WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.620 Good evening, welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session. 00:00:06.620 --> 00:00:10.640 I'll open the meeting at 5.04. 00:00:10.640 --> 00:00:15.520 It is Wednesday, June 5th, 2019. 00:00:15.520 --> 00:00:17.360 First item of business is to receive a report for 00:00:17.360 --> 00:00:19.880 the Development Code and City Initiated Rezoning. 00:00:19.880 --> 00:00:22.640 I think Ron McGuint is here to present. 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:36.320 >> There it is, Chair, members of the commission. 00:00:36.320 --> 00:00:40.000 Appreciate the opportunity. 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:47.680 This is a presentation just to prelude to what's going to be coming on the 26th of June, 00:00:47.680 --> 00:00:53.440 is the next City Initiated Rezoning Group 2 is what I'm referring them to. 00:00:55.320 --> 00:01:02.080 This is the schedule that we have prepared for the City Initiated Rezoning changes. 00:01:02.080 --> 00:01:06.120 As you can see, we had our first one on May 29th. 00:01:06.120 --> 00:01:09.320 It will be going to council next week on June 11th. 00:01:09.320 --> 00:01:15.200 Again, the next upcoming one for the Planning and Zoning Commission would be June 26th and then July 10th. 00:01:15.200 --> 00:01:21.120 Just want to give the commission an update. 00:01:21.120 --> 00:01:28.280 We've been meeting with individual stakeholders, recently Denia Ranch Estates. 00:01:28.280 --> 00:01:35.480 We will be meeting with UNT and other neighborhoods as we continue through the City Initiated Rezonings. 00:01:35.480 --> 00:01:41.960 Not only to give them an opportunity to provide their feedback or their input, but just to give them notice. 00:01:41.960 --> 00:01:49.240 It's one thing to receive a notice in the mail, but to have someone explain to them what's really going on at a meeting is helpful. 00:01:49.240 --> 00:01:54.200 I had a really good meeting with Ranch Estates on last Thursday. 00:01:54.200 --> 00:02:03.760 They were given an explanation of what we were doing, and they were very pleased, and we'll see that coming forward on the 26th. 00:02:03.760 --> 00:02:08.480 And these other neighborhoods, we will be meeting with them as well, 00:02:08.480 --> 00:02:14.480 as we get through the area, through the corridors, and into the neighborhood compatibility areas. 00:02:16.480 --> 00:02:20.880 This slide here, just to kind of recap, we did hear 23. 00:02:20.880 --> 00:02:24.200 We did not hear area nine at our last meeting. 00:02:24.200 --> 00:02:27.120 That will be brought forward with the next group. 00:02:27.120 --> 00:02:31.960 All 22 was moved forward by the commission. 00:02:31.960 --> 00:02:36.120 There was one area that was postponed indefinitely, and that was area eight. 00:02:36.120 --> 00:02:42.400 So this is the group two area that we're taking. 00:02:42.400 --> 00:02:48.000 As you can see, it pretty much covers the entire city area. 00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:50.080 I've got other slides here that zooms in. 00:02:50.080 --> 00:02:51.840 I apologize for the quality of the image. 00:02:51.840 --> 00:02:54.200 It's not as clear as I hope. 00:02:54.200 --> 00:03:00.240 We have approximately 21 areas, 350 parcels with this one group. 00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:07.400 So the first area that we're going to be referring to is what we call I-35 corridor. 00:03:07.400 --> 00:03:14.360 Again, includes the area nine that was part of group two, now is part, I'm sorry, group one now is part of group two. 00:03:14.360 --> 00:03:19.160 We will be taking some areas along I-35 by the university. 00:03:19.160 --> 00:03:23.480 Those will be going to MR. 00:03:23.480 --> 00:03:27.440 Moving further north on I-35 by 380, 00:03:27.440 --> 00:03:35.320 between 380 and Ganser Road, upper area of the city, we will be taking a number of areas, as you can see here. 00:03:35.320 --> 00:03:43.000 One area including the Ranch Estates development or neighborhood, that is proposed to go to an R1. 00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:48.280 The others are going to G-O and H-C in the areas that you see here. 00:03:48.280 --> 00:03:55.880 Another area that we'll be looking at is the loop in 380. 00:03:55.880 --> 00:04:03.440 The majority of these are going to SC, suburban corridor, primarily because of what arterials they are. 00:04:03.440 --> 00:04:06.200 That again being the loop and 380. 00:04:06.200 --> 00:04:07.600 >> Commissioner Beck. 00:04:07.600 --> 00:04:08.560 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:04:08.560 --> 00:04:11.000 Is that, what is that, area 37? 00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:12.920 >> Uh-huh. >> Is that that one that was split in three? 00:04:12.920 --> 00:04:15.000 >> Correct. >> Separate parcel, and now it's all one? 00:04:15.000 --> 00:04:17.640 >> It is, yeah, we're- >> It's going to be suburban corridor? 00:04:17.640 --> 00:04:18.960 >> Correct. >> Okay, great, thanks. 00:04:18.960 --> 00:04:23.680 >> I think this is the last of the groupings. 00:04:23.680 --> 00:04:27.800 This is an area on the loop between the loop and Mayhill. 00:04:27.800 --> 00:04:33.000 There are a number of areas that are zoned now for light industrial. 00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:37.800 I think that the area is more suitable for general office. 00:04:37.800 --> 00:04:43.600 And that's what you see here with the pairs between again, loop 288 and I-35. 00:04:43.600 --> 00:04:44.680 And we'll get into the details. 00:04:44.680 --> 00:04:47.520 I just want to give you all an idea of what's upcoming. 00:04:47.520 --> 00:04:53.040 Not only for you to kind of think about, but also if you have a potential conflict of interests. 00:04:53.040 --> 00:05:00.920 Obviously, we want to make sure that we have you make that announcement in front of consideration of these areas. 00:05:02.160 --> 00:05:08.560 The majority of these will go from SC, GEO, and the last one would be MR, which is the larger area here. 00:05:08.560 --> 00:05:14.360 The landfill is in this general vicinity, just kind of give you some orientation of where that area is. 00:05:14.360 --> 00:05:17.000 And that's pretty much it. 00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:22.360 We had a way of presenting it last, PNZ. 00:05:22.360 --> 00:05:30.080 We're working, staff's working on a way of making it a little bit more concise, a little bit more shorter, is probably the better word. 00:05:30.080 --> 00:05:34.680 So we're acknowledging how we did it last time. 00:05:34.680 --> 00:05:38.720 And we've learned that that's probably something that we probably need to change. 00:05:38.720 --> 00:05:47.400 So we're going to group them, as you saw here in this presentation, a little bit more higher level, still covering the necessary information. 00:05:47.400 --> 00:05:52.760 And then as we have done with the last one, it will be a one consideration, 00:05:52.760 --> 00:05:57.720 meaning one recommendation from the commission with the next group. 00:05:57.720 --> 00:05:59.720 So anybody have any questions? 00:05:59.720 --> 00:06:01.080 >> Mr. Beck. 00:06:01.080 --> 00:06:02.200 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:06:02.200 --> 00:06:05.520 So we left area eight unsettled last week. 00:06:05.520 --> 00:06:08.200 Where is that going to fit in as we proceed? 00:06:08.200 --> 00:06:10.680 >> It will most likely be part of the group three. 00:06:10.680 --> 00:06:11.440 >> Group three, okay. 00:06:11.440 --> 00:06:16.680 >> Yeah, we're working on researching other information and we'll bring that as group three. 00:06:16.680 --> 00:06:17.440 >> Okay, thanks. 00:06:17.440 --> 00:06:20.440 >> Any other questions for Ron? 00:06:20.440 --> 00:06:23.240 >> All right, great. 00:06:23.240 --> 00:06:23.880 >> Great, thank you. 00:06:23.880 --> 00:06:24.380 >> Thank you. 00:06:24.380 --> 00:06:28.600 >> So that moves us to the agenda for this evening. 00:06:28.600 --> 00:06:32.240 A couple of points before we begin, or just one point actually. 00:06:32.240 --> 00:06:40.560 In the public hearing, item five D, which is kind of attached to five E. 00:06:40.560 --> 00:06:43.240 It's the Hunters Creek project. 00:06:43.240 --> 00:06:46.440 They are seeking a continuance on this item. 00:06:46.440 --> 00:06:52.720 So what we are going to do this evening is move item D and E to item A, B. 00:06:52.720 --> 00:06:57.440 In case there's any citizens or residents that would like to talk on that, we're just going to move it to the front end so 00:06:57.440 --> 00:06:59.000 we don't have to wait for a postponement. 00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:07.240 And then the plan is to open public hearing and see if there is a motion to postpone to a date certain of June 19th. 00:07:07.240 --> 00:07:10.840 Other than that, the agenda is straightforward, right? 00:07:10.840 --> 00:07:11.340 >> Correct. 00:07:11.340 --> 00:07:15.160 >> So that brings us to our minutes. 00:07:15.160 --> 00:07:18.840 Is there any updates or changes that need to be noted on the minutes by anyone? 00:07:18.840 --> 00:07:25.680 We'll take those in two separate votes at the meeting tonight. 00:07:25.680 --> 00:07:27.640 And that moves us to the consent agenda. 00:07:27.640 --> 00:07:31.680 Is there any questions? 00:07:31.680 --> 00:07:33.800 Looks like Julie has two and Mark has one. 00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:36.440 Is there any questions on any of those? 00:07:36.440 --> 00:07:37.480 Commissioner Beck? 00:07:37.480 --> 00:07:38.720 >> Just some clarification. 00:07:38.720 --> 00:07:43.160 I think it's, which one is that? 00:07:43.160 --> 00:07:49.960 The consent agenda A, the, well, I left that. 00:07:54.160 --> 00:08:01.120 >> The senior center, senior living center, is that just the extension of that, what is it, the Brookdale Denton cell? 00:08:01.120 --> 00:08:03.120 Is that what we're looking at there? 00:08:03.120 --> 00:08:04.640 >> Julie White, can you answer that one? 00:08:04.640 --> 00:08:09.120 >> Yeah, I'm sorry. 00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:17.000 Consent agenda A, PP1803. 00:08:17.000 --> 00:08:20.000 >> All right, so this is a standalone lot. 00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:23.160 So it isn't an extension, are you talking about an extension of the. 00:08:23.160 --> 00:08:25.800 >> Right. >> Of the elderly housing on William Miller? 00:08:25.800 --> 00:08:26.480 No, sir. 00:08:26.480 --> 00:08:28.800 >> Because it sits, the area sits right behind it. 00:08:28.800 --> 00:08:34.720 >> It does, it does, they are connected by a lot line, but it will be a standalone elderly housing use. 00:08:34.720 --> 00:08:37.600 >> Okay, and they'll access off of William Miller? 00:08:37.600 --> 00:08:44.040 >> No, sir, there will be fire access, or actually fire access will come from the adjacent property to the north. 00:08:44.040 --> 00:08:49.960 But they will actually be accessed off of the I-35 access route. 00:08:49.960 --> 00:08:53.280 >> From the, what would that be, the east end or the south end? 00:08:53.280 --> 00:08:54.600 >> Kind of the northeast. 00:08:54.600 --> 00:08:56.040 >> Okay. >> Side of the property. 00:08:56.040 --> 00:08:56.520 >> Interesting. 00:08:56.520 --> 00:08:57.040 Okay, thanks. 00:08:57.040 --> 00:09:01.800 >> Any other questions for the consent agenda? 00:09:01.800 --> 00:09:06.280 Great. 00:09:06.280 --> 00:09:11.240 That moves us to individual considerations, item 4A, which is actually Julie White again. 00:09:11.240 --> 00:09:16.600 I'll call her up for presentation on SP18-54. 00:09:20.200 --> 00:09:26.200 >> All right, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton, 00:09:26.200 --> 00:09:30.000 and I'm presenting SP18-54, Bel Air Assisted Living. 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:38.080 The request before you is to consider approval of an alternative development plan for a proposed elderly housing development. 00:09:38.080 --> 00:09:40.320 The subject property is outlined here in yellow. 00:09:40.320 --> 00:09:44.240 It is about 1.83 acres. 00:09:44.240 --> 00:09:48.360 It's on the north side of McKinney, adjacent to Bel Air Drive. 00:09:48.360 --> 00:09:55.480 The purpose of the alternative development plan is to deviate from sections 35.13.8 buffer requirements, 00:09:55.480 --> 00:10:03.320 section 35.13.13.4, non-residential and mixed use buildings in a pedestrian-oriented district. 00:10:03.320 --> 00:10:11.960 The current zoning of the property is NRMU 12, it does have overlay conditions on it. 00:10:11.960 --> 00:10:18.560 The zoning was approved in 2015 in order to develop the site with elderly housing. 00:10:18.560 --> 00:10:22.560 And so those overlay conditions restricted the uses. 00:10:22.560 --> 00:10:26.200 Elderly housing is one of the permitted uses on the site. 00:10:26.200 --> 00:10:32.200 It also restricted the maximum amount of building that could be under air conditioning, 00:10:32.200 --> 00:10:39.280 added a privacy fence to the north and east property lines, also increased the tree canopy overall and also for the parking lot. 00:10:39.280 --> 00:10:43.080 NRMU 12 is considered one of our pedestrian-oriented districts, so 00:10:43.080 --> 00:10:48.560 it has additional design guidelines for that pedestrian-oriented development. 00:10:48.560 --> 00:10:54.680 And the applicant is seeking an ADP to address some design criteria in order to develop that elderly housing use. 00:10:54.680 --> 00:11:05.840 So just again, ADPs do allow for that flexibility from sub-chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code, and those are the design considerations. 00:11:05.840 --> 00:11:10.320 So and here are the sections that they would like to deviate from. 00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:18.280 So the first is that there is a requirement that at least 60% of the street frontage should have buildings within 10 feet of the property line. 00:11:18.280 --> 00:11:24.560 They're actually proposing to set those buildings back 50 feet from the right of way, 00:11:24.560 --> 00:11:29.120 in order to provide activity areas for the residents and also to preserve some existing trees. 00:11:30.720 --> 00:11:36.440 The perimeter fencing, when placed on a property, it's not a requirement in the Denton Development Code, generally. 00:11:36.440 --> 00:11:43.360 But the code does require that that fencing be placed inside of any landscape buffers, 00:11:43.360 --> 00:11:47.240 and they're requesting to actually put that fence on the property line. 00:11:47.240 --> 00:11:55.080 And then they're also requesting a deviation from the buffer requirements on the east property line due to a gas easement. 00:11:55.080 --> 00:11:58.680 So we'll go over that while looking at their site plan and landscape plans. 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:03.280 So here is their proposed site plan. 00:12:03.280 --> 00:12:07.640 They're proposing four 6,400 square foot buildings. 00:12:07.640 --> 00:12:11.840 They're proposing to set them back 50 feet from the right of way. 00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:20.760 The site includes three entrances, one full access entrance in the center, and then two just entrance only. 00:12:20.760 --> 00:12:29.920 Activity areas are proposed for those front yards, as I said, and decorative fencing will contain those activity areas. 00:12:29.920 --> 00:12:33.560 They're also proposing front porches on the buildings. 00:12:33.560 --> 00:12:40.720 And here shows those fencing required by the overlay, and then the parking is proposed for the rear of the site. 00:12:40.720 --> 00:12:52.800 So if they follow the DDC requirements to move those buildings up within 10 feet of the front property line, this is kind of what it would look like. 00:12:52.800 --> 00:12:54.880 Here you have your four buildings. 00:12:54.880 --> 00:13:01.120 That 10 foot -- the orange line is a representation of where that 10 feet would approximately be. 00:13:01.120 --> 00:13:10.480 The black dash line is actually a 25 foot setback, which is what's required per the plat for the residential properties for the neighborhood adjacent. 00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:16.440 And then here shows that 50 foot setback, and you can kind of picture what it would look like at the street. 00:13:16.440 --> 00:13:21.800 They're proposing to actually move that back, once again, to provide -- to activate those front parts of the area. 00:13:21.800 --> 00:13:27.640 It would actually be more in line with what you typically see in a residential area, and staff feels like it's appropriate. 00:13:27.640 --> 00:13:37.440 When we talk about the landscape plan and the buffers, if they followed the subchapter 13 requirements, 00:13:37.440 --> 00:13:49.320 that north fence would be placed in this location here within the landscaping between the fence and the adjacent property owner's fence. 00:13:49.320 --> 00:13:57.480 Now in our analysis of the case, this is something that you can often see in commercial areas where you've got the fence on the inside of the landscape buffer. 00:13:57.480 --> 00:14:07.840 But when you're talking about kind of a residential area such as this, that adjacent fence on this single family neighbor's property would really create a corridor. 00:14:07.840 --> 00:14:20.880 So you would have this landscaping sandwiched in between two fences, making maintenance difficult and really not providing any actual buffer between those two. 00:14:20.880 --> 00:14:28.640 And there is a type C buffer, and they are proposing to put that type C buffer here, but they just want to make sure that that fence is on the property line in here. 00:14:28.640 --> 00:14:38.720 And here's showing what it would actually look like if approved, that fence on the north property line within those buffer trees between the building and that fence. 00:14:38.720 --> 00:14:46.480 Just generally, their landscape plan, they are providing that 50% tree canopy per the ordinance. 00:14:46.480 --> 00:14:53.440 It would be a total of over 40,000 square feet at maturity, over 34,000 square feet of new trees. 00:14:53.440 --> 00:14:58.080 They're actually preserving over the minimum, 5,000 square feet over that minimum. 00:14:58.080 --> 00:15:01.000 They've got the 20% parking lot canopy. 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:04.320 They have the privacy fences we talked about. 00:15:04.320 --> 00:15:11.240 That additional buffer on the east side, here's that gas line easement, which really does prevent any additional plantings. 00:15:11.240 --> 00:15:24.600 They have strategically located their landscape islands in their parking to take advantage of that existing tree canopy that's there, so they're actually preserving those trees along that eastern property line. 00:15:24.600 --> 00:15:28.680 We're not really anticipating the use to create nuisances for the adjacent properties. 00:15:28.680 --> 00:15:38.200 This elderly housing is a residential use, so we think it would function like any other residential, wouldn't provide any nuisances for the adjacent properties. 00:15:38.200 --> 00:15:47.400 However, there will be headlights for the cars, and so that fencing will definitely mitigate any lights that would shine on the adjacent property. 00:15:47.400 --> 00:15:53.160 Here's the proposed elevations, the color elevations. 00:15:53.160 --> 00:15:58.240 The criteria for approval in subchapter 13, the first is it preserve existing neighborhoods. 00:15:58.240 --> 00:16:03.200 The proposed design and uses are compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods per our analysis. 00:16:03.200 --> 00:16:19.160 That parking has been located in the rear to reduce those visual impacts, and they've proposed to put those activity areas close to the street that would foster social interaction and provide a nice place for the residents to sit. 00:16:19.160 --> 00:16:25.560 A share quality development, the request is not to lower design standards, but just to develop that elderly housing use. 00:16:25.560 --> 00:16:38.200 The setback as proposed would maintain visual consistency with the neighborhood, and the additional tree preservation and planting in front yard would also elevate the design standards of the development. 00:16:38.200 --> 00:16:43.120 Any fencing and buffers would mitigate light and noise for those adjacent properties. 00:16:43.120 --> 00:16:50.240 Another criteria is to focus new development activity centers, this is an infill lot, so it's not contributing to sprawl. 00:16:50.240 --> 00:16:53.680 Number four, ensure infrastructure can accommodate development. 00:16:53.680 --> 00:17:04.040 The necessary infrastructure is in place, water, sewer, as well as roadways, and it would result in a high quality development meeting the intent of the standards. 00:17:04.040 --> 00:17:09.120 That uniform 50 foot setback would create that visual consistency along the street. 00:17:09.120 --> 00:17:15.840 The activity areas in the front yard would also contribute to livability for the site. 00:17:15.840 --> 00:17:28.640 They're proposing, well, they're required as part of the development, pedestrian improvements, and that includes sidewalks and street trees, and then the 50% tree canopy on site would be consistent with residential development. 00:17:28.640 --> 00:17:37.920 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends the request as it meets subchapter 13, and I'll stand for any questions. 00:17:37.920 --> 00:17:39.680 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:17:39.680 --> 00:17:41.080 Thanks, Julie. 00:17:41.080 --> 00:17:52.720 When we talk about elderly housing, these, looking at the plans for them, it looks like they're single room only type occupancy buildings where they got their bedrooms, but there's a common area. 00:17:52.720 --> 00:17:56.280 So we're not talking about elderly that require medical attention or anything like that. 00:17:56.280 --> 00:17:58.160 >> This would be more of an assisted living. 00:17:58.160 --> 00:18:07.480 >> Oh, it is. >> So it's going to be a little more intensive than a, you know, because elderly housing in our development code runs the gamut, and this would be more of the assisted living. 00:18:07.480 --> 00:18:18.840 >> Okay, is one of the things that we're going to align, let me go find it here. 00:18:18.840 --> 00:18:27.960 The maximum, it said, the maximum of 25,000 total square feet of gross air conditioned floor area. 00:18:27.960 --> 00:18:37.000 But you said that there's going to be four buildings of 6,454, and that comes out to about 800 square feet over, so is- 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:38.800 >> That includes porch area. 00:18:38.800 --> 00:18:42.720 So the overlay just was for air conditioned area. 00:18:42.720 --> 00:18:43.280 >> Okay. 00:18:43.280 --> 00:18:54.560 And just for my own notification, gas lines, underground gas lines, is there a distance that they have to be from residential units? 00:18:54.560 --> 00:18:56.960 We don't put residences on top of them. 00:18:56.960 --> 00:19:00.040 >> We don't, but the easement would- >> Right. 00:19:00.040 --> 00:19:01.520 >> They have that easement taking care of. 00:19:01.520 --> 00:19:07.160 >> On a minimum, okay, just curious about that, I think, thanks. 00:19:07.160 --> 00:19:07.920 >> Any other questions? 00:19:07.920 --> 00:19:10.680 >> Thank you, Julie. 00:19:10.680 --> 00:19:14.800 >> Next item for business is item 4B, presented by Sean Jacobson. 00:19:14.800 --> 00:19:16.800 It's ADP 19-5. 00:19:32.120 --> 00:19:36.240 >> All right, good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:19:36.240 --> 00:19:45.600 Tonight, we're presenting ADP 19-0005, which is an alternative development plan for the Fred Moore Park. 00:19:45.600 --> 00:19:53.720 So this is located at the corner of Wilson and Lakey Street, that northwest corner, northeast corner, I'm sorry. 00:19:53.720 --> 00:20:00.080 It's on a plot of about 3.639 acres, primarily NR2 with a little bit of NR4. 00:20:00.080 --> 00:20:04.120 And what's proposed is essentially an expansion park building. 00:20:04.120 --> 00:20:13.880 So this is the culmination of a design that was presented to city council last year and was given consensus support by them. 00:20:13.880 --> 00:20:18.840 But in the process of reviewing it, because we do have those non-residential and 00:20:18.840 --> 00:20:23.640 mixed use buildings in a pedestrian oriented district, they apply because this is NR2. 00:20:23.640 --> 00:20:29.360 Some of that design ran into some provisions of those standards, and so this ADP is to allow for some deviations. 00:20:31.080 --> 00:20:33.080 And these are those four deviations. 00:20:33.080 --> 00:20:47.240 So it would be that requirement for 25% windows, doors, or display areas when within 10 feet of a side street, a sidewall is within 10 feet of a street. 00:20:47.240 --> 00:20:53.080 Requirement for 60% of the street frontage to have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line. 00:20:53.080 --> 00:21:03.960 Requirement that developments have a minimum floor to area ratio of 0.4, which is that building area or pedestrian area is divided by that overall. 00:21:03.960 --> 00:21:09.840 And then the requirement that windows require an architectural surround not be flush with the exterior wall. 00:21:09.840 --> 00:21:16.200 So we'll talk through how those four deviations kind of fit into the overall design as we go forward. 00:21:16.200 --> 00:21:22.120 Just to give you an idea of what's in place right now, this is actually one of our older park buildings. 00:21:22.120 --> 00:21:26.480 I've been at an event there and it's quite small for what they're getting done there. 00:21:26.480 --> 00:21:28.360 And so we have an opportunity to upgrade that. 00:21:28.360 --> 00:21:36.480 You can also see the front there, it's primarily just grass and cement at this point, not a lot of additional landscaping and just beautiful. 00:21:36.480 --> 00:21:40.200 On that side there, we have those dumpsters right along the street. 00:21:40.200 --> 00:21:42.200 And again, you have a much older building. 00:21:42.200 --> 00:21:47.600 You can see those air conditioning units on screen from the street there. 00:21:47.600 --> 00:21:52.800 Overhead, we'll just zoom in there so you can see that is the existing building to the south there. 00:21:52.800 --> 00:22:01.160 That as well as the two covered patio areas, all of that is proposed to be demolished. 00:22:01.160 --> 00:22:09.920 And that would be replaced by a new building that would actually connect directly to that existing building to the north. 00:22:09.920 --> 00:22:16.800 So one of those deviations, that proximity to the street by having a slightly larger setback there, 00:22:16.800 --> 00:22:25.360 that allows the new building to align more closely with the existing building and kind of create the aesthetic of one building rather than two separate. 00:22:25.360 --> 00:22:29.400 In addition there, you can see that this overall lot is primarily park. 00:22:29.400 --> 00:22:35.120 And so therefore, that deviation from the minimum Florida area ratio to meet that, 00:22:35.120 --> 00:22:40.160 we would have to dramatically expand the amount of building and pedestrian areas on that. 00:22:40.160 --> 00:22:42.320 And that just wouldn't fit the character of a park. 00:22:42.320 --> 00:22:48.640 So what's proposed is to keep that low and thereby preserve that natural park feeling. 00:22:48.640 --> 00:22:53.000 In addition, so that's that building area there. 00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:58.120 As part of this overall development, numerous additional trees are going to be planted. 00:22:58.120 --> 00:23:05.280 And part of moving that building back a little bit farther than what's required enables additional trees to be there, 00:23:05.280 --> 00:23:11.200 screen that building from what's across the street and create a much more attractive view for those folks across there. 00:23:11.200 --> 00:23:16.680 And in particular, if you see that dumpster area there, rather than sitting right along the street as they do now, 00:23:16.680 --> 00:23:21.680 we've worked with the applicant, with Parks Department, with the designers to move that back from the street, 00:23:21.680 --> 00:23:27.560 to swing it to the side and to put about 400 square feet of landscaping around it as well as numerous trees, 00:23:27.560 --> 00:23:31.440 screening that essentially from all directions, making that very hard to see. 00:23:31.440 --> 00:23:35.960 So big improvement for the neighborhood across the street there. 00:23:35.960 --> 00:23:43.920 With the windows, so you can see, and I'm sorry we couldn't get a better illustration in this, 00:23:43.920 --> 00:23:49.440 but to the south you can see what's existing now and then the proposed elevation. 00:23:49.440 --> 00:23:53.680 The windows proposed are designed to fit better with the aesthetic of the overall building, 00:23:53.680 --> 00:23:58.080 rather than putting large windows that would be looking into a kitchen and a storage area, 00:23:58.080 --> 00:24:05.720 proposing to limit the size of those windows and match the design more to the overall aesthetic of the building. 00:24:05.720 --> 00:24:11.800 And then just so you can see from that front elevation there, what's current versus what is proposed, 00:24:11.800 --> 00:24:17.000 be a nice open entryway and then we'll have landscaping and trees in there in between. 00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:23.640 So again, much more pleasant view for the folks across the street there. 00:24:23.640 --> 00:24:26.920 So the criteria we use for assessing this, preserve existing neighborhoods, 00:24:26.920 --> 00:24:33.640 in this case with the additional landscaping and screening for both the neighborhoods across the street in Lakey and Wilson, 00:24:33.640 --> 00:24:36.640 will be an improvement for them. Assuring quality development. 00:24:36.640 --> 00:24:40.840 These deviations are part of creating better aesthetic alignment, 00:24:40.840 --> 00:24:50.000 making the new building fit better with the adjacent building and preserving that park character, keeping it as natural as possible. 00:24:50.000 --> 00:24:52.320 This is not an expansion outside the established park. 00:24:52.320 --> 00:24:57.920 It's barely an expansion outside the current building footprint, so you wouldn't have any sprawl with that. 00:24:57.920 --> 00:25:02.600 Ensure that infrastructure is capable, infrastructure is already in place for the building that's there. 00:25:02.600 --> 00:25:08.600 And big thing there is ensure that what's being brought forward, this alternative is a high quality development. 00:25:08.600 --> 00:25:14.360 Again, I've just highlighted that change there for the dumpster, vast improvement over what's in place there. 00:25:14.360 --> 00:25:22.000 And again, you've seen we're taking an older building and put in place great improvement, many more trees, much more landscaping. 00:25:22.000 --> 00:25:27.520 So overall, it's a very pedestrian welcoming, which is really the intent of the provisions that we're deviating from. 00:25:27.520 --> 00:25:35.680 But in a park environment, this is really more welcoming to pedestrians to have that additional landscape. 00:25:35.680 --> 00:25:42.160 So with that, staff recommends approval of this request as it meets our requirements for an ADP and I'll stand for any questions. 00:25:42.160 --> 00:25:48.160 Any questions? Perfect. Thanks, Sean. 00:25:48.160 --> 00:25:50.840 Next item for business is moving into our public hearings. 00:25:50.840 --> 00:26:00.840 First item will be 5A, which again will be actually 5C this evening, but Haley can present FR19-0001. 00:26:00.840 --> 00:26:09.240 All right. Good evening. 00:26:09.240 --> 00:26:15.600 This is a replant that some of you may remember for St. John Paul, the Second Pastoral Center. 00:26:15.600 --> 00:26:22.320 The property is located on McCormick Street between Eagle and Fannin, just south of the UNT campus. 00:26:22.320 --> 00:26:28.360 This replant is intended to combine three lots that were subdivided by the red lines you can see on the screen into one lot, 00:26:28.360 --> 00:26:34.640 which is outlined in blue with the intent of building a pastoral center for students close to the campus. 00:26:34.640 --> 00:26:40.640 The replant was originally approved in 2016 since that time it has expired without being filed. 00:26:40.640 --> 00:26:46.720 Also a new replant had to be reviewed for this property in order for them to begin work on the site. 00:26:46.720 --> 00:26:49.840 And happy to answer any questions. 00:26:49.840 --> 00:26:56.640 Any questions on this replant? Easy peasy. Thanks, Haley. 00:26:56.640 --> 00:27:04.240 Next is item 5B, which will move to 5D this evening and Sean has this item. 00:27:04.240 --> 00:27:11.280 This is going to look super familiar. 00:27:11.280 --> 00:27:16.840 So this is Fred Moore Park site again, and as part of this project, we take the opportunity to clean up. 00:27:16.840 --> 00:27:22.960 So right now, as you can see there, we have two platted lots, the original Fred Moore one, 00:27:22.960 --> 00:27:29.640 as well as part of the Jasper addition here and then a large section of unplatted property here. 00:27:29.640 --> 00:27:37.960 All of this makes up the park, and so with this replant, we would be bringing all of that into one plat, 00:27:37.960 --> 00:27:42.280 taking that large section of the park all together, it cleans up some unplatted lots, 00:27:42.280 --> 00:27:45.720 and it also deals with some issues we were having with the ADP. 00:27:45.720 --> 00:27:49.360 We just approved where you had an issue of like, well, we have a setback distance. 00:27:49.360 --> 00:27:54.640 Well, we have all of this park. It's just being, we had issues created by unnecessary lot lines. 00:27:54.640 --> 00:28:00.080 This will clean all of that up. Put the park on one plat. 00:28:00.080 --> 00:28:06.000 We did notice this. We received one letter of concern when I called her and explained what was going on. 00:28:06.000 --> 00:28:08.760 She was no longer in opposition to the replant. 00:28:08.760 --> 00:28:13.920 So staff recommends approval, and I'll stand for any questions. 00:28:13.920 --> 00:28:17.040 Can you go back to that overhead? 00:28:17.040 --> 00:28:29.320 No, no, no. The aerial. Yes. The park goes north and east of that, up to the baseball diamond. 00:28:29.320 --> 00:28:40.760 Why is that not being taken into, and even east over to Bradshaw, why is all that not being platted into one? 00:28:40.760 --> 00:28:43.680 We had discussed that, and that is something that can be done in the future. 00:28:43.680 --> 00:28:50.400 But at the point where we were, it was just, we didn't want to cause any additional delay for those folks to get their senior center. 00:28:50.400 --> 00:28:53.360 Got it. So we move forward. But that's definitely something we can do in the future. 00:28:53.360 --> 00:29:01.240 Okay. Any other questions for Sean? Great. Thank you. 00:29:01.240 --> 00:29:26.520 Thank you. Next item is Haley's, it's 5C, which is moving to 5E for this evening. 00:29:26.520 --> 00:29:32.720 All right. Good evening. This is an amendment to the previously approved Rainier Road Apartments SUP. 00:29:32.720 --> 00:29:41.800 So the request for you is to hold the public hearing, consider making a recommendation to council regarding an amendment to ordinance 2017-222, 00:29:41.800 --> 00:29:52.720 which allowed for a multifamily use on this property that is just under one acre located at the intersection of Rainier Road and Rainier Court on the south side of Elm Street. 00:29:52.720 --> 00:29:56.200 So here's a look at the originally approved SUP site plan. 00:29:56.200 --> 00:30:02.320 This ordinance from 2017 included a very specific site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations. 00:30:02.320 --> 00:30:06.040 As you can see here, the approved plan specified two buildings. 00:30:06.040 --> 00:30:11.320 They're townhome style, so each unit has an individual front door and rear yard. 00:30:11.320 --> 00:30:14.360 There are five units per building for a total of ten. 00:30:14.360 --> 00:30:21.360 It also includes a storage building here on kind of the northwest side of the property and 23 parking spaces. 00:30:21.360 --> 00:30:31.040 Along with this were building elevations that very specifically nailed down the amount of brick and stucco that had to be on each wall of each building. 00:30:31.040 --> 00:30:39.600 There was a condition attached to the SUP ordinance that said the proposed development shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations. 00:30:39.600 --> 00:30:42.680 Since 2017, the site has changed ownership. 00:30:42.680 --> 00:30:44.920 They stuck with the original site plan and landscape plan. 00:30:44.920 --> 00:30:51.440 They have a permit issued and are under construction, but the new owners hired a different architect and wanted to enhance the visuals of the building. 00:30:51.440 --> 00:30:56.600 So now we'll look at those elevations that they're proposing to amend. 00:30:56.600 --> 00:30:59.880 Just for reference here, the criteria for approval of an SUP. 00:30:59.880 --> 00:31:04.400 These are outlined in your backup, but I didn't go into great detail because the site is already approved. 00:31:04.400 --> 00:31:12.160 So we're really just looking at the similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage and the architectural compatibility criteria. 00:31:12.160 --> 00:31:20.720 So here's a comparison of the 2017 facade versus what's now proposed for building one, which is the southernmost building on the site. 00:31:20.720 --> 00:31:25.840 I chose to show the rear elevations because that's really what will be seen from both of the adjoining roadways. 00:31:25.840 --> 00:31:32.800 But overall, you can see in 2017, there was an average of 30 to 50% stucco on each side of building one. 00:31:32.800 --> 00:31:41.880 What they're proposing now lowers that to anywhere from 3% to 20% stucco, but then adds an element of stone to give more visual interest to the building. 00:31:41.880 --> 00:31:47.160 And the stone would comprise 30 to 45% of building one. 00:31:47.160 --> 00:31:52.600 Similarly on building two, I'm showing the rear elevation that would be visible along North Elm Street. 00:31:52.600 --> 00:31:58.880 So a similar case where stucco was originally 40 to 50% of the front and rear sides of the building. 00:31:58.880 --> 00:32:05.200 That's now being reduced to about 26% on the front and as low as 2% on the rear side. 00:32:05.200 --> 00:32:12.600 Whereas stone is being added and it will account for 30 to 50% of the building facade on the front and rear side. 00:32:12.600 --> 00:32:18.080 So as I mentioned, the use itself as well as the site plan and landscaping were approved in 2017. 00:32:18.080 --> 00:32:22.600 At that time, the use was found to be consistent with all the criteria for approval. 00:32:22.600 --> 00:32:25.500 There are no changes proposed to those plans at this time. 00:32:25.500 --> 00:32:32.840 So the compatibility buffers, the existing tree preservation, all of that remains as it was in 2017. 00:32:32.840 --> 00:32:35.680 And similarly, the style of the buildings is not being proposed to change. 00:32:35.680 --> 00:32:39.800 They'll still be townhome style and look more consistent with single family. 00:32:39.800 --> 00:32:44.080 This proposed change would not cause any nuisance or impacts to the property that we can identify. 00:32:44.080 --> 00:32:48.560 Notification was sent, no responses have been received to date. 00:32:48.560 --> 00:32:54.040 And with that, staff is recommending approval of the SUP amendment with one condition, 00:32:54.040 --> 00:32:59.200 that the proposed building elevations as provided in your backup shall replace those that were approved with and 00:32:59.200 --> 00:33:05.480 attached to Ordinance 2017 222, all other provisions of that ordinance shall remain as adopted. 00:33:05.480 --> 00:33:07.360 Happy to stand for any questions. 00:33:07.360 --> 00:33:08.920 >> Chris, you're back. 00:33:08.920 --> 00:33:10.000 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:33:10.000 --> 00:33:15.320 The elevation that faces North Hill, there's not a fence there, we're not requiring a fence there. 00:33:15.320 --> 00:33:17.560 >> Each of the, let's see if this plan shows it. 00:33:17.560 --> 00:33:24.000 Each of the townhomes has a small rear yard to allow for, I presume, pets or kids to play safely in the backyard. 00:33:24.000 --> 00:33:29.200 So there would be a low, three to four foot high fence on the back of each unit, giving them each a small rear yard. 00:33:29.200 --> 00:33:30.600 >> But not a six or eight foot. 00:33:30.600 --> 00:33:31.840 >> No, sir. >> Great, thanks. 00:33:31.840 --> 00:33:34.860 >> Any other questions for Haley? 00:33:34.860 --> 00:33:38.920 Great, thank you very much. 00:33:38.920 --> 00:33:39.420 >> Thank you. 00:33:39.420 --> 00:33:46.080 >> Item 5D and 5E are seeking a continuance to June 19th. 00:33:46.080 --> 00:33:52.880 So we've notified residents of this potential change and we're not going to be hearing the presentation in the work session this evening. 00:33:52.880 --> 00:33:56.000 So with that, I will close, do we have anything else? 00:33:56.000 --> 00:33:59.360 Okay, with that, I will close the work session at 538. 00:33:59.360 --> 00:34:01.600 We'll reconvene in council chambers at 630. 00:34:01.600 --> 00:34:09.720 >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. 00:34:09.720 --> 00:34:14.240 Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 5th, 2019. 00:34:14.240 --> 00:34:18.360 I'll call the meeting to order, seeing that we have a quorum at 630. 00:34:18.360 --> 00:34:22.840 The first item of business is to stand, if able, and give the Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag. 00:34:22.840 --> 00:34:30.840 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for 00:34:30.840 --> 00:34:36.960 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:34:36.960 --> 00:34:40.760 >> Honor the Texas flag. 00:34:40.760 --> 00:34:46.360 I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. 00:34:49.360 --> 00:34:54.960 >> Before we go to the next item, which will be the minutes, I wanted just to provide an update on the agenda tonight. 00:34:54.960 --> 00:35:03.760 Item 5D and E, which are the Hunter's Creek Project, is seeking a postponement to a date certain of June 19th. 00:35:03.760 --> 00:35:10.560 So this evening, there will not be a presentation pending the vote of 5D and E. 00:35:10.560 --> 00:35:14.640 And we'll just take those out of order when we get to the public hearing section this evening. 00:35:14.640 --> 00:35:17.440 With that, the next item for business is consideration of the minutes. 00:35:17.440 --> 00:35:21.120 Because of an absence, we'll take these in two different votes. 00:35:21.120 --> 00:35:24.160 So I'll ask for a motion for the minutes for May 1st. 00:35:24.160 --> 00:35:25.560 Commissioner Beck? 00:35:25.560 --> 00:35:27.760 >> Move to approve minutes for May 1st. 00:35:27.760 --> 00:35:28.920 >> We have a first for approval. 00:35:28.920 --> 00:35:29.840 Commissioner Pernetta? 00:35:29.840 --> 00:35:30.640 >> Second. 00:35:30.640 --> 00:35:32.840 >> We have a first and a second for approval. 00:35:32.840 --> 00:35:34.520 Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:35:34.520 --> 00:35:45.400 Motion carries 5-0. 00:35:45.400 --> 00:35:48.120 Next item is minutes for May 15th. 00:35:48.120 --> 00:35:49.400 Commissioner Pernetta? 00:35:49.400 --> 00:35:50.920 >> Move to approve. 00:35:50.920 --> 00:35:51.880 >> We have a first for approval. 00:35:51.880 --> 00:35:52.640 Commissioner Cole? 00:35:52.640 --> 00:35:53.360 >> Second. 00:35:53.360 --> 00:35:55.360 >> We have a first and a second for approval. 00:35:55.360 --> 00:35:56.920 Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:35:56.920 --> 00:36:08.800 Motion carries 4-0 with one abstain. 00:36:08.800 --> 00:36:12.000 Next item for business is the consent agenda. 00:36:12.000 --> 00:36:13.280 Chair will entertain a motion. 00:36:13.280 --> 00:36:14.440 Commissioner Beck? 00:36:14.440 --> 00:36:16.640 >> Move to approve consent agenda. 00:36:16.640 --> 00:36:17.520 >> We have a first for approval. 00:36:17.520 --> 00:36:18.240 Commissioner Cole? 00:36:18.240 --> 00:36:19.240 >> Second. 00:36:19.240 --> 00:36:22.880 >> We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. 00:36:22.880 --> 00:36:24.640 Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:36:24.640 --> 00:36:33.400 Motion carries 5-0. 00:36:33.400 --> 00:36:36.320 Next item for business is items for individual consideration. 00:36:36.320 --> 00:36:40.320 First item before ASP 18-0054. 00:36:40.320 --> 00:36:41.840 I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. 00:36:44.440 --> 00:36:54.600 >> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. 00:36:54.600 --> 00:36:57.400 And I'm presenting SP18-54 to you this evening. 00:36:57.400 --> 00:37:04.080 The request is for an alternative development plan for a proposed elderly housing development. 00:37:04.080 --> 00:37:10.080 The subject property is located on the northeast corner of McKinney and Bel Air. 00:37:10.080 --> 00:37:16.640 And the purpose of the ADP is to deviate from sections 35.13(8) buffer requirements and 00:37:16.640 --> 00:37:22.240 35.13(13(4) non-residential and mixed use buildings in a pedestrian-oriented district. 00:37:22.240 --> 00:37:28.360 The subject property has a zoning designation of NRMU 12 with overlay conditions. 00:37:28.360 --> 00:37:32.400 That zoning was approved in 2015 with those overlay conditions 00:37:32.400 --> 00:37:36.240 in order to facilitate the development of an elderly housing use. 00:37:36.240 --> 00:37:40.160 It did limit the amount of square footage that could be put on the property, 00:37:40.160 --> 00:37:43.800 as well as required privacy fences on the north and east property lines. 00:37:43.800 --> 00:37:47.440 Additional tree canopy was also required as a result of it. 00:37:47.440 --> 00:37:50.600 NRMU 12 is one of our pedestrian-oriented districts and 00:37:50.600 --> 00:37:55.680 therefore has different site design regulations than what you typically see in 00:37:55.680 --> 00:37:58.200 a commercial or institutional building. 00:37:58.200 --> 00:38:02.120 And the applicant is seeking an alternative development plan to address some design criteria. 00:38:05.080 --> 00:38:10.440 So an ADP is a process, it's a flexible discretionary process that the Denton 00:38:10.440 --> 00:38:16.080 development code allows that permits applicants to deviate from sub-chapter 13 00:38:16.080 --> 00:38:20.040 site design requirements if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:38:20.040 --> 00:38:23.520 The sections that the applicant would like to deviate from, there are three of them. 00:38:23.520 --> 00:38:27.520 The first one would require at least 60% of the street frontage 00:38:27.520 --> 00:38:30.600 to have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line. 00:38:30.600 --> 00:38:34.160 The applicant is actually proposing to move those buildings back 50 feet. 00:38:35.360 --> 00:38:40.360 They also are asking to deviate from the perimeter fencing that would be 00:38:40.360 --> 00:38:44.840 required to be located inside the boundary of a required landscape buffer. 00:38:44.840 --> 00:38:48.320 The applicant would actually like to put that fence on the perimeter of the site and 00:38:48.320 --> 00:38:51.880 still provide that buffer, but put the fence on the perimeter. 00:38:51.880 --> 00:38:56.800 And then there's a type C buffer that's required on the east property line, 00:38:56.800 --> 00:38:58.960 which would require a certain amount of plannings. 00:38:58.960 --> 00:39:03.720 There is a gas line easement in that location, which really prevents that planting. 00:39:03.720 --> 00:39:08.280 They are proposing to put that fence there required by the zoning, 00:39:08.280 --> 00:39:10.240 as well as preserve some existing trees. 00:39:10.240 --> 00:39:13.800 So the proposed site plan is shown here. 00:39:13.800 --> 00:39:16.840 There are four buildings proposed. 00:39:16.840 --> 00:39:20.120 They are proposed to be set back 50 feet from the street. 00:39:20.120 --> 00:39:21.640 That's that blue line right here. 00:39:21.640 --> 00:39:26.160 There are three driveways associated with the development. 00:39:26.160 --> 00:39:30.320 One full access and then two just entrances. 00:39:31.360 --> 00:39:34.400 There are activities proposed for the front yard, and 00:39:34.400 --> 00:39:38.600 that would allow a preservation of existing mature tree canopy. 00:39:38.600 --> 00:39:43.880 And that there are decorative fences proposed for those front yard areas. 00:39:43.880 --> 00:39:48.480 And then that privacy fence is shown here, and then the parking would be in the rear. 00:39:48.480 --> 00:39:49.640 This is Bel Air Drive here. 00:39:49.640 --> 00:39:57.880 So when we look at what the DDC requirements would be for setbacks, we show that 00:39:59.200 --> 00:40:02.760 generally that ten foot setback would be this orange line right here. 00:40:02.760 --> 00:40:09.720 A 25 foot setback is what the existing structures in the neighborhood, 00:40:09.720 --> 00:40:15.000 those residential structures are required to meet per their plat when it was platted. 00:40:15.000 --> 00:40:19.480 And then this blue line shows the 50 foot setback that the applicant is requesting. 00:40:19.480 --> 00:40:22.400 So if those buildings were moved forward to that 10 feet, 00:40:22.400 --> 00:40:24.480 you could see how that would look on the street. 00:40:24.480 --> 00:40:30.200 It would be out of character with what that existing development pattern shows and 00:40:30.200 --> 00:40:34.600 would potentially interrupt that visual sight line on the street. 00:40:34.600 --> 00:40:38.840 What the applicant is proposing is to move those back 50 feet. 00:40:38.840 --> 00:40:42.760 It would provide visual consistency not only on the subject property, but 00:40:42.760 --> 00:40:46.080 then it would be a little more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 00:40:48.680 --> 00:40:54.720 The DDC requirements for landscaping include that fencing here. 00:40:54.720 --> 00:40:57.520 This is that north property line fence. 00:40:57.520 --> 00:41:01.880 If they met some Chapter 13 requirements, that fence would be required to be pushed 00:41:01.880 --> 00:41:06.120 in with that landscaping on the outside of that fence. 00:41:06.120 --> 00:41:09.800 However, because of the residential nature of the area, there is an existing fence here. 00:41:09.800 --> 00:41:11.240 There's the neighbor's fence. 00:41:11.240 --> 00:41:15.400 And it really would create sort of a pinched corridor, making maintenance of that buffer 00:41:16.680 --> 00:41:19.880 difficult, and really reducing the effectiveness on that buffer. 00:41:19.880 --> 00:41:25.880 The applicant is proposing to move that fence to that property line, 00:41:25.880 --> 00:41:31.480 still adding those buffer elements there between the building and that fence. 00:41:31.480 --> 00:41:33.440 But to move it to that property line. 00:41:33.440 --> 00:41:36.280 Just some other elements regarding their proposed landscape plan. 00:41:36.280 --> 00:41:41.080 They're proposing street trees along Bel Air in accordance with the DIN development code. 00:41:41.080 --> 00:41:44.640 That overlay condition requires 50% tree canopy, 00:41:44.640 --> 00:41:51.080 which would result in over 40,000 square feet of canopy at maturity. 00:41:51.080 --> 00:41:56.040 And that would include 34,000 square feet of new trees, as well as over 5,000 square feet 00:41:56.040 --> 00:42:00.400 of preserved trees in addition to the minimum preservation requirements. 00:42:00.400 --> 00:42:02.600 They're required parking lot tree canopy. 00:42:02.600 --> 00:42:06.000 Also, they have that privacy fence. 00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:10.480 This yellow shows that gas line easement, which really does restrict any plantings in 00:42:10.480 --> 00:42:12.960 that back portion of the property. 00:42:12.960 --> 00:42:17.880 And as you can see, these green circles here show those preserved trees that they're proposing. 00:42:17.880 --> 00:42:22.120 And they've put their landscape islands strategically to capture those trees. 00:42:22.120 --> 00:42:29.040 We feel that the proposed buffers, the fencing, and then those existing as well as 00:42:29.040 --> 00:42:33.200 proposed trees, would mitigate any nuisances that would be caused from this property. 00:42:33.200 --> 00:42:36.240 It really is a residential use in a residential area. 00:42:36.240 --> 00:42:39.400 Really don't anticipate a lot of negative impacts. 00:42:39.400 --> 00:42:45.360 With the proposed elevations, the criteria for approval in sub-chapter 13 of the DIN 00:42:45.360 --> 00:42:48.400 development code, first, does it preserve existing neighborhoods? 00:42:48.400 --> 00:42:53.920 The proposed design and use are compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. 00:42:53.920 --> 00:42:58.160 And that parking is placed in order to reduce those visual impacts. 00:42:58.160 --> 00:43:02.760 And then having those activity areas close to the street really do foster social interaction 00:43:02.760 --> 00:43:11.000 and really do help use to operate in a way that's consistent with a residential neighborhood. 00:43:11.000 --> 00:43:15.760 A share quality development, the request is not intended to lower design standards, but 00:43:15.760 --> 00:43:20.960 to allow them to maintain the visual consistency with the setback and to provide additional 00:43:20.960 --> 00:43:24.040 tree preservation and planting in the front yard areas. 00:43:24.040 --> 00:43:27.960 Focused new development and activity centers, this is an infill lot, wouldn't contribute 00:43:27.960 --> 00:43:29.840 to sprawl. 00:43:29.840 --> 00:43:33.200 Under infrastructure is adequate to accommodate development. 00:43:33.200 --> 00:43:35.920 There is necessary infrastructure in place. 00:43:35.920 --> 00:43:39.280 And would result in a high quality development meeting the intent of the standards. 00:43:39.280 --> 00:43:43.360 This uniform 50 foot setback creates visual consistency. 00:43:43.360 --> 00:43:48.720 The additional tree plantings, the fencing, all of it would make sure that it is compatible 00:43:48.720 --> 00:43:50.680 with the surrounding property. 00:43:50.680 --> 00:43:55.660 Also pedestrian improvements associated with the development would complete that sidewalk 00:43:55.660 --> 00:43:58.760 network on that side of the street. 00:43:58.760 --> 00:44:03.200 Also staff does recommend approval of the request as it does meet the criteria in Subject 00:44:03.200 --> 00:44:04.960 13 of the Denton Development Code. 00:44:04.960 --> 00:44:08.840 I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. 00:44:08.840 --> 00:44:09.840 Thank you, Julie. 00:44:09.840 --> 00:44:12.660 I do not see any questions. 00:44:12.660 --> 00:44:18.600 This is an individual-considerated item, so we're not going to have a public hearing opportunity. 00:44:18.600 --> 00:44:23.360 Is there any discussion or motion from the commission? 00:44:23.360 --> 00:44:30.080 Commissioner Beck? 00:44:30.080 --> 00:44:32.080 We have a motion to approve. 00:44:32.080 --> 00:44:33.080 Commissioner Sanchez? 00:44:33.080 --> 00:44:34.080 I second it. 00:44:34.080 --> 00:44:35.880 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:44:35.880 --> 00:44:36.880 Any discussion? 00:44:36.880 --> 00:44:45.700 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:44:45.700 --> 00:44:48.880 Motion carries 5-0. 00:44:48.880 --> 00:45:02.720 Next item for business is item 4B, ADP 19-0005, and I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. 00:45:02.720 --> 00:45:05.440 Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:45:05.440 --> 00:45:09.800 My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner with the Planning Department, and I'm here 00:45:09.800 --> 00:45:16.400 tonight to present a request for an ADP for the American Legion Center at Fredmore Park, 00:45:16.400 --> 00:45:21.960 and this is a request to deviate from section 3513 for non-residential mixed-use buildings 00:45:21.960 --> 00:45:23.960 in a pedestrian-oriented district. 00:45:23.960 --> 00:45:30.840 The site is about 3.639 acres that northeast corner of Lakey and Wilson Street, primarily 00:45:30.840 --> 00:45:37.400 zoned NR2, a little bit of NR4, and this ADP is to facilitate construction of an expansion 00:45:37.400 --> 00:45:43.340 of the existing American Legion Senior Center. 00:45:43.340 --> 00:45:48.880 Those four areas of deviation we mentioned, one is that walls facing side streets must 00:45:48.880 --> 00:45:54.960 be at least 25% windows, display areas, or doors; second is that 60% of the street frontage 00:45:54.960 --> 00:45:58.880 must have buildings within 10 feet of the front property line; third is a requirement 00:45:58.880 --> 00:46:03.920 for the development to have a minimum floor area ratio of .4; and the fourth is that windows 00:46:03.920 --> 00:46:07.080 require architectural surround, not be flush with the exterior wall. 00:46:07.080 --> 00:46:11.600 So we'll go through where those deviations fit in the overall plan as we go forward. 00:46:11.600 --> 00:46:17.120 Just to give you a sense, this is the existing building, one of our older park buildings. 00:46:17.120 --> 00:46:21.440 Primarily you're seeing cement and grass at the front there. 00:46:21.440 --> 00:46:26.440 On the side there we have dumpsters that are essentially right along the street, you have 00:46:26.440 --> 00:46:30.520 unscreened air conditioning units. 00:46:30.520 --> 00:46:34.000 From above, we'll just zoom in there, you can see what would be removed would be that 00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:42.560 building to the south as well as the covered patios to the north and west there. 00:46:42.560 --> 00:46:47.000 And the proposal would be to replace that with a new building that will actually connect 00:46:47.000 --> 00:46:49.280 directly to the building to the north there. 00:46:49.280 --> 00:46:54.840 So that's one of the reasons for the larger setback, rather than being close to the road 00:46:54.840 --> 00:46:59.040 there, moving it back allows it to more closely align with the building to the north, be attached 00:46:59.040 --> 00:47:00.040 there. 00:47:00.040 --> 00:47:09.880 It also allows for, as you can see, the addition of trees and a landscape area in front of 00:47:09.880 --> 00:47:13.040 the building, provides greater screen for that neighborhood across the street. 00:47:13.040 --> 00:47:17.640 You can also see around the dumpster area there, that's been moved off the street back, 00:47:17.640 --> 00:47:21.120 so now the doors are facing away from the neighborhood, it has screening around that 00:47:21.120 --> 00:47:27.180 landscaping and trees, and that again, benefit to the neighborhood across the street there. 00:47:27.180 --> 00:47:32.840 With the Florida area ratio, not requiring that minimum, that ensures that we're not 00:47:32.840 --> 00:47:36.900 having to add large amounts of additional building and pavement to the park, instead 00:47:36.900 --> 00:47:40.800 we're preserving that natural environment with a lower Florida area ratio. 00:47:40.800 --> 00:47:46.560 And then with the two window related requirements, as you can see, this is the south elevation, 00:47:46.560 --> 00:47:53.920 so the existing is below there, what's proposed allows for not having large windows that look 00:47:53.920 --> 00:47:58.400 into a kitchen and storage area, and the windows proposed better fit with the overall aesthetic 00:47:58.400 --> 00:48:04.320 of the building, so that you have one kind of unified appearance throughout. 00:48:04.320 --> 00:48:08.960 And just so you can see at the front of the building there, currently, again, there's 00:48:08.960 --> 00:48:13.400 almost no landscaping or trees there, what's proposed will have a much more pleasant park-like 00:48:13.400 --> 00:48:17.400 appearance for the folks across the street. 00:48:17.400 --> 00:48:20.800 So when we assess an ADP, we have a number of criteria for approval. 00:48:20.800 --> 00:48:24.720 First of all, does it preserve existing neighborhoods, and as we've discussed, you're getting quite 00:48:24.720 --> 00:48:30.080 a bit of additional screening and trees, more attractive landscaping for neighborhoods across 00:48:30.080 --> 00:48:34.200 Lakey and Wilson Street, and the building is being moved a little bit farther away from 00:48:34.200 --> 00:48:35.200 those houses. 00:48:35.200 --> 00:48:40.560 Ensuring quality development, these deviations allow for overall unified aesthetic between 00:48:40.560 --> 00:48:43.880 these two buildings, the expansion and the existing building. 00:48:43.880 --> 00:48:47.480 It would not expand beyond the boundaries of the park there, so you're not getting sprawl 00:48:47.480 --> 00:48:50.440 because of this. 00:48:50.440 --> 00:48:55.180 We have infrastructure for the existing park building, so that's ready to go. 00:48:55.180 --> 00:48:58.520 And then the most important one, ensuring that developers alternative proposal results 00:48:58.520 --> 00:49:03.520 in a high-quality development, and we're really happy about the amount of additional trees 00:49:03.520 --> 00:49:07.240 and landscaping we're getting through this, getting those dumpsters off the street there 00:49:07.240 --> 00:49:11.360 for the neighborhood, and having really a continuous building design rather than two 00:49:11.360 --> 00:49:12.360 separate buildings. 00:49:12.360 --> 00:49:18.000 It's going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. 00:49:18.000 --> 00:49:22.160 So with that, we do recommend approval, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to 00:49:22.160 --> 00:49:23.160 answer those. 00:49:23.160 --> 00:49:24.160 We do have one question. 00:49:24.160 --> 00:49:25.160 Commissioner Beck. 00:49:25.160 --> 00:49:26.160 Thank you, John. 00:49:26.160 --> 00:49:32.560 Just out of curiosity, this is city park buildings we're talking about, city-owned, city-financed. 00:49:32.560 --> 00:49:38.680 What's the history behind that sign-out front that says American Legion Senior Center? 00:49:38.680 --> 00:49:41.880 You know, that is a good question. 00:49:41.880 --> 00:49:46.040 I don't know the precise history there, but I believe it may have been in the beginning 00:49:46.040 --> 00:49:48.480 that it was also an American Legion meeting site. 00:49:48.480 --> 00:49:51.680 It may have been a sponsorship, but I just don't know the answer to that. 00:49:51.680 --> 00:49:52.680 I'm sorry. 00:49:52.680 --> 00:49:53.680 Okay. 00:49:53.680 --> 00:49:54.680 It's all right. 00:49:54.680 --> 00:49:55.680 Thank you. 00:49:55.680 --> 00:49:56.680 So many questions you have. 00:49:56.680 --> 00:49:57.680 Thanks, Sean. 00:49:57.680 --> 00:49:58.680 Thank you. 00:49:58.680 --> 00:50:02.840 Just like the previous item, this is not a public hearing, so chair will entertain motion 00:50:02.840 --> 00:50:08.720 or discussion. 00:50:08.720 --> 00:50:17.920 Commissioner Beck. 00:50:17.920 --> 00:50:20.920 We have a first, and Commissioner Preneta, do you have a second? 00:50:20.920 --> 00:50:21.920 I'll second. 00:50:21.920 --> 00:50:29.200 So we have a first for Commissioner Beck, second from Commissioner Preneta. 00:50:29.200 --> 00:50:33.480 For approval of ADP 19-005, any discussion? 00:50:33.480 --> 00:50:38.480 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:50:38.480 --> 00:50:42.960 Motion carries 5-0. 00:50:42.960 --> 00:50:47.680 That moves us into a public hearing. 00:50:47.680 --> 00:50:50.920 As I mentioned earlier, we're going to take two items out of order this evening. 00:50:50.920 --> 00:51:00.200 So instead of going to 5-A, we're going to skip to 5-D, item Z18-0025A, and open the 00:51:00.200 --> 00:51:08.920 public hearing and ask a commissioner for a vote to postpone to a date certain of June 00:51:08.920 --> 00:51:10.360 19th. 00:51:10.360 --> 00:51:12.520 Commissioner Beck. 00:51:12.520 --> 00:51:14.120 Thank you, chair. 00:51:14.120 --> 00:51:18.840 Move to postpone this to a date certain of June 19th. 00:51:18.840 --> 00:51:19.840 Commissioner Preneta. 00:51:19.840 --> 00:51:20.840 Second the motion. 00:51:20.840 --> 00:51:26.040 We have a first and a second for postponement of Z18-0025A. 00:51:26.040 --> 00:51:27.040 Any discussion? 00:51:27.040 --> 00:51:29.880 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:51:29.880 --> 00:51:39.080 Motion carries 5-0. 00:51:39.080 --> 00:51:48.040 Next item for business is item 5-E. I'll open the public hearing for S19-0004A and ask the 00:51:48.040 --> 00:51:51.720 commissioner for a motion to postpone to a date certain of June 19th. 00:51:51.720 --> 00:51:52.720 Commissioner Preneta. 00:51:52.720 --> 00:51:55.940 Motion to postpone to a date certain of June 19th. 00:51:55.940 --> 00:51:58.080 We have a first for approval. 00:51:58.080 --> 00:51:59.080 Commissioner Sanchez. 00:51:59.080 --> 00:52:00.080 Second. 00:52:00.080 --> 00:52:04.880 We have a first and a second to postpone or approve the vote to postpone. 00:52:04.880 --> 00:52:07.760 See any discussion? 00:52:07.760 --> 00:52:15.160 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:52:15.160 --> 00:52:17.880 Motion carries 5-0. 00:52:17.880 --> 00:52:23.080 Next item for business this evening will be 5A, FR19-0001. 00:52:23.080 --> 00:52:31.320 I'll invite Haley for presentation. 00:52:31.320 --> 00:52:37.880 Good evening. 00:52:37.880 --> 00:52:42.480 This is a replat for lot 2R of the FMDARN ALL edition. 00:52:42.480 --> 00:52:47.900 The replat is a combination of lots 2, 3, and 4 of the same edition. 00:52:47.900 --> 00:52:51.760 You can see on the map here the red lines representing the former property lines that 00:52:51.760 --> 00:52:57.200 would be abandoned by this plat and the blue outline representing the new larger lot boundary. 00:52:57.200 --> 00:53:01.280 The intent is to develop this site with a pastoral center for UNT students. 00:53:01.280 --> 00:53:06.200 It's located just south of the campus between Eagle Drive and Fannin Street along McCormick 00:53:06.200 --> 00:53:07.200 Street. 00:53:07.200 --> 00:53:09.800 With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. 00:53:09.800 --> 00:53:11.800 Thank you, Haley. 00:53:11.800 --> 00:53:14.440 I do not see any questions. 00:53:14.440 --> 00:53:15.440 This is a public hearing. 00:53:15.440 --> 00:53:19.600 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so on this item. 00:53:19.600 --> 00:53:22.640 Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. 00:53:22.640 --> 00:53:23.640 Commissioner Pernetta? 00:53:23.640 --> 00:53:25.120 A motion to approve. 00:53:25.120 --> 00:53:27.280 We have a first for approval. 00:53:27.280 --> 00:53:28.280 Commissioner Sanchez? 00:53:28.280 --> 00:53:29.280 Second. 00:53:29.280 --> 00:53:32.040 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:53:32.040 --> 00:53:34.240 Any discussion? 00:53:34.240 --> 00:53:42.800 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:53:42.800 --> 00:53:44.960 Motion carries 5-0. 00:53:44.960 --> 00:53:51.040 The next item for business is item 5B, FR19-0005. 00:53:51.040 --> 00:53:57.760 I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing. 00:53:57.760 --> 00:54:08.980 Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. 00:54:08.980 --> 00:54:12.960 This will look familiar because, again, we're back at Fred Moore Park. 00:54:12.960 --> 00:54:16.660 As part of this process, as we were going through the ADP, we realized we also had the 00:54:16.660 --> 00:54:22.840 opportunity to clean up what is currently two platted lots that are part of the park 00:54:22.840 --> 00:54:27.200 as well as a number of unplatted lots and a drainage plot there. 00:54:27.200 --> 00:54:32.240 What's proposed is a final replat to take all of that property and bring that into one 00:54:32.240 --> 00:54:35.520 lot, Fred Moore Park. 00:54:35.520 --> 00:54:39.800 That would just remove a lot of unnecessary lot lines, put that part of the park all on 00:54:39.800 --> 00:54:42.800 one plot. 00:54:42.800 --> 00:54:45.100 We did notice this proposed replat. 00:54:45.100 --> 00:54:48.640 We received a letter from one property owner, but when staff spoke with her and explained 00:54:48.640 --> 00:54:53.400 the nature of the request, she had no concerns. 00:54:53.400 --> 00:54:57.680 Staff recommends approval of this request as it meets our criteria for a final replat. 00:54:57.680 --> 00:54:58.680 Thank you, Sean. 00:54:58.680 --> 00:55:02.200 I do not see any questions for you. 00:55:02.200 --> 00:55:03.200 This is a public hearing. 00:55:03.200 --> 00:55:06.560 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. 00:55:06.560 --> 00:55:08.000 Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. 00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:14.720 Mr. Sanchez, I make a motion to approve FR19005. 00:55:14.720 --> 00:55:16.520 We have a first for approval. 00:55:16.520 --> 00:55:17.520 Commissioner Fernetta? 00:55:17.520 --> 00:55:18.520 Second the motion. 00:55:18.520 --> 00:55:20.680 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:55:20.680 --> 00:55:21.680 Any discussion? 00:55:21.680 --> 00:55:29.640 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:55:29.640 --> 00:55:31.840 Motion carries 5-0. 00:55:31.840 --> 00:55:36.960 The next item for business is item 5C, S19-0008. 00:55:36.960 --> 00:55:49.240 I will invite Haley for presentation and open public hearing. 00:55:49.240 --> 00:55:56.720 Good evening. 00:55:56.720 --> 00:56:02.000 This is case S19-8 for an amendment to the Riney Road Apartments SUP. 00:56:02.000 --> 00:56:05.520 The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation 00:56:05.520 --> 00:56:12.800 to council regarding a request to amend SUP ordinance 2017-222 to allow for changes to 00:56:12.800 --> 00:56:15.920 the approved building facades for a multifamily development. 00:56:15.920 --> 00:56:18.240 The site is located on the south side of North Elm Street. 00:56:18.240 --> 00:56:20.080 You can see it outlined in yellow on the map. 00:56:20.080 --> 00:56:24.000 It is just under one acre in size. 00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:29.240 In 2017, an SUP was approved for this site allowing a multifamily development that ordinance 00:56:29.240 --> 00:56:34.440 included a very specific site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations and had a condition 00:56:34.440 --> 00:56:39.780 that the proposed development had to substantially comply with all of those plans in the future. 00:56:39.780 --> 00:56:44.200 You can see here the approved landscape plan so it includes two buildings. 00:56:44.200 --> 00:56:48.600 They are town home style so the units each have a separate front entry and they do have 00:56:48.600 --> 00:56:53.240 small rear yards that will include fences that you can see here on the back sides of 00:56:53.240 --> 00:56:54.240 the building. 00:56:54.240 --> 00:56:59.160 There is a total of ten units, 23 parking spaces, and then a detached storage building 00:56:59.160 --> 00:57:00.500 on the site. 00:57:00.500 --> 00:57:03.920 If you've driven by this property, you'll notice that it is currently under construction 00:57:03.920 --> 00:57:08.520 with foundations recently poured for these as their permit has been issued. 00:57:08.520 --> 00:57:12.280 They could develop today in accordance with that approved SUP, but the new owner of the 00:57:12.280 --> 00:57:16.760 property is seeking to make some architectural enhancements. 00:57:16.760 --> 00:57:20.400 For reference here, the criteria for approval of an SUP, these were all discussed in your 00:57:20.400 --> 00:57:21.400 backup. 00:57:21.400 --> 00:57:25.700 The most applicable to this amendment are the requirements for similarity and scale 00:57:25.700 --> 00:57:32.120 bulk and coverage and architectural compatibility with the impacted area. 00:57:32.120 --> 00:57:36.120 Looking at building one now to look at those proposed changes, you can see on the left 00:57:36.120 --> 00:57:38.720 side what was approved in 2017. 00:57:38.720 --> 00:57:43.880 This is the rear side of building one so this would be what fronts Riney Court. 00:57:43.880 --> 00:57:46.300 And then on the right side of the screen is what's proposed. 00:57:46.300 --> 00:57:51.320 So the major difference, as I mentioned, is the addition of stone to the facades. 00:57:51.320 --> 00:57:56.920 Previously it was all stucco and brick, anywhere from 30 to 47% stucco on the original elevations. 00:57:56.920 --> 00:58:01.080 That would be reduced to around 20% on the front and rear. 00:58:01.080 --> 00:58:05.720 And then the stone elements would account for 30 to 45% of those larger building facades 00:58:05.720 --> 00:58:08.640 on the front and back. 00:58:08.640 --> 00:58:12.400 Similar story with building two, this is the rear side of the building that would be visible 00:58:12.400 --> 00:58:14.320 driving along North Elm Street. 00:58:14.320 --> 00:58:19.360 So similar case where previously it was 40 to 50% stucco on the front and rear, that'll 00:58:19.360 --> 00:58:24.820 now be reduced to 25% on the front, less than 5% on all other sides. 00:58:24.820 --> 00:58:29.780 And the stone elements would account for 30 to 40% of the building facade. 00:58:29.780 --> 00:58:33.960 When doing our analysis, staff considered that there are no changes being proposed to 00:58:33.960 --> 00:58:35.620 the development of the site. 00:58:35.620 --> 00:58:38.760 Everything is still in accordance with the approved site plan and landscape plan, which 00:58:38.760 --> 00:58:42.640 was found to be consistent with the criteria for approval and the underlying zoning in 00:58:42.640 --> 00:58:44.240 2017. 00:58:44.240 --> 00:58:47.840 These proposed change in material would make the buildings perhaps more consistent with 00:58:47.840 --> 00:58:51.760 residential style development as stone is a common material and would not result in 00:58:51.760 --> 00:58:56.200 any nuisance or impact to the surrounding properties. 00:58:56.200 --> 00:59:00.160 Question was sent out regarding this request, we've received no responses to date. 00:59:00.160 --> 00:59:03.920 And staff is recommending approval of the SUP amendment with one condition, that the 00:59:03.920 --> 00:59:10.320 proposed elevations would replace those approved with and attached to Ordinance 2017-222. 00:59:10.320 --> 00:59:12.600 All other provisions of that ordinance would remain as adopted. 00:59:12.600 --> 00:59:15.200 And I'm happy to stand for any questions. 00:59:15.200 --> 00:59:17.160 Thank you, Haley. 00:59:17.160 --> 00:59:20.080 I do not see any questions. 00:59:20.080 --> 00:59:21.080 This is a public hearing. 00:59:21.080 --> 00:59:25.560 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. 00:59:25.560 --> 00:59:29.720 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to the days for discussion or motion. 00:59:29.720 --> 00:59:31.200 Commissioner Beck. 00:59:31.200 --> 00:59:37.200 Thank you, Chair, I move to approve S19-0008. 00:59:37.200 --> 00:59:38.640 We have a first for approval. 00:59:38.640 --> 00:59:39.640 Commissioner Cole. 00:59:39.640 --> 00:59:40.640 Second. 00:59:40.640 --> 00:59:41.640 We have a first and a second for approval. 00:59:41.640 --> 00:59:44.480 Any discussion on the item? 00:59:44.480 --> 00:59:49.480 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 00:59:49.480 --> 00:59:58.880 Motion carries 5-0. 00:59:58.880 --> 01:00:03.000 With 5-D and 5-E already being heard this evening, that moves our next item to business 01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:05.720 to the plan and zoning project matrix. 01:00:05.720 --> 01:00:09.040 I'll let Richard start and we can have discussion. 01:00:09.040 --> 01:00:13.000 Just wanted to provide one quick update. 01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:17.280 I know we had a lot to be determined on this. 01:00:17.280 --> 01:00:22.880 Just given the number of items being scheduled, we weren't sure some of these dates. 01:00:22.880 --> 01:00:30.320 I did hear from Deborah and Christy earlier this afternoon and it looks like we will be 01:00:30.320 --> 01:00:37.120 bringing the upland habitat item at the July 17th meeting along with the criteria manual 01:00:37.120 --> 01:00:38.120 for the east. 01:00:38.120 --> 01:00:43.200 I know they're going through the committee on the environment now and so what they're 01:00:43.200 --> 01:00:48.520 projecting is once it gets out of committee they'll be ready for the July 17th meeting. 01:00:48.520 --> 01:00:54.200 Did want to let everyone know for the next meeting we'll probably start early. 01:00:54.200 --> 01:01:00.560 Right now we've got nine consent items which really shouldn't be too bad but we do have 01:01:00.560 --> 01:01:07.720 right now tentatively seven public hearing items and obviously the two from tonight at 01:01:07.720 --> 01:01:14.280 the next P&Z so it will be a full agenda. 01:01:14.280 --> 01:01:20.040 Just to give a quick update on some of the council actions on the items, at the 521 city 01:01:20.040 --> 01:01:26.520 council meeting they did approve the razor ranch south mixed use district. 01:01:26.520 --> 01:01:29.280 There was one additional condition that was added. 01:01:29.280 --> 01:01:38.440 If you recall they were doing these cottage style single family homes and with the reduction 01:01:38.440 --> 01:01:43.400 in parking they did limit those units to one bedroom so that was something that council 01:01:43.400 --> 01:01:48.120 put in place and then if you recall that the prairie parcel that was the rezoning of that 01:01:48.120 --> 01:01:54.160 small lot there was an overlay restriction also put on that property limiting it to just 01:01:54.160 --> 01:02:01.040 a single family home but also allowing for an accessory dwelling or structure. 01:02:01.040 --> 01:02:07.960 At last night's council meeting they did approve unanimously the text amendment for the treatment 01:02:07.960 --> 01:02:14.480 facility as well as the solutions of north Texas related SUP. 01:02:14.480 --> 01:02:21.440 Both the rezoning and SUP were approved unanimously for Denton bank and the downtown design standards 01:02:21.440 --> 01:02:25.920 were also approved last night so just a quick update on those items that carried forward 01:02:25.920 --> 01:02:26.920 to the city council. 01:02:26.920 --> 01:02:28.920 Great thank you for the update. 01:02:28.920 --> 01:02:34.600 Is there any questions or additions to add to the matrix this evening? 01:02:34.600 --> 01:02:36.040 Fantastic. 01:02:36.040 --> 01:02:40.200 With that I will close the planning and zoning commission for June 5th at 658. 01:02:40.200 --> 01:02:40.400 Thank you.