Oct 21, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2026-10-21 5:30 PM

[2. Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on this agenda for public hearing and individual consideration.]

[00:01:28]

AT THIS TIME. THIS PLOT DOESN'T MEET ALL OF OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, BUT THEY HAVE REQUESTED AN EXTENSION WHICH STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO TO A DATE CERTAIN OF NOVEMBER 18TH.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? IT'S INTERESTING HOW LONG IT TAKES TO TO PLAT 40 LOTS LONGER THAN 15 DAYS SOMETIMES. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU MATT. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING. PD 26 DASH FOR A.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M JULIE WYATT AND I AM PRESENTING TONIGHT PD 26 FOR A. THIS IS THE APPLICANT IS JOINT VENTURE AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF EAST RYAN ROAD AND TEASLEY, KIND OF JUST TO THE NORTH WEST OF THAT INTERSECTION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ABOUT NINE ACRES, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY AN EXISTING OVERLAY PD TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP MINOR TO THE LOT SHADED IN GREEN, AND THEN TO ALSO MODIFY ACCESS REGULATIONS. THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS A PROVISION IN IT THAT FULL ACCESS TO A SITE ACROSS A PROPERTY MUST OCCUR THROUGH A ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS THE USE, BECAUSE IF THIS IS APPROVED, THOSE. THE. THE LOT SHADED IN ORANGE WOULD NOT STILL ALLOW THE. USE A DEVIATION FROM THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE WOULD BE NEEDED IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE LOT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN THIS EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE HERE

TONIGHT. >> COMMISSIONER RIGS. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION. SO DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT DRIVEWAY ACCESS MIGHT LOOK LIKE COMPARED TO OTHER DRIVEWAYS?

>> SURE. LET'S LOOK AT THAT. CAN YOU SEE THAT? THE LITTLE. LET ME SEE. I THINK I MIGHT HAVE A BETTER ONE. WELL, NO, THAT'S NOT ANY BETTER. OKAY, SO THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED AS FIVE LOTS WITH AN INTERNAL CIRCULATION PATTERN TO ALLOW DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM HUNTERS CREEK TO THE NORTH, AS WELL AS RYAN ROAD TO THE SOUTH. ORIGINALLY, IT DID NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO TEASLEY. HOWEVER, DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE TONIGHT IS IS UNDERWAY AND THEY ARE PROPOSING SORT OF A COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER. AND SO IT WAS PLATTED FOR ACCESS WITH THAT LOT. SO THERE WILL BE ULTIMATELY TWO DRIVEWAYS TO THE NORTH, ONE TO TEASLEY TO THE EAST AND THEN ONE TO THE SOUTH ON RYAN ROAD. THE ONLY TWO THAT ARE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED ARE THOSE TWO TO HUNTER'S CREEK AND THEN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT. LOT DOES HAVE A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION TO TEASLEY BECAUSE THIS HASN'T BEEN PLANNED OUT. THERE ARE NO CIVIL PLANS. THERE'S NO SITE PLANNING TO THIS PROPERTY. WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE SOME SORT OF SHARED ACCESS TO THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY, BUT IT IS IT IS AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY IN THIS LOCATION. SO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT PROPERTIES CAN OR

[00:05:02]

DID THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? >> YEAH, I THINK SO, BECAUSE THE EXISTING CORNER THERE, I GUESS THE WHAT WOULD THAT BE? THE NORTH WEST CORNER. I THINK THAT THAT LOT CURRENTLY HAS DRIVEWAYS ABOUT AS FAR NORTH AS YOU COULD AND AS ABOUT AS FAR WEST AS YOU COULD. SO IF YOU WERE TO PUT A DRIVEWAY RIGHT NEXT TO THAT, IT WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH ONE DRIVEWAY ON TOP

OF ANOTHER. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT. >> AND THE INTENT REALLY IS TO LIMIT THAT THE NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS ON AN ARTERIAL, WHICH IS PRETTY STANDARD PRACTICE FOR

THE CITY. >> SO JUST TO CLARIFY. SO THEN ACCESS WOULD BE THROUGH THE

PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH. >> ACCESS WOULD BE THROUGH THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, OR WHEN THE LOT TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE DEVELOPS THIS, THIS ACCESS POINT HERE. ON TO RYAN. WHEN THIS LOT DOES DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE, THERE WOULD ALSO BE CROSS CONNECTION

WITH THAT LOT AS WELL. >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS. >> THANK YOU. THANKS, JULIE. I REMEMBER THIS PROPERTY VERY WELL. SO JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, EVENTUALLY IT'LL GO ON TO RYAN

WHEN THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST EVENTUALLY. >> YES.

>> AND NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BUT JUST FOR KICKS, WHAT ARE THEY WANTING TO PUT IN THERE?

>> THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR THAT LOT RIGHT NOW. THE ORIGINAL PD HAD A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS ON USES, AND YOU REMEMBER IT HAD RESTRICTIONS ON SOME OF THOSE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES.

AND I HAVE A LISTING. IT'S IT'S A SUMMARY. SO THINGS LIKE MULTIFAMILY BARS, CREDIT ACCESS TATTOOS, SMOKE SHOP, THOSE KIND OF MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES, THOSE WERE PROHIBITED IN THIS PD. AND REALLY THE INTENT IS BECAUSE WHILE IT IS AN ARTERIAL AND IT'S A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, AND WE OFTEN FIND LOTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THESE CORRIDORS, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THIS SITE IS AS HAVING HUNTERS CREEK AS A GATEWAY TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, TO THE TO THE WEST OF THE SITE, AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH. WE FELT LIKE SOME LIMITATIONS ON THOSE USES WERE APPROPRIATE. ALSO, I BELIEVE DURING THE MEETING THERE WERE SOME. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT DRIVE THRUS AND SO IT DOES HAVE A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF DRIVE THRUS TO THREE BY RIGHT. IF ANOTHER DRIVE THROUGH DID WANT TO COME IN, THEN OVER THREE, IT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. AND IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BY THE SITE, YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE TWO DRIVE THROUGH USES ON THE PROPERTY NOW AND THEN. SO SO AS IT DEVELOPS, THERE MAY BE MAYBE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT YOU SEE

ON THE PROPERTY OR DIFFERENT CASES COME BEFORE YOU. >> YEAH. I MEAN, WE WORKED REALLY HARD ON TRYING TO GET THIS DONE. IT WAS A RECONSIDERATION ITEM FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, TO BE ABLE TO GET IT TO WHERE IT IS TODAY. I NOTICED THAT IT IT WAS ON HIS AGENDA IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, AND IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO GO GET MORE INFORMATION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DO WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT? I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE BACKUP WITH

REGARD TO THAT. >> IT WAS ACTUALLY RELATED TO THAT ACCESS PROVISION. SO SO, YOU KNOW, DURING THE REVIEW, WE REALLY NOTICED THAT, OH, THIS ACCESS PROVISION IN THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE IS GOING TO APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY. SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE USE, IT'S ALSO ABOUT THIS OTHER ITEM. WE TALKED TO THE, THE DEVELOPER AND SAID, HEY, WE'D REALLY LIKE TO HAVE EVERYBODY IN THIS PD KIND OF COME IN ON, ON THIS, ON THIS AMENDMENT. THEY HAD DIFFICULTY BECAUSE NOW THEY'VE BEEN ALL THE LOTS HAVE BEEN SOLD OFF AND THERE'S DIFFERENT OWNERS. SO WE REALLY TOOK THIS ACCESS ITEM AS A STAFF INITIATED REALLY, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACCESS REALLY MEETS OUR STANDARDS FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION. ALSO, IT MIGHT BE IT MIGHT BE CHALLENGING FOR, FOR VISITORS IF, IF YOU HAD TO STOP AT THE, AT THE EDGE OF ONE PROPERTY. SO THAT SO IT KIND OF CAME IN AS NOW IT'S KIND OF

THAT HYBRID REQUEST. >> OKAY. SO IT WAS, IT WASN'T CONSIDERED IN JULY. SO YOU

COULD TALK TO THE OWNERS OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. >> CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. OKAY. THANKS. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU. JULIE. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WORK SESSION ITEMS THIS EVENING. SO WITH THAT AT 652,

[00:10:09]

[1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]

TEXAS FLAGS. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> TEXAS. >> HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG.

>> I PLEDGE. >> ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND

INDIVISIBLE. >> BRINGS US TO ITEM TWO. A PZ26-155. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF

[2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR:]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM BOTH THE SEPTEMBER

23RD AND OCTOBER 7TH MEETINGS. >> AND COMMISSIONER GARLAND. >> AND I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES SIX

[3. CONSENT AGENDA]

AGENDA? COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> AND, COMMISSIONER DYER. >> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION AGAIN.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. SEEING NO DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT PASSES

[A. FP26-0023 Consider a request by Traverse Land Surveying, on behalf of Norgaard Revocable Trust, for approval of a Final Plat of Lots 1-18, Block A, Lots 1X & 14X & Lots 2-13, Block B, Lots 1-11, Block C Norgaard Addition. The 60.395-acre tract is approximately located on the south side of Old Alton Road, and approximately 2,840 ft from Copper Canyon Road in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Division 1 of the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (FP26-0023, Norgaard Addition, Matt Bodine)]

>> GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION MATT BEAUDOIN, ASSISTANT PLANNER. I'M HERE PRESENTING A PLAT FOR A 45 FOOT LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALTON ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 2840FT FROM COPPER CANYON ROAD IN THE ETJ. AT THIS TIME, THIS PLAT DOESN'T QUITE MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL, BUT STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THEIR

REQUESTED EXTENSION TO A DATE CERTAIN OF NOVEMBER 18TH. >> THANK YOU MATT. COMMISSIONER

RIGS. >> MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE REQUEST TO A DATE CERTAIN OF

NOVEMBER 18TH, 2026. >> AND COMMISSIONER DYER. >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> IT'S A MOTION TO CONTINUE. NOT SEEING ANY DISCUSSION. I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD.

[A. PDA26-0004a Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a request by Denton West Joint Venture for an amendment to an existing Overlay Planned Development-Suburban Corridor (PD-SC) District, with amendments including but not limited to modification to the development standards. The approximately 9.6-acre site is generally located on the west side of Teasley Lane (F.M. 2181), between Hunter’s Creek Road and East Ryan Road in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. (PDA26-0004a, Denton West Joint Venture, Julie Wyatt)]

>> GOOD EVENING. ALL RIGHT. I'M JULIE WYATT AND I AM PRESENTING PD 264 JOINT VENTURE TO YOU THIS EVENING. AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE WORK SESSION, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST RYAN ROAD AND TEASLEY. THE PROPOSAL IS TO MODIFY AN EXISTING OVERLAY PD TO ALLOW AUTOMOTIVE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP MINOR ON THE LOT SHOWN IN GREEN ON YOUR SCREEN, AND TO ALSO MODIFY THE ACCESS REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FULL VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR ALL USES, ALL ALLOWED USES ON THAT SITE, AS WELL AS THE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR MINOR. THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE THAT, THAT TYPE OF USE. AND IN THIS COMMERCIAL DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. AND WE'LL GO OVER THE ANALYSIS NOW. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND. THIS IS A SUBURBAN CONTEXT. IT IS YOU'VE GOT ARTERIALS IN THIS AREA. YOU HAVE A PRIMARY ARTERIAL TEASLEY LANE RUNNING NORTH SOUTH AND THEN THE EAST WEST RYAN ROAD, TEASLEY LANE, AS WITH A LOT OF ARTERIALS, IS A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, PARTICULARLY AT THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS. IT'S REALLY A PATTERN YOU SEE FOR

[00:15:01]

BUT. BUT IT REALLY IS INTENDED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY ALONG CORRIDORS LIKE LIKE PLACES LIKE TEASLEY, THE THIS FUTURE LAND USE MAP PATTERN, LIKE, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IS IT REPEATS DOWN. TEASLEY. SO AT EACH SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION, YOU HAVE THAT PINK COLOR AND THAT'S THAT COMMUNITY MIXED USE. SO ON YOUR SCREEN YOU SHOW THAT THE THE MAP IN THE MIDDLE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WE'VE GOT THE, THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE OUTSIDE. AND THEN TEASLEY HAS THAT PINK, WHICH IS THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE ALONG THE CORRIDOR AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS, SUBURBAN CORRIDOR DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE BASE ZONING FOR THIS PD OVERLAY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ITS GOALS. THE OVERLAY PD WAS PUT IN PLACE IN THIS IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO ENCOURAGE HIGHER QUALITY DESIGN. AND TO GO OVER THAT EXISTING OVERLAY PD. I WON'T I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME, BUT IT WAS ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW THIS KIND OF COMMERCIAL SERVING USES, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS. SO THERE WERE REALLY THREE AREAS IN THAT PD OVERLAY THAT IT ADDRESSED PERMITTED USES. IT SCALED BACK SOME OF THOSE MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES THAT YOU FIND IN SUBURBAN CORRIDOR. IT ALSO LIMITED THE NUMBER OF DRIVE THRUS, AND ALL AUTOMOTIVE USES WERE PROHIBITED. IT ALSO INCLUDED BUFFERS AND SCREENING ADDITIONAL 15FT OF AREA OF OF SCREENING ALONG OR BUFFERING ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. SO IN THIS GENERAL AREA, TO KEEP THAT TREE CANOPY IN THAT LOCATION. ADDITIONALLY, IT REQUIRES THREE LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS ALONG THE THE FRONTAGE ON HUNTER'S CREEK AS THAT IS A GATEWAY TO THE TEASLEY TRAILS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL SETBACKS ON ON TEASLEY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE FOR LANDSCAPE SCREENING FOR. ALONG TEASLEY ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.

ADDITIONALLY, FOR SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN, THE LIGHTING IS INTENDED TO BE DIRECTED DOWNWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MINIMIZES ANY ANY GLARE ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES, AND SIGNS ARE LIMITED TO EIGHT FOOT MONUMENT SIGNS. THE PROPOSAL IS TO MODIFY THIS, KEEPING MOST OF THOSE ITEMS IN PLACE, BUT. ADDING THE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP MINOR TO THE TO THE LOT IN GREEN AND THEN THAT PROPOSED ACCESS CHANGE. STAFF ANALYZED THE REQUEST AND REALLY LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST, USE IMPACTS. WE LOOKED AT THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE WHERE, WHERE THE THE DRIVEWAYS WERE AND WHERE THE SURROUNDING ROADWAY NETWORK IS, AND REALLY ADDING THAT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR USE OR ADDING ADDITIONAL USE ON THIS LOT IS NOT REALLY IMPACTFUL TO THAT, THAT HUNTER'S CREEK CORRIDOR TO THE NORTH. SO THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE REALLY MUCH INFLUENCE ON THAT. DDC ALLOWS LANDSCAPING ALONG ALL ROADWAYS, INCLUDING STREET TREES AND SCREENING ELEMENTS. SO EVEN THOUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THIS LOT, THERE WILL BE A REQUIRED SCREENING AND STREET TREES ALONG RYAN

[00:20:05]

>> THANK YOU. JULIE. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

NOW I DON'T OH YES, COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION. SO THE INITIAL OVERLAY SPECIFICALLY SAID NO AUTOMOTIVE SHOPS. WELL, WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT? I GUESS

IT WAS IN THE BACKUP, BUT I KIND OF JUST FOR PUBLIC RECORD. >> IT IS A GREAT QUESTION. SO THE, THE ORIGINAL PD, IT INCLUDED BOTH THE LOT TO THE NORTH AS WELL AS THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH HUNTERS CREEK BISECTING IT. SO IT REALLY CREATED THIS SORT OF ENTRANCE OR GATEWAY INTO THE TCE TRAILS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSIDERATION BASED UPON THAT, THAT GATEWAY ASPECT. SO THE AUTOMOTIVE USES, WE FELT WERE A LITTLE TOO INTENSE FOR THAT SIDE OF THE PD. HOWEVER, AFTER TALKING TO THE APPLICANT AND ANALYZING IT AND SEEING HOW IT'S DEVELOPED, GIVEN GIVEN THIS SITE'S LOCATION ADJACENT TO A GAS STATION, THOSE IMPACTS WE DON'T BELIEVE WILL REALLY HAVE AN EFFECT ON TCE TRAILS. AND ALSO, GIVEN THE SCREENING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED ON RYAN, DON'T FEEL LIKE IT IS GOING TO BE CREATE THOSE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO THE NORTH, I MEAN, TO THE SOUTH. SORRY. SO

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> YES. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS.

>> THANKS. CAN I IN EXPOUND UPON THAT. SURE, IF THAT'S OKAY, PLEASE. YEAH, BECAUSE I REMEMBER IT VERY WELL. I'M THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY ASKED FOR AUTOMOTIVE MINOR TO NOT BE PART OF IT. THIS WHOLE THING WAS AN M N. ZONE ZONING UPON FIRST BEFORE IT CAME TO US. SO THEY REQUESTED SC THAT DID NOT GO THROUGH. WE ACTUALLY DENIED IT. IT WAS RECONSIDERED. I WAS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY ASKED FOR THE RECONSIDERATION AFTER TALKING WITH STAFF, FINDING OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ENCUMBRANCES ON THE SITE IF IT REMAINED M N. BUT I THINK WE FELT AS A COMMISSION THAT IT DIDN'T REALLY FIT SC BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION. IT WASN'T A HARD CORNER. THERE WAS AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF HOUSES AROUND IT. SAFETY WAS A BIG CONCERN. THERE WAS NO LIGHT THERE AT HUNTER'S CREEK. THEN, SADLY, WE HAD A FATALITY BEFORE THAT LIGHT CAME IN, SO SAFETY CERTAINLY WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND IT WAS A REASON A LOT OF THESE USES WERE NOT PERMITTED, SO I HOPE THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT JUST TO KIND OF SHED THE LIGHT ON. WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT, BUT HAD TO MOVE IT INTO SC SO IT ACTUALLY COULD BE DEVELOPED. SO WE DISCUSSED IT AND PUT ALL OF THESE THINGS IN PLACE SO THAT WE COULD GET IT MOVED THROUGH AND WE COULD, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING COULD BE HAPPY AND THE DEVELOPER COULD BE HAPPY. AND THAT'S THE POINT THAT I THOUGHT WE GOT TO THREE YEARS AGO. YEAH. SO THIS ONE TOOK ME BY SURPRISE A LITTLE BIT. BUT ANYWAY, I HOPE THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT, SHED A LITTLE BIT MORE LIGHT ON WHERE THE COMMISSION WAS AT THAT POINT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU JULIE. THANK YOU.

[00:25:08]

>> COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS GREG JOHNSON, 3190 TEASLEY LANE IN DENTON. APOLOGIZE FOR MY VOICE. CLEARLY, I HAVE A RAGWEED PROBLEM. SO I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. I OWN VARIOUS COMMERCIAL WHERE THE BROKER WHO'S HANDLED THE SITE FROM DAY ONE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAPPENING AND THEN THE MULTIFAMILY HAPPENING. I THINK JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY IS BENEFICIAL. THIS SITE, WHEN THEY DID THE CITYWIDE REZONING, WHEN WE SOLD THE APARTMENT SITE IN THE BACK, IT WAS ALL ZONED M N OR NRMU BACK THEN WE SOLD THE APARTMENT SITE AND AGREED TO A NO MULTIFAMILY RESTRICTION ON THE BALANCE. WHEN THE CITY DID A CITYWIDE REZONING, ANY PROPERTY THAT HAD A RESTRICTION BECAME A PD. SO THIS WAS NEVER A PD. IT WAS A CITY IMPOSED PD BECAUSE THERE WAS A NO MULTIFAMILY RESTRICTION ON IT.

OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN WNMU BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT WAS, I'M SORRY, EVERYTHING THAT WAS WNMU JUST GOT REZONED TO M N HOWEVER, THERE WAS A NO MULTIFAMILY RESTRICTION. SO IF THAT HADN'T HAPPENED, THE USE WOULD BE ALLOWED ANYWAY. SECONDLY, THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK WITH COMMISSIONERS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, STAFF AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS THE BEST WAY TO PUT THIS PROPERTY TO USE. SO THE I THINK IT'S THE CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT IN KNOWING THAT THE USE IS ALLOWED AND THE UNDERLYING ZONING AND WOULD BE ALLOWED HAD WE NOT AGREED TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS. ON THE VERY FIRST PD OVERLAY AMENDMENT OR PD LIGHT. THIS WAS THE THE GUINEA PIG ON THAT. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, WE DON'T HAVE A CLASSIFICATION FOR OIL CHANGE, RIGHT. OR MAINTENANCE. SO IF YOU GET YOUR OIL CHANGED, YOU GET YOUR WIPER BLADES, YOUR AIR FILTER, YOUR BRAKE PADS, THOSE THINGS THAT TAKE TEN MINUTES, THAT GETS CLASSIFIED UNDER AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR MINOR, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT REPAIR. AND SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO LOOK AT LIKE, WHAT ARE THESE BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE? SO I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST GIVE YOU GUYS A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF WHO WANTS TO BE HERE. SO IF I COULD GET THE CAMERA. THANK YOU. SO FOR CONTEXT. SO FOR THREE YEARS WE'VE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO SELL ALL THESE LOTS, RIGHT? SO CITY BOUGHT ONE TWO LOTS FOR THE FIRE STATION. FREDDY'S BURGERS AND CUSTARD IS ON THE CORNER.

DUTCH BROS NEXT TO IT. RETAIL STRIP CENTER IS BEING BUILT NEXT TO THAT. THIS IS A VERY SKINNY LOT. THESE ARE THE USERS THAT WANT TO BE THERE. AND SO WHEN YOU HEAR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, I THINK ABOUT THE BIG GARAGE WITH ALL THE BAYS OPEN AND TIRES, TIRE RACKS EVERYWHERE AND, AND BIG, YOU KNOW, AIR WRENCHES AND ALL THIS STUFF HAPPENING, THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE ARE. THESE ARE GOOD LOOKING BUILDINGS. THEY REALLY, THEY REALLY BUILD THEM NOW TO LOOK LIKE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY GO. SO I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. I'M GOING TO HAVE ONE MORE TO PUT UP THERE IN A SECOND. SO JUST A FEW POINTS TO MAKE THAT ONE. THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES, IF YOU LOOK ALL AROUND TOWN, THEY CO-LOCATE WITH FAST FOOD RETAIL, YOU KNOW, GROCERY ANCHORED, ETC. THEY'RE NICE LOOKING BUILDINGS. WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS SITE? IF YOU IF YOU LOOKED AT THAT SITE PLAN, JULIE PUT UP THERE A MINUTE AGO THAT JULIE'S PROPOSAL STILL UP HERE. CAN I SHOW WHAT'S ON THIS SCREEN FROM HER, FROM HER SCREEN THAT WAS STILL UP THERE. WELL MAYBE NOT. YEAH. SO SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SITE AND I CAN USE THE MOUSE HERE. YEAH, THERE'S A HUGE BUFFER BACK HERE. SO THIS IS A THIS IS AN OLD CREEK. NO RUNNING WATER IN IT REALLY. BUT THIS CREEK HAS A PRETTY BIG BUFFER OF SOLID TREES ON BOTH SIDES. THIS WEIRD LOT THAT'S LEFT IN THE BACK. THERE'S A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT MAKES A BIG BOX RIGHT HERE IN BIG SQUARE. SO THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY YEARS AGO.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT LOT IS EVER GOING TO BE DEVELOPABLE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY FIT A BUILDING ON IT UNTIL THAT EASEMENT GOES AWAY. IT COULD GO AWAY WHEN RYAN ROAD GETS IMPROVED, BUT IT MIGHT NOT. AND OUR CIVIL ENGINEERS BASICALLY SAID IT'S NOT WORTH WHAT YOU'LL SPEND TO TRY TO MODIFY IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SHRINK IT MUCH. POINT IS, THERE'S A HUGE BUFFER BEHIND IT. SO FOR THREE YEARS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO SELL THIS LAST LOT. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BE THERE. IF THERE WASN'T DEMAND FOR WHAT THEY DO, I DON'T THINK THEY'D GO SPEND THE MONEY TO BE THERE. BUT YOU KNOW, THESE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, RIGHT? PEOPLE, YOU GOT TO GET YOUR OIL CHANGED. YOU GOT TO CHANGE YOUR WIPER

[00:30:02]

BUT THIS SKINNY LOT IS SANDWICHED RIGHT NEXT TO THE UGLIEST VALERO GAS STATION IN THE HISTORY OF TEXAS. AND IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GET TAKEN OUT BY TXDOT AND IT DIDN'T. SO WHO WANTS TO BE THERE? IT'S REALLY KIND OF AN ANGLE AND IT'S HIDDEN BEHIND THE GAS STATION. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE LOT TO USE, WE GOT TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY WHO'S WILLING TO GO AND THAT'S WHO WANTS TO BE HERE. THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD TREAT THIS CORNER ANY DIFFERENT THAN THIS CORNER, RIGHT? IT'S IT'S THE SAME CORNER. YOU'VE GOT A NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND IT AND RETAIL AND A BIG BOX GAS STATION, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, DETENTION POND. WHAT WE HAVE OVER HERE, GAS STATION, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, MINOR AND THEN MORE RETAIL. SO TO ME, WHEN I COMPARE THESE TWO CORNERS, I MEAN I'VE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS FOR 22 YEARS. THESE ARE THE SAME CORNER RYAN ROAD. WHETHER YOU GO THE NORTH SIDE OR THE SOUTH SIDE, IT'S THE SAME. AND SO ALL WE'RE REALLY ASKING FOR HERE IS TREAT US JUST LIKE YOU DO THE CORNER NEXT DOOR. BUT OBVIOUSLY IF I COULD HAVE SOLD IT TO ANOTHER FAST FOOD USER, I WOULD HAVE. BUT WE WERE MINIMUM.

WE WERE MINIMIZED ON THE NUMBER OF DRIVE THRUS WE COULD HAVE. AND SO WE PUT FREDDY'S IN DUTCH BROS THERE WE WERE DONE. SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT USE. I THINK IT'S A GOOD FIT. THEY ALL WANT TO BE THERE, WHICH TELLS ME THERE'S DEMAND. AND SO WE WOULD JUST ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

AND I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY

QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU GUYS. >> OH SORRY. COMMISSIONER ELLIS.

>> HEY, GREG. SO JUST WITH YOUR COMMENT THAT YOU JUST MADE TO TREAT IT THE SAME AS THE CORNER.

SO I WOULD JUST ASK IF YOU REMEMBER THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD FIRST WHEN SC WAS PROPOSED, AND WE ALL DISCUSSED HOW IT WASN'T THE SAME AS THE CORNER BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS BACKED AWAY FROM RYAN. IT WAS MUCH MORE A GATEWAY INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, AS YOU POINTED OUT, AND IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE SC, WHICH IS WHY IT GOT DENIED WHEN IT WAS FIRST ASKED. SO WE IT CAME UP ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO THAT WE SAID, HEY, LET'S TREAT IT THE SAME AS THE CORNER. BUT WE SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME AND THEN WE RECONSIDERED IT TO, TO, TO GET IT TO WORK TO WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. SO I GUESS MY ISSUE IS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION, BUT THAT DISCUSSION HAPPENED

ABOUT HOW IT ISN'T THE SAME AS THE WALMART CORNER. >> WELL, SO WHEN I SAY CORNER, TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. SO IF I LOOK AT THIS CORNER HERE, I LOOK AT THIS CORNER HERE. SO I GOT A GAS STATION, I GOT A GAS STATION, I GOT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, I GOT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OVER HERE.

HERE'S YOUR ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HERE'S MORE ENTRANCES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE. I MEAN, I RESPECT YOU, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WHEN YOU GOT A BIG BOX OF WALMART GROCER. AND THAT'S A THAT'S A PRETTY BIG, PRETTY INTRUSIVE, YOU KNOW, RETAIL KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION HERE. WE'VE GOT HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BACK OF THE WALMART, RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BACK OF THESE BUILDINGS. THIS THING I THINK WAS DONE RIGHT WITH THE MULTIFAMILY BUFFERING, THE SINGLE FAMILY. IT'S HOW YOU DO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THE RIGHT WAY. AND SO WHEN I SAY CORNER MARGIE, I'M REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL CORNER. YEAH, OKAY. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU. HAD WE WANTED TO PUT JIFFY LUBE UP AT THE AT AT HUNTER'S CREEK AT THE CORNER, I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT. WHICH IS WHY IN THE BEGINNING, AND HONESTLY, I JUST FIGURED WE'LL BE ABLE TO SELL ALL THESE LOTS. SO WE'LL AGREE TO IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH ARGUING ABOUT. BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE NOW AND NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO BE THERE.

[00:35:03]

>> SO WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'LL DO WITH TWO E. WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT? I MEAN. AS ESPECIALLY IF THIS USE THEN GETS ALLOWED. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT.

>> LOOKS LIKE. UNLESS THAT DRAINAGE GOES AWAY IT'LL JUST STAY LIKE IT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. WE'VE WE'VE TRIED ALL KINDS OF THINGS. YOU COULD ACTUALLY FIT A LITTLE BITTY BUILDING ON ONE SIDE OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, BUT THEN YOU'D HAVE TO BUILD YOUR PARKING ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO IT JUST DOESN'T REALLY WORK. BUT IF, IF THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT WAS TO GO AWAY SOMEHOW WITH LIKE WHEN RYAN ROAD GOT IMPROVED, BIGGER CULVERTS AND ALL THAT STUFF, AND HE WAS WILLING TO SPEND THE MONEY ON THE STUDIES THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN. ALL THE CIVIL ENGINEERING STUFF. THEN, YOU KNOW, AN OFFICE BUILDING OR SOMETHING BACK THERE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT GOES TO BE HONEST.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. PROBABLY WANT TO DONATE TO THE CITY.

>> YOU GO AHEAD AND DO THAT NOW IF YOU WANT. >> HE WOULD HE WOULD ABSOLUTELY

GIVE IT TO YOU, I'M SURE, IF YOU WANT. >> IT. WHEN WHEN PRIVATE BUSINESSES UNDERSTAND THE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. >> THANK YOU ALL. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OR EMOTION OR QUESTIONS TO STAFF. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. YEAH.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JULIE. SO JUST REMIND ME. I'M LOOKING AT THE NOTIFICATION MAP IN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER AND THE 500 FOOT BUFFER. CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT EXACTLY GETS SENT OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS? AND BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOTTEN WE GOT ANY RESPONSES CORRECT.

>> WE GOT TWO. >> OH I'M SORRY. >> SORRY. YES. THE THE AREA IN RED IS THE 200 FOOT BUFFER. AND THAT WILL BE LETTERS TO ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE 500 FOOT BUFFER, EVERY EVERY RESIDENT WITHIN THAT WILL RECEIVE A POSTCARD. SO WE DID

RECEIVE THOSE TWO. RESPONSES. >> IT JUST NEVER SEEMS LIKE THE THE RADIUS IS LARGE ENOUGH WHEN YOU CONSIDER ALL THE HOMES IN THAT AREA. I MEAN, I KNOW YOU GUYS DID WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO LEGALLY, BUT IT JUST NEVER SEEMS LIKE IT'S EVER BIG ENOUGH.

>> COMMISSIONER. HECK. >> SORRY, THERE WAS A POINT THAT YOU MADE OUT OF SOMETHING

ABOUT A LIMIT ON DRIVE THRUS. >> YES. >> WHAT WAS THAT NUMBER? AND

KIND OF CAN YOU TELL ME THE LOGIC FOR THAT? >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THIS HAPPENED DURING PUBLIC HEARING. THE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE'S A LIMIT OF THREE DRIVE THRUS. OTHERS COULD COME IN WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SO IF A IF A IF A FOURTH WANTED TO COME IN, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THROUGH YOU. AND THEN ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY COUNCIL AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING. I BELIEVE THE INTENT WAS JUST BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT THAT DRIVE THROUGH USES GENERATE AND THE CONCERN ABOUT SAFETY AND, AND CARS MOVING THROUGH THE AREA. DID I GET

THAT RIGHT? >> YEAH. I MEAN, I'LL JUST PIPE IN AND SAY MY, MY RECOLLECTION IS YES, BUT THERE WAS I WOULD SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE CONCERN WAS THAT HUNTER'S CREEK ENTRANCE AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH THE THE SAFETY ISSUES THAT COMMISSIONER ELLIS MENTIONED, AS WELL AS A LITTLE BIT OF PUSH AND PULL BETWEEN, HEY, WE DON'T WANT THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO HAVE A CSHOP.G COMBINATION. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ON THE. THE TWO CARDS

FOR FEEDBACK. WAS THERE ANY REASON GIVEN ON THOSE? >> I LOOKED BEFORE WE CAME IN BECAUSE I THOUGHT I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT COME UP. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY RATIONALE.

>> ANY. >> THANK YOU SIR. >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS.

>> THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD TO WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT, WHAT MR. JOHNSON HAD ALREADY SAID WHEN BEFORE THE FIRE STATION. THAT WAS PART OF THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT TOO.

AND SO THOSE LOTS ARE VERY CLOSE TO TO BACKYARD NEIGHBORS. SO WE WERE TRYING TO LIMIT THE NUISANCE OF DRIVE THRUS. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO LIMIT IT, FIGURING MAYBE IF ONE WAS GOING TO GO ON THAT NORTH SIDE OF HUNTER'S CREEK, THERE WOULD ONLY BE ONE OVER THERE AND MAYBE TWO ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT THAT WAS SOME OF THE REASONING AS WELL, SAFETY BEING

[00:40:01]

AMOUNT OF CARS AND DRIVE THRUS. >> BRINGING WAS THAT DECISION MADE BEFORE THEY DID THE

WIDENING PROJECT ON TEASLEY? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS. IT WAS YEAH, THEY WERE.

>> 20. >> 23 SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE. YEAH, IT WAS AROUND THEN, I GUESS, ALSO TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE QUESTION BACK WHEN WE FIRST SAW THIS. THERE WAS SOME UNCERTAINTY ON WHAT THE FUTURE PLANS FOR RYAN ROAD WERE BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME MONEY, BUT IT GOT SCALED BACK IN THE 2019 BOND. THEN THE 23 BOND HADN'T HAPPENED YET. I

THINK WHEN WE SAW THIS. >> HALEY MAY CORRECT ME, BUT I THINK THERE ARE STILL SOME NOT FULLY DESIGNED PLANS. THE INTENT IS TO WIDEN RYAN ROAD TO THE TO THE SECONDARY ARTERIAL STANDARD OF TWO LANES EITHER WAY. BUT. 2728 IS THAT WHAT WE ANTICIPATE?

>> I BELIEVE, TIME FRAME WISE FOR THAT TO KICK OFF? YES. I THINK TO JULIE'S POINT, THERE'S STILL SOME DEBATE BECAUSE THERE'S VARIOUS WIDTHS OF RIGHT OF WAY AND CHALLENGES WITH ACQUIRING THAT, THAT IT MAY JUST END UP GETTING A CENTER TURN LANE, I THINK, IS ONE OF

THE COMPROMISES THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED. >> I THINK THAT WAS THE DIRECTION FROM THE 2019 BOND COMMITTEE, BUT I HAVEN'T KEPT UP ON THE BOND OVERSIGHT TO SEE WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN. SO, SO STILL NOT SET IN STONE. I WAS LOOKING AT OPTIONS. OKAY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HICK. >> SORRY. BECAUSE THERE WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THERE WAS A FATALITY DOWN THERE AND THIS MIGHT BE OUTSIDE OF US. SO I'M SORRY IF IT IS, BUT YOU SAID THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A DRIVEWAY ON TO TEASLEY PUT IN FOR THAT PLOT.

>> IT IS ACTUALLY NOT THAT GREEN LOT. IT IS THE LOT TO THE NORTH. SO THAT IS THE LOT THAT WOULD HAVE THOSE RETAIL THAT RETAIL STRIP CENTER THAT IS PROPOSED. THEY REPLATTED IN ORDER TO GET THAT, IT DID HAVE TO GO THROUGH REVIEW AND CIVIL ENGINEERING REVIEW TO MAKE SURE IT MET THE, THE, THE SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM THE INTERSECTION AND OTHER DRIVEWAYS. BUT, BUT

THERE IS ANTICIPATED A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION TO TEASLEY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT THAT'S

FOR SEPARATE LOT. YES. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? I GUESS I'LL KICK IT OFF AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I, I MY RECOLLECTION OF THE DISCUSSION FROM A FEW YEARS AGO WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT COMMISSIONER ELLIS HAD, AND THAT IT WAS MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THE HUNTERS CREEK AREA AND HOW IT IMPACTS THOSE HOMES TO THE NORTHWEST OF HERE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A LARGE CONTINGENT TO THE SOUTH, IF I RECALL, OF NEIGHBORS SPEAKING AT THAT TIME. YOU KNOW, I, I LOOK AT THIS AND AND TO ME, THIS TYPE OF USE, BEING IN DEMAND HERE IS A FUNCTION OF TEXDOT MORE THAN ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD DO. AND, YOU KNOW, THE IF WE WANT TO SEE DIFFERENT STYLES OF DEVELOPMENT AT THESE CORNERS NEAR NEIGHBORHOODS, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MOBILITY PLAN, IS MY OPINION. SO. ANY. THOUGHTS MOTIONS? A LOT OF FACES. COMMISSIONER ELLIS.

>> WITH THAT. >> I'M GOING TO TURN ON MY MICROPHONE. I'M GOING TO MOVE DENIAL HERE AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE TO UNDO THE WORK OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS IN THE PAST AND COUNCILS IN THE PAST. WE WORKED HARD ON THIS DEVELOPMENT TO PUT IT, TO PUT IT IN PLACE OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WE STILL HAVE SAFETY ISSUES IN THE AREA.

THIS TIME BEING RYAN ROAD, AND NO DOUBT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PUT A DRIVEWAY ON RYAN ROAD. AND WE'RE A FEW YEARS AWAY FROM THAT. AND I CAN TELL YOU JUST

[00:45:06]

THAT IS THE REASON FOR MY MOTION. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR

DENIAL, COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO SO I AGREE BECAUSE BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE AREA TOO. AND THAT LEFT IN AND OUT OF WALMART, OR IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THAT CONVENIENCE STORE ON THE NORTH SIDE IS, IS IT'S NOT GREAT. OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE WERE SOMETHING WHERE THAT ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ON RYAN ROAD, WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION? AND

WOULD THAT EVEN MEET OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? >> THAT'S A QUESTION TO STAFF,

I THINK. >> SORRY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THIS THIS.

>> THAT ONE THAT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. >> IT IS PLATTED AS A FUTURE ACCESS POINT. SO THERE IS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT THAT CONNECTS TO RYAN ROAD IN THAT LOCATION. I WOULD ANTICIPATE ONCE THAT IF AND WHEN THAT LOT DEVELOPS THAT THAT DRIVEWAY

CONNECTION WOULD WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED. >> I GUESS FOR CLARIFICATION, IS THAT THE WAY IT'S PLATTED NOW? COULD THAT GO UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THAT LOT

BEING DEVELOPED VERTICALLY? OR JUST UNLIKELY TO FINANCIALLY? >> I THINK FINANCIALLY IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE FOR THE OWNER. I DON'T THINK THERE'D BE ANYTHING STOPPING THEM FROM CONSTRUCTING

THAT SINCE THE EASEMENTS IN PLACE. >> BUT THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A

MOTION ON THE BOARD ANY SECOND. COMMISSIONER GARLAND. >> IF I HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO? WOULD I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF BASED ON KIND OF RECENT

CHANGES SINCE THE APPLICANT DONATED TO MY CAMPAIGN? >> SO THAT IS NOT A STATE LAW RECUSAL. SO BECAUSE THAT'S IN OUR ETHICS ORDINANCE, AND I AM ALSO SUBJECT TO OUR ETHICS ORDINANCE, WE DON'T GIVE DIRECT ADVICE ON THAT. SO IT IS KIND OF UP TO YOU ON IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE OR IF YOU FEEL LIKE THERE IS A CONFLICT. OKAY. I JUST RECUSE.

>> YOURSELF RECENTLY. SO I WASN'T SURE. >> YEAH.

>> SO IT'S JUST UP TO MY JUDGMENT. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I HATED ASKING THAT,

BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DID EVERYTHING CORRECTLY. >> THANK YOU. YEAH. OF COURSE.

NO PROBLEM. >> YEAH. THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO GO OUT ON A LIMB, AND YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO IGNORE THE QUESTION, BUT I WANT TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN CASE THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE CONSIDERING AND UNSURE ABOUT, SO THAT WE HAVE A DECISION THAT EVERYBODY FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH. AND THAT WOULD BE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TIME SENSITIVE THIS APPLICATION IS. IF IF THERE WAS A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO OUR NEXT MEETING SO THAT THE.

A COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD HAVE SOME TIME TO TO FIGURE THAT OUT AS FAR AS WHETHER RECUSAL WAS IN ORDER, WOULD THAT BE BENEFICIAL OR HARMFUL, HURTFUL OR NO CARE? DOES THAT MAKE

SENSE? >> SURE. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR THREE YEARS, SO THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, CLEAR POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY ONTO RYAN. THAT DRIVEWAY IS NOT ON THIS LOT. SO THESE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD IT. IF THE CONCERN IS WE DON'T WANT TRAFFIC GOING ON TO RYAN, A, THE CITY IS REQUIRING CROSS ACCESS TO ALL THESE LOTS. SO ANYBODY USING THIS LOT IS.

IT'S UNLIKELY THEY WOULD GO TO RYAN ANYWAY. BUT THE PERSON BUILDING ON THIS LOT WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD A DRIVEWAY ONTO. RYAN. OKAY. SO SO IF THE QUESTION IS, WOULD

[00:50:02]

RYAN, ONLY THAT WHEN THAT BACK LOT EVER DEVELOPS, WOULD IT BE BUILT? I THINK HE WOULD AGREE

TO THAT BECAUSE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK THEY NEED IT. >> YEAH.

>> NO, THAT HELPS. >> THAT HELPS. I THINK FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT MEANS THAT THE THE RELATIONSHIP HERE WITH THE LOTS AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS THEY'RE ACTUALLY SELLING THE LOTS TO ENTITIES WHO ARE DEVELOPING FOR THESE USES INDIVIDUALLY, AS OPPOSED TO A

COMMON OWNER DEVELOPING TO SUIT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THE APPLICANT HERE IS THE LANDOWNER WHO USED TO OWN THE BIG MOBILE HOME PARK. THAT WAS ALL THIS. WE'VE JUST BEEN SELLING OFF THE PIECES FOR HIM AS TIME GOES. OKAY, EACH OF THESE LOTS IS INDIVIDUALLY OWNED. THE USER IS WHO DEVELOPS IT. OKAY, SO I'M SURE HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO AGREE THAT THIS LOT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE DRIVEWAY ONTO RYAN ROAD, AND FRANKLY, HE'D PROBABLY BE HAPPY TO NOT

HAVE TO DO IT. >> OKAY. >> AND IF WE NEED TO CONTINUE, IF THAT I MEAN, VERSUS SAYING NO, SURE, LET'S CONTINUE IT AND CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> I THINK THAT WAS A REQUEST

FROM EARLIER. >> OH, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I SAW YOU JUMP OFF AND THEN BACK ON. OKAY. I DO NOT SEE A SECOND. SO UNLESS SOMEBODY MOVES QUICKLY, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT MOTION FAILS AND OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR EMOTION AGAIN. COMMISSIONER GARLAND.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND I THINK THE ACCOMMODATION TO NOT PUT THE DRIVEWAY ON RYAN AS THAT, AS WAS DISCUSSED, I THINK I WOULD

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT. >> OKAY. SO SO A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH AN AMENDMENT TO

ADD THE. >> IF THAT'S IF I MEAN, IF STAFF FEELS LIKE THAT'S REASONABLE, A REASONABLE. I MEAN, JULIE, SORRY TO MAKE YOU KEEP POPPING UP.

>> JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE INTENT IS TO REMOVE ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESS

TO RYAN IS. >> WELL, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE. GO AHEAD.

>> YEAH. >> I THINK MAYBE I SHOULD LOOK AT THIS CLOSER. I'M SORRY. SO FROM THIS DIAGRAM, THERE IS A POTENTIAL TO CREATE A DRIVEWAY ONTO RYAN ROAD. FURTHER BACK FROM THE THE POINT. AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A SECOND ACCESS THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT THAT IS CLOSER TO THE RYAN ROAD. AND THE INTERSECTION THERE. IS THAT AN INCORRECT

INTERPRETATION OF THAT? >> THE WAY IT'S. LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THE WAY IT'S PLATTED, IS THAT ONCE THAT LOT THAT'S THAT'S FRONTS RYAN ROAD DEVELOPS THAT THERE WOULD BE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS THAT IS. IN LINE WITH OVERLAND OVERLAND OVER LAKE DRIVE SO THAT IT WOULD LINE UP WITH THAT STREET. BUT BECAUSE THERE IS A THERE IS A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY PLAT. DID I, DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, AM I.

>> YEAH, I THINK FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S IT'S THE PURPLE DOT LOCATIONS WHERE

THERE'S A CURB CUT ACCESS. >> IT'S A PURPLE DOT FOR FUTURE ACCESS. ONCE THAT LOT DEVELOPS.

>> YEAH. >> AND IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, I BELIEVE YOUR MOTION WAS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT TWO WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUILD THAT DRIVEWAY ON LOT TWO. E SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A LIMITATION IN THE PD THAT THAT DRIVEWAY UNDER RYAN ROAD ON TWO

E ONLY OCCUR WHEN TWO E DEVELOPS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT MAKES

SENSE. >> IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR INTENTION? YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BAILING ME OUT. >> COMMISSIONER RIGGS.

>> SO, JULIE, DON'T WALK AWAY TOO FAST. SO. SO I THINK, JUST TO CLARIFY HIS QUESTION. SO I THINK HE WAS ASKING ABOUT PARTICULARLY THE THE PURPLE DOT FOR THIS SOUTH AND ON THE EAST

SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. >> SO THIS THIS RIGHT HERE, THAT'S AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT SERVES THAT THAT GAS STATION, THE WAY IT'S LOCATED, THERE MAY BE SOME ABILITY TO SHARE THAT ACCESS. IF, IF IT MET ALL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT THAT WAS THERE WAS COORDINATION WITH THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. BUT

[00:55:06]

>> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT LOCATION IS EXISTING DRIVEWAY WOULD NOT BE A NEW DRIVEWAY,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. SO THEN JUST TO, I GUESS, CLARIFY THE THE ACCESS TO RYAN ROAD, GIVEN WHAT MR. JOHNSON SAID ABOUT TWO E MAY NOT BE EVEN DEVELOPABLE. NOT SURE THEY WOULD LIKE TO AGREE TO THAT RESTRICTION BECAUSE TWO E MIGHT JUST BE UP FOR THE TAKING BY SOMEBODY WHO OWNS MAYBE TWO D OR SOME SOMETHING ELSE IN THE FUTURE FOR THAT ACCESS TO RYAN. AND IT MIGHT NOT EVER BE A DEVELOPED LOT. SO IF WE'RE PUTTING A RESTRICTION IN THAT SAYS UNTIL TWO E IS DEVELOPED, I GUESS JUST CAUTION. AND I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT IF YOU UNDERSTAND AND WOULD AGREE TO THAT, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK

HERE IF YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS BECAUSE TWO CAN'T BE DEVELOPED. >> CLARIFICATION ON ACCESS IS WARRANTED. SO THIS DRIVEWAY RIGHT HERE, THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO THE VALERO PART OF THAT DRIVEWAY IS ON THIS PROPERTY ALREADY. SO THIS PROPERTY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DRIVEWAY BECAUSE PART OF THE DRIVEWAY IS ON THE PROPERTY. SO THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY DENY THEM THE USE OF THIS DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT RIGHT HERE. SO THEY'VE GOT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR POINTS OF ACCESS. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING HERE TO GET YOUR OIL CHANGED, YOU'RE IF YOU'RE SOUTHBOUND, YOU'RE GOING TO TURN IN RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF THE STRIP CENTER AND COME OVER, OR YOU'RE GOING TO TURN IN FRONT OF THE VALERO AND COME IN. THAT'S THE LOGICAL WHAT THE CONSUMER WOULD DO IF YOU'RE NORTHBOUND TODAY UNTIL RYAN ROAD IS IMPROVED, YOU'RE AVOIDING RYAN ROAD LIKE THE PLAGUE. IT'S LIKE DRIVING ON THE MOON. YOU CAN'T NAVIGATE ALL THOSE TURNS RIGHT THERE WITH WALMART. IT'S A NIGHTMARE. SO YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO THE SIGNAL, TURN LEFT, COME DOWN BEHIND FREDDIE'S AND DUTCH BROS AND GO GET YOUR OIL CHANGED. SO UNLESS THE CITY SAID THAT THIS RYAN ROAD ACCESS RIGHT HERE HAS TO GET BUILT IN ORDER TO SERVICE THIS, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO BUILD IT BECAUSE THAT'S A LONG REACH. THIS IS A LOT OF CONCRETE TO POUR FOR THIS GUY. HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER OF THE BACK LOT TO BUILD IT. AND SO MY POINT IS, IF THE QUESTION IS ELIMINATING THE ACCESS TO RYAN GETS EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE, THEN AS LONG AS THE STAFF IS FINE WITH THE

CIRCULATION, WE ABSOLUTELY DO THAT. OKAY. >> DID THAT ANSWER YOUR

QUESTION? >> OH, I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A QUESTION. I MEAN, I IT JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE WAY THE MOTION IS STATED THAT UNTIL TWO E IS DEVELOPED, THAT. AND SO I WAS JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE AS FAR AS SOME KIND OF CLARIFICATION.

>> SURE. I DON'T SEE A SECOND YET. I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME. I DON'T SEE ONE. SO THAT MOTION WILL FAIL. I'M HERE'S WHAT I'M HEARING. I'M HEARING. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS LOT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY BACKING UP AGAINST THE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THERE'S SOME REASONABLENESS IN THE USE OF UNDERSTANDING, SOME CONCERN ABOUT ACCESS TO RYAN ROAD AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND ARE WE CREATING A PROBLEM NOW OR IN THE FUTURE AS THE THE UNKNOWN? SO I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE THE STIPULATION AND STAFF, YOU'LL HAVE TO MINCE MY WORDS HERE. THE STIPULATION THAT DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON LOT TWO E NOT BE PROVIDED. OR OR WHEN IT IS PROVIDED IT MUST BE PROVIDED IN IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CITY PROJECT ON THAT PORTION OF RYAN ROAD. BECAUSE I THINK THE CONCERN IS THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THAT ROADWAY, THE LACK OF STRIPING, THE MANHOLES, ETC. CAUSE A POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE. AND I THINK THAT IF IT WERE TO COME IN WITH AN ACCESS POINT THERE IN A PROJECT THAT WERE, WAS, WAS LOOKING AT THOSE HOLISTIC SAFETY ISSUES, THEN I THINK THAT THAT MAY GET OVER THE HUMP. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE AS FAR AS THE MOTION? AND IS

THAT A REASONABLE STAFF SIDE? >> I BELIEVE SO, IT SEEMS REASONABLE. I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF HOW WE MIGHT WORD THAT. SO SOMETHING LIKE DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON LOT TWO E TO RYAN ROAD SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS RYAN ROAD IS WIDENED AS PART OF A CITY

CAPITAL PROJECT. >> YEAH, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A

[01:00:03]

COMMISSION? SO SORRY. THAT'S MY MOTION. >> TO ME. THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF THE TURN ISSUES ARE THE FACT THAT IT'S A SINGLE LANE EACH DIRECTION. AND SO IF IT WAS DEVELOPED EITHER WIDER LANES OR ADDITIONAL LANES, THAT MAKES SENSE. I DO WANT TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK WITH THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE WHEN I DO LOOK AT THIS LOT AND I LOOK AT THE CIRCULATION, ANYBODY COMING FROM THE WEST IS, IS ESSENTIALLY GOING TO HAVE TO TURN LEFT ONTO TEASLEY, FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO A U-TURN OR TURN OVER, YOU KNOW, AND THEN ANYBODY COMING FROM THE SOUTH, YOU KNOW, YOU DO LIMIT YOUR YOUR CIRCULATION WITHOUT THAT DRIVEWAY. SO I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE GOOD WITH

THAT. >> WELL, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE ADDITIONAL USE OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR MINOR. SO IF FOR SOME REASON SOME MAGICAL DENTIST SHOWS UP NEXT WEEK AND WANTS TO BUY THIS LOT AND PUT A DENTAL OFFICE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT, THE THESE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLYING. RIGHT.

>> YOU STATE THAT AGAIN, GREG. I'M SORRY. >> SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS TO ADD AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR MINOR AS A USE ON THIS LOT. AND WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IS IN ORDER TO APPROVE THAT, THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO NOT BUILD THE ACCESS POINT ONTO RYAN ROAD UNTIL SUCH TIME. LOT TWO E DEVELOPS OR SORRY, THE CITY WIDE ROAD THAT'S ALL TIED TO THIS USE BEING ADDED. SO IF NEXT WEEK A DENTIST SHOWS UP AND WANTS TO BUILD A DENTAL OFFICE ON THAT SITE, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THIS ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION IS GOING TO APPLY.

HAVING SAID THAT, BEING PRACTICAL, YOU'VE GOT SO MUCH ACCESS ONTO TEASLEY AND THERE'S SO MUCH UNKNOWN ABOUT THE WIDENING OF RYAN AND UNKNOWN ABOUT WHETHER THAT LOT TWO IS EVEN GOING TO BE DEVELOPABLE AFTER THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY SOMEBODY WOULD GO BUILD THAT ANYWAY. BUT IF A DENTIST WANTED TO COME IN THERE AND AND SAY, I'LL GO BUILD IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WOULD CARE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS RESTRICTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SPECIFIC TO THIS HIGH INTENSITY USE OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR.

>> I THINK THE WAY THE MOTION WAS MADE, I WOULD INTERPRET THAT AS IT WOULD APPLY TO THE LOT. TWO, IRREGARDLESS IS THE PD AMENDMENT. AND JULIE, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISSPEAKING BECAUSE THE ACCESS PROVISION IS APPLICABLE TO EVERYTHING OUTLINED IN BLACK ON THAT MAP.

SO THAT CONDITION WOULD APPLY IF IT WERE ADDED AS PROPOSED TO TO E, REGARDLESS OF WHAT

HAPPENS ON TWO D. >> SO I'M TRYING TO DRIVE AROUND THE CURVES HERE. I'LL BE HAPPY TO AMEND MY MOTION THAT THE THE STIPULATION OF THE TWO E ACCESS APPLIES TO THE.

ALLOWING CROSS ACCESS THROUGH LOTS THAT DO NOT ALLOW THE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR. MINOR USE.

>> OKAY. >> SO YOU'RE. >> YOU'RE CONDITION IS THAT MAYBE THAT BETTER WORDED AS CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS TWO D AND TWO E SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED

UNTIL RYAN ROAD IS IMPROVED. >> NO, THAT THAT THE THE PROPOSED CONDITION OF THE PD THAT ALLOWS CROSS ACCESS INTO TWO E. ONLY APPLY IF. IF THERE'S A SIMULTANEOUS RESTRICTION THAT THAT ACCESS POINT NOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNTIL RYAN ROAD HAS A SIP. I'M REALLY

BAD AT MAKING THESE. SMALL AND COMPREHENSIVE. >> I'M TRYING TO THINK HOW WE.

>> CAN YOU HELP ME? JULIE. I THINK THE INTENTION IS IS TO THE APPLICANTS POINT LIKE LET'S, LET'S TIE THIS TO THE USE. AND THE THING THAT I SEE AS TIED TO THE USE FROM A CIRCULATION PERSPECTIVE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW SPECIFICALLY THE CROSS ACCESS

FROM TWO D INTO THE OTHER LOT. >> MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT >> WOULD BE IF YOU'RE.

>> IF WE'RE TYING THE ACCESS TO RYAN ROAD FOR THAT LOT TO A CAPITAL PROJECT, BUT THERE'S NO CROSS ACCESS, YOU MIGHT BE PREVENTING ANY ACCESS TO THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT. BUT MAYBE I'M

OVERTHINKING. >> I'M WONDERING. >> I DON'T. THINK SO BECAUSE YOU HAVE CIRCULATION THROUGH THE WHOLE PD SITE. SO YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE LIKE

LAND LOCKING A LOT. I DON'T THINK THAT. >> WOULD BE. I'M WONDERING IF PERHAPS YOUR ORIGINAL CONDITION ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY NOT BEING AVAILABLE UNTIL RYAN ROAD IS

[01:05:04]

YEAH. >> LET'S LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IT'S GETTING

A LITTLE CONFUSING HERE. >> THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ACCESS IS BECAUSE OF THIS THING IN THE CODE. NOW ABOUT ACCESS FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER PROPERTY WHERE THE SAME USES AREN'T ALLOWED. WHEN THIS PLAT WAS DONE, THE REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY WAS CROSS ACCESS ACROSS ALL THE LOTS. THE ONLY REASON THE CONVERSATION ABOUT ACCESS IS COMING UP IS BECAUSE NOW THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS USES THAT ARE ALLOWED ON THIS LOT HAVE TO BE ALLOWED ON THIS LOT, WHICH I THINK WAS AN WAS AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF SOMETHING ELSE. AND SO GIVEN THAT THE REASON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACCESS AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE IS TO TALK ABOUT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR MINOR BEING ALLOWED. ALL I'M SAYING IS IF IT'S NOT AN AUTOMOTIVE MINOR REPAIR USE GOING THERE, THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS NOT APPLY BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE IN MY OPINION, FOR THEM TO APPLY.

>> YEAH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DYER. >> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE BOARD IS WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD ALLOW THE OVERLAY TO LET THE AUTOMOTIVE MINOR IN, BECAUSE HE IS CORRECT. THE OWNER OF LOT D IS NOT GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY TO IMPROVE ESSENTIALLY LOT E BY PUTTING IN A BIG LONG STREET AND POSSIBLE DRIVE ON TO RYAN ROAD. SO TO ME, THAT'S KIND OF A NON-ISSUE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH ACCESS POINTS FOR THAT PROPERTY BETWEEN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT IS THERE. NOW THAT'S KIND OF SHARED BETWEEN THEM AND THE GAS STATION. BUT THEN THE DRIVE BEHIND THE SLOT THAT WILL GET THEM OUT ONTO THAT HUNTERS CREEK ROAD. SO I FEEL LIKE THE ONLY QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD BE ANSWERING RIGHT NOW IS, DO WE WANT TO ALLOW THE AUTOMOTIVE MINOR OR DO WE NOT WANT TO

ALLOW IT? >> YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK THIS HAS CROSSED MY THRESHOLD OF GETTING TOO CONFUSING FOR US, WHICH MEANS IT'S DEFINITELY TOO CONFUSING TO COUNCIL. SO. SO I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND JUST MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IT AS

PRESENTED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER GARLAND. >> I WOULD SECOND THAT. WE

APPROVE IT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> OKAY.

>> COMMISSIONER RIGGS? >> YEAH. COMMISSIONER DYER KIND OF BEAT ME TO IT AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE MAKING IT OVERLY COMPLICATED. I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER ELLIS'S CONCERNS AND I SHARE HER CONCERNS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I REALLY DON'T SEE A SMALL USE THERE CREATING THAT MUCH MORE HAVOC. SO I THINK THE WHAT'S BEFORE US

TODAY, I WOULD APPROVE IT. SO. >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS. >> THANK YOU. YEAH. AND IT WAS GETTING WAY TOO CONFUSING. SO THANK YOU FOR AMENDING THAT MOTION BECAUSE IT DIDN'T NEED TO GET THAT CONFUSING. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT'S WHY WE SPENT ALL THE WORK WE DID, BECAUSE IT ISN'T THAT EASY. IT JUST ISN'T A HARD CORNER. THAT'S THAT EASY WITH THE LIMITED ROAD ACCESSIBILITY, ALL OF THE HOMES IN THE AREA, A ROAD THAT'S PROBABLY TOO BIG AND TOO FAST FOR RIGHT THERE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WE'VE JUST GOT A WHOLE LOT GOING ON THERE.

SO THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION THEN, AND SOMETIMES THINGS ARE JUST NOT QUITE READY FOR PRIME TIME. AND FOR ME, THIS IS JUST NOT READY. MAYBE WE DISCUSS IT A DIFFERENT TIME.

FOR ME PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN MAYBE RYAN ROAD IS DONE. SO THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT FOR THE DENIAL. IT'S NOT THAT I WANT TO HANDCUFF DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ABOUT. I WOULDN'T HAVE CALLED FOR THE RECONSIDERATION IF I WAS. WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS GET IT TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD GET IT DEVELOPED. AND, AND WE'RE GETTING THERE, YOU KNOW, SO I JUST CAN'T GET ON BOARD WITH IT. BUT THANK YOU FOR MAKING IT MUCH SIMPLER AND TIDIER FOR

THIS COMMISSION TO, TO, TO REVIEW AS WELL AS COUNSEL. >> YEAH, SURE. YEAH. AND I'LL JUST SAY THAT I RECOGNIZE THERE ARE. UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE FUTURE, ABOUT THIS AREA.

ULTIMATELY, THE PHYSICAL SEPARATION FROM HUNTERS CREEK AND THE OTHER PORTIONS OF, OF WHAT WE CONSIDERED ORIGINALLY IS WHAT MAKES ME THINK IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY UNDOING THE WORK WE DID. IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, PUTTING SOME WINDOW DRESSING ON IT. DOES IT LOOK

[01:10:06]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ELLIS. >> IF I MIGHT JUST THIS LAST THING AND I'LL STOP TALKING.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED, WHICH IS AGAIN, WHY SO MANY USES WERE NOT ALLOWED, WAS BECAUSE THIS FEELS IT ALWAYS FELT MNI UNDERSTAND THAT WE COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED AS M N SO WE HAD TO DO WHAT WE DID WITH SC. BUT IT IT'S TO IT'S TO CREATE A MORE NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT GREAT LENGTH. SO IF WE DON'T HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE AND WAIT FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN, I MEAN WE'RE JUST NEVER GOING TO GET THOSE. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT WANTING, YOU KNOW, ACCESSIBLE, NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY THINGS THAT ARE WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE MULTIFAMILY BEING RIGHT THERE AND, YOU KNOW, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY THINGS GOING IN THERE.

AND SO FAR, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY THINGS GOING IN THERE. WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF DRIVE THRUS, WHICH YES, WE ALLOWED. NOW WE'VE GOT SOME RETAIL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. I HOPE IT'S SOMETHING GOOD MR. JOHNSON. BUT ANYWAY, SO THOSE THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHY I. IT'S ONLY BEEN THREE YEARS. THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGED THERE IS WE HAVE A FIRE, YOU KNOW, THE FIREHOUSE NOW AND WE HAVE A LIGHT. SO WE'RE GETTING THERE. WE'RE GETTING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA AND DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING THAT WE WERE GOING TO HOPE WAS GOING TO BE VERY NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY.

>> YEAH. THANK YOU. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE THAT THIS IS NOT A MIXED USE AS WAS THROWN OUT OR WALKABLE AREA. AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, I THINK THAT THAT'S DOWNSTREAM OF TEXDOT. AND UNFORTUNATELY, MOVING 50,000 CARS A DAY IS HARD TO MAKE COMPATIBLE WITH A VISION OF A WALKABLE AREA NEXT TO A COMMUNITY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY, NOT SEEING ANY. I'LL CALL FOR A VOTE ON THE BOARD. THAT ITEM PASSES FIVE ONE BRINGS US TO OUR OOPS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MATRIX ITEM 6APZ26-154.

[A. PZ26-154 Hold a discussion regarding the Planning and Zoning Project Matrix.]

>> THERE HAVE BEEN NO UPDATES TO THE MATRIX SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, BUT HAPPY TO CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL MIGHT WISH TO ADD BY WAY OF YOUR NORMAL COUNCIL UPDATES. THE ONLY ITEM I BELIEVE THAT HAS GONE BEFORE THEM SINCE OUR LAST MEETING WAS THE DATA CENTER

CODE AMENDMENTS, WHICH WERE APPROVED. >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONS FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE MATRIX? NOT SEEING ANY. BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN.

[7. CONCLUDING ITEMS]

DOGS. ANY OTHER CONCLUDING ITEMS, COMMISSIONER ELLIS? >> THANK YOU. SATURDAY'S DAY OF THE DEAD. SO EVERYBODY HAVE FUN AT THAT. BE SAFE AND HAVE A BLAST.

>> COMMISSIONER RIGGS. >> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO ECHO BOTH YOUR SENTIMENTS. I MEAN, GET OUT THERE AND VOTE AND GO TO A DAY OF THE DEAD. THAT'S WHAT MORE WAY CAN YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE CIVIC ACTIVITIES? THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY AS FAR AS EARLY VOTING IS YOU CAN GO TO THE DENTON COUNTY WEBSITE AND PULL UP A SAMPLE BALLOT EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE AT. AND ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF DOING EARLY VOTING IS YOU CAN VOTE ANYWHERE IN DENTON COUNTY. SO EVEN IF YOU DON'T WORK NECESSARILY IN DENTON OR WHERE YOU'RE VOTING LOCATION IS, IT'S A LOT EASIER TO GET OUT THERE AND VOTE. SO EARLY VOTING IS THE WAY TO DO IT. OKAY.

>> VERY GOOD. NOT COMMISSIONER ELLIS, SORRY, COMMISSIONER DYER. >> GO VOTE.

>> THERE YOU GO. IT'S A IT'S A CLEAR MAJORITY. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, WITH NO OBJECTION,

[01:15:04]