Nov 18, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-11-18 4:30 PM

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session for Wednesday, November 18, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 430. We don't have any citizen comments on the consent agenda at this time, so we can step into the clarification of agenda items. We'll actually go right into work session reports, actually, which leads us to receive a report and hold discussion regarding the 2020 Denton Mobility Plan update, and I'll turn it over to staff to provide us this presentation. Thank you very much, and good afternoon, members of the commission, Brian Yon, city traffic engineer, here to talk to you today about the 2020 update of the City of Denton Mobility Plan. Let me share this screen, did everybody see that presentation? Okay, so in order to kind of break the mobility plan into manageable sizes for presentation purposes, we divided the city into five different areas, north, south, east, and west, and then a downtown area as well. And we have presented this mobility plan, these five, at least two or three times each, so we're getting really good at the presentation portion for this. Hold on, I'm gonna ask to move the mic a little bit closer. Does that help? That's much better, actually. Okay, thank you. So the presentation tonight is kind of a high-level presentation. I will talk about each of the five areas individually, but we will not go into a lot of detail. All of the presentations are online at the cityofdenton.com/mobilityplan, and because we recorded each of the five community, virtual community meetings, and the Q&A sections are on there as well, both in the video and in a written summary. So if you have questions that you think of later and we don't get to them today, I invite you to delve a little bit deeper into those presentations, where we really talk about very low-level specific issues and answer questions that the community has risen. So just a brief overview. The 2020 update of the mobility plan is the first update that really encompasses the three areas. We've got the thoroughfare plan, which we've all seen before. We have a bike plan, which we had a bike plan before from about 2012, 2014, but we've got a new pedestrian plan element in this as well. And so for each of these areas, we'll talk a little bit about the methodology and some of the updates that are included. But this is the first fairly comprehensive mobility plan that the city of Denton is going to publish, where we talk about roads, vehicular access, bike access, and pedestrian access. Again, we try to update the plan every five years. Every core function of the thoroughfare plan is corridor preservation. We need to reserve the right-of-way as development occurs and really establish what type of facility both for bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular that we plan or project the need for in that corridor and secure that right-of-way as development occurs. So each of these plans was impacted and influenced by the need and the desire to improve safety. That's along the lines of our Vision Zero program. We've also tried to improve connectivity and focus on our multimodal options, which is really embedded in the complete streets approach that the city is about. So I'll start with the thoroughfare plan. So the foundation of the thoroughfare plan update is the comprehensive plan. That identifies land uses and densities, et cetera, that are associated with the undeveloped portions of Denton and kind of give us an idea of what the future holds as far as proposed trip generation and facility and infrastructure needs. Again, this is just some illustrations of the land use map and how we'll go through it a little bit, how we use this land use to develop a trip generation and travel demand forecast for not only the vehicular but the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes. This is what I call the nerdy part. So each of these, if you look at the map with the little blue zones, those are the traffic analysis of, and each of the entire city was divided into several hundred of these zones. Each has population and employment estimates. So we take those population and employment estimates and use some regional factors from the COG to turn those into trip generation and trip, and then we distribute those trips again using some information we've got from COG and some travel demand, travel and some origin destination information. We apply a mode choice, how many people we expect to use a private vehicle, how many people we expect to bike or walk, and then also with our transit partners, what that ridership might be as relative to transit in the future, and then we run a model that assigns all of these different trip modes to the infrastructure in the city of Denton. So this helps identify corridors that may become overloaded. We need to augment with parallel facility or it also helps in sizing the roadways and determining classification of each of the roadways in the city and where our trails and sidewalks need to be. So again, I'm talking third of our plan, roadway classifications, freeways, and you'll see those on our map as primarily black lines, typically owned and maintained by check stop, right away varies, the number of lanes varies, and the capacity varies because these are facilities that are intended to be fairly high speed, high volume, Luke 288, 35, US 380 in portions. The true freeways that are controlled access are the ones that have the ramps and the frontage roads where you can't directly access the main roads. So the next category is primary material. This can be either city owned or check stop owned. The city right of way is typically 135 feet or primary, can be four or six lanes and we'll talk a little bit about cross section in a minute, but again, the primary arterial is a little bit higher volume, higher speed, 25 to 50,000 cars a day estimate. That's a comfortable capacity limit for primary arterial. Secondary arterial, excuse me, primarily owned by the city, a little less regional in nature, kind of feeds the primary arterial network, connects to the collectors and the residential areas, a little bit less right of way, 110 feet, two to four lanes typically maximum, and then again, 15 to 25,000 vehicles per day would be a reasonable expectation of capacity. And then collector, these are almost all city owned. We've actually got two collector sizes. The typical collector is a 65 feet, in the criteria manual we identify a major collector, which is very similar to secondary arterial and right of way, it's 110 feet, but two to three lanes and 10 to 15,000 vehicles a day, again, that comfortable expectation of capacity. So I want to spend a little bit of time here talking about cross sections because this is one of the big areas of change in the mobility plan. So what you see on the left hand side of your screen is our existing primary arterial cross section. It is defined as a six lane divided roadway with on street bike facilities and adjacent sidewalks and 135 feet right of way. So what we're trying to do on the right hand side, we've got proposed, these are new built, so this is greenfield construction. We're trying to build some flexibility into what we can call a primary arterial because it's really, again, context sensitive and complete streets practices tell us that the character of the roadway can change even though the classification is not. So we've got a six lane divided facility, but you'll notice that we've moved the bike to a multi use shared path on the side, trying to get those cyclists off the street, off of, and again, this is a primary arterial, so that's a little higher speed, little higher volume expected infrastructure, and we're just not really comfortable keeping the bikes on street. We'd rather move them to a side path. And then again, this is greenfield construction, but as we build these primary roadways in the fringe areas, the rural areas of the city, we can start with two or three lanes and still preserve that right away, the corridor with the expectation based on our travel demand model that those volumes may increase, but day one, you're not going to have 45,000 cars a day. You may have 4,500 cars a day. So we're trying to build in flexibility into the mobility plan to allow some different approaches in roadway construction. Again, primary arterial, this is a reconstruction in an urban alternative. Again, we can go back with a six lane roadway and have some bike facilities and sidewalks on the side, or we can, what they used to call a road diet, we can utilize one of the outside lanes as a buffered bike facility, something like what you've seen on Hickory and Welch, and we'll see soon on Ankle up close to Windsor. So again, flexibility, trying to identify different alternatives rather than just a primary arterial, a six lane divided roadway, and that's that. Very similar of a secondary arterial, our current cross section is a four lane divided with on-street bike facilities. What we're looking at now is if you want to have a four lane, if you want to have on-street bike facilities on a secondary arterial, we're recommending that they be buffered so that you separate those cyclists from what could be a high volume, high speed roadway. And then again, the rural alternatives, we don't need to start out with four lanes. We can start out with two and grow the roadway as development occurs or as those trips appear on the roadway infrastructure. Again, same thing with the urban reconstruction alternatives. A four lane roadway can become a three lane roadway with either on-street bikes or wider sidewalks that serve as a side path, or we could even introduce on-street parking, and this is a traffic calming measure. Anytime we can introduce side friction, we can slow the speeds down and really change the functionality and the feel of the roadway. Collectors are the same thing. Currently, we've got a two lane with on-street parking and a three lane with center and left turn lane. And you can see that we've got a number of alternatives with on-street bike, off-street bike parking, parallel, or this could represent diagonal or head end parking. Again, just trying to increase the number of alternatives for new development and redevelopment. So now I'm going to start with the northern sub area, and again, this is going to be fairly high level. So the left-hand side of your screen and all these shots is going to be the existing 2015 mobility plan, and the right-hand side will be the draft 2020 plan. And what you'll see, and I think fairly consistently on all five sectors, is if you look on this, it's a great example, we've identified a lot of future links, a lot of collectors that are these dashed lines, and what we've tried to do is clean up a lot of that connectivity. This is fairly prescriptive, the spacing is fairly tight on the 2015 mobility plan, and what we want to do is just provide a base infrastructure, take a lot of the collectors away in the undeveloped areas, and let the development guide that roadway spacing. We'll identify the primary corridors and primary and secondary arterials, and we will allow development and the type of development to determine the spacing of the number of collectors. So that's a major takeaway. On this, this is the northern sub area, which you'll see here, this, again, the black facilities are what we're calling our controlled access, our freeway facilities, 288 west of 35, 380 west of 288, and then 428 becomes, and this is currently in feasibility, so it's not an adopted plan yet, but TXSTOT is looking very closely at converting that two-lane rural roadway to a potential four or six-lane controlled access facility, connecting to this, this is called the outer loop, and this is something that's been on the books for many, many years. That is a very regional nature, perhaps all the way around the eastern side of the Metroplex, Garland and around Mesquite, just truly becomes an outer loop for the entire North Texas area, but connecting that to our loop 288 facility, and then over to 35, again, with a controlled access facility. Again, this is the downtown area. Sorry to interrupt, Brian. Commissioner Beck, I think, has a question on the previous slide. Thank you, Chair. Brian, can you describe how, I mean, what's our process for interacting with TXSTOT and COG on these large regional, you know, they're going through our territory, as it were, so we should have a large say, but, I mean, I understand that they're also taking a regional and state-level perspective on some of these. Can you describe how our advisory capacity is on those larger kind of roadways that are not strictly owned by us? Sure. So, and again, we definitely play a role in the determination of these alignments and the institution and the completion of these roadways through our area. We have representation on the COG Regional Transportation Commission, the RTC. TXSTOT's a little bit different. We don't have representation with TXSTOT, but we do work very closely with them and their planning group to identify preferred alignments and potential hazards. So the city gets to voice its opinion. At the end of the day, if the TXSTOT and the COG determine that this is the preferred alignment and they go through the public hearing process and dot the I's and cross the T's, a lot of that truly is left in the hands of TXSTOT and COG. So we are certainly advisors throughout that process, but the true interstate system and the regional controlled access, the regional freeway system is something that many times is we reflected on our plan because it's on TXSTOT's plan. And so Loop 9 has evolved over, and I've been in the Metroplex for 30 years and it was on the books when I got here. So it's something that has undergone excruciating public input and review. And the alignment that you're seeing here is one of 20 different alignments that was studied by the COG and TXSTOT as they looked at where the preferred corridor would be. City didn't certainly play a role in that. And so we ended up with this particular alignment. 428 is a little bit different. That alignment is existing and they're not proposing a new alignment. They're simply proposing or conducting a feasibility study to determine whether or not it justifies the upgrade to a controlled access facility. So in the 288 West, that corridor certainly is something that the city of Denton was keen on securing and we still remain convicted, very interested and a large participant in trying to get that executed and completed. A lot of the alignment study, TXSTOT hires a consultant. They go through the process, they go through the environmental process, and the city and the public has the opportunity to offer input throughout that public process. So would you recommend that, I mean, if citizens wanted to be, if Denton citizens wanted to be involved, is the best place to insert, is it to insert opinion at our local hearings when we discuss this like you just did recently, or is it better to insert in the TXSTOT public hearings? Where's the greater impact on that? I think you need to do, my recommendation would to someone who is, has an interest in and voicing a comment or an opinion is you would do both. So the more times that TXSTOT or COG hears a comment, if they hear it from the city and if they hear it at their own public hearings, the more times they hear that concern or those issues, the better. So I don't know that there's one that would actually, you know, this trumps the other. I think you need, if it's truly important to your, either your property or your business or just as to you as a citizen, then you need to be as active as you can. And so we certainly, we relay the input that we get from those, that we receive from our community meetings, the virtual community meetings. But when TXSTOT or the COG holds these regional public hearings and these public meetings, we need to be in attendance to those as well. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Anything else? Yes. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. What is the road that is the red dotted north-south line between 35 and then the locust there north of the 288 loop right there, what road is that? I'm blanking. I can. Is it even in existence? No, no, no. It's not. It's not. And so that's where, when you see a dash line, that's a proposed facility that's not on existing alignment. Is it north? Is it north Bonnie? Is it Bonnie Bray? Well, it looks like it's tying into Bonnie Bray. Bonnie Bray comes up right here, if you can see where our cursor is. And it's an extension. I'm not sure that we're calling it Bonnie Bray. I have to go back and look. I don't want to speak out of turn. But Bonnie Bray hits loop 288 right about where it starts. So it very well may be a geographic extension of Bonnie Bray. Is that the hills of Denton? Yes, and those, and my video is lagging here, so I apologize. But I guess the decisions on where those are projected, I'm just seeing this from a planning standpoint here, that it, I know this is really, we're not codifying anything whatsoever here. But it seems like something should go north of Milam even, if we're basically creating with what the extension of 156 over to 35, and then the extension of locusts all the way north to that outer loop. And we're talking about probably either land that's in the ETJ or it's in Sanger's ETJ. So it's not really even under our control. Right. So part of that, I was just going to speak to that. So you've got the city of Denton has its own mobility plan and thoroughfare plan. The county has its own mobility plan and thoroughfare plan. Most of our adjoining cities have some kind of a mobility plan. It's very possible that they adopt the county plan and then Cog has a regional plan. So we've got several different layers. Just because it's not shown on our mobility plan, it very well may be an ETJ and, but the county has a background plan as well. I believe they adopted theirs in 2017. So they've got a couple more years before they update. We tend to work with all of our stakeholder partners, the county and the Cog, trying to reflect the thoughts of other agencies and municipalities and how that folds into, you know, where do our roads connect to their roads, basically. That works. All right. Thank you. That's all I had. Anything else? I'll move on. Okay. So, again, back to the downtown sub-area. Not a lot of changes. Some of the major changes that we see here are Elm and Locust, we're taking those from primary to a secondary. Those two roadways function, even if they remain as one-way facilities, they really function at a different level than a U.S. 380 university. That's a primary. Even Carroll, but again, just really different context. They go through the downtown area, they've got on-street parking, they've got a higher driveway density, and so we're bringing those down to a little bit different size. If you look at the 2015 plan on your left, West Oak Street tying back on the other side of 35 is shown as a primary, and just for corridor consistency, we're bringing that back to a secondary arterial. A lot of these roadways are just, the context does not lend itself to be a primary, which is, again, that higher speed, higher volume facility. All right, western sub-area. Here we're working with a lot of our development partners, and if you'll notice, we've got a greater number of primaries. Some of it is, we're reflecting 156, it doesn't show on the 2015 map, and 2449, but we've also got this new facility here, 288 West, tying in through Hunter Cole. We've reflected a lot of their roadway alignments and cross-sections, and in fact, we're still working with them on some of their thought processes on whether or not a primary is required on all of these, or if they want to modify those secondaries. Again, the primary and secondary, we can get a four-lane roadway and call it a primary, we can get a four-lane roadway and call it a secondary. The primary difference is the right-of-way, and what amenities that allows us to put in the right-of-way. Our initial take is we'd like to get the 135 feet, because it gives us a lot of room for off-street shared use side paths or our bicycle facilities, but again, we've seen a lot of fewer roadways, but in the western section, we actually are taking those. We see the growth, we see the rooftops coming, and we're projecting a greater need for roadway capacity in this area. Brian, I have a quick question for you. Sure. It seems like in the couple you've shown us thus far, there's been a simplification on linear pathways, like point A to point B. On the left-hand side even, that one you're just hovering over, the dashed red primary, it was a green S-curve east to west. On the 15 and on the 20, it's basically a straight line. Can you talk about the rationale? Because I understand that the mobility plan does not actually signify where roads are to go. It kind of just gives a general picture, but on the right-hand side, it seems like they've all been straightened out with no perceived curvature to the roads. Can you talk about the rationale in terms of the adherence to that or the expectations to adhere to that? So a couple of different things, and I do want to touch on the fact that what we're showing is a very conceptual, and that's what a mobility plan is supposed to be, very conceptual. We need a roadway, and I'll use the 2020 as an example here. We need an east-west archery, a secondary primary, from point A to point B. Typically, what we'll do is follow property lines, and what the 2015 mobility plan did was not to follow property lines. So we ended up bisecting a lot of properties, and that's very, very difficult to develop a roadway network. We try to identify the primary links. These are the major connections that we need to see through here. We do have some collectors shown as you get a little closer to 28835, but our concept with this update is to identify that backbone, that structure of primary and secondary arterials. Major collectors will identify, but we really want to let the property develop and determine where those intermediate connections need to be. So out to the west, you've got some very large parcels, and we're simply trying to be sensitive to let's keep the roadways kind of on the property lines where we don't take the entire cross-section from one parcel, and let's let that development fill in the collector network, because we've got requirements, and we do a traffic impact analysis. They have to provide the roadway capacity to serve their development, but we don't want to over-tax or over-exact the roadway cross-section. So it is a simplification, and that was the intent, is to simplify the roadways where we have a partner like Utter Coal, and they can give us a better background of here's where we want our roadways and our collectors, and try to reflect that. But again, it really was just to identify here's the major, the backbone structure, and we'll let the development fill in those intermediate connections. Great. I appreciate that. Some of the stuff, if you look at the left-hand side, those secondary arterials are spaced extremely closely. For primaries and secondaries, you're looking from a half mile to a mile is pretty typical, and so we've got, there's a lot of roadway capacity in that 2015 mobility plan that we're not necessarily seeing the need for. So we'll let the development, again, fill in that, the collector system, and that how do we get our people to the major roadways, and we'll identify where those major corridors need to be, primarily, again, following existing protocols. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Southern sub-area, this probably changed the least. From between 2015 and 2020, you can see that most of the red lines, the major, the primary arterials, are still primary arterials. We do have this new connection along Hickory Creek, Rush Creek, that we're tying into 2499 all the way to 35. And again, that connects over to some of the 100 coal stuff, and 288 is now a major corridor through that south portion, tying into 35. And then, so again, not a lot of changes. A lot of these are existing roadways. You can see the amount of dashed, red, green, and blue, versus some of the previous slides. A lot of these are already existing, and we did not see the need to eliminate or add. So again, this one stays very, very closely to the same between 2015 and '21 plans. And then the eastern sub-area, this is probably one of the areas of greatest change. And so we've talked a little bit about the outer loop that's up here off of Sherman, and it comes down to Milam. We've talked about the 428 possible conversion to a controlled-access facility. We're also talking about 380 as a controlled-access facility with TechStop and the Cobb. That is the ultimate plan, whether or not that's feasible. Again, we're still studying that. I know the county has some concerns about converting that 380 East to a controlled-access facility because of the impact it might have on existing businesses and driveway access, et cetera. And one of the other things that we're talking about with the Cobb and TechStop is this little dashed line between 380 and 288. So again, looking from a regional perspective, if we can identify a corridor where we can put basically a freeway, a direct connection between future 380 as a freeway to future 288 as a freeway, then we can take our intent is to make it more attractive for through traffic just to follow this line and stay on 288 instead of coming through town on university. So again, trying to downplay the need for university as a through route by providing a much more attractive, higher speed, higher volume, just more capacity. If we stay on the freeway sections, we'll get through town quicker, especially if you'll remember that we're looking at on the west side of 288, 380 as a controlled access corridor as well. I know it's going to come up, so I'm going to go ahead and talk about this black line here that we're showing cutting across the green belt is something that's been put out by Cobb and TechStop. They're calling it the integrated corridor, and the idea was to provide, because 380 is kind of stalled as far as some of the improvements that the Cobb wanted to make, and loop nine is probably pretty far off in the future and pretty far north as far as viability for intermediate corridor, they identified using existing alignments trying to connect various different county roads and city roads all the way from common county to 428 as a kind of an alternative to the 380 freeway section and before the loop nine freeway section is constructed. We are simply reflecting that on our plan because it's being examined, it's being studied. It may not turn out to be viable, and I think there's a public meeting in December. I forget the actual date, but I believe it may be on TechStop's website or we may actually have it in one of our mobility plan meetings where we talked about this corridor specifically. So this is not something that the City of Denton developed, we're simply reflecting the information that we have from the Cobb and TechStop. Any questions? Christopher Beck. Thank you, Chair. Brian, yeah, so maybe to just hammer home that earlier point. As this impacts Carter Ranch, Clear Creek, some of the development in Hartley Field that we've heard about recently, this development here, or this potential for this controlled access road that looks like the northern parts of Agave. If our citizens wanted to make sure their concerns were met, they not only should talk with you as they have been at that, whatever, month ago beauty about the Northeast region, that they should also be attending and comment to Cog, and they should also be attending this December 2nd, I believe it's December 2nd, TechStop 380 corridor meeting. They should be hitting all of those. Correct. And so I believe the way that TechStop's doing their public meetings now, it's a range of dates. So they're going to leave the public comment open. They may have a Zoom meeting, but they typically leave their public comment period open for quite some time. And so yes, we encourage anyone who's got a concern about a proposed freeway through this part of the county and the city, please, yes, we've received a number of comments. People have made comment on our interactive mobility plan map, but we do encourage them to attend and voice those same concerns with the other stakeholders, and that will be the Cog and TechStop. So yes, definitely attend. We can share that. I'm not sure that we know the exact date right now, but when we have that, we can certainly share that with this group and any other who will put it on our mobility plan website so that the citizens can participate via those public meetings as well. Yeah, it definitely seems like a sensitive, not sensitive, but well, sensitive right there at the eastern boundary in the Clear Creek itself. There's a lot of conflicting stakeholders for that particular alignment. You can see how that would affect Carter development. So developers might have concerns. You can see how that would affect our infrastructure as a city. You can see the environmental-oriented people having issues about that particular alignment. There's a lot of stakeholders in the shown alignment, and I think there's going to be some contention there. Oh, definitely. There already has been some, yes. Yes. There's quite a bit of concern. Thanks, Brian, I appreciate it. Okay. So moving on to the second element, and that's the bicycle plan. One of the approaches that we've taken with this update of the bike plan is to look at what we call the level of stress profiles, and that's the comfort level that different riders have on different types of infrastructure. And if you just focus on nothing else, just this left-hand part, more than 50% of the total population are interested but concerned, they're not really comfortable with on-street bike facilities. And this is, in our discussions with council, this is one of the primary reasons why we're looking to enhance our off-street, those side paths, those shared-use paths, the trail system, enhance that network versus more of a focus on on-street, the buffered bike lane or the protected bike lane. There are elements in town, excuse me, areas in town where we'll always have on-street. It's not really feasible to build an off-street pathway either due to right-of-way or drainage corridors or whatever. So we'll always have some on-street infrastructure, but we're really looking for every opportunity to move that off-street and, by doing so, serve more of those people who would ride if they have the right kind of bike facility. So with that in mind, I'll look at, this is the 2014 bike plan, and I'm not going to get into color, but if you look, it's pretty easy to tell the, a lot of the on-street, and that's the orange and the yellow and the red. Some of the purple stuff is more trail-oriented on the 2015 plan. But if you look at the 2020 plan, what's green is off-street, and it's hard to see that what's brown is off-street as well. So we're really, really trying to add to that off-street network. The brown is trails, and the green would be our off-street shared site path. The blue is the on-street network that we, a lot of it is already existing, and a lot of it is in areas where it's just not feasible for us to go get an additional 20-feet right-of-way to put a site path. So what we're trying to do is what we've done on Hickory and Welch and what we'll be doing on Oak Street is we'll narrow the on-street vehicular lanes and provide that buffered bike lane. If you've seen the bollards, we're going to be using more and more of those to create, I call it, it's not really a separated or a protected bike lane because those bollards won't stop a car, but it's an aggressively buffered bike lane, and that's, for a lot of our on-street bike facilities, that's what we're going to be pushing. So just to take away from this, you'll see a lot more green and brown, which is our off-street facilities than we proposed in 2014. Brian, I just wanted to pause real fast. I think Becky, the city engineer, is on the line and maybe can provide insight to this. Becky, are you there? Well, I thought she was there, Richard. Do you know if she's connected? I haven't seen the participant list. Yeah, it looks like she is connected. Well, we can certainly circle back around and have her come back. Thank you. Oh, there she is. Sorry about that. Can you hear me now? Yes. My apologies. Sorry. Yes, thank you. So this is Becky Devaney, city engineer, director of capital projects. Brian, thank you for mentioning that public meeting. I just wanted to provide that information. TxDOT is going to have the second public meeting on the U.S. 380 Denton County feasibility study, and that will be conducted, like Brian mentioned, through a virtual public meeting. The materials are posted on the keepitmovingdallas.com website, and the public meeting comment period is from Wednesday, December 2nd through Thursday, December 17th, and we will make sure that we get with our public affairs team and have that posted on the city website and also through our social media posts, so I just wanted to share that information with you, so thank you for taking the time to let me pause and mention that. Thank you, Becky. Okay, so moving on. So the last major element of our mobility plan is the pedestrian plan. We've never really had a full-blown pedestrian plan with detailed descriptions and prioritization, so there is no before picture to look at, but I will spend a little bit of time explaining what the colors on this mean. The yellow lines are existing pedestrian infrastructure, primarily sidewalks, and so you can see we've got pretty good coverage, a lot of the newer areas better coverage, but we've got a couple of other colors that I don't need to talk about, and that's this blue color. Those are sidewalks that are programmed or under construction associated with roadway improvement projects or other capital projects that the city is sponsoring, so we've already got these yellow, and then the blue are known all the way, possibly in the next three years, five years, but they will be existing in five years. They'll be shown as yellow. And then what the mobility plan looked at was all the missing links, everything that isn't yellow or blue, and prioritized it based on adjacent land use and really the potential for a pedestrian need, so this is, again, this is the pedestrian plan, primarily these are sidewalks, and so if we're adjacent to a school or to retail or to transit, then those links were identified as high priority, and that's what's shown in red, and then everything else was shown as orange, and that's not necessarily low priority, but low wear priority, and the ultimate goal is that every street in the city of Denton should provide pedestrian infrastructure on at least one, if not both sides of the roadway. And so that's really what we are looking for. If you zoom in on the website with the interactive map, you can see a lot better coverage. I kind of backed out. I wanted you to see some of what we're including, again, a lot of infrastructure outside the core area, outside 288, identifying with this plan the need for that complete street, context sensitive, not everybody drives a car anymore, approach, and so this allows us to prioritize these red and orange links with upcoming construction projects or to build a construction project based on either a geographic or, again, the prioritization need for each of these sidewalks or pedestrian infrastructure links. So that's a kind of a 30,000 foot level of the pedestrian plan. Again, we have an interactive map. It's still online. The comment period is closed, but the map is still up there if you want more detail, and then as I said before, each of the five sections we talked about in the virtual community meetings separately. So we talk about the north, south, east, west, and downtown thoroughfare plan, bike plan, and pedestrian plan. So if you want to, if you've got a lot of time on your hands and you want to watch those presentations, they are available online. Thank you, Chris. You're back. Thank you, Chair. Brian, I know the TWU Golf Course, TWU property with the adjacent red high priority is well known and well understood in terms of our component going up Riddell and up Bingo, but to what extent are the pedestrian ways that I know TWU is planning now that they don't have a golf course in their worldview anymore? They're planning pedestrian corridors through that former territory of the golf course. To what extent do we coordinate our efforts to kind of help fill in that gap with what they're planning for their state level plans, I guess? Okay. So good question. We work with, we work actually the last couple of months, we've kind of upped our game working with TWU very closely as they work through their master planning process, our parks department is working with them to identify opportunities for trails on campus or connections to our trail system. They are looking at some pedestrian, for lack of a better word, pedestrian malls or pedestrian corridors along Bell and certainly from Riddell moving west. We are working very, very closely with them on the Riddell corridor and our Mingo corridor as we identify either a trail or a side path along Mingo and additional sidewalk facilities along Riddell to connect to their internal pedestrian infrastructure. So we work, I think we meet every two to three weeks with their staff and our staff and work through not only access and pedestrian issues, but also utility issues and right-of-way issues and general operational issues. So that relationship has proven very beneficial and those meetings are playing a significant role in helping us see what they're doing and allowing them the opportunity to see how we can connect to their infrastructure on campus. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. So one of the other questions that I was asked to address is the amendment process. So once this plan is adopted, how do we change it? How do we modify it and what steps do we take? So before I get into the amendment process, I want to, again, talk about the nature of the lines on the map and they are truly, when you see a dashed line, that is not an engineered alignment study. It is our consultant's best guess on where that roadway could go. So they have not gotten into the two-foot contour maps and they look at major obstacles and try to avoid, you know, railroads and wetlands and floodplains. But those are truly conceptual. I won't even call them schematic. To me, schematic confers some kind of an engineering level of detail. So one of the things we always want to restate is that as property develops, if a property – and I'll use the carter – if they're impacted by a dashed line that's coming through their property, then they have the ability, without going back to – through the amendment process, of shifting that roadway within reason. And a lot of times we use 1,000 feet on a major roadway. When you're a mile or a mile and a half from the next adjacent roadway, 1,000 feet really doesn't make much difference. So there's some inherent flexibility in the mobility plan for the thoroughfares because it is a line on a map and it's not an engineered alignment. Well, typically, again, we'll try and stick with following existing property lines, but we do have the ability to change some curvature, move an alignment if it serves the city better or at least we maintain our connectivity, we're still getting our roadway, and we're not doing some unproportional harm to some smaller properties where we've got a six-lane or 135-feet of right-of-way going through a 12-acre property, that's pretty significant taking. So we try and work with the property owners in identifying what we need. We still need to get a roadway through there, but how can we best serve the entire community without at least undue harm? So this portion is really about if we want to change a cross-section, if we want to remove a roadway altogether, if we want to add a roadway, I'll say it's a six-step process. Typically, we ask that the applicant, whether it be a city or a property owner in the city, that we sit down and talk about it first so we all know what the extents and the potential impacts are, and then we'll submit, somebody needs to submit an application to begin that process to the Director of Planning and Development Services. Step three is staff review. Step four is the public meeting process where staff will formulate a recommendation, we'll take it to P&Z, we'll take it to City Council, and give the public the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed modification, whether it be a classification or alignment. And then P&Z and City Council will make that decision as to whether or not to accept the application, to modify it, or to deny it, and that action is final and cannot be appealed. Now, this process may seem familiar because it's the same amendment process or modification process that the comprehensive plan follows. Both plans are governed by the same section of the municipal code, and so our position is that the amendment process for both plans should be fairly similar. And so, basically, what these next few slides show, there are some restrictions, mobility plan amendments can be approved if we can agree that there is an error in the original plan adoption. The City Council failed to take into account existing information, events, trends, or facts after adoption have changed significantly enough to change the council's original findings, or they've changed the character of the area, so to make that amendment, that change necessary improved. So with that said, they're also subject to some limitations in that the proposed amendment or modification is not in conflict with the goals and policies of the overall plan. So we're not doing anything that we said originally that we shouldn't do. And that the amendment constitutes a substantial benefit to the city and not solely for the good of a particular landowner. So this goes back to what I was saying, even if we don't go to PNC and council, any change that we entertain, we still have to serve the overall overarching goals of the mobility plan. So if the mobility plan says we need a primary collector or primary arterial or secondary east, west between point A and point B and or north south, then we still have to provide that because the travel demand forecast model says we're going to need that much capacity. Doesn't have to be exactly where the line is shown on the map, maybe not. But unless we can all agree that the conditions have changed, the intensity is significantly lower than what we were forecasting, or significantly higher, then we still have to serve the original intent of the mobility plan. And then the last point is the extent to which the proposed amendment or other amendments are compatible with the land use goals, or in this case, the mobility goals, and that they don't cause incompatible form or burden on the other public facilities. So if we take a roadway off or if we downsize a given roadway, and we can show our travel plan model that that's going to overtax a parallel facility, then that would be cause for denial. So just as an example, working with TWU, Commissioner Beck just mentioned that they're looking for some pedestrian corridors through their site. So one of the things that we looked at with them was the potential for making Bell discontinuous between Chapel and College, and we conducted a study with TWU, they paid 50%, and they paid 50%, to determine whether or not the adjacent roadways had adequate capacity in our 2045 horizon year to accommodate what we expect from a tribal man need without Bell in place, or without that through connection. If Bell will still serve the university from the north and still serve the university and the neighborhoods to the south, we just won't be able to go between Mingo and University Drive without making some turns, so the straight shot's going to be, but we did the study to show that, in fact, we do have the capacity in parallel facilities, so that amendment does make sense. And we can read these, but most of these are just making sure that we don't significantly impact existing land use, public services and facilities, sensitive areas. We want to make sure that as we make these changes, as we look at the impacts, that we're not just shifting the burden from one area or from one roadway to another, and so there are reasonable tests and criteria where the proposed amendments make sense, and then there are also tests and criteria that will determine that it really doesn't make sense and we need to stick with the original mobility plan and not accept the change. So next steps for a mobility plan, we are incorporating currently the input we received from the public meetings, we will develop the final thoroughfare bike and pedestrian plans, and that includes not only the map, but there's a written document that goes with this that identifies a lot of the policy and these procedures such as the amendment process. We will adopt those new plans, our current estimate is probably first quarter of '21, I think it makes sense to let the new council be seated and maybe give some brief updates as far as and give them some time to get comfortable with the mobility plan itself, and then take it back incorporating whatever modifications that we have from the public comment period and then take them back to council probably to say they're probably in the first quarter of '21. Now, immediately following that mobility plan adoption, we're going to be coming back with the roadway impact fee update, another somewhat potentially contentious plan update, but something that we really need to focus on. We've started that process several months ago and we pushed it onto the back burner while we got through the three portions of the mobility plan, the thoroughfare plan, the bike plan and pedestrian plan and as soon as we bring that for adoption, we'll light that fire back underneath on that burner for the roadway impact fees and bring those back for that public discussion and ultimate approval. So just imparting, stay connected. Here's my phone number. I really should put my cell phone on there. Sometimes I get this Cisco messaging, sometimes they go through and sometimes they don't. That's my desk phone number. Here's the cityofdetton.com/mobilityplan, that's where you can see the interactive map and the comments that have been made by the public to date. And then we also on that same website, we have this overview, have all of the virtual community meetings and the Q&A and then we'll have timeline updates and much, much more. So if you really want to get into the weeds, I encourage you to visit the website, watch the previous presentations, look at the questions and answers that were incorporated into those five presentations and if you have further questions, you can email me or call me. So with that, I'll stop sharing and we can answer any questions that we might have. Brian, I appreciate the presentation and the information. Very helpful. Is there any questions for Brian when we have him in the hot seat? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. No, thank you. The next item for our work session reports is item 3B-PZ 20-249. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding code amendments related to subchapter 2, administration and procedures. And it is Ron Maguida for presentation. Ron, whenever you're ready, you have the floor. Thank you, sir. Let me get my presentation loaded. Okay, hopefully you all can see my presentation and can hear me. I'm going to move the mic closer to my voice here and we can get started. Ron, real fast, I noted just quickly that your presentation is 58 slides long. Yes, sir. Is there, do we need to make any arrangements on working through the agenda? I think that's a good idea. I know that there's a number of other presentations. If we don't get through all of them, that's fine. We can continue to the next PNZ meeting, probably halfway through if you want to keep track of time and let me know if the perfect time to kind of pause and have the other presentation occur, we can do that as well. Yeah. Hey, Richard, do you have any idea on the actual working agenda? You think Ron can get 30 minutes here? Is 30 minutes enough for us to get through the other items? Yeah, unless you want to take the other items first and we can come back. Without any opposition from the commission, I probably would prefer that to prioritize the things that we're going to be discussing tonight and then that if that we can give Ron as much time as we have left over. Ron, I hate to second fiddle you, but that's fine. That works. Yeah. Let's go ahead and do that just because I don't want to rush any conversation that are pertinent to the agenda. Sounds good. We'll see you in a little bit, Ron. So just for clarification for those joining us, we are going to go through the actual normal agenda, starting with the minutes on item two, working in a consent individual in public. And then as time permits, we'll have Ron back up to go back through the work session report item three B. So with that, is there any needed conversation around the minutes from November 4th? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to item three A, FP20-0019A. This item is being presented by Mark Laird. I don't know if Mark's calling in or if he's actually in the room. Could be on the phone. Yes, this is Mark Laird. Can you hear me? We can. And I think they're pulling up your presentation or? Haley is pulling the slides up now. Got it. Haley, if you just pull up the final slide. Mark, I'll let you know when it's pulled up. Nevermind, you're good. It's pulled up. All right. Thank you very much. Again, my name is Mark Laird. I'm a planner with the plan department. And for this evening, I have for your consideration is the final plan of Cambridge Brook edition phase one. This plan was recently presented to you back in October. And through our checks and balances, we noticed that the applicant only dedicated six to seven or 65 feet for Bonnie Bray, which is needed. It is one hundred and ten given this opportunity for additional right away. It was our engineers thought it was the opportunity to have a additional standardized surer easement dedicated on this easement. This plan is being represented to you guys just so that you can make note of the changes. And since the boundary had changed slightly, we wanted to represent to you for consideration and ask for any questions. OK. And just a clarification, Mark, it is being recommended for approval with no conditions or anything. No conditions whatsoever. OK. Is there any questions for Mark on this? Mark, I do not see any. Thank you for being here this evening. Next item is 3BPP20-0021A. This is Haley Zygurski's item. And Haley is in office. Haley, whenever we have, are we ready? You have the floor. All right. Good evening. So this is the preliminary plat for the Woodlands at McKinney Street. You may remember two meetings ago, we had this plat before you and they had requested a 30 day extension. During that time, they were able to work through all of the outstanding comments and we are recommending the plat for approval this evening and I'm happy to stand for any questions. Great. Thank you. Any questions for Haley? All right. Seeing none, we can move on to the next item. That's item 3C, FP20-0026B. This is Karina Maldonado's item. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. All right. Karina Maldonado, Assistant Planner. So this request is for a final plat of the Denton Industrial Office Edition, the 7.6 acre site. We recently saw this at the last meeting where they extended, requested for an extension. This plat was requested, requested an extension to address a last minute change to their waterline plan. So staff was previously recommending approval and it's also recommending approval today as they address that item. As you can see on the slide, if it's up on the screen, they're basically just removing the easements associated with those public waterlines which will now be private, so those have been removed. Does that, I can take any questions? Yeah, Karina, can staff verify this slide is the one we just saw for Mark's presentation? Or maybe I'm confused, but this looks like... You are correct. I was not able to locate the slide for that first plat and accidentally pulled this one up. This is correct for this item. Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying. On the other one, I was searching for Bonnie Bray for all my life and couldn't see it. Now I feel better. Commissioner Beck. Yeah, I had the same confusion, Chair, thank you for recognizing me, by the way. Do we need to address the slide for the first item? It feels like we're kind of not dotting our eyes on this one. You're wanting to go back and lay eyes on it? Just to give the commission an opportunity to do what we're doing at the moment, which is discuss and ask. If we can continue to go through, let me make sure we have the PDF that we can pull up and include. Okay. Perfect. Is there any questions for this item? For Karina, we can come back to item 3A to review that slide. I do not see any other questions for Karina. Thank you for joining us, obviously. That moves us to individual items for consideration. Item 4A, PP20-0024. This item is being denied and asking for extension until December 2nd. Any reason? Does anyone would like to see this presented? Typically, on these, we don't have presentation on them. I do not see any commissioners moving to such, so we'll go ahead and move to item 4B, Z19-0012D. This is Julie Wyatt. And while she's getting there, I just wanted to remind the commission that Mark Laird's item is in the backup if the public wanted to view it, or if any commissioner needed to review the Cambridge Broke Phase 1 edition. If we don't get that slide, I still think there's been a decent disclosure about what that is. But hopefully, we can get that slide, nevertheless. Whenever Julie is ready, the floor is yours, Commissioner Beck. Chair, thank you. I don't have any questions about that first item. I was just sort of being procedurally pedantic. So if everyone is fine, I don't need to be procedurally pedantic. I don't have personally any questions about that first 3A with Mr. Laird. Okay, great. All right. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm just about there with getting the presentation up. Here we go. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting Z19-0012D, Mockingbird Single Family Residential. The request before you probably looks familiar. Here it is the 2.61-acre site located just east of Mockingbird, south of Audre Lane. The request is to rezone from R2 District to R4 District. There have been a couple or a few previous actions on the site. Almost a year ago today, this item came before you with the proposed rezoning from R2 District to R4 District. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. There was a lag between when the applicant wanted to go to city council. And so as such, staff, there was a re-notification of the project and was originally scheduled to be heard in front of you on September 2nd of this year. However, it was postponed to the September 16th meeting. At that time, the applicant requested a condition that single family only would be permitted. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial. It went to the council in October, October 20th. At that meeting, the applicant requested an additional condition, an amendment to that condition, limiting the number of dwelling units to nine. Because that was new information that the Planning and Zoning Commission had not looked at, council remanded that consideration back to the Planning and Zoning Commission just to look at that amendment to it. And so that's what brings us here today. I wasn't going to go over the whole presentation because you have seen it before. The public hearing has been closed. But I did want to, if you want to go over the whole presentation, I absolutely can. I have the whole thing and we can go through it. But if not, I just have a couple of additional slides from our previous meeting. Yeah, Julie, based on the head shaking, without any opposition, I would say let's just go ahead and get the updates relevant for tonight's consideration. Perfect. Okay. Well, it really just has to do with the analysis of the case and the comprehensive plan. So as part of our analysis, we looked at that the site as an infill development and infill is one of those nebulous terms that really is kind of whatever document you're looking at, that's kind of how they define it. And so I kind of just wanted to talk through how the comprehensive plan treats infill because our comp plan actually treats it differently than our code. So just kind of wanted to talk through that briefly. And then we'll just get to staff recommendation. So then Plan 2030 defines infill development as development and redevelopment of underused buildings and vacant lots in areas served by existing infrastructure, development that channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and conserves open space and agriculture at the periphery of the city. So when you look at that surrounding the area around the subject property and the subject property is right here outlined in blue, you could see we've had a lot of infill in the recent years. We had a couple of zoning cases you may remember from 2017 and 2018, just off of Audra. There's a plat that went before you tonight, it was actually requesting to be postponed for this site right here. There's an elderly housing facility that's under development here and then multifamily to the north of the site. So we've actually seen a lot of infill in this area and as you can see it is served by those existing roadway connections as well as water and sewer, which are those red and blue lines. And so by staff's analysis, the subject site does meet that definition for infill development. So we looked further to see, well, what is the Denton Plan 2030 say about infill? And there are two really areas I just want to highlight. It states that the city should take every opportunity to ensure that as gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur, infill development should be encouraged, but it should complement the scale and character of each neighborhood. So that's a really important part of that. And then second, that we would identify and remove zoning and other regulatory impediments to compatible infill and redevelopment. And once again, you have that compatible word there. So those were really just the two things. Just wanted to highlight that regarding the comprehensive plan. Even though the public hearing has closed, council did want us to go ahead and notify those property owners within 200 feet of the site of this going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those original opposition letters are still in effect, but we did just go ahead and send out a notice that it would be coming back through the Planning and Zoning Commission. We did receive a couple of them that were just consistent with response letters we had received from property owners, one from this property owner, one from this property owner. We did get a new notification. It wasn't in your backup. It actually the I got it today. It came in the mail. So I did want to alert you that this property owner right here across Audra has also responded in opposition of the request. So because the opposition is in excess of 20%, it will require a super majority at City Council to approve the request. So why we're here tonight is because the applicant did add an additional element to those overlay conditions, and so they're requested overlay conditions are on your screen now. One that the development would be limited to nine single family detached homes only and then to that all other land uses would be prohibited. The applicant will be making a presentation tonight and I will be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, chair, just real quick, Julie, from what I remember, there were only ever nine units shown in their neighborhood meeting. So is that what you're saying? That's the only thing about the overlay condition that changed that just they added the word nine? >> That is correct. >> And then council sent it back here because of that? >> Correct. >> I think that's interesting. Okay. Well, I appreciate you discussing info since we didn't discuss that before. Well, we discussed it in our meeting, but it wasn't before in staff analysis, but okay, thank you. >> You bet. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, chair. Julie, can you please put up the proposed -- there was a slide that had the current and future land map that flew -- and if you don't have that, that's fine because I can discuss without it. >> Oh, I think I can get you there. Hang on. Just one second. >> Okay. That's perfect. That will work, actually. I actually don't have a problem with the density. I do have a problem with the neighbors not liking it, but I don't have a problem with the R4, but I will -- what I wanted to point out was get your opinion on if the -- if we change this to R4, you're introducing an inconsistency with the surrounding territory, but not the surrounding surrounding territory, the sort of second order territory. I see the point is consistent. So can you discuss what our code or comprehensive or previous guidelines say about sort of that sort of micro level of consistency because that's a square block of what is that, R2. That's just a chunk of R2 in the middle there. We're going to take the red star and make it R4. I personally don't have a problem with the density going up, so the density doesn't bother me. That's fine with me. But I'm just highlighting the issue that we're -- it feels like we might be introducing an inconsistency, if that makes sense. So can you educate me on how tight our plans are when we are talking about consistency? Well, when we look at consistency, we kind of look at two things. First of all, we look at use, and then we look at development scale. Those are kind of the shorthands we look for for consistency. In this instance, the surrounding lots are consistent in the proposed use and that they're all kind of single-family residential development. So even those larger lot areas do have that single-family residential component. So it's consistent in use, but, yes, I think the question here is the scale. And so when we look at that, there are some -- there are differences in what they're proposing in terms of scale from those large lot development that's immediately adjacent to the north on Audra, and then to the east of the site, and then that little piece to the west. Their proposed lots are smaller than those lots, so that scale is different. However, it's not a scale that's inconsistent with what is generally found in the area. So there is adjacency for that scale just to the south. And then you see that scale across Mockingbird as well as to the east of that large lot. So while there are some differences, and that's kind of where we have to look at those edges, it isn't inconsistent with the surrounding development because those minimum lot sizes would be similar to what you find in the surrounding area. I don't know if that answers your question. >> I see that. I think that that's sufficient for me. Thank you, Julie, I appreciate it. >> Any other questions for Julie? And just for everyone, I got a text from Commissioner Smith, his video is lagging, so I trust that if he has something, he'll just chime up since I can't see his hand. I know he is there listening, his video is having some issues. So just want the record to show that. Okay. With no other questions for Julie, we'll move on to the next item. It is Julie, it's 4C, PP20-0023. This is being recommended for denial, and they're asking an extension. So just like item 3 or 4A, we can progress to 4D unless anyone has any questions on 4C. Seeing none, 4D is also Julie Wyatt, PP20-0025, and it is also being recommended for denial with an extension being sought for a date certain of December 16th. Is there any questions for item 4D? Okay. Thank you very much, Julie. That I think ends your agenda items. Next up is item, the public hearing items, we'll start with 5A, Z20-0010. This item has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we'll move to item 5B, as in Bravo, S20-0007. And this item is being heard this evening, Sean Jacobson will be presenting. Sean, whenever you are ready, the floor is yours. You are muted. Can you hear me now? Yes. All right. And can you see my screen? Have you seen your presentation? All right. So good evening Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sean Jacobson, Planning Department. I'm here to present item S20-007, Quincy Court. This is a request for a specific use permit to allow a building no more than 46 feet in height. This building is proposed for a vacant 1.57 acre lot zoned MN. Building use is permitted by right in MN and the maximum permitted height in MN is 65 feet, but heights above 40 feet in between from 41 feet to 65 feet require SUP approval. The requested building height would be an increase of 6 feet over what's permitted without an SUP. I just want to give a brief background on the zoning history of this site. The MN zoning was applied to the site with the 2019 citywide rezoning, it was a combination of two previous zoning districts, NRMU and NRMU-12. The NRMU district permitted 65 feet while NRMU-12 permitted 40 feet. So that the compromise was between 40 and 65 would require an SUP. So pre 2019, this property was zoned NRMU and had a permitted height of 65 feet by right, no SUP required. Just to give you a sense of the site here, you see the upper image is looking to the east and lower images looking north so you can see the adjacent neighborhoods there, loop 288 to the north and then Stewart Road along the west side of the property. To give you the details on this request, first it's important to know that the DDC's mixed use district standards require a minimum ground floor height of 12 feet. So that's in the mixed use neighborhood zoning district as well as the MD district, so they have to provide that which leaves a limited amount of space between that 12 foot ground floor height and the 40 foot maximum without the SUP. The approval of the six foot increase in height that's being requested would allow for standard nine foot heights for all upper store units and would allow the ground floor entrances for the proposed multifamily to be at grade. Without the SUP, the applicant had proposed an alternative method of staying under that 40 foot height, which was approvable by staff, they would have constructed the building below grade, you would have steps leading down to ground floor entrances, upper floors would have been less than nine feet in height. This would have been approvable under the DDC, but it was considered a less optimal design. You'd escape the pedestrian experience walking by, you have sunken entrances, the overall facade aesthetics, it was a less optimal design and therefore the applicant pursued this request. Just so you can get a sense of the concept elevations, what this would look like with the requested height under this SUP. Just to lay this out here so you can see that blue line is the 40 foot height that sets the limit for the habitable structure without an SUP and then the dark green line shows the height that's being requested. And then just seeing that from the front, again, you can see that increase, the six feet from what's permitted without the SUP and what's being requested. The applicant actually only requested a height of 45 feet, three inches, staff felt it made sense to round it up to 46. Things can happen as you're designing a building, hate to have someone come back for a two inch increase. So the question before you is whether the 46 foot height building meets our criteria for approval. So we look at, of course, our general criteria for approval as well as the specific criteria for an SUP. We'll hit on kind of the key questions within that. First off, as usual is our future land use map. This property is primarily neighborhood mixed use. It's designed to promote a mix of compatible housing types and densities along with local serving non-residential uses, moderate to high density residential uses are permitted. But new higher density housing should be sensitive and scale informed to the surrounding built and natural context. The mixed, the multifamily use is consistent with the future land use map, but more importantly, the height increase requested is consistent with the number of stories recommended for neighborhood mixed use areas in the Denton Plan 2030 development criteria. In addition, the design elements that allowing the taller building will permit that pedestrian friendly first floor height, ground floor entrances, they're at grade. It's more consistent with the Denton Plan 2030 design principles and it's more compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods where your average house that's going to have an entrance at grade similar to what would be permissible if the height increase is permitted. We also need to look at compatibility with the surrounding area. This is located on two corridors, Loop 288 corridor, where multi-story buildings at intersections are part of the current with a planned development pattern, there you see the zoning that allows for it. It's also on the Stewart Road corridor, where we have a development pattern that generally flows from multi-story, multifamily buildings at major intersections and low to moderate single family residential in between, and this would be consistent. It's located, would be a taller multi-story building at an intersection consistent with those patterns. I can also note that the surrounding undeveloped property in the north and west is also zoned MN and this would not impact the ability of those sites to develop along with that zoning. Also want to explain a little more detail, the height in comparison with the surrounding R6 zone neighborhoods to the south and to the east, so the maximum building height in an R6 neighborhood is 40 feet. However, we measure the height of any pitched roof or angled roof at the halfway point, not at the very top, and so therefore a house in the adjacent neighborhood could actually exceed 40 feet by right and could potentially even exceed 46 feet in height. So there's a limited difference between the actual permitted height in the surrounding neighborhoods and what's requested on this site. Again, as we discussed, that increased height allows at great entrances, the more pedestrian friendly design that's actually more consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and the increase of six feet is expected to have a minimal impact on the effect of the building overall in the area. So we also want to look at how potential negative impacts would be mitigated with this plan and the first and most important is actually what the DDC has already built in section 710-6, what we call building height and transition areas. Essentially that says that within 50 feet of a residential zone property, including R6, a building has to match the height in the maximum height in that additional, it can't exceed the maximum height in that adjacent residential area. From 50 to 100 feet, it can't exceed that maximum height in the adjacent residential plus 15 feet and you can't request an SCP. So to get to the point where you can exceed 15 feet above the maximum height in the adjacent residential district, or as in this case, request an SCP for a higher height, you have to be at least 100 feet from an adjacent residentially zoned district. So you can see here because of those provisions, this building is located at least 100 feet from the neighborhoods on the south and over 150 feet from the adjacent neighborhoods on the east. So you could note that even without the SCP requirements, these transition area standards are already built in to limit building height in close proximity to residential districts. Even without the SCP, there's a limitation on how tall you can go next to a residentially zoned property and that protection was built in already. Looking at the site design as a whole and how that helps kind of mitigate any negative impacts, they're actually providing over 15% more in landscape area percentage, 9% more in required tree canopy percentage on a site that has currently no trees that we would consider needing to be preserved. Buffer width is 20 feet versus minimum requirement of zero. On the east and on the south, we have a 45-foot buffer versus zero buffer width that would be required. Other impacts to consider, lighting and glare. You do have to under the DDC demonstrate a building permit, you're complying with all of the standards. So light spillover limits are set at all property lines, those need to be checked. And all fixtures have to be downward directed or full cutoff shielded, so regardless of the height, you have to meet those limitations on spillover. In terms of traffic, now the SCP is not expected to affect how many units would be on the site, but it is important to note that required parking is provided, meets all of our requirements. Touching briefly on infrastructure, again, not expected to vary significantly with this SCP, but their trip generation was such it did not require a TIA, we're at an intersection of arterial and a collector, and they will actually be adding curb gutter new pavement to Stewart Road there, sidewalks on the north and along that west side there along Stewart. Water and wastewater service is available. And I specifically checked in with fire, they confirmed that height of 46 feet would not hinder their ability to provide fire service to this development. We also, of course, look at our feedback and notify the neighborhood. All standard notices were sent. We did receive one letter in opposition, that's in your backup, as is the one letter in favor that we received. The applicant actually held two neighborhood meetings. One was not attended, and so they scheduled another, which had two attendees, I was able to sit in on that. The neighbors had some concerns about the safety of the intersection, the what how the proposed apartments would be priced and how it affect their property values, and after the discussion, they appear to be satisfied. And when specifically asked about the actual height increase, they had no objections to it. So taking that all into consideration, staff is recommending approval of the SCP with conditions, and these are long, but I'll sum up that the preliminary site plan and landscape plan designed to comply with DDC requirements, minor alterations can be made as long as it remains in compliance with the DDC. City reserves the right to require approval of ordinance by ordinance. And then the attached site plan landscape plan are incorporated as requirements to the SCP. We can have an increase or decrease of 5% on items A through D below other than can have changed number of buildings. But if units or parking spaces went up or down a little bit, they'd have to comply with DDC, but staff could approve that as well as small changes in building coverage, but not in building height, of course, and then just that the zoning map needs to reflect the specific use permit would be here. So with that, I'll take any questions you have. Sean, thank you for the great presentation. I don't I just have the agenda kind of overall here in front of me, I don't have the backup. Can you just pull up the prior zoning, the new zoning, I have a couple questions regarding that. I think it's like you're one of your first two slides, sir, something back up here. And that slide here. All right, all right. This is perfect. I apologize for my confusion. This might be simple. It was zoned NRMU. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And it got rezoned from the citywide rezoning to MN? Yes. Okay, so I'm looking at the development codebook here. And MN has a building height of 65 feet. And I'm looking at the use regulations, multifamily dwelling is permitted by right with the use of civic standards permit in MN districts. Why? Because between 40 feet, so 41 feet to 65 feet, it's permitted but it requires an SUP for that height. So once you up to 40 feet, no SUP required 41 feet to 65 feet, that does require an SUP. Great. That makes sense. And for clarification, the old NRMU provided 65 feet by right? Yes, sir. So before the city changed their property, they had 65 feet by right? Am I understanding correctly? If they would have built this project two years ago, they wouldn't have needed this same SUP? My understanding is that is correct. They would have had to meet adjacency standards similar to what we have built. And now we have an improved version as we discussed. So it would have still had to take into consideration proximity to the surrounding neighborhoods. But yes, that is my understanding. Okay. And then lastly, just looking at the building designs, the front of it's above 46 feet, but it is an angled roof. So they're getting that halfway measurement. Sorry for the confusion on that. This is a flat roofed building. So it is it's being measured at the highest height of the habitable structure. So that would be at 46 feet if this SUP was approved. Okay. Sean, I knew you could clarify it. I appreciate it. Any other questions for Sean on this item? Sure. If I may, I just wanted to add that the dimensional standards for the height, if anyone is looking or wanted to see where those are there, they're within SUP chapter three within the district requirements. I think it's footnote two, where it talks about that height. So just wanted to clarify in case someone was wondering where that is in the code. So it is within SUP chapter three. Yeah, it's actually referenced here that was I just didn't look at that bar right column on on that. Thank you for that clarification, Richard. Is there any other questions for this item? Okay, great, Sean. Thank you. We'll see a little bit in the regular work meeting. So Richard, the item that Ron has is set to be a more of a lengthy one. Would it be your recommendation? We break now for a decent meal and then come back at 630 and just table that discussion until next meeting. That would be mine. I think that way we can have a better, longer, more robust conversation. I think as we get into 3167 and the less than four votes tie votes and some of the other procedure items, I think it probably would be beneficial to have that as one block of a discussion. At least that would be my recommendation. I do know for the next meeting, the only other item we had for a work session were the GIS maps and I don't anticipate that being as long as Brian's presentation was today. So I think we can easily fit that fit the entire item in at the next meeting. Great. I fully support giving us the breathing room to have a dialogue around that 3167. So with that, I will close the work session at 611. We will be back here at 630 promptly to do the regular meeting. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting for Wednesday, November 18th, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 631. The first item of business is to provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. Commissioners, if you want to join along with me, you can certainly unmute yourself. 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. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Thank you. The next item of business is item two, the consideration of the minutes from November 4th. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. Commissioner Beck. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item for consideration is our consent agenda, Commissioner Beck. I motion to approve. We have a first. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item for business is item 4A, PP20-0024. This item is being recommended a denial from staff, however, the applicant is requesting an extension of the 30 days to a date certain of December 2nd. Commissioner Smith. We have a motion to approve the extension to date certain of December 2nd. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. I second the motion. We have a first and a second for an extension to date certain of December 2nd. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4B, Z-19-0012D. This item will be presented by Julie Wyatt. Julie, whenever you're ready, you have the floor. All right, let me pull up my presentation and we will go through it. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton and I'm presenting Z-19-0012D, Mockingbird Single-Family Residential. So the request before you, you have seen it before. It's 2.61 acres. The request is to rezone from R2 to R4 district. There have been previous actions on this application. One, this time last year, where they were proposing the rezoning, they, P&Z recommended approval of that. However, there were delays in going to city council. So it was re-noticed and sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning Zoning Commission heard it on September 16th of this year and recommended denial. At that meeting, the applicant did propose a condition to limit the uses to single-family only. And the item went to city council on October 20th. And one clarification from the work session, so the applicant did propose a new condition. Council was concerned because that additional condition was requested at the meeting. So it wasn't something that planning staff had had a chance to look at yet. And so at that time, because planning staff hadn't had a chance to look at it or the Planning and Zoning Commission, the council voted to remand this item back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for that full vetting of the additional condition at that time. I won't go over the full presentation unless you want me to. The public hearing has closed and there haven't been any changes to staff's presentation except for two slides that I just wanted to highlight. But I'll be happy to go through all the slides if you'd like for me to. So without any opposition from the commission, and I don't see any, let's just go ahead and skip to the updated features of tonight since we've heard it prior. Great. Okay. So I'll be brief on it. Part of what staff analyzed with this request was whether it was in-fill development or not. The In-Fill Development Plan 2030 does encourage in-fill development, but in-fill development is one of those words that it really is defined by whatever document you're looking at. There are changes that you could look at with that. And in fact, in our own City of Denton documents, the Denton Development Code really defines it differently than the Comprehensive Plan. So I just kind of wanted to highlight how the Comp Plan defines in-fill development. And they define it as development or redevelopment of underused buildings and vacant lots and areas served by existing infrastructure. And development that channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and conserves open space and agriculture at the periphery of the city. So the subject site is right here outlined in blue, and you can kind of see how in-fill development has impacted the surrounding area. You saw some rezoning cases in the last few years in this general area off of Audra. There's a plat that is currently under review for this property, multifamily to the north. So as this area has developed, in-fill has come in and impacted the surrounding area. And you can see it is served by existing water and sewer. Those red and blue lines are the existing water and sewer, and that kind of follows the street network that's in place. So the subject site is consistent with that definition of in-fill development as the Comprehensive Plan defines it. And the Comp Plan supports compatible in-fill development with two policies and actions. One, that the city should take every opportunity to ensure that gaps in neighborhood and fabric, when they occur, that the in-fill -- that as gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur, in-fill development would be encouraged, but it must complement the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods. And then also the city should identify and remove zoning and other regulatory impediments to compatible in-fill and redevelopment. The next couple of slides I just want to touch on was the public outreach. There was public notification for those public hearings. As I said, those have closed, but council, with the remanding back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, did request that staff send out a public notification to property owners within 200 feet. And then those responses that we received for that public hearing are still in place. So we did get one additional from what you see on this map. It came in today by mail. And it is this property right here. They did provide an opposition letter to the city. The opposition percentage surrounding the subject site is 34%. So this will trigger a supermajority at City Council for approval, which is six out of seven votes. So staff recommends approval of the request. And here's where that modification to the overlay conditions comes in. Staff has looked at the applicant's request for those overlay conditions and has no objection to them. And those are that the development would be limited to nine single-family detached homes only and all other land uses would be prohibited. I'll be happy to answer any questions. And I believe the applicant is on the phone to also share a presentation with you. >> Great. Thanks, Julie. Any questions for Julie at this time? Commissioner Pernetta. >> Yeah, I just wanted to -- can we go back and look at this slide, because I can't find this specific one in the backup, where you're describing infill. And it's -- the line is about basically the filling up the neighborhoods as a -- so you take every time -- the gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur in infill development. Okay. I just wanted to kind of look at this one, because I think, you know, my previous thoughts on how infill was based on the other definition, which, you know, the other one kind of mentioned economic development. I didn't see where this was economic development. I just wanted to kind of double-check on the wording on this one real quick. Thank you. That's all I needed to do. >> Sure. >> Well, with that, Julie, I would say if the applicant has a presentation to provide, let's go ahead and queue that up. >> Do we have any commissioners? >> Go ahead. >> This is Amy Bissett with 97 Land Company. I'm going to make -- or start the applicant presentation. Chair Rizal, if you had something that you'd like to say before I begin, please go ahead. >> Nope. I was just making sure you were there. >> I am here. My address is 100 West Oak Street, Denton, 76201. Thank you, Julie, for pulling up the presentation. I'm going to ask the commission to indulge me for a moment and look at this project with fresh eyes, even though I sense the frustration and it is common with the -- on the side of the applicant as well that you're hearing this for the third time. But we did present some information to the City Council in their meeting in October. That was new information that was born out of the conversation that we heard in your vote in September. So we do want to have the opportunity to present that to you and have you consider it with this discussion. Next slide, Julie. So as you know, real quick, we are requesting the rezone from R2 to R4 with two overlay conditions that are consistent with what our plan has been all along, which is to have nine single-family detached homes. Under the current zoning, we would be permitted to have five lots in terms of gross density, and under the proposed zoning, we are requesting the ability to develop nine lots. Next slide, please. This is the slide that I want to spend a little bit of time on to provide some context of how the project has evolved from our side in terms of neighborhood engagement and our approach to how we're looking at this in terms of its consistency with the comp plan and with the fabric of the neighborhood. So a year ago this month, as you all know, you did hear this request. At the time, it was a straight zoning request from R2 to R4, and if you recall, it was right on the heels of the adoption of the 2019 code, where PDs became a new opportunity for zoning, and we heard concerns from both the neighbors as well as those of you who ultimately voted in dissent that the R4 zoning would allow for townhomes and duplexes with an SUP, and that the straight R4 zoning could theoretically exceed the gross density of the definition of a low residential district, which is what is called out as the designation for this area in the future land use plan. So ultimately, you did vote to approve it with a 4-2-1 with no overlay conditions because I think there was some reticence at the time to introduce overlay conditions under the new code, and there was no precedent for that, so between your vote and the opposition that we had with the neighborhood, the property owner was reluctant to take it to city council with the requirement of a supermajority vote, and so took some time to rethink that and then reintroduced the idea of going forward with it. When we brought that back up with city staff, they did ask us to go back through P&D again and re-notice the project, and so in preparing to do that, we did host another neighborhood meeting. We had five neighbors attend at that point in time, and the main voice of opposition that we heard and the main reason for opposition that we heard was the belief that if we did not have any overlay conditions, that we could come back and propose something different than what we show here, specifically something that would allow for some commercial or town home or duplex uses, and so with a year having passed since the adoption of the new code and some precedent set for allowing overlay conditions in building cases, we came back to you in September with the same request that we had made in 2019, but with the additional overlay condition to limit it to single-family homes, and to be perfectly honest with you, I was not prepared for that meeting because you had heard the project before and I went in on an assumption that your position would be generally the same and maybe slightly more favorable because we were eliminating one of the concerns that were expressed at the time. So when you voted to recommend denial in September, the two main concerns that I heard expressed by you all as commissioners were that we didn't meet the criteria for infill development and that the argument, the case being made to support the project, was that it was an infill project and that R2, leaving it as R2 zoning, would be economically viable. So coming out of that meeting, we did do an economic analysis to take a look at the market in the area and we will present that information to you tonight, and we will also talk a little bit more about infill development beyond what Julie presented in her staff presentation. So when we went to council in October, we did have additional economic and market information that they knew that you all had not seen before and had not considered, and at that point in time they remanded it back to you. We did engage the neighborhood another time. We mailed out a letter and Julie, if you have that where you could display it on the screen for a moment, that would be helpful, if not, that's fine, but rather than a generic you're invited to a neighborhood meeting, we mailed a letter where we explained exactly what we were proposing and why and how we thought that it would be more compatible for the neighborhood and we invited those neighbors to a meeting, a virtual meeting, or to call me personally to ask questions or express concerns. Unfortunately, we heard from no one, despite the effort that we made to really try to engage them and hear from them about overcoming their opposition. When we came to you guys in September, we heard that if we could write into the ordinance that there would be no other uses other than single family, that the majority property owner that is in opposition would remove that opposition and would support the project. That's why we came back in September with the original request for the overlay condition because we felt like we were accommodating what the neighbors were asking us to do. Next slide, Julie. This is the exact same slide you saw over a year ago. Our intent has always been to subdivide into nine lots with private street and no connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods with an HOA maintained detention, pond, street, and common areas. At the time, it was one neighborhood meeting. We're now at three, I believe, maybe four, and we had presented two concept plans. Next slide, please. The neighborhood gave us their preference. They told us which concept plan they preferred, which was this one, and the reason they preferred it is because the street on the north side of the development is a private street and it minimizes traffic. It also provides a buffer to the lower density single family neighbors to the north, both the detention pond and the street do. Then we had increased lot depth as well, which provided privacy to the neighbors to the south of the project, and the lot dimensions gave us an opportunity to preserve existing trees on the fence line that would provide privacy to them. Next slide, please. Very quickly, because Julie didn't go through it, we are requesting R4, and if you look at this quadrant of the city, which I have highlighted in red with Mingo, Loop 288, and McKinney, you see that the majority of the properties within this quadrant of the city are zoned R4, and the R property is the star on the upper right-hand side. Next slide, please. I went through and traced all of the R4 properties and kind of grayed them out, if you will, so you can see more in bulk how much of R4 is represented within this area of kind of the urban core of Denton. Next slide, please. While in the future land use plan, this is a low residential designated area. You can see where our property is or where our project is, and so is all the other R4 properties currently zoned that and developed as R4 in that quadrant. Next slide, please. So the definition of low residential is that lot sizes range from one acre or more in rural fringe areas and up to four units per acre gross density through many of the city's suburban subdivisions. Our lot area is 2.61 acres, and our gross density is 3.45 units per acre, so we do meet the definition or the intent of low residential development, and by asking for the density limitation of nine single-family detached homes, we ensure that we will never exceed that. Next slide, please. So to Chair Rosell's comment in the last meeting, there was concerns expressed that we didn't meet the definition of infill development where our argument for supporting the zoning case was related to infill development, and so the Denton Development Code definition is very specific that it must have existing development contiguous on two sides, and it is no greater than two acres in size. Clearly, we do not meet that definition. Next slide, please. However, when you look at the Denton Development Code as a whole, how is infill development referenced, and why is it referenced? It is referenced four times in 517 pages, and all four times are related to providing opportunities for exceptions to the development standards, an exception to the parking requirement, an exception to off-street parking and layout, an exception to landscaping percentages, and an exception to building and site design. And so infill development, as it relates to this specific definition within the development code, is talking about, do you meet the requirement to receive these exceptions to our development standards? In this particular case, we're not asking for exceptions to development standards. We're asking for a zoning change, which is not really spoken to at all in reference to infill development in the development code. Next slide, please. You can skip that one. So in the Denton Plan 2030 definition, Julie did call this out, infill is defined very differently. It's defined as development and redevelopment of underused buildings and vacant lots in areas served by existing infrastructure. Development channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and conserves open space and agriculture at the periphery of the city. I do believe with certainty that we meet that definition. Next slide, please. And the context of what infill development means in the Denton Plan is it is referenced 102 times in 415 pages. Statements within the community vision statement, throughout Denton, we see a compact development pattern and reinvestment in infill and underutilized areas of the city. Compact development in infill is central to the Denton Plan 2030. In the core of Denton, we see established neighborhoods where revitalization and compatible infill development contributes to the stable, livable and historic character and fosters neighborhood pride and home ownership. The point I want to make here is that infill development in our comp plan is a central theme to every goal that is set in the comp plan. It is not just related to land use. It is related to land use. It's related to infrastructure management. It is related to housing choice. And I'm just going to quickly flip through the next few slides where it's referenced, but it is really integrated throughout. So one place that it's referenced, a goal is to grow our assets and maintain and strengthen neighborhoods and the policy and action associated with that is to promote infill in residential areas. Next slide, please. Another goal is to design a fiscally advantageous land use pattern paired with fiscally responsible infrastructure management investment and this is done through promoting infill development and redevelopment to align development where resources and where infrastructure exists already. Next slide. And a couple more goals to ensure continued viability of Denton's established neighborhoods. The comp plan specifically states a principal means of reversing neighborhood decline is infill development, new development on vacant or redeveloped properties. Under the infrastructure and utilities management, there's a goal for cost effective service that acknowledges a well maintained and operated infrastructure network is fundamental to a healthy thriving community and that Denton's investment in this infrastructure will influence and support the framework for compact development and infill that is central to the Denton plan 2030. Next slide, please. That really is at the crux of my presentation. I wanted to make sure and acknowledge what we heard from you guys in 2019 about what your concerns were as well as what the neighbors' concerns were and why we requested the conditions that we did in order to try to alleviate the neighbors' concerns and get them to a place that they could support the project and also to address why we do believe that this is consistent with supporting infill development. And then I'm going to actually hand this off to Pindari Pasini, our property owner who did some market research and who's going to present quickly some data on the question of whether or not developing this project as R2 is economically viable. Julie, you can go ahead and advance the slide and one more and I'll turn it over to Pindari. Thanks Amy. Thanks everyone. So we've heard on the last meeting that the NR2 would be economically viable, so we kind of went back to the market and did some analysis. We've leveraged one of our agents to pull some MLS data to see what's, you know, kind of take a hard look again to see if it's feasible. So we came up with a few scenarios, what we felt like it is a good product to put in this neighborhood or in this area. So five of them really, first scenario is really single-family homes, three-bedroom too bad, third or above, sold between 2014 to 2020, right, because that's kind of gives us the most recent data and then we went back beyond, you know, six years or older and even just any time, right, because we kind of went through hundreds of properties kind of having different scenarios, right, active, sold, some built in the 2015 and new and then some built in a year. And the last scenario, what we came up with is some of the recent homes that are being built in the area, so that kind of gives us more realistic approach on what the market is doing right at this moment. Next slide, please. So the first scenario where we did some search within about a half mile within the area, I believe it's a mile, did all the existing sales up to the last six years. We found about 116 homes that fit that description. The average size is roughly around 1,934 square foot. There's some homes that are over 2,000 and then some homes that are almost 1,500 square foot. So the average sales price was around 257,000 and the maximum sales price that we found was 325,000. Next one. So the next scenario is somewhat similar, but what we factored in is built any year. So we went back a long time, like I believe the MLS goes to 20 years back. So we did a kind of a historical search on that. We found a lot more homes, obviously, because there's no time limit to it. It's about 681 homes found. The average size dropped a little bit because there's some of the older homes are smaller. So your size sort of dropped there, but the average sales price was around 207 and there was maybe one or two homes that fit into that maximum sales price, which is around 380,000. Next one. So similar search again, so we went back to homes that are five years or newer built and we kind of got the same search results as the previous scenario one. The average size is around 1934. Sales price is around 258,000 and the maximum was 325,000. Then the fourth scenario is similar to the scenario three, but we've kind of went with any build year sold between the last year, like starting in January of 2019 until the date it was run, I believe it was back in October. So what we've found is about 597 homes that were sold in the past year. We went back a little bit wider net, I believe it's a little bit over a mile to see if there's anything out there within the reach. So the average sales price is roughly around at 209,000 and then the sales price was pushing around 379,000 roughly. The last scenario is really some of the newer homes that are being built in the area. So we did a little bit of search and not many, about 22 homes. The average square foot is around 1700 square foot, sales price is around 278,000 average. So there are a few homes that are the maximum sales price that are sold properties, we found about 316,000, but there are some active listings that are 341,000 price mark. So kind of the pattern sort of emerging as we keep searching for the three bedroom or higher properties, we're really having a hard time finding anything that's anything more than that 341,000 or 380,000 in a couple of scenarios. So as a conclusion, what we ended up concluding is we went back and let's see what we can do with these five lots, right? So our target price range for the market that can bear the prices around 258,000 to 340,000. But when we did the calculations for five lots, similar home sizes, but you'll have to fit in a little bit of bigger house. The reason for that is just it being almost a 15,000 square foot lot there. So you do have a bigger lot, so you do need a little bit of a bigger product to have an aesthetic sense. So these homes are conservatively, they were around 450,000 as a sales price, including all the development costs that would incur everything factory. So that kind of puts it right at $225 per square foot. And this is somewhat unaffordable in this area. Just considering the market, any buyer who wants to buy a house, they would look at the comparables within the area and will probably have a very tough time getting these appraised as well. And we did the same math, the construction costs across nine lots. The development costs are slightly higher on the nine lots, but then again, economies of scales, we have more doors to be able to market and we could afford somewhat of a entry level home to a mid-level home in a smaller lot to fit into the neighborhood's aesthetics and kind of not show it as a somewhat of a high end, right? So that would allow us to target an estimated sales price of 318,000, which fits right in the surrounding markets. I mean, even though we have some homes that can go up to 379,000, but it kind of gives us a comfortable target range to stay at. And then the cost per square foot has also come down to $159 per square foot. So that's more appealing and affordable considering the market. Anything more than that would be a really difficult sale process for us, and it's almost impossible. All right, I think that concludes our market research. Well, Pandari and Amy, I appreciate you being here with the presentation. I will turn to the virtual dais for any questions. I'm going to start real fast and then Commissioner Anderson, I'll move to you. Amy, are you online? Yes, I'm here. I appreciate the in-depth analysis you did on infill and kind of helping contextualize kind of the discrepancies that the city might have in the definition of infill. But based on your research, would you believe that building four or five homes there would satisfy the infill requirements? It would still be infill development. I just don't think it's economically viable to -- what will end up happening is there will be no homes built there because half-million-dollar homes are not marketable in that area. Yeah, I guess my next question real fast is maybe to you and Pandari. There's a new construction happening on Ryan Road. Right now it's the Creekside Reserve at Creekside. They're building the exact same product that you're describing and they're building about 145 a foot and they're selling out pretty up and down. It's hard to get into Creekside right now at 145 a foot and it's basically the product you're talking about, 2 to 3,000 square feet, three-car garage type product. So I'm curious of how you arbitrarily decided 225 a build price for that area and not build out at what the rest of Dinton is building that for new properties? Striving is the number of lots in that -- in that -- the neighborhood and the purchase price and the development cost. There's a lot of gradient work that needs to be done for this particular lot. So I don't know what they're doing at Ryan Road. I don't know if it's a 2.6-acre or a 3-acre. I really don't know what they're building, but what that 145 per square foot sounds like our entry-level product, the mid-level product, which would be feasible within that 9-homes versus 5-homes. That kind of fits into that product. I think maybe what Kandari is trying to say is that the development costs associated with bringing five lots online to put in a road and put in a detention pond, those costs have to be integrated into the cost of the home and into the cost of the lot. And in order to develop that site, it brings up the cost of the homes to an area that's not supportable, just to put in the infrastructure necessary to support only five lots. We've ran this by a couple of developers in the area as well, and almost all of them said nine lots is something that's feasible and that some even said they'd love to be able to add one more lot. But all of them, for five lots, they kind of just backed off and they're saying this isn't feasible to build anything. So it wasn't just my analysis, there's a few builders that we marketed this to see if they could build it with a reasonable cost, and the costs were just too high. >> Were any of those builders local? And were they all developers, or were they one-off builders like Jay Thomas? >> They were, I don't know how large scale they are, but they do build a few smaller communities in the area, and I can get the name for you, I don't have it in front of me. >> Okay, and if I'm just doing back the math, you're looking at 450,000 times five homes, and so that's 2.25 million, or 318,000 times nine homes, which is 2.8. So your feasibility delta in this project is $600,000? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Commissioner Anderson, you had some questions? >> Yeah, it kind of goes along the line of yours, I'm always for development of lots and nice houses, but isn't your neighborhood kind of going to be a white elephant neighborhood in that area? I mean, those homes surrounding it aren't $300-some-thousand homes, I don't believe, and I think you're going to have a hard time attracting $300-some-thousand home buyers in a neighborhood that's only nine houses that's surrounded by houses that range from 150 to 200,000. I mean, have you all thought about that? >> Not necessarily. The reason is when we did the newer homes that are active listing within the half mile, there are homes out there that would fit into that price model. We found about 22 homes, and they are selling, so. >> Right. I get that, but I'm saying you are surrounded by houses that aren't equal to the product that you're putting out there. I'm trying to say it in a polite way. Your house's price point is going to be $300-some-thousand home, and the houses around you are going to be a lot less. I mean. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> It depends. There's a mix of them, too, right? Go ahead, Amy. >> To your point, Commissioner Anderson, I think what we're talking about here with new homes is that they are going to be priced generally on the upper end of the average market value in the neighborhood. However, in order -- that's developing at R4. That's as economically -- just as reasonable -- economically reasonable as you can get with the amount of infrastructure that holds to be put in with a road and detention pond to support nine lots. On the flip side of that, under R2, we would be talking about $450,000 to $500,000 homes, which we absolutely don't think is marketable in that area. And that is a function of the development cost per lot is what is driving that number up. We need to be able to split the development cost over a higher number of lots in order to make infill even feasible here. And we are at a place with nine lots to be able to get it down at least within the market range of some of the newer homes that are within that quadrant of the city. >> Thanks, Amy. I get that, but me being in the mortgage business in the past, I know whenever a borrower goes to get financing, their underwriter looks for properties that are not half a mile away. They're looking for neighborhood houses that are compatible that are within blocks of houses. And I mean, I think you are doing a good thing, but I'm just saying it might be a hard sell to an underwriter that I have a house here that's $350,000, and the house on the next block over is $185,000. That's what they call a white elephant. So that's all I have to say. I appreciate it. >> Mr. Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Amy or Pandari, can you guys remind me again the projected square footage of the houses you're wanting to build again? >> Between 2,000s to 3,000s at the most. >> Okay. Gotcha. And then most of those lots are between 7,000, the smallest, and 8,000 at the highest, I think I remember seeing from your slide, correct? >> That's right. >> Okay. I mean, to me, guys, the lots that are surrounding this neighborhood are all much smaller than the lots that are being projected by the applicant. Just along Whispering Oaks, most of these lots I'm looking at on Zillow are in the 7,000 range. If it's a density issue, I don't think that, you know, I think the existing neighborhood is because a lot size, based purely off lot size, is actually more dense. There's bigger lot spaces that are within there. The price that I'm seeing on here as well is that, you know, most of these homes are having been recently sold in the last two years even, being sold in the mid-twos, and a lot of those having, you know, probably appreciated since then and just thought, you know, a straight line appreciation of average within the Dallas-Fort Worth area. You're probably looking at the high mid-twos now on those home values, and then to, you know, to Commissioner Anderson's point, I think that really if we're talking about, you know, not rezoning this whatsoever and keeping it at R2, it's not even economically feasible, as the applicant said, to try to move forward with the development and R2 zoning, they're not going to build $250,000 homes on R2 zoning either, even if they wanted to. Ignore economically feasibility right now, but if they wanted to build, by right, much larger homes, you know, $750,000 homes on, you know, half-acre lots, that wouldn't work out as well on the same point that you made there, Ronnie, about white elephants in the mortgage lending piece, so if anything, the rezoning would make it more accessible for there to be a lending for the house bought in that area, but I just don't see why, and this is kind of the first point I made the last meeting when it was a denial, I just don't see why we're debating it. It looks like, and Phil, to me, the lots actually look bigger, so the density that's there really doesn't seem to be a huge issue, and we're talking about nine homes, you know, with the very most 18 cars and mobility issues and everything else being brought up, I just don't see it. I think we're facing a ghost here. Kristerbeck. Yeah, I'm sort of split here. I don't actually have a problem, I agree with Commissioner Smith on the density. I don't have a problem with the density. I know it sounded like I had a problem with the overall regional issues when I was talking with Julie earlier, but I don't. I think this, in terms of density, is fairly well infilled density, but I do, the two things that concerned me, and they addressed this last time, were the engineering of the street. I still feel qualms, but the city engineers tell us that you can get a fire truck in there, you can do everything else you want in there. I'm not a street engineer, so I'm going to trust the engineers on that one. It feels twitchy to me, but then what do I know? The only other issue is the one I brought up in work session, and that is you're sort of chopping up an R2, it feels like maybe an anticipation of more chop-ups as the time goes on, but that sort of thing happens. So, I honestly could go either way on this, but I don't think the density, I agree with Commissioner Smith, I don't think the density is an issue on this one. So what I'd like to do is, if we have questions for the applicant or for staff, let's get those addressed, and then once we kind of conclude that, we can close the, kind of the discussion into, I guess it's not a public hearing, what am I talking about, I don't have anything to close. With regard to that, we'll go to Commissioner Pernetta. Yeah, and kind of, I have the same opinion as Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Beck. You know, when I look at this map, and this is an oddball, right? This is a little oddball area, and I think on any day of the week, any one of us could be convinced to go in one direction or the other. One of the things that kind of strikes me is, it's an oddball because of the few houses that immediately surround it, right? Because if those weren't, you know, just, you know, big lots and everything, what they're asking for completely conforms to everything else that's built around it. It's an odd little thing, but I can't see where we would be able to put anything else in there that would be feasible, that would be sellable. I have family that live close by, so I know the area and I know the density around it. I don't think you could get a lot of money for a larger property, you know, for larger lots and bigger house there. You know, ultimately, I think last time I was pretty heavily swayed by the opposition of the people surrounding, but ultimately, you know, based on the clarification that we have on infill now, because the last one, the last definition of infill that we had last time kind of didn't fit, this one makes a lot more sense. I think if we, for me, I feel like if I say no on this one, basically what I'm telling people is that they can't do something with their property that makes sense, that almost every other property around them is already doing and that we're going to have to wait until their neighbors some day sell their house and they want to maximize their profits on those. I'm not sure that I'm feeling a no on this one. I think, you know, this just happens to be the day of the week when this came before me and I went, you know what? It does make sense. That's my thought. >> Thank you, Commissioner Pernetta, Chair, we'll continue discussion and/or motion real fast. Commissioner Ellis, I just wanted to read for the record that on this item we had one person make comments using our online form and they were in support of the project. So the floor is yours, Commissioner Ellis. >> I appreciate it, Chair. Thank you. Okay. So we're getting kind of lost in density. Density really is not the issue here, but compatibility is the issue and has been the issue and there's nothing new here than we saw two months ago when we denied this project. We got a really nice presentation today. We got some economic data today, but we have the same project that was before us two months ago and it's the fact of the matter that this piece of property is surrounded on the majority of it by large lot homes. The minority part, the southern part of this is what is the smaller lot, smaller homes. But the majority and where all the opposition is coming, there's nothing new here. It's always been nine lots. That's what's been presented in the neighborhood meetings. There's nothing new that we're getting back today. And I do appreciate that the presentation is great. I personally don't consider R2 zoning an impediment as it relates to the infill definition in the comp plan that we're suddenly using on today's presentation. And I'd also like to bring up that we weren't even talking about infill until today. As many times as this has been brought up, that was not even part of staff analysis last time to us. We have the discussion here in our meeting, but now we're just being presented, I guess, the same data differently using different words and different definitions. So for me, my mind hasn't changed. I mean, it's being opposed by the majority of the landowners around it, and it's just not compatible for me. Thank you, Mr. Ellis, again, we can continue discussion. Chair also entertains a motion. Commissioner Smith. I'll make a motion to approve with the staff recommendations of the overlay. I take Commissioner Ellis's point to heart. I understand. I agree with you. We didn't have this infill conversation last time. But if you look at the entire, take a quarter of a mile radius around this property, I just don't see how we don't see this as infill, and I just have to have to disagree with you on that. Density, you know, included in there, I think that makes little sense for us not to move forward with this zoning. I don't think it's going to be an impediment to the surrounding neighbors, even given with their concerns. So I make a motion to approve. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Anderson, do you have your hand up? I was just going to second. Okay. You were going to or you are just for clarification. I am. Okay, great. So we have a first and a second for approval on this item. Any discussion? Commissioner Beck. I do have some question of the two definitions of infill. Are they both binding on our decision process? Can you clarify the question on what you mean? We're not binding infill definitions on this. So that we're using it, not binding, but you're correct to correct me. There's two definitions of infill. One, even the applicant says clearly I do not need, she said that. And I think we all agree that there's three sides of the square where this is not consistent. And then a larger comprehensive plan where there is sort of general consistency. And so in meeting those definitions, is there one that's operant that should be more of a factor in weighing our decision? And one that is merely a guidance or are they both equally operant? Richard, can you add clarification? Is there a priority of the kind of conflicting definitions? This might be something to add to the matrix later. But for this purpose, are they, should they be equally considered or is there one that's a little bit more applicable? I think they can essentially equally considered. But obviously, I think the one that's in the DDC, I mean, there are provisions within the comprehensive plan. Obviously, we look at future land use first. And then there's a multiple policies within the plan that give a lot of flexibility. The definition in the DDC does not provide that flexibility. It doesn't give if this, then that. And so I don't know if Cynthia would like to add anything. Cynthia Kirchhoff. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I would, it's my opinion that the definition of infill development in the development code would apply. The comprehensive plan definition is a guiding document. But the infill development and definition of the DDC is actually the ordinance or the law in the city. So I really, I really appreciate that because that sets up two different definitions. And under that advice, I think I have to lean one way. Thank you, Cynthia. I appreciate it. Commissioner Panetta. Yeah. And I just want to clarify something on that. Well, I need some clarification on that clarification, I guess. Because real quick, I do want to kind of bring up that there was a slide, there was a very short discussion of infill last time we had this bought up. And I think it actually was Commissioner Ellis who mentioned it in her closing statements. And I found that persuasive at the time. I think there was not much more to it that swung me in that direction. But knowing that we have two definitions and one is in the DDC and the other one is not, I guess the question is, Commissioner Beck was wondering which one we should go by. My question is, does it make a difference whether or not we're using the rationale for denial or an approval? Because to me, it sounds like since we have two of them, we would have to go by one mainly if we were doing a denial, but if we were approving either way, you know, we could basically, we wouldn't have to tie it to that justification. Am I wrong on that? Does that make sense what I'm saying? Because ultimately, if you're going to vote against something, you would be able to tie it to a specific citation. But if we're not denying something, do we have a little bit more leeway in terms of which definition we ascribe to? Is that my question as well? Yes. Well, it's my opinion that we would have to use the criteria that are in 2.72(d) of the DDC where it lists the items that you must consider for a zoning map approval or action. And that's what you would have to use in making your decision. And I believe Julie has those items laid out in her staff report. Any other discussions we have first and second on the table? Commissioner Beck? Can we restate the motion? I've blinked my eyes since the motion was proposed. Commissioner Smith? It was a motion to approve with staff recommendations for the overlay. Prior to taking a vote, I just wanted to say a couple things myself as a way of discussion. I can't get behind this one. I'm going to make that real dramatic there and lead with my decision. I just can't support this. I will say Pundari hiring AEG and having Amy present was a fantastic decision. I can affirm that because I think Lee Allison and Amy Bassett combined always come with the most well-prepared presentations and the most convincing persuasive arguments and quality follow through most importantly. So first I want to affirm the property owner's decision to align himself with that team. It's unfortunate in my opinion that this is surrounded by big lots and so just looking on a map and seeing an acre lot to the west and sizable lots to the north and sizable lots to the east, I just cannot understand how that would be destructive to the neighborhood and moreover kind of like I expressed I believe as in last PNZ meeting about kind of a bigger picture and thinking outside the box of planning in terms of we had that Shady Shores item last meeting, I wonder if there's an opportunity right now in that area to talk to the seven surrounding property owners and actually see if there can be a redevelopment of the entire area because if you were to take those seven properties and the interior you could actually create an R4 full neighborhood and I don't want to get in the negotiations of land but if you're telling me that the market price in that area is about $300,000 which is what your data showed in all five scenarios and you're also telling me that each home you can sell for $450,000 then just buying those lots at fair market value gets you a 33% return on your investment minus out some infrastructure to build a road probably but it seems like I would rather see that than this weird kind of alleyway in between two homes that goes in the backyards of big lots and squeezes in nine properties, I'd rather and I'm going to vote no in anticipation of waiting for something better, not to say that the quality of the homes isn't gonna be great or that you couldn't sell nine in that area, I think the market probably sustains it regardless of the other properties around it being a little bit lower in value according to some of your estimates but I just think waiting and seeing what you can do with other property owners to see if there's any negotiation on that rather than taking a property you own and squeezing something in, that's my perspective on it, might have the votes tonight the applicant but for me it's gonna be a no for this development as it was last time because as Commissioner Ellis said nothing new is brought to my attention this evening to make a compelling argument to the contrary. Is there anything else to be discussed? We have a first and a second for approval on the table. Seeing no further discussion, I will take a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Ellis. Nay. Commissioner Bec. Nay for the reason Cynthia laid out. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is a nay. Motion fails 4-3-3-4. There's four nays and three yays but motion fails. Chair will entertain another motion, Commissioner Ellis. Move denial. Commissioner Bec. I'll second that for the same reasons as earlier. We have a first by Ellis for denial and a second by Commissioner Bec. Any discussion? We'll take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Yay. And just to clarify a yay is for denial. I think Ellis knew that but just to clarify. Commissioner Bec. Yay. Aye. Affirmative. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Nay. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Nay. Chair is a aye. Motion carries 5-2 for a denial. The next item of business is item 4CPP20-0023. This item is being recommended for denial and is seeking an extension to a date certain of December 16th. Chair will entertain a motion to such. Commissioner Pernetta. Motion to postpone until December 16th. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for a 30-day extension to a date certain of December 16th. Any discussion? Seeing none I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Bec. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is item 4D. This item PP20-0025 is also being recommended for denial but the applicant is seeking an extension of 30 days to a date certain of December 16th. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension of date certain of December 16th. We have a first. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second to extend for 30 days to a date certain of December 16th. Any discussion? Seeing none I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Bec. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is our public hearing item 5AZ20-0010. This item has been withdrawn by the applicant which leads us to our next item 5B, S20-0007. I will open the public hearing and invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. Thank you, Chair. Pulling up my presentation now. Okay. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner. I'll be presenting S20-0007 Quincy Court. This is a request for a specific use permit to allow a building of no more than 46 feet in height. The building is proposed for a vacant 1.57 acre lot zoned MN mixed use neighborhood. The multifamily use proposed is permitted by right. The maximum permitted height in the mixed use neighborhood zoning district is 65 feet, but heights between 41 feet and 65 feet do require a specific use permit. That's the request coming before you. Okay. Planner, I'll be presenting. The requested building height would be an increase of 6 feet over what is permitted without an SUV. To give you a little bit of history on the zoning of this site, the MN zoning was applied to it in the 2019 city-wide rezoning. That was a common MN zoning. That was a combination of the previous NRMU and NRMU 12 districts. NRMU permitted a height of 65 feet, NRMU 12 permitted a height of 40 feet. And so for MN, it was determined that 65 foot height would be permitted, but that above 40 feet, 40 to 65, that would require approval of a specific use permit. This site, the subject property prior to that 2019 rezoning was zoned NRMU and had a permitted maximum height of 65 feet by right, no specific use permit required. Just to give you a sense of the property, looking to the east and then looking to the north, you can see the adjacent residential as well as Stewart Road, Loop 288 that bound this site. To get into the details of this request, first it's important to know that the DDC has mixed use district standards that require a minimum ground floor height of 12 feet. And that's within our two MD and MN districts, we require that. And so there's a limited amount of space left between that maximum 12 foot and the 40 foot cap that is set without an SUP to fit in the remainder of the story of your building. The request for a six foot height increase, if that was approved, would allow all of the upper stories to have a standard nine foot height and the ground floor entrances could be at grade. Without the SUP, the applicant did provide an alternative plan that staff could approve initially discuss that with them that would get their four stories within that 40 feet without needing an SUP. That alternative would require constructing the building below grade, you'd have steps leading down to the ground floor entrances, upper floors would be less than nine feet in height. While that could be approved by the DDC, it was a less optimal design at the streetscape, the pedestrian experience, and by the aesthetics of the facade were just not as optimal as the original design, which would have required that SUP. And so the applicants brought forward this request for the height increase. So that you can get a sense of what that would look like, you can see here, this would be the building design if the SUP was approved for that additional six feet. A little more detail here, so you can see the darker blue line shows the 40 foot height that's permitted without an SUP for the building frame, and see also the dark green line shows permitted building frame height if the SUP was approved, so you can see that six foot difference there. It's the front and rear elevations. Similarly, on the broader side, west and east, you can see the difference between the height that could be permitted without the SUP and what's being requested. So the question is, would this 46 foot building height, would that meet our SUP criteria for approval? So of course, we look at our general approval, as well as the specific SUP criteria for approval, and we'll touch specifically on some of the most important of those. First off, it's important to look at our future land use map. This property is designated primarily as neighborhood mixed use, so the future land use map there didn't plan 2030 states that that should have a mix of compatible housing types and densities in that area, along with local serving non-residential uses. Moderate to high density residential uses are permitted, but new higher density housing should be sensitive in scale and form to the surrounding built and natural context. The multi-family use is consistent with the future land use map, but more importantly, the height increase question that would be consistent with the number of stories recommended for neighborhood mixed use by the didn't plan 2030 development criteria be within what's recommended for this area. Moreover, the design elements that would be possible with that height increase, pedestrian friendly first floor height, ground floor entrance that grade, those are more consistent with didn't plan 2030 design principles was the surrounding neighborhoods than the alternative plan of sunken first floor and a significant difference from first floor and upper story heights. We also need to look at compatibility with the surrounding area. This property is located on two corridors, Loop 288 and Stewart Road. Along Loop 288, a typical pattern is to have either current or planned multi-story development at your major intersections on Stewart Road, and that corridor tends to flow from multi-story, multi-family major intersections in between, you have low to moderate single family, and then back at those intersections. So this proposed development, taller multi-story building at an intersection would be consistent with both those corridor patterns. Also note that the undeveloped property to the north and west is similarly zoned MN, so what's proposed would not limit the ability to develop those in the way they currently do, delving deeper into that compatibility with surrounding area. We know that the maximum building height in those adjacent R6 neighborhoods is 40 feet, but it's important to note that a house built in one of those neighborhoods could actually exceed 40 feet at its peak because for pitch roofs, which many single family residents have, we measure height at the halfway point of that roof. So a house in one of the adjoining neighborhoods could be built in excess of 40 feet, possibly in excess of 46 feet by right within those adjoining neighborhoods. So the difference is a little bit more limited than it might seem between the actual permitted height and the surrounding R6 zoning and the requested height for this site. Again, noting that that increased height allows for at-grade entrances, more pedestrian-friendly design that's actually more consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods than the alternative design that would be needed with the 40-foot limitation in place. So that increase of 6 feet in height is expected to have a minimal background compatibility to building overall with the area. We also want to look at mitigating potential negative impacts of the increased height. One of those comes from what's already in the DDC, our building height and transition areas, and what that provides, the projection that provides, it states that within 50 feet of an adjacent residentially-zoned property, such as R6, any building needs to not exceed the maximum permitted height in that R6 zoning or other residential zoning. Within 100 feet, a building can only go up to the maximum in the neighboring residential plus 15 feet, and you can't request an SUP for height increase, as is being done tonight. So taken together, those restrictions are part of why you see that this building is moved at least 100 feet from both of the neighboring residential areas, actually 150 feet from the neighborhood to the east. But just important to realize that even without this SUP requirement, the transition area standards limit building height in close proximity to residential districts. We provide a protection so that you don't have maximum height building right next to those single-family districts. There are also protections from negative impacts within the site design. So this landscape area for this proposed development would be over 15 percent higher than the minimum required. The tree canopy would exceed the minimum required by 9 percent. Buffer width on the east there, that would be -- there's a zero-width requirement. They would provide a 20-foot buffer. The south to zero-width requirement, 45 feet, the buffer would be provided between the homes in the beginning of even the parking on the site, much less the property. So look at the effects of lighting and glare. Like any development, this would, at building permit, need to show compliance with all DDC standards for lighting, including that light spillover limits at all property lines need to be met and all fixtures need to be downward directed or full cutoff shielded. Traffic is not expected to be any different width without the SUP most likely the same number of units, but they do provide all of the parking necessary for the number of units they're proposing. And going quickly through providing adequate public resources, the amount of traffic expected to be generated by this site did not require a TIA. It is located at the corner of an arterial and a collector, and the applicant will actually be constructing new curb, gutter, and new pavement for half-width of Stewart Road as part of this project, as well as new sidewalks or sidewalks along both frontages, ensuring good transportation infrastructure. Water and wastewater service is available. The site is within the eight minutes of last response time for the fire department, specifically check and they confirmed that 46 foot high would not hinder their ability to provide fire service to this development. Of course, it's important to consider our neighborhood input. We did send out all of the standard notifications, received one letter in opposition, which is a new backup, as well as one letter in favor, which is also a new backup. The applicant held two neighborhood meetings. The first one did not have any attendees, so a second one was held. I was able to attend that as well, and there were two attendees. They discussed concerns about the safety of the intersection, the proposed cost of the units, and the effect on their property values, and following the discussion, they appeared to be satisfied with the answers. When specifically asked if they had any objection to the height increase request, they did not. For all these reasons, staff recommends approval of the SUP with conditions as it meets criteria for approval, and is consistent with Denton plan 2030. Essentially the conditions cover the fact that the attached preliminary site plan landscape plan reflects an intent to comply. Minor alterations can be approved by staff, but the overall plan needs to meet all the standards of the DDC. Notwithstanding that, the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP, the attached site plan, the attached landscape plan, and any elements in these conditions. The attached site plan landscape plan are incorporated as requirements of the SUP. Staff has the ability to approve an increase or decrease of up to five percent, any amount specified requirements A to D below, other than number of buildings, so of course that does not include maximum building height that's subject to this, and the zoning map shall reflect the specific use permit on the property consistent with the 2019 DDC. But with that, my presentation is concluded. The applicant does not have a presentation, but is I believe on the line if any questions are needed, and I will stand for any questions you all have. Thank you Sean for the presentation. Any questions for either staff or the applicant who is on the line? Great, do we have anyone on the phone or, okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this, seeing that there's no one calling in and turn to the dais for discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve with the staff recommendations. Great. Commissioner Ellis? I will second and also thank Sean for a very thorough presentation. Concur with that. Any discussion on this item? I just want to echo and say great presentation Sean. Okay with that I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Chair is also an aye, motion carries seven zero. Next item of business, item six, which is our planning and zoning project matrix. I will turn the floor over to Richard for any updates he has and then for discussion. Chair, there's really no updates on the matrix. I know we'll be shuffling a few things around adding the item that Ron was going to present back in and then what I'm going to start to do, because I know there's a number of them that relate to code items that we said we would bring back and just try to give a guesstimate or estimate as to when that will be brought back in front of the commission just to give a little bit of a better idea when those things will be coming forward. Thank you. I have one item to add to the matrix. I'd like to have a presentation on parking minimums as they pertain to the downtown area specifically. As we look for downtown redevelopment, in the south portion especially, I had a citizen reach out to me with a very thorough kind of diagnostic of the impact parking minimums could have to the urbanization of downtown, and so I just wanted to hear the rationalization for keeping all of the parking minimums what they are and then what mechanisms are provided to planning zoning and to council to put overlays or encourage development that is not hindered too much by parking minimums, and I don't know if that, in my mind I'm thinking if there's a city-funded garage that eliminates some of the development's need for parking or that type of conversation I would like to engage with, to really incentivize and plan for a walkable and dense downtown and vibrancy to Denton. So that's all I have. Any other commissioners have anything to add to the matrix? Okay, seeing none, thank you for another great meeting on Zoom. I will call this meeting to an end at 748. You all have a good night. - Happy Thanksgiving. - Happy Thanksgiving.