WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.720 Good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning zoning special called 00:00:05.720 --> 00:00:13.620 session work session for June 26 2019 I'll call the meeting to order at 5 o 3 00:00:13.620 --> 00:00:16.800 seeing that we do have a quorum just as a point of order for the agenda this 00:00:16.800 --> 00:00:25.120 evening we are we have items 2a through to you to hear the way it's going to 00:00:25.120 --> 00:00:29.820 work in the public session is we're going to open the public hearing for 00:00:29.820 --> 00:00:36.520 items to a through to you with the condition that the following items are 00:00:36.520 --> 00:00:41.520 not being heard during that time so a through you will be heard minus items D 00:00:41.520 --> 00:00:49.800 G N O Q and you and I'll say that again Commissioner Beck so the items that are 00:00:49.800 --> 00:00:57.040 being pulled from the first presentation is items D area 27 item G area 30 item 00:00:57.040 --> 00:01:12.460 in area 37 item O area 38 item Q area 40 and item you area 44 so we'll do a large 00:01:12.460 --> 00:01:17.480 presentation and then after that we'll look for a vote and discussion of those 00:01:17.480 --> 00:01:22.640 items and then DG NO Q you will be heard individually and we'll take separate 00:01:22.640 --> 00:01:27.200 votes on each of those since we do have feedback on those items specifically 00:01:27.200 --> 00:01:31.680 kiss your back thank you so we're not eliminating them from consideration I 00:01:31.680 --> 00:01:35.120 just separate all items will be heard was separate them because we have some 00:01:35.120 --> 00:01:38.760 feedback on those the other items that are included a through you my without 00:01:38.760 --> 00:01:42.680 those we haven't had any feedback against our opposition of so we're 00:01:42.680 --> 00:01:48.760 taking those as one bulk session and I assume Ron if someone here is opposing 00:01:48.760 --> 00:01:53.200 one we can pull it out at that time if they show up yeah if you do suit choose 00:01:53.200 --> 00:01:56.800 to pull it you can do that as well okay yeah and on the other ones that you 00:01:56.800 --> 00:02:02.720 weren't identified yeah exactly so at this time I'll turn it over to Ron 00:02:02.720 --> 00:02:07.520 Maguida to present all the items great thank you chair members of the 00:02:07.520 --> 00:02:12.320 Commission excited here we were we're here with group two this time a little 00:02:12.320 --> 00:02:18.720 bit more in the areas that we we didn't touch last time we are looking at 00:02:18.720 --> 00:02:24.760 21 areas approximately 350 parcels now 350 is primarily because there are large 00:02:24.760 --> 00:02:31.120 areas that have multiple parcels versus the what we had seen with group one with 00:02:31.120 --> 00:02:36.440 that said we also have group three coming forward in the next month we are 00:02:36.440 --> 00:02:40.600 still working on those staff has been diligently looking at areas identifying 00:02:40.600 --> 00:02:46.200 areas that would qualify as city initiate zoning changes we are asking 00:02:46.200 --> 00:02:52.120 that the Commission provide us with some feedback as far as dates prior to today 00:02:52.120 --> 00:02:55.960 we were thinking of sometime in July but knowing that the timeline that we have 00:02:55.960 --> 00:03:00.280 and the amount of work that needs to be done for notification and research we're 00:03:00.280 --> 00:03:06.200 looking at an early August date for P&Z and an early September date for City 00:03:06.200 --> 00:03:14.800 Council for group three I know we have a P&Z date set for August 7th in a chance 00:03:14.800 --> 00:03:23.920 that that is a really high agenda would August 14th work and we don't need to 00:03:23.920 --> 00:03:28.040 get an answer today but just feedback hopefully we we can schedule some time 00:03:28.040 --> 00:03:32.680 soon so that we can start planning for notification and getting ready for group 00:03:32.680 --> 00:03:38.120 three so again looking at an early August timeframe for the third group 00:03:38.120 --> 00:03:46.360 first considerations August August 7th August 7th is a regular scheduled P&Z 00:03:46.360 --> 00:03:52.240 date and Richard I mean I'm not 100% sure what we have on that agenda if we 00:03:52.240 --> 00:04:01.280 can fit this in if not the August 14th can be a special called meeting and what 00:04:01.280 --> 00:04:07.920 we'll do is we'll send out an invite or some an email requesting your preference 00:04:07.920 --> 00:04:14.280 or your availability that is and then we'll we'll schedule it accordingly and 00:04:14.280 --> 00:04:17.920 right now it looks like we might be able to to incorporate it into that first 00:04:17.920 --> 00:04:21.160 meeting I think we have just a handful of not even a handful I think we have 00:04:21.160 --> 00:04:25.360 three items right now that we're okay we're anticipating on that agenda we'll 00:04:25.360 --> 00:04:32.680 follow up with an email with with a request for your availability okay city 00:04:32.680 --> 00:04:36.200 initiated zoning changes as you all know we've started with group one or group 00:04:36.200 --> 00:04:41.040 two we looked at the transition chart and the transition map looking at what's 00:04:41.040 --> 00:04:44.960 existing on the ground addressing non-conforming uses as best as we can 00:04:44.960 --> 00:04:49.480 protect the existing residential neighborhoods followed up with public 00:04:49.480 --> 00:04:53.560 comments that we heard from the public hearings through public outreach through 00:04:53.560 --> 00:04:57.240 visits phone calls and emails identifying those areas that we feel are 00:04:57.240 --> 00:05:03.440 suitable for a zoning change request also the future land use map in the land 00:05:03.440 --> 00:05:09.880 use element also played a role in identifying those particular areas so 00:05:09.880 --> 00:05:16.600 group two is made up again of approximately 21 areas 350 parcels this 00:05:16.600 --> 00:05:20.800 map hard to see basically what this illustrate is that it's all over the 00:05:20.800 --> 00:05:27.560 city it's along I 35 along 380 overt on the loop and then south as well along 00:05:27.560 --> 00:05:32.680 Mayhill so covers a lot more area than what we had in group one and we'll go 00:05:32.680 --> 00:05:41.360 through each one of these separately so the first one is area nine and this one 00:05:41.360 --> 00:05:46.920 was part of group one but we had to pull it because of notification issues this is 00:05:46.920 --> 00:05:53.880 on San Jacinto Boulevard as well as I 35 e the corridor itself which have 00:05:53.880 --> 00:05:59.240 properties fronting or parcels fronting I 35 the uses that you see listed here 00:05:59.240 --> 00:06:04.160 make up the majority of what's existing Callaway's nursery of course been there 00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:09.680 for four years the Brunswick zone zone bowling alley is on the other side of 00:06:09.680 --> 00:06:14.400 this area we also have the currently being constructed the state bridge 00:06:14.400 --> 00:06:20.200 suites right next to the bowling alley and a number of offices and in banks and 00:06:20.200 --> 00:06:28.480 in other retail establishment what staff is proposing is to go to an SC 00:06:28.480 --> 00:06:34.120 suburban quarter zoning district we feel that it is more appropriate than the MR 00:06:34.120 --> 00:06:37.780 there are a lot of uses that are permitted in the MR that are also 00:06:37.780 --> 00:06:42.560 permitting the SC however things that are different is relationship to the 00:06:42.560 --> 00:06:48.320 height maximum height for a building in the MR is a hundred feet while in the SC 00:06:48.320 --> 00:06:54.360 is 55 feet as as well as some zoning I'm sorry some uses that are less intense 00:06:54.360 --> 00:06:59.880 that are allowed in the SC than the MR we feel that it serves as a transition 00:06:59.880 --> 00:07:04.920 from the MR which is the mall to the south and then the residential zoning 00:07:04.920 --> 00:07:10.640 districts or zoning classifications to the north that you see here so again 00:07:10.640 --> 00:07:15.240 providing that transition zoning there was a meeting with the Piney Creek 00:07:15.240 --> 00:07:20.800 neighborhood community which is this area right here on June 10th generally 00:07:20.800 --> 00:07:27.800 the attendees were in approval of the SC zoning district no public response 00:07:27.800 --> 00:07:32.480 forms were received for this particular area 00:07:32.480 --> 00:07:38.880 areas 25 and 26 we've combined these two because they share a similar character 00:07:38.880 --> 00:07:46.080 in that it is along I 35 I 35 corridor there is a number of uses here worth 00:07:46.080 --> 00:07:49.760 mentioning is the Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Home which is 00:07:49.760 --> 00:07:53.960 located in area five in this general area here we also have the Presbyterian 00:07:53.960 --> 00:07:59.960 Hospital on area within area 26 there's a number of hospital services medical 00:07:59.960 --> 00:08:05.360 clinic restaurants and the like multifamily as well what staff is 00:08:05.360 --> 00:08:12.600 proposing is that this goes to a MR mixed-use regional zoning district it 00:08:12.600 --> 00:08:17.920 serves as a good zoning district primarily because of the land use element 00:08:17.920 --> 00:08:24.080 that calls this out as a regional mixed-use designation in our future land 00:08:24.080 --> 00:08:30.120 use map it provides as a regional draw to the area where the Presbyterian 00:08:30.120 --> 00:08:34.320 Hospital is a regional draw it's also in close proximity to the razor ranch as 00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:40.000 well as UNT again a regional draw therefore makes use regional is the most 00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:44.720 suitable zoning district the height allowed under the MR is a hundred feet 00:08:44.720 --> 00:08:50.640 and we feel that that's suitable for the area along I 35 it provides that 00:08:50.640 --> 00:08:55.680 flexibility for folks to develop higher than what is proposed under MN pressure 00:08:55.680 --> 00:09:05.080 back thank you so obviously this was a compromise on area 25 between instead of 00:09:05.080 --> 00:09:11.440 a highway corridor or an MN this was a happy medium for you with the MR correct 00:09:11.440 --> 00:09:17.040 in and we felt that this area was more of a regional draw rather than a highway 00:09:17.040 --> 00:09:21.680 corridor and then they can go back and forth but because of UNT and because of 00:09:21.680 --> 00:09:24.720 razor ranch because of the hospital we felt that this was more of a regional 00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:30.120 draw and you see something similar where medical city is that is MR currently 00:09:30.120 --> 00:09:39.400 and that's what we're trying to replicate here in this area okay MR okay 00:09:39.400 --> 00:09:45.120 MR allows dwelling units pretty much all except for single-family correct which 00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:51.080 is pretty much isn't that backing up to single families though or is that mainly 00:09:51.080 --> 00:09:54.480 apartments there there are some I mean this is the biggest one is Cumberland 00:09:54.480 --> 00:09:58.480 right that's not gonna change I don't think that will change but our seven 00:09:58.480 --> 00:10:05.360 area behind our seven yes so we try to keep our seven where they are today but 00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:09.800 definitely there will be some buffers and screening requirements if they are 00:10:09.800 --> 00:10:16.120 I believe there's a road between these two parcels sorry my mouse right over 00:10:16.120 --> 00:10:20.800 here so again when and if they develop there will be some requirements as far 00:10:20.800 --> 00:10:26.740 as providing some separation between the single family thank you there was a 00:10:26.740 --> 00:10:31.720 property owner or property owners that requested that this go to MR rather than 00:10:31.720 --> 00:10:36.960 keeping an under the MN staff they receive one in favor response in favor 00:10:36.960 --> 00:10:47.680 in the area 25 that is there's 25 and 26 we are going in here 27 if so I can if I 00:10:47.680 --> 00:11:02.120 can ask Commissioner Cole to excuse himself area 27 is the ranch estate's 00:11:02.120 --> 00:11:09.920 neighborhood it is possibly 147 acres 65 parcels the existing uses as you can 00:11:09.920 --> 00:11:14.680 probably imagine is mainly single-family homes homes that were built in the mid 00:11:14.680 --> 00:11:20.840 60s up to the early 70s there are some were built newer those that are not 00:11:20.840 --> 00:11:27.560 single-family are either undeveloped or used as general agriculture the 00:11:27.560 --> 00:11:31.840 neighborhood reached out to the staff during the public outreach effort during 00:11:31.840 --> 00:11:36.320 our development code update and zoning change and they are requesting the M I'm 00:11:36.320 --> 00:11:42.120 sorry the r1 they are currently zone r2 and the reason is that they want to keep 00:11:42.120 --> 00:11:49.600 their large lots as intact as possible the are to would allow a person to 00:11:49.600 --> 00:11:56.920 subdivide their lots to 16,000 square feet a minimum 16,000 the r1 will bump 00:11:56.920 --> 00:12:02.240 that up to 32,000 now the neighborhood would like to see a higher square 00:12:02.240 --> 00:12:06.960 footage but that's what we have today afforded so the r1 is the only one that 00:12:06.960 --> 00:12:13.640 we would consider and that is what's being proposed staff looked at the 00:12:13.640 --> 00:12:18.920 average acreage of each of those lots that are there the 65 lots six are under 00:12:18.920 --> 00:12:25.200 one acre you see some of them here as well as over here and in this area as 00:12:25.200 --> 00:12:31.480 well 22 are between one and two acres and then the larger portion of that 37 00:12:31.480 --> 00:12:36.380 are between two and three acres staff also attended a neighborhood meeting 00:12:36.380 --> 00:12:41.720 with the red states and again all that were present were generally in approval 00:12:41.720 --> 00:12:48.960 in fact they provided their requests in writing and provided comic cards from 00:12:48.960 --> 00:12:52.840 that meeting and that was included in the packet that was provided to you all 00:12:52.840 --> 00:12:58.680 staff did receive one I'm sorry four responses in favor however there was one 00:12:58.680 --> 00:13:04.600 a resident that was in opposition or is in opposition and that area is right 00:13:04.600 --> 00:13:09.560 here on Cindy Lane and US 380 00:13:09.560 --> 00:13:19.080 Ron real fast two things first just as a reminder especially Commissioner Smith 00:13:19.080 --> 00:13:23.160 and Pernetta although we are going through all items a through you in work 00:13:23.160 --> 00:13:28.560 session we are pulling out six items in public session either through recusal or 00:13:28.560 --> 00:13:32.440 we've gotten public feedback so we're taking these in order right now but we 00:13:32.440 --> 00:13:38.200 go to public session items DG NO Q&U we pulled separately we'll hear those 00:13:38.200 --> 00:13:42.060 individually and take six different boats on those the remaining ones the 00:13:42.060 --> 00:13:46.240 bulk of a through you since we didn't get feedback right as of yet we'll take 00:13:46.240 --> 00:13:50.440 them in one vote so that makes sense of why we had a recusal made presentation I 00:13:50.440 --> 00:13:59.620 one question on this the the requirement for our one is not one acre it's 32,000 00:13:59.620 --> 00:14:06.560 square feet do we know about those six how many of those fall under the 32,000 00:14:06.560 --> 00:14:12.960 does that make sense yes yes I think all could be 40,000 square feet and I I can 00:14:12.960 --> 00:14:17.200 I can check on that I don't have that information some of them look like 00:14:17.200 --> 00:14:21.520 they're not even close but I'm just eyeballing and now I can take a look at 00:14:21.520 --> 00:14:29.840 that Christian back thank you the opposition the one you pointed out there is there not a 00:14:29.840 --> 00:14:35.880 residence there now is there not a single-family home on that corner because his 00:14:35.880 --> 00:14:41.080 opposition was that it was unsuitable for a single-family yeah I spoke to the 00:14:41.080 --> 00:14:46.440 property owner and it's his his reason was he just doesn't want to go to r1 he 00:14:46.440 --> 00:14:51.480 would prefer the r2 I don't know he does not reside on that 00:14:51.480 --> 00:14:56.440 property it looks like it's vacant but something we can check as well during 00:14:56.440 --> 00:15:04.360 the break okay thanks Commissioner Ellis thank you chair to your point with the 00:15:04.360 --> 00:15:08.400 square footage there's there's thirty three thousand five hundred and sixty 00:15:08.400 --> 00:15:19.920 square foot in an acre how many 33 560 I thought it's 45 okay so 43 560 yeah I'm 00:15:19.920 --> 00:15:26.360 sorry that makes more sense it does excuse me okay great oh my gosh and 00:15:26.360 --> 00:15:36.920 we'll look at those six acre those six lots that are less than an acre okay we're 00:15:36.920 --> 00:15:52.560 gonna bring back Commissioner Cole so chair this is gonna be a little tricky 00:15:52.560 --> 00:15:59.480 in that I've got two slides that cover area 30 we'll go through this and what 00:15:59.480 --> 00:16:05.320 I'll do in my presentation during public hearing is not mentioned directly area 00:16:05.320 --> 00:16:09.480 30 but then we'll come back at a you know next and then we'll spend a little 00:16:09.480 --> 00:16:14.440 bit more time on area 30 and go through that item separately sounds great so 00:16:14.440 --> 00:16:20.800 okay area next areas or groupings is areas 28 through 32 as you see here 00:16:20.800 --> 00:16:27.160 they are primarily along I 35 next to the loop as well as highway 77 the 00:16:27.160 --> 00:16:31.840 zonings are sort of the existing uses found here range from an RV supercenter 00:16:31.840 --> 00:16:38.080 to some major automotive repair shops some gas stations to travel plaza self 00:16:38.080 --> 00:16:44.720 storage offices and also a single-family dwellings which are located within more 00:16:44.720 --> 00:16:54.680 or less the areas to the west of I 35 staff is proposing that the area 28 be 00:16:54.680 --> 00:17:03.200 zone HC as frontage of that area is primarily along I 35 building materials 00:17:03.200 --> 00:17:07.760 automotive sales and leasing or leasing travel Plaza all are permitted by right 00:17:07.760 --> 00:17:15.840 under the HC general office is comprised of the other areas the 29 30 31 and 32 00:17:15.840 --> 00:17:21.760 per the future land use map as well as a language element this area is suitable 00:17:21.760 --> 00:17:26.680 for business innovation general office fits that zoning district it allows for 00:17:26.680 --> 00:17:34.440 warehouses self storage but primarily businesses and higher larger size 00:17:34.440 --> 00:17:39.880 corporate offices as well and this is what our future lane use in our then 00:17:39.880 --> 00:17:45.160 plan 2030 calls for therefore we're looking to propose the zoning of geo in 00:17:45.160 --> 00:17:52.080 this area now geo versus MR very similar in their uses but again general office 00:17:52.080 --> 00:17:59.640 is more leaning towards the offices larger track developments Christian back 00:17:59.640 --> 00:18:06.800 okay this is where I'm curious there's most of these tracks there's it's empty 00:18:06.800 --> 00:18:11.480 right now correct so the plan to make a general office as opposed to sustaining 00:18:11.480 --> 00:18:18.080 the highway corridor along 35 how'd that come about primarily we we looked at the 00:18:18.080 --> 00:18:22.800 areas for example area 28 they are already like you said developed they do 00:18:22.800 --> 00:18:27.720 have some of the general retail or retail that's primarily along a highway 00:18:27.720 --> 00:18:33.600 corridor as we head north past the loop it became less and less and we felt that 00:18:33.600 --> 00:18:37.200 there was more of an opportunity there to be more of a geo zoning district 00:18:37.200 --> 00:18:42.920 where those uses would be more suitable for those areas how is the city trying 00:18:42.920 --> 00:18:47.960 to accomplish that they were going the Chamber of Commerce or something I mean 00:18:47.960 --> 00:18:53.200 are there ways that we're trying to attract people I think I think partly the 00:18:53.200 --> 00:18:58.600 zoning map is a good start we certainly are working with economic development in 00:18:58.600 --> 00:19:04.120 our efforts they they also recognize that there is a need for more corporate 00:19:04.120 --> 00:19:10.560 offices or general office in in the city and we just have to identify that in the 00:19:10.560 --> 00:19:16.040 map on the map so as you can see it also stretches across the other side of I-35 00:19:16.040 --> 00:19:23.000 primarily this area was in our prior development I'm sorry our prior plan to 00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:28.440 be regional but we know that between medical city area razor-range area 00:19:28.440 --> 00:19:34.480 there's there's just there's already enough regional draw areas this would 00:19:34.480 --> 00:19:40.600 best be best served as a general office as far as future development and from 00:19:40.600 --> 00:19:46.280 what I could tell didn't seem to be anybody opposed to the geo property 00:19:46.280 --> 00:19:53.060 owners no in fact we got some one response in favor for area 28 we did 00:19:53.060 --> 00:19:57.080 receive one response in opposition for area 30 and that's one reason why we're 00:19:57.080 --> 00:20:01.880 pulling that item and I'll go into more the details for that other than that 00:20:01.880 --> 00:20:07.440 there has been no response either you know position or in favor I've not 00:20:07.440 --> 00:20:13.720 received any calls or emails for these four areas 29 30 31 and 32 okay thanks 00:20:13.720 --> 00:20:18.720 commissioner Ellis thank you chair Ron in area 30 is the one opposition is that 00:20:18.720 --> 00:20:23.360 the one item that was made non-conforming with this and it's not 00:20:23.360 --> 00:20:28.840 conforming and we'll get more into it we made over here it is actually I 00:20:28.840 --> 00:20:34.120 apologize the loves travel stop is what we're referring to they currently own 00:20:34.120 --> 00:20:39.320 the area that's currently geo and then what we're proposing is this lot that 00:20:39.320 --> 00:20:44.840 they own and this lot that they own to transition or to be rezoned from MR to 00:20:44.840 --> 00:20:52.800 geo so under the MR travel Plaza is not permitted under the geo travel Plaza is 00:20:52.800 --> 00:20:57.040 not permitted so staff has a couple recommendations that would address this 00:20:57.040 --> 00:21:03.600 we can go back into the code and amend the the use table to allow travel 00:21:03.600 --> 00:21:09.960 plazas under the geo with more user to use specific standards or we can come 00:21:09.960 --> 00:21:16.680 back at a later time and apply the HZ zone HC zoning district which does allow 00:21:16.680 --> 00:21:23.640 for travel plazas by right I think staff is leaning towards number one as far as 00:21:23.640 --> 00:21:28.280 a recommendation however we still have to work throughout the use specific 00:21:28.280 --> 00:21:33.840 standards associated with that you said before thank you okay now I would not be 00:21:33.840 --> 00:21:39.200 in favor of number one with the way I have seen these this initiation of geo's 00:21:39.200 --> 00:21:44.640 throughout the city there travel plazas and many of these geo's would be highly 00:21:44.640 --> 00:21:48.000 inappropriate what we have one of the use specific standards that we talked 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:54.240 about is it has to be a certain distance away from I-35 so that would mean any 00:21:54.240 --> 00:22:00.480 proximity to proximity that is to I-35 therefore if it's more inland or away 00:22:00.480 --> 00:22:04.040 from I-35 it does not make sense and I don't think most travel plazas will be 00:22:04.040 --> 00:22:13.080 located outside or without within sorry not in close proximity to I-35 so okay 00:22:13.080 --> 00:22:18.760 well we have a travel plaza in close proximity to 35 that is misplaced in our 00:22:18.760 --> 00:22:24.720 city so I definitely want to steer clear of sure having that happen again and and 00:22:24.720 --> 00:22:28.160 we can we can have those discussions as we bring forward that code amendment 00:22:28.160 --> 00:22:33.360 thank you to clarify because she'll see some of Bucky's yes I am okay I was 00:22:33.360 --> 00:22:38.160 saying my mind went to that too well and just to clarify and I don't know if we 00:22:38.160 --> 00:22:44.440 can get into that discussion Jerry but by definition the travel plaza is defined 00:22:44.440 --> 00:22:51.480 as an area that provides rest resting showers and all the other amenities that 00:22:51.480 --> 00:22:57.360 you find typically in a travel plaza such as loves pilot and flying J I 00:22:57.360 --> 00:23:06.760 believe is the another one so those are what we refer to as travel plazas okay 00:23:08.200 --> 00:23:12.360 all right moving on to areas 33 and 34 these are grouped together primarily 00:23:12.360 --> 00:23:18.320 because they're along I-35 one is off of Primrose and the other is along 00:23:18.320 --> 00:23:26.960 Bolivar Oliver Elm and Locust primarily non-residential uses in the form of 00:23:26.960 --> 00:23:34.120 offices personal services restaurants and the like staff is proposing that 00:23:34.120 --> 00:23:41.080 these two areas in very small one parcel 33 right here is 12 13 Primrose B zone 00:23:41.080 --> 00:23:49.320 SC 34 the same currently it is MN that's what it would transition to staff is 00:23:49.320 --> 00:23:56.000 proposing that it go to SC primarily again the frontage is along 380 one in 00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:03.840 particular area Primrose that is existing as an existing general personal 00:24:03.840 --> 00:24:12.320 service use and it is currently zone NR 3 staff would like that be corrected by 00:24:12.320 --> 00:24:19.480 going to SC so this is a shot of that parcel that is currently NR 3 which will 00:24:19.480 --> 00:24:27.120 transition to our three what staff is proposing is that it go to SC we did 00:24:27.120 --> 00:24:32.360 receive one response in favor for area 33 and also a response in favor for area 00:24:32.360 --> 00:24:45.880 34 already areas 35 36 38 and 39 these are as you see here along 380 as well as 00:24:45.880 --> 00:24:52.480 the loop all of these are currently transitioning into an MN zoning district 00:24:52.480 --> 00:24:58.880 and what staff is proposing is that it be zone as an SC zoning district 00:24:58.880 --> 00:25:04.440 suburban corridor one that it is again fronting those major arterials future 00:25:04.440 --> 00:25:10.480 land use shows these areas as community mix use as far as the SC there are more 00:25:10.480 --> 00:25:16.400 commercial and vehicle related uses that are permitted and in that also 00:25:16.400 --> 00:25:21.040 multifamily if permitted would require if proposed would require a specific 00:25:21.040 --> 00:25:25.920 use permit we did receive one letter in opposition and that was from property 00:25:25.920 --> 00:25:30.920 owner of one of the parcels in the area 38 and and this is one of the other 00:25:30.920 --> 00:25:35.820 areas that we will be pulling and be considering as a separate item the 00:25:35.820 --> 00:25:42.080 property owner requested that be pulled and remain as MN for that property 00:25:42.080 --> 00:25:46.880 coaster back thank you chair where's when she'll Windsor Drive on there 00:25:46.880 --> 00:25:52.680 especially as it relates to that Western okay okay it's further south that's 00:25:52.680 --> 00:25:58.440 eventually going to connect at 35 it's my understanding 288 288 288 yes once 00:25:58.440 --> 00:26:03.680 this area develops yes right but I think it will stop there or maybe or maybe go 00:26:03.680 --> 00:26:10.080 over I don't think it would be in that grade intersection okay okay and that 00:26:10.080 --> 00:26:14.640 35 I believe that's where didn't Bible churches that's conforming to an SC or is 00:26:14.640 --> 00:26:18.120 that east of this is then Bible the other this is the apartment and there's 00:26:18.120 --> 00:26:21.560 a gas station there and this is a vacant piece of property gotcha perfect 00:26:21.560 --> 00:26:28.920 Chris Ross thank you Ron 38 is on the west side of their 288 as well right 30 00:26:28.920 --> 00:26:34.120 yes on both sides yes so the property owner just requested that the east side 00:26:34.120 --> 00:26:39.560 be MN and that the east side I'm sorry the west side remain or be proposed as 00:26:39.560 --> 00:26:46.160 SC okay and I believe that the property owner will be present and we can ask 00:26:46.160 --> 00:26:55.520 question it's the same property owner for both of those parcels yes okay 37 00:26:55.520 --> 00:27:02.920 this is the area just north of us here just the south of loop 288 and east of 00:27:02.920 --> 00:27:08.300 locus it is approximately fifty eight point six seven acres the use is 00:27:08.300 --> 00:27:13.440 primarily undeveloped general agriculture in some respects but there is also the 00:27:13.440 --> 00:27:20.120 Asbury United Methodist Church located in this general vicinity here staff is 00:27:20.120 --> 00:27:26.080 proposing that this area be be zoned as suburban corridor again looking at our 00:27:26.080 --> 00:27:33.680 land use element also the area is bounded by locus an arterial street loop 00:27:33.680 --> 00:27:40.960 288 and also that this parcel is a split zoning parcel which means that it 00:27:40.960 --> 00:27:46.960 contains three different zoning districts as a result of a prior PD prior 00:27:46.960 --> 00:27:52.760 plan development and in 2002 the PD went away but the zoning carried forward but 00:27:52.760 --> 00:27:59.560 three different zonings on one parcel and so an effort to correct that we did 00:27:59.560 --> 00:28:03.760 consult with the property owner in fact they attended the plan the public 00:28:03.760 --> 00:28:06.480 hearing through planning zoning Commission City Council and they're 00:28:06.480 --> 00:28:11.480 requesting an SC zoning district now those proper though that property owner 00:28:11.480 --> 00:28:17.120 owns everything north of this red line and up staff during our analysis 00:28:17.120 --> 00:28:22.800 included this area in red however through a neighborhood meeting that we 00:28:22.800 --> 00:28:29.280 just held last night the property owner the Asbury Methodist Church requested 00:28:29.280 --> 00:28:35.680 that their properties be withdrawn from consideration in that again we will 00:28:35.680 --> 00:28:39.700 discuss further as this item is discussed during the public hearing and 00:28:39.700 --> 00:28:46.000 I believe their reasons were it doesn't benefit them there's no advantage to go 00:28:46.000 --> 00:28:51.720 into SC and that's what they told me and I don't know they'll be here tonight I 00:28:51.720 --> 00:28:58.400 didn't ask that they attend but again that is their response to the proposal 00:28:58.400 --> 00:29:06.280 Commissioner Beck thanks what's that little stretch along locust there from 00:29:06.280 --> 00:29:12.920 zone SC okay today we'll transition to SC the shade look a little different yes 00:29:12.920 --> 00:29:18.600 okay it is just to highlight a little bit better okay thanks we did receive a 00:29:18.600 --> 00:29:25.560 number of opposition five in total six including the the church did receive 00:29:25.560 --> 00:29:30.160 some phone calls and emails again that prompted us to have a neighborhood 00:29:30.160 --> 00:29:36.360 meeting yesterday we we held one the turnout wasn't as much as we would hope 00:29:36.360 --> 00:29:41.160 but I'm assuming that they will be present tonight and we'll be able to hear 00:29:41.160 --> 00:29:45.000 their comments on during the public hearing Commissioner Beck I believe this 00:29:45.000 --> 00:29:50.000 was one of the few areas where the property owner actually wanted correct 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:54.800 what you're suggesting right everything again north of the red line was part of 00:29:54.800 --> 00:30:07.080 what the correct okay Ron can you remind me what the current transition zoning is 00:30:07.080 --> 00:30:12.800 if there's no action taken on this would be SC right because it's already that 00:30:12.800 --> 00:30:20.800 this would be our six this would be our three and this would be our two so these 00:30:20.800 --> 00:30:28.280 two lots would be our two okay thank you I included a slide to help illustrate 00:30:28.280 --> 00:30:32.560 some of the information that we learned from the property owner is that the area 00:30:32.560 --> 00:30:37.120 to the east of the parcel that we're referring to has a hundred foot 00:30:37.120 --> 00:30:43.920 electrical easement the areas to an extent south here and then then turns 00:30:43.920 --> 00:30:48.520 north along this general direction and what that is is the transmission lines 00:30:48.520 --> 00:30:53.320 coming from this substation follows this general alignment and heads north also 00:30:53.320 --> 00:30:58.900 there is a flip plane in the area to the south which provides a general buffer to 00:30:58.900 --> 00:31:02.800 the church and again that's something that wanted to let the Commission know 00:31:02.800 --> 00:31:12.160 that that's present on on the site okay area 40 through 43 as you can see it's 00:31:12.160 --> 00:31:17.560 primarily between loop 28 they are primarily between loop 28 and May Hill 00:31:17.560 --> 00:31:23.680 Road we're primarily looking at a zoning that's going from an Li light industrial 00:31:23.680 --> 00:31:33.560 to a excuse me geo general office zoning district the area that is 41 that is 00:31:33.560 --> 00:31:39.720 proposed to go to suburban corridor and the benefits of course or the the 00:31:39.720 --> 00:31:46.400 reasons why is that of course loop 28 and may Hill serve as a primary frontage 00:31:46.400 --> 00:31:51.800 for these areas and they are both arterial streets our future land use map 00:31:51.800 --> 00:31:57.360 our land use element calls this area out as business innovation the commercial 00:31:57.360 --> 00:32:01.640 uses are less intense than the industrial uses that are permitted in 00:32:01.640 --> 00:32:07.880 the Li again for both the geo and the SC staff has received one response in 00:32:07.880 --> 00:32:13.440 opposition and that is signified by this red line here a red box here and that's 00:32:13.440 --> 00:32:19.000 for area 40 another reason we're pulling that particular out area out and then 00:32:19.000 --> 00:32:29.680 one response in neutral in area 41 regarding 44 this is an area that staff 00:32:29.680 --> 00:32:35.480 is recommending more time to further analyze there was a parcel left out and 00:32:35.480 --> 00:32:41.360 just requesting that the planning zoning Commission postponed this to a date 00:32:41.360 --> 00:32:47.160 indefinite and then we will reschedule and repost this area and have it brought 00:32:47.160 --> 00:32:54.640 back to the planning zoning Commission at a later time we did send out 402 00:32:54.640 --> 00:33:02.560 property owner mailings 1,100 courtesy postcards out of those we received 11 00:33:02.560 --> 00:33:08.000 responses in favor 10 in opposition and one in neutral staff recommends that we 00:33:08.000 --> 00:33:13.480 approve again there is two way through to T and those are those areas that 00:33:13.480 --> 00:33:17.760 then fight there and that we also recommend that we postpone area 44 for 00:33:17.760 --> 00:33:25.440 a later time Kirsten Smith thank you on the six that are being pulled out 00:33:25.440 --> 00:33:30.600 separately when we did this last time we had we pulled those to the top of the 00:33:30.600 --> 00:33:34.480 agenda and saw and heard those all separately and then voted in mass and 00:33:34.480 --> 00:33:37.360 here you mentioned that earlier we get to pull those out separately move to the 00:33:37.360 --> 00:33:42.720 top the agenda hear them separately then hear the rest and then vote on those as 00:33:42.720 --> 00:33:48.840 total that's the plan my logic though and I'm open to suggestions is to hear 00:33:48.840 --> 00:33:51.640 the bulk in case someone is here that wants to speak on those we can pull it 00:33:51.640 --> 00:33:57.600 out and then hear the one separate after the main presentation either way I guess 00:33:57.600 --> 00:34:06.320 just are we gonna separate them I win yes yeah so I apologize Mr. Smith but 00:34:06.320 --> 00:34:19.360 the items we will be pulling out areas 27 30 37 38 and 40 yes yes we will be 00:34:19.360 --> 00:34:23.680 doing that so we'll have a main vote on the primary and then we'll take those 00:34:23.680 --> 00:34:28.240 six different votes on the secondary ones thanks 00:34:28.240 --> 00:34:33.920 Kosher Ellis thank you chair Ron are we discussing you at all or we simply 00:34:33.920 --> 00:34:38.280 you're wanting us to just postpone it we're not having discussion on staff 00:34:38.280 --> 00:34:42.840 would like us just to postpone it we won't we won't discuss it we won't 00:34:42.840 --> 00:34:51.040 present it in hoping that we can present at a later time any other questions for 00:34:51.040 --> 00:34:57.480 this evening's meeting awesome Ron I just want to officially thank you for 00:34:57.480 --> 00:35:03.280 all the work this looks like a ton of work just to even do the agenda looks 00:35:03.280 --> 00:35:06.240 like a lot of work not to mention the mailings and everything else so thank 00:35:06.240 --> 00:35:09.880 you and the team in the city for for all the work getting this done and making it 00:35:09.880 --> 00:35:13.480 as easy as possible for us tonight so appreciate that appreciate it and with 00:35:13.480 --> 00:35:16.800 that we'll close our work session at 538 we'll reconvene in council chambers at 00:35:16.800 --> 00:35:19.320 630 00:35:19.320 --> 00:35:28.260 ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning Commission special 00:35:28.260 --> 00:35:33.300 called session for June 26 2019 seeing that we have a quorum I'll call the 00:35:33.300 --> 00:35:39.480 meeting to order at 631 the first item on the agenda is to stand if able and 00:35:39.480 --> 00:35:43.560 provide a pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag 00:35:58.260 --> 00:36:16.080 allegiance to the Texas state under God one indivisible so just as a way of 00:36:16.080 --> 00:36:18.920 introducing tonight tonight we'll be considering group two of the city 00:36:18.920 --> 00:36:23.080 initiated zoning change recommendations for certain areas of the city the staff 00:36:23.080 --> 00:36:28.680 will be making a presentation on items 2a through to you at the same time these 00:36:28.680 --> 00:36:32.640 areas are part of the city's efforts update the city's development code on 00:36:32.640 --> 00:36:38.280 April 23rd 2019 the City Council approved an ordinance adopting the dent 00:36:38.280 --> 00:36:41.720 development code which included a zoning district transition chart the chart 00:36:41.720 --> 00:36:45.360 illustrates how existing zoning districts were renamed consolidated and 00:36:45.360 --> 00:36:50.920 ultimately reduced from 23 to 16 zones the proposed city initiated zoning 00:36:50.920 --> 00:36:54.160 changes being considered tonight will address the non-conforming uses and 00:36:54.160 --> 00:37:00.400 structures and provides consistency with the city's comprehensive plan so after 00:37:00.400 --> 00:37:04.200 the staff provides a presentation from items 2 through a will open it for 00:37:04.200 --> 00:37:10.360 public hearing and feedback item 44 which is item to you will be asked to be 00:37:10.360 --> 00:37:14.880 postponed to a date later this evening and then just as a way of managing the 00:37:14.880 --> 00:37:22.040 agenda this evening there will be a singular presentation for items 2a 00:37:22.040 --> 00:37:26.040 through to you with the exception of the following items that have been called 00:37:26.040 --> 00:37:34.960 out as separate items for discussion those items are items to D area 27 to G 00:37:34.960 --> 00:37:49.840 area 30 to N area 37 to O area 38 to Q area 40 and then just the 00:37:49.840 --> 00:37:55.760 affirmation to you so will happen this evening is we're gonna take item 2a 00:37:55.760 --> 00:38:00.120 through to you minus the ones I just said have a singular presentation on 00:38:00.120 --> 00:38:03.040 those anyone wishing to speak on those items can certainly have the opportunity 00:38:03.040 --> 00:38:07.640 during the public hearing on those items and then the singular items will be 00:38:07.640 --> 00:38:15.120 heard separately so if you hear to speak on area 27 30 37 38 or 40 we're gonna do 00:38:15.120 --> 00:38:19.680 that after the first vote and we'll have individual considerations and individual 00:38:19.680 --> 00:38:23.920 vote on each of those items so those are items that either there is a conflict 00:38:23.920 --> 00:38:26.200 of interest from the Commission that needs to be pulled aside or we've 00:38:26.200 --> 00:38:30.560 actually received feedback from the residents to separately hear and discuss 00:38:30.560 --> 00:38:35.400 those items so with that I'm gonna invite Ron Maguida to present item 2a 00:38:35.400 --> 00:38:43.760 through to you and Ron is for clarification was I able to express the 00:38:43.760 --> 00:38:49.120 intent this evening or is there anything to add no you're perfect great thank you 00:38:49.120 --> 00:38:51.880 chair members of the Commission Ron Maguida principal planner with 00:38:51.880 --> 00:38:55.940 development services I stated earlier with the introduction this is group two 00:38:55.940 --> 00:39:00.400 of a number of groups that will be bringing forward as part of our city 00:39:00.400 --> 00:39:06.320 initiated zoning changes efforts this exhibit here this slide here illustrates 00:39:06.320 --> 00:39:14.360 where we are today actually we're doing 26 we have 21 areas to consider and 350 00:39:14.360 --> 00:39:21.480 parts parcels are part of that 21 areas we will also be taking a group three in 00:39:21.480 --> 00:39:25.040 the future those dates have not yet been determined or those areas have not been 00:39:25.040 --> 00:39:30.640 identified but they are generally along Teasley, Fort Worth Drive and areas north 00:39:30.640 --> 00:39:37.360 of the the universities both TW and UNT in the neighborhood University 00:39:37.360 --> 00:39:44.440 compatibility areas just by way of introducing these zoning changes staff 00:39:44.440 --> 00:39:47.720 looks at a number of things the one thing that we do look at is the 00:39:47.720 --> 00:39:52.040 transition chart as mentioned earlier the transition chart was adopted in 00:39:52.040 --> 00:39:56.800 April with the new development code update in that transition chart it 00:39:56.800 --> 00:40:01.440 identifies what the existing zoning is going to transition to we use that we 00:40:01.440 --> 00:40:06.560 also use existing uses on the ground identifying what are there now and how 00:40:06.560 --> 00:40:11.000 we can make them conforming if they are not currently conforming looking at 00:40:11.000 --> 00:40:14.280 protecting our existing residential neighborhoods making sure that those 00:40:14.280 --> 00:40:19.360 areas are protected by way of transition zoning or just a proper zoning that's 00:40:19.360 --> 00:40:24.200 for for that area we've listened to the public we've received comments either 00:40:24.200 --> 00:40:28.080 through common cards through the public hearing process through our public 00:40:28.080 --> 00:40:33.120 outreach efforts we have taken their input and incorporated that into our 00:40:33.120 --> 00:40:38.380 areas that we're proposing and again the line use element of the den plan 2030 00:40:38.380 --> 00:40:44.600 also played a part in our decision or our determining of those areas group two 00:40:44.600 --> 00:40:48.760 is made up of these areas here that you see and this exhibit is really hard to 00:40:48.760 --> 00:40:53.240 see but it's really to give you an idea of where we're looking at we're looking 00:40:53.240 --> 00:40:59.360 at along I 35 corridor all the way up to Ganzer Road we're also looking at us 380 00:40:59.360 --> 00:41:04.320 and the loop as well and you can see that extends from the north to the south 00:41:04.320 --> 00:41:10.440 and also areas that are between the loop and Mayhill Road ending around where the 00:41:10.440 --> 00:41:18.780 medical city regional hospitals located so with that the first area is area 9 00:41:18.780 --> 00:41:24.680 and as you all know this area was part of group one but was pulled for reasons 00:41:24.680 --> 00:41:30.360 of not having proper notification so it is now properly notified and we are 00:41:30.360 --> 00:41:34.720 bringing this forward this is area fronts sent us into a boulevard as well 00:41:34.720 --> 00:41:40.920 as I 35 e the areas consist of general retail there's a bowling alley there's a 00:41:40.920 --> 00:41:47.760 proposed hotel and other offices and banks within area 9 staff is proposing 00:41:47.760 --> 00:41:53.480 that this area be sown suburban corridor you see that the color in this lighter 00:41:53.480 --> 00:41:59.800 pink area is what we're referring to the suburban corridor and the MR which what 00:41:59.800 --> 00:42:05.360 it would have transitioned to share similar uses but not as intense as the 00:42:05.360 --> 00:42:11.520 MR another difference between MR and SC is that the MR allows a hundred foot 00:42:11.520 --> 00:42:18.360 tall building maximum while the SC allows up to 55 feet again the reason 00:42:18.360 --> 00:42:24.560 why we're proposing an SC is to act as a transition between the mall area and the 00:42:24.560 --> 00:42:30.440 MR to the in between that to the north of residential zoning districts that you 00:42:30.440 --> 00:42:35.520 see here on June 10th we did meet with the neighbors or the neighborhood of 00:42:35.520 --> 00:42:41.000 Piney Creek they were in attends and in general after explaining the proposal 00:42:41.000 --> 00:42:46.480 they were in approval of the proposed SC zoning as of this afternoon staff has 00:42:46.480 --> 00:42:51.280 not received any notices I'm sorry responses to the notices that were sent 00:42:51.280 --> 00:42:57.960 out the next group of areas is there is 25 and 26 and the reason why we're 00:42:57.960 --> 00:43:01.800 grouping these is primarily because they share the same characteristics and the 00:43:01.800 --> 00:43:07.480 same zoning districts they are both proposed to go to an MR makes use 00:43:07.480 --> 00:43:13.040 regional zoning district and if you're familiar with this area the Cumberland 00:43:13.040 --> 00:43:17.600 respiratory and children's home is located in area 25 we've got some 00:43:17.600 --> 00:43:22.040 undeveloped properties as well as some commercial properties in the area area 00:43:22.040 --> 00:43:28.400 26 has multifamily and the Presbyterian Hospital and medical offices and clinics 00:43:28.400 --> 00:43:36.200 within this area again MR is what's being proposed under this city initiated 00:43:36.200 --> 00:43:43.040 zoning change MR allows for a number of zoning I'm sorry number of uses that are 00:43:43.040 --> 00:43:48.920 more suitable for the area this is under the future land use map a regional mix 00:43:48.920 --> 00:43:55.040 use designated area which means that there's a regional draw to the area it 00:43:55.040 --> 00:43:59.760 is close to the University of North Texas it is just south of the razor 00:43:59.760 --> 00:44:04.440 ranch development and again it also consists of the Presbyterian Hospital a 00:44:04.440 --> 00:44:09.480 similar location where MR is located as you all know is also the medical city 00:44:09.480 --> 00:44:14.280 right there on May Hill and I 35 so this is somewhat similar to what we're trying 00:44:14.280 --> 00:44:20.120 to propose in this area maximum height for MR is a hundred feet and again most 00:44:20.120 --> 00:44:23.680 of these properties are along I 35 and staff feels that that is a suitable 00:44:23.680 --> 00:44:30.920 zoning for the area that you see here outlined in black there was a property 00:44:30.920 --> 00:44:34.880 owner that requested that one of their properties be zone MR and that's what 00:44:34.880 --> 00:44:40.960 we're taking forward staff has received one response in favor and that is for 00:44:40.960 --> 00:44:43.800 area 25 00:44:43.800 --> 00:44:55.840 seven and that will be brought up at a later time areas 28 and through 32 is 00:44:55.840 --> 00:45:03.040 generally in the area that you see here along I 35 loop 288 and highway 77 the 00:45:03.040 --> 00:45:07.880 area that you see consists of a lot of different uses we've got an RV 00:45:07.880 --> 00:45:15.440 Supercenter some automotive repair shops trans trans travel Plaza that is gas 00:45:15.440 --> 00:45:21.160 stations hotels offices and some single-family detached dwelling as well 00:45:21.160 --> 00:45:29.560 but primarily 29 30 31 32 are primarily undeveloped and have large tracks of 00:45:29.560 --> 00:45:35.760 properties and for those reasons we are proposing geo general office for those 00:45:35.760 --> 00:45:44.440 areas again 29 30 31 and 32 28 is proposed to go to HC highway corridor 00:45:44.440 --> 00:45:51.840 again for illustration purposes 28 is shown here along I 35 I 35 allows for 00:45:51.840 --> 00:45:59.840 more commercials that are more suitable for I 35 and geo is under the proposed 00:45:59.840 --> 00:46:05.320 zoning for the areas again that have larger tracks that are currently 00:46:05.320 --> 00:46:10.440 designated as business innovation under our damn plan 2030 and allows for more 00:46:10.440 --> 00:46:16.320 uses that are suitable for for the area in the form of warehouses light light 00:46:16.320 --> 00:46:22.320 industrial and primarily offices under the general office zoning district staff 00:46:22.320 --> 00:46:30.040 did receive one response in favor for area 28 and we'll go one and we will not 00:46:30.040 --> 00:46:37.600 talk about area 30 as that will be discussed at a later item areas 33 and 00:46:37.600 --> 00:46:45.000 34 the area that we're referring to is along I 30 I'm sorry US 380 one is on 00:46:45.000 --> 00:46:51.320 Primrose Road the other is bounded by Bolivar Elm and Locus the uses that are 00:46:51.320 --> 00:46:58.240 there now are non-residential primarily uses that you would normally see along 00:46:58.240 --> 00:47:05.080 a corridor such as US 380 what staff is proposing is those parcels be zone 00:47:05.080 --> 00:47:11.040 suburban corridor the primary frontage for those is 380 the future land use 00:47:11.040 --> 00:47:17.080 shows those areas as community mixed use some downtown compatibility areas again 00:47:17.080 --> 00:47:21.920 more commercial uses that are not normally permitted under the non 00:47:21.920 --> 00:47:25.280 residential zoning districts I'm sorry the residential residential zoning 00:47:25.280 --> 00:47:31.120 district so suburban quarter is what we are proposing they're currently there is 00:47:31.120 --> 00:47:37.840 currently one property and that is 1213 Primrose Road and that is as you can see 00:47:37.840 --> 00:47:43.200 on this in this photo has always been commercial since the 1970s is my 00:47:43.200 --> 00:47:49.960 understanding it was zoned in our three in 2002 and what we are proposing is to 00:47:49.960 --> 00:48:01.000 make this conforming by going to suburban quarter zoning district 35 36 and 39 00:48:01.000 --> 00:48:09.680 we're gonna talk about 38 and a later item these areas are proposed as 00:48:09.680 --> 00:48:16.640 suburban corridor as they are located along US 380 and loop 288 the uses that 00:48:16.640 --> 00:48:24.200 are there currently are undeveloped gas stations apartments as well as offices 00:48:24.200 --> 00:48:30.960 what staff is proposing for these areas 35 36 and 39 is suburban corridor 00:48:30.960 --> 00:48:37.320 again primarily the uses along suburban corridor are more suitable for the areas 00:48:37.320 --> 00:48:42.840 that are identified here we did receive a response in opposition again that's 00:48:42.840 --> 00:48:54.520 area 38 and we will discuss that at a later time next areas is areas of 41 00:48:54.520 --> 00:49:02.400 through 43 we're going to skip 40 and we'll come back to that the areas 41 42 00:49:02.400 --> 00:49:09.320 and 43 are long between May Hill Road and loop 288 generally primarily along 00:49:09.320 --> 00:49:16.240 May Hill Road these areas are primarily undeveloped with some uses that are more 00:49:16.240 --> 00:49:21.440 in light industrial in the form of warehouses self-service storage there's 00:49:21.440 --> 00:49:27.640 some general retail some medical office and administrative offices staff is 00:49:27.640 --> 00:49:37.440 proposing an SC for area 41 and geo for 42 and 43 geo is again a suitable zoning 00:49:37.440 --> 00:49:42.160 district for what is referred to as business innovation and that is what 00:49:42.160 --> 00:49:48.000 this area is designated for we did receive one response in neutral for area 00:49:48.000 --> 00:50:00.840 41 and for the purpose of the Commission staff did send out new notices through 00:50:00.840 --> 00:50:07.720 our newspaper and our website we also sent out 400 we sent out 402 property 00:50:07.720 --> 00:50:14.320 order mailings and 100 I'm sorry a thousand 114 courtesy postcards from 00:50:14.320 --> 00:50:18.880 those we've received numerous phone calls and emails but in response forms 00:50:18.880 --> 00:50:26.160 we received 11 in favor 10 in opposition and one in neutral staff is recommending 00:50:26.160 --> 00:50:30.280 approval of those items that were introduced at the beginning of this 00:50:30.280 --> 00:50:36.160 presentation thanks Ron for presentation and all your hard work that you put on 00:50:36.160 --> 00:50:41.040 this Commissioner Beck thank you chair thanks Ron could you go back to the 00:50:41.040 --> 00:50:56.720 proposed zoning for area 35 okay the on the north side it shows suburban 00:50:56.720 --> 00:51:01.920 corridor but there's that is that a wider is that that area right there yeah 00:51:01.920 --> 00:51:08.160 is that not zone that is MN it's a light it is lavender color mixed-use 00:51:08.160 --> 00:51:15.560 neighborhood okay great thanks Ron I don't see any other questions thank you 00:51:15.560 --> 00:51:20.840 okay at this time the public hearing has been opened and anyone wishing to speak 00:51:20.840 --> 00:51:25.000 on these items presented may certainly do so just for clarification is Kenneth 00:51:25.000 --> 00:51:29.760 Stewart here Kenneth Stewart 00:51:29.760 --> 00:51:37.800 Kenneth Stewart stout sorry I'm reading that wrong which item were you here to 00:51:37.800 --> 00:51:51.120 speak on 41 perfect so we do have two cards for items that were discussed this 00:51:51.120 --> 00:51:55.960 presentation both are for area 41 item 2 are the first card I had was Allen 00:51:55.960 --> 00:52:01.080 Bishop if you'd please come down and just state your name and address for the 00:52:01.080 --> 00:52:07.960 record you'll have four minutes to speak my name is Allen Bishop the address is 204 00:52:07.960 --> 00:52:12.240 North May Hill Denton Texas 76 208 and I actually just had some questions the 00:52:12.240 --> 00:52:15.120 first time I've been involved in something like this so I've read the 00:52:15.120 --> 00:52:19.520 160 page document I've read the uses so currently we are a commercial air 00:52:19.520 --> 00:52:26.280 conditioning business and we run offices out of that building so we have text 00:52:26.280 --> 00:52:30.720 come and go no big deal it still fits in the category for the proposed uses for 00:52:30.720 --> 00:52:36.540 suburban corridor but the question I had was through two processes now once with 00:52:36.540 --> 00:52:40.520 the remodel and once with the parking lot in the May Hill expansion we've 00:52:40.520 --> 00:52:43.640 followed all the city of Denton's things permitted everything and done 00:52:43.640 --> 00:52:46.600 everything both times not being disclosed that these other things were 00:52:46.600 --> 00:52:50.120 happening I don't want this to go through and then turn around be told we 00:52:50.120 --> 00:52:55.000 have to do something different to the building so I mean we don't have the 00:52:55.000 --> 00:52:58.440 front space that you're set back you're supposed to have in all those things but 00:52:58.440 --> 00:53:01.440 they've all signed off on that through the other two permitting process so 00:53:01.440 --> 00:53:07.000 that's what I was worried about yes great question Ron can you answer his 00:53:07.000 --> 00:53:18.360 questions about use setbacks and the like sure yes as development occurs or 00:53:18.360 --> 00:53:23.160 let me let me rephrase that as the project I believe it's May Hill yes that's 00:53:23.160 --> 00:53:25.320 correct May Hill Road gets widened there's 00:53:25.320 --> 00:53:29.520 obviously going to be some acquisition as part of that widening project any 00:53:29.520 --> 00:53:37.680 development that is there now would have a right to occupy that space now if 00:53:37.680 --> 00:53:44.320 there is proposals to expand or to change use or whatever it may be that it 00:53:44.320 --> 00:53:49.720 may affect the standards such as parking or landscaping certainly we have the 00:53:49.720 --> 00:53:54.160 understanding that that is and was created by the the widening of the 00:53:54.160 --> 00:54:01.040 project and you've met that so what I would say is that when you propose 00:54:01.040 --> 00:54:05.400 something different in the future we will understand that that was also 00:54:05.400 --> 00:54:11.120 created by the widening of the project of May Hill Road and we will review that 00:54:11.120 --> 00:54:16.400 accordingly now there is certain things that we will look for that are life 00:54:16.400 --> 00:54:22.120 safety but there are certain things that our director can make decisions on does 00:54:22.120 --> 00:54:25.680 that make sense so I can't answer yes or no because it depends on what's being 00:54:25.680 --> 00:54:29.160 proposed well no I understand that I'm just worried about something changing 00:54:29.160 --> 00:54:36.920 right the use of his current structure if that doesn't happen there wouldn't be 00:54:36.920 --> 00:54:40.520 anything enforced upon him that's persisting that's correct if you're 00:54:40.520 --> 00:54:46.080 existing you'd be remaining there as long as you stay the same yes sir thank 00:54:46.080 --> 00:54:51.960 you I could just add one of the other components that we have in the new DDC 00:54:51.960 --> 00:54:57.280 is a certificate of zoning compliance and so that is something we can make 00:54:57.280 --> 00:55:02.000 sure we have your name so as it gets it in enacted we can provide that to you so 00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:06.820 you have that documentation as you move forward it would clarify that your that 00:55:06.820 --> 00:55:12.320 your use as it exists today is is conforming with the current zoning 00:55:12.320 --> 00:55:21.880 thanks for your mr. ship can stout and if you can just state your name and 00:55:21.880 --> 00:55:30.600 address for the record I live at 4608 Mills Road just north of the school 00:55:30.600 --> 00:55:35.160 service center we have one street that goes behind us that they use mostly 00:55:35.160 --> 00:55:40.800 buses and and for their own advantage the property that we are talking about 00:55:40.800 --> 00:55:45.380 those over on McKinney Street I've got seven pieces of property over it's going 00:55:45.380 --> 00:55:52.600 to be tied in that's about 200 maybe 300 foot off of May Hill Road to be the 00:55:52.600 --> 00:56:03.720 formerly it used to have the garage for four-door garage with office space has a 00:56:03.720 --> 00:56:09.440 brick house on it a two-story house a mobile home and another older to have a 00:56:09.440 --> 00:56:13.960 two bedroom house on it and it's tied up with Miss Carter's place and I talked 00:56:13.960 --> 00:56:21.720 with her hers joins my Hill Road and of course she's like me kind of elderly and 00:56:21.720 --> 00:56:28.160 what our concern is is some our tax situation will we be kindly brought 00:56:28.160 --> 00:56:34.360 blocked in until the place sells hers if she passes away or myself where we live 00:56:34.360 --> 00:56:39.360 now I will tell you the value that the school district has on the corner of 00:56:39.360 --> 00:56:44.760 Mills in May Hill there's five acres that they own in there it's two million 00:56:44.760 --> 00:56:48.960 three hundred thousand dollars what the value they have placed on it so it does 00:56:48.960 --> 00:56:54.880 mean a big if somebody else comes wants to build something on there we need to 00:56:54.880 --> 00:57:00.800 know kind of what we're looking at and I know y'all don't set the tax rate but it 00:57:00.800 --> 00:57:07.240 does affect our livelihood and that's one of the questions I have is I talked 00:57:07.240 --> 00:57:12.720 with her over the phone and she said that she was willing to live there as 00:57:12.720 --> 00:57:17.080 long as she lives she didn't want to sell it now and I'm in the process of 00:57:17.080 --> 00:57:24.120 trying to sell the stuff on McKinney Street and it affects me quite a bit 00:57:24.120 --> 00:57:27.960 quickly are you wondering if the rezoning will directly impact your tax 00:57:27.960 --> 00:57:33.480 implications of the city am I understanding that right I think for a 00:57:33.480 --> 00:57:37.760 lot of people they want to make sure those taxes stay Richard do you have any 00:57:37.760 --> 00:57:47.800 insight on rezoning as it compares to tax implications or Ron that is a good 00:57:47.800 --> 00:57:51.240 question we've heard this question numerous times from from property owners 00:57:51.240 --> 00:57:56.960 as you all know the city doesn't control the appraisal and the county does and my 00:57:56.960 --> 00:58:01.160 understanding is that the county appraisal what they do is they find the 00:58:01.160 --> 00:58:05.120 highest and best use of that property now it would only affect your property I 00:58:05.120 --> 00:58:09.200 mean but your property is not part of this rezoning those areas that are part 00:58:09.200 --> 00:58:14.520 of the rezoning would probably see some I'm not sure what that would be but the 00:58:14.520 --> 00:58:19.160 whole the whole area I would say is seeing an increase in property taxes how 00:58:19.160 --> 00:58:25.000 is how this zoning affects you directly it does not directly but indirectly it 00:58:25.000 --> 00:58:30.940 may be because of those other properties increasing their value so 00:58:30.940 --> 00:58:38.560 thanks Ron absolutely thanks for coming out those are the only two cards I had 00:58:38.560 --> 00:58:45.160 on these items specifically is there anyone who wanted to speak on these 00:58:45.160 --> 00:58:51.680 items again these items include all items except D G N O Q and U that's 00:58:51.680 --> 00:58:58.700 areas 27 30 37 38 40 and 44 so what we're about to do on the dais is to 00:58:58.700 --> 00:59:04.280 consider a motion for those items yes sir 00:59:04.280 --> 00:59:10.240 yes area 40 we heard separately and we'll have your your card here for you 00:59:10.240 --> 00:59:13.880 so we're gonna take a separate vote on each of those items so we'll have six 00:59:13.880 --> 00:59:18.120 more votes after this one is there anyone else who wants to speak on this 00:59:18.120 --> 00:59:26.700 item yes sir if you could come 27 will be heard next yep so after this it'll go 00:59:26.700 --> 00:59:39.200 items area 27 area 30 area 37 area 38 area 40 area 44 is anyone wanting to 00:59:39.200 --> 00:59:42.480 speak on the items left over yes sir 00:59:44.040 --> 00:59:50.280 hello my name is Vince Hasler my address is 4946 Ford Locust Street and this is 00:59:50.280 --> 00:59:58.840 regarding item number 37 which is the tract of land that is on the southeast 00:59:58.840 --> 01:00:04.000 corner of Luke 288 and North Locust so make sure I'm in the right order here I 01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:07.960 mean yes we're gonna hear 37 independent of this okay 01:00:07.960 --> 01:00:15.240 I'll come back you're totally fine it can be very confusing so anyone who's 01:00:15.240 --> 01:00:22.000 wanting to speak on items not concerning 27 30 37 38 40 or 44 those items will be 01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:25.800 heard individually and separately from this 01:00:25.800 --> 01:00:31.800 scene 9 I'll close public hearing Commissioner Smith make a motion to 01:00:31.800 --> 01:00:39.200 approve all items except for DG no Q&U Commissioner Pernitta the second the 01:00:39.200 --> 01:00:43.080 motion we have a first and a second for approval of items to through a pulling 01:00:43.080 --> 01:00:52.200 out DG no Q&U any discussion see none I call for a vote of the board 01:00:56.360 --> 01:01:02.440 motion carries 7-0 now move into the individual items the first item is item 01:01:02.440 --> 01:01:10.440 2 D that's area 27 and I'll invite Ron Maguida back for an update on area 27 01:01:10.440 --> 01:01:14.840 specifically and open the public hearing 01:01:25.680 --> 01:01:30.000 thank you chair members of the Commission this is area 27 as introduced 01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:36.880 this is the ranch estates neighborhood located north of 380 and roughly west of 01:01:36.880 --> 01:01:42.920 Marshall Road it is approximately 147 acres making up of 65 parcels as you see 01:01:42.920 --> 01:01:48.680 here outlined in the yellow the uses primarily within this area is single 01:01:48.680 --> 01:01:54.480 family there are some parcels that are not developed or undeveloped in or our 01:01:54.480 --> 01:02:02.720 general agriculture in nature staff is proposing that this area then ranch estates 01:02:02.720 --> 01:02:11.640 neighborhood be zoned r1 the zoning of r1 has a minimum lot area of 32,000 01:02:11.640 --> 01:02:17.160 square feet maximum building coverage of 30% and just be by way of answering a 01:02:17.160 --> 01:02:22.480 question that was presented at the work session staff identified there were six 01:02:22.480 --> 01:02:29.360 lots that are less than one acre and four of those were less than 32,000 01:02:29.360 --> 01:02:36.360 square feet so four of those would be impacted if this were to go through but 01:02:36.360 --> 01:02:44.160 the remaining 61 would be in conformance the area on average has a lot size of 01:02:44.160 --> 01:02:50.680 approximately 2.27 acres again six are less than one acre 22 are between one 01:02:50.680 --> 01:02:56.400 and two and then the majority 37 parcels are between two acres and three acres 01:02:56.400 --> 01:03:02.400 there was a neighborhood meeting held on November I'm sorry May 30th and I was in 01:03:02.400 --> 01:03:05.440 attendance at that meeting and there were several members of the community 01:03:05.440 --> 01:03:10.520 present and they provided me with their common cards which I then provided you 01:03:10.520 --> 01:03:16.720 all with as part of your backup backup staff has received four responses in 01:03:16.720 --> 01:03:22.920 favor and we did also receive one response in opposition the person that 01:03:22.920 --> 01:03:27.360 provided that response form in opposition I believe is here and I 01:03:27.360 --> 01:03:31.720 believe will be speaking in front of the Commission and that person owns the 01:03:31.720 --> 01:03:38.040 property that's shown here - in red and again one of the questions was is this 01:03:38.040 --> 01:03:43.560 property developed looking at an aerial back in July of 2018 there is no 01:03:43.560 --> 01:03:47.440 development on that property and I don't I don't think there was one or any 01:03:47.440 --> 01:03:51.640 development since then but again the property owner is here and may clarify 01:03:51.640 --> 01:03:57.200 that a little bit further that concludes my presentation of area 27 01:03:57.200 --> 01:04:01.800 Christian Beck thank you chair Ron when you said it would negatively impact 01:04:01.800 --> 01:04:06.600 those was it four or five areas that were less than 32,000 feet what are we 01:04:06.600 --> 01:04:12.040 looking at well the the square footage of those lots are roughly 20,000 right 01:04:12.040 --> 01:04:20.120 so under the r2 16,000 minimum lot size would make those conforming by going to 01:04:20.120 --> 01:04:26.680 our one it would bring that minimum lot size up to 32,000 right which means 01:04:26.680 --> 01:04:32.360 those 20 roughly 20,000 square foot lots below the minimum lot size so would they 01:04:32.360 --> 01:04:39.520 be they would be left not just as is not performing if they were to develop and 01:04:39.520 --> 01:04:43.240 apply for a permit or something to that effect they would have to come in and 01:04:43.240 --> 01:04:46.480 increase their lot size one way or the other okay but nothing changes nothing 01:04:46.480 --> 01:04:50.360 changes it sounds it looks like from the aerial most of those were storage units 01:04:50.360 --> 01:04:55.360 or just vacant property that just not has not yet developed okay great thanks 01:04:55.360 --> 01:05:00.760 mr. Smith thank you chair and Ron in regards to this the neighborhood is 01:05:00.760 --> 01:05:05.080 primarily worried about that being an nr2 because of the fact that they are 01:05:05.080 --> 01:05:07.840 afraid that development would come in and take these larger lots and develop 01:05:07.840 --> 01:05:13.000 them into smaller lots smaller lots down to 16,000 16,000 and they want to try to 01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:19.480 preserve and memorialize that that 32,000 dollar 32,000 square foot if they 01:05:19.480 --> 01:05:23.040 could they would probably go higher and they would like to see a minimum lot 01:05:23.040 --> 01:05:28.040 size and maybe an acre but we don't have that zoning district in place yep and 01:05:28.040 --> 01:05:33.520 certainly they they've expressed other means of getting there but that's not 01:05:33.520 --> 01:05:38.960 part of this discussion today awesome thank you mr. Ellis thank you chair so 01:05:38.960 --> 01:05:44.040 Ron just to clarify the six non-conforming lots with regard to size 01:05:44.040 --> 01:05:49.760 do any of them have development on them what I was able to see were just small 01:05:49.760 --> 01:05:54.480 structures and by way of this slide if you can see there's there's one in here 01:05:54.480 --> 01:05:59.080 that's about 20,000 this one is just under 10,000 so that's even lower than 01:05:59.080 --> 01:06:05.620 16,000 we also have one in this general area right here and then I believe the 01:06:05.620 --> 01:06:11.760 other one is over here so these are the four one two three and four those are 01:06:11.760 --> 01:06:16.780 the smaller lots looking at the aerial I apologize it's hard to see I would say 01:06:16.780 --> 01:06:22.720 to the four have some structure the other are undeveloped either owned by 01:06:22.720 --> 01:06:29.440 adjacent property owner or just just separately platted or separately divided 01:06:29.440 --> 01:06:34.760 so some of them are owned by an adjacent property owner most yes yes because 01:06:34.760 --> 01:06:39.220 effectively with what you said earlier would probably be impossible to increase 01:06:39.220 --> 01:06:43.000 lot size you know they don't have an adjacent lot to do that then they could 01:06:43.000 --> 01:06:46.840 they can't do anything with it right right I mean unless they increase the 01:06:46.840 --> 01:06:54.280 lot size I do not see any other questions thank you do have two cards in 01:06:54.280 --> 01:06:57.560 this item for individuals wanting to speak it is a public hearing so anyone's 01:06:57.560 --> 01:07:04.320 welcome to speak the first two I cards I have is Jim Piora 01:07:04.320 --> 01:07:09.320 do you just state your name and address for the record you have four minutes to 01:07:09.320 --> 01:07:17.880 be so the name is Jim Perot 3801 Hampton and the northeast side of the area that 01:07:17.880 --> 01:07:22.000 we're discussing and we appreciate the effort you guys are giving us and 01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:30.680 looking at the options that we have basically Ranch Estates has been in the 01:07:30.680 --> 01:07:39.760 city for decades we've lived in our house for 43 years probably the longest 01:07:39.760 --> 01:07:44.720 out there but there are quite a few that are still in that area it's highly 01:07:44.720 --> 01:07:51.800 sought property it's one of the places in city of Denton where you can walk 01:07:51.800 --> 01:07:57.520 down the street and give way to kids riding horses because it it is that kind 01:07:57.520 --> 01:08:07.680 of an area we hosted the gathering on at the end of May Ron was there and told 01:08:07.680 --> 01:08:16.480 us about the R2 and R1 there were over 20 of the residences represented and it 01:08:16.480 --> 01:08:23.080 was unanimous of those that attended we we made our attempt at inviting whoever 01:08:23.080 --> 01:08:30.360 we could invite in addition to having stuffers and doors and mailboxes so we 01:08:30.360 --> 01:08:35.840 didn't have a mailing going out all we had good representation and it was 01:08:35.840 --> 01:08:45.240 unanimous in the recommendation of going to our one and basically we're hopeful 01:08:45.240 --> 01:08:51.640 that we will remain in I guess I'd say the most restrictive residential area as 01:08:51.640 --> 01:08:59.080 far as size and space and number of residents number of buildings so we ask 01:08:59.080 --> 01:09:07.880 that you support and and go for the R1 and reclassification thank you thank you 01:09:07.880 --> 01:09:13.640 very much next card I have is for John Windsor 01:09:16.160 --> 01:09:21.760 did you just state your name address my name is John Windsor I live at 2007 01:09:21.760 --> 01:09:31.040 North Lariat Road which is 3/3 piece of property down from the west side of the 01:09:31.040 --> 01:09:38.640 neighborhood and I'm in favor of rezoning to our one the facts on the 01:09:38.640 --> 01:09:43.600 ground are that it's our one if you were to look this piece of property right here 01:09:43.600 --> 01:09:51.280 actually belongs to or is controlled by this landowner I'm not sure he even 01:09:51.280 --> 01:09:59.160 knows if that's a separate lot this piece of property was owned by this landowner 01:09:59.160 --> 01:10:05.080 he's and he was running to his daughter his daughter since been married and I 01:10:05.080 --> 01:10:08.360 don't know what's happened to the property but almost all of these 01:10:08.360 --> 01:10:12.720 non-conforming pieces of property are part of the are owned by people in the 01:10:12.720 --> 01:10:18.120 neighborhood and everybody I won't say everybody because I was told somebody 01:10:18.120 --> 01:10:24.680 opposed almost everybody was in favor of going to R1 because it maintains the 01:10:24.680 --> 01:10:30.720 neighborhood as it currently stands and as a matter of fact we are looking at 01:10:30.720 --> 01:10:34.760 adding further restrictions because we have deed restrictions that the city 01:10:34.760 --> 01:10:39.600 doesn't enforce and most of us are in favor of those deep restrictions so we 01:10:39.600 --> 01:10:44.880 want to look look at getting those into place as well but the first step is to 01:10:44.880 --> 01:10:52.160 go to R1 thank you thank you I don't have any other cards for this item but 01:10:52.160 --> 01:10:57.080 Ron had mentioned that there might be another individual wanting to speak is 01:10:57.080 --> 01:11:00.000 there anyone yes 01:11:09.800 --> 01:11:18.360 if you could state your name and address we'd appreciate it 01:11:18.360 --> 01:11:22.920 mr. chairman members the Commission my name is Randall Smith 5428 Lake Victoria 01:11:22.920 --> 01:11:30.560 Court fireman I own the two acres at the corner of 380 and Western Boulevard or 01:11:30.560 --> 01:11:37.720 Cindy Lane I guess it is and I think in general for the majority of this 01:11:37.720 --> 01:11:41.320 property that the zoning is appropriate but I think you should consider looking 01:11:41.320 --> 01:11:46.880 at the frontage on 380 I mean is that really an appropriate zoning to have one 01:11:46.880 --> 01:11:53.200 acre residential lots and one of the busiest intersections or what's going to 01:11:53.200 --> 01:11:57.840 be one of the business inner industrial intersections in the city I mean there 01:11:57.840 --> 01:12:03.000 are thousands of semi 18 wheelers that come through there every day and stop at 01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:08.880 that signalized intersection I mean I just don't think my property suited for 01:12:08.880 --> 01:12:14.240 especially not to be down zoned from two lots per acre to one lot per acre so 01:12:14.240 --> 01:12:21.600 I'd urge you to maybe consider the frontage on 380 for some other type of 01:12:21.600 --> 01:12:28.680 zoning I mean obviously I think some type of commercial use in the future is 01:12:28.680 --> 01:12:35.040 probably what's going to be there and I just appreciate your consideration of 01:12:35.040 --> 01:12:38.920 that thank you for being here we do have a question for you commissioner back 01:12:38.920 --> 01:12:47.040 thank you chair thank you mr. Smith the neighbors to your west are their homes 01:12:47.040 --> 01:12:54.160 on those lots are they vague I believe there's one home okay I've been by 01:12:54.160 --> 01:12:57.200 there a couple times try to talk to him but they've not been home so I haven't 01:12:57.200 --> 01:13:01.040 what about on the other side of Cindy there what about on the other side of 01:13:01.040 --> 01:13:08.960 Cindy there is there are the roads that have Cindy the properties single family 01:13:08.960 --> 01:13:12.880 homes on each of those lots okay as far as I okay but that lot you're talking 01:13:12.880 --> 01:13:17.520 about is vacant right now my lot's vacant yes do you have any plans for that if 01:13:17.520 --> 01:13:22.240 you're if our one isn't satisfactory to you which zone have you looked at the 01:13:22.240 --> 01:13:31.600 zoning that you think you would be well I'm not happy with either one but I 01:13:31.600 --> 01:13:37.640 think the r2 is better than the r1 at this point I mean worst case I could put 01:13:37.640 --> 01:13:42.640 two houses on there now if you down zone I only got one okay so but you're not 01:13:42.640 --> 01:13:47.680 thinking about doing some commercial development I bought it as a long-term 01:13:47.680 --> 01:13:53.720 investments in my IRA you know I'm ten years down the road okay I have no plans 01:13:53.720 --> 01:13:58.960 so no absolutes on that okay all right thank you I have one more question 01:13:58.960 --> 01:14:07.360 mr. Sanchez so all those lots adjacent to 380 other than yours are you saying 01:14:07.360 --> 01:14:13.360 they all have homes right now I believe so I'm not sure if there's a house on 01:14:13.360 --> 01:14:18.200 the second one to the west of me or not it doesn't look like it I think there's 01:14:18.200 --> 01:14:23.920 only well I think those people on both of those lots okay okay so and eventually 01:14:23.920 --> 01:14:29.280 you know if they'd redevelop theirs might'll be thrown in with that I mean 01:14:29.280 --> 01:14:35.600 most likely somebody would do a redevelopment of that corner okay that's 01:14:35.600 --> 01:14:41.600 all I want well mr. Smith thanks for coming out thank you is there anyone 01:14:41.600 --> 01:14:47.320 else wanted to speak on item 2d area 27 yes sir 01:14:47.320 --> 01:14:55.320 height I live at 3800 Hampton Road Denton there in the upper upper corner up he 01:14:55.320 --> 01:15:00.560 John covered a couple of those lots is this mouse work this one is well back to 01:15:00.560 --> 01:15:05.560 your question on what's being used this is actually a drainage so the truck port 01:15:05.560 --> 01:15:09.920 that's being built over here the pond drains through that lot so it also can't 01:15:09.920 --> 01:15:13.720 be developed just addressing another one of those smaller lots that will never be 01:15:13.720 --> 01:15:18.920 developed into anything else to its use but I just wanted to second my support 01:15:18.920 --> 01:15:24.400 for going to the r1 there there is the previous speaker talking about his lot 01:15:24.400 --> 01:15:29.520 this is a single-family home single-family single-family single-family 01:15:29.520 --> 01:15:35.680 home around him so obviously I would want to question any use commercial use 01:15:35.680 --> 01:15:39.240 of that lot being really pretty much up in the middle of the subdivision but 01:15:39.240 --> 01:15:44.720 just seconding my support of protecting that subdivision I'm one of the newest 01:15:44.720 --> 01:15:48.840 members of the subdivision I'm 50 and I'm considered a pup there it's taken me 01:15:48.840 --> 01:15:53.720 25 years to get into the subdivision so I'm very interested in protecting you 01:15:53.720 --> 01:15:57.800 know what what they have and what the rest of us are enjoying as well so thank 01:15:57.800 --> 01:16:07.240 y'all thank you any other speakers on this item 2d area 27 01:16:07.240 --> 01:16:10.760 see none I will close the public hearing turn the day is for discussion or 01:16:10.760 --> 01:16:15.440 motion Commissioner Smith motion to approve area 27 we have a first 01:16:15.440 --> 01:16:19.680 Commissioner Panetta a second we have a first and a second for approval of item 01:16:19.680 --> 01:16:24.840 2d Commissioner Beck I wonder if I can get Ron to come back up and let's 01:16:24.840 --> 01:16:30.280 address mr. Smith's concern I definitely don't want to see that be zone 01:16:30.280 --> 01:16:39.160 commercial but an R2 I'm wondering if that would be conceivable within just 01:16:39.160 --> 01:16:45.800 button up next door to some R1s the staff's proposals that would be all 01:16:45.800 --> 01:16:52.360 included as our one okay possibility is obviously there if you choose to keep it 01:16:52.360 --> 01:16:56.360 R2 that's that's up to y'all and I'll actually say council and also me so 01:16:56.360 --> 01:17:02.080 if we decide to just vote the whole thing R1 mr. Smith may be able to come 01:17:02.080 --> 01:17:08.000 back down the road and ask us to rezone that one area to maybe an R2 well I yes 01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:12.120 okay yes okay R2 or something different yes just want to leave that open okay 01:17:12.120 --> 01:17:19.760 fine thank you Commissioner Smith personally I believe that for we're 01:17:19.760 --> 01:17:23.280 putting R1 over the we vote of R1 there that actually seems better for if you 01:17:23.280 --> 01:17:25.760 could have commercial there if you have R2 that just means you're gonna have one 01:17:25.760 --> 01:17:30.280 house just that much closer to the to the to the the major thoroughfare of 380 01:17:30.280 --> 01:17:33.120 that if you are one looking at the other properties though the single-family 01:17:33.120 --> 01:17:36.520 residentials that are out there on those lots next to it they can at least set 01:17:36.520 --> 01:17:40.920 their their house for the for enough back on a driveway to be able to be away 01:17:40.920 --> 01:17:45.840 from the road so I don't think R2 would if mr. Smith was come back and have it 01:17:45.840 --> 01:17:49.120 rezoned we can certainly look at it but I wouldn't want to support anything on 01:17:49.120 --> 01:17:54.080 an R2 there just because the argument of it's too close to something that's major 01:17:54.080 --> 01:17:57.560 thoroughfare doesn't really work R1 would be better for that in my opinion 01:17:57.560 --> 01:18:04.480 Christian Sanchez yeah looking at the chart up there there's already two acre 01:18:04.480 --> 01:18:11.480 at three acre lots in there so I mean it's not that one acre the area we're 01:18:11.480 --> 01:18:16.440 talking about does it's pretty similar to what's already there in that a 01:18:16.440 --> 01:18:22.960 neighborhood's been around for a long time and I think there's there's all the 01:18:22.960 --> 01:18:28.240 residents are talking about they want to maintain it the way it is and I would 01:18:28.240 --> 01:18:36.920 vote for our one so we have a first and a second for approval of item 2d any 01:18:36.920 --> 01:18:43.200 other discussion seeing none I'll go for a call for a vote on the board 01:18:49.640 --> 01:18:56.400 motion carries six zero with one recuse I'll invite Commissioner Cole back into 01:18:56.400 --> 01:19:01.760 the room and we'll move on to the next item of business which is item 2g this 01:19:01.760 --> 01:19:07.000 is area 30 I'll invite Ron back for presentation and open the public hearing 01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:23.160 for item 2g thank you chair members of the Commission item 2g area 30 this 01:19:23.160 --> 01:19:29.080 area is the area that's being proposed to go to GO general office which we 01:19:29.080 --> 01:19:34.320 discussed will be consistent with the future language designation of business 01:19:34.320 --> 01:19:42.320 innovation it's there along 77 288 and I 35 the area that we're referring to is 01:19:42.320 --> 01:19:48.720 this dark line here the area is mainly undeveloped with large parcels or large 01:19:48.720 --> 01:19:56.000 tracks some develop but mainly undeveloped the response that we receive 01:19:56.000 --> 01:20:02.880 was from loves travel stop the one response for area 30 the loves travel 01:20:02.880 --> 01:20:07.800 stop currently is occupied in this parcel here as well as this parcel here 01:20:07.800 --> 01:20:14.600 these two parcels they have acquired this parcel as a future expansion as the 01:20:14.600 --> 01:20:20.560 I 35 widening project happens they will at least have this for future expansion 01:20:20.560 --> 01:20:26.720 this way of note the MR which it would have transitioned to or will transition 01:20:26.720 --> 01:20:33.800 to unless otherwise rezone does not permit travel plaza the geo also does 01:20:33.800 --> 01:20:39.280 not allow for travel plaza and that is the main reason why the property owner 01:20:39.280 --> 01:20:45.840 loves travel stop has provided a form in opposition we understand his or their 01:20:45.840 --> 01:20:51.520 situation and staff has researched and discussed this internally and discuss it 01:20:51.520 --> 01:20:58.760 with the representative of loves travel and we are proposing that we allow for 01:20:58.760 --> 01:21:05.520 travel plaza within the geo zoning district with specific use standards one 01:21:05.520 --> 01:21:10.280 specifically is that any travel plaza proposed has to be within a certain 01:21:10.280 --> 01:21:16.760 distance from I 35 and we haven't yet determined what that distance is we're 01:21:16.760 --> 01:21:21.360 still working on that but that will be something that we will be sorry we will 01:21:21.360 --> 01:21:25.320 bring forward as part of a code amendment moving forward for whatever 01:21:25.320 --> 01:21:30.760 reason if that code amendment does not happen staff will again entertain 01:21:30.760 --> 01:21:37.640 possibly a rezoning of that to HC again our first option is to allow for travel 01:21:37.640 --> 01:21:44.640 plaza within the geo and that is primarily my presentation for area 30 01:21:44.640 --> 01:21:50.880 unless you all have any other questions we do mr. Smith nature I wanted to bring 01:21:50.880 --> 01:21:55.020 it more in public than work session but why is it that the code amendment is 01:21:55.020 --> 01:21:58.280 your number one number one recommendation rather than just doing an 01:21:58.280 --> 01:22:04.320 HC in this area HC seems like this this this fits in this scenario but why is geo 01:22:04.320 --> 01:22:08.960 and amending the geo which would affect other areas in the city of course with 01:22:08.960 --> 01:22:12.400 the SCP and asked me within certain distance of 35 that seems more cumbersome 01:22:12.400 --> 01:22:19.560 than just proposing this is HC one one is we looked at the use table and under 01:22:19.560 --> 01:22:25.760 the HC which is lesser and as far as the zoning is concerned and it does permit 01:22:25.760 --> 01:22:31.640 travel plaza it then goes to geo which does not permit it and then it goes to 01:22:31.640 --> 01:22:36.320 Li which it permits it again so we're wondering what happened there why was geo 01:22:36.320 --> 01:22:42.240 and I believe is because geo is meant to be more of a business innovation or more 01:22:42.240 --> 01:22:47.080 you know commercial slash office but there are areas such as this area and 01:22:47.080 --> 01:22:52.800 I'll go back to your initial question that could benefit as a travel plaza and 01:22:52.800 --> 01:22:56.440 as long as there's a use specific standard that can be accomplished under 01:22:56.440 --> 01:23:03.520 the geo can do you answer your question the reason why we chose geo versus HC is 01:23:03.520 --> 01:23:09.360 that the HC we feel is is more in an area that's more suitable for highway 01:23:09.360 --> 01:23:14.080 corridor this area is a little bit further north of town we haven't seen 01:23:14.080 --> 01:23:20.400 this the type of uses that are our majority of it under the HC it's got 01:23:20.400 --> 01:23:25.200 larger tracts of properties I think again based on our staff analysis it's 01:23:25.200 --> 01:23:31.200 more suitable for geo zoning district than an HC so I don't know that yeah I 01:23:31.200 --> 01:23:36.040 think I think I'd agree to disagree on that that you know it's even though yeah 01:23:36.040 --> 01:23:40.520 it's further north and where we have any other HC's right now it's along the 01:23:40.520 --> 01:23:44.080 highway that if geo is business innovation I don't see a whole lot of 01:23:44.080 --> 01:23:48.080 business innovation outside of you know you're talking about retail and those 01:23:48.080 --> 01:23:52.040 kinds of things I don't see them being smacked down the side of 35 but one of 01:23:52.040 --> 01:23:54.200 the question follow-up and then I'll relinquish the floor 01:23:54.200 --> 01:24:00.600 Li does Li have any restrictions he said it went HC and then the next zoning was 01:24:00.600 --> 01:24:05.600 geo geo didn't allow for travel plaza and then Li allowed for travel plaza again 01:24:05.600 --> 01:24:09.320 is there any restrictions like an SUP or any type of now straight permit straight 01:24:09.320 --> 01:24:13.280 straight permitted okay thanks I have a couple more questions just for 01:24:13.280 --> 01:24:18.400 clarification the the vote would be for all the blue area outlined in black this 01:24:18.400 --> 01:24:23.280 evening not just the red area correct sorry we're voting for the whole area 01:24:23.280 --> 01:24:29.720 identified here and on the agenda whatever acreage debt is now the 01:24:29.720 --> 01:24:35.640 Commission has the option to not include those if they choose if you all choose 01:24:35.640 --> 01:24:40.620 to but SAS recommendation is that area that is identified in black is for 01:24:40.620 --> 01:24:45.160 consideration thanks for clarification Mr. Ellis thank you chair yeah just to 01:24:45.160 --> 01:24:51.280 get back to that discussion of Commissioner Smith I'm not sure why we're 01:24:51.280 --> 01:24:55.960 not pulling this parcel and making it HC to be honest with you we know what's 01:24:55.960 --> 01:25:02.040 already there we know 35 is getting widened I am adamantly opposed to 01:25:02.040 --> 01:25:07.960 amending geo to allow travel centers that just seems like a convoluted way to go 01:25:07.960 --> 01:25:16.640 about it and opens up the city I think for some possible bad things so if it's 01:25:16.640 --> 01:25:23.320 an option to pull this I would certainly want to discuss that as a commission 01:25:23.320 --> 01:25:32.920 because I'm not quite sure why staff want this route for this particular lot 01:25:32.920 --> 01:25:40.600 Chris or Sanchez yeah I feel the same way you know we've been talking about 35 01:25:40.600 --> 01:25:44.800 as a highway corridor and all of a sudden we you know and that area still 01:25:44.800 --> 01:25:49.000 hasn't been developed but yet we really don't know what might be moving in on 01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:55.360 35 on the north side so I think we're shooting you are making decisions 01:25:55.360 --> 01:26:00.600 without having knowing what's gonna happen there and long term I think we 01:26:00.600 --> 01:26:06.240 need to look at 35 what's gonna go along 35 we know what it looks like on this 01:26:06.240 --> 01:26:10.360 port of town and we know what what it looks all the way around so I think the 01:26:10.360 --> 01:26:15.880 geo doesn't really fit there and I'm with the other two commissioners is that I 01:26:15.880 --> 01:26:21.920 think we need to relook at that and because I don't think the decision as 01:26:21.920 --> 01:26:29.360 far as that being a corridor has really been considered from the fact that it 01:26:29.360 --> 01:26:33.160 hasn't been developed so we know something's there already and that's kind 01:26:33.160 --> 01:26:39.440 of the first step of what's going we're gonna see there in the future sure so 01:26:39.440 --> 01:26:45.800 what I'm hearing and again to the Commission is that the areas that are 01:26:45.800 --> 01:26:53.360 in red could be pulled or are we hearing on my hearing that the area the whole 01:26:53.360 --> 01:26:59.880 area is being pulled on I just need clarification well I mean we can 01:26:59.880 --> 01:27:04.840 certainly discuss that to see where the question is I think I'd be more interested 01:27:04.840 --> 01:27:08.760 in just pulling the area and bringing it back rather than pulling out some 01:27:08.760 --> 01:27:12.680 parcels but we'll keep you posted on where that vote goes 01:27:12.680 --> 01:27:18.200 question oh yeah that was actually my clarification my question if we were open 01:27:18.200 --> 01:27:25.960 to suggesting a different zoning or to to pull those parcels in any event it 01:27:25.960 --> 01:27:30.320 looks like taping or coming back or some other thing besides approval is what 01:27:30.320 --> 01:27:44.520 we're leaning toward on this one right so at this point we're looking more at 01:27:44.520 --> 01:27:49.560 either tabling and bringing it back at another thing or offering up a different 01:27:49.560 --> 01:27:53.360 zoning because because I think at first I thought we're just gonna pull out the 01:27:53.360 --> 01:28:00.020 area in red yeah but are we more leaning towards rezoning the whole area as an 01:28:00.020 --> 01:28:04.040 HC as opposed to so just for clarification I think thus far there's 01:28:04.040 --> 01:28:10.120 been three options laid out one is to take all of the black outlined area and 01:28:10.120 --> 01:28:15.520 vote on that the second is to pull out specific parcels and leave a remainder 01:28:15.520 --> 01:28:19.320 that remainder that we actually vote to move to council tonight minus some 01:28:19.320 --> 01:28:24.640 parcels or is to pull all of area 30 bring it back and maybe the next special 01:28:24.640 --> 01:28:29.520 call and and have a deeper dive in those interim weeks so it's kind of more 01:28:29.520 --> 01:28:32.840 fleshed out when it comes back I think all three of those are an opportunity 01:28:32.840 --> 01:28:38.360 for this evening okay yeah it looks like we have a couple more questions that we 01:28:38.360 --> 01:28:43.520 do have cards so just to keep the commission aware before a vote of 01:28:43.520 --> 01:28:47.640 postponement happens potentially it might be good to hear public input but 01:28:47.640 --> 01:28:53.160 Christian back thank you chair to your statement that this one one of the 01:28:53.160 --> 01:28:58.800 options I believe the second one was to vote the area geo except for the red 01:28:58.800 --> 01:29:04.400 marked areas pull them out distinctly you can pull out any parcels okay and 01:29:04.400 --> 01:29:11.080 consider some zoning designation specifically you sure okay question for 01:29:11.080 --> 01:29:17.600 you Ron I believe we approve the building of a truck wash on the north 01:29:17.600 --> 01:29:22.880 side of Bartol there does that sorry sorry to catch you out there commissioner 01:29:22.880 --> 01:29:27.720 back but I believe that was not part of it that's currently geo per the 01:29:27.720 --> 01:29:32.880 transition chart okay that's where the truck wash is gonna be right and then a 01:29:32.880 --> 01:29:37.880 truck wash is allowed in geo or is that gonna be a non-conforming I'll have to 01:29:37.880 --> 01:29:44.720 double check that okay I can check that okay thank you we don't have any more 01:29:44.720 --> 01:29:49.080 questions for for you Ron thank you for the presentation it is public hearing 01:29:49.080 --> 01:29:52.600 we have individuals who wanted to speak on this item so the first card we have 01:29:52.600 --> 01:30:02.280 if we can go to this next would be Jeremy Reese then again if you can state 01:30:02.280 --> 01:30:07.400 your name and address for minutes to speak good evening Jeremy Reese 4420 01:30:07.400 --> 01:30:11.760 Jackson Street Marianna Florida here representing loves travel stops and the 01:30:11.760 --> 01:30:15.800 newly fairly recently developed travel stuff on that corner just to clarify 01:30:15.800 --> 01:30:20.960 real quick it's not just the red parcels the loves it on it's always it's also on 01:30:20.960 --> 01:30:26.520 this parcel here so it's really this entire corner including the red areas 01:30:26.520 --> 01:30:30.960 this was the additional property that was purchased by loves once we got news 01:30:30.960 --> 01:30:35.760 of the textile expansion of I-35 their right-of-way take was actually gonna go 01:30:35.760 --> 01:30:39.720 all the way up to the the gas pumps so we would have to completely redevelop 01:30:39.720 --> 01:30:43.600 that site pretty much so with the loves went back and purchased this almost five 01:30:43.600 --> 01:30:49.600 acres so they could push everything further away and redevelop it but um yeah 01:30:49.600 --> 01:30:54.000 basically we just want to make sure that there's this rezoning doesn't create a 01:30:54.000 --> 01:30:59.320 non-conforming use for the travel stop you know if it goes to HC perfect if the 01:30:59.320 --> 01:31:03.720 travel plaza is added to geo that's fine as long as the use is allowed for the 01:31:03.720 --> 01:31:07.440 travel plaza and when they get to that point they need to redevelop and it's 01:31:07.440 --> 01:31:12.760 allowed that's all we're looking for perfect so well thanks for being here 01:31:12.760 --> 01:31:17.840 from Florida thank you sir Smith nature question the see have you looked deep 01:31:17.840 --> 01:31:23.720 into the allowed uses in HC yes well not not an HC in the geo I did okay I'd ask 01:31:23.720 --> 01:31:26.960 you if you can what we heard other public information if you could just 01:31:26.960 --> 01:31:30.800 look into it make sure if you have that Jerry be more willing to provide it I 01:31:30.800 --> 01:31:33.920 know travel plaza is allowed in they know sure of course I just want to make 01:31:33.920 --> 01:31:37.480 sure there's nothing is representing loves truck stop you got land that's not 01:31:37.480 --> 01:31:42.320 developed yet right make sure that you're okay with HC if there was a vote 01:31:42.320 --> 01:31:46.840 for that okay make sure that there's no other uses on there say hey we we as 01:31:46.840 --> 01:31:49.320 owners of this property it's not developed yet even though you have the 01:31:49.320 --> 01:31:54.280 right the intent to because of the right-of-way of the i-35 expansion want 01:31:54.280 --> 01:31:58.440 to make sure that you're okay with it being an HC and not come back well yeah 01:31:58.440 --> 01:32:01.000 the truck stuff was allowed there there's awesome other uses allowed there 01:32:01.000 --> 01:32:05.980 now and this isn't what we wanted all right kind of thing so thanks okay thank 01:32:05.980 --> 01:32:14.480 you no other questions the next card I have is for Jacqueline Banfield oh wrong 01:32:14.480 --> 01:32:17.760 item sorry about that is there anyone else 01:32:17.760 --> 01:32:28.280 wanting to speak on item G area 30 see none I will close the public hearing for 01:32:28.280 --> 01:32:39.760 this item in terms of days for discussion or motion kisser Smith I just 01:32:39.760 --> 01:32:46.920 want to I just want to clarify that pulling this two parcels out and adding 01:32:46.920 --> 01:32:54.560 HC would not be what we should do because again the remaining area here is 01:32:54.560 --> 01:32:59.320 already geo what staff would recommend if that was where the direction was going 01:32:59.320 --> 01:33:03.600 before it the motion I wanted to make sure that was clear if this if that was 01:33:03.600 --> 01:33:07.560 where you all wanted to go we would prefer that we just take this back and 01:33:07.560 --> 01:33:13.760 then come back come back with this whole area all HC again if that was the 01:33:13.760 --> 01:33:17.560 direction that you were going to because then that would leave the whole loves 01:33:17.560 --> 01:33:24.680 travel stop Plaza as HC versus having these two HC in the remaining area 01:33:24.680 --> 01:33:28.040 yeah you actually the words right out of my mouth I was gonna be clarification on 01:33:28.040 --> 01:33:31.600 that area that because this gentleman was talking about it I was realizing that 01:33:31.600 --> 01:33:35.760 that section that loves truck stops it's on now is not in that black area so if 01:33:35.760 --> 01:33:40.480 we had voted to make this all HC there'd be HC all behind that geo there so I'm 01:33:40.480 --> 01:33:44.600 gonna make a motion to table this discussion till date date certain which 01:33:44.600 --> 01:33:48.800 is the next special called meeting or do you want to make a date indefinite we 01:33:48.800 --> 01:33:55.040 don't have you can you can be indefinite we'll repost it okay I'll make a motion 01:33:55.040 --> 01:34:02.000 to table table the discussion to date indefinite we have a first for a 01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:09.840 tabling to a date uncertain kisser Sanchez I second the motion so we have 01:34:09.840 --> 01:34:14.400 a first and second commissioner Ellis yeah I guess this is just for staff 01:34:14.400 --> 01:34:17.840 because it looks like we're gonna end up postponing this but it's possible that 01:34:17.840 --> 01:34:24.960 area 30 I think just needs to be redrawn it's possible that maybe not the entire 01:34:24.960 --> 01:34:29.480 thing as it's drawn now needs to be HC maybe that needs to be divided to where 01:34:29.480 --> 01:34:34.640 the front parcel needs to go a little more north and towards 35 is HC but 01:34:34.640 --> 01:34:40.120 maybe that the western part still makes sense as geo I'm so it definitely needs 01:34:40.120 --> 01:34:45.680 discussion in a redraw I think of the area for sure would be my opinion 01:34:45.680 --> 01:34:49.920 Michelle's I completely agree with you the the part on the west side seems 01:34:49.920 --> 01:34:56.560 thousands of feet away thousand feet away from I-35 that that's a far way for 01:34:56.560 --> 01:35:03.520 HC to move back West so I think I'm inclined to keep HC tight against the 01:35:03.520 --> 01:35:08.320 highway corridor so I would like to see the discussion around maybe even the 01:35:08.320 --> 01:35:12.680 south part because that's a big track look differently at that but the 01:35:12.680 --> 01:35:19.440 certainly the smaller tracks that a but I-35 even the two south of the loves 01:35:19.440 --> 01:35:22.840 property those that kind of row right there before he gets a the crumb 01:35:22.840 --> 01:35:27.360 highway maybe that would be HC and the rest be something different because I 01:35:27.360 --> 01:35:32.520 think HC the intent doesn't go all the way back into rural land so I concur 01:35:32.520 --> 01:35:35.400 with with I believe what you were suggesting as well 01:35:35.400 --> 01:35:40.680 Commissioner Sanchez yeah I have the same same feeling you we've been talking 01:35:40.680 --> 01:35:45.040 about the highway corridor and what we what's going to be along that highway 01:35:45.040 --> 01:35:49.160 corridor and therefore I think we need to expand that you don't have to expand 01:35:49.160 --> 01:35:55.400 it all the way West but always realizing that what's going to be built along 35 I 01:35:55.400 --> 01:36:01.480 think we anything we need to consider that any anything along 35 we have to 01:36:01.480 --> 01:36:07.400 keep it as highway corridor Mr. Beck thank you chair Ron let me ask you 01:36:07.400 --> 01:36:11.400 something else again just clarification on that parcel on the north side of bar 01:36:11.400 --> 01:36:19.080 told it already is geo cracked so you're saying we can't change that not not 01:36:19.080 --> 01:36:23.800 tonight not tonight okay but we can consider that part of that at least to 01:36:23.800 --> 01:36:28.240 that corner that intersection correct there's some commercial development 01:36:28.240 --> 01:36:32.840 already there and not a wash I just checked in geo does permitted but we 01:36:32.840 --> 01:36:38.640 will look at that auto wash so okay so that's something we can look at too so 01:36:38.640 --> 01:36:43.360 that truck wash it wouldn't make any difference with the truck wash but just 01:36:43.360 --> 01:36:49.040 for the sake of that area that small area we could convert part of that 01:36:49.040 --> 01:36:54.400 geo into highway corridor to to accommodate we will look into that and 01:36:54.400 --> 01:36:58.320 bring that back as part of that new drawing and then you propose all right 01:36:58.320 --> 01:37:00.760 thanks 01:37:00.760 --> 01:37:07.280 Mr. Smith for clarification would you be open to a friendly amendment to have the 01:37:07.280 --> 01:37:13.680 motion be read as postponed indefinitely yeah I accept that okay and 01:37:13.680 --> 01:37:17.360 Mr. Sanchez are you okay with the amendment yes I do okay so we have a 01:37:17.360 --> 01:37:21.120 first and a second to postpone indefinitely see no other discussion I'll 01:37:21.120 --> 01:37:23.920 call for vote on the board 01:37:23.920 --> 01:37:42.200 motion carries 7-0 the next item will be item 2 in area 37 and I will once again 01:37:42.200 --> 01:37:48.640 invite Ron for a presentation and open the public hearing thank you chair 01:37:48.640 --> 01:37:54.880 members of Commission this area 37 is located south of loop 288 and just east 01:37:54.880 --> 01:38:00.640 of Locust Street the area outlining yellow comprises approximately 58 point 01:38:00.640 --> 01:38:05.360 six seven acres existing uses as you can see from the aerial is primarily 01:38:05.360 --> 01:38:09.200 undeveloped or general agriculture now there is a church on the south side 01:38:09.200 --> 01:38:17.040 along Hercules Lane and that is the Asbury United Methodist Church staff is 01:38:17.040 --> 01:38:21.280 proposing a suburban quarter zoning district for this quadrant or the 01:38:21.280 --> 01:38:28.240 southeast quadrant of loop 288 and Locust Street the area in black is what 01:38:28.240 --> 01:38:35.040 we're referring to the area that's in the hard corner is currently SC SC 01:38:35.040 --> 01:38:40.720 permits more commercial uses as opposed to obviously what is there today today 01:38:40.720 --> 01:38:51.520 there is a split zoning of the parcel it is SC r6 and r3 we are also staff is 01:38:51.520 --> 01:38:56.160 also recommending approval our suburban quarter for the property to the south 01:38:56.160 --> 01:39:02.880 these two parcels here we did receive after a neighborhood meeting with the 01:39:02.880 --> 01:39:08.120 neighborhood on yesterday actually from the property owners of the Asbury church 01:39:08.120 --> 01:39:14.520 that their preference or their request is that they not be included with the 01:39:14.520 --> 01:39:21.800 SC consideration and again that is the property that's outlined in red we did 01:39:21.800 --> 01:39:26.960 receive six responses in opposition one was from the church the remaining five 01:39:26.960 --> 01:39:35.360 came from the neighborhood to the south and to the east this hill this here 01:39:35.360 --> 01:39:39.680 illustrates a little bit of our understanding of the area what which was 01:39:39.680 --> 01:39:44.520 presented and provided to us by our by the property owner who is requesting the 01:39:44.520 --> 01:39:48.920 suburban corridor we understand that there is an electrical easement that 01:39:48.920 --> 01:39:54.320 runs along the southern portion of their property I believe it's 75 feet wide 01:39:54.320 --> 01:40:00.040 here and then 105 along the eastern side of their property also on their property 01:40:00.040 --> 01:40:06.640 is a floodplain zone X that runs north to south or south north in this general 01:40:06.640 --> 01:40:15.800 area as shown on this illustration with that I will stand for questions thank 01:40:15.800 --> 01:40:19.400 you wrong I don't have any questions at this time we do have some individuals 01:40:19.400 --> 01:40:23.360 who fill that card so this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may 01:40:23.360 --> 01:40:29.080 certainly do so the first card I have is for Jacqueline Banfield 01:40:29.080 --> 01:40:48.680 my name is Jacqueline Banfield I live at 305 Meadow Lane my garage backs up to 01:40:48.680 --> 01:40:58.480 Hercules there is no buffer there are 15 or 16 other garages along that backside 01:40:58.480 --> 01:41:08.080 that are without a buffer as well I have had theft from my driveway and a couple 01:41:08.080 --> 01:41:13.160 of other people in the areas have had theft from locked cars that were parked 01:41:13.160 --> 01:41:19.840 in their driveways I am really concerned about safety and security I am a single 01:41:19.840 --> 01:41:26.200 person I have locks on my gates but if more people and more traffic comes 01:41:26.200 --> 01:41:32.280 through there it does not make me very comfortable thank you appreciate to be 01:41:32.280 --> 01:41:39.640 in here thank you there's no other cards of individuals wishing to speak I have 01:41:39.640 --> 01:41:43.240 some comment cards that I'll read into the record but as a public hearing if 01:41:43.240 --> 01:41:48.120 you're wishing to speak you may certainly do so yes sir 01:41:48.120 --> 01:41:56.520 okay Mr. Smith sorry chair sorry sir I wasn't actually asked miss Banfield 01:41:56.520 --> 01:42:02.840 anything Ron can I ask you a question I couldn't switch back to the touchscreen 01:42:02.840 --> 01:42:07.400 in time before you chair moved on from questions he gave me about half a second 01:42:07.400 --> 01:42:14.400 to do it the the request to make this an SC rather than making it a higher 01:42:14.400 --> 01:42:17.840 density like an r4 or something like that I know I know there's already a 01:42:17.840 --> 01:42:20.960 small section that's SC and that's why it's making it more conforming and 01:42:20.960 --> 01:42:25.400 getting rid of the split zoning here why not make it more compatible to the rest 01:42:25.400 --> 01:42:29.240 of the area being single-family residential why why only leaving uses of 01:42:29.240 --> 01:42:36.040 multifamily there one of the one is the is it because of the I'm sorry that 01:42:36.040 --> 01:42:38.440 finished question is it because of the floodplain in the middle making it 01:42:38.440 --> 01:42:42.520 pretty hard to make this a develop area if it was no I think I think I mean the 01:42:42.520 --> 01:42:46.680 following can be dealt with during the site plan process one is the applicant 01:42:46.680 --> 01:42:57.000 requested an SC that's one and two looking at the just real quick here 01:42:57.000 --> 01:43:02.680 looking at the future land use map shown here it shows it as community mix use 01:43:02.680 --> 01:43:10.120 again that's just again our plan for the area it is an eye it is along Locust 01:43:10.120 --> 01:43:16.800 Street and loop 288 and therefore this area is in need of commercial now there 01:43:16.800 --> 01:43:23.200 are commercial zoning student north which is also SC there is commercial to 01:43:23.200 --> 01:43:27.920 the northwest as part of the hills of Den there is commercial as part of the 01:43:27.920 --> 01:43:33.080 plan development to the west so this just lends itself more to a commercial 01:43:33.080 --> 01:43:38.680 hub or node to what extent that is something that we need to decide on 01:43:38.680 --> 01:43:43.880 however this being one lot it makes it difficult to carve it out and that's one 01:43:43.880 --> 01:43:48.920 reason why we're also here is because we want to identify this as a zoning that 01:43:48.920 --> 01:43:54.920 has only one per parcel another factor in our decision to go to SC thanks 01:43:54.920 --> 01:44:02.760 Commissioner Sanchez when you have a suburban corridor you're in here 01:44:02.760 --> 01:44:07.200 classifying that because of 288 primarily right and then Locust is a 01:44:07.200 --> 01:44:13.320 primary artillery as arterial as well but there's a big difference between 01:44:13.320 --> 01:44:21.280 Locust and 288 as far as traffic right I would think so my question is you've got 01:44:21.280 --> 01:44:28.720 a pretty good that creek that cuts that that picture yeah right there that that 01:44:28.720 --> 01:44:32.840 floodplain right there makes a pretty good distinction between the north side 01:44:32.840 --> 01:44:40.240 and the south side and to me when we're talking about corridors or you know like 01:44:40.240 --> 01:44:45.360 the highway corridor or suburban corridor we're primarily concentrating on 01:44:45.360 --> 01:44:50.480 the front edge of those corridors so why we expanding it all the way to the back 01:44:50.480 --> 01:44:55.280 makes me wonder because there is a lot along Locust there is a lot of also 01:44:55.280 --> 01:45:01.640 residential I you know so I don't understand why I just want to make that 01:45:01.640 --> 01:45:07.720 that you do have a natural cut in that in that lot because of the what what 01:45:07.720 --> 01:45:12.720 that floodplain does as you know Commissioner Sanchez for clarifying as 01:45:12.720 --> 01:45:16.600 it runs in this vicinity here or direction here is that what you're 01:45:16.600 --> 01:45:22.320 referring to either way but I mean you can use a bottom map or you can use the 01:45:22.320 --> 01:45:25.600 top finger but there is going to be something that you're not going to be 01:45:25.600 --> 01:45:30.200 able to build on if you look at the top part you're going to be able to build to 01:45:30.200 --> 01:45:35.680 the east and probably a little bit to the west and then to the south because 01:45:35.680 --> 01:45:38.920 you're not going to be able to build into that into that I don't think you're 01:45:38.920 --> 01:45:46.000 going to be able to build into that into that floodplain right so the areas that 01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:50.560 you know are not encumbered by floodplain over easements would be the 01:45:50.560 --> 01:45:54.760 area that potentially could be developed you know we're we're not looking at the 01:45:54.760 --> 01:45:58.760 site I mean obviously the site is important but the zoning the uses I 01:45:58.760 --> 01:46:03.360 think is important to to also consider right and that's why I'm saying yeah you 01:46:03.360 --> 01:46:07.240 have to look at the whole big picture of the lot not just say okay we're going to 01:46:07.240 --> 01:46:11.400 we have this big square but you also have to look at the topography in the 01:46:11.400 --> 01:46:17.800 natural barriers that are in that in that block and say okay they're not 01:46:17.800 --> 01:46:22.840 there's going to be a stop right there that creeks going to put that floodplain 01:46:22.840 --> 01:46:29.960 is going to stop quite a bit of but what do you call it development so it's a 01:46:29.960 --> 01:46:33.280 barrier and I think you have to look at the big picture not just say okay we've 01:46:33.280 --> 01:46:37.600 got a big block and this is what we want to do we also have to consider that 288 01:46:37.600 --> 01:46:44.600 is is a corridor not not anything on the south side we have Locus but Locus is 01:46:44.600 --> 01:46:48.520 not the same I don't consider it the same type of corridor that I would 01:46:48.520 --> 01:46:56.400 consider 288 right yes right now yes no certainly the classification of Locus is 01:46:56.400 --> 01:47:01.840 to be a arterial a primary arterial in the future and that's obviously not 01:47:01.840 --> 01:47:08.720 today but that would be something in the future now also as I mentioned it yeah 01:47:08.720 --> 01:47:13.760 that your your the area to the north sees a lot of there's more commercial 01:47:13.760 --> 01:47:18.160 already identified as part of the future lane use designation and it's currently 01:47:18.160 --> 01:47:23.520 zoned suburban corridor also to the east I'm sorry to the west it's already 01:47:23.520 --> 01:47:28.680 commercial not as big as the area that you're talking about but this area is 01:47:28.680 --> 01:47:34.680 one parcel and we have to identify he's only for that one parcel 01:47:34.680 --> 01:47:48.560 Christopher Beck thank you chair okay and so for Commissioner Sanchez 01:47:48.560 --> 01:47:54.000 clarification this the owner of this property is asking for a suburban 01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:59.440 corridor so it is his property and he's asking for something that evidently he 01:47:59.440 --> 01:48:07.560 has plans to develop within those they they they are here present and then we 01:48:07.560 --> 01:48:12.120 can ask him ask them for the clarification okay and as I said earlier 01:48:12.120 --> 01:48:16.280 they did request suburban quarter we looked at what we have as far as a 01:48:16.280 --> 01:48:20.880 future lane use and the surrounding area we did use as I mentioned earlier the 01:48:20.880 --> 01:48:27.920 corridors again locus in either loop 288 which meant it fit the criteria right 01:48:27.920 --> 01:48:34.280 bringing it forward certainly we can hear more on what the owners have plans 01:48:34.280 --> 01:48:39.840 and okay and I would like to do and I don't I agree that this is an area that 01:48:39.840 --> 01:48:45.400 is going to be developed is primary corridors where commercial development 01:48:45.400 --> 01:48:53.720 would be needed that whole north part of Denton is just void right now and this 01:48:53.720 --> 01:48:57.160 would be a good area to develop some commercial enterprises to feed the 01:48:57.160 --> 01:49:01.520 residential those in the area let me answer this is the anybody from the 01:49:01.520 --> 01:49:06.560 Asbury church here tonight that can explain why they want to stay with an 01:49:06.560 --> 01:49:11.680 R2 no I reached out to them and I did ask for them to attend again the reason 01:49:11.680 --> 01:49:16.560 I stated at the work session is that they didn't see any advantage for them 01:49:16.560 --> 01:49:21.280 to go to SC and would prefer to remain well I wish I wish they were here just 01:49:21.280 --> 01:49:26.600 for the record because I don't see any disadvantage being an SC looking at it 01:49:26.600 --> 01:49:32.040 religious assemblies are allowed in all the residential areas in the SC so if 01:49:32.040 --> 01:49:35.440 they're thinking of expanding I don't think there'd be any restriction with 01:49:35.440 --> 01:49:40.000 this I think one of their concerns that I expressed to me was the rise in 01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:45.320 property taxes but as a as a church nonprofit I would assume that their 01:49:45.320 --> 01:49:50.720 property taxes are exempt but again I'm not an expert in that and all I can say 01:49:50.720 --> 01:49:57.080 is that's one of the concerns that they had okay raised okay yeah if the owner 01:49:57.080 --> 01:50:00.720 of that property share I'd definitely like him to come forward and ask me a few 01:50:00.720 --> 01:50:10.000 questions yeah I appreciate that sir you've been waiting you're more than welcome to see 01:50:10.000 --> 01:50:13.480 this time if you just state your name and address for the record okay my name 01:50:13.480 --> 01:50:19.760 is Philip Alino my address is 121 Meadow Lane it out the garage faces across to 01:50:19.760 --> 01:50:26.560 the Asbury Church I guess my big concerns initially were how this would 01:50:26.560 --> 01:50:32.320 affect traffic on Locust you know as I think some of you have pointed out 01:50:32.320 --> 01:50:39.080 Locust is a two-lane really not much more than a country road not much 01:50:39.080 --> 01:50:49.360 shoulder no sidewalks you know on the west side of Locust currently there's I 01:50:49.360 --> 01:50:54.640 think about 150 homes and construction that are going to have cars emptying out 01:50:54.640 --> 01:51:01.320 on the Locust and so traffic is getting further pushed up so the you know the 01:51:01.320 --> 01:51:05.880 effect that this would have on traffic on Locust is one concern and from the 01:51:05.880 --> 01:51:10.080 map and looking at the floodplain it looks like the staff analysis had 01:51:10.080 --> 01:51:14.760 suggested that there might be an entry from Hercules but I don't think given 01:51:14.760 --> 01:51:21.800 the wishes of the church or the floodplain that that would necessarily 01:51:21.800 --> 01:51:31.760 be likely my last concern having seen the presentation is where the location 01:51:31.760 --> 01:51:37.760 of the floodplain is I hadn't been aware of that I think one thing to consider is 01:51:37.760 --> 01:51:45.640 that okay great thank you okay yeah so you know if we might expect that a lot 01:51:45.640 --> 01:51:50.480 of the development would go on in this area I think it's probably at least 01:51:50.480 --> 01:51:57.600 plausible that much of this area would become paved over and so how that would 01:51:57.600 --> 01:52:04.320 affect runoff into the floodplain and any consequence that would have on 01:52:04.320 --> 01:52:10.880 increased runoff into the east side of this neighborhood I don't know whether 01:52:10.880 --> 01:52:16.800 that's something that's been considered or has been taken into account it hasn't 01:52:16.800 --> 01:52:19.620 given considered at this stage that's when engineering comes in at the 01:52:19.620 --> 01:52:24.600 platting stage site plan that we would actually look to see what's being 01:52:24.600 --> 01:52:27.720 constructed what's the the output of drainage and how that's being detained 01:52:27.720 --> 01:52:32.600 but it's not being considered at this point just the zoning like what the 01:52:32.600 --> 01:52:37.620 future planning of the area would be okay so I mean basically my concerns are 01:52:37.620 --> 01:52:42.640 that you know for this to go forward I think start moving toward development of 01:52:42.640 --> 01:52:46.840 retail in this area and then you know unless these other issues got concern 01:52:46.840 --> 01:52:54.120 got considered in advance that you know could find yourself in a situation where 01:52:54.120 --> 01:52:57.120 okay well we've pushed it already down far enough down the road that we're not 01:52:57.120 --> 01:53:01.760 going back and well gee we'll just deal with with these things on an ad hoc 01:53:01.760 --> 01:53:08.120 basis all right well thank you thank you 01:53:08.120 --> 01:53:15.360 this is a public hearing anyone wish to speak may certainly do so sir are you 01:53:15.360 --> 01:53:21.440 wishing to speak if you just state your name and address of the record my name is 01:53:21.440 --> 01:53:27.040 Vince Hasler my address is 4946 North Locust Street and I'm speaking on behalf 01:53:27.040 --> 01:53:34.520 of the owners of the tract I guess number 37 I guess bordered by Locust 01:53:34.520 --> 01:53:42.760 loop 288 town north and then where it stops for the Asbury property the 01:53:42.760 --> 01:53:46.880 owners are my father Belvin Hasler my uncle JB Hasler and my aunt Marianne 01:53:46.880 --> 01:53:53.000 McCutcheon the proposed zoning for inspiration corridor we are strongly in 01:53:53.000 --> 01:53:58.000 favor of we think that does meet the highest and best use for the property 01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:04.160 the North Denton is growing and it's currently vastly underserved by you know 01:54:04.160 --> 01:54:11.840 businesses that would that would serve the future growth as far as the property 01:54:11.840 --> 01:54:18.080 due to the floodplain issue the electric power line that runs along the east and 01:54:18.080 --> 01:54:23.960 south side of the property and the easement with it that really carves up 01:54:23.960 --> 01:54:29.200 carves up the lot and especially with the commercial along the frontage on 01:54:29.200 --> 01:54:34.480 Locust there's really very little usable space left there for residential 01:54:34.480 --> 01:54:41.480 especially when you consider long-term loop 288 been expanded and stands to 01:54:41.480 --> 01:54:45.200 reason that Locust Street will be expanded in the future as well which 01:54:45.200 --> 01:54:50.580 really further reduces the size of that lot for you know any type of a sizable 01:54:50.580 --> 01:54:57.560 sizable residential we're in favor of the entire our part of the entire 01:54:57.560 --> 01:55:03.720 tract being zoned suburban corridor thank you thank you thank you thank you 01:55:03.720 --> 01:55:10.840 chance being sensitive to our concerns absolutely thank you this is a public 01:55:10.840 --> 01:55:14.480 hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so I have some cards that 01:55:14.480 --> 01:55:20.740 I'll read is the record the first one is Mary McCutcheon she's at 1217 01:55:20.740 --> 01:55:25.160 Greenbrier Street her comment says this property has the potential for providing 01:55:25.160 --> 01:55:28.440 convenient services for people who reside in the neighborhood the existing 01:55:28.440 --> 01:55:33.160 features of a high-voltage electric power line and two side on two sides and 01:55:33.160 --> 01:55:37.120 high-traffic corridors on the other two sides make it undesirable for residential 01:55:37.120 --> 01:55:47.760 development she is in support next card I have is for Melvin Heisler he is in 01:55:47.760 --> 01:55:51.600 support and says I agree that the zoning of SC allows for the best use of this 01:55:51.600 --> 01:55:59.280 property then lastly we had JB Heisler jr. at 1200 Crowling Road is in support 01:55:59.280 --> 01:56:03.760 and the card says the undesirable features of this property make it less 01:56:03.760 --> 01:56:10.720 conducive for residential development SC is more appropriate those are the only 01:56:10.720 --> 01:56:15.320 cards I have on this item it is public anyone wishing to speak may certainly do 01:56:15.320 --> 01:56:23.800 so seeing none I will close public hearing and turn the days for a motion 01:56:23.800 --> 01:56:30.760 or discussion Ron can I choose a quick question as commission's talking can you 01:56:30.760 --> 01:56:37.240 go back to just where it had the R2 R3 R6 there you go what is the actual 01:56:37.240 --> 01:56:41.800 property lines there's the SC is a wholly different platted property that's 01:56:41.800 --> 01:56:47.120 not included here the church is a property and then the other my my 01:56:47.120 --> 01:56:56.360 understanding the property lines line is literally all of this area here and the 01:56:56.360 --> 01:57:01.680 zoning was a result of a plan development and does not follow parcel 01:57:01.680 --> 01:57:09.400 line or property line it just was put on a map so the property has correct is all 01:57:09.400 --> 01:57:15.440 of the area locus to loop 288 this boundary over here and then the property 01:57:15.440 --> 01:57:20.080 to the south is the boundary line for that parcel and the reason the SC isn't 01:57:20.080 --> 01:57:24.520 included is because it's already SC and the request is to move to SC correct if 01:57:24.520 --> 01:57:31.640 we don't move it to SC is it still going to be a split zone case then correct it 01:57:31.640 --> 01:57:37.320 will be a split zone parcel okay and would that go back to city reach 01:57:37.320 --> 01:57:42.800 initiated rezoning on the next cycle to fix that split zoning would we know 01:57:42.800 --> 01:57:48.240 because that this is unless there's a different proposal you would not this is 01:57:48.240 --> 01:57:53.360 what is being brought forward today so potentially if we say hypothetically I'm 01:57:53.360 --> 01:57:57.360 not making many kind of assumptions here but say it's MN and we move this all to 01:57:57.360 --> 01:58:02.640 MN we're gonna have a split zone case where the northwest will be SC and the 01:58:02.640 --> 01:58:06.560 rest will be in him and there won't be any more proactive measures from the 01:58:06.560 --> 01:58:10.320 city to correct that issue am I understanding that correctly that's the 01:58:10.320 --> 01:58:14.480 yeah that's what happens from here to see council then there would not be any 01:58:14.480 --> 01:58:19.700 further action from their point on so so the quick answer is there would be no 01:58:19.700 --> 01:58:25.000 further I got you a proposal I understand coaster Smith I understand 01:58:25.000 --> 01:58:30.600 the flume makes it makes it to where this community makes use I just think 01:58:30.600 --> 01:58:34.040 that SC in the way that the codes written which is written great by the 01:58:34.040 --> 01:58:39.520 way but just the way the codes written that if we prove this SC we're gonna 01:58:39.520 --> 01:58:46.600 allow for bars bars and restaurants auto washes all by right all right nestled 01:58:46.600 --> 01:58:51.160 around nothing but single-family and multifamily with almost no other 01:58:51.160 --> 01:58:55.600 commercial use around it I know we can look across 288 and see commercial use 01:58:55.600 --> 01:59:01.600 we can look you know caddy corner 288 and locus and see commercial use in 01:59:01.600 --> 01:59:05.040 reality 288 creates a big enough of a buffer that it's it's almost a totally 01:59:05.040 --> 01:59:10.240 different world south of 288 than it is north of 288 so I get I'm hesitant to 01:59:10.240 --> 01:59:14.640 make a motion to approve this purely because of the things were allowed by 01:59:14.640 --> 01:59:17.560 right in there that it could be detrimental to the area I guess they 01:59:17.560 --> 01:59:20.960 could be used by the folks in the area but there could be ultimately detrimental 01:59:20.960 --> 01:59:25.920 hotels motel is also accepted with an SC that by right so a little a little 01:59:25.920 --> 01:59:31.300 worrisome so small the comments that Commission Commissioner pernetta and I'm 01:59:31.300 --> 01:59:35.920 inclined to agree so just real quickly that little section along the bottom 01:59:35.920 --> 01:59:39.320 that kind of rhombus or whatever it is that that's the church right and that's 01:59:39.320 --> 01:59:44.120 that's separately but correct this line right here delineates what's owned by 01:59:44.120 --> 01:59:48.620 the church and what's owned by the hislers so inside of that where we have 01:59:48.620 --> 01:59:54.400 the pink SC the R6 you know and the R2 and the R3 it with the exception of the 01:59:54.400 --> 01:59:58.520 church everything else has a single owner right correct everything north of 01:59:58.520 --> 02:00:05.440 this line Commissioner pernetta okay and the main reason we're and I hate to sound 02:00:05.440 --> 02:00:10.120 you know dismissive of it but the main reason that we're going to an SC for the 02:00:10.120 --> 02:00:14.400 whole thing is simply for the purpose of not having a split zoning on a single 02:00:14.400 --> 02:00:18.480 property is that correct that's that's one of the factors the first of course 02:00:18.480 --> 02:00:22.680 is the request to go to SC the future land use and then of course looking at 02:00:22.680 --> 02:00:26.440 this as one parcel right where do we where do we draw the line and we don't 02:00:26.440 --> 02:00:33.920 have a line to draw on there it's not subdivided it's one parcel okay and 02:00:33.920 --> 02:00:40.160 similar to what Commissioner Smith said you know the idea of making the whole 02:00:40.160 --> 02:00:44.800 thing at SC just kind of seems like overkill because that is residential 02:00:44.800 --> 02:00:50.960 there we've gotten a few objections I guess from people along the south it 02:00:50.960 --> 02:00:55.240 doesn't look like if we make everything SC then we actually have a transition 02:00:55.240 --> 02:01:01.560 between that and the residential and if we were to expand all that to where it 02:01:01.560 --> 02:01:06.960 is SC and in theory put businesses and everything that strip of Hercules looks 02:01:06.960 --> 02:01:11.560 awful small and I've driven down that it's like it like just too late right 02:01:11.560 --> 02:01:15.800 there it doesn't look like it would support that kind of development there I 02:01:15.800 --> 02:01:21.200 in this kind of situation we have that floodplain and it's almost like nature 02:01:21.200 --> 02:01:26.000 has kind of created a natural dividing mark I would be more inclined to say you 02:01:26.000 --> 02:01:32.720 know SC along the top you know right against 288 and then I actually kind of 02:01:32.720 --> 02:01:36.840 like the zoning the way it is with the exception of maybe putting SC along the 02:01:36.840 --> 02:01:41.920 top there it seems like how it is right now it makes more sense for the for the 02:01:41.920 --> 02:01:48.640 surrounding areas that's all 02:01:48.640 --> 02:01:53.400 Kister Sanchez this one moment I think Richard's gonna add some context to the 02:01:53.400 --> 02:01:58.000 analysis I just wanted to also as Ron mentioned I think it's important to note 02:01:58.000 --> 02:02:03.160 that that that easement on the eastern property line is is about a hundred I 02:02:03.160 --> 02:02:08.920 think it's a hundred foot easement on to on to the property in question and so 02:02:08.920 --> 02:02:15.320 it's approximately 150 feet I think from the back of the properties to the to the 02:02:15.320 --> 02:02:20.240 east so there's a pretty pretty good distance that really will not be able to 02:02:20.240 --> 02:02:25.720 be developed as a result of those those those power lines in addition I think 02:02:25.720 --> 02:02:30.600 it's important to note as we continue to even have development just to the north 02:02:30.600 --> 02:02:35.800 where long road will eventually tie right in here to locust locust is it will 02:02:35.800 --> 02:02:42.480 be a hundred hundred and twenty or 135 foot wide arterial and so looking at 02:02:42.480 --> 02:02:47.160 this long term there's there's not much that could be left to do with this 02:02:47.160 --> 02:02:52.880 parcel given its sandwich between a major arterial and a highway and and 02:02:52.880 --> 02:02:58.440 really looking at do we want to have residential that close to a freeway and 02:02:58.440 --> 02:03:09.600 and that large of an arterial Kister Sanchez yeah we're looking at you know 02:03:09.600 --> 02:03:14.040 part of our job is to look long-term and I understand that we have that on the 02:03:14.040 --> 02:03:20.940 east side that electric corridor and then we also locus is going to be in 02:03:20.940 --> 02:03:25.120 large but we also have to consider the neighborhood on this on the south which 02:03:25.120 --> 02:03:32.680 is on on Hercules I just like I said earlier I don't have any problem 02:03:32.680 --> 02:03:39.080 developing the north side or everything looking at that picture everything north 02:03:39.080 --> 02:03:43.040 of the creek or a floodplain whatever you want to call it but I do have a 02:03:43.040 --> 02:03:50.040 problem making it considering it suburban corridor all the way down I 02:03:50.040 --> 02:03:53.860 really that's a real issue for me because you have Hercules and Hercules 02:03:53.860 --> 02:04:00.760 is not a big it's not a big corridor it's just a neighborhood road right and 02:04:00.760 --> 02:04:06.440 and that that's a good point and as stated earlier the the church was not in 02:04:06.440 --> 02:04:13.280 favor of that going so again that is an option as the chair mentioned there's 02:04:13.280 --> 02:04:17.920 our there are options to this consideration you can consider the whole 02:04:17.920 --> 02:04:23.160 area that's outlined in black you can consider everything minus the red or 02:04:23.160 --> 02:04:29.560 you can do other consideration potentially even postpone it that is up 02:04:29.560 --> 02:04:35.280 to the Commission Michelle's thank you chair yeah I'll just add a couple of 02:04:35.280 --> 02:04:39.240 thoughts I'm certainly in favor of pulling the church out of there if they 02:04:39.240 --> 02:04:45.000 choose not to be considered in this I don't think residential designation is 02:04:45.000 --> 02:04:49.680 proper for this it's not going to develop as residential but my concern is 02:04:49.680 --> 02:04:52.640 SC doesn't offer maybe enough neighborhood protection for what's 02:04:52.640 --> 02:05:01.040 already out around it not that I am a fan of split zoning a parcel at all I'm 02:05:01.040 --> 02:05:06.280 not sure why we have a sliver of it already SC so I def I do have some 02:05:06.280 --> 02:05:12.640 concerns making it SC because of the neighborhoods that are already in place 02:05:12.640 --> 02:05:20.080 so I am struggling with that a little bit Ron I have a quick question for you 02:05:20.080 --> 02:05:28.080 earlier we saw property down on is it Colorado right by the mall what is that 02:05:28.080 --> 02:05:36.400 that's not Colorado there we used SC as a buffer between the mall and that 02:05:36.400 --> 02:05:42.120 residential right that's the idea of SC is SC generally one of the options in 02:05:42.120 --> 02:05:49.280 providing buffers are transitioned for the city one one of MN would be another 02:05:49.280 --> 02:05:54.840 one as another you know buffer but because of the existing conditions on 02:05:54.840 --> 02:06:00.880 sentence into as far as those uses SC was chosen because they the uses there 02:06:00.880 --> 02:06:06.600 were more suitable under SC and certainly SC or MN would be those two 02:06:06.600 --> 02:06:13.440 that I would you know refer to as those transition buildings so with that I 02:06:13.440 --> 02:06:22.360 would move that we approve the owners property to SC but removing the church 02:06:22.360 --> 02:06:28.720 property out of this parcel leave the church parcel as is and the northern 02:06:28.720 --> 02:06:35.920 portion of the property move it to an SC zoning Christian Cole we have a first 02:06:35.920 --> 02:06:41.320 second second for approval of pulling out the resident the church property on 02:06:41.320 --> 02:06:50.360 the south Christian Beck a chair Ron is again I'm trying to recall the mobility 02:06:50.360 --> 02:06:58.880 plan Hercules just to the east of that property is a split two-lane road right 02:06:58.880 --> 02:07:04.520 I believe the mobility plan shows it as a collector okay is it is that not going 02:07:04.520 --> 02:07:09.640 to extend that part of Hercules not going to extend the same right away with 02:07:09.640 --> 02:07:14.640 all the way to the locust eventually and even go across in Hercules being taken 02:07:14.640 --> 02:07:18.320 all the way it is my understanding it will extend full okay so it won't stay 02:07:18.320 --> 02:07:23.440 like that now so we have no idea when that's gonna know okay but that's 02:07:23.440 --> 02:07:30.600 something to consider and maybe you can't answer this here but if we do make 02:07:30.600 --> 02:07:34.520 this SC I know the concern is Commissioner Smith mentioned you know 02:07:34.520 --> 02:07:39.240 bars and hotels but ideally you know you're gonna put those out on the 02:07:39.240 --> 02:07:44.360 periphery not close up to the houses but is there a way when the developer comes 02:07:44.360 --> 02:07:55.160 in and wants to develop this land that he can be guided in a way where 02:07:55.160 --> 02:08:01.800 multifamilies allowed here with an SUV where that would be appropriate on the 02:08:01.800 --> 02:08:06.000 east side there and then you start to build the more commercial aspects of it 02:08:06.000 --> 02:08:11.760 as you go out towards Locust and I think I mean we can certainly provide that 02:08:11.760 --> 02:08:15.760 guidance but there's really nothing to hold them to that of course the market 02:08:15.760 --> 02:08:20.360 will dictate a lot of it as well I mean to have commercial use for the back 02:08:20.360 --> 02:08:25.600 would not be suitable right be primarily along Locust in I-30 I'm sorry I keep 02:08:25.600 --> 02:08:31.120 saying I-35 loop 288 but that's something that would be dictated by the 02:08:31.120 --> 02:08:35.200 market okay okay all right thank you 02:08:35.200 --> 02:08:39.720 Christopher Neto yeah I just want to clarify the motion on the board so so 02:08:39.720 --> 02:08:44.360 right now what we're looking at is pulling out only that little section not 02:08:44.360 --> 02:08:48.000 not not the entire red but just the church on the lower side right no the 02:08:48.000 --> 02:08:52.720 entire red the entire red right my thought would be I think the the 02:08:52.720 --> 02:08:58.400 residents of that South property has the alleyway okay if we leave the church 02:08:58.400 --> 02:09:03.040 triangle property the same we provide a buffer for those residents and hopefully 02:09:03.040 --> 02:09:08.640 inclined traffic off Locust and 288 to access the SC leaving Hercules 02:09:08.640 --> 02:09:14.320 theoretically you know guided for the church property right now okay I just 02:09:14.320 --> 02:09:17.160 wanted to clarify because I guess I misunderstood earlier I thought the 02:09:17.160 --> 02:09:21.120 church was only the black line within the red lines but if we're talking about 02:09:21.120 --> 02:09:26.920 the whole red line they all two lots yeah I'm excluding that all right that's 02:09:26.920 --> 02:09:34.520 good thank you Mr. Smith thank you chair pretty pretty torn on on this motion 02:09:34.520 --> 02:09:39.400 just in general same same same things I mentioned earlier that feel like SC even 02:09:39.400 --> 02:09:43.440 though it is a buffer zoning that it just it's inviting too much commercial I 02:09:43.440 --> 02:09:47.880 think in this area and I'm saying that with we've having voted in the last year 02:09:47.880 --> 02:09:51.560 on this Commission to approve residential developments in these areas 02:09:51.560 --> 02:09:57.440 and commercial is needed I think I think just the fear of having some of the 02:09:57.440 --> 02:10:01.320 commercial developments there being a little bit too close I don't think you 02:10:01.320 --> 02:10:05.880 know 150 feet setback you do to the utility easement and everything else is 02:10:05.880 --> 02:10:11.360 really gonna be enough in this instance but I am torn on it so I do want the 02:10:11.360 --> 02:10:18.240 Commission to to consider that thank you Christian Ellis yeah and I'll just say a 02:10:18.240 --> 02:10:23.840 couple more thoughts on that I'm just not comfortable with SC here and then I 02:10:23.840 --> 02:10:28.040 would be on board with and I understand we'd have a split there but I'm gonna go 02:10:28.040 --> 02:10:36.200 ahead and oh no one thank you Michelle's any other discussion on the item seeing 02:10:36.200 --> 02:10:39.600 none we have a first and a second to move for approval minus the southern 02:10:39.600 --> 02:10:45.080 property that's discussed I'll call for a vote on the board 02:10:57.040 --> 02:11:04.920 motion carries four three the next item of business is item two oh that's area 02:11:04.920 --> 02:11:13.600 38 item 2o area 38 I'll invite Ron back up presentation and open the public 02:11:13.600 --> 02:11:29.080 hearing okay the subject property is located along loop 288 generally along 02:11:29.080 --> 02:11:34.520 Kings Row south of Kings Row I encompasses two parcels a one on the 02:11:34.520 --> 02:11:41.960 west side of loop 288 and one to the north east property the properties are 02:11:41.960 --> 02:11:46.040 currently undeveloped potentially uses general agriculture but mainly 02:11:46.040 --> 02:11:51.520 undeveloped the response that was received from the applicant or the 02:11:51.520 --> 02:11:57.040 property owner is requesting that the one parcel identified here in red be 02:11:57.040 --> 02:12:04.240 left as MN or what is to transition to MN it is currently NRM you but is all 02:12:04.240 --> 02:12:11.400 but he is in favor of the western track here outlined in black to go forward as 02:12:11.400 --> 02:12:18.080 SC again staff's recommendation is to go SC it is consistent with the 02:12:18.080 --> 02:12:22.120 surrounding environment in fact the parcels to the south is currently zoned 02:12:22.120 --> 02:12:28.960 SC for the transition chart and we were just extending that north along loop 288 02:12:28.960 --> 02:12:36.120 which is a major corridor and in stopping at Kings Row that concludes my 02:12:36.120 --> 02:12:42.400 presentation applicant earned property owner of both tracks is here and present 02:12:42.400 --> 02:12:48.240 thank you Ron I don't see any questions for you I only have one card it's Vince 02:12:48.240 --> 02:13:02.920 Heisler hi perfect no worries I do not have any cards in this item now so it's 02:13:02.920 --> 02:13:07.800 item - oh there's a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this item they 02:13:07.800 --> 02:13:12.720 certainly do so yes sir 02:13:12.720 --> 02:13:25.960 Mr. Chairman members the Commission my name is Randall Smith 5428 Lake Victoria 02:13:25.960 --> 02:13:34.480 Court and Flyer Mount 75022 property owner of these two properties and I 02:13:34.480 --> 02:13:42.520 would prefer that the property on the southeast corner remain the MN so I 02:13:42.520 --> 02:13:47.320 would be opposed to the zoning change to SC for that corner if they can't be 02:13:47.320 --> 02:13:54.800 split I prefer that they both remain in them okay thank you any questions 02:13:54.800 --> 02:14:02.000 because jealous thank you chair mr. Smith can you tell me why well I've already 02:14:02.000 --> 02:14:05.720 been through this with the city-wide rezoning you know three or four months 02:14:05.720 --> 02:14:11.780 ago and it was determined then that MN was the most appropriate zoning and in 02:14:11.780 --> 02:14:15.680 looking at the uses and the requirements and the setbacks and all that I just 02:14:15.680 --> 02:14:21.640 feel that it's more appropriate for that track to be MN because I had I did have 02:14:21.640 --> 02:14:28.240 a concern on your Western property as well being SC again because we have such 02:14:28.240 --> 02:14:33.240 a densely populated area that MN seemed more appropriate for it so I was 02:14:33.240 --> 02:14:38.280 wondering why you know what your reasoning was for MN on the east side 02:14:38.280 --> 02:14:42.640 and not the west I'm happy with both of them staying in them okay appreciate 02:14:42.640 --> 02:14:52.680 thanks thank you any other questions for I think you're good thank you this is a 02:14:52.680 --> 02:15:00.800 public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so on this item see 02:15:00.800 --> 02:15:04.560 none I'll close the public hearing turn to the days for a discussion or motion 02:15:04.560 --> 02:15:12.880 Commissioner Beck thank you chair I'm feeling along the lines that suburban 02:15:12.880 --> 02:15:16.680 corridor may be a little excessive for this area because they do both these 02:15:16.680 --> 02:15:21.960 areas back up to a residential area and I'm thinking agreement with the 02:15:21.960 --> 02:15:26.240 Commissioner Ellis that MN on both sides would probably be more preferable for 02:15:26.240 --> 02:15:30.960 these two just by virtue of their location to single-family residential 02:15:30.960 --> 02:15:38.700 neighborhood thank you Commissioner Ellis actually thank you chair Ron can I ask 02:15:38.700 --> 02:15:50.080 you a question so the property directly south of the Western parcel well but 02:15:50.080 --> 02:15:55.640 further west so that yeah that's an residential district is it not I believe 02:15:55.640 --> 02:16:01.600 it's R4 looking at the chart yes okay anything happening on that right now not 02:16:01.600 --> 02:16:07.160 that I know of now okay thanks 02:16:07.160 --> 02:16:16.800 any other discussion on the item or a motion 02:16:18.560 --> 02:16:30.640 Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I'm gonna make a motion to zone area 38 MN 02:16:30.640 --> 02:16:37.720 and just to clarify the east and west properties both to MN correct and Ron 02:16:37.720 --> 02:16:46.000 chair Commissioner Ellis the parcels the two parcels as effective October 1st it 02:16:46.000 --> 02:16:51.240 will transition to MN it's currently NRM you which transitions to MN so if the 02:16:51.240 --> 02:16:57.240 preference or the motion is to remain MN my understanding with then it'd be just 02:16:57.240 --> 02:17:02.920 to recommend denial would you like to amend your motion my motion to recommend 02:17:02.920 --> 02:17:10.120 denial of changing this area to SC great we have a first for a denial of the 02:17:10.120 --> 02:17:17.240 motion to approve SC Christian Smith so I get we have a first and a second motion 02:17:17.240 --> 02:17:23.360 to deny I don't see any discussion just to clarify a motion and vote yes the 02:17:23.360 --> 02:17:30.760 green button is to deny and this will remain MN so it's a opposite vote with 02:17:30.760 --> 02:17:33.720 that I'll call for a vote on the board 02:17:40.120 --> 02:17:48.880 the motion carries 7-0 the next item for business is item 2 q it's area 40 I'll 02:17:48.880 --> 02:17:58.200 invite Ron back up for presentation and open the public hearing yes the area 02:17:58.200 --> 02:18:05.440 area 40 is located between loop 288 and Mayhill Road it is bisected by Russell 02:18:05.440 --> 02:18:12.020 Newman through the middle of the project or of this area the area is currently as 02:18:12.020 --> 02:18:16.720 transition will be transitioned to Li light industrial staff is proposing a 02:18:16.720 --> 02:18:23.400 geo general office zoning as it fits again with the land use element it is 02:18:23.400 --> 02:18:28.680 comprised of larger tracks there are some undeveloped properties within this 02:18:28.680 --> 02:18:35.760 area there are currently existing uses looking at what is existing most of the 02:18:35.760 --> 02:18:41.360 uses would be permitted under the geo now there is one use that would not be 02:18:41.360 --> 02:18:47.700 and and that is a major automotive repair shop that requires a specific use 02:18:47.700 --> 02:18:56.480 permit under the geo so that would be just the one use and the property owner 02:18:56.480 --> 02:19:03.520 of the areas outlining red here did submit an opposition form in opposition 02:19:03.520 --> 02:19:11.320 to the rezoning to geo and would like it to remain Li light industrial and let me 02:19:11.320 --> 02:19:24.040 pull up exhibit that shows that area a little bit more closer so there are 02:19:24.040 --> 02:19:30.360 approximately nine parcels that then market Street property LLC owns which the 02:19:30.360 --> 02:19:36.280 property owner represents or owns and they are shown here outline in red and 02:19:36.280 --> 02:19:42.920 again the area outline red is owned by property owner that does not want to be 02:19:42.920 --> 02:19:49.360 part of this zoning to a geo if not included it would remain Li light 02:19:49.360 --> 02:20:05.560 industrial Ron is there any other Li in the area or what's the closest Li it 02:20:05.560 --> 02:20:10.840 looks like it might be on an island in there but there is let me show you real 02:20:10.840 --> 02:20:24.640 quick in part of the other consideration that we did earlier you've got public 02:20:24.640 --> 02:20:33.480 facilities are for I believe yes are for this is ETJ that's our our rural 02:20:33.480 --> 02:20:42.320 residential suburban quarter to the south this area here was Li or is Li 02:20:42.320 --> 02:20:48.080 pending City Council is recommended for SC the area further south you've got 02:20:48.080 --> 02:20:54.480 public facilities primarily because it's owned by the city you've got area 42 02:20:54.480 --> 02:21:03.360 which is currently Li recommended to go to geo so looking at the area there's 02:21:03.360 --> 02:21:09.440 no Li for the most part you have got suburban corridor and a mix of other 02:21:09.440 --> 02:21:18.080 zoning districts thank you I question back is the owner here 02:21:18.080 --> 02:21:25.320 of this property I do not think so I've spoken to the gentleman some for some 02:21:25.320 --> 02:21:30.680 time and as well as other staff members and again his reason I think maybe 02:21:30.680 --> 02:21:35.720 that's where you're going is he wants to keep his ability to develop under the Li 02:21:35.720 --> 02:21:39.560 and whatever uses that are permitted okay I'm sitting here looking at the two 02:21:39.560 --> 02:21:42.400 and there's not a whole lot of difference between the two so that's why 02:21:42.400 --> 02:21:48.400 it'd be nice if you I believe you mentioned building materials and supply 02:21:48.400 --> 02:21:53.120 store as one that is not permitted in the geo but it is permitted in the Li and 02:21:53.120 --> 02:21:59.600 I think that's the only one that I could find as well very very similar but more 02:21:59.600 --> 02:22:05.560 towards office and that type of development okay and that is a small 02:22:05.560 --> 02:22:14.440 relatively smaller compared to all the other between areas 1443 a lot of geo so 02:22:14.440 --> 02:22:19.280 would it be that far out of place to leave it Li would it be that disruptive 02:22:19.280 --> 02:22:31.400 in your opinion staff's recommendation it go to geo thanks Ron thanks Ron this 02:22:31.400 --> 02:22:34.880 is a public hearing anyone wish to speak may certainly do so I do have a card for 02:22:34.880 --> 02:22:42.680 individual wanting to speak Eric Torres and if you could just speak your name an 02:22:42.680 --> 02:22:46.480 address for the record you have four minutes to speak names Eric Torres and 02:22:46.480 --> 02:22:53.480 the address is 1050 North May Hill Road the property we're talking about here is 02:22:53.480 --> 02:22:59.680 that the property now I understand that this right here wants to be done you 02:22:59.680 --> 02:23:05.320 know for commercial the situation I'm running I'm looking at right now is that 02:23:05.320 --> 02:23:11.040 with that being made into commercial they're going to benefit from you know 02:23:11.040 --> 02:23:17.520 city water city sewage all those things that all these properties here aren't 02:23:17.520 --> 02:23:23.840 receiving okay so I mean my thing is we're looking across the street here to 02:23:23.840 --> 02:23:27.000 something that's going to be zoned for commercial and they're going to be able 02:23:27.000 --> 02:23:30.160 to take benefits from the city that we're not able to have benefits that 02:23:30.160 --> 02:23:34.760 we're not getting those benefits right now we weren't opposed to you know May 02:23:34.760 --> 02:23:39.860 Hill at the expansion on May Hill because it needed to be done with all 02:23:39.860 --> 02:23:46.360 the traffic we were getting like said our house right on the road so my our 02:23:46.360 --> 02:23:50.480 main concern right now is like said that there's accesses you know ever since 02:23:50.480 --> 02:23:54.840 they started working on this project and really it's been two months now that 02:23:54.840 --> 02:24:00.880 they're the projects in front of our home but they basically once they 02:24:00.880 --> 02:24:06.840 started working they have now we we have a community well with all these 02:24:06.840 --> 02:24:12.160 properties that all these properties right here have a community well once 02:24:12.160 --> 02:24:16.040 this project started and they started working in front of our house we no 02:24:16.040 --> 02:24:19.360 longer have access to the community well because of the construction that they 02:24:19.360 --> 02:24:25.880 have so my parents have now been going two months without water okay again 02:24:25.880 --> 02:24:31.200 there is a hydrant less than a hundred yards away from this property that's 02:24:31.200 --> 02:24:37.520 right about here that could give access to water to all these properties that 02:24:37.520 --> 02:24:42.960 are right that are on that community well again my concern I I don't want to 02:24:42.960 --> 02:24:49.080 be opposed of change and get didn't getting bigger but what I do have a 02:24:49.080 --> 02:24:52.880 problem with is that you know all these people here are gonna are getting the 02:24:52.880 --> 02:24:58.960 benefits that we're not getting benefits of as it didn't resident so that's kind 02:24:58.960 --> 02:25:04.440 of my concern with what's going on and what the you know what they're trying to 02:25:04.440 --> 02:25:09.720 propose so that's just what I wanted to let y'all know appreciate you being here 02:25:09.720 --> 02:25:15.480 can you verify that green is city right that's not ETJ mr. Torres property is in 02:25:15.480 --> 02:25:18.760 the city limits that's correct mr. Torres and I spoke earlier this morning 02:25:18.760 --> 02:25:24.120 and it was part of an annexation back in 2013 what information can we provide to 02:25:24.120 --> 02:25:27.360 him and his family about getting city services I've already spoken to him and 02:25:27.360 --> 02:25:31.200 he's already actually been more proactive than than where I was he's 02:25:31.200 --> 02:25:35.920 already spoken to our director of utilities so I just advise him to present 02:25:35.920 --> 02:25:39.600 it's talked more about it but he's already made contact with again director 02:25:39.600 --> 02:25:42.800 of public utilities great 02:25:58.360 --> 02:26:03.800 just yeah stick to the stuff that step up to the mic please I'm sorry yeah the 02:26:03.800 --> 02:26:09.640 only reason we have water is because the neighbors behind us have a separate well 02:26:09.640 --> 02:26:15.960 that they've been providing water to us while the city does what they need to do 02:26:15.960 --> 02:26:20.920 yeah I I certainly understand your desire and the urgency of it I just want 02:26:20.920 --> 02:26:24.720 to make sure that you're being connected to the right people I don't think this 02:26:24.720 --> 02:26:28.160 Christian has authority just to hook up a water line for you but if we have if 02:26:28.160 --> 02:26:32.280 we have the ability to get you the right people and support your cause then I 02:26:32.280 --> 02:26:37.240 don't I mean I think we're all for getting the water when I talk to it's 02:26:37.240 --> 02:26:46.000 Frank Pugsley I mean he did so he he made a proposal to the city on what the 02:26:46.000 --> 02:26:52.440 cost would be to get those those water lines the sewage lines that that there 02:26:52.440 --> 02:26:58.200 and so a proposal was made that's that's all I've heard about it but he only told 02:26:58.200 --> 02:27:01.840 me he's like he's trying to find money in the budget I mean that to me that's 02:27:01.840 --> 02:27:05.820 money should have already been in the budget when they decided to make that 02:27:05.820 --> 02:27:10.200 expansion on that mayho project well what I can't say is this item doesn't 02:27:10.200 --> 02:27:14.520 remain here it's gonna go to council so you're you will have an opportunity to 02:27:14.520 --> 02:27:19.280 come in front of City Council who has some of the highest authority in the 02:27:19.280 --> 02:27:23.200 city to advocate your case as well so I would think continue down the line with 02:27:23.200 --> 02:27:26.260 the people you've been connected with this step one but you still have the 02:27:26.260 --> 02:27:30.720 ability to come back and advocate to the City Council about getting this this 02:27:30.720 --> 02:27:34.960 situation taken care of I would highly encourage you to come back to council 02:27:34.960 --> 02:27:42.200 when this gets here and so we can follow up with you on that Scott MacDonald did 02:27:42.200 --> 02:27:51.200 you have something to add perfect yeah I don't see any other cards on this item 02:27:51.200 --> 02:27:58.600 is there anyone else wants you to speak on this public item seeing none I'll 02:27:58.600 --> 02:28:02.040 close the public hearing and turn to the days for motion or discussion 02:28:02.040 --> 02:28:10.520 commissioner Beck I move to approve this agenda item to jail all of it we have 02:28:10.520 --> 02:28:14.040 a first mr. Pernetta I'll second the motion we have a first and a second any 02:28:14.040 --> 02:28:19.760 discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board 02:28:19.760 --> 02:28:28.960 motion carries 7-0 02:28:36.680 --> 02:28:43.480 mr. McQuade can you tell us what's going on with item you yes I'm 44 staff is 02:28:43.480 --> 02:28:46.760 requesting that this be postponed indefinitely we'll come back and we 02:28:46.760 --> 02:28:51.560 notice it we are just wanting to make sure we have this area correct there are 02:28:51.560 --> 02:28:56.520 some parcels that we want to include no action is required other than we had 02:28:56.520 --> 02:28:59.920 noticed this for a public hearing and therefore we just want to make sure that 02:28:59.920 --> 02:29:06.680 we get the Commission's vote to postpone indefinitely great coaster Smith motion 02:29:06.680 --> 02:29:13.240 postpone indefinitely we have a first for postpone to indefinitely critical 02:29:13.240 --> 02:29:17.360 second we have a first and a second to postpone indefinitely seeing no 02:29:17.360 --> 02:29:20.680 discussions I call for a vote on the board 02:29:25.080 --> 02:29:31.400 motion carries 7-0 that concludes our agenda for this evening I'll close the 02:29:31.400 --> 02:29:36.200 social called session at 825 thank you