May 29, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2019-05-29 5:00 PM (Special Called)

Good afternoon and welcome to the special called meeting of the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission from Wednesday, May 29th. This is our work session and with the quorum present, I will call us to order. With this full agenda, I'm going to turn this over to Richard for a minute to discuss the format of tonight. Just wanted to provide a couple of clarifications. As noted on the agenda, item J has been postponed to June 26th. So that item will not be heard. Item A, just before that, which involves area 8, we're going to be taking that out of order. We're going to be hearing that right after item A and then we'll get into the hearings for the remainder B through Y, I believe, B through Y again with the exception of I and J. One thing that's a little bit different than other public hearings where we've had cases, again, this is a large amount of city initiated rezonings. There is the ability to open the public hearing for all of them and then vote one time if that's -- if everyone is in agreement. If there is some opposition or there's a concern about a particular area, certainly that item could be sort of pulled -- think of it similar to a consent agenda item. Again, that's up to the commission. We were just trying to make it for ease sake to allow for that rather than have to call each one and take action on each individual. It could be done sort of on a wholesale -- on a wholesale basis. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. If there was, let's say, I don't know, where item D, there's a discrepancy on that or something wanted to be voted on separately for acceptance, would it be a motion to approve all except item D? How would we go about doing that? Would we just -- how would that motion look, I guess, or could we make a motion, say, accept all with item D having these changes made to it, I mean, I just -- direction from legal or Richard on how we should make motions if there are going to be changes and tweaks to it? >> Yeah. I think if you're at the point to make a motion to just pull whatever item that would need to be pulled to be heard separately. >> Okay. >> And deal with it. >> Mm-hmm. >> Okay. Or even possibly during a work session bring it up to where we just say, hey, it looks like, yeah, we've had some pretty dark -- not dark discussions, that's wrong -- some pretty deep discussions on a certain item, can we -- we will open a public hearing for A through B, A through C, and then E through Y, and then we'll go back to item D and have that public hearing be open or something like that. >> Yeah, we could certainly do that. >> Okay. Got it. Thank you. >> Is everybody else okay with -- that way? Commissioner Pernod? >> And I just have a question kind of along those lines. So we will be establishing which ones we're voting on at the beginning of this session or how? I guess my concern is I want to ensure that, you know, we don't walk in there and wind up having a particular section have public pushback and then, you know, have that complicate the vote. So are we going to be deciding at the tail end, at the beginning, how are we determining which way we're voting these? >> So the way we're -- the first way we're doing it is by pulling I out, we're actually voting on I separately because Jerry has to recuse himself and then he'll come back for the rest. The rest -- the plan is to take them as a bulk. Per staff, they have not gotten opposition to any of these. Now that doesn't mean things, I guess, won't change when we get into chambers or around here as our discussion. So right now the plan would be to vote on the rest of them as a block. But if we do need to alter that, pull something at that time, then we can do that accordingly. If you're comfortable with that. >> And even if there is opposition, we can certainly just -- >> Discuss it. >> Just discuss it. Yeah. And even pull that item. >> Pull it if we need to in postponement. Does that make sense? Okay. Okay. Thank you, Richard. So with that, we will move to our first agenda item, which is work session report. Receive a report. Hold a discussion. Give staff direction on policy regarding motions made, the planning and zoning commission meetings. And Charlie. >> Good afternoon, commission. Charlie Rosendahl, business services manager. I don't have a presentation for you today. I just wanted to discuss with you all quickly and get some of your direction on when a motion is made, whether -- what the default, if you will, should be, if that motion should include the staff recommendations, unless the motion specifically says otherwise. Or if you don't include the staff recommendations in that motion, if we should take it as you're not including staff recommendations. Does that make sense? >> Yes. >> It does make sense. I just want a commission direction on that. >> Just one concern I have, as we talk about building heights, not exceeding two stories on the square itself and no more than three stories on the mews, or whatever we call them, the back streets, MEWs. >> Okay. We're not -- that's not what we're discussing at the moment? >> Okay. I thought we were into the design thing. I was -- >> No. No. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Commissioner Smith. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. I'd like to second Larry's idea, I'm just kidding. On the motions, I think that if we -- unless it's stated without staff recommendations or unless it's stated with changes to staff recommendations, if it's a motion with recommendations or just a motion to approve, then that would mean a motion for approval with staff recommendations. So I think that's the direction that I would say we should go, because I know it gets kind of confusing. Sometimes we forget because we get it presented to us, like, yeah, that sounds good, so, yeah, unless it's explicitly stated, I think it would be with recommendations. >> Commissioner St. John's? >> Yeah. I feel the same way. I think when I read the recommendations or when I go through the paperwork, the motion is to include those staff recommendations, so I assume that's what we're doing. And to reiterate as a separate item and say, okay, I make a motion to approve, and then also say with recommendations, it seems kind of redundant, because we're looking at the staff recommendations, and that's included already. So that's the way I look at it. >> And I guess -- and I'm good with that, too, as long as we make sure that staff recommendations are in the public meeting presentation, okay, because that -- I think that's really important. Everybody doesn't go through the backup like we do, even though they can access it online, but what they do watch is the staff presentation, and so as long as I think we always have that slide that has what staff recommendations are, then I think I'm good with just -- Commissioner? >> Thank you, Vice Chair. So I think with -- we had it a couple of weeks ago with one of the presentations, some of the staff recommendations weren't included in that presentation slide, so I think it's just going to be up to us as a discretion to maybe have to add it in. We can be redundant if we need to, I guess, but -- >> Well, I don't mean us adding it in. This was more -- >> We'll make sure that those -- >> Right. This was the direction that staff should always include that in their presentation, so that the public knows that when we make a vote, it's that presentation with those recommendations. Does that make sense? >> And I will let the Commission know that in the past, we have -- if there hasn't been discussion around the staff recommendations or anything to the contrary, and you know, it's late and a motion is made to approve, we have made that assumption that it's with staff recommendations, so we just -- but as we're developing these policies for the Planning and Zoning Commission, we just wanted to make sure we discussed that with you guys and make sure that's your preference as well. >> Right. And then if we don't agree with staff recommendations, we can pull whatever it is in the motion and state the motion to approve, vote, taking that out. Does that make sense? >> I agree. If there's something that we don't agree with, I mean, we're going to discuss it, and I'm sure that's -- then at that point, things change -- you know, then the recommendations -- it's going to change. We're going to change the recommendations from the staff and see if we all approve of it. But I think there is -- 90% of what we've done in the past, I think we go with the staff recommendations, but there has been issues in the past where, you know, we don't agree with particular recommendations, and we can make that change. And at that time, you're aware of it, because I think we make that recommendation. Would you make these changes? >> Yes, sir. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. So I'm assuming if there are, say, three recommendations in there, and one of us sees a recommendation we like, we'll discuss that with the notion that at least the person who doesn't want to see that recommendation in there would motion to move to approve minus that. So there would be that discussion before we got to that point, right? >> Correct. >> Right. Thanks. >> Anybody else? Charlie, did all that make sense? >> Yep. >> Okay. Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. I think we can move to item A, then, on our regular agenda, which is the Denton Square District. And I will call up Sean Jacobson for his presentation. >> Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner with the planning department, and I am honestly delighted to be here to bring before you at long last the Denton Square District standards and guidelines. As you all know, because we've come before you before, this all started with the tragic fire on the square, which highlighted the need we have for standards to protect the historic nature of our square. At that time, council directed us to, as quickly as possible, move forward with getting a district and standards in place. As you know, it took a little bit longer than we expected. It ended up being about an 18-month process. But as a result, we've been able to have a very transparent process, and I believe what we've ended up with is truly an excellent ordinance to protect our square. So we began by doing research, looking at cities that we believe have done this well. And we took that and distilled it into initial draft standards, which we actually have brought to you before. And from there, we went to our stakeholders. So we wanted to take this to business owners and property owners on the square, as well as residents both from within the square and from around the city. We took that feedback. We also came before you all, before the Historic Landmark Commission, and before city council to get that feedback input. And based on all of that, we revised the standards. And the last time we went to council, they had just a few additional changes. For the most part, this document has stayed the same throughout the process. But they did want an adjustment made to the review process so that they were taking that review directly rather than going through a board. They also had some direction that we provide additional standards for murals on buildings fronting on the square, those facades that face the courthouse, as well as some better standards for temporary construction fencing. So we have included all of that per their direction. And we're coming to you tonight with all of that. So as you can see here, this is the process that after talking with city council, receiving their direction, we've come to where those general repairs, minor alterations would come to staff where they could be approved or denied administratively. And then a denial would then be able to be approved to city council. All major projects, as well as murals, then would go to city council for approval or denial, and they would be the final body. This would not touch at all on interior change, exterior projects, as you can see. We did notify extensively both property owners within the district, as well as within 200 feet, and residents out to 500 feet. We received, and you have with you there, I just handed you the letters we received, in support, three letters from within the district, opposition, three letters from within the district, as well as one from within the 200 feet. I will say one of those property owners who is in objection went over and talked with him today, and he is no longer in objection. He's comfortable with what we're proposing. Sean? Yes ma'am? Is that this person here that you gave us in opposition? Those are the letters they support. No, is that the gentleman you talked to, or no? One of the letters in opposition there is. Is the person you talked to? Yes. Yes. I want to say that was Danny. Danny? Yes. Yeah, he asked to be called, and you did, and he's... Okay. Yep. Went over. We just went over and chatted with him. Okay. And that was the case with a few others who didn't write in. They just wanted to talk, and so we went and talked, and they were comfortable. Understand. Yeah. Okay. And truly, we have received just overwhelming support when we've taken this to the public in many, many meetings, including the AIA Dallas, and the support has been overwhelming. So with that, I will stand for any questions you all have. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. On the height, I'm reading that we're limited to two stories on the square area itself, and up to three stories on the streets behind it. Yes, sir. Okay. In the event that Wells Fargo decides to move out, what do we do with that building? Does it stay that way, or do we... If somebody comes in and wants to keep it at that height, are we stuck with that? There is nothing that would require them to lower the height of that building. Okay. They could if they wanted to. If they wanted to. Right. But, okay. All right. So it's going to stay five stories. There's nothing in here that would require an existing building. It's for new buildings and new facilities. Right. If a new owner came in, though, the city wouldn't require it to... No. It's only for you if the owner is proposing to make an exterior change. Okay. Kind of like a non-conforming situation? Yes. Okay. Absolutely. Got you. Thanks. Yes, sir. Commissioner Burnetta? Yeah. So, on the facade standards, the first item is that existing unpainted brick and stone facades must not be painted. So for an example, like the newly redone Jupiter House, where the bricks are all black on the outside, say someone wanted to change that in the future, would they be able to change the paint without issue? Now that it has been painted, yes, they would. Okay. All right. If it's... So it's only for existing brick that is currently unpainted. Okay. So everything that's painted right now is grandfathered in? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry. I should have explained this. I should have mentioned this. We simply did some renumbering, Jerry and I did, and some adjustments to legal language on Friday. So I just wanted to make sure you had a copy of that. All the changes are bolded and shown in blue. Commissioner Sanchez? When I was looking through this under subject, and I was looking at it says the Denton Square District generally bounded, it should be... To me, it's the Denton Square District is bounded by, and then name the streets. When you say generally, it kind of leaves it open. And I was just curious, is this the definition we use? And then you go on to say... And then it says in Denton, Texas, generally including all properties. When you use the word generally before something, it kind of leaves it open to... It can be something else. But when we're defining what the Denton Square District is, it's this, this, and it's not going to change. So I was just curious if it made any difference. So that's for the AIS specifically, we use that language. For the ordinance itself, we will actually have incredibly detailed meets and bounds that will lay out exactly what property is affected. Okay, okay, okay. Well, that word just kind of stuck out to me as a generally. Commissioner Smith? Hey, Madam Ambassador. Sean, on the building facade height standards under the catastrophic loss, the item about the building... The reconstruction needs to be done within 12 months, it has to be done within 18 months. If those parameters aren't met, do they have to go through a traditional permitting process like they would with any of the other facade changes they want to make, if those timelines aren't met? If that timeline is not met, they would then have to follow the height standards that are set. That's the state in which they can rebuild to their previous height. After that, then they would fall subject to the minimum and maximum. So a one story building on the square within that, the district burns, they want to rebuild to one story, but because of whether insurance or something else wrong with it, they don't. They don't commence within 12 months, they're not finished within 18 months. They would then have to build to two stories then. That would be how we've written it. However, we've also built in, I believe, a director, an addition there, to allow for that. An extension? Yes. Okay. So it's only an extension. It's not a... The standard cannot be... There's nothing in here that says the standard doesn't have to be met in that city. There's nothing in there. However, I will say that we've designed this so that city council has the option, if they're presented with the overall project, what they would look at is the intent and purpose of the district, and if what's being proposed, they believe that meets it, then they would be able to sidestep a particular standard and say, "You know what? This is overall... This is a great project. This meets what we want here." That would be an option. Thank you, Sean. Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez. And that was my... I was going to ask that question. I mean, we've got... We set all these standards, but then city council can sidestep some of that stuff. If they see that it meets something that they approve of, they can go ahead and... We actually have a detailed list that provides an intent and purpose, and so we would have to actually meet that. They'd have to be able to say, "This is... We are not enforcing this particular standard rigidly because what is being proposed really does meet, say, the intent of preserving the character of the square," because you might be doing something that really fits historically, but it happens to not meet that particular standard perfectly. Okay. Okay. That's what... Question. Richard? We might want to clarify that it's not necessarily a sidestep. Yes. I'm sorry. I misspoke there. But it is an option for city council to say, "In most cases, this standard makes sense. In this case, what has been proposed is better than what would be required if they followed this precise." And I might even add to that, that ultimately standards are standards, so there's guidelines, and where there may be some ambiguity somewhere on some project, then they have that flexibility. That's where that appeal process comes in. But ultimately, there's a set of standards, and council's following that set of standards. Okay. I guess I have a question, I guess, on that same line. Are standards and guidelines included in this, and they're different? Yes. So what you handed us here are standards. So this generally is not deviated from, right? So what I noticed in the understanding the district document, which I believe is part of this entire process as well, right, this is something that the developer is going to read and... Yeah, it's provided to clarify what is in the ordinance itself. Yeah, because in there, it does state that city council will not deny a certificate of design if the project doesn't meet design guidelines. Yes, yes. Okay. But that is not talking about if it doesn't meet this. No, it is not. Okay. Understood. Anybody else have a question? No? Okay, then I have another one. And this is probably just more idea for you guys. In here, you talk about encouraging the integration of art into public spaces and private spaces. Have you brought this at all to the public art committee for any kind of discussion as far as maybe they can be involved with ideas that could make this even better? That is, I don't believe that is a body we've gone before yet with this time. So there's a little bigger picture at play here. This speaks specifically to the buildings. We haven't gotten into those public spaces as of yet. So this is really just trying to preserve the character as a result of that loss and anything to the future. But we absolutely intend, and we've had some sidebar conversations on some other items with public art, and then we're going to continue as we move to create some other design standards in some other unique areas of downtown. Yeah, I think they would just be a great body to tap just for discussion purposes. So when you're talking with the developers in this area, it can be an idea that maybe they gave you that says, "Hey, you might want to consider doing this to your building." Just basically as picking the brains of people who are on that committee. Great advice. Thank you. And then I just have one more question regarding ... where's my note? It talks about new signs in murals. HLC, I think, at one time was involved in mural decision in that. Is that going away and it would just be a council decision? Within the district, murals will be going directly to the city council per their direction. Very good. Anybody else? Commissioner Cole. Thank you, Chair. I was looking through ... I wonder if somebody wants to put a rooftop like LSA. Is that addressed at all, or would that be a director? That is a project that would definitely have to go to city council for them to assess that. Yes. Anybody else? I think I've just ... Commissioner Pernado. And just to kind of piggyback off of what Commissioner Cole was saying. So if the maximum standard is three stories and they were to add a rooftop deck with, say, a covering on that, would that technically be a fourth story then, or how would we break that down? It wouldn't be defined as a story, and again, then it would be really on the basis of really what that site design is and what that facade is going to look like. And I guess if I reference LSA, their roof is in the rear portion of that building, not the front of the building. Just as an example. Okay. Because I just wanted to say somebody had, on the top of the third story, grill in a large pergola or something like that, I just wanted to verify what that would be considered. And that's where the standards are very specific on the story, so story by definition versus then where it is, does it meet the intent of what those design standards are for and why it is that it goes before a body rather than just a person making that decision. So council ultimately would look at that elevation and say whether that meets the intent of the guidelines. So we have guidelines and standards, and then both of those work synonymous to make sure that we have a flexible document rather than being incredibly rigid. Okay. And then I guess, I don't know if my question, first of all, are you Richard or Scott, as far as the process of this. So this basically amends our current code and our new code, or the new adopted code has to, are we going to have another amendment to that, or? You would ask that question. Yes, I would. So it is designed in such a way, and it's numbered to integrate into our freshly adopted code. Okay. If it's 19 DDC, this will walk right into it. Excellent. But because it is going to go in effect after passage, that it's got a numbering that's a little bit different, so it's a standalone code, but it's designed to go, to integrate immediately into the design. So with a positive adoption from council, does that take care of current and new code? Correct. Yes. Okay. So we wouldn't need to have this discussion again, too? Our legal staff ensured that that's the process that we needed to go to just have an individual stand-alone code. Okay. Excellent. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Vice Chair. On that, so you did say the numbering will make it where it fits into the codes. I know that was an issue with why we needed the DDC update, was because there were code and design standards and guidelines that were kind of spread across multiple different areas, so just to clarify, you did say that it will be included in the DDC. It's numbered correctly where it will fit into there. It's where they could pick up the book and they could find it and hear it correctly. We had all hopes, as Sean had indicated, council had this as a priority for us to get completed. It was important for us to get to all the stakeholder groups and to get to the citizens and visitors, just so we had a good understanding of really all those stakeholders. And in doing that, prior to the adoption of the DDC, we intended on having that come before this body and city council to be adopted so it would be printed in that draft version that was approved. We didn't make that date, but all of the numbering and all of the references go specifically to where it is that they would fit, so there's no conflict. So we have a clean code once again instead of adding something. So there's not going to be a developer that needs to go reference another piece of code somewhere else? No. So they're looking to develop downstairs? No. Downtown. Geez, what's wrong with me today? Thank you. Appreciate it. You bet. Okay. I don't see any other questions. Thanks, ma'am. Nice job, Sean. Yeah, if I could actually speak to that last point, one of the things that we actually discussed is this ordinance is not in final form yet, and one of the things that we discussed is it might be possible to put a section in there that authorizes us to get with the codifier to implement this into the new DDC as a clerical issue rather than as a substantive change. That'd be preferable. Thank you. Okay. Okay. With that, we will move into our many public hearings. Do we want -- did you have a plan as Ron just presenting everything? Yep. He was going to start with -- Okay. Okay. Do you want to go ahead and do aye out of order? Okay. And -- Yes. Jerry, do you want to remain for a work session on that or not? If you're just speaking in general terms, then I probably could, but if you're speaking to -- Yeah, I can speak in general, and if it gets to a point where, you know, the discussion changes, then we certainly can take that. Sure. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Ron McGee with Development Services. Excited to be here. We've been working on this for several weeks or probably months. It was -- you know, when I say we, it's been staff. We've been meeting every other day looking at areas within the city that we feel should be part of our city initiated rezoning proposals. We've taken a lot of input from you, from the council, from the citizens, general public, of course, and the DCRC. We've been talking about this, again, for several times. So with that, I'm going to go into our schedule, and I just want to share this with the commission because we have a lot coming up, and I want to make sure that we are all on the same page. Our first group is what I'm calling it is today, March 29th. That will be then going to city council on June 11th. That is the area along I-35E between the southern city limits up to generally Fort Worth Drive. And then, you know, the second group would be from there all the way up through the northern city limits, part of 380 or 380, the loop in that general corridors, those general corridors. And then our last area would be Teasley, 377, parts of them, as well as the area within the core of the city. So we've got a lot ahead of us, and again, this will be our first one, and hopefully it goes smoothly. If, you know, if there's things that we can improve, we're certainly going to notice those and imply or apply those to the ones that will be coming in the future. So how do we start analyzing and evaluating which area? So obviously we started with the transition chart because that's what we have today. That was adopted on April 23rd. Looking at the transition chart, we've actually mapped the areas, and you've seen those maps. Using that, also looking at existing uses, where they are, obviously we focus on I-35 because that's generally some of the existing uses there was brought to our attention and wanted to address those nonconforming uses as soon as possible. Of course, nonconforming uses we want to eliminate or limit as much as we can, while protecting existing neighborhoods throughout the city. Again, we looked at corridors, and that's what's been our main focus, again, I-35, 380, the loop, any other specific study areas or special study areas that we were looking at. Through public comments, looking at the future land use map, the future, I'm sorry, the land use element, and then if there's certain areas that draw certain things that fit more with the future or the land use designations that we have or the zoning districts that we have, we identified those areas and again, wanted to bring that forward. So our group one is the area that you see here. It starts on the southern city limits, where our bill, other forward dealership is located, and we made our way up, all the way up to Fort Worth Drive. We try to stay within the highway corridor. We kind of touch a little bit just north or south of it, not extending more than what we needed to. We've been focusing on the corridor. We have 24 identified, however, we are pulling one item of this area, and that is area 9 because of a notice issue. So we'll bring that forward, excuse me, we will be bringing that forward on the next go-around, which is June 26. Otherwise, we are going to discuss this set of areas here in the work session. Again, you can see from the map, it's primarily HC along the corridor from 1 all the way through 24. Now, there are pockets that are not HC, but again, those are areas that we felt would benefit from us taking it as a city-initiated rezoning as part of this effort. Does anybody have any questions to this point? Okay. So here's the next slides, and there's several. I've started looking at this as a presentation, and in the end, it just made more sense that we went through each area by themselves rather than a whole, because they're all different. They're all in different areas. They all have different existing uses. They all have different zoning districts to a certain degree. So I've prepared two slides for each area. We can go through those right now, or we can go through them at the public hearing, just to what your preference is, commission. That's up to you. I would think you're going to do them in the regular meeting, correct? Yes. For sure. Okay. I think it's just a great opportunity. This is probably one of the simpler ones for us, and it's a lot of properties. So if we need to kind of expand on something, I think it's a little simpler to do here, knowing that these will be coming forward. As Ron indicated, staff has put an immense amount of time in walking through this, probably challenging decisions from when we start with Area 1 to the time we got to Area 24, and come back to Area 1, there was a whole other thought process, because we've already forgotten what we had talked about because of so many properties. So it's just really important, I think, rather than trying not, in the public hearing, to be asking questions or causing confusion, is that if we can vet as much of that out as we can in work session, I think it's very useful. I don't know what we'll anticipate for having from the public. We spoke with the property owners to make sure that they understood what we were doing and the benefit. And truly, the greatest number, well, all of these, really, are to mimic what's on the ground, to eliminate nonconformities, and really in the ease of use and recognizing that our corridors are our primary focus of what we're looking at and trying to do the best thing. So I just certainly encourage anything that you might have as a question in the overall process or specific to these properties that we try to nail that down as much as we can so that we afford that time for the public to be able to speak and certainly try not to confuse them. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Master. I was discussing with Ron earlier on area one, there was that parcel directly to the east. Why we didn't add that to that, and I think you said Richard was going to explain that. Is this a good time to bring that up now? Yeah. Larry, if I can get to there and then we can bring up the map. I have arranged the slides to go straight to area eight, because that was our schedule. If the commission would like, I can go to area one, make our way through, and have area eight as the last one, and then, Jerry, then if you want to recuse yourself at the end, that might be the way to do it. We can start with area one, is what I'm saying. You mean in work session? In work session. Okay. Yes. Because we are actually going to start with area eight at the meeting. I would say why don't we stick with eight so as not to ... Okay. Is that okay? Is that okay? Jerry. That's your cue. Yeah. Let's do that. To me, that makes more sense. Okay. Perfect. I just wanted to see what was best. Thank you. Okay. As you can see here, it is in this general area, just southeast corner of Lillian Miller in I-35. It is the Southridge Village Shopping Center. It is being proposed to go from RCR2 to HC, Highway Corridor, approximately 18.5 acres, contains about eight parcels, and you can see in the bottom bullet there, those are the existing uses. There is a gas station, Chevron. There is a number of restaurants within that shopping center. The main shopping center also includes a trampoline place as well as the Goodwill store, so a number of different uses within this particular area. What's being proposed, again, is HC, and as you can see, the area eight here is outlined in this red. That will be the zoning if it is to pass. Changing the zoning to HC will not change the status of those areas. Those areas are normally the same as far as uses permitted, so either on the MN, which is what it would transition to. What we're proposing is HC, nothing is going to change as far as the uses. They would still remain conforming, is what I'm trying to say. No public hearing notices were received regarding this particular area. Any questions? No. Okay. Okay. Let me let Jerry back in. In regular session, we would consider it and make a motion, and then, of course, then the next rest of it would be the- The group. The group. The group. Discussion. Right. Does that make sense? We're going to move on this one separately, since Jerry has to leave for this item, we'll bring it up, open public hearing, close the public hearing, discuss it, vote on it, and then move in, and then we'll do the rest of them as a group. Okay. Except for area nine, I think, with that one that was postponed, right? The one that's being postponed? Right. Yes. Correct. Okay. So, just a parcel, one parcel, that is, 1.88, generally located right there on Lakeview and Shadyshore, southeast corner, as you can see in this outline aerial. The property is owned by Bill Utterford. There actually is a piece of it being used as a parking lot for the dealership. That area that is outlined in yellow is in the city of Denton. The area south of that area is in the city of Corinth. The proposed zoning is to go from RCR 1 to HC, Highway Corridor. Looking at the proposed zoning map, it is this small parcel to the far bottom here, and you can see that all of the area close to I-35 is being proposed as HC, so we're talking about this small area here, again, 1.8 acres and 1.9 acres. Proximity is close to I-35, again, Bill Utterford, part of that dealership is this parcel, makes sense that be part of the zoning that allows for automotive sales and leasing, and by going to HC, it would actually make it conforming, because right now it is not allowed under the RCR 1, the zoning district, so going to HC would make the auto sales and leasing use a conforming use for this site, for this area, and we have not received any notices for this proposal. You had a question, I apologize, regarding the parcel to the-- Yes, and you answered it. We're not extending that to make it look even and not having to worry about dealing in the future, because that's not the city of Denton, it's the city of Corinth. Well, I'm sorry, maybe I misspoke, but this area right here is part of the city of Denton, this piece right here, but everything south of that is in the city of Corinth, and this area, we didn't include it, because I believe the ownership may be different than it's not part of the dealership, and so we were just trying to address the nonconformity. It's one long parcel, so part of the northern end is in Denton and the southern end is-- Correct. Yes, yes. Don't ask me how that happened. But again, we wanted to address the nonconformity, and the reason why we chose this area is because part of it is being used as a dealership. Great, thank you. Area two, going north of that particular area, just on the southeast corner of Parker's Page and I-35, it is being proposed to go from RCCD to HC, Highway Corridor, again. It's approximately 35.61 acres. There are seven parcels there, and there's a number of uses existing, including United Rental, Explorer, USA RV, Supercenter, the Eckerd-Honday dealership, as well as the Classic pre-owned dealership, and as similar to the other one, changing the zoning from RCCD to HC would make those automotive sales and leasing use conforming. So again, looking at that, and to be honest, along the highway, that's where the dealerships are proposed or are currently existing, but if we were to propose new, it would most likely be along I-35, and that's where we're trying to identify some areas and making it consistent in that it is HC, again, which is part of our proposal. As far as the other uses, it would not change those other uses. They would still remain conforming with the HC. Uses were received for this particular property as well, or this area. Questions? Okay. Area three, it is, again, across the highway on I-35, it is the area that's where James Wood, his dealership or their dealership, a number of, obviously, mixed models. Honda of Den and Toyo Den is in this area. It's a larger area. It's about 74 acres, again, generally located on I-35, the southeast corner of the I-35 and State School. Let's see here. RCCD to HC, similar discussion as we had earlier. Going to HC would make those dealerships conforming. Again, with the RCCD, it's not currently permitted, but by going to HC would, and then if there are any other uses, there was one use, I believe it was a medical office, and that would not change its status if it were to go to HC, so it would still remain conforming. We did receive two responses in favor of this particular area, and it came from James Wood, and I provided that to y'all earlier this afternoon. I'm just going to go unless there's a question, and we'll just move on, okay? Area four, it is an area that is occupied by Eckerd Hyundai Pre-Owned dealership, and when you see the proposed zoning map, you'll see why we're proposing a change here from RCR1 to MR. It's a smaller lot. It's about .88 acres, and the reason why we're choosing to go to MR is that the area surrounding it, almost on all four sides, is MR. So it is currently transitioned to MN. What we're trying to do is make it consistent with the environment, with the area, and the zoning surrounding it. Again, MR would still allow for the dealership, and it would just make sense that this is MR. No responses were received. Area five, we're, again, making our way up I-35. This area is where, just north of the Unicorn Lake multi-family, or mixed-use development, it's got the restaurants along I-35, Chewie's, Bone Daddy's, and BJ's. It also has a flooring company and a gymnastics center, as well as Jostin's main buildings. We are proposing for this to go to HC, from RCR1 to RCCD. Now, there is one correction here. We are not including this piece that is outlined in red, dash red, that is. That is actually part of a PD, and we did receive a notice or response from the property owner, and they've asked that they not be part of the zoning change to HC and just remain as PD. So, that is one correction that has been made and will be part of the presentation to City Council and ultimately to, as part of the ordinance, that is. So Ron, that's just changing area five as it was first presented? Correct. It's just going to change the boundaries of area five? Right. We'll just cut this parcel off, or we'll just not make it a part of the ordinance, or consideration moving forward. Commissioner Beck? Thank you, Vice Chair. What's currently on this property? It's vacant. There's nothing there. It's a pad site in front of Buc-E's along I-35. Okay, thanks. Changing the use of the zoning to HC will change some of the zoning, the use in particular the materials and supply store. It is not permitted in its current zoning district as per the transition chart, but changing it to HC will make it conforming. All the other uses will not change. They would all be permitted under the HC, and again, no public hearing notices responses were received. Area six, it's another area that we looked at. It is in the Unicorn Lake development. It's about 7.3 acres. It is the shoreline apartments. Its transition zoning is to our, I'm sorry, it is currently RCR2, which will transition to an MN. However, if you look at the proposed or the zoning area, and it's identified here in this weird looking shape, and you can see surrounding it on all four sides is MR. So staff is proposing that that area, or that area six be re-zoned, that is, to MR as well. The MR would make it consistent with the surrounding area. It will not change the use as far as being conforming or non-conforming, it would still remain conforming, and again, just to be consistent with the area's zoning district. And no public hearing notices were received. Area seven, another area that is along I-35 that we looked at. It's about 30 acres. You can see here, generally, between the loop and Brinker Road, it is currently the ridge at North Texas apartments, as well as Pace Crossing. There's two parcels there. I believe this is Pace, and this is the ridge at North Texas. What we are proposing is to go to MR. Again, this is the area right here that we are talking about. Pretty much surrounded by MR on all, basically on all three sides, and then I-35 along the front of it. So staff is recommending MR and has not received any responses from the public hearing notice. Area nine is the area that we are going to postpone. I just wanted to just have it here in case so that we are reminded that it will be part of the June 26th public hearing. Area 10, we're moving north. We're now on Dallas Drive, between Dallas Drive and I-35. Area 10 is currently zone ECC and would transition to LI. We are proposing, staff is proposing as part of the city initiated zoning change to suburban corridor. Dallas Drive is a corridor, and the parcels that are here and that are included as far as uses are listed here won't list them all. All of those parcels in this pink area, again, is what we're talking about. All front or have access along Dallas Drive and it is all commercial related instead of the employment or LI zoning district that is currently part of the transition chart. So again, the area that we're talking about is this pink area here. All access is I-35, I'm sorry, Dallas Drive and that is why we chose suburban corridor for this area. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. The area that extends to I-35 touches Dallas Drive and comes in there. Okay. That's one parcel obviously. Yes. Okay. Down the road, if this isn't, well, what's in there currently? I believe it's part of the apartments. Apartments? Yes. Okay. So I think down the road could be sold and divided, but probably not because of what's there. Yeah. It may be a possibility. It could be that it could be subdivided, but probably not because it is existing in some multifamily development now. And I agree. Probably not. But say we ran into a situation like that where something could be divided later. They could come and ask for a rezoning of HR. Certainly can. Yes. Yes. That's where I was going with that. Thank you. So that's area 10. We did receive one notice in response, again, in favor for this zoning change to SC. In the general same area, we have area 11. Now, area 11, we chose to go to Highway Corridor primarily because it is fronting I-35 and the access is off I-35. It's about 3.5 acres, Wells Fargo, and the Hooters Restaurant is in this area. And you can see, again, this is the area we're talking about, area 11, again, primarily because the frontage is on I-35, makes sense that this goes to HC and no responses were received. Area 12, generally in the same area. Again, and let me go back a little bit so I can explain. The reason why we chose to keep these as different areas, and I know they're in the same general vicinity, but we have multiple zoning here proposed and we want to make it as clear as possible. So I apologize if I'm repeating a lot of what I've already said about another area. But if you look at this area, this is how we see it and this is how the zoning is proposed. But generally anything that's along I-35 is going to get an HC. Anything that's on a corridor such as Teasley or Dow's Drive, it will most likely get or will get an SC zoning, again, based on the existing uses, based on all the other factors we discussed earlier. So area 12 is the Den Square Shopping Center, has a number of different uses. It is going to go from ECC to HC, again, primary reason is because it's along I-35 and we did not receive any responses. Ron? Yes, ma'am. I'm going to break you right here and we're going to take a quick recess and get dinner and then we'll come back and do the rest. Is that okay? That's fine. Okay. I'll call a recess at 6.03. I will call the planning and zoning work session back to order at 6.10. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. I'd like to propose something. I know that there's a lot of information that I've been presenting and a lot of it's repetitive and a lot of it is what you have already in your backup. If it's to the Commission's interest, I can just present from this slide here. I don't know if it's helpful going through area by area. What are your thoughts so that, you know, when we go to the public hearing, if it's something I need just to be focused more on one slide or one area or a larger area versus each area by themselves? Just thoughts. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I think you're moving through it pretty quickly. So I think, I mean, even if it takes you 30 minutes to go through it, and I know I'd like to get out earlier too, but at the same time, if there are people here who want to hear it, it'd be better to go through, I think, area by area, even if it's just two quick ones, say this is a, well, just like the last one, this is the same thing, no response spell bar, move through and through, so we can at least see, and then if somebody from public comes up and says, I have a question about my parcel, it's in area 20, and then we can go pull up area 20 and remind ourselves, but I think that it really isn't that. For the, I mean, yeah, and I appreciate that, and I think we were just discussing that a bit earlier. For the work session, would you care for the same thing, go through it area by area, or are we just talking about the area for the public hearing? I think for the public hearing, too, personally. Both public hearing and work session. Yeah, I mean, to me, at this point, I think we've got only about 10 left, right, so, which we're moving pretty quickly through. Yeah. Okay. Is that okay with everyone? Not worried about it. Okay. I'm going to go back to 13 and just continue with the presentation. Okay area 13, this is again further north heading towards Fort Worth Drive. We have a property or area that is currently zone NRMU proposed to go to SC, suburban corridor. It's approximately 17.7 acres, has 12 parcels, a little bit more mix of uses. We've got some business offices, professional offices, that is, got a car wash, a automotive fuel sales area in the form of Exxon, a motel or hotel, as well as other uses within the area. We are proposing that this area go to SC. Now, you may ask, well, why are we going to SC if it's along I-35? Primarily is because the existing uses there now are more suited for an SC, and it is also adjacent to single family to the south. So that being said, we really want to be sensitive of that, and so we're going with SC. Now, SC versus HC, the difference there is intensity, but the uses are generally the same. So staff is proposing SC for area 13. We did receive one response, and that again is in favor. Area 14 is north of that, it is on the northwest corner of Teasley and I-35. It is the shopping center that contains Point Bank, KFC, Pizza Hut, Brahms, and 7-Eleven on the corner. That is going from DCG to HC. This is what's being proposed in area 14, as you see here. Again, primarily the reason it's going to HC is because it's along I-35, and it's surrounded by more intense zoning or intense uses. Staff has not received any responses. Area 15, just north of that, that is proposed to go from DCG to SC, suburban corridor. That is, again, north of where we just saw area 14, on Teasley, and the reason why it's going to SC is primarily because it fronts Teasley, which is a corridor, and the existing uses there are mostly non-residential. However, there is a single-family use currently, is generally in the area right here. It's one small home with a large lot, however, the area is along Teasley, and again, that's why we're pursuing SC. The thing to note is that going to SC, the single-family home would be non-conforming because it is not permitted in that zoning district. However, single-family per our zoning district, I'm sorry, our development code would not warrant it to be non-conforming. It would still be conforming per a section of our development code. Just a note for your consideration. Which is stating that anything that is currently residential, right, would not be considered non-conforming. Correct. Yes. Area 16, we are moving south of I-35, and this is an area on Londonderry, and I don't know if you all are familiar with this area. This street has a lot of different uses, primarily commercial in the form of an academy, the Metzler's Barbecue's there, a number of parking, I'm sorry, multi-family, as well as professional and medical offices. The area is currently zoned per the transition chart, R7. Staff is proposing that it be zoned SC, as you can see in this area here. SC is to the north, and to the south is the South Lakes Park, and yeah, McMath Middle School as well, and that's why it's shown as blue. But this is more suitable for an SC, primarily because it already has existing commercial uses and it's close to Teasley, and again, it's bordered between SC to the north and a park to the south. No responses was received. A little bit to the west is area 17. This area is proposed to go from two zoning districts, NR, MU12, and Community Makes Use General to an MN. It is approximately 6.8 acres, contains a number of uses, apartments, a medical office, and a medical, I think it's another apartment, so mostly apartments in this general area. That is suitable for MN, which would permit multifamily and would make these consistent in that it would be conforming. Currently for the medical office, MN would allow for medical office to be permitted by right and therefore conforming, as opposed to R7, and again, no responses were received for this area. Area 18, just to the north of that area, as you can see from the aerial here, mainly multifamily, going from CMG to MN Zoning District. Just on the corner, the northeast corner of Londonderry and San Bas Boulevard, two apartments currently are in here in this area, Studio Place Apartments and Salem Ridge Apartments. Going from the two zoning districts, I'm sorry, CMG to MN would make this consistent with the surrounding zoning of MN that you see here. Changing the MN would also continue, it wouldn't change the status of the apartments. They would still be permitted. And again, it's along Londonderry and San Bas, and we have not received any responses. Area 19, we are jumping across the highway going to the north on the corners or the corner of Allegra Vista and I-35. If you know this area, it has the Hampton Inn Suites, the First United Bank, Chuck E. Cheese and Johnny Carrinos. It's about seven acres, and again, for the reason that the uses are more non-residential, the area is surrounded by multifamily, and also it fronts I-35. The zoning for this area is suitable for HC, and that's the purpose of what staff is proposing. No responses was received. Area 20, just to the west, similar to what we discussed in area 19, it is non-residential, surrounded by multifamily, and along I-35, suitable for HC in this area. Four more to go. Area 21, we get to Fort Worth Drive. This is an area that is currently DCG, and staff is proposing as part of the city initiated zoning to go to SC. Fort Worth Drive is a corridor, and therefore, all of the area that you see and the uses that you see here front and have frontage and access to Fort Worth Drive. Therefore, area 21, again, in this long linear area, is being proposed to SC, and we've received two responses in favor of this proposal, and those were included in your backup, or in the planning zone commission backup. Area 22, slightly different, just primarily because it has frontage in I-35, and it has similar characteristics as the ones along Fort Worth Drive, but this, again, because it's along I-35, we felt that it would be more suitable for an HC. It's a smaller piece of property, about four acres, and contains two existing uses, a bank and a graphic business, and it's important to note that the properties that are on the south southern part of the area is being consolidated and being proposed as a McDonald's restaurant. Again, the proposed zoning is to go to HC, and it's in this area here, area 22. 23 is similar to 21, in that it fronts along Fort Worth Drive, those uses there would be consistent in the uses that are permitted in the suburban corridor, it would not create any non-conforming uses, it would still keep them conforming. It's about 24 acres, there's a lot of uses, as you can see, the names of those businesses are listed on this slide. Staff is proposing to go to SC, again, primarily it's along Fort Worth Drive, a major corridor, the uses are consistent with the uses that are permitted, and we've received one response for this area, and again, it's in favor. Last, sorry, not least, the area 24, it is proposed to go to HC, from DCG to HC, again, similar reasons, it's along I-35, the uses are permitted, would not create any non-conforming, it's approximately 8.2 acres, contains a Valero gas station, a water burger, a religious assembly, and an apartment complex, or I'm sorry, not apartment, but rather a hotel or motel. Staff is proposing HC, and staff has not received any responses. That concludes my presentation, of course, staff recommends approval. I will now stand for any questions that you all may have. Commissioner Sanchez? You mentioned that the visual, where you have the different colors, and this type are really good, I think, for the public, even when you started saying how you're placing it, it makes a lot more sense, and when you're looking at these, even when we were looking at them, it's all individual, but when you see how it flows, it really makes sense. Yes, and I appreciate that. When I was preparing the staff report, I had the same thought, and Cody here, who wouldn't be able to do this without obviously staff, and Cody in particular, who is our GIS analyst, put these exhibits together, and I do appreciate that comment. Okay. Great. Thank you, Ron. I told you this was easy. The other ones may not be, but hopefully this goes smoothly, and we'll be presenting at the public hearing. Very good. Thank you, Ron. Thank you. Okay. That concludes the agenda discussion. So I will close our work session at 6.25. We will reconvene for our regular meeting in council chambers. Good evening, and welcome to the special call meeting for the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday, May 29th. With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.35. Our first order of business is to stand if you are able and give pledge to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, and then just a couple of agenda clarifications. Item J on our agenda is postponed to our June 26th meeting. Item J. So that will not be heard tonight. Item I on our agenda, we are going to take out of order, and we will be hearing it after our item A. So with those clarifications, we will move to public hearing A. I will call up Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner with development services, and I am delighted to be here tonight to at long last present to you the Denton Square District. This process started with the tragic fire on the square, which highlighted the need we had desperately for standards to protect the buildings on the square and that historic character. So the direction of city council at the time was to as quickly as possible put in place a district and standards to protect that valuable historic character. As it worked out, it took a little longer than we initially planned, about 18 months, but the result has been a very transparent process, a lot of feedback, and what I believe is really an excellent ordinance designed to protect our square. We began this process by researching standards from seven cities that we believe have done this well. We took those standards and from there drafted standards that we believe were tailored to the unique character of Denton. From there, we felt that it was incredibly important that we go to our stakeholders. So we had numerous meetings with business and property owners from around the square district, as well as citizens of Denton who live both within and without, and the feedback was overwhelmingly supportive of what we were doing. We also came before historic landmark commission, planning and zoning commission, and city council multiple times received their feedback, and we took all of that and made some revisions, but throughout we've had primarily the same standards from beginning to end, making improvements and changes based on that feedback. The final changes that city council recommended when we were before them last regarded the review process. They preferred that they be the final review body. They requested standards for murals on facades facing the square, and improved standards for temporary construction areas, and that has brought us to the public hearing tonight. The process I mentioned that city council requested, as you can see here, for general repairs and minor alterations to the exterior buildings in the square, those would go to staff for administrative approval or denial. Denials could then be appealed to city council. Major projects, as well as murals, would go directly to city council for their review, and they would be making the final decision. We did notify extensively both property owners within the boundary of the square district, as well as those within 200 feet, with letters, and sent postcards to residents within 500 feet. We received three letters of support from property owners within the district, four letters of opposition, three from within the district, and one from within the 200 foot boundary. Staff does recommend approval of the Denton Square District with the associated standards and guidelines. With that, I will stand for any questions. Right now, I have one card who wishes to speak on this item, and that is Mr. John Crew. Hello, thank you, my name is John Crew, I live in Denton at 141 Springtree Street, and I really, actually, I realize all the activities that's been going on with this, it's been very extensive, but I wanted to make a comment about the height restrictions. I do feel like a two-story height restriction is very restrictive, to use that word again, because there's already buildings that are three stories tall, like the Texas building, historically built in the 1800s, so I know the original concept of the square was inclusive of at least three story buildings, and later the Wells Fargo building was built, of course, with the requirement that it wasn't taller than the courthouse, and I'm not saying you need to go that tall, but I really would feel like three stories is more, basically, more ideal. It would allow for more residential in that area, where you have like the first floor commercial, maybe the second and third could be residential dwellings, if you're trying to promote the bringing in citizens to live in the downtown area, and all I was really here to talk about was the height restrictions, believing that two stories is too limiting to most development nowadays that might want, if something was to happen catastrophic and a building had to be rebuilt, that it couldn't be rebuilt with maybe residential spaces on the second and third floor, that's really all I have. Thank you for sharing your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Sir, you can come to the mic, please. If you'll just state your name and address. Curtis Loveless, I own part of the building at 218 North Elm, which is partially included in the, or maybe totally included in the district, and I think there's one thing I note, they said there was one letter returned against, I know both the other owner and I returned against this, and we are in the district, so I'm not sure if somehow they weren't recorded, but I think that's fine if you want to do that on the square. Don't go off and include our building. We don't want to be in it. I don't see anything that I know of that would improve us. We improved that building 35 years ago and been sitting there since that time and continue to sit there, but we see no benefit to us and we see no reason why we should be included, and no one has ever come and talked to me about this project ever. So if we're included, I fail to understand why we weren't reached out to, and so that's basically what I have to say, if anybody's got a question, I'll answer it. Yes, sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Mr. Loveless, is that your name? Yes. Okay. 218 North Elm? Right. What is that building? It's a law office with maroon awnings across from the old city hall. Okay. Is there something in the new standards here that's going to create problems for you particularly? I think it could. If you're limiting the access, we were told we could build up when we bought that. We have not done that, although we have talked about it over the years, but I don't want any object to any restrictions being placed on us arbitrarily because of something burning on the square. I have no problem if y'all want to control that and those people want to agree to it, but I don't want to be part of it. So you possibly could see yourself building something higher than two stories? We talked about it. We've had people approach us at times with some ideas, nothing that's ever gone up, but maybe three or so. Okay. And I apologize for the city that you didn't get any notice. I hope that's duly noted to the people that sent those out and that doesn't happen again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner Parnetto? Yeah. I just wanted to clarify. So right now you have a one-story building, correct? Right. Okay. And based on what I'm reading, and if I could get staff to clarify, Sean, the building in question, he does have the ability to go up to three stories, is that correct? Okay. Scott McDonald, Director of Development Services. Just a couple of corrections that there were four letters of opposition, and I believe Mr. Loveless's letter of opposition was one of those four. Number two, I believe that that building is between McKinney. Is that on McKinney? Between McKinney and McConn. It places M. McKinney's on the north side, and is it McConn on the south, I'm not sure. And it's a parking lot to the south, correct? We have parking on both sides of the building and the building in the middle. And I'm happy to visit offline, but I don't believe that these standards do apply to that building in any way. So just -- Thank you. If that's the commitment, then I'm going to sit down. Yes. And I just wanted to clarify, because based on the map that we're seeing, and I don't know if we can get that up anywhere, the U would be -- this is right here, right? Yeah. The new building height would be a minimum of two stories in height if you were to build in a maximum of three. So you could go up to three, as you mentioned. That's us right there. Based on my -- Okay. Well, that's fine. He's -- Clarified. His building is right here, and the -- it only applies to those buildings that are on the street. So it would not apply to this building. Okay. And, again, he's addressed off of Elm, and his frontage is on Elm. So -- Can we just put that on the -- on the sky? Because based on what I'm seeing, his building is actually the big red block. Is that correct? Yeah. I believe it's the big red block. There's two red blocks, and I think yours is the large one. Correct? Is that your building? That's a corner. Yes. Yeah. That, I believe, also -- the red block includes part of Mr. Byneton in the small red. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Can you open up the screen? Yeah. And that was most likely my error in not looking more closely at where the line felt that you're actually addressed off of Elm, and so out of a desire to notify fully -- Yeah. Do you want that back up on the screen? Yeah. I mean, there's further discussion that people at home might want to see, but -- Do you want to let them know? We just say -- Okay. Can we go ahead and get that view back from the eyes guy? Thanks, Mike. Okay. This property question, which is -- I believe the big square block is ours, and I'm not sure about the smaller red block. If it, for some reason, doesn't go through on our alleyway, it's a drive-through that we made, or that may be part of Mr. Byneton's. I can't tell. Yes, sir. Okay. That is his separate objection letter. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. And I know, sir, that staff would be happy to discuss this further with you as well. Staff would be happy to discuss your particular property with you as well. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Back, did you have more to add? No. Let's see if staff can work it out. I guess my concern was that one diagram showed that on Pecan Street there, cuts right across the mill there. So I guess what I'm hearing is if the address is on McKinney, that doesn't affect that building, correct? Yeah. That building is then not fronting on that, what we call the Mew Street. Yes. Pecan. Which is Pecan. Okay. Great. Thanks. Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or a further discussion. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Sanchez? I second. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to approve. Any discussion? Okay. I will just take a quick moment to commend staff on this. I think this has been very thoughtful, a very patient process. This was brought up a long time ago. They've reached out extensively. They've gotten great feedback. They've made changes and I think this is something that our city does need. So thank you to all involved there. With that, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. That will move us to our item I that we are taking out of order. And with that, I will call up Ron Manjita for presentation and open the public hearing. Item I. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. We are going to talk about item I, but before we get into it, I just want to just quickly go over the proposal. We are bringing forward to the Applying Zoning Commission and ultimately the City Council city initiative re-zonings and how we got here is that we consider, the City Council considered the development code, which includes a transition chart and that transition chart basically carried forward a transition forward existing zoning districts to what the new line of zoning districts are in the development code. With that, there are some areas that were transitioned to zoning districts that created some non-conformity or just does not fit the area, not suitable for the area and therefore we are bringing forward some city initiative re-zonings to help address those transition zonings. And we chose those areas primarily with the following criteria that you see here. We started with the I-35 corridor and we will be making our way up through I-35, eventually US-380, the loop and other areas within the core of the city. Again, trying to address existing uses, their non-conformity, if there are any, while protecting our residential neighborhoods. We talked about, again, special specific areas or corridors. We heard from the public and some of those public comments we are using in our analysis or evaluation, looking at the land use element and the future land use map and of course if it's a regional community or neighborhood draw. The areas that we're looking at are shown here, starting with area one from the southern city limits all the way up to 24, which is Fort Worth Drive, but as opened by Madam Chair, we're going to start with area eight and from there we'll continue with the other areas. So with that, area eight. Area eight is proposed to go from RCR-2, regional center two, residential two that is, and regional center commercial neighborhood RCCN to HC, highway corridor. The area is approximately 8.49 acres, containing eight parcels. That contains a number of uses, a automotive fuel sales in the form of Chevron, restaurant uses. We've got Old West Cafe, Fuzzy Tacos, Chili's Grill and Bar, as well as a Goodwill retail store in the shopping center. There's also, I believe, a trampoline facility as well as other non-residential uses, restaurants and the like that are within this shopping center, the Southridge Village Shopping Center. Staff is proposing an HC, highway corridor, and primarily the consideration here, the findings is that it is along I-35. The existing uses already that are allowed there are consistent with the highway corridor zoning district. And again, just to reiterate that this shopping center, all of the area here, as far as access and frontage, building orientation, all are towards I-35. And again, that's the primary reason why staff is recommending an HC, highway corridor for this area. Staff has not received any responses either in opposition or in favor as of this afternoon. Staff is recommending approval and that concludes my presentation and I will be happy to answer any questions. >> I don't see any at this time, Ron. Thank you. Right now I do have two cards on this item. So Mr. Jerry Drake would like to speak in opposition. >> Good evening. Thank you for your patience and understanding while I come up here. I'm coming as a private citizen and a homeowner and a taxpayer and that's why Mr. Collister agreed to fill my seat there up at the dais with you. And I just want to make sure that it's thoroughly understood, I'm not going to try to advise you in any way on the legalities of this or comment on that whatsoever. But as I understand it, the point of the city initiated rezoning is to address a few items here. One of them is to address annexed but unzoned land. That doesn't apply here. We've been zoned for some time. One is to update to reflect the vision of the city. Well, I think this has been here for a very long time and I don't see that the vision of the city has changed. Another is to address split zoning across parcel lines. That's not the case here. Any split zoning is following parcel lines. And then finally, to legitimize legally nonconforming uses. As the staff report points out, all of the existing uses are illegally conforming and nothing in this rezoning would legitimize anything. It wouldn't accomplish anything with regard to any existing uses. So let me take you back to April 10th, 2019. And I was up here with all of you that day when we were talking about the citywide rezoning. And there were people lined up outside the building to come and talk about this and to be heard. And what happened was that they were directed to talk to staff and be reassured that their existing zoning and the zonings of their neighbors really wasn't going to change materially. It was just going to get a new name. And so if I could have the overhead cam here. This is what was presented as a draft zoning map to the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is what you approved on April 10th. And as you can see there, there's primarily the R7 that's shown in brown was on the proposed zoning map and then the purple was some kind of an RCC use. I don't remember exactly what it was. But that's what people were assured was going to be coming out of the citywide rezoning. Again, when it went to council on April 23rd, it was the same proposed zoning that went forward. And I don't believe that there was anybody from our neighborhood that came up to object to that. They didn't see that as any kind of a problem. It's certainly no worse than anything that we have. What you can see is our neighborhood is right here in the yellow. That little white dot there is about where I live. And if you go to the future land use map that was referred to in the backup, it's showing that it's in a regional mixed use district. But what's being proposed as a highway corridor is highly industrial zoning classification. It's one of the most intense zoning classifications in the city. And I don't really know that it can be fairly characterized as mixed use. Is that really what is contemplated by a mixed use zoning to have this very intense industrial use? If it is, then is it legitimate for it to extend into these residential areas? May I just quickly go through the differences that we see that we find problematic? Can you do it quickly? I sure can. Okay. Canals, RV parks, industrial laundries, building supplies, auto fuel that could include truck stops perhaps, auto repair major and minor, auto sales and leasing, equipment sales and rentals, travel plazas with an SUP, sexually oriented businesses, outdoor storage, hazardous materials, warehouses, feedlots, slaughterhouses, meat packaging, food processing, low, medium and high manufacturing, commercial incinerators and solid waste transfer stations. Again, none of this is necessary. Not speaking to you as a lawyer, but if this is up zoned in this fashion, you're not going to get it back unless you pay to down zone it back. And that's the problem. Why not wait for somebody to come up with a use that needs some kind of change zoning and then consider an overlay of some kind? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bates. We do have a question. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question for staff. Yes, sir. Just to recap on the presentation you gave, there wasn't a change for nonconforming use type deal. It seemed like in most of these other presentations we saw that it was the requested zoning was because of it was a nonconforming use currently in that area that wasn't conforming to the zoning that was being changed. That's one of the criteria, yes. Okay. I don't think I saw that highlighted actually in this area eight. No, there is none that-- Is the request just because it's fronting on I-35? Fronting and again, yes, that's one of the major characteristics. Of course, the future land use map and the land use element talks to this being as a mixed use center. Of course, I-35 is a big major factor in making this recommendation. Okay. And then after, so what Mr. Drake had presented was that it was, it went through and then been voted on in city council as a combination of RCCN and R7 or what was it? Could you clarify, maybe? Sure. Sure. Is it split zoned? Is that right? The property is actually currently split zoned per the transition chart. When I say property, the area, not necessarily the parcel, so it doesn't really qualify as a split zoning. It does have two zoning districts in that it has RCR1 and RCR, I'm sorry, RCR2, sorry, and RCCN. Okay. So there's two zoning districts within this area. Okay. And without having to pull up the transition map, what is the zoning just beneath Highway Corridor? It's zone MN. MN. This is the, sorry, I want this one. The property between the shopping center and the existing residential subdivision is zoned as part of the transition chart as MN, mixed use neighborhood. Mr. Drake, I did have a question for you in your discussion point. So with this transition, it's with the way the table transitioned, did you have a zone classification that you wanted to see here in your discussion, or? Well, you know, my understanding, and I've got a copy of the zoning district transition chart here, RCR1, RCR2 shows to transition to MN and not Highway Corridor. CMG and CME show to translate to Highway Corridor. And I know that back when we had our original discussions about this, I didn't consider that to be horribly offensive to have MN, more or less, in the front facing the highway and R7 as a buffer between that use and our residential use of R3. Thank you. Okay. Is there a card on this item, Billy Casper? Hi there. You don't have marked on the card in support or opposition. I don't want it changed. Okay. Thank you. Definitely. I'm Billy Anne Casper. I'm president of the homeowners of South Ridge Estates. I live in 2816 South Ridge Rd. Thank you. I was here in fuss when you all did the transition area that Jerry talked about, but we have objections to you all changing it to a highway corridor, no telling what we could get up there. The South side has already gotten so much commercial now, and you're just destroying our property values. We've already got a Buc-Ease at our back of our neighborhood, and now we could get just anything up there in front of us. I didn't receive a notice. I guess I'm more than 500 feet, but I can assure you that if this goes further, by the time we get to council, I'll knock on every door in my neighborhood and try to beseech you people to leave it as it is. We have enough commercial. On another subject, please, all this changes to apartments, apartments, apartments. We don't have the roads for all these things, and everybody keeps saying let's build another apartment. If you all are out on the roads, you know we're dying from it, but my main concern right now is please leave it just as it is. It's commercial. It doesn't need to be highway corridor because we could get all sorts of things, and I thank you. I have a question for you, Commissioner Pernetto. I just wanted to clarify with staff, because looking at the transition that we have right now, based on everything that's in there, I'm not really seeing the potential for there being any advantage to go into highway corridor. Knowing what's in there right now, we have restaurants, we allow restaurants, we allow alcohol sales, we allow a gas station and things like that. Somebody bought up the sexually oriented businesses, I don't see that being admissible to either one. A special exemption, I mean, you know, we just like to protect ourselves. But it actually can't, that one actually can't go in an HC, but I'm just kind of curious as to, and I guess Commissioner Smith kind of bought it up, we are simply doing this because it's along the highway, because right now everything that's in there and everything that's kind of set up to go in there would seem to make sense with maintaining this as an MN. That is the Commissioner's opinion. We certainly are recommending HC again, primarily that it's along I-35. You're actually correct, the uses that are there now are permitted in the MR and MN, so remember, there's two zoning districts that are in play, let me bring this up. The property has MR along the front and then has MN in these areas here. So we were trying to consolidate these zoning districts into one, and again, one of the reasons along I-35, we went to HC, but this is what we have today. They're both MR and MN as it is currently per the transition chart. So just out of curiosity, because I don't see it up there, I don't remember it off the top of my head, right across the street or across the highway from that, basically the businesses and everything that's in it looks fairly close in terms of their character, what are we putting in that center that's got the Burger King and the restaurants across the way? That's currently MR, if I'm not mistaken, MR, yes, makes use of regional. Okay. That's all I've got. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Drake brought up the sexually oriented businesses, the right, you know, the print date and May 10th code that we have shows that the sexual oriented business is not allowed in HC nor is it allowed in MN or MN. It's really only allowed with a special use permit in HI, just to confirm, correct? So there is no worry that even if we did approve it as HC, there is no sexually oriented business allowed in HC. And I believe it's with a specific use permit in the HI. In the HI only, not in HC, which is not what we're voting on. We're voting on HC, correct? Correct. It's HC Highway Corridor. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I don't have any other cards here, but anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion. Richard. If I just may add a little bit of, a little bit more background into this. I think one thing, it's important to note that one of the main differences between MN and MR to HC in MN and MR, multifamily is permitted by right. It's a P plus. Multifamily within the HC requires an SGP. And so I just wanted to also bring that up because I think it's worth noting and that was also part of that, part of that decision making and looking at our commercial areas and the possibility of it converting to multifamily in the future. Thank you, Richard. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Looking at HC, I understand the concern of the nearby neighborhoods in a more intense area, but looking at what's going in HC, slaughterhouses aren't allowed. Both high and medium impact manufacturing isn't allowed, low impact is and when we look at the definitions of that, that's something that could exist in an area like this. So I'm not sure, you know, if we were talking about light industrial or heavy industrial, yeah, obviously we wouldn't set that up over there. But Highway Corridor may intimate that there's going to be a lot of heavy duty stuff that's going to be negatively impacting neighborhoods, but it's not real obvious when we look at what actually is allowed and not allowed. So put a great big car lot up there. I mean, there's things in here that, I mean, we've already got enough commercial. Theoretically, you could, but basically, what's their restrict? Commissioner, did you have a question for him? Yes. We don't want a discussion as much as a question if you want to take a discussion. You're correct, Vice Chair. And I do understand the concern. I think, you know, my response to something that might be upsetting there is probably less likely to go in based on what's there now. Some things, I was trying to find SUPs, so if there was something really disruptive, we'd have a right to look at it through an SUP, but there weren't a lot of those. But I'm kind of torn between the two. I think HC would work. I don't see it being the threat to the neighborhood that's being expressed here, but just the concept itself can probably be a little intimidating, I understand that, too. I suspect I will go with this, but I'm willing to hear the rest of the commission's opinion on this. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Beck. I just wanted to say a couple words. There is merit for the discussion on this corner, and here's why, I think. It isn't just simply a parcel. I think that fronts I-35. What we have to look at is the rest of it and what's around it. The loop's even called something different on that side. It's called Lillian Miller because it changes from what that other side of 35 is going up the loop. It's very densely populated in that area, so I think there's definitely room for discussion on, perhaps, Highway Corridor on this corner doesn't quite fit the surrounding. What is the corner across Lillian Miller from this parcel? There's a jack in the box there. There's a failing strip center. Looks like it's MN. I'm not sure why we would propose something different on this corner that we're discussing. That's a thought that I'm having right now. Commissioner Pernetto. Yeah, and I just kind of wanted to echo that sentiment. Ron, as long as you're up there, the area that's immediately behind that, that's all single-family houses, correct? Immediately behind the shopping center. There is this parcel here, that's MN, and then there's this parcel here is also MN. I believe this is currently occupied by an assisted living facility, and then the south, directly south of the shopping center, is currently undeveloped. With the assisted living facility, then that would fall closer into, once again, what we're looking at for an MR or an MN. That's all I have. I'm sorry. I think your question answered my question. Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, Ron. So the whole purpose of you trying to, when you look at the HC, is you're trying, along the 35, you're trying to make that more industrialized, I guess, commercial. More commercial, by definition, by, I guess, definition, is probably a better word. HC is auto-oriented. It's higher intense commercial in the sense that it allows for larger shopping centers, that sort of thing. If we look at the use table, there is, MR does have similar uses, and that's why you see we're proposing some of that along the highway, but this particular area is mainly commercial, and again, going back to what we initially discussed, it is along I-35. The other areas, we started off with HC. We made our way up, and when you see the next couple ones, they're also HC and they're adjacent to the highway, but no, we weren't trying to increase industrial, it was more meet or have the existing uses be suitable with the zoning that's there. Right, right, and you do see a lot of, I mean, that's where all your vehicle dealerships are. Right. Your big, like I said, Buc-E's, all the big stations, all the main stuff there on 35, so I guess my concern is, it's not really a concern, I guess. I'm trying to figure, you know, they brought up a lot of legitimate issues, but at the same time, I look at, that's, HC is one of the areas that along 35, that to me is, I guess you would say, those businesses, if we don't cater, if we don't look at 35 as important as a very commercial, where else would we put some of that? The commercial. The commercial. Yeah. Where else would we put it? It will be along corridors with an SC or in the area just to the north, again, where the den crossing is, I believe that's currently MR, so there are special areas, regional draw that would qualify for an MR, but along the highway, again, that kind of breaks the difference between the MRs and the HC is that this is along I-35. Right, right. And I think that's what makes that, I-35 is, to me, the, anything along 35 is very important, it should be highway corridor, and there's a whole slew of things you can put in there, and I just want to make that comment. Leaning towards going to HC, because I think it's very important to maintain that area along that corridor long-term for the future, I mean, we don't know what's going to happen there, but at the same time, it's important to realize that that is a corridor for 35 in its very important commercial locations. Right, and just to reiterate, and Richard did bring up a good point, you know, the HC would not, would permit multifamily with a specific use permit, where in the MRN it would be permitted by right. Not that this is going to turn into multifamily, but that was one of the considerations. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Ma'am, I didn't catch your name, I apologize, but can I ask you a quick question? His name is Casper, like the ghost, easy to remember. Casper, Ms. Casper, nice to meet you. The MN or MR, where there's the ability for there to be multifamily development there as representative or president of HOA, I think is what you said, is the HOA, I mean, have they thought about that? If there was not the HC, now that opens up the door to, by right, allowing multifamily apartment development there, if that was to happen, which may or may not, but. The way we feel about it right now is that we'd rather see it stay just like it is. If something else comes up, we figure that most of those people are going to stay in there and that owner is probably not going to, you know, change his tenants or if he does. We're figuring that we're not going to get, you know, a multifamily in there. Okay. And if it comes to that, we fought that before. Well, and that's the thing, is I think that if you argue for something other than HC, then there's not going to be really a chance to really fight multifamily, if that makes sense, because once it's permitted by right, that means they can tear down the building and build a multifamily as quickly as they want to without having to make a notification, whereas an HC, they would have to come before us with a specific use permit. And so I don't know if that's been thought about at all as an option for the HOA. So. I got to ask Jerry on that one. Okay. All right. Mr. Drake, would you like to address the question? I'm the president, he's the brain. Sometimes we say the same thing about the CND commission. I'm the interim vice president, while they're looking for another one, but, no, I think that I agree with Ms. Casper that what we have, and that's precisely what was presented to everybody back in April. There's no, you know, reason for it to up zone this at all to allow more intense uses. You know, we're already the one who got the brunt of Bucky's when it came through. It's that green one, the area that backs right up to us. And so it's like, gee, we're getting hit from all sides when this stuff comes up. And I think with multifamily, I'd sure prefer it to some of the more intense commercial uses, myself, as far as the traffic impact of multifamily is concerned. It looks to me like everybody's going to be going out onto I-35 or up over the loop. It's certainly not going to be running past our neighborhood. Great. Thank you, Mr. Drake. Ron Koski, quick question. The current zoning, does it allow multifamily by right or by with a specific use permit? It's permitted by right with use specific standards, but it's P plus. Gotcha. And then, okay, got it. And then what it was done, what it was put through in the draft with the R7 mix and whatnot in there, permitted by, if we did nothing, if we didn't even vote for it, would multifamily be permitted by right there? Per the transition chart, the area in the area eight would allow for multifamily by right. Gotcha. Okay. So what they voted, what they were expecting before this was proposed was, yes, we understand that multifamily by right could be allowed over there. So the neighborhood, from what Mr. Drake was approaching was that what was originally shown to us was what we wanted to stay, so that means that they were okay with multifamily at that time. It's just basically what I'm trying to break down. Well, no, I mean, let me just correct that real quick. With the Planning Zoning Commission on April 10th, there was a transition chart that had all of these areas that are currently MN as R7, however, between P and Z and City Council, there was an amendment to the transition chart, which now has these areas as MN. So before P and Z, it was R7, and that looks like it requires a specific use permit. But currently, as we have the transition chart, it is MN and MR, and it would be all out. The City-initiated change to HC here, was that discussion brought up by a current tenant over there? Because I know it's a City-initiated, so was it just something that was identified? Was any tenants discussed with this about it being an HC? That's a good question. No, this was our staff's review and evaluation as we went up I-35 and identified areas that would be suitable for an HC. So there was no current property owner that was looking at that saying, "We needed to be more of an HC," or something like that, and then the City said, "Yeah, we kind of agree with you. We would make this a City-initiated." No, sir. It was our county staff's evaluation of the area. Gotcha. Okay. Understand. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Ron, the area that was R7, is that what's MN now? Correct. Okay. So there still is a buffer of sorts between the highway corridor and this R3 residential neighborhood? Correct. The area that's here and here. Is there enough similarity between the R7 and the MN to...? Well, the MN is obviously mixed-use, it's outside of the residential, but they're right next to each other. It would be a little bit more commercial than the R7. Okay. But the R7 has some mixed-use also. It has some, but obviously MN is a little bit more. Okay. Great. Thank you. But that's not what we're considering. I just want to make clear that what we're talking about is the shopping center and not these parcels. No, I understand. Okay. I just wanted that point for my own clarification. Okay. Thank you. Just some more thoughts here for the commissioners. It seems to me that enough food for thought has been brought up on this one, that maybe it warrants a kickback to maybe the DCRC to staff for further discussion here, that maybe we would want to perhaps not vote on this one today. I'm just putting that out there for you all to consider. For me, there's enough thoughts for me to vote no on Highway Corridor at this moment. For me, Bucky's is misplaced here. We don't need it necessarily mimicking in what I consider a mistake in that area. I think enough thoughts merit further discussion. That's an opinion I have. Commissioner Smith. I will move to adopt this as a zoning change to MN rather than HC. Yeah. Commissioner Preneta. I would second that. So we have a motion on the floor to change the zoning to MN. Commissioner Beck. With that motion, I'm probably going to vote no. So I would be more in favor if we postpone this and discuss it some more, because I'm looking at long-term, I agree with Commissioner Sanchez, that Highway Corridor looks at the future of this area, and that's why I'm thinking this probably is the right one. It doesn't look good to some people right now. I understand that completely, but I would have to vote no on this motion, so I would make a motion to postpone to a date certain, one month from now. Maybe indefinitely, perhaps, since we wouldn't know exactly when the discussion will be had. So do we have a second to postpone indefinitely? Commissioner Cole. I'll second. That motion does supersede the first motion, so we will vote to postpone indefinitely. Call for a vote on the board. That motion will carry 6-0. Thank you. We'll move on to our legal re-join, and then we will move forward. We will move further down our agenda. I will now open the public hearings for items B through Y, excluding items I and J. I will open the public hearings for agenda items B through Y, excluding items I and J, and Ron will continue presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. Moving along with Area 1, we're going to begin with the southernmost area. This is an area on the southeast corner of Shady Shore and Lake View, which is comprised of a 1.8-acre, 1.89-acre. The area is currently owned and contains some use of the Bill Utterford dealership. Staff is proposing to change this to HC. The use of Bill Utterford is automotive sales and leasing. By changing this to HC, it would make the use conforming. The proximity of the parcel is located in close proximity to I-35E, and staff has not received any responses regarding this area. Area 2 is north of what we just saw. It is proposed to go from RCCD to HC, Highway Corridor, Zoning District. It is approximately 35.61 acres. It contains a number of uses and businesses, including United Rental, Explore USA RV Super Center, the Eckert Hyundai, and Classic Pre-Owned dealership as well. Again, similar to the Bill Utterford, automotive sales and leasing use would be conforming with the change to HC, as it is not permitted in the transition change from MR to HC. The other uses identified would have no other changes to their status, and again, staff has not received any responses. Area 3, moving north on the other side of I-35, we've got a larger parcel, or parcels, larger area, approximately 74 acres, proposed to go from RCCN and RCCD to Highway Corridor, generally located on the southeast corner of I-35 and State School Road. Contains a number of dealerships, the James Wood dealerships, Honda of Den, and Toyota of Den, that is. We also have a medical office on the corner that treats cancer, it's a cancer center. Staff is proposing HC, similar to what was across the highway. It will permit automotive sales and leasing by right, which would make them conforming. The change of the other uses would not affect their statuses, and then we did receive two responses in favor, and those were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission earlier today. I believe those two were from the James Wood dealership. Area 4 is an area that is occupied by the Eckerd-Honday Pre-Owned dealership, approximately 0.8 acres. It's proposed to go from RCR1 to MR. What staff is proposing is that it go to MR to match and be consistent with the surrounding zoning of the area. The area that you see to the north, east, and west, even across the street, is MR, therefore staff is proposing a mixed-use regional zoning district for this area, or this parcel, and staff has not received any responses. Area 5 is the area just south of I-35, just on the north, sorry, south east. It's kind of angled here, so I really can't really describe it clearly, but you can see here is currently the area north of the Unicorn Lake development, mixed-use development, contains the Chewie's, BJ's, Bone Daddy's, restaurants, and a number of other businesses. And of clarification, we did receive a response from the property owner that owns this area here that's shown in the dash dotted line. We are requesting that that parcel be removed from this consideration, which would only consist of the area outlined in yellow, which consists of approximately 36.66 acres. Staff is proposing that these parcels within Area 5 be zoned HC. Again, changes in this area uses-wise would not be changed or affected, and staff has not received any responses except for the one that was discussed earlier. Area 6 is a parcel, or parcels, there's two of them, approximately 7.3 acres, which consists of the shoreline apartments. This is within the Unicorn Lake development. Staff is proposing that this go from RCR 2 to an MR zoning district and use classification. The area here is shown in this solid black line, and you can see that it is surrounded by MR on all sides. Staff is recommending that be MR to be consistent with the surrounding zoning districts. Staff has not received any notices. Area 7, very similar in that it is going from a zoning district, in this case RCR 1 and RCR 2, to a mixed-use regional MR. It is two different apartments, the Ridge at North Texas and Pace Crossings. The proposal is to go to MR to be consistent with the surrounding zoning districts in the area, and by going to MR, it would allow for the multifamilies to remain and be conforming with the proposed MR zoning district. Staff has not received any responses on this area, within this area. Area 9 we are going to be considering at a later date. Area 10 is an area between Dallas Drive and I-35. Currently it is ECC, proposed to go to SC, Suburban Corridor. Staff is recommending Suburban Corridor, primarily because it is fronting the Dallas Drive corridor. All of the businesses there currently have their main access off of Dallas Drive, and they consist of a number of different uses, including a hotel, a gas station or automotive sales, and also other apartments. Area 10, again SC, primarily fronting Dallas Drive, and is accessible from Dallas Drive. Staff did receive one response, and that was in favor. Area 11, just in the same general vicinity, is along I-35, is being proposed to go to HC. It is approximately 3.49 acres, contains a Wells Fargo bank and a Hooters restaurant. Staff is recommending an HC zoning district, primarily because it is fronting I-35, and the uses are consistent with the zoning district's allowed uses. No responses were received by staff on this area. Area 12, just to the west, similar in that it is an existing shopping center. It has a number of uses, it is referred to as the Den Square Shopping Center. It's approximately 9.3 acres. Staff is recommending an HC Highway Corridor, primary frontage along I-35, and staff has not received any responses in favor or in opposition. Area 13, moving to the west, northwest, staff is recommending a zoning change from NRMU to SC on approximately 17.7 acres, generally located just as you can see here, south of I-35 and east of Teasley Lane. Number of uses from offices to car wash to an automotive sales establishment in the form of Exxon. Staff is recommending SC, and you probably are asking, "Why is an SC along I-35?" We recognize that SC is more of a lesser intensity, and the uses there already are allowed under the SC. It would also allow for the uses in the form of the parking lot, the auto wash, and the motel uses to be conforming under the SC zoning district. We did receive one response in favor for this zoning change. Area 14, downtown Commercial General to HC, approximately 6.2 acres, contains the Point Bank, KFC, and Pizza Hut. If you're familiar with that corner, including the Bronze and the 7-Eleven, staff is recommending that also be proposed to be HC as it fronts I-35 and has mainly access off of I-35, no responses on this area. Area 15 is along Teasley Lane. It contains a number of uses, primarily non-residential, more commercial. Suburban Corridor is the proposed zoning district. The area does front Teasley Lane as well as Dow's Drive, and staff has not received any responses. 16, on the south side, on the other side of the highway, along Londonderry, if you're familiar with this area, it does contain a mix of uses. Staff is proposing an SC zoning district as it is adjacent to SC to the north and the South Lakes and McMath Mills School to the south. SC does allow for parking lot as a principal use, medical office, indoor recreation, and restaurants, which are existing uses there now. By going to SC, it would make those uses conforming. Staff has not received any responses. Area 17, to the west of what we just saw, is proposed to go from NRME 12 and CMG to MN, Mixed Use Neighborhood. The area there is primarily multi-family. By going to an MN zoning district, it would make the medical office a conforming use. All the other uses mentioned would be permitted and their statuses would not change. No responses for area 17. Area 18 is zoning change request to go from CMG to MN. Currently, it is occupied, as you can see, by multi-family or apartments. Both the Studio Place apartments and the Salem Ridge apartments occupy this area. Changing it to MN would not change the status of the zoning, however, to be consistent with the zoning of the area and to also create a transition between the HC along I-35 and as you move south, MN is proposed. There were no responses received as of this afternoon. Area 19, moving north again on I-35, this is an area that contains a hotel, the Hampton Inn Suites of Den, a bank, two restaurants, Johnny Carino's and Chuck E. Cheese. It's on the corner of I-35 and Allegra Vista, or Center Place, that is. Staff's proposing HC as it fronts I-35 and the uses again would be conforming or suitable for the HC zoning district and, again, be consistent with the surrounding environment. No public hearing notices were received. Area 20, again to the west of this area, similarly, it is HC proposed from a DCG zoning district. The uses there are in line with a highway corridor uses where there are moving and storage business, a restaurant and a bar, as well as retail, general retail, currently, within area 20, primarily fronts I-35 and no responses were received for this area. Area 21, we're getting close to 24. Area 21 is along Fort Worth Drive. It consists of 23.16 acres, a number of uses, I'm not going to read the names of the businesses, but you see that there are apartments, retail, restaurants, and the reason that staff is recommending that this be rezoned or changed to SC is that Fort Worth Drive is considered corridor and it contains higher design standards, but with that, most of the businesses do front Fort Worth Drive, changing the use of SC would be consistent with the area. No response, I'm sorry, two responses were received for this area, both in favor. Area 22, just south of area 21, this is a little different in that it is fronting I-35. There are two businesses there now, Impress Graphics and BBVA Campus, or Compass Bank, and also will be a future McDonald's restaurant site, as it will be in the general area shown here, just south of those two businesses. Staff's recommending HC, again, it fronts I-35 and the businesses are consistent and suitable for an HSC zoning district. Area 23, similar to area 21, suburban corridor, it does front Fort Worth Drive, the uses are permitted in the SC, the status would not change their uses. Fronts in access from Fort Worth, staff received one response in favor for this area. Last is area 24, this is along I-35, where there is a Valero, a Water Burger, and a religious assembly, as well as a motel, Studio 6 Den UNT, it's located in this area. The proposal is to go to HC, again, HC would be consistent with the surrounding environment as it is along I-35 and the businesses are suitable. No responses were received for this item or for this area. That concludes my presentation, staff does recommend approval of those areas identified or discussed and presented, I'll be happy to stand in for any questions. I don't see any at this time, Ron, thank you for your thorough and very organized presentation. Appreciate it. Thank you. This is a public hearing. I do have some cards wishing to speak on the area three, is Jimmy Robinson? Come down and state your name and address and your time will begin. Good evening, my name is Jimmy Robinson, and me and my wife are outside at 3505-516 Court, and I want to assure you James Wood is a good neighbor. We have concerns, though, and, of course, more information should have been provided to us, you know, as far as the changes. But we have concerns, are you guys familiar with the area, the creek down there, the green belt? We're right down there, we live on Wessex Court on the cul-de-sac in the back of our property on that creek, and we're on a very, very low spot down there, and if you look at James Wood, I've got some pictures here, you can keep these things if you want to. I took some of them from the back of the house, I took some of them on the James Wood's property and I took some, you know, down in the creek, give you an idea where they're from, you're welcome to keep them, give you an idea what I'm talking about, but we're on the low side of that creek, and when they put Unicorn Lake in years ago, I guess, you know, a lot of that water was displaced under that creek, and they put us in a flood zone, and I'm like, "Sis, get out of the flood zone," but I don't think it's going to happen, but the more concrete you put in there, the more the water's going to come up, in fact, that's happened over there when they put the Buckees in and the Holiday Inn, and these are my concerns, that need to be addressed. You don't want to go to rezoning places, that, you know, we look out for that green belt. Also, I mean, we need a sound barrier back there, too. I know we have one, they've done a lot of infrastructure work, they put a pipeline back here that goes back up under I-35, I believe, and back around behind James Wood. Before they did that, you know, we actually had sewer, raw sewage rising in the street over there on the cul-de-sac, so that's been correct, and of course, you know, the bridge out there, you know, is correct a little bit, but we still have a drainage problem, and we, it's, we're in a flood area, and what's happened, the reason we got in that flood area is because of the development, and, you know, it's, it's just something that happens, but these are the concerns I have, and the other one is, is the wildlife issues. We have a lot of wildlife down there in that, in the, in the green belt area. I've seen a beaver come up the creek, we've got coyotes, a herd of hogs being down there, we've got a red-tailed hawk that hangs out in the backyard, I know we've got a bobcat down there somewhere, you know, we're displacing these animals, you know, what do you do with development? So these are things I think the plan and the zoning commission need to look at, you know, when they're rezoning, and, you know, I hope you guys, you know, take a look at it from our point of view when you make your decisions on, on, on what to do and how to move forward, and again, let me assure you, James Wood is a great neighbor, so, and that's it. Great. Thank you. We do have a question for you. Yeah, I do have, I do have one more thing I want to add. Okay. This map, it's a little, it's, it's, it's somewhat deceiving here, because this creek. Sir, do you want to put it on this X and we will get it put up here for us to see? What now? Put it on that dot? Yeah. Okay. And then we can bring it up here. I want somebody to do this here. This creek that runs down here, okay, it goes back up under I-35, somewhere, if I'm not mistaken, there's a pond back down there somewhere, and, and, and I believe the city of Corinth was probably responsible for part of that grain belt down there, but it, it starts over here, back over here at Unicorn Lake, back up here somewhere, and it goes along State School and it goes under that bridge, and of course, you know, we get a lot of drainage from those lakes over there at Unicorn Lake also, but it goes back down to, if I look at it correctly, and, and I could be mistaken, it appears that it goes back under I-35 somewhere down there where they're building that new car max in, in Unicorn, down there in Corinth, but, you know, personally, what I like to see is the buffer zone, you know, away from that creek a little bit, but anyway, you guys have my, my point of view and I thank you guys very, very much. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. We do have a question for you, Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Robinson, for your presentation. Can you hear me okay? I can hear you. Okay. Well, I've sometimes been known not to be able to be heard. It's amazing to me, but the area we're looking at tonight isn't impacting the green area that you're talking about. It's the area that James Wood and everybody else has already built on. So by approving this area three, nothing's going to change. Now, we are concerned about the area that hasn't been developed yet. I don't know if there's an ESO in there or a riparian buffer, but those are protected if they are. There are some green areas that we'll be protecting. We'll be looking at that closely when that area does come under development, but approving area three tonight isn't going to impact anything that isn't already there. So just wanted you to feel a little comfortable about that, and that you do have people on your side that want to see that green area preserved as much as possible. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Is it all right if we can be excused? Can we be excused? Oh, sure. We have one more question from Commissioner Sanchez. Okay. Mine was pretty much the same thing as what Mr. Beck stated, is that this zone change isn't going to do anything other than a zone change. So we're not talking about any kind of redirecting of water or building walls or anything like that. It's just a zone change. It's based on the fact that it sits on the I-35, they want to change it to Highway Corridor, and that's what they're trying to do all along I-35, is if there's an opportunity or there's a -- what do you call it -- non-conforming zoning, then they'll go in there and look at that area and say, okay, here's a chance to change it. We're looking at I-35 Corridor. Let's go with the I-35 Corridor, the HC zoning. That's all they're trying to do. I appreciate you saying that. That should have been mentioned on this letter we received -- oh, I'm sorry. That should have been mentioned on this letter we received from correspondence from the city exactly what was happening, and I apologize for coming down here, taking up time, not understanding completely what it was, but like I say, whenever we do zone down there, I hope we reconsider that and take a look at some of that stuff. Okay. Mr. Robinson, we are always happy to have your thoughts, so thank you for coming out to speak, and certainly if you need further clarification from staff, they are happy to sit down with you one-on-one and talk with you as well. I visited with Scott, and Scott seems like he understands some of the issues we're running across. Thank you guys very, very much, and you guys have a great evening. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Robinson, I live over on Waterford, so I know you're -- I live on Waterford, so I know you're -- we're the forgotten neighborhood in the city of Denton. It's okay. Are you back along the creek? Yeah. I'm back up to the creek. We cleaned our house. That's real nice of you. We have it looking nice back there, and we're kind of proud of it. Just to let you know, we're looking out for you. Well, I appreciate it. Appreciate you guys showing up. Thank you, guys. Thank you. We do have another card on area three, not wishing to speak, but Mr. Don White is in support. Area seven, Cindy Venables, wishing to speak. Did you want to come up to the mic, and then we can -- Well, if I followed correctly, you started with B and went all the way through to Z. I didn't hear -- Well, the downtown standards we did is item A on the agenda, so that's actually already been discussed and voted on. Okay. So it's okay from -- it's already been discussed and voted on? It has. Can I share a concern I have? It's really just a comment. I'm not -- I mean, it's something -- I'll not speak if you don't want me to. You know, Mr. Scott McDonald is behind you. Will you share your comment with him, and then we can discuss it? We talked earlier, and part of his response is what I have a question on. So do you want me to go out and talk to him? I do. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, so next card, speaking on area 21, Dick and Kelsey. Good evening, and thank you for hearing us. First of all, I want to say thank you for what you did on 2225 East McKinney. Okay. Can you state your name and address, please? Oh, I'm sorry. Dick and Ann Kelsey, 206 Reg Crest Circle in Denton. Thank you very much. Thank you for what you all did on 2225 and the hard consideration. I understand there was a complete staff meeting on all of that area and that problem. We really do appreciate the efforts you all put into it, staff as well. Now moving to 21, we also have property in 505 Fort Worth Drive, one acre of land. We've had it since '86. When they changed it in '02, they made us a nonconforming use because they zoned us downtown square. We said, please don't do that. We're not downtown square. It didn't help. This is, I think, is an opportunity for us to get out of the nonconforming use we've been in for 16 years, which has caused us a number of problems. And we strongly endorse the recommendation of staff that you zone it as indicated so that we will no longer be in nonconforming use status. Thank you. Any questions? I'd be happy to answer them. I don't see any questions. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Thank you very much. I don't have any other cards wishing to speak, but this is a public hearing, so if anyone would like to come down and speak, you are welcome to. Anyone wishing to speak? Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Before I make a motion, we approve areas, all areas 24 except 8 and 9, is that right? Am I doing that right? Let me clarify. Okay. I think perhaps if you state your motion that you were discussing items B through Y, excluding I and J. Thank you. I like that wording better. Do you want me to restate that? Move that we accept B through Y with exception of I and J. J. Is there a second to that? Commissioner Smith. I move to approve. I move second. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor to approve agenda items B through Y, excluding I and J. Is there any discussion? Okay. Call for a vote on the board. That motion passes 6-0. That takes us, I believe, to our matrix. That does not -- we do not have a matrix on this one. So that takes us to the end of our meeting, which I will adjourn at 7:58. Thank you, everyone.