Good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning zoning special called
session work session for June 26 2019 I'll call the meeting to order at 5 o 3
seeing that we do have a quorum just as a point of order for the agenda this
evening we are we have items 2a through to you to hear the way it's going to
work in the public session is we're going to open the public hearing for
items to a through to you with the condition that the following items are
not being heard during that time so a through you will be heard minus items D
G N O Q and you and I'll say that again Commissioner Beck so the items that are
being pulled from the first presentation is items D area 27 item G area 30 item
in area 37 item O area 38 item Q area 40 and item you area 44 so we'll do a large
presentation and then after that we'll look for a vote and discussion of those
items and then DG NO Q you will be heard individually and we'll take separate
votes on each of those since we do have feedback on those items specifically
kiss your back thank you so we're not eliminating them from consideration I
just separate all items will be heard was separate them because we have some
feedback on those the other items that are included a through you my without
those we haven't had any feedback against our opposition of so we're
taking those as one bulk session and I assume Ron if someone here is opposing
one we can pull it out at that time if they show up yeah if you do suit choose
to pull it you can do that as well okay yeah and on the other ones that you
weren't identified yeah exactly so at this time I'll turn it over to Ron
Maguida to present all the items great thank you chair members of the
Commission excited here we were we're here with group two this time a little
bit more in the areas that we we didn't touch last time we are looking at
21 areas approximately 350 parcels now 350 is primarily because there are large
areas that have multiple parcels versus the what we had seen with group one with
that said we also have group three coming forward in the next month we are
still working on those staff has been diligently looking at areas identifying
areas that would qualify as city initiate zoning changes we are asking
that the Commission provide us with some feedback as far as dates prior to today
we were thinking of sometime in July but knowing that the timeline that we have
and the amount of work that needs to be done for notification and research we're
looking at an early August date for P&Z and an early September date for City
Council for group three I know we have a P&Z date set for August 7th in a chance
that that is a really high agenda would August 14th work and we don't need to
get an answer today but just feedback hopefully we we can schedule some time
soon so that we can start planning for notification and getting ready for group
three so again looking at an early August timeframe for the third group
first considerations August August 7th August 7th is a regular scheduled P&Z
date and Richard I mean I'm not 100% sure what we have on that agenda if we
can fit this in if not the August 14th can be a special called meeting and what
we'll do is we'll send out an invite or some an email requesting your preference
or your availability that is and then we'll we'll schedule it accordingly and
right now it looks like we might be able to to incorporate it into that first
meeting I think we have just a handful of not even a handful I think we have
three items right now that we're okay we're anticipating on that agenda we'll
follow up with an email with with a request for your availability okay city
initiated zoning changes as you all know we've started with group one or group
two we looked at the transition chart and the transition map looking at what's
existing on the ground addressing non-conforming uses as best as we can
protect the existing residential neighborhoods followed up with public
comments that we heard from the public hearings through public outreach through
visits phone calls and emails identifying those areas that we feel are
suitable for a zoning change request also the future land use map in the land
use element also played a role in identifying those particular areas so
group two is made up again of approximately 21 areas 350 parcels this
map hard to see basically what this illustrate is that it's all over the
city it's along I 35 along 380 overt on the loop and then south as well along
Mayhill so covers a lot more area than what we had in group one and we'll go
through each one of these separately so the first one is area nine and this one
was part of group one but we had to pull it because of notification issues this is
on San Jacinto Boulevard as well as I 35 e the corridor itself which have
properties fronting or parcels fronting I 35 the uses that you see listed here
make up the majority of what's existing Callaway's nursery of course been there
for four years the Brunswick zone zone bowling alley is on the other side of
this area we also have the currently being constructed the state bridge
suites right next to the bowling alley and a number of offices and in banks and
in other retail establishment what staff is proposing is to go to an SC
suburban quarter zoning district we feel that it is more appropriate than the MR
there are a lot of uses that are permitted in the MR that are also
permitting the SC however things that are different is relationship to the
height maximum height for a building in the MR is a hundred feet while in the SC
is 55 feet as as well as some zoning I'm sorry some uses that are less intense
that are allowed in the SC than the MR we feel that it serves as a transition
from the MR which is the mall to the south and then the residential zoning
districts or zoning classifications to the north that you see here so again
providing that transition zoning there was a meeting with the Piney Creek
neighborhood community which is this area right here on June 10th generally
the attendees were in approval of the SC zoning district no public response
forms were received for this particular area
areas 25 and 26 we've combined these two because they share a similar character
in that it is along I 35 I 35 corridor there is a number of uses here worth
mentioning is the Cumberland Presbyterian Children's Home which is
located in area five in this general area here we also have the Presbyterian
Hospital on area within area 26 there's a number of hospital services medical
clinic restaurants and the like multifamily as well what staff is
proposing is that this goes to a MR mixed-use regional zoning district it
serves as a good zoning district primarily because of the land use element
that calls this out as a regional mixed-use designation in our future land
use map it provides as a regional draw to the area where the Presbyterian
Hospital is a regional draw it's also in close proximity to the razor ranch as
well as UNT again a regional draw therefore makes use regional is the most
suitable zoning district the height allowed under the MR is a hundred feet
and we feel that that's suitable for the area along I 35 it provides that
flexibility for folks to develop higher than what is proposed under MN pressure
back thank you so obviously this was a compromise on area 25 between instead of
a highway corridor or an MN this was a happy medium for you with the MR correct
in and we felt that this area was more of a regional draw rather than a highway
corridor and then they can go back and forth but because of UNT and because of
razor ranch because of the hospital we felt that this was more of a regional
draw and you see something similar where medical city is that is MR currently
and that's what we're trying to replicate here in this area okay MR okay
MR allows dwelling units pretty much all except for single-family correct which
is pretty much isn't that backing up to single families though or is that mainly
apartments there there are some I mean this is the biggest one is Cumberland
right that's not gonna change I don't think that will change but our seven
area behind our seven yes so we try to keep our seven where they are today but
definitely there will be some buffers and screening requirements if they are
I believe there's a road between these two parcels sorry my mouse right over
here so again when and if they develop there will be some requirements as far
as providing some separation between the single family thank you there was a
property owner or property owners that requested that this go to MR rather than
keeping an under the MN staff they receive one in favor response in favor
in the area 25 that is there's 25 and 26 we are going in here 27 if so I can if I
can ask Commissioner Cole to excuse himself area 27 is the ranch estate's
neighborhood it is possibly 147 acres 65 parcels the existing uses as you can
probably imagine is mainly single-family homes homes that were built in the mid
60s up to the early 70s there are some were built newer those that are not
single-family are either undeveloped or used as general agriculture the
neighborhood reached out to the staff during the public outreach effort during
our development code update and zoning change and they are requesting the M I'm
sorry the r1 they are currently zone r2 and the reason is that they want to keep
their large lots as intact as possible the are to would allow a person to
subdivide their lots to 16,000 square feet a minimum 16,000 the r1 will bump
that up to 32,000 now the neighborhood would like to see a higher square
footage but that's what we have today afforded so the r1 is the only one that
we would consider and that is what's being proposed staff looked at the
average acreage of each of those lots that are there the 65 lots six are under
one acre you see some of them here as well as over here and in this area as
well 22 are between one and two acres and then the larger portion of that 37
are between two and three acres staff also attended a neighborhood meeting
with the red states and again all that were present were generally in approval
in fact they provided their requests in writing and provided comic cards from
that meeting and that was included in the packet that was provided to you all
staff did receive one I'm sorry four responses in favor however there was one
a resident that was in opposition or is in opposition and that area is right
here on Cindy Lane and US 380
Ron real fast two things first just as a reminder especially Commissioner Smith
and Pernetta although we are going through all items a through you in work
session we are pulling out six items in public session either through recusal or
we've gotten public feedback so we're taking these in order right now but we
go to public session items DG NO Q&U we pulled separately we'll hear those
individually and take six different boats on those the remaining ones the
bulk of a through you since we didn't get feedback right as of yet we'll take
them in one vote so that makes sense of why we had a recusal made presentation I
one question on this the the requirement for our one is not one acre it's 32,000
square feet do we know about those six how many of those fall under the 32,000
does that make sense yes yes I think all could be 40,000 square feet and I I can
I can check on that I don't have that information some of them look like
they're not even close but I'm just eyeballing and now I can take a look at
that Christian back thank you the opposition the one you pointed out there is there not a
residence there now is there not a single-family home on that corner because his
opposition was that it was unsuitable for a single-family yeah I spoke to the
property owner and it's his his reason was he just doesn't want to go to r1 he
would prefer the r2 I don't know he does not reside on that
property it looks like it's vacant but something we can check as well during
the break okay thanks Commissioner Ellis thank you chair to your point with the
square footage there's there's thirty three thousand five hundred and sixty
square foot in an acre how many 33 560 I thought it's 45 okay so 43 560 yeah I'm
sorry that makes more sense it does excuse me okay great oh my gosh and
we'll look at those six acre those six lots that are less than an acre okay we're
gonna bring back Commissioner Cole so chair this is gonna be a little tricky
in that I've got two slides that cover area 30 we'll go through this and what
I'll do in my presentation during public hearing is not mentioned directly area
30 but then we'll come back at a you know next and then we'll spend a little
bit more time on area 30 and go through that item separately sounds great so
okay area next areas or groupings is areas 28 through 32 as you see here
they are primarily along I 35 next to the loop as well as highway 77 the
zonings are sort of the existing uses found here range from an RV supercenter
to some major automotive repair shops some gas stations to travel plaza self
storage offices and also a single-family dwellings which are located within more
or less the areas to the west of I 35 staff is proposing that the area 28 be
zone HC as frontage of that area is primarily along I 35 building materials
automotive sales and leasing or leasing travel Plaza all are permitted by right
under the HC general office is comprised of the other areas the 29 30 31 and 32
per the future land use map as well as a language element this area is suitable
for business innovation general office fits that zoning district it allows for
warehouses self storage but primarily businesses and higher larger size
corporate offices as well and this is what our future lane use in our then
plan 2030 calls for therefore we're looking to propose the zoning of geo in
this area now geo versus MR very similar in their uses but again general office
is more leaning towards the offices larger track developments Christian back
okay this is where I'm curious there's most of these tracks there's it's empty
right now correct so the plan to make a general office as opposed to sustaining
the highway corridor along 35 how'd that come about primarily we we looked at the
areas for example area 28 they are already like you said developed they do
have some of the general retail or retail that's primarily along a highway
corridor as we head north past the loop it became less and less and we felt that
there was more of an opportunity there to be more of a geo zoning district
where those uses would be more suitable for those areas how is the city trying
to accomplish that they were going the Chamber of Commerce or something I mean
are there ways that we're trying to attract people I think I think partly the
zoning map is a good start we certainly are working with economic development in
our efforts they they also recognize that there is a need for more corporate
offices or general office in in the city and we just have to identify that in the
map on the map so as you can see it also stretches across the other side of I-35
primarily this area was in our prior development I'm sorry our prior plan to
be regional but we know that between medical city area razor-range area
there's there's just there's already enough regional draw areas this would
best be best served as a general office as far as future development and from
what I could tell didn't seem to be anybody opposed to the geo property
owners no in fact we got some one response in favor for area 28 we did
receive one response in opposition for area 30 and that's one reason why we're
pulling that item and I'll go into more the details for that other than that
there has been no response either you know position or in favor I've not
received any calls or emails for these four areas 29 30 31 and 32 okay thanks
commissioner Ellis thank you chair Ron in area 30 is the one opposition is that
the one item that was made non-conforming with this and it's not
conforming and we'll get more into it we made over here it is actually I
apologize the loves travel stop is what we're referring to they currently own
the area that's currently geo and then what we're proposing is this lot that
they own and this lot that they own to transition or to be rezoned from MR to
geo so under the MR travel Plaza is not permitted under the geo travel Plaza is
not permitted so staff has a couple recommendations that would address this
we can go back into the code and amend the the use table to allow travel
plazas under the geo with more user to use specific standards or we can come
back at a later time and apply the HZ zone HC zoning district which does allow
for travel plazas by right I think staff is leaning towards number one as far as
a recommendation however we still have to work throughout the use specific
standards associated with that you said before thank you okay now I would not be
in favor of number one with the way I have seen these this initiation of geo's
throughout the city there travel plazas and many of these geo's would be highly
inappropriate what we have one of the use specific standards that we talked
about is it has to be a certain distance away from I-35 so that would mean any
proximity to proximity that is to I-35 therefore if it's more inland or away
from I-35 it does not make sense and I don't think most travel plazas will be
located outside or without within sorry not in close proximity to I-35 so okay
well we have a travel plaza in close proximity to 35 that is misplaced in our
city so I definitely want to steer clear of sure having that happen again and and
we can we can have those discussions as we bring forward that code amendment
thank you to clarify because she'll see some of Bucky's yes I am okay I was
saying my mind went to that too well and just to clarify and I don't know if we
can get into that discussion Jerry but by definition the travel plaza is defined
as an area that provides rest resting showers and all the other amenities that
you find typically in a travel plaza such as loves pilot and flying J I
believe is the another one so those are what we refer to as travel plazas okay
all right moving on to areas 33 and 34 these are grouped together primarily
because they're along I-35 one is off of Primrose and the other is along
Bolivar Oliver Elm and Locust primarily non-residential uses in the form of
offices personal services restaurants and the like staff is proposing that
these two areas in very small one parcel 33 right here is 12 13 Primrose B zone
SC 34 the same currently it is MN that's what it would transition to staff is
proposing that it go to SC primarily again the frontage is along 380 one in
particular area Primrose that is existing as an existing general personal
service use and it is currently zone NR 3 staff would like that be corrected by
going to SC so this is a shot of that parcel that is currently NR 3 which will
transition to our three what staff is proposing is that it go to SC we did
receive one response in favor for area 33 and also a response in favor for area
34 already areas 35 36 38 and 39 these are as you see here along 380 as well as
the loop all of these are currently transitioning into an MN zoning district
and what staff is proposing is that it be zone as an SC zoning district
suburban corridor one that it is again fronting those major arterials future
land use shows these areas as community mix use as far as the SC there are more
commercial and vehicle related uses that are permitted and in that also
multifamily if permitted would require if proposed would require a specific
use permit we did receive one letter in opposition and that was from property
owner of one of the parcels in the area 38 and and this is one of the other
areas that we will be pulling and be considering as a separate item the
property owner requested that be pulled and remain as MN for that property
coaster back thank you chair where's when she'll Windsor Drive on there
especially as it relates to that Western okay okay it's further south that's
eventually going to connect at 35 it's my understanding 288 288 288 yes once
this area develops yes right but I think it will stop there or maybe or maybe go
over I don't think it would be in that grade intersection okay okay and that
35 I believe that's where didn't Bible churches that's conforming to an SC or is
that east of this is then Bible the other this is the apartment and there's
a gas station there and this is a vacant piece of property gotcha perfect
Chris Ross thank you Ron 38 is on the west side of their 288 as well right 30
yes on both sides yes so the property owner just requested that the east side
be MN and that the east side I'm sorry the west side remain or be proposed as
SC okay and I believe that the property owner will be present and we can ask
question it's the same property owner for both of those parcels yes okay 37
this is the area just north of us here just the south of loop 288 and east of
locus it is approximately fifty eight point six seven acres the use is
primarily undeveloped general agriculture in some respects but there is also the
Asbury United Methodist Church located in this general vicinity here staff is
proposing that this area be be zoned as suburban corridor again looking at our
land use element also the area is bounded by locus an arterial street loop
288 and also that this parcel is a split zoning parcel which means that it
contains three different zoning districts as a result of a prior PD prior
plan development and in 2002 the PD went away but the zoning carried forward but
three different zonings on one parcel and so an effort to correct that we did
consult with the property owner in fact they attended the plan the public
hearing through planning zoning Commission City Council and they're
requesting an SC zoning district now those proper though that property owner
owns everything north of this red line and up staff during our analysis
included this area in red however through a neighborhood meeting that we
just held last night the property owner the Asbury Methodist Church requested
that their properties be withdrawn from consideration in that again we will
discuss further as this item is discussed during the public hearing and
I believe their reasons were it doesn't benefit them there's no advantage to go
into SC and that's what they told me and I don't know they'll be here tonight I
didn't ask that they attend but again that is their response to the proposal
Commissioner Beck thanks what's that little stretch along locust there from
zone SC okay today we'll transition to SC the shade look a little different yes
okay it is just to highlight a little bit better okay thanks we did receive a
number of opposition five in total six including the the church did receive
some phone calls and emails again that prompted us to have a neighborhood
meeting yesterday we we held one the turnout wasn't as much as we would hope
but I'm assuming that they will be present tonight and we'll be able to hear
their comments on during the public hearing Commissioner Beck I believe this
was one of the few areas where the property owner actually wanted correct
what you're suggesting right everything again north of the red line was part of
what the correct okay Ron can you remind me what the current transition zoning is
if there's no action taken on this would be SC right because it's already that
this would be our six this would be our three and this would be our two so these
two lots would be our two okay thank you I included a slide to help illustrate
some of the information that we learned from the property owner is that the area
to the east of the parcel that we're referring to has a hundred foot
electrical easement the areas to an extent south here and then then turns
north along this general direction and what that is is the transmission lines
coming from this substation follows this general alignment and heads north also
there is a flip plane in the area to the south which provides a general buffer to
the church and again that's something that wanted to let the Commission know
that that's present on on the site okay area 40 through 43 as you can see it's
primarily between loop 28 they are primarily between loop 28 and May Hill
Road we're primarily looking at a zoning that's going from an Li light industrial
to a excuse me geo general office zoning district the area that is 41 that is
proposed to go to suburban corridor and the benefits of course or the the
reasons why is that of course loop 28 and may Hill serve as a primary frontage
for these areas and they are both arterial streets our future land use map
our land use element calls this area out as business innovation the commercial
uses are less intense than the industrial uses that are permitted in
the Li again for both the geo and the SC staff has received one response in
opposition and that is signified by this red line here a red box here and that's
for area 40 another reason we're pulling that particular out area out and then
one response in neutral in area 41 regarding 44 this is an area that staff
is recommending more time to further analyze there was a parcel left out and
just requesting that the planning zoning Commission postponed this to a date
indefinite and then we will reschedule and repost this area and have it brought
back to the planning zoning Commission at a later time we did send out 402
property owner mailings 1,100 courtesy postcards out of those we received 11
responses in favor 10 in opposition and one in neutral staff recommends that we
approve again there is two way through to T and those are those areas that
then fight there and that we also recommend that we postpone area 44 for
a later time Kirsten Smith thank you on the six that are being pulled out
separately when we did this last time we had we pulled those to the top of the
agenda and saw and heard those all separately and then voted in mass and
here you mentioned that earlier we get to pull those out separately move to the
top the agenda hear them separately then hear the rest and then vote on those as
total that's the plan my logic though and I'm open to suggestions is to hear
the bulk in case someone is here that wants to speak on those we can pull it
out and then hear the one separate after the main presentation either way I guess
just are we gonna separate them I win yes yeah so I apologize Mr. Smith but
the items we will be pulling out areas 27 30 37 38 and 40 yes yes we will be
doing that so we'll have a main vote on the primary and then we'll take those
six different votes on the secondary ones thanks
Kosher Ellis thank you chair Ron are we discussing you at all or we simply
you're wanting us to just postpone it we're not having discussion on staff
would like us just to postpone it we won't we won't discuss it we won't
present it in hoping that we can present at a later time any other questions for
this evening's meeting awesome Ron I just want to officially thank you for
all the work this looks like a ton of work just to even do the agenda looks
like a lot of work not to mention the mailings and everything else so thank
you and the team in the city for for all the work getting this done and making it
as easy as possible for us tonight so appreciate that appreciate it and with
that we'll close our work session at 538 we'll reconvene in council chambers at
630
ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning Commission special
called session for June 26 2019 seeing that we have a quorum I'll call the
meeting to order at 631 the first item on the agenda is to stand if able and
provide a pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag
allegiance to the Texas state under God one indivisible so just as a way of
introducing tonight tonight we'll be considering group two of the city
initiated zoning change recommendations for certain areas of the city the staff
will be making a presentation on items 2a through to you at the same time these
areas are part of the city's efforts update the city's development code on
April 23rd 2019 the City Council approved an ordinance adopting the dent
development code which included a zoning district transition chart the chart
illustrates how existing zoning districts were renamed consolidated and
ultimately reduced from 23 to 16 zones the proposed city initiated zoning
changes being considered tonight will address the non-conforming uses and
structures and provides consistency with the city's comprehensive plan so after
the staff provides a presentation from items 2 through a will open it for
public hearing and feedback item 44 which is item to you will be asked to be
postponed to a date later this evening and then just as a way of managing the
agenda this evening there will be a singular presentation for items 2a
through to you with the exception of the following items that have been called
out as separate items for discussion those items are items to D area 27 to G
area 30 to N area 37 to O area 38 to Q area 40 and then just the
affirmation to you so will happen this evening is we're gonna take item 2a
through to you minus the ones I just said have a singular presentation on
those anyone wishing to speak on those items can certainly have the opportunity
during the public hearing on those items and then the singular items will be
heard separately so if you hear to speak on area 27 30 37 38 or 40 we're gonna do
that after the first vote and we'll have individual considerations and individual
vote on each of those items so those are items that either there is a conflict
of interest from the Commission that needs to be pulled aside or we've
actually received feedback from the residents to separately hear and discuss
those items so with that I'm gonna invite Ron Maguida to present item 2a
through to you and Ron is for clarification was I able to express the
intent this evening or is there anything to add no you're perfect great thank you
chair members of the Commission Ron Maguida principal planner with
development services I stated earlier with the introduction this is group two
of a number of groups that will be bringing forward as part of our city
initiated zoning changes efforts this exhibit here this slide here illustrates
where we are today actually we're doing 26 we have 21 areas to consider and 350
parts parcels are part of that 21 areas we will also be taking a group three in
the future those dates have not yet been determined or those areas have not been
identified but they are generally along Teasley, Fort Worth Drive and areas north
of the the universities both TW and UNT in the neighborhood University
compatibility areas just by way of introducing these zoning changes staff
looks at a number of things the one thing that we do look at is the
transition chart as mentioned earlier the transition chart was adopted in
April with the new development code update in that transition chart it
identifies what the existing zoning is going to transition to we use that we
also use existing uses on the ground identifying what are there now and how
we can make them conforming if they are not currently conforming looking at
protecting our existing residential neighborhoods making sure that those
areas are protected by way of transition zoning or just a proper zoning that's
for for that area we've listened to the public we've received comments either
through common cards through the public hearing process through our public
outreach efforts we have taken their input and incorporated that into our
areas that we're proposing and again the line use element of the den plan 2030
also played a part in our decision or our determining of those areas group two
is made up of these areas here that you see and this exhibit is really hard to
see but it's really to give you an idea of where we're looking at we're looking
at along I 35 corridor all the way up to Ganzer Road we're also looking at us 380
and the loop as well and you can see that extends from the north to the south
and also areas that are between the loop and Mayhill Road ending around where the
medical city regional hospitals located so with that the first area is area 9
and as you all know this area was part of group one but was pulled for reasons
of not having proper notification so it is now properly notified and we are
bringing this forward this is area fronts sent us into a boulevard as well
as I 35 e the areas consist of general retail there's a bowling alley there's a
proposed hotel and other offices and banks within area 9 staff is proposing
that this area be sown suburban corridor you see that the color in this lighter
pink area is what we're referring to the suburban corridor and the MR which what
it would have transitioned to share similar uses but not as intense as the
MR another difference between MR and SC is that the MR allows a hundred foot
tall building maximum while the SC allows up to 55 feet again the reason
why we're proposing an SC is to act as a transition between the mall area and the
MR to the in between that to the north of residential zoning districts that you
see here on June 10th we did meet with the neighbors or the neighborhood of
Piney Creek they were in attends and in general after explaining the proposal
they were in approval of the proposed SC zoning as of this afternoon staff has
not received any notices I'm sorry responses to the notices that were sent
out the next group of areas is there is 25 and 26 and the reason why we're
grouping these is primarily because they share the same characteristics and the
same zoning districts they are both proposed to go to an MR makes use
regional zoning district and if you're familiar with this area the Cumberland
respiratory and children's home is located in area 25 we've got some
undeveloped properties as well as some commercial properties in the area area
26 has multifamily and the Presbyterian Hospital and medical offices and clinics
within this area again MR is what's being proposed under this city initiated
zoning change MR allows for a number of zoning I'm sorry number of uses that are
more suitable for the area this is under the future land use map a regional mix
use designated area which means that there's a regional draw to the area it
is close to the University of North Texas it is just south of the razor
ranch development and again it also consists of the Presbyterian Hospital a
similar location where MR is located as you all know is also the medical city
right there on May Hill and I 35 so this is somewhat similar to what we're trying
to propose in this area maximum height for MR is a hundred feet and again most
of these properties are along I 35 and staff feels that that is a suitable
zoning for the area that you see here outlined in black there was a property
owner that requested that one of their properties be zone MR and that's what
we're taking forward staff has received one response in favor and that is for
area 25
seven and that will be brought up at a later time areas 28 and through 32 is
generally in the area that you see here along I 35 loop 288 and highway 77 the
area that you see consists of a lot of different uses we've got an RV
Supercenter some automotive repair shops trans trans travel Plaza that is gas
stations hotels offices and some single-family detached dwelling as well
but primarily 29 30 31 32 are primarily undeveloped and have large tracks of
properties and for those reasons we are proposing geo general office for those
areas again 29 30 31 and 32 28 is proposed to go to HC highway corridor
again for illustration purposes 28 is shown here along I 35 I 35 allows for
more commercials that are more suitable for I 35 and geo is under the proposed
zoning for the areas again that have larger tracks that are currently
designated as business innovation under our damn plan 2030 and allows for more
uses that are suitable for for the area in the form of warehouses light light
industrial and primarily offices under the general office zoning district staff
did receive one response in favor for area 28 and we'll go one and we will not
talk about area 30 as that will be discussed at a later item areas 33 and
34 the area that we're referring to is along I 30 I'm sorry US 380 one is on
Primrose Road the other is bounded by Bolivar Elm and Locus the uses that are
there now are non-residential primarily uses that you would normally see along
a corridor such as US 380 what staff is proposing is those parcels be zone
suburban corridor the primary frontage for those is 380 the future land use
shows those areas as community mixed use some downtown compatibility areas again
more commercial uses that are not normally permitted under the non
residential zoning districts I'm sorry the residential residential zoning
district so suburban quarter is what we are proposing they're currently there is
currently one property and that is 1213 Primrose Road and that is as you can see
on this in this photo has always been commercial since the 1970s is my
understanding it was zoned in our three in 2002 and what we are proposing is to
make this conforming by going to suburban quarter zoning district 35 36 and 39
we're gonna talk about 38 and a later item these areas are proposed as
suburban corridor as they are located along US 380 and loop 288 the uses that
are there currently are undeveloped gas stations apartments as well as offices
what staff is proposing for these areas 35 36 and 39 is suburban corridor
again primarily the uses along suburban corridor are more suitable for the areas
that are identified here we did receive a response in opposition again that's
area 38 and we will discuss that at a later time next areas is areas of 41
through 43 we're going to skip 40 and we'll come back to that the areas 41 42
and 43 are long between May Hill Road and loop 288 generally primarily along
May Hill Road these areas are primarily undeveloped with some uses that are more
in light industrial in the form of warehouses self-service storage there's
some general retail some medical office and administrative offices staff is
proposing an SC for area 41 and geo for 42 and 43 geo is again a suitable zoning
district for what is referred to as business innovation and that is what
this area is designated for we did receive one response in neutral for area
41 and for the purpose of the Commission staff did send out new notices through
our newspaper and our website we also sent out 400 we sent out 402 property
order mailings and 100 I'm sorry a thousand 114 courtesy postcards from
those we've received numerous phone calls and emails but in response forms
we received 11 in favor 10 in opposition and one in neutral staff is recommending
approval of those items that were introduced at the beginning of this
presentation thanks Ron for presentation and all your hard work that you put on
this Commissioner Beck thank you chair thanks Ron could you go back to the
proposed zoning for area 35 okay the on the north side it shows suburban
corridor but there's that is that a wider is that that area right there yeah
is that not zone that is MN it's a light it is lavender color mixed-use
neighborhood okay great thanks Ron I don't see any other questions thank you
okay at this time the public hearing has been opened and anyone wishing to speak
on these items presented may certainly do so just for clarification is Kenneth
Stewart here Kenneth Stewart
Kenneth Stewart stout sorry I'm reading that wrong which item were you here to
speak on 41 perfect so we do have two cards for items that were discussed this
presentation both are for area 41 item 2 are the first card I had was Allen
Bishop if you'd please come down and just state your name and address for the
record you'll have four minutes to speak my name is Allen Bishop the address is 204
North May Hill Denton Texas 76 208 and I actually just had some questions the
first time I've been involved in something like this so I've read the
160 page document I've read the uses so currently we are a commercial air
conditioning business and we run offices out of that building so we have text
come and go no big deal it still fits in the category for the proposed uses for
suburban corridor but the question I had was through two processes now once with
the remodel and once with the parking lot in the May Hill expansion we've
followed all the city of Denton's things permitted everything and done
everything both times not being disclosed that these other things were
happening I don't want this to go through and then turn around be told we
have to do something different to the building so I mean we don't have the
front space that you're set back you're supposed to have in all those things but
they've all signed off on that through the other two permitting process so
that's what I was worried about yes great question Ron can you answer his
questions about use setbacks and the like sure yes as development occurs or
let me let me rephrase that as the project I believe it's May Hill yes that's
correct May Hill Road gets widened there's
obviously going to be some acquisition as part of that widening project any
development that is there now would have a right to occupy that space now if
there is proposals to expand or to change use or whatever it may be that it
may affect the standards such as parking or landscaping certainly we have the
understanding that that is and was created by the the widening of the
project and you've met that so what I would say is that when you propose
something different in the future we will understand that that was also
created by the widening of the project of May Hill Road and we will review that
accordingly now there is certain things that we will look for that are life
safety but there are certain things that our director can make decisions on does
that make sense so I can't answer yes or no because it depends on what's being
proposed well no I understand that I'm just worried about something changing
right the use of his current structure if that doesn't happen there wouldn't be
anything enforced upon him that's persisting that's correct if you're
existing you'd be remaining there as long as you stay the same yes sir thank
you I could just add one of the other components that we have in the new DDC
is a certificate of zoning compliance and so that is something we can make
sure we have your name so as it gets it in enacted we can provide that to you so
you have that documentation as you move forward it would clarify that your that
your use as it exists today is is conforming with the current zoning
thanks for your mr. ship can stout and if you can just state your name and
address for the record I live at 4608 Mills Road just north of the school
service center we have one street that goes behind us that they use mostly
buses and and for their own advantage the property that we are talking about
those over on McKinney Street I've got seven pieces of property over it's going
to be tied in that's about 200 maybe 300 foot off of May Hill Road to be the
formerly it used to have the garage for four-door garage with office space has a
brick house on it a two-story house a mobile home and another older to have a
two bedroom house on it and it's tied up with Miss Carter's place and I talked
with her hers joins my Hill Road and of course she's like me kind of elderly and
what our concern is is some our tax situation will we be kindly brought
blocked in until the place sells hers if she passes away or myself where we live
now I will tell you the value that the school district has on the corner of
Mills in May Hill there's five acres that they own in there it's two million
three hundred thousand dollars what the value they have placed on it so it does
mean a big if somebody else comes wants to build something on there we need to
know kind of what we're looking at and I know y'all don't set the tax rate but it
does affect our livelihood and that's one of the questions I have is I talked
with her over the phone and she said that she was willing to live there as
long as she lives she didn't want to sell it now and I'm in the process of
trying to sell the stuff on McKinney Street and it affects me quite a bit
quickly are you wondering if the rezoning will directly impact your tax
implications of the city am I understanding that right I think for a
lot of people they want to make sure those taxes stay Richard do you have any
insight on rezoning as it compares to tax implications or Ron that is a good
question we've heard this question numerous times from from property owners
as you all know the city doesn't control the appraisal and the county does and my
understanding is that the county appraisal what they do is they find the
highest and best use of that property now it would only affect your property I
mean but your property is not part of this rezoning those areas that are part
of the rezoning would probably see some I'm not sure what that would be but the
whole the whole area I would say is seeing an increase in property taxes how
is how this zoning affects you directly it does not directly but indirectly it
may be because of those other properties increasing their value so
thanks Ron absolutely thanks for coming out those are the only two cards I had
on these items specifically is there anyone who wanted to speak on these
items again these items include all items except D G N O Q and U that's
areas 27 30 37 38 40 and 44 so what we're about to do on the dais is to
consider a motion for those items yes sir
yes area 40 we heard separately and we'll have your your card here for you
so we're gonna take a separate vote on each of those items so we'll have six
more votes after this one is there anyone else who wants to speak on this
item yes sir if you could come 27 will be heard next yep so after this it'll go
items area 27 area 30 area 37 area 38 area 40 area 44 is anyone wanting to
speak on the items left over yes sir
hello my name is Vince Hasler my address is 4946 Ford Locust Street and this is
regarding item number 37 which is the tract of land that is on the southeast
corner of Luke 288 and North Locust so make sure I'm in the right order here I
mean yes we're gonna hear 37 independent of this okay
I'll come back you're totally fine it can be very confusing so anyone who's
wanting to speak on items not concerning 27 30 37 38 40 or 44 those items will be
heard individually and separately from this
scene 9 I'll close public hearing Commissioner Smith make a motion to
approve all items except for DG no Q&U Commissioner Pernitta the second the
motion we have a first and a second for approval of items to through a pulling
out DG no Q&U any discussion see none I call for a vote of the board
motion carries 7-0 now move into the individual items the first item is item
2 D that's area 27 and I'll invite Ron Maguida back for an update on area 27
specifically and open the public hearing
thank you chair members of the Commission this is area 27 as introduced
this is the ranch estates neighborhood located north of 380 and roughly west of
Marshall Road it is approximately 147 acres making up of 65 parcels as you see
here outlined in the yellow the uses primarily within this area is single
family there are some parcels that are not developed or undeveloped in or our
general agriculture in nature staff is proposing that this area then ranch estates
neighborhood be zoned r1 the zoning of r1 has a minimum lot area of 32,000
square feet maximum building coverage of 30% and just be by way of answering a
question that was presented at the work session staff identified there were six
lots that are less than one acre and four of those were less than 32,000
square feet so four of those would be impacted if this were to go through but
the remaining 61 would be in conformance the area on average has a lot size of
approximately 2.27 acres again six are less than one acre 22 are between one
and two and then the majority 37 parcels are between two acres and three acres
there was a neighborhood meeting held on November I'm sorry May 30th and I was in
attendance at that meeting and there were several members of the community
present and they provided me with their common cards which I then provided you
all with as part of your backup backup staff has received four responses in
favor and we did also receive one response in opposition the person that
provided that response form in opposition I believe is here and I
believe will be speaking in front of the Commission and that person owns the
property that's shown here - in red and again one of the questions was is this
property developed looking at an aerial back in July of 2018 there is no
development on that property and I don't I don't think there was one or any
development since then but again the property owner is here and may clarify
that a little bit further that concludes my presentation of area 27
Christian Beck thank you chair Ron when you said it would negatively impact
those was it four or five areas that were less than 32,000 feet what are we
looking at well the the square footage of those lots are roughly 20,000 right
so under the r2 16,000 minimum lot size would make those conforming by going to
our one it would bring that minimum lot size up to 32,000 right which means
those 20 roughly 20,000 square foot lots below the minimum lot size so would they
be they would be left not just as is not performing if they were to develop and
apply for a permit or something to that effect they would have to come in and
increase their lot size one way or the other okay but nothing changes nothing
changes it sounds it looks like from the aerial most of those were storage units
or just vacant property that just not has not yet developed okay great thanks
mr. Smith thank you chair and Ron in regards to this the neighborhood is
primarily worried about that being an nr2 because of the fact that they are
afraid that development would come in and take these larger lots and develop
them into smaller lots smaller lots down to 16,000 16,000 and they want to try to
preserve and memorialize that that 32,000 dollar 32,000 square foot if they
could they would probably go higher and they would like to see a minimum lot
size and maybe an acre but we don't have that zoning district in place yep and
certainly they they've expressed other means of getting there but that's not
part of this discussion today awesome thank you mr. Ellis thank you chair so
Ron just to clarify the six non-conforming lots with regard to size
do any of them have development on them what I was able to see were just small
structures and by way of this slide if you can see there's there's one in here
that's about 20,000 this one is just under 10,000 so that's even lower than
16,000 we also have one in this general area right here and then I believe the
other one is over here so these are the four one two three and four those are
the smaller lots looking at the aerial I apologize it's hard to see I would say
to the four have some structure the other are undeveloped either owned by
adjacent property owner or just just separately platted or separately divided
so some of them are owned by an adjacent property owner most yes yes because
effectively with what you said earlier would probably be impossible to increase
lot size you know they don't have an adjacent lot to do that then they could
they can't do anything with it right right I mean unless they increase the
lot size I do not see any other questions thank you do have two cards in
this item for individuals wanting to speak it is a public hearing so anyone's
welcome to speak the first two I cards I have is Jim Piora
do you just state your name and address for the record you have four minutes to
be so the name is Jim Perot 3801 Hampton and the northeast side of the area that
we're discussing and we appreciate the effort you guys are giving us and
looking at the options that we have basically Ranch Estates has been in the
city for decades we've lived in our house for 43 years probably the longest
out there but there are quite a few that are still in that area it's highly
sought property it's one of the places in city of Denton where you can walk
down the street and give way to kids riding horses because it it is that kind
of an area we hosted the gathering on at the end of May Ron was there and told
us about the R2 and R1 there were over 20 of the residences represented and it
was unanimous of those that attended we we made our attempt at inviting whoever
we could invite in addition to having stuffers and doors and mailboxes so we
didn't have a mailing going out all we had good representation and it was
unanimous in the recommendation of going to our one and basically we're hopeful
that we will remain in I guess I'd say the most restrictive residential area as
far as size and space and number of residents number of buildings so we ask
that you support and and go for the R1 and reclassification thank you thank you
very much next card I have is for John Windsor
did you just state your name address my name is John Windsor I live at 2007
North Lariat Road which is 3/3 piece of property down from the west side of the
neighborhood and I'm in favor of rezoning to our one the facts on the
ground are that it's our one if you were to look this piece of property right here
actually belongs to or is controlled by this landowner I'm not sure he even
knows if that's a separate lot this piece of property was owned by this landowner
he's and he was running to his daughter his daughter since been married and I
don't know what's happened to the property but almost all of these
non-conforming pieces of property are part of the are owned by people in the
neighborhood and everybody I won't say everybody because I was told somebody
opposed almost everybody was in favor of going to R1 because it maintains the
neighborhood as it currently stands and as a matter of fact we are looking at
adding further restrictions because we have deed restrictions that the city
doesn't enforce and most of us are in favor of those deep restrictions so we
want to look look at getting those into place as well but the first step is to
go to R1 thank you thank you I don't have any other cards for this item but
Ron had mentioned that there might be another individual wanting to speak is
there anyone yes
if you could state your name and address we'd appreciate it
mr. chairman members the Commission my name is Randall Smith 5428 Lake Victoria
Court fireman I own the two acres at the corner of 380 and Western Boulevard or
Cindy Lane I guess it is and I think in general for the majority of this
property that the zoning is appropriate but I think you should consider looking
at the frontage on 380 I mean is that really an appropriate zoning to have one
acre residential lots and one of the busiest intersections or what's going to
be one of the business inner industrial intersections in the city I mean there
are thousands of semi 18 wheelers that come through there every day and stop at
that signalized intersection I mean I just don't think my property suited for
especially not to be down zoned from two lots per acre to one lot per acre so
I'd urge you to maybe consider the frontage on 380 for some other type of
zoning I mean obviously I think some type of commercial use in the future is
probably what's going to be there and I just appreciate your consideration of
that thank you for being here we do have a question for you commissioner back
thank you chair thank you mr. Smith the neighbors to your west are their homes
on those lots are they vague I believe there's one home okay I've been by
there a couple times try to talk to him but they've not been home so I haven't
what about on the other side of Cindy there what about on the other side of
Cindy there is there are the roads that have Cindy the properties single family
homes on each of those lots okay as far as I okay but that lot you're talking
about is vacant right now my lot's vacant yes do you have any plans for that if
you're if our one isn't satisfactory to you which zone have you looked at the
zoning that you think you would be well I'm not happy with either one but I
think the r2 is better than the r1 at this point I mean worst case I could put
two houses on there now if you down zone I only got one okay so but you're not
thinking about doing some commercial development I bought it as a long-term
investments in my IRA you know I'm ten years down the road okay I have no plans
so no absolutes on that okay all right thank you I have one more question
mr. Sanchez so all those lots adjacent to 380 other than yours are you saying
they all have homes right now I believe so I'm not sure if there's a house on
the second one to the west of me or not it doesn't look like it I think there's
only well I think those people on both of those lots okay okay so and eventually
you know if they'd redevelop theirs might'll be thrown in with that I mean
most likely somebody would do a redevelopment of that corner okay that's
all I want well mr. Smith thanks for coming out thank you is there anyone
else wanted to speak on item 2d area 27 yes sir
height I live at 3800 Hampton Road Denton there in the upper upper corner up he
John covered a couple of those lots is this mouse work this one is well back to
your question on what's being used this is actually a drainage so the truck port
that's being built over here the pond drains through that lot so it also can't
be developed just addressing another one of those smaller lots that will never be
developed into anything else to its use but I just wanted to second my support
for going to the r1 there there is the previous speaker talking about his lot
this is a single-family home single-family single-family single-family
home around him so obviously I would want to question any use commercial use
of that lot being really pretty much up in the middle of the subdivision but
just seconding my support of protecting that subdivision I'm one of the newest
members of the subdivision I'm 50 and I'm considered a pup there it's taken me
25 years to get into the subdivision so I'm very interested in protecting you
know what what they have and what the rest of us are enjoying as well so thank
y'all thank you any other speakers on this item 2d area 27
see none I will close the public hearing turn the day is for discussion or
motion Commissioner Smith motion to approve area 27 we have a first
Commissioner Panetta a second we have a first and a second for approval of item
2d Commissioner Beck I wonder if I can get Ron to come back up and let's
address mr. Smith's concern I definitely don't want to see that be zone
commercial but an R2 I'm wondering if that would be conceivable within just
button up next door to some R1s the staff's proposals that would be all
included as our one okay possibility is obviously there if you choose to keep it
R2 that's that's up to y'all and I'll actually say council and also me so
if we decide to just vote the whole thing R1 mr. Smith may be able to come
back down the road and ask us to rezone that one area to maybe an R2 well I yes
okay yes okay R2 or something different yes just want to leave that open okay
fine thank you Commissioner Smith personally I believe that for we're
putting R1 over the we vote of R1 there that actually seems better for if you
could have commercial there if you have R2 that just means you're gonna have one
house just that much closer to the to the to the the major thoroughfare of 380
that if you are one looking at the other properties though the single-family
residentials that are out there on those lots next to it they can at least set
their their house for the for enough back on a driveway to be able to be away
from the road so I don't think R2 would if mr. Smith was come back and have it
rezoned we can certainly look at it but I wouldn't want to support anything on
an R2 there just because the argument of it's too close to something that's major
thoroughfare doesn't really work R1 would be better for that in my opinion
Christian Sanchez yeah looking at the chart up there there's already two acre
at three acre lots in there so I mean it's not that one acre the area we're
talking about does it's pretty similar to what's already there in that a
neighborhood's been around for a long time and I think there's there's all the
residents are talking about they want to maintain it the way it is and I would
vote for our one so we have a first and a second for approval of item 2d any
other discussion seeing none I'll go for a call for a vote on the board
motion carries six zero with one recuse I'll invite Commissioner Cole back into
the room and we'll move on to the next item of business which is item 2g this
is area 30 I'll invite Ron back for presentation and open the public hearing
for item 2g thank you chair members of the Commission item 2g area 30 this
area is the area that's being proposed to go to GO general office which we
discussed will be consistent with the future language designation of business
innovation it's there along 77 288 and I 35 the area that we're referring to is
this dark line here the area is mainly undeveloped with large parcels or large
tracks some develop but mainly undeveloped the response that we receive
was from loves travel stop the one response for area 30 the loves travel
stop currently is occupied in this parcel here as well as this parcel here
these two parcels they have acquired this parcel as a future expansion as the
I 35 widening project happens they will at least have this for future expansion
this way of note the MR which it would have transitioned to or will transition
to unless otherwise rezone does not permit travel plaza the geo also does
not allow for travel plaza and that is the main reason why the property owner
loves travel stop has provided a form in opposition we understand his or their
situation and staff has researched and discussed this internally and discuss it
with the representative of loves travel and we are proposing that we allow for
travel plaza within the geo zoning district with specific use standards one
specifically is that any travel plaza proposed has to be within a certain
distance from I 35 and we haven't yet determined what that distance is we're
still working on that but that will be something that we will be sorry we will
bring forward as part of a code amendment moving forward for whatever
reason if that code amendment does not happen staff will again entertain
possibly a rezoning of that to HC again our first option is to allow for travel
plaza within the geo and that is primarily my presentation for area 30
unless you all have any other questions we do mr. Smith nature I wanted to bring
it more in public than work session but why is it that the code amendment is
your number one number one recommendation rather than just doing an
HC in this area HC seems like this this this fits in this scenario but why is geo
and amending the geo which would affect other areas in the city of course with
the SCP and asked me within certain distance of 35 that seems more cumbersome
than just proposing this is HC one one is we looked at the use table and under
the HC which is lesser and as far as the zoning is concerned and it does permit
travel plaza it then goes to geo which does not permit it and then it goes to
Li which it permits it again so we're wondering what happened there why was geo
and I believe is because geo is meant to be more of a business innovation or more
you know commercial slash office but there are areas such as this area and
I'll go back to your initial question that could benefit as a travel plaza and
as long as there's a use specific standard that can be accomplished under
the geo can do you answer your question the reason why we chose geo versus HC is
that the HC we feel is is more in an area that's more suitable for highway
corridor this area is a little bit further north of town we haven't seen
this the type of uses that are our majority of it under the HC it's got
larger tracts of properties I think again based on our staff analysis it's
more suitable for geo zoning district than an HC so I don't know that yeah I
think I think I'd agree to disagree on that that you know it's even though yeah
it's further north and where we have any other HC's right now it's along the
highway that if geo is business innovation I don't see a whole lot of
business innovation outside of you know you're talking about retail and those
kinds of things I don't see them being smacked down the side of 35 but one of
the question follow-up and then I'll relinquish the floor
Li does Li have any restrictions he said it went HC and then the next zoning was
geo geo didn't allow for travel plaza and then Li allowed for travel plaza again
is there any restrictions like an SUP or any type of now straight permit straight
straight permitted okay thanks I have a couple more questions just for
clarification the the vote would be for all the blue area outlined in black this
evening not just the red area correct sorry we're voting for the whole area
identified here and on the agenda whatever acreage debt is now the
Commission has the option to not include those if they choose if you all choose
to but SAS recommendation is that area that is identified in black is for
consideration thanks for clarification Mr. Ellis thank you chair yeah just to
get back to that discussion of Commissioner Smith I'm not sure why we're
not pulling this parcel and making it HC to be honest with you we know what's
already there we know 35 is getting widened I am adamantly opposed to
amending geo to allow travel centers that just seems like a convoluted way to go
about it and opens up the city I think for some possible bad things so if it's
an option to pull this I would certainly want to discuss that as a commission
because I'm not quite sure why staff want this route for this particular lot
Chris or Sanchez yeah I feel the same way you know we've been talking about 35
as a highway corridor and all of a sudden we you know and that area still
hasn't been developed but yet we really don't know what might be moving in on
35 on the north side so I think we're shooting you are making decisions
without having knowing what's gonna happen there and long term I think we
need to look at 35 what's gonna go along 35 we know what it looks like on this
port of town and we know what what it looks all the way around so I think the
geo doesn't really fit there and I'm with the other two commissioners is that I
think we need to relook at that and because I don't think the decision as
far as that being a corridor has really been considered from the fact that it
hasn't been developed so we know something's there already and that's kind
of the first step of what's going we're gonna see there in the future sure so
what I'm hearing and again to the Commission is that the areas that are
in red could be pulled or are we hearing on my hearing that the area the whole
area is being pulled on I just need clarification well I mean we can
certainly discuss that to see where the question is I think I'd be more interested
in just pulling the area and bringing it back rather than pulling out some
parcels but we'll keep you posted on where that vote goes
question oh yeah that was actually my clarification my question if we were open
to suggesting a different zoning or to to pull those parcels in any event it
looks like taping or coming back or some other thing besides approval is what
we're leaning toward on this one right so at this point we're looking more at
either tabling and bringing it back at another thing or offering up a different
zoning because because I think at first I thought we're just gonna pull out the
area in red yeah but are we more leaning towards rezoning the whole area as an
HC as opposed to so just for clarification I think thus far there's
been three options laid out one is to take all of the black outlined area and
vote on that the second is to pull out specific parcels and leave a remainder
that remainder that we actually vote to move to council tonight minus some
parcels or is to pull all of area 30 bring it back and maybe the next special
call and and have a deeper dive in those interim weeks so it's kind of more
fleshed out when it comes back I think all three of those are an opportunity
for this evening okay yeah it looks like we have a couple more questions that we
do have cards so just to keep the commission aware before a vote of
postponement happens potentially it might be good to hear public input but
Christian back thank you chair to your statement that this one one of the
options I believe the second one was to vote the area geo except for the red
marked areas pull them out distinctly you can pull out any parcels okay and
consider some zoning designation specifically you sure okay question for
you Ron I believe we approve the building of a truck wash on the north
side of Bartol there does that sorry sorry to catch you out there commissioner
back but I believe that was not part of it that's currently geo per the
transition chart okay that's where the truck wash is gonna be right and then a
truck wash is allowed in geo or is that gonna be a non-conforming I'll have to
double check that okay I can check that okay thank you we don't have any more
questions for for you Ron thank you for the presentation it is public hearing
we have individuals who wanted to speak on this item so the first card we have
if we can go to this next would be Jeremy Reese then again if you can state
your name and address for minutes to speak good evening Jeremy Reese 4420
Jackson Street Marianna Florida here representing loves travel stops and the
newly fairly recently developed travel stuff on that corner just to clarify
real quick it's not just the red parcels the loves it on it's always it's also on
this parcel here so it's really this entire corner including the red areas
this was the additional property that was purchased by loves once we got news
of the textile expansion of I-35 their right-of-way take was actually gonna go
all the way up to the the gas pumps so we would have to completely redevelop
that site pretty much so with the loves went back and purchased this almost five
acres so they could push everything further away and redevelop it but um yeah
basically we just want to make sure that there's this rezoning doesn't create a
non-conforming use for the travel stop you know if it goes to HC perfect if the
travel plaza is added to geo that's fine as long as the use is allowed for the
travel plaza and when they get to that point they need to redevelop and it's
allowed that's all we're looking for perfect so well thanks for being here
from Florida thank you sir Smith nature question the see have you looked deep
into the allowed uses in HC yes well not not an HC in the geo I did okay I'd ask
you if you can what we heard other public information if you could just
look into it make sure if you have that Jerry be more willing to provide it I
know travel plaza is allowed in they know sure of course I just want to make
sure there's nothing is representing loves truck stop you got land that's not
developed yet right make sure that you're okay with HC if there was a vote
for that okay make sure that there's no other uses on there say hey we we as
owners of this property it's not developed yet even though you have the
right the intent to because of the right-of-way of the i-35 expansion want
to make sure that you're okay with it being an HC and not come back well yeah
the truck stuff was allowed there there's awesome other uses allowed there
now and this isn't what we wanted all right kind of thing so thanks okay thank
you no other questions the next card I have is for Jacqueline Banfield oh wrong
item sorry about that is there anyone else
wanting to speak on item G area 30 see none I will close the public hearing for
this item in terms of days for discussion or motion kisser Smith I just
want to I just want to clarify that pulling this two parcels out and adding
HC would not be what we should do because again the remaining area here is
already geo what staff would recommend if that was where the direction was going
before it the motion I wanted to make sure that was clear if this if that was
where you all wanted to go we would prefer that we just take this back and
then come back come back with this whole area all HC again if that was the
direction that you were going to because then that would leave the whole loves
travel stop Plaza as HC versus having these two HC in the remaining area
yeah you actually the words right out of my mouth I was gonna be clarification on
that area that because this gentleman was talking about it I was realizing that
that section that loves truck stops it's on now is not in that black area so if
we had voted to make this all HC there'd be HC all behind that geo there so I'm
gonna make a motion to table this discussion till date date certain which
is the next special called meeting or do you want to make a date indefinite we
don't have you can you can be indefinite we'll repost it okay I'll make a motion
to table table the discussion to date indefinite we have a first for a
tabling to a date uncertain kisser Sanchez I second the motion so we have
a first and second commissioner Ellis yeah I guess this is just for staff
because it looks like we're gonna end up postponing this but it's possible that
area 30 I think just needs to be redrawn it's possible that maybe not the entire
thing as it's drawn now needs to be HC maybe that needs to be divided to where
the front parcel needs to go a little more north and towards 35 is HC but
maybe that the western part still makes sense as geo I'm so it definitely needs
discussion in a redraw I think of the area for sure would be my opinion
Michelle's I completely agree with you the the part on the west side seems
thousands of feet away thousand feet away from I-35 that that's a far way for
HC to move back West so I think I'm inclined to keep HC tight against the
highway corridor so I would like to see the discussion around maybe even the
south part because that's a big track look differently at that but the
certainly the smaller tracks that a but I-35 even the two south of the loves
property those that kind of row right there before he gets a the crumb
highway maybe that would be HC and the rest be something different because I
think HC the intent doesn't go all the way back into rural land so I concur
with with I believe what you were suggesting as well
Commissioner Sanchez yeah I have the same same feeling you we've been talking
about the highway corridor and what we what's going to be along that highway
corridor and therefore I think we need to expand that you don't have to expand
it all the way West but always realizing that what's going to be built along 35 I
think we anything we need to consider that any anything along 35 we have to
keep it as highway corridor Mr. Beck thank you chair Ron let me ask you
something else again just clarification on that parcel on the north side of bar
told it already is geo cracked so you're saying we can't change that not not
tonight not tonight okay but we can consider that part of that at least to
that corner that intersection correct there's some commercial development
already there and not a wash I just checked in geo does permitted but we
will look at that auto wash so okay so that's something we can look at too so
that truck wash it wouldn't make any difference with the truck wash but just
for the sake of that area that small area we could convert part of that
geo into highway corridor to to accommodate we will look into that and
bring that back as part of that new drawing and then you propose all right
thanks
Mr. Smith for clarification would you be open to a friendly amendment to have the
motion be read as postponed indefinitely yeah I accept that okay and
Mr. Sanchez are you okay with the amendment yes I do okay so we have a
first and a second to postpone indefinitely see no other discussion I'll
call for vote on the board
motion carries 7-0 the next item will be item 2 in area 37 and I will once again
invite Ron for a presentation and open the public hearing thank you chair
members of Commission this area 37 is located south of loop 288 and just east
of Locust Street the area outlining yellow comprises approximately 58 point
six seven acres existing uses as you can see from the aerial is primarily
undeveloped or general agriculture now there is a church on the south side
along Hercules Lane and that is the Asbury United Methodist Church staff is
proposing a suburban quarter zoning district for this quadrant or the
southeast quadrant of loop 288 and Locust Street the area in black is what
we're referring to the area that's in the hard corner is currently SC SC
permits more commercial uses as opposed to obviously what is there today today
there is a split zoning of the parcel it is SC r6 and r3 we are also staff is
also recommending approval our suburban quarter for the property to the south
these two parcels here we did receive after a neighborhood meeting with the
neighborhood on yesterday actually from the property owners of the Asbury church
that their preference or their request is that they not be included with the
SC consideration and again that is the property that's outlined in red we did
receive six responses in opposition one was from the church the remaining five
came from the neighborhood to the south and to the east this hill this here
illustrates a little bit of our understanding of the area what which was
presented and provided to us by our by the property owner who is requesting the
suburban corridor we understand that there is an electrical easement that
runs along the southern portion of their property I believe it's 75 feet wide
here and then 105 along the eastern side of their property also on their property
is a floodplain zone X that runs north to south or south north in this general
area as shown on this illustration with that I will stand for questions thank
you wrong I don't have any questions at this time we do have some individuals
who fill that card so this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may
certainly do so the first card I have is for Jacqueline Banfield
my name is Jacqueline Banfield I live at 305 Meadow Lane my garage backs up to
Hercules there is no buffer there are 15 or 16 other garages along that backside
that are without a buffer as well I have had theft from my driveway and a couple
of other people in the areas have had theft from locked cars that were parked
in their driveways I am really concerned about safety and security I am a single
person I have locks on my gates but if more people and more traffic comes
through there it does not make me very comfortable thank you appreciate to be
in here thank you there's no other cards of individuals wishing to speak I have
some comment cards that I'll read into the record but as a public hearing if
you're wishing to speak you may certainly do so yes sir
okay Mr. Smith sorry chair sorry sir I wasn't actually asked miss Banfield
anything Ron can I ask you a question I couldn't switch back to the touchscreen
in time before you chair moved on from questions he gave me about half a second
to do it the the request to make this an SC rather than making it a higher
density like an r4 or something like that I know I know there's already a
small section that's SC and that's why it's making it more conforming and
getting rid of the split zoning here why not make it more compatible to the rest
of the area being single-family residential why why only leaving uses of
multifamily there one of the one is the is it because of the I'm sorry that
finished question is it because of the floodplain in the middle making it
pretty hard to make this a develop area if it was no I think I think I mean the
following can be dealt with during the site plan process one is the applicant
requested an SC that's one and two looking at the just real quick here
looking at the future land use map shown here it shows it as community mix use
again that's just again our plan for the area it is an eye it is along Locust
Street and loop 288 and therefore this area is in need of commercial now there
are commercial zoning student north which is also SC there is commercial to
the northwest as part of the hills of Den there is commercial as part of the
plan development to the west so this just lends itself more to a commercial
hub or node to what extent that is something that we need to decide on
however this being one lot it makes it difficult to carve it out and that's one
reason why we're also here is because we want to identify this as a zoning that
has only one per parcel another factor in our decision to go to SC thanks
Commissioner Sanchez when you have a suburban corridor you're in here
classifying that because of 288 primarily right and then Locust is a
primary artillery as arterial as well but there's a big difference between
Locust and 288 as far as traffic right I would think so my question is you've got
a pretty good that creek that cuts that that picture yeah right there that that
floodplain right there makes a pretty good distinction between the north side
and the south side and to me when we're talking about corridors or you know like
the highway corridor or suburban corridor we're primarily concentrating on
the front edge of those corridors so why we expanding it all the way to the back
makes me wonder because there is a lot along Locust there is a lot of also
residential I you know so I don't understand why I just want to make that
that you do have a natural cut in that in that lot because of the what what
that floodplain does as you know Commissioner Sanchez for clarifying as
it runs in this vicinity here or direction here is that what you're
referring to either way but I mean you can use a bottom map or you can use the
top finger but there is going to be something that you're not going to be
able to build on if you look at the top part you're going to be able to build to
the east and probably a little bit to the west and then to the south because
you're not going to be able to build into that into that I don't think you're
going to be able to build into that into that floodplain right so the areas that
you know are not encumbered by floodplain over easements would be the
area that potentially could be developed you know we're we're not looking at the
site I mean obviously the site is important but the zoning the uses I
think is important to to also consider right and that's why I'm saying yeah you
have to look at the whole big picture of the lot not just say okay we're going to
we have this big square but you also have to look at the topography in the
natural barriers that are in that in that block and say okay they're not
there's going to be a stop right there that creeks going to put that floodplain
is going to stop quite a bit of but what do you call it development so it's a
barrier and I think you have to look at the big picture not just say okay we've
got a big block and this is what we want to do we also have to consider that 288
is is a corridor not not anything on the south side we have Locus but Locus is
not the same I don't consider it the same type of corridor that I would
consider 288 right yes right now yes no certainly the classification of Locus is
to be a arterial a primary arterial in the future and that's obviously not
today but that would be something in the future now also as I mentioned it yeah
that your your the area to the north sees a lot of there's more commercial
already identified as part of the future lane use designation and it's currently
zoned suburban corridor also to the east I'm sorry to the west it's already
commercial not as big as the area that you're talking about but this area is
one parcel and we have to identify he's only for that one parcel
Christopher Beck thank you chair okay and so for Commissioner Sanchez
clarification this the owner of this property is asking for a suburban
corridor so it is his property and he's asking for something that evidently he
has plans to develop within those they they they are here present and then we
can ask him ask them for the clarification okay and as I said earlier
they did request suburban quarter we looked at what we have as far as a
future lane use and the surrounding area we did use as I mentioned earlier the
corridors again locus in either loop 288 which meant it fit the criteria right
bringing it forward certainly we can hear more on what the owners have plans
and okay and I would like to do and I don't I agree that this is an area that
is going to be developed is primary corridors where commercial development
would be needed that whole north part of Denton is just void right now and this
would be a good area to develop some commercial enterprises to feed the
residential those in the area let me answer this is the anybody from the
Asbury church here tonight that can explain why they want to stay with an
R2 no I reached out to them and I did ask for them to attend again the reason
I stated at the work session is that they didn't see any advantage for them
to go to SC and would prefer to remain well I wish I wish they were here just
for the record because I don't see any disadvantage being an SC looking at it
religious assemblies are allowed in all the residential areas in the SC so if
they're thinking of expanding I don't think there'd be any restriction with
this I think one of their concerns that I expressed to me was the rise in
property taxes but as a as a church nonprofit I would assume that their
property taxes are exempt but again I'm not an expert in that and all I can say
is that's one of the concerns that they had okay raised okay yeah if the owner
of that property share I'd definitely like him to come forward and ask me a few
questions yeah I appreciate that sir you've been waiting you're more than welcome to see
this time if you just state your name and address for the record okay my name
is Philip Alino my address is 121 Meadow Lane it out the garage faces across to
the Asbury Church I guess my big concerns initially were how this would
affect traffic on Locust you know as I think some of you have pointed out
Locust is a two-lane really not much more than a country road not much
shoulder no sidewalks you know on the west side of Locust currently there's I
think about 150 homes and construction that are going to have cars emptying out
on the Locust and so traffic is getting further pushed up so the you know the
effect that this would have on traffic on Locust is one concern and from the
map and looking at the floodplain it looks like the staff analysis had
suggested that there might be an entry from Hercules but I don't think given
the wishes of the church or the floodplain that that would necessarily
be likely my last concern having seen the presentation is where the location
of the floodplain is I hadn't been aware of that I think one thing to consider is
that okay great thank you okay yeah so you know if we might expect that a lot
of the development would go on in this area I think it's probably at least
plausible that much of this area would become paved over and so how that would
affect runoff into the floodplain and any consequence that would have on
increased runoff into the east side of this neighborhood I don't know whether
that's something that's been considered or has been taken into account it hasn't
given considered at this stage that's when engineering comes in at the
platting stage site plan that we would actually look to see what's being
constructed what's the the output of drainage and how that's being detained
but it's not being considered at this point just the zoning like what the
future planning of the area would be okay so I mean basically my concerns are
that you know for this to go forward I think start moving toward development of
retail in this area and then you know unless these other issues got concern
got considered in advance that you know could find yourself in a situation where
okay well we've pushed it already down far enough down the road that we're not
going back and well gee we'll just deal with with these things on an ad hoc
basis all right well thank you thank you
this is a public hearing anyone wish to speak may certainly do so sir are you
wishing to speak if you just state your name and address of the record my name is
Vince Hasler my address is 4946 North Locust Street and I'm speaking on behalf
of the owners of the tract I guess number 37 I guess bordered by Locust
loop 288 town north and then where it stops for the Asbury property the
owners are my father Belvin Hasler my uncle JB Hasler and my aunt Marianne
McCutcheon the proposed zoning for inspiration corridor we are strongly in
favor of we think that does meet the highest and best use for the property
the North Denton is growing and it's currently vastly underserved by you know
businesses that would that would serve the future growth as far as the property
due to the floodplain issue the electric power line that runs along the east and
south side of the property and the easement with it that really carves up
carves up the lot and especially with the commercial along the frontage on
Locust there's really very little usable space left there for residential
especially when you consider long-term loop 288 been expanded and stands to
reason that Locust Street will be expanded in the future as well which
really further reduces the size of that lot for you know any type of a sizable
sizable residential we're in favor of the entire our part of the entire
tract being zoned suburban corridor thank you thank you thank you thank you
chance being sensitive to our concerns absolutely thank you this is a public
hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so I have some cards that
I'll read is the record the first one is Mary McCutcheon she's at 1217
Greenbrier Street her comment says this property has the potential for providing
convenient services for people who reside in the neighborhood the existing
features of a high-voltage electric power line and two side on two sides and
high-traffic corridors on the other two sides make it undesirable for residential
development she is in support next card I have is for Melvin Heisler he is in
support and says I agree that the zoning of SC allows for the best use of this
property then lastly we had JB Heisler jr. at 1200 Crowling Road is in support
and the card says the undesirable features of this property make it less
conducive for residential development SC is more appropriate those are the only
cards I have on this item it is public anyone wishing to speak may certainly do
so seeing none I will close public hearing and turn the days for a motion
or discussion Ron can I choose a quick question as commission's talking can you
go back to just where it had the R2 R3 R6 there you go what is the actual
property lines there's the SC is a wholly different platted property that's
not included here the church is a property and then the other my my
understanding the property lines line is literally all of this area here and the
zoning was a result of a plan development and does not follow parcel
line or property line it just was put on a map so the property has correct is all
of the area locus to loop 288 this boundary over here and then the property
to the south is the boundary line for that parcel and the reason the SC isn't
included is because it's already SC and the request is to move to SC correct if
we don't move it to SC is it still going to be a split zone case then correct it
will be a split zone parcel okay and would that go back to city reach
initiated rezoning on the next cycle to fix that split zoning would we know
because that this is unless there's a different proposal you would not this is
what is being brought forward today so potentially if we say hypothetically I'm
not making many kind of assumptions here but say it's MN and we move this all to
MN we're gonna have a split zone case where the northwest will be SC and the
rest will be in him and there won't be any more proactive measures from the
city to correct that issue am I understanding that correctly that's the
yeah that's what happens from here to see council then there would not be any
further action from their point on so so the quick answer is there would be no
further I got you a proposal I understand coaster Smith I understand
the flume makes it makes it to where this community makes use I just think
that SC in the way that the codes written which is written great by the
way but just the way the codes written that if we prove this SC we're gonna
allow for bars bars and restaurants auto washes all by right all right nestled
around nothing but single-family and multifamily with almost no other
commercial use around it I know we can look across 288 and see commercial use
we can look you know caddy corner 288 and locus and see commercial use in
reality 288 creates a big enough of a buffer that it's it's almost a totally
different world south of 288 than it is north of 288 so I get I'm hesitant to
make a motion to approve this purely because of the things were allowed by
right in there that it could be detrimental to the area I guess they
could be used by the folks in the area but there could be ultimately detrimental
hotels motel is also accepted with an SC that by right so a little a little
worrisome so small the comments that Commission Commissioner pernetta and I'm
inclined to agree so just real quickly that little section along the bottom
that kind of rhombus or whatever it is that that's the church right and that's
that's separately but correct this line right here delineates what's owned by
the church and what's owned by the hislers so inside of that where we have
the pink SC the R6 you know and the R2 and the R3 it with the exception of the
church everything else has a single owner right correct everything north of
this line Commissioner pernetta okay and the main reason we're and I hate to sound
you know dismissive of it but the main reason that we're going to an SC for the
whole thing is simply for the purpose of not having a split zoning on a single
property is that correct that's that's one of the factors the first of course
is the request to go to SC the future land use and then of course looking at
this as one parcel right where do we where do we draw the line and we don't
have a line to draw on there it's not subdivided it's one parcel okay and
similar to what Commissioner Smith said you know the idea of making the whole
thing at SC just kind of seems like overkill because that is residential
there we've gotten a few objections I guess from people along the south it
doesn't look like if we make everything SC then we actually have a transition
between that and the residential and if we were to expand all that to where it
is SC and in theory put businesses and everything that strip of Hercules looks
awful small and I've driven down that it's like it like just too late right
there it doesn't look like it would support that kind of development there I
in this kind of situation we have that floodplain and it's almost like nature
has kind of created a natural dividing mark I would be more inclined to say you
know SC along the top you know right against 288 and then I actually kind of
like the zoning the way it is with the exception of maybe putting SC along the
top there it seems like how it is right now it makes more sense for the for the
surrounding areas that's all
Kister Sanchez this one moment I think Richard's gonna add some context to the
analysis I just wanted to also as Ron mentioned I think it's important to note
that that that easement on the eastern property line is is about a hundred I
think it's a hundred foot easement on to on to the property in question and so
it's approximately 150 feet I think from the back of the properties to the to the
east so there's a pretty pretty good distance that really will not be able to
be developed as a result of those those those power lines in addition I think
it's important to note as we continue to even have development just to the north
where long road will eventually tie right in here to locust locust is it will
be a hundred hundred and twenty or 135 foot wide arterial and so looking at
this long term there's there's not much that could be left to do with this
parcel given its sandwich between a major arterial and a highway and and
really looking at do we want to have residential that close to a freeway and
and that large of an arterial Kister Sanchez yeah we're looking at you know
part of our job is to look long-term and I understand that we have that on the
east side that electric corridor and then we also locus is going to be in
large but we also have to consider the neighborhood on this on the south which
is on on Hercules I just like I said earlier I don't have any problem
developing the north side or everything looking at that picture everything north
of the creek or a floodplain whatever you want to call it but I do have a
problem making it considering it suburban corridor all the way down I
really that's a real issue for me because you have Hercules and Hercules
is not a big it's not a big corridor it's just a neighborhood road right and
and that that's a good point and as stated earlier the the church was not in
favor of that going so again that is an option as the chair mentioned there's
our there are options to this consideration you can consider the whole
area that's outlined in black you can consider everything minus the red or
you can do other consideration potentially even postpone it that is up
to the Commission Michelle's thank you chair yeah I'll just add a couple of
thoughts I'm certainly in favor of pulling the church out of there if they
choose not to be considered in this I don't think residential designation is
proper for this it's not going to develop as residential but my concern is
SC doesn't offer maybe enough neighborhood protection for what's
already out around it not that I am a fan of split zoning a parcel at all I'm
not sure why we have a sliver of it already SC so I def I do have some
concerns making it SC because of the neighborhoods that are already in place
so I am struggling with that a little bit Ron I have a quick question for you
earlier we saw property down on is it Colorado right by the mall what is that
that's not Colorado there we used SC as a buffer between the mall and that
residential right that's the idea of SC is SC generally one of the options in
providing buffers are transitioned for the city one one of MN would be another
one as another you know buffer but because of the existing conditions on
sentence into as far as those uses SC was chosen because they the uses there
were more suitable under SC and certainly SC or MN would be those two
that I would you know refer to as those transition buildings so with that I
would move that we approve the owners property to SC but removing the church
property out of this parcel leave the church parcel as is and the northern
portion of the property move it to an SC zoning Christian Cole we have a first
second second for approval of pulling out the resident the church property on
the south Christian Beck a chair Ron is again I'm trying to recall the mobility
plan Hercules just to the east of that property is a split two-lane road right
I believe the mobility plan shows it as a collector okay is it is that not going
to extend that part of Hercules not going to extend the same right away with
all the way to the locust eventually and even go across in Hercules being taken
all the way it is my understanding it will extend full okay so it won't stay
like that now so we have no idea when that's gonna know okay but that's
something to consider and maybe you can't answer this here but if we do make
this SC I know the concern is Commissioner Smith mentioned you know
bars and hotels but ideally you know you're gonna put those out on the
periphery not close up to the houses but is there a way when the developer comes
in and wants to develop this land that he can be guided in a way where
multifamilies allowed here with an SUV where that would be appropriate on the
east side there and then you start to build the more commercial aspects of it
as you go out towards Locust and I think I mean we can certainly provide that
guidance but there's really nothing to hold them to that of course the market
will dictate a lot of it as well I mean to have commercial use for the back
would not be suitable right be primarily along Locust in I-30 I'm sorry I keep
saying I-35 loop 288 but that's something that would be dictated by the
market okay okay all right thank you
Christopher Neto yeah I just want to clarify the motion on the board so so
right now what we're looking at is pulling out only that little section not
not not the entire red but just the church on the lower side right no the
entire red the entire red right my thought would be I think the the
residents of that South property has the alleyway okay if we leave the church
triangle property the same we provide a buffer for those residents and hopefully
inclined traffic off Locust and 288 to access the SC leaving Hercules
theoretically you know guided for the church property right now okay I just
wanted to clarify because I guess I misunderstood earlier I thought the
church was only the black line within the red lines but if we're talking about
the whole red line they all two lots yeah I'm excluding that all right that's
good thank you Mr. Smith thank you chair pretty pretty torn on on this motion
just in general same same same things I mentioned earlier that feel like SC even
though it is a buffer zoning that it just it's inviting too much commercial I
think in this area and I'm saying that with we've having voted in the last year
on this Commission to approve residential developments in these areas
and commercial is needed I think I think just the fear of having some of the
commercial developments there being a little bit too close I don't think you
know 150 feet setback you do to the utility easement and everything else is
really gonna be enough in this instance but I am torn on it so I do want the
Commission to to consider that thank you Christian Ellis yeah and I'll just say a
couple more thoughts on that I'm just not comfortable with SC here and then I
would be on board with and I understand we'd have a split there but I'm gonna go
ahead and oh no one thank you Michelle's any other discussion on the item seeing
none we have a first and a second to move for approval minus the southern
property that's discussed I'll call for a vote on the board
motion carries four three the next item of business is item two oh that's area
38 item 2o area 38 I'll invite Ron back up presentation and open the public
hearing okay the subject property is located along loop 288 generally along
Kings Row south of Kings Row I encompasses two parcels a one on the
west side of loop 288 and one to the north east property the properties are
currently undeveloped potentially uses general agriculture but mainly
undeveloped the response that was received from the applicant or the
property owner is requesting that the one parcel identified here in red be
left as MN or what is to transition to MN it is currently NRM you but is all
but he is in favor of the western track here outlined in black to go forward as
SC again staff's recommendation is to go SC it is consistent with the
surrounding environment in fact the parcels to the south is currently zoned
SC for the transition chart and we were just extending that north along loop 288
which is a major corridor and in stopping at Kings Row that concludes my
presentation applicant earned property owner of both tracks is here and present
thank you Ron I don't see any questions for you I only have one card it's Vince
Heisler hi perfect no worries I do not have any cards in this item now so it's
item - oh there's a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this item they
certainly do so yes sir
Mr. Chairman members the Commission my name is Randall Smith 5428 Lake Victoria
Court and Flyer Mount 75022 property owner of these two properties and I
would prefer that the property on the southeast corner remain the MN so I
would be opposed to the zoning change to SC for that corner if they can't be
split I prefer that they both remain in them okay thank you any questions
because jealous thank you chair mr. Smith can you tell me why well I've already
been through this with the city-wide rezoning you know three or four months
ago and it was determined then that MN was the most appropriate zoning and in
looking at the uses and the requirements and the setbacks and all that I just
feel that it's more appropriate for that track to be MN because I had I did have
a concern on your Western property as well being SC again because we have such
a densely populated area that MN seemed more appropriate for it so I was
wondering why you know what your reasoning was for MN on the east side
and not the west I'm happy with both of them staying in them okay appreciate
thanks thank you any other questions for I think you're good thank you this is a
public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so on this item see
none I'll close the public hearing turn to the days for a discussion or motion
Commissioner Beck thank you chair I'm feeling along the lines that suburban
corridor may be a little excessive for this area because they do both these
areas back up to a residential area and I'm thinking agreement with the
Commissioner Ellis that MN on both sides would probably be more preferable for
these two just by virtue of their location to single-family residential
neighborhood thank you Commissioner Ellis actually thank you chair Ron can I ask
you a question so the property directly south of the Western parcel well but
further west so that yeah that's an residential district is it not I believe
it's R4 looking at the chart yes okay anything happening on that right now not
that I know of now okay thanks
any other discussion on the item or a motion
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair I'm gonna make a motion to zone area 38 MN
and just to clarify the east and west properties both to MN correct and Ron
chair Commissioner Ellis the parcels the two parcels as effective October 1st it
will transition to MN it's currently NRM you which transitions to MN so if the
preference or the motion is to remain MN my understanding with then it'd be just
to recommend denial would you like to amend your motion my motion to recommend
denial of changing this area to SC great we have a first for a denial of the
motion to approve SC Christian Smith so I get we have a first and a second motion
to deny I don't see any discussion just to clarify a motion and vote yes the
green button is to deny and this will remain MN so it's a opposite vote with
that I'll call for a vote on the board
the motion carries 7-0 the next item for business is item 2 q it's area 40 I'll
invite Ron back up for presentation and open the public hearing yes the area
area 40 is located between loop 288 and Mayhill Road it is bisected by Russell
Newman through the middle of the project or of this area the area is currently as
transition will be transitioned to Li light industrial staff is proposing a
geo general office zoning as it fits again with the land use element it is
comprised of larger tracks there are some undeveloped properties within this
area there are currently existing uses looking at what is existing most of the
uses would be permitted under the geo now there is one use that would not be
and and that is a major automotive repair shop that requires a specific use
permit under the geo so that would be just the one use and the property owner
of the areas outlining red here did submit an opposition form in opposition
to the rezoning to geo and would like it to remain Li light industrial and let me
pull up exhibit that shows that area a little bit more closer so there are
approximately nine parcels that then market Street property LLC owns which the
property owner represents or owns and they are shown here outline in red and
again the area outline red is owned by property owner that does not want to be
part of this zoning to a geo if not included it would remain Li light
industrial Ron is there any other Li in the area or what's the closest Li it
looks like it might be on an island in there but there is let me show you real
quick in part of the other consideration that we did earlier you've got public
facilities are for I believe yes are for this is ETJ that's our our rural
residential suburban quarter to the south this area here was Li or is Li
pending City Council is recommended for SC the area further south you've got
public facilities primarily because it's owned by the city you've got area 42
which is currently Li recommended to go to geo so looking at the area there's
no Li for the most part you have got suburban corridor and a mix of other
zoning districts thank you I question back is the owner here
of this property I do not think so I've spoken to the gentleman some for some
time and as well as other staff members and again his reason I think maybe
that's where you're going is he wants to keep his ability to develop under the Li
and whatever uses that are permitted okay I'm sitting here looking at the two
and there's not a whole lot of difference between the two so that's why
it'd be nice if you I believe you mentioned building materials and supply
store as one that is not permitted in the geo but it is permitted in the Li and
I think that's the only one that I could find as well very very similar but more
towards office and that type of development okay and that is a small
relatively smaller compared to all the other between areas 1443 a lot of geo so
would it be that far out of place to leave it Li would it be that disruptive
in your opinion staff's recommendation it go to geo thanks Ron thanks Ron this
is a public hearing anyone wish to speak may certainly do so I do have a card for
individual wanting to speak Eric Torres and if you could just speak your name an
address for the record you have four minutes to speak names Eric Torres and
the address is 1050 North May Hill Road the property we're talking about here is
that the property now I understand that this right here wants to be done you
know for commercial the situation I'm running I'm looking at right now is that
with that being made into commercial they're going to benefit from you know
city water city sewage all those things that all these properties here aren't
receiving okay so I mean my thing is we're looking across the street here to
something that's going to be zoned for commercial and they're going to be able
to take benefits from the city that we're not able to have benefits that
we're not getting those benefits right now we weren't opposed to you know May
Hill at the expansion on May Hill because it needed to be done with all
the traffic we were getting like said our house right on the road so my our
main concern right now is like said that there's accesses you know ever since
they started working on this project and really it's been two months now that
they're the projects in front of our home but they basically once they
started working they have now we we have a community well with all these
properties that all these properties right here have a community well once
this project started and they started working in front of our house we no
longer have access to the community well because of the construction that they
have so my parents have now been going two months without water okay again
there is a hydrant less than a hundred yards away from this property that's
right about here that could give access to water to all these properties that
are right that are on that community well again my concern I I don't want to
be opposed of change and get didn't getting bigger but what I do have a
problem with is that you know all these people here are gonna are getting the
benefits that we're not getting benefits of as it didn't resident so that's kind
of my concern with what's going on and what the you know what they're trying to
propose so that's just what I wanted to let y'all know appreciate you being here
can you verify that green is city right that's not ETJ mr. Torres property is in
the city limits that's correct mr. Torres and I spoke earlier this morning
and it was part of an annexation back in 2013 what information can we provide to
him and his family about getting city services I've already spoken to him and
he's already actually been more proactive than than where I was he's
already spoken to our director of utilities so I just advise him to present
it's talked more about it but he's already made contact with again director
of public utilities great
just yeah stick to the stuff that step up to the mic please I'm sorry yeah the
only reason we have water is because the neighbors behind us have a separate well
that they've been providing water to us while the city does what they need to do
yeah I I certainly understand your desire and the urgency of it I just want
to make sure that you're being connected to the right people I don't think this
Christian has authority just to hook up a water line for you but if we have if
we have the ability to get you the right people and support your cause then I
don't I mean I think we're all for getting the water when I talk to it's
Frank Pugsley I mean he did so he he made a proposal to the city on what the
cost would be to get those those water lines the sewage lines that that there
and so a proposal was made that's that's all I've heard about it but he only told
me he's like he's trying to find money in the budget I mean that to me that's
money should have already been in the budget when they decided to make that
expansion on that mayho project well what I can't say is this item doesn't
remain here it's gonna go to council so you're you will have an opportunity to
come in front of City Council who has some of the highest authority in the
city to advocate your case as well so I would think continue down the line with
the people you've been connected with this step one but you still have the
ability to come back and advocate to the City Council about getting this this
situation taken care of I would highly encourage you to come back to council
when this gets here and so we can follow up with you on that Scott MacDonald did
you have something to add perfect yeah I don't see any other cards on this item
is there anyone else wants you to speak on this public item seeing none I'll
close the public hearing and turn to the days for motion or discussion
commissioner Beck I move to approve this agenda item to jail all of it we have
a first mr. Pernetta I'll second the motion we have a first and a second any
discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board
motion carries 7-0
mr. McQuade can you tell us what's going on with item you yes I'm 44 staff is
requesting that this be postponed indefinitely we'll come back and we
notice it we are just wanting to make sure we have this area correct there are
some parcels that we want to include no action is required other than we had
noticed this for a public hearing and therefore we just want to make sure that
we get the Commission's vote to postpone indefinitely great coaster Smith motion
postpone indefinitely we have a first for postpone to indefinitely critical
second we have a first and a second to postpone indefinitely seeing no
discussions I call for a vote on the board
motion carries 7-0 that concludes our agenda for this evening I'll close the
social called session at 825 thank you