mr. Rivers walking in the 01:27:49.120 --> 01:27:53.360 neighborhood so I know he's well aware of how difficult Mulberry Street can be 01:27:53.360 --> 01:27:59.120 what's the time frame on building has that been looked at at all because 01:27:59.120 --> 01:28:04.480 there's gonna be some impact when you know with a tear down and a rebuild and 01:28:04.480 --> 01:28:08.560 all of that and obviously when you and teasing session it's a lot busier on 01:28:08.560 --> 01:28:14.400 that area so I just I didn't know if you had a time frame yet if I would say by 01:28:14.400 --> 01:28:17.680 next fall we'd like to be under construction if not sooner there's a 01:28:17.680 --> 01:28:22.680 major drainage analysis that has to be done and of course the site symbols and 01:28:22.680 --> 01:28:26.400 the architectural so there could be four to six months right there we're trying 01:28:26.400 --> 01:28:31.400 to Marty doesn't like me saying that he wants three or four weeks but that's how 01:28:31.400 --> 01:28:35.240 the process is generally work and I'd like to suggest and I understand where 01:28:35.240 --> 01:28:40.160 you're coming from and we looked almost put some slides in here on Google Earth 01:28:40.160 --> 01:28:45.000 from Mulberry and how it's creating that taller corridor I suggest with this site 01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:50.200 plan we could specifically call that some of the buffer trees be large trees 01:28:50.200 --> 01:28:55.040 with mature heights of 20 30 feet or taller and that would break that that 01:28:55.040 --> 01:29:00.200 line of sight to a larger building on the edge there if that needed to be put 01:29:00.200 --> 01:29:03.920 as a condition I don't see an issue with that I'm not going to turn around and 01:29:03.920 --> 01:29:11.160 check Marty he might stare me down I'm not what has staff seen these 01:29:11.160 --> 01:29:16.000 recommendations yet or is this the first time for them to we didn't get they 01:29:16.000 --> 01:29:20.520 weren't available till Friday and contrary to what Marty thinks I did not 01:29:20.520 --> 01:29:23.800 look at this over the weekend and we just got into this money and trying to 01:29:23.800 --> 01:29:27.160 develop our whole presentation so you didn't get staff's recommendations till 01:29:27.160 --> 01:29:33.720 Friday no well Friday night right yeah okay I think that's all I have at the 01:29:33.720 --> 01:29:42.200 moment thank you chair Lee I have a comment for you we discussed her and I 01:29:42.200 --> 01:29:45.600 may have something that maybe Marty's better suited to answer because I'm not 01:29:45.600 --> 01:29:51.000 familiar with the ITM sorry the ITMs a 24/7 operation are they the fact that 01:29:51.000 --> 01:29:57.680 they got an individual on the screen there does that mean there's limited to 01:29:57.680 --> 01:30:07.200 when people can access those well the ATM part of it would be 24/7 just like any 01:30:07.200 --> 01:30:12.200 ATM anywhere else and whether you're talking to a person we don't have the 01:30:12.200 --> 01:30:16.960 staff to talk to people 24/7 okay so it's a combination of ATM and ITM then 01:30:16.960 --> 01:30:20.720 yes you can do both you can press literally it's an ATM you can press a 01:30:20.720 --> 01:30:24.600 button it says I want to talk to somebody and see them on a computer 01:30:24.600 --> 01:30:33.720 screen those people can be in the bank or not okay okay but the operation can be 01:30:33.720 --> 01:30:39.600 24/7 then without the individual on the screen right okay that being so as we 01:30:39.600 --> 01:30:45.920 discussed earlier briefly Lee the fact that we've got the drive-through next to 01:30:45.920 --> 01:30:50.640 the neighborhood there I would encourage a fence or a wall or something like that 01:30:50.640 --> 01:30:56.080 if you could just to create that greater privacy between the two so that would be 01:30:56.080 --> 01:31:02.720 my recommendation to you too and then I think I have one for Cindy if I may while 01:31:02.720 --> 01:31:05.360 she's coming up we have no problem with that even if you want to make it a 01:31:05.360 --> 01:31:11.480 condition that's okay well I may do that then looking at his recommendations do 01:31:11.480 --> 01:31:16.840 you have if we were to agree to these conditions do you have any problem you 01:31:16.840 --> 01:31:19.920 think the city would have any problem with these if you had a chance to 01:31:19.920 --> 01:31:24.200 consider I haven't really had much of a chance to consider them it just looks 01:31:24.200 --> 01:31:30.720 like they are trying to ensure that they the building and the block coverage and 01:31:30.720 --> 01:31:36.240 such will be as they are showing the minimum requirements it okay then you 01:31:36.240 --> 01:31:41.520 have no real concern that if we well I can't say that because I really haven't 01:31:41.520 --> 01:31:53.640 looked at them thank you I'm gonna call mr. Drake for his points yeah this is a 01:31:53.640 --> 01:32:00.920 little bit awkward for me to kind of deal with stump the lawyer because there 01:32:00.920 --> 01:32:06.160 was no indication that I received that mr. Allison was going to be making 01:32:06.160 --> 01:32:11.400 recommendations different from what was written in the staff report or are 01:32:11.400 --> 01:32:15.440 suggesting different interpretations of code requirements than what was written 01:32:15.440 --> 01:32:21.160 in the staff report and I haven't had a chance to look at those and it's it's 01:32:21.160 --> 01:32:28.280 contrary to what my understanding has been with SUPs so for whatever that's 01:32:28.280 --> 01:32:34.440 worth an answer to Commissioner Ellis's question it's it's certainly news to me 01:32:34.440 --> 01:32:40.800 that that these items are being proposed and that the interpretation of a 01:32:40.800 --> 01:32:46.880 different requirement from the typical SUP site plan was being proposed and I'm 01:32:46.880 --> 01:32:52.360 not in a position to advise the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight on mr. 01:32:52.360 --> 01:32:55.360 Allison's proposals 01:32:58.800 --> 01:33:07.080 Christopher and I yeah so I just had a question because I was you know with the 01:33:07.080 --> 01:33:11.600 fact that it's butting up right against residential and unlike a funeral home 01:33:11.600 --> 01:33:16.800 which isn't which isn't a 24-hour a day thing I imagine that we're gonna have to 01:33:16.800 --> 01:33:21.000 maybe some lighting considerations because people are gonna be having money 01:33:21.000 --> 01:33:25.880 around on there is there what's the design gonna be like in terms of making 01:33:25.880 --> 01:33:30.200 sure that you're not bleeding out light to the neighbors in accordance with the 01:33:30.200 --> 01:33:34.160 city codes we're limited to one half candle power at the property line and 01:33:34.160 --> 01:33:39.480 we would make again with the buffers and the trees along the west side that would 01:33:39.480 --> 01:33:46.280 help stop some of the light and we can make some extra efforts to minimize the 01:33:46.280 --> 01:33:49.280 amount of light needed there even have I don't know Marty I don't know why we 01:33:49.280 --> 01:33:59.360 couldn't put motion sensitive so maybe the lights were very very low okay well 01:33:59.360 --> 01:34:03.080 the reasons we don't have a six lane drive through is that very thing we 01:34:03.080 --> 01:34:06.200 don't have to have all those lights we do have to have lighting underneath the 01:34:06.200 --> 01:34:11.000 canopy of those two eight items and we're required by law to have it bright 01:34:11.000 --> 01:34:17.120 enough where it's accessible so we the city may have codes around the perimeter 01:34:17.120 --> 01:34:21.040 which we'll comply with but we're required to have enough light so that if 01:34:21.040 --> 01:34:24.760 you walk to go up there you can see the buttons to do that and we get tested on 01:34:24.760 --> 01:34:30.120 that so that's the same of every bank that's in town and we haven't talked 01:34:30.120 --> 01:34:34.760 about the number of banks that back up to residential's with drive-throughs 01:34:34.760 --> 01:34:39.720 larger than this all over town you guys just did an SUV for Dacu over on Emory 01:34:39.720 --> 01:34:44.320 Drive that is right across the street and it's six lane ish drive through so 01:34:44.320 --> 01:34:49.000 their independent bank over in Unicorn Lake backs up to those there's a credit 01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:54.640 union that backs up in Unicorn Lake there's there are banks with drive 01:34:54.640 --> 01:34:58.440 throughs a little way larger than this all over town that that are next to 01:34:58.440 --> 01:35:04.000 houses yeah I just wanted to ask is uh you know with regard to the ITMs versus 01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:07.240 you know a traditional drive through where there's a big canopy so so these 01:35:07.240 --> 01:35:11.240 will have a canopy over the draw over the ATMs so it's kind of yeah there's a 01:35:11.240 --> 01:35:16.360 picture there's a can we show the picture of our Fort Worth branch there's 01:35:16.360 --> 01:35:24.800 the rendering and shows what it'll look like we go the right way that's that is 01:35:24.800 --> 01:35:29.640 our that is our Fort Worth branch on West 7th Street and that is what we did 01:35:29.640 --> 01:35:37.560 there on the lower right hand corner that's that's the that's actually not an 01:35:37.560 --> 01:35:40.640 ITM that has a tube that goes down underground and goes back into the 01:35:40.640 --> 01:35:47.960 building that was built two years ago okay thank you very much Chris Sanchez 01:35:47.960 --> 01:35:53.520 during the work session I know the question was brought up as to why didn't 01:35:53.520 --> 01:36:03.700 wait for the MN being classified as an MN rather than see see DCG at that time 01:36:03.700 --> 01:36:10.080 we were told that basically you you were fine with instead of waiting for for the 01:36:10.080 --> 01:36:17.080 MN and go ahead and go with this the DCG are you fine with that or because you 01:36:17.080 --> 01:36:22.200 were making a comparison in your chart you were talking about the MN but yet 01:36:22.200 --> 01:36:27.800 it's it I have almost felt like you really wanted the MN rather than the the 01:36:27.800 --> 01:36:37.840 what is it DCG are you comfortable with the DCG somehow we need to separate the 01:36:37.840 --> 01:36:45.200 zoning from the development code for all practical purposes since the development 01:36:45.200 --> 01:36:52.640 code has been approved and with the transition table as far as zoning goes 01:36:52.640 --> 01:37:00.160 we should be the same as in the end right now that allows for a drive-through 01:37:00.160 --> 01:37:07.600 bank and a drive-through facility with an SUP then the question is 01:37:07.600 --> 01:37:13.680 which set of rules do we finish the site by when we developed this site plan we 01:37:13.680 --> 01:37:18.720 were working under the DCG rules and we're fine with working with those but 01:37:18.720 --> 01:37:24.160 there may be some things in the new code that would make it better to use those 01:37:24.160 --> 01:37:29.360 rules for the site not necessarily for us for example the idea of putting a 01:37:29.360 --> 01:37:38.040 fence in that's a lot easier to do under the new development code zoning 01:37:38.040 --> 01:37:42.240 related but under the development code 2019 instead of under the current 01:37:42.240 --> 01:37:47.040 development code okay but at my understanding is you choose one or the 01:37:47.040 --> 01:37:52.440 other and it seems like you're wanting to use a little bit of both no we're not 01:37:52.440 --> 01:37:58.320 wanting to use both and typically you would find which which set of codes you 01:37:58.320 --> 01:38:02.340 picked was usually done at the time of the site plan itself not with zoning or 01:38:02.340 --> 01:38:09.760 with an SUP if it needs to be picked tonight we'll pick one and live with it 01:38:09.760 --> 01:38:15.320 but I don't know that that's necessary tonight 01:38:24.240 --> 01:38:29.760 so maybe a clarification from staff the recommendation actually references the 01:38:29.760 --> 01:38:36.680 2002 DDC so to mr. Allison's point we are selecting the DDC that would be 01:38:36.680 --> 01:38:42.840 controlling this SUP this evening because if the condition is referencing 01:38:42.840 --> 01:38:48.880 the 2002 DDC they would not have an option to use the 2019 DDC is that 01:38:48.880 --> 01:39:10.320 correct let me pull up my presentation again well in my recommendation I said 01:39:10.320 --> 01:39:14.520 it's that it's consistent with the goals and objectives oh that's the zoning 01:39:14.520 --> 01:39:30.600 where's SUP permitted in accordance with DDC 35 13 8 that does reference the 2002 01:39:30.600 --> 01:39:36.480 DDC so if you follow my recommendation then the landscaping would be in 01:39:36.480 --> 01:39:44.280 accordance with the 2002 DDC right just verification if we agree to the staff's 01:39:44.280 --> 01:39:49.080 conditions placed upon them they do not have an option to use the 2019 DDC 01:39:49.080 --> 01:39:53.800 now if you wish you can change my recommendation to state whichever code 01:39:53.800 --> 01:40:00.360 that the applicant desires to develop under or you can state that the 2019 MN 01:40:00.360 --> 01:40:06.520 code we'll have the same results it's also possible just to state in 01:40:06.520 --> 01:40:14.440 accordance with a selected that's correct okay great that's all the 01:40:14.440 --> 01:40:18.820 question I had to push Alice thank you thank you chair Cindy Mike my question 01:40:18.820 --> 01:40:26.600 follows I guess the same with the adoption of this 2019 code that we now 01:40:26.600 --> 01:40:32.960 have yes what does staff do with developments coming in when is it 01:40:32.960 --> 01:40:43.800 decided typically we haven't had an opportunity to really do that yet we did 01:40:43.800 --> 01:40:49.240 have a pre-development meeting actually today where the applicant has said they 01:40:49.240 --> 01:40:53.000 they were specifically waiting for the new code to develop so we knew they were 01:40:53.000 --> 01:41:00.320 going waiting for that the new code requirements we are right now we are in 01:41:00.320 --> 01:41:06.240 the process of revising our forms and applications so that when the applicant 01:41:06.240 --> 01:41:12.400 comes in with a pre-development meeting request they will check which code they 01:41:12.400 --> 01:41:17.560 want to come in under this particular site is kind of in the middle of 01:41:17.560 --> 01:41:25.120 everything so we reviewed it under the requirements of the DCG district 01:41:25.120 --> 01:41:36.480 because at the time the MN district was not approved however the applicant if the 01:41:36.480 --> 01:41:40.680 Commission and Council decide that the applicant may have that choice that the 01:41:40.680 --> 01:41:46.160 other people are having then you you can specify to change the requirement to 01:41:46.160 --> 01:41:51.680 just specified code requirements and the applicant when they submit their site 01:41:51.680 --> 01:42:00.160 plan application can indicate which code they want to go under mr. Allison can 01:42:00.160 --> 01:42:05.880 answer your question I know Commissioner Smith kind of alluded to this but I want 01:42:05.880 --> 01:42:10.800 to make you a little pointed where is the contradictions between the staff's 01:42:10.800 --> 01:42:14.080 recommendation and your condition I know the idea would be take your 01:42:14.080 --> 01:42:19.000 recommendation but I'm trying to pinpoint where there is a disagreement 01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:24.640 in your potential project and how the conditions are currently written as far 01:42:24.640 --> 01:42:29.620 as I can tell the only one I can see is the 80% lot coverage but I maybe have a 01:42:29.620 --> 01:42:38.160 different insight let me walk through staff presentation and discuss it 01:42:38.160 --> 01:42:47.440 briefly when it comes to the landscaping that code was actually adopted landscape 01:42:47.440 --> 01:42:53.560 tree ESA etc several couple of months ago and it's the same under either code 01:42:53.560 --> 01:42:59.720 right now we don't have vesting into a code prior to the one that this 01:42:59.720 --> 01:43:07.400 landscape code is there in this though one thing now is we have opportunities 01:43:07.400 --> 01:43:18.240 for using a point system versus a specified buffer of 15 feet with so 01:43:18.240 --> 01:43:22.960 many trees and bushes every hundred feet the point system one thing we could put 01:43:22.960 --> 01:43:27.920 in a fence that presides provides a more opaque barrier but it also allows us to 01:43:27.920 --> 01:43:41.360 put in I could have done that now sorry you know so as far as the landscape 01:43:41.360 --> 01:43:46.000 that's the difference may be that we may be visiting with staff about an 01:43:46.000 --> 01:43:50.320 alternative buffer plan instead of using a point system to deal with adding a 01:43:50.320 --> 01:43:55.200 fence when we don't have to have one and adjusting for that expense again you can 01:43:55.200 --> 01:44:01.480 look at the site if anything we'd want to be going less coverage not more 01:44:01.480 --> 01:44:07.600 coverage so that buffer on the west side would tend to get larger not smaller 01:44:07.600 --> 01:44:21.160 to me with this one with the site plan we have now being part of the ordinance 01:44:21.160 --> 01:44:26.560 and attached to it I think that very clearly gives the intent here and if we 01:44:26.560 --> 01:44:30.120 were to try and come in and say we wanted to remodel the existing building 01:44:30.120 --> 01:44:36.360 and add drive-thrus that wouldn't be in content of what's on the site plan the 01:44:36.360 --> 01:44:41.480 staff would be telling us to come back for another SUP and I'm going the wrong 01:44:41.480 --> 01:44:55.760 am I out that's it there's two well there was oh there was more than oh for 01:44:55.760 --> 01:45:04.080 the SUP okay the bigger deal I think had more to do with the zoning then and so I 01:45:04.080 --> 01:45:08.200 was looking at the two together and the idea about the five percent difference on 01:45:08.200 --> 01:45:14.320 stated square footages etc. I mean if you got a 12,000 square foot building to add 01:45:14.320 --> 01:45:21.840 subtract 600 square feet that's not much to have any flexibility at this 01:45:21.840 --> 01:45:27.160 stage of the design and we're comfortable enough I think that we could 01:45:27.160 --> 01:45:31.520 go with the staff recommendation and run with it we just had some items in here 01:45:31.520 --> 01:45:36.360 that we felt would be more appropriate with this site than the way it's stated 01:45:36.360 --> 01:45:41.680 gotcha that helps clarify my thinking on it so I appreciate that 01:45:41.680 --> 01:45:46.160 Cindy there's no conditions on the zoning 01:45:46.160 --> 01:45:55.440 it's consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan and 01:45:55.440 --> 01:46:01.840 complies with the zoning criteria we did not add it add any other conditions 01:46:07.200 --> 01:46:11.280 I think I was on the bottom of the first page of the EIS there's a recommendation 01:46:11.280 --> 01:46:16.720 section that was off of mr. Allison's referencing yeah under I'm sorry under 01:46:16.720 --> 01:46:22.040 recommendation staff should have the ability to approve an increase or 01:46:22.040 --> 01:46:29.920 decrease up to five percent that's the SUP yeah that is the SUP but that wasn't 01:46:29.920 --> 01:46:41.560 up there right here this is what I put right here what it how does this apply 01:46:41.560 --> 01:46:49.000 that should have been added in on my slide I did not add that in one of my 01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:56.040 slide if you look at your staff report if you look at your staff report under 01:46:56.040 --> 01:47:01.960 recommendation I have the attached site plan and landscape plan provided in 01:47:01.960 --> 01:47:07.000 exhibit six and seven specify the attack the following which will be incorporated 01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:12.280 as part of the SUP ordinance and staff will have the ability to increase or 01:47:12.280 --> 01:47:16.280 decrease up to five percent of any of the amounts specified in item 01:47:16.280 --> 01:47:20.920 requirements two through six provided the applicable requirements of the DDC are 01:47:20.920 --> 01:47:25.600 met and the first one is the existing thirteen thousand square foot funeral 01:47:25.600 --> 01:47:30.560 home shall be demolished the approved site use of the site shall be the 01:47:30.560 --> 01:47:34.120 twelve thousand square foot two-story bank with a drive-through facility 01:47:34.120 --> 01:47:39.880 consisting of one drive-up ATM lane and one drive-up ATM teller lane but now I 01:47:39.880 --> 01:47:47.160 know that they're ITM so 33 parking spaces with the additional space being 01:47:47.160 --> 01:47:51.200 pervious shall be provided on the site and any additional parking spaces shall 01:47:51.200 --> 01:47:56.960 be of pervious paving material and the site plan specifies the total of 71% lot 01:47:56.960 --> 01:48:01.600 coverage and 29% landscape area which includes the type C landscape buffer 01:48:01.600 --> 01:48:06.400 along the western and northern property lines the plan reflects an alternative 01:48:06.400 --> 01:48:12.520 buffer along with the proposed ten point five foot wide buffer the DDC grants the 01:48:12.520 --> 01:48:16.960 director the ability to approve the alternate buffer the director may 01:48:16.960 --> 01:48:20.240 approve an alternate buffer that is equivalent to or more restrictive than 01:48:20.240 --> 01:48:24.880 the buffer specified in exhibit six through eight and then it goes on to list 01:48:24.880 --> 01:48:30.960 the other recommendations that was my error I just put part of it onto my 01:48:30.960 --> 01:48:35.080 slide instead of all of it so for clarification Cindy this should be 01:48:35.080 --> 01:48:39.760 numbered one through six not one through four than one and two there's six 01:48:39.760 --> 01:48:51.040 continuous it should actually be re-numbered one through six okay this is 01:48:51.040 --> 01:48:55.360 putting the pieces of this puzzle together quickly Mr. Smith so I 01:48:55.360 --> 01:48:59.320 apologize what why are we why would why was the recommendations to be so 01:48:59.320 --> 01:49:03.080 restrictive on that then I'm sorry why was why are the recommendations so 01:49:03.080 --> 01:49:08.160 restrictive rather than just going with what was provided in the SCP drawings 01:49:08.160 --> 01:49:12.720 and everything else before was there a reason behind this is language that the 01:49:12.720 --> 01:49:18.120 legal department has devised for SUVs and we've used it previously in two other 01:49:18.120 --> 01:49:22.640 SUVs one was from McDonald's and I'm sorry I don't remember which the other 01:49:22.640 --> 01:49:32.040 one was razor Windsor the Windsor apartments and so we're using it with 01:49:32.040 --> 01:49:37.120 this one as well this is something that legal is it was and Jerry possibly get 01:49:37.120 --> 01:49:39.680 you put in there but just ask you a question before you respond so you're 01:49:39.680 --> 01:49:42.880 saying that in the past SCPs which I don't think I remember from these past 01:49:42.880 --> 01:49:47.440 us SCPs that being that restrictive of saying exactly how you've presented is 01:49:47.440 --> 01:49:51.040 exactly how it needs to be held to rather than just it just seems like we're not 01:49:51.040 --> 01:49:54.480 giving anybody any wiggle room whatsoever at this point in the process 01:49:54.480 --> 01:49:57.720 whenever they're asking for an SCP at the zoning plan it seems like this should be 01:49:57.720 --> 01:50:00.880 more of a conversation happens at site plan I know this is an SCP and it's 01:50:00.880 --> 01:50:03.880 different I get that part but it seems like some of these things that we're 01:50:03.880 --> 01:50:10.840 addressing here you know the number of parking spaces the evening I guess even 01:50:10.840 --> 01:50:14.760 lot lot coverage setbacks what the buffer is landscaping those all seem 01:50:14.760 --> 01:50:17.520 more like site plan issues rather than SCP issues why are we being so 01:50:17.520 --> 01:50:21.880 restrictive on the SCP side well I can't say as far as why I mean that's that's a 01:50:21.880 --> 01:50:29.760 policy issue but you know I a couple of things first of all you know I really 01:50:29.760 --> 01:50:34.960 wish that I could have been confronted with this issue of how to interpret this 01:50:34.960 --> 01:50:39.960 before tonight and and and having it kind of dropped in my lap but it but it 01:50:39.960 --> 01:50:49.040 wasn't you got that come on I do my best but it's completely unnecessary I could 01:50:49.040 --> 01:50:53.840 have easily looked into this but I guess the second issue is like with the 01:50:53.840 --> 01:51:00.880 McDonald's drive-thru SUP that went forward it did go to City Council a 01:51:00.880 --> 01:51:06.840 couple of times and the the City Council as I recall did want to see some detail 01:51:06.840 --> 01:51:14.520 on that SUP and so with the direction that we received about what the City 01:51:14.520 --> 01:51:20.160 Council expected and wanted on that then we did work with the planning staff to 01:51:20.160 --> 01:51:25.720 come up with some language that would clarify exactly what the expectations 01:51:25.720 --> 01:51:32.000 were and so whether that's you know restrictive or not restrictive I guess 01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:39.360 is a matter of judgment and opinion I it's not for me to say which way to go 01:51:39.360 --> 01:51:45.480 all I can say is that in the past it has traditionally been the requirement for 01:51:45.480 --> 01:51:50.760 an SUP to bring forward a site plan so that the City Council can know how each 01:51:50.760 --> 01:51:57.680 of these issues is going to bear upon such concerns as traffic mobility how 01:51:57.680 --> 01:52:02.640 the how the sites go to perform with respect to customers coming in and and 01:52:02.640 --> 01:52:10.720 leaving how traffic may possibly stack thanks to that nature okay well well I 01:52:10.720 --> 01:52:20.080 wanted to let Richard speak about maybe some clarification questions similar to 01:52:20.080 --> 01:52:24.080 what Jerry had added that as we presented these a council there's been 01:52:24.080 --> 01:52:28.120 times where for lack of a better way to put it they were afraid of a bait and 01:52:28.120 --> 01:52:31.560 switch not that necessarily this is what's going to happen but they want to 01:52:31.560 --> 01:52:34.320 make sure what they see is what what's going to get built so that's why this 01:52:34.320 --> 01:52:39.440 this specificity has been added items one through four really are representative 01:52:39.440 --> 01:52:43.440 of what's on what's on the plan that that's provided I don't think we would 01:52:43.440 --> 01:52:48.320 be opposed of whether it gets approved with this recommendation under the 01:52:48.320 --> 01:52:53.100 current code if it's decided to go with an alternative code I don't think it 01:52:53.100 --> 01:52:56.240 would change the layout of the building I don't think it would reflect the 01:52:56.240 --> 01:52:59.320 change in the parking perhaps the only thing that would change would be the 01:52:59.320 --> 01:53:03.740 landscape area so whether or not we have some alternative language with respect 01:53:03.740 --> 01:53:07.940 to that I think that's something sort of on the spot that that we could we could 01:53:07.940 --> 01:53:12.560 live with so something along the lines of letting maybe even letting landscape be 01:53:12.560 --> 01:53:16.280 decided between now and council because I was gonna say and thank you Richard 01:53:16.280 --> 01:53:19.360 for your comments I was gonna say is even though I'm probably the first and 01:53:19.360 --> 01:53:23.240 loudest commissioner say I hate taking this commission saying let's let's kick 01:53:23.240 --> 01:53:27.480 the can to council at council decided because our job is to be a little more 01:53:27.480 --> 01:53:31.360 interactive than that and I don't want council to usurp us and what we were 01:53:31.360 --> 01:53:34.000 able to do and be able to get some things figured out before it goes to them 01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:39.120 it doesn't seem like staff and and applicant have had long discussions yet 01:53:39.120 --> 01:53:42.720 about these types of specificity and the details that we're gonna be putting in 01:53:42.720 --> 01:53:46.360 there and so I would hate to put restrictions on something that the 01:53:46.360 --> 01:53:49.800 applicant hasn't had much time whenever we could move it through without any of 01:53:49.800 --> 01:53:53.320 these details and let council put those on after staff and applicant and visit a 01:53:53.320 --> 01:53:56.760 little bit more and staff can make a more thorough recommendation before 01:53:56.760 --> 01:53:59.960 council sees it and votes for it so well I'd hate to kick the can down the road 01:53:59.960 --> 01:54:15.560 that way that that kind of seems to be a smarter play in this area but there you 01:54:15.560 --> 01:54:29.800 go in appreciation of what mr. Drake said about last minute it would help us a lot 01:54:29.800 --> 01:54:33.880 to have staff recommendations a week before this gets published so that we 01:54:33.880 --> 01:54:37.080 could sit down and have these discussions now we're at the last second 01:54:37.080 --> 01:54:43.080 trying to figure out how do we adjust all of that related to that McDonald's I 01:54:43.080 --> 01:54:46.880 don't know what the issues were on that but SUPs are different they're almost 01:54:46.880 --> 01:54:53.720 like a PD or an ADP and they're site specific and use specific and we feel 01:54:53.720 --> 01:54:59.040 like that the site plan that we submitted as well as the landscape plan 01:54:59.040 --> 01:55:04.960 is a good basis for determining if anything in the future is reasonably in 01:55:04.960 --> 01:55:09.960 conformance with that or not and doesn't need to be given a 5% limitation it's 01:55:09.960 --> 01:55:15.000 definitely limited to whatever the code allows we also feel like building 01:55:15.000 --> 01:55:21.280 coverage is better limited to 80% like MN requires than it is to what we've 01:55:21.280 --> 01:55:26.640 shown plus or minus 5% we've not shown anything on our site plan that was 01:55:26.640 --> 01:55:31.200 intended to be a mitigation or an adaptation to any concerns that have 01:55:31.200 --> 01:55:34.960 been brought forward because none have been brought further forward other than 01:55:34.960 --> 01:55:39.840 what you have brought this evening and we have expressed a willingness to put 01:55:39.840 --> 01:55:47.240 those on our own conditions on our zoning and SUP request as on the previous slide 01:55:47.240 --> 01:55:51.680 I had to that effect at the same time once it gets to council with this 01:55:51.680 --> 01:55:56.400 particular site council may have some things I'll change that last side to 01:55:56.400 --> 01:56:01.200 provide the City Council sufficient comfort to approve the SUP they may have 01:56:01.200 --> 01:56:05.320 conditions and concerns with this specific site that are not generic to 01:56:05.320 --> 01:56:09.680 every site in the town that seeks an SUP and we can discuss adding those at 01:56:09.680 --> 01:56:16.660 that time so again for tonight we could go either way but we made our 01:56:16.660 --> 01:56:20.360 recommendation and mr. Beck you had asked me to put those up earlier and 01:56:20.360 --> 01:56:24.280 there they are and we think those with a couple other items that give you concern 01:56:24.280 --> 01:56:32.200 related to this specific site would be certainly well accepted by the bank 01:56:32.200 --> 01:56:36.120 mr. Austin we have a couple more questions real fast has your team done 01:56:36.120 --> 01:56:38.920 all the work necessary to do a preliminary plot have you done engineering 01:56:38.920 --> 01:56:43.640 traffic drainage has all that been taking place no so at this point there 01:56:43.640 --> 01:56:48.360 are some extra steps to understand exactly what that footprint would look 01:56:48.360 --> 01:56:52.040 like is that correct yes and that's pretty common I look at site development and 01:56:52.040 --> 01:56:56.920 planning in the form of a pyramid where you start with with a dream to a 01:56:56.920 --> 01:57:02.400 feasibility to do diligence to entitlements to planning to designs and 01:57:02.400 --> 01:57:06.820 you never know what the final detail is until you do the record drawings after 01:57:06.820 --> 01:57:11.000 it's built there's always something that comes up something's underground 01:57:11.000 --> 01:57:17.040 somebody's here a neighbor speaks up you try to accommodate them and we feel like 01:57:17.040 --> 01:57:21.320 at this stage of the game yes we need to dare it down to a point but or further 01:57:21.320 --> 01:57:24.320 but not we can't get to a point yet that's it 01:57:24.320 --> 01:57:29.320 Christian Beck thank you chair I guess my question is probably for staff here I 01:57:29.320 --> 01:57:36.760 hate to sound like a squeaky wheel on this fence but moving forward if we to 01:57:36.760 --> 01:57:40.640 get that fence if they're willing to do it I recommend that they do it for the 01:57:40.640 --> 01:57:47.160 privacy sake is the current code not gonna allow that to happen or does it 01:57:47.160 --> 01:57:54.360 need to be part of the 2019 code before a fence can even be considered a privacy 01:57:54.360 --> 01:57:58.680 fence on the west side it's either or with the new code if you recall it was 01:57:58.680 --> 01:58:03.280 based on based on a point system right they certainly could right do that 01:58:03.280 --> 01:58:06.760 depending on on how they wanted to structure that but if we didn't go forward 01:58:06.760 --> 01:58:12.880 with that we went forward with the odc the fence is not part of the landscape 01:58:12.880 --> 01:58:20.860 is not included in a landscape package is that right I've got to confirm the 01:58:20.860 --> 01:58:26.680 type C I've been working so much on the new code I don't recall the the current 01:58:26.680 --> 01:58:36.320 the existing okay so offense is not in the works on for a type-c buffer no it's 01:58:36.320 --> 01:58:45.280 not required but they could put one in okay okay there you go okay so I'll deal 01:58:45.280 --> 01:58:50.360 with that when we decide just for clarification the type-c buffer is a 01:58:50.360 --> 01:58:55.000 15-foot landscape area with six trees every hundred feet a mixture of 01:58:55.000 --> 01:58:59.600 deciduous and evergreen and twenty-five shrubs very good 01:58:59.600 --> 01:59:07.200 kiss your Sanchez I guess I'm still wondering sometimes I'm getting I'm 01:59:07.200 --> 01:59:13.160 getting a feeling that you you want to see you want us to wait on this and move 01:59:13.160 --> 01:59:19.240 it forward or nothing you know not move forward with this because there's there 01:59:19.240 --> 01:59:25.480 hasn't been some good communication between you and staff or would you be 01:59:25.480 --> 01:59:29.200 happy with what staff has recommended I'm still kind of confused as to where 01:59:29.200 --> 01:59:34.280 you're coming from and the discussions you and staff had based on what we were 01:59:34.280 --> 01:59:39.840 told at the work session that everything had been pretty much discussed and you 01:59:39.840 --> 01:59:46.820 were fine with going with the 22 2002 recommendations and so that's what they 01:59:46.820 --> 01:59:51.000 were giving us right and that was a misunderstanding because the only thing 01:59:51.000 --> 01:59:56.560 we had asked staff was do we need to move forward with the zoning request or 01:59:56.560 --> 02:00:03.880 not since the transition table renders it in me and either way we weren't 02:00:03.880 --> 02:00:09.600 having any discussions about which code to operate under now we did have a 02:00:09.600 --> 02:00:16.080 landscape plan and a site plan and obviously they were developed using the 02:00:16.080 --> 02:00:22.000 2003 code I'm gonna get my numbers wrong here but we also feel like the site 02:00:22.000 --> 02:00:29.280 plans we presented can work very well under the 2019 DDC with there'd be some 02:00:29.280 --> 02:00:33.880 fairly minor differences we showed you some of the site restriction limitations 02:00:33.880 --> 02:00:40.080 there but some things with the landscape but I feel like that we can probably go 02:00:40.080 --> 02:00:48.520 tonight with staff recommendation with an understanding that we might want to 02:00:48.520 --> 02:00:52.320 discuss this more before it gets to council and staff may or may not have 02:00:52.320 --> 02:00:56.240 reason to revise it but they've also got to put in there what your 02:00:56.240 --> 02:01:10.400 recommendation is as well there's no other questions yes Cindy based on what 02:01:10.400 --> 02:01:14.960 he just said I mean do you think there's that there's some wiggle room on based 02:01:14.960 --> 02:01:20.600 on what you your recommendation and what and what they're they'd like to see is 02:01:20.600 --> 02:01:26.280 there some there's still some room it's a word where you can still compromise in 02:01:26.280 --> 02:01:35.960 there okay I guess I guess this is the first I've seen this counter proposal 02:01:35.960 --> 02:01:44.720 right and I I'd rather take a look at it thoroughly before I say yes or no we 02:01:44.720 --> 02:01:53.000 can kind of put together a hybrid of both if you if you wish as a 02:01:53.000 --> 02:02:06.240 recommendation as a as a recommendation if you if you wish that what but yeah you 02:02:06.240 --> 02:02:10.400 know we're going to have to just make this is one of those odd cases where it's 02:02:10.400 --> 02:02:15.160 come it came in before the code was approved and we didn't review it with 02:02:15.160 --> 02:02:18.680 the new code because we didn't know how much it was going to change before it 02:02:18.680 --> 02:02:24.960 was approved and so the applicant asked after the code was approved if they 02:02:24.960 --> 02:02:29.200 still needed to move forward with the zoning case because it's going to go to 02:02:29.200 --> 02:02:33.160 the MN district and the decision was made yes we're just going to go ahead 02:02:33.160 --> 02:02:36.800 and go through with the zoning case because of the fact that you're ready to 02:02:36.800 --> 02:02:45.240 go we've scheduled you we've sent out notices you're ready to go and the 02:02:45.240 --> 02:02:50.460 applicant can if he wishes he can he can make the determination which code he 02:02:50.460 --> 02:02:55.000 wants to do the site plan under when we go through with the site plan and we 02:02:55.000 --> 02:02:58.960 can revise the code to just say the recommendation to take out code sections 02:02:58.960 --> 02:03:08.760 and just say needs to comply with with the landscape requirements are and so on 02:03:08.760 --> 02:03:16.520 thank you okay so we have a couple more questions here 02:03:16.520 --> 02:03:21.680 Commissioner Pernetta my questions are more procedural right because we have 02:03:21.680 --> 02:03:26.520 kind of some vagueness between between staff and you know what mr. Allison's 02:03:26.520 --> 02:03:35.120 proposing is there an issue or based based on the disconnect or the divide 02:03:35.120 --> 02:03:40.720 that we have between the two of them if we were to push this out you know for to 02:03:40.720 --> 02:03:45.400 give everybody like an extra two weeks is this are the differences that they 02:03:45.400 --> 02:03:47.880 have right now something that would have to be renoticed or anything like that 02:03:47.880 --> 02:03:52.280 would or could we just you know have them confer come back in two weeks and 02:03:52.280 --> 02:03:55.320 based on everything that we've established right now be able to devote 02:03:55.320 --> 02:04:01.600 without having to put anything else to the public would it be like simply an 02:04:01.600 --> 02:04:08.880 extension of this public hearing right now or motion to postpone before you 02:04:08.880 --> 02:04:14.960 close the public hearing and and then just bring it back up at a date certain 02:04:14.960 --> 02:04:20.640 and reconsider at that time without having to read notice would that be 02:04:20.640 --> 02:04:28.600 would that be some would that be something amenable to you or or okay 02:04:28.600 --> 02:04:33.680 another discussion and mr. Kanon may have some items here that'll help take 02:04:33.680 --> 02:04:38.280 care of all this it might be really beneficial at this point if there's no 02:04:38.280 --> 02:04:42.320 opposition from the dais to call brief recess because there is some side 02:04:42.320 --> 02:04:47.520 discussion happening if there's in a way to have the sidebar wrapped up and we 02:04:47.520 --> 02:04:50.640 can figure out what the next step could be whether it be a postpone for the 02:04:50.640 --> 02:04:55.240 record before we go into this recess what I would like to see is something 02:04:55.240 --> 02:04:59.960 made sense tonight the the idea of someone working really hard to get caught 02:04:59.960 --> 02:05:05.260 in the postponement due to code confusion seems a little unsettling to me 02:05:05.260 --> 02:05:11.760 that that confusion of what code to apply when MN is is eminent I would like 02:05:11.760 --> 02:05:15.640 to see a resolution that's not a postponement but perhaps if the board 02:05:15.640 --> 02:05:19.560 votes to actually progress this forward but let's have the recess if there's an 02:05:19.560 --> 02:05:23.320 opposition to that Commissioner Ellis you want to speak real fast go for it thank 02:05:23.320 --> 02:05:28.440 you chair just a couple words before recess some of staff recommendations to 02:05:28.440 --> 02:05:34.480 me are just reiterating the proposed site and landscape plan that that we have 02:05:34.480 --> 02:05:40.120 here in the SUP discussion we've gotten burned in the past by general conformance 02:05:40.120 --> 02:05:45.760 are significantly conformant significantly similar to what is 02:05:45.760 --> 02:05:50.960 proposed and we've I think staff is trying to get away from that because I 02:05:50.960 --> 02:05:56.240 asked very early on in my appointment four years ago what does general 02:05:56.240 --> 02:06:01.320 conformance mean and no one has an answer to that and so while I understand 02:06:01.320 --> 02:06:06.800 what you're saying I think when staff gives some of those recommendations it's 02:06:06.800 --> 02:06:12.800 to pull in that site and landscape plan that's been presented so that we 02:06:12.800 --> 02:06:18.000 understand going forward what general conformance means so that's kind of my 02:06:18.000 --> 02:06:23.160 interpretation of a couple of those so I just wanted to throw out that and I 02:06:23.160 --> 02:06:28.040 think better after the break there'll be some comments that might address that 02:06:28.040 --> 02:06:32.480 but related to that one of our concerns is what if the bank wanted to come in 02:06:32.480 --> 02:06:36.240 and through their budgeting and different things said well we want to go 02:06:36.240 --> 02:06:42.120 to a 10,000 square foot building with a 5,000 square foot footprint and that 02:06:42.120 --> 02:06:45.520 would add a thousand square feet to landscape but we can't do that because 02:06:45.520 --> 02:06:53.800 of the plus or minus 5% so that's the other side of that but I think after the 02:06:53.800 --> 02:06:58.080 break we may have a solution all right thank you at this time I'll call recess 02:06:58.080 --> 02:07:07.240 for 15 minutes at 746 thank you for your patience we will reconvene this meeting 02:07:07.240 --> 02:07:16.040 at 812 first thing I'd like to do as we saw in the public session is it seems 02:07:16.040 --> 02:07:21.240 like we have some revised staff suggested conditions so I'd like to put 02:07:21.240 --> 02:07:25.920 those on record for the Commission to listen to and consider so I'll have 02:07:25.920 --> 02:07:32.240 Richard can only can you present those on the magic I sir 02:07:56.760 --> 02:08:05.200 able to see those yes a little too dark and so that the first sentence is really 02:08:05.200 --> 02:08:12.480 just a modification it's essentially that same if you if you look at if you 02:08:12.480 --> 02:08:20.080 look at the heading it's essentially that that same language and then 02:08:20.080 --> 02:08:28.120 condition one remains the same condition two is modified slightly it references 02:08:28.120 --> 02:08:31.560 the 12,000 square foot building two-story bank with drive-through 02:08:31.560 --> 02:08:35.840 facility consisting of a maximum of two lanes quite honestly whether it's a 02:08:35.840 --> 02:08:40.560 teller or an ATM ITM at the end of the day it's still drive-through lanes that's 02:08:40.560 --> 02:08:44.480 really what we're what we're here for so the site plan has three lanes or can we 02:08:44.480 --> 02:08:47.600 specify two drive-through lanes there I think it was two in the bypass lane 02:08:47.600 --> 02:08:53.600 that's excluded from the drive-through the language here is specific enough 02:08:53.600 --> 02:09:00.320 that's drive-through of two lanes right okay correct and then what we what we 02:09:00.320 --> 02:09:04.280 added in there is that if they wanted to reduce the building square footage 02:09:04.280 --> 02:09:08.600 beyond the 5% that that would be permitted so if they wanted to reduce it 02:09:08.600 --> 02:09:14.600 10% 20% as long as it was a decrease in intensity we were comfortable with that 02:09:14.600 --> 02:09:21.520 condition number three essentially remained the same what we did is we took 02:09:21.520 --> 02:09:25.700 out that reference to previous paving material right now I think there were one 02:09:25.700 --> 02:09:33.320 space over if they decide to go under the new DDC if you will if you recall 02:09:33.320 --> 02:09:38.960 the parking permits up to 125% of the of the of the required parking and so we 02:09:38.960 --> 02:09:46.120 didn't so we just did in accordance with the DDC want whichever they choose the 02:09:46.120 --> 02:09:52.080 maximum lot coverage this one is what probably changed significantly but not 02:09:52.080 --> 02:10:00.040 really maximum lot coverage of 80% and 20% landscape area the lot coverage may 02:10:00.040 --> 02:10:05.200 be reduced beyond 5% in landscape area increased by any amount and so that way 02:10:05.200 --> 02:10:09.600 again it's it's in increasing the landscape and open space decreasing the 02:10:09.600 --> 02:10:15.360 intense intensity not having a limitation with respect to that just to 02:10:15.360 --> 02:10:20.440 give you an idea of the of those numbers if they do decide to go under the DCG 02:10:20.440 --> 02:10:30.240 that 20% is actually greater than the 15% required the MN if you recall with 02:10:30.240 --> 02:10:33.880 the MN we don't regulate in the new DDC by a lot coverage which only by building 02:10:33.880 --> 02:10:37.920 coverage but it does have a minimum landscape area of 20% which that would 02:10:37.920 --> 02:10:42.920 which that would meet and then we just sort of modified five and six just to 02:10:42.920 --> 02:10:49.040 rather than specify a certain section we referenced just in accordance with the 02:10:49.040 --> 02:10:56.200 DDC and then of course there are some administrative approvals like the 02:10:56.200 --> 02:11:01.520 alternative buffer that was previously mentioned depending which which route 02:11:01.520 --> 02:11:09.240 they go but but we referenced the the I think initially was referencing one and 02:11:09.240 --> 02:11:15.280 four this just referenced those modifications of two and two and four I'm 02:11:15.280 --> 02:11:17.560 sorry 02:11:17.560 --> 02:11:24.360 the best your knowledge is agreeable by by both city staff and the applicant yes 02:11:24.360 --> 02:11:28.760 okay commissioners do you have any questions or clarifications needed for 02:11:28.760 --> 02:11:43.240 these conditions Chris you're back I think I'm gonna stay with the fence okay 02:11:43.240 --> 02:11:49.400 I think I'd still like to see your fence I feel obliged based on that 02:11:49.400 --> 02:11:54.760 announcement for the record if the tornado sirens do go off the protocol is 02:11:54.760 --> 02:12:02.440 to go downstairs in the basement so below this chamber you'd go out take a 02:12:02.440 --> 02:12:09.080 U-turn there's a staircase there anyway squisher back continue thank you chair 02:12:09.080 --> 02:12:14.480 I'm still leaning towards a privacy fence on that one side I was looking at 02:12:14.480 --> 02:12:17.880 the site and there was a concern that maybe the fence would be too close to 02:12:17.880 --> 02:12:22.680 the residential driveway but I didn't quite see it looks like there's plenty 02:12:22.680 --> 02:12:28.080 of room there so I'd still like to if we could insert that into this we could 02:12:28.080 --> 02:12:31.520 certainly require that that fence and I believe they they gave the thumbs up 02:12:31.520 --> 02:12:34.480 that they have no problem providing that fence so we can incorporate that into 02:12:34.480 --> 02:12:37.720 the condition 02:12:37.720 --> 02:12:43.840 Mr. Ellis thank you chair and I'd just like to entertain mr. Allison about his 02:12:43.840 --> 02:12:48.840 the tree discussion we had a little bit ago where you talked about planning some 02:12:48.840 --> 02:12:55.000 higher trees for neighborhood protection you mentioned that earlier in your when 02:12:55.000 --> 02:13:00.640 you were up here yes the buffer trees on the west side we 02:13:00.640 --> 02:13:06.160 could require that those be the larger trees I would like that incorporated I 02:13:06.160 --> 02:13:11.360 mean that's I don't have a problem with this development at all my my issue is 02:13:11.360 --> 02:13:17.640 that that side of Mulberry remains what it is it's a neighborhood and and we 02:13:17.640 --> 02:13:22.000 just need the development compatible with a neighborhood and it protected as 02:13:22.000 --> 02:13:24.440 such 02:13:24.440 --> 02:13:30.040 Christian back you know concur with Commissioner Ellis - I think though what 02:13:30.040 --> 02:13:35.440 we're gonna have to do is fight this battle one development at a time and we 02:13:35.440 --> 02:13:39.280 ought to be willing to do that but this this particular development it could be 02:13:39.280 --> 02:13:42.600 worse it could be a you know a drive-through hamburger place and we 02:13:42.600 --> 02:13:47.560 know how those go so this this particular development in my opinion is 02:13:47.560 --> 02:13:52.480 compatible shouldn't all set the neighborhood area there but by rezoning 02:13:52.480 --> 02:13:56.680 this yeah we're gonna have to each development down the road if these come 02:13:56.680 --> 02:14:00.160 in along that strip there we're gonna have to deal with it development by 02:14:00.160 --> 02:14:07.680 development so at this time I feel obligated to say this is a public 02:14:07.680 --> 02:14:12.840 hearing so if anyone does want to speak it is open to the floor but there's no 02:14:12.840 --> 02:14:18.400 one else to speak which I do not see any movement I'm gonna go ahead and close 02:14:18.400 --> 02:14:23.520 the public hearing for both items that we've been discussing both for C and for 02:14:23.520 --> 02:14:29.900 D at this time we have the ability to have further discussion or a motion can 02:14:29.900 --> 02:14:39.640 we clear the first and second off the board okay I don't know if that's 02:14:39.640 --> 02:14:46.320 accurate Chris you're back okay so we're clear I thought before before they came 02:14:46.320 --> 02:14:51.120 back and presented this I was under the I was feeling like we needed to postpone 02:14:51.120 --> 02:14:55.120 this and let them hammer this out but it appears like they've got this both sides 02:14:55.120 --> 02:15:01.840 seem satisfactory and at this point I don't see a problem with it I'm not 02:15:01.840 --> 02:15:06.480 gonna make a motion on it but my first inclination was to postpone this to a 02:15:06.480 --> 02:15:13.520 date certain which would be the next B and Z but all the issues I think they 02:15:13.520 --> 02:15:17.760 were bothering both sides or concerned both sides have been worked out so we 02:15:17.760 --> 02:15:21.040 can move forward as far as I'm concerned 02:15:21.040 --> 02:15:27.240 Christopher Sanchez I just want to comment that yeah I also thought I was 02:15:27.240 --> 02:15:33.160 kind of confused and on on the feeling of other developers and and I was 02:15:33.160 --> 02:15:37.680 thinking well maybe we have to postpone it but at the same time I think it's one 02:15:37.680 --> 02:15:42.320 of the things that has we understand is we have the old code and the new code 02:15:42.320 --> 02:15:46.680 and there's things there that I think they're still somewhat confusing but I 02:15:46.680 --> 02:15:51.560 think it's just an example of these things can be worked out and I think 02:15:51.560 --> 02:15:57.040 getting together figuring out going and talking about it shows that these things 02:15:57.040 --> 02:16:04.320 can be worked out and so I'm glad it happened but one of the things you 02:16:04.320 --> 02:16:08.240 mentioned was that you got to pay the information I think on Friday or 02:16:08.240 --> 02:16:11.280 something I think it's important to start getting that information a little 02:16:11.280 --> 02:16:16.040 bit give you a little bit more leeway so that developers can make those 02:16:16.040 --> 02:16:21.840 decisions and discuss with you prior to this meeting 02:16:24.040 --> 02:16:28.920 Mr. Smith I'm assuming we still need to make we still need a motion to adopt 02:16:28.920 --> 02:16:34.680 these separately correct correct so at this point we'd take a motion for the 02:16:34.680 --> 02:16:38.800 zoning request yeah I'll move I'll move to approve the zoning case Z 19 - zero 02:16:38.800 --> 02:16:43.360 zero zero two no staff recommendations for this this item so no no 02:16:43.360 --> 02:16:47.080 recommendations on that we have a first for approval of the zoning request 02:16:47.080 --> 02:16:54.560 Mr. Cole second we have first and second for the zoning request any discussion see 02:16:54.560 --> 02:16:57.760 not a call for a vote on the board 02:16:57.760 --> 02:17:08.520 motion carries seven zero next will be the SUP Mr. Smith motion to approve the 02:17:08.520 --> 02:17:13.000 SUP with the revised staff recommendations that were not in the 02:17:13.000 --> 02:17:17.560 back up and Mr. Smith for clarification are you including a condition for a 02:17:17.560 --> 02:17:27.560 fence yes I am and the trees from in the trees yes okay so we have a first with 02:17:27.560 --> 02:17:33.840 the revised conditions with the addition of two for the West fence and the trees 02:17:33.840 --> 02:17:39.280 of mr. Ellis noted commissioner Cole second but a first and a second with the 02:17:39.280 --> 02:17:43.640 revised conditions and additional any discussion Christian Pernetta I just 02:17:43.640 --> 02:17:46.800 wanted to verify someone we say the trees we're ensuring that they are the 02:17:46.800 --> 02:17:57.720 larger trees right in this as far as they say okay correct so without any 02:17:57.720 --> 02:18:00.580 discussion I was gonna make one note thanks for the patience for the 02:18:00.580 --> 02:18:05.520 applicant I know we are as a as a commission and as a council and as staff 02:18:05.520 --> 02:18:10.000 trying to get used to new development codes and so I appreciate the 02:18:10.000 --> 02:18:14.920 applicants patience as well as see staff working to be nimble and appreciate 02:18:14.920 --> 02:18:17.840 both sides of the discussion and find common ground I certainly appreciate 02:18:17.840 --> 02:18:22.200 that I think in the future if it's the city staff's prerogative and City 02:18:22.200 --> 02:18:26.400 Council's prerogative to be more specific on SUPs I think that might be a 02:18:26.400 --> 02:18:31.000 good move away from general conformity or substantially conforms but with that 02:18:31.000 --> 02:18:36.400 if we're going to hold the applicants on any SUP with more rigor you provided 02:18:36.400 --> 02:18:41.120 them a heads up so they know exactly what their concept plan is actually be 02:18:41.120 --> 02:18:44.160 holding them to I think would be important because I think historically 02:18:44.160 --> 02:18:48.720 that hasn't been the case and if we're making a shift be cognizant of the 02:18:48.720 --> 02:18:54.080 timing for applicants I think would be appreciative so with that we have a 02:18:54.080 --> 02:18:58.320 first and a second call for a vote on the board 02:19:01.920 --> 02:19:09.240 motion carries 7-0 congratulations next item on the agenda is our matrix and I 02:19:09.240 --> 02:19:15.000 will have Richard begin and then we'll have discussion just I'll be brief on 02:19:15.000 --> 02:19:20.200 this item a couple things I wanted to highlight the discussion on the upland 02:19:20.200 --> 02:19:24.760 habitats maintaining those long-term if you recall we talked about bringing that 02:19:24.760 --> 02:19:29.240 at the same time at a work session at the same time that we would discuss the 02:19:29.240 --> 02:19:34.320 criteria manual for ESA they're currently in the process of going through this 02:19:34.320 --> 02:19:38.440 month to the committee on the environment and so will my most likely 02:19:38.440 --> 02:19:46.080 move that date to 619 what I will do on the on 515 what I'd like to do I know we 02:19:46.080 --> 02:19:51.880 all got any Kathy had sent an email out earlier today on the attendance and while 02:19:51.880 --> 02:19:56.880 that wasn't on the agenda unfortunately weren't really able to discuss that what 02:19:56.880 --> 02:20:01.000 I'd like to do is if it's if it's okay with with the Commission include that as 02:20:01.000 --> 02:20:05.000 part of the work session discussion under our draft policies and procedures 02:20:05.000 --> 02:20:09.920 just to have that so I'll include that on the agenda for 515 the only other 02:20:09.920 --> 02:20:15.680 item that I'll just mention the 515 meeting as it stands right now we're 02:20:15.680 --> 02:20:20.720 looking at and again this may this may change within the next week or so but 02:20:20.720 --> 02:20:23.360 right now we're looking at at approximately eight public hearing items 02:20:23.360 --> 02:20:27.920 and two consent items and that's the result of unfortunately the meeting we 02:20:27.920 --> 02:20:35.400 had to cancel as a result of the weather any discussion 02:20:35.400 --> 02:20:43.600 just a comment from what we experienced tonight can we ensure that on our 02:20:43.600 --> 02:20:49.080 presentation what goes on the monitor is all of the recommendations because that 02:20:49.080 --> 02:20:54.760 definitely got confusing today and that's just that's we need that in the 02:20:54.760 --> 02:20:58.560 public needs that so that we know exactly what we're voting on because 02:20:58.560 --> 02:21:05.080 that definitely was a source of confusion and then on the record as I've 02:21:05.080 --> 02:21:10.280 said this off the record too but whatever you can do as part of staff to 02:21:10.280 --> 02:21:15.480 get Mulberry Street on some kind of somebody's radar this development is 02:21:15.480 --> 02:21:19.880 going to add problems to that corner especially if it's going to get started 02:21:19.880 --> 02:21:25.560 in the fall if nothing is done right now at that intersection so if there's 02:21:25.560 --> 02:21:30.560 anything we can do to move that up somebody's priority list it definitely 02:21:30.560 --> 02:21:33.320 needs to be done 02:21:33.320 --> 02:21:41.040 seeing no other discussion items I will close this meeting at 826