1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,840
 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission

2
00:00:05,840 --> 00:00:10,360
 work session for Wednesday, November 18, 2020.

3
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:15,200
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 430.

4
00:00:15,200 --> 00:00:20,200
 We don't have any citizen comments on the consent agenda at this time, so we can step

5
00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:23,040
 into the clarification of agenda items.

6
00:00:23,040 --> 00:00:28,140
 We'll actually go right into work session reports, actually, which leads us to receive

7
00:00:28,140 --> 00:00:32,920
 a report and hold discussion regarding the 2020 Denton Mobility Plan update, and I'll

8
00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:35,440
 turn it over to staff to provide us this presentation.

9
00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:40,040
 Thank you very much, and good afternoon, members of the commission, Brian Yon, city traffic

10
00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:45,240
 engineer, here to talk to you today about the 2020 update of the City of Denton Mobility

11
00:00:45,240 --> 00:00:46,240
 Plan.

12
00:00:46,240 --> 00:00:54,560
 Let me share this screen, did everybody see that presentation?

13
00:00:54,560 --> 00:01:07,200
 Okay, so in order to kind of break the mobility plan into manageable sizes for presentation

14
00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:12,560
 purposes, we divided the city into five different areas, north, south, east, and west, and then

15
00:01:12,560 --> 00:01:15,440
 a downtown area as well.

16
00:01:15,440 --> 00:01:23,400
 And we have presented this mobility plan, these five, at least two or three times each,

17
00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:28,080
 so we're getting really good at the presentation portion for this.

18
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:33,640
 Hold on, I'm gonna ask to move the mic a little bit closer.

19
00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:35,920
 Does that help?

20
00:01:35,920 --> 00:01:36,920
 That's much better, actually.

21
00:01:36,920 --> 00:01:38,880
 Okay, thank you.

22
00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:43,480
 So the presentation tonight is kind of a high-level presentation.

23
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:50,560
 I will talk about each of the five areas individually, but we will not go into a lot of detail.

24
00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:56,400
 All of the presentations are online at the cityofdenton.com/mobilityplan, and because

25
00:01:56,400 --> 00:02:02,580
 we recorded each of the five community, virtual community meetings, and the Q&A sections are

26
00:02:02,580 --> 00:02:06,640
 on there as well, both in the video and in a written summary.

27
00:02:06,640 --> 00:02:12,320
 So if you have questions that you think of later and we don't get to them today, I invite

28
00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:17,040
 you to delve a little bit deeper into those presentations, where we really talk about

29
00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:24,120
 very low-level specific issues and answer questions that the community has risen.

30
00:02:24,120 --> 00:02:25,880
 So just a brief overview.

31
00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:32,080
 The 2020 update of the mobility plan is the first update that really encompasses the three

32
00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:33,080
 areas.

33
00:02:33,080 --> 00:02:36,600
 We've got the thoroughfare plan, which we've all seen before.

34
00:02:36,600 --> 00:02:42,400
 We have a bike plan, which we had a bike plan before from about 2012, 2014, but we've got

35
00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:45,300
 a new pedestrian plan element in this as well.

36
00:02:45,300 --> 00:02:49,600
 And so for each of these areas, we'll talk a little bit about the methodology and some

37
00:02:49,600 --> 00:02:51,400
 of the updates that are included.

38
00:02:51,400 --> 00:02:57,240
 But this is the first fairly comprehensive mobility plan that the city of Denton is going

39
00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:06,000
 to publish, where we talk about roads, vehicular access, bike access, and pedestrian access.

40
00:03:06,000 --> 00:03:12,320
 Again, we try to update the plan every five years.

41
00:03:12,320 --> 00:03:17,240
 Every core function of the thoroughfare plan is corridor preservation.

42
00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:27,560
 We need to reserve the right-of-way as development occurs and really establish what type of facility

43
00:03:27,560 --> 00:03:35,760
 both for bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular that we plan or project the need for in that

44
00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:40,140
 corridor and secure that right-of-way as development occurs.

45
00:03:40,140 --> 00:03:48,680
 So each of these plans was impacted and influenced by the need and the desire to improve safety.

46
00:03:48,680 --> 00:03:52,320
 That's along the lines of our Vision Zero program.

47
00:03:52,320 --> 00:03:58,680
 We've also tried to improve connectivity and focus on our multimodal options, which is

48
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:04,120
 really embedded in the complete streets approach that the city is about.

49
00:04:04,120 --> 00:04:07,080
 So I'll start with the thoroughfare plan.

50
00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:12,680
 So the foundation of the thoroughfare plan update is the comprehensive plan.

51
00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:21,000
 That identifies land uses and densities, et cetera, that are associated with the undeveloped

52
00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:28,800
 portions of Denton and kind of give us an idea of what the future holds as far as proposed

53
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:33,120
 trip generation and facility and infrastructure needs.

54
00:04:33,120 --> 00:04:39,760
 Again, this is just some illustrations of the land use map and how we'll go through

55
00:04:39,760 --> 00:04:45,840
 it a little bit, how we use this land use to develop a trip generation and travel demand

56
00:04:45,840 --> 00:04:52,480
 forecast for not only the vehicular but the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes.

57
00:04:52,480 --> 00:04:54,240
 This is what I call the nerdy part.

58
00:04:54,240 --> 00:05:00,040
 So each of these, if you look at the map with the little blue zones, those are the traffic

59
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:07,000
 analysis of, and each of the entire city was divided into several hundred of these zones.

60
00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:10,460
 Each has population and employment estimates.

61
00:05:10,460 --> 00:05:15,280
 So we take those population and employment estimates and use some regional factors from

62
00:05:15,280 --> 00:05:20,320
 the COG to turn those into trip generation and trip, and then we distribute those trips

63
00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:26,120
 again using some information we've got from COG and some travel demand, travel and some

64
00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:28,720
 origin destination information.

65
00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:33,080
 We apply a mode choice, how many people we expect to use a private vehicle, how many

66
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:38,800
 people we expect to bike or walk, and then also with our transit partners, what that

67
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:43,600
 ridership might be as relative to transit in the future, and then we run a model that

68
00:05:43,600 --> 00:05:50,560
 assigns all of these different trip modes to the infrastructure in the city of Denton.

69
00:05:50,560 --> 00:05:55,320
 So this helps identify corridors that may become overloaded.

70
00:05:55,320 --> 00:06:00,880
 We need to augment with parallel facility or it also helps in sizing the roadways and

71
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:05,760
 determining classification of each of the roadways in the city and where our trails

72
00:06:05,760 --> 00:06:08,740
 and sidewalks need to be.

73
00:06:08,740 --> 00:06:13,120
 So again, I'm talking third of our plan, roadway classifications, freeways, and you'll see

74
00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:18,800
 those on our map as primarily black lines, typically owned and maintained by check stop,

75
00:06:18,800 --> 00:06:24,640
 right away varies, the number of lanes varies, and the capacity varies because these are facilities

76
00:06:24,640 --> 00:06:33,320
 that are intended to be fairly high speed, high volume, Luke 288, 35, US 380 in portions.

77
00:06:33,320 --> 00:06:37,200
 The true freeways that are controlled access are the ones that have the ramps and the frontage

78
00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:41,480
 roads where you can't directly access the main roads.

79
00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:43,760
 So the next category is primary material.

80
00:06:43,760 --> 00:06:48,000
 This can be either city owned or check stop owned.

81
00:06:48,000 --> 00:06:53,520
 The city right of way is typically 135 feet or primary, can be four or six lanes and we'll

82
00:06:53,520 --> 00:07:01,360
 talk a little bit about cross section in a minute, but again, the primary arterial is

83
00:07:01,360 --> 00:07:07,400
 a little bit higher volume, higher speed, 25 to 50,000 cars a day estimate.

84
00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:11,280
 That's a comfortable capacity limit for primary arterial.

85
00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:19,280
 Secondary arterial, excuse me, primarily owned by the city, a little less regional in nature,

86
00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:23,920
 kind of feeds the primary arterial network, connects to the collectors and the residential

87
00:07:23,920 --> 00:07:30,520
 areas, a little bit less right of way, 110 feet, two to four lanes typically maximum,

88
00:07:30,520 --> 00:07:36,840
 and then again, 15 to 25,000 vehicles per day would be a reasonable expectation of capacity.

89
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:41,200
 And then collector, these are almost all city owned.

90
00:07:41,200 --> 00:07:43,720
 We've actually got two collector sizes.

91
00:07:43,720 --> 00:07:50,760
 The typical collector is a 65 feet, in the criteria manual we identify a major collector,

92
00:07:50,760 --> 00:07:58,240
 which is very similar to secondary arterial and right of way, it's 110 feet, but two to

93
00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:05,700
 three lanes and 10 to 15,000 vehicles a day, again, that comfortable expectation of capacity.

94
00:08:05,700 --> 00:08:10,240
 So I want to spend a little bit of time here talking about cross sections because this

95
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:16,740
 is one of the big areas of change in the mobility plan.

96
00:08:16,740 --> 00:08:21,560
 So what you see on the left hand side of your screen is our existing primary arterial cross

97
00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:22,560
 section.

98
00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:26,240
 It is defined as a six lane divided roadway with on street bike facilities and adjacent

99
00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:29,520
 sidewalks and 135 feet right of way.

100
00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:36,280
 So what we're trying to do on the right hand side, we've got proposed, these are new built,

101
00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:37,880
 so this is greenfield construction.

102
00:08:37,880 --> 00:08:46,680
 We're trying to build some flexibility into what we can call a primary arterial because

103
00:08:46,680 --> 00:08:53,040
 it's really, again, context sensitive and complete streets practices tell us that the

104
00:08:53,040 --> 00:08:57,640
 character of the roadway can change even though the classification is not.

105
00:08:57,640 --> 00:09:04,200
 So we've got a six lane divided facility, but you'll notice that we've moved the bike

106
00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:11,640
 to a multi use shared path on the side, trying to get those cyclists off the street, off

107
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:15,560
 of, and again, this is a primary arterial, so that's a little higher speed, little higher

108
00:09:15,560 --> 00:09:21,240
 volume expected infrastructure, and we're just not really comfortable keeping the bikes

109
00:09:21,240 --> 00:09:22,240
 on street.

110
00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:24,400
 We'd rather move them to a side path.

111
00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:31,300
 And then again, this is greenfield construction, but as we build these primary roadways in

112
00:09:31,300 --> 00:09:40,200
 the fringe areas, the rural areas of the city, we can start with two or three lanes and still

113
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:46,560
 preserve that right away, the corridor with the expectation based on our travel demand

114
00:09:46,560 --> 00:09:51,680
 model that those volumes may increase, but day one, you're not going to have 45,000 cars

115
00:09:51,680 --> 00:09:52,680
 a day.

116
00:09:52,680 --> 00:09:53,980
 You may have 4,500 cars a day.

117
00:09:53,980 --> 00:10:00,840
 So we're trying to build in flexibility into the mobility plan to allow some different

118
00:10:00,840 --> 00:10:03,120
 approaches in roadway construction.

119
00:10:03,120 --> 00:10:10,160
 Again, primary arterial, this is a reconstruction in an urban alternative.

120
00:10:10,160 --> 00:10:19,560
 Again, we can go back with a six lane roadway and have some bike facilities and sidewalks

121
00:10:19,560 --> 00:10:26,440
 on the side, or we can, what they used to call a road diet, we can utilize one of the

122
00:10:26,440 --> 00:10:31,760
 outside lanes as a buffered bike facility, something like what you've seen on Hickory

123
00:10:31,760 --> 00:10:39,480
 and Welch, and we'll see soon on Ankle up close to Windsor.

124
00:10:39,480 --> 00:10:48,320
 So again, flexibility, trying to identify different alternatives rather than just a

125
00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:52,500
 primary arterial, a six lane divided roadway, and that's that.

126
00:10:52,500 --> 00:10:56,400
 Very similar of a secondary arterial, our current cross section is a four lane divided

127
00:10:56,400 --> 00:10:59,200
 with on-street bike facilities.

128
00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:02,480
 What we're looking at now is if you want to have a four lane, if you want to have on-street

129
00:11:02,480 --> 00:11:07,520
 bike facilities on a secondary arterial, we're recommending that they be buffered so that

130
00:11:07,520 --> 00:11:13,120
 you separate those cyclists from what could be a high volume, high speed roadway.

131
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:16,760
 And then again, the rural alternatives, we don't need to start out with four lanes.

132
00:11:16,760 --> 00:11:23,960
 We can start out with two and grow the roadway as development occurs or as those trips appear

133
00:11:23,960 --> 00:11:27,000
 on the roadway infrastructure.

134
00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:31,480
 Again, same thing with the urban reconstruction alternatives.

135
00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:37,960
 A four lane roadway can become a three lane roadway with either on-street bikes or wider

136
00:11:37,960 --> 00:11:45,640
 sidewalks that serve as a side path, or we could even introduce on-street parking, and

137
00:11:45,640 --> 00:11:49,680
 this is a traffic calming measure.

138
00:11:49,680 --> 00:11:54,860
 Anytime we can introduce side friction, we can slow the speeds down and really change

139
00:11:54,860 --> 00:11:59,600
 the functionality and the feel of the roadway.

140
00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:00,600
 Collectors are the same thing.

141
00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:05,760
 Currently, we've got a two lane with on-street parking and a three lane with center and left

142
00:12:05,760 --> 00:12:06,760
 turn lane.

143
00:12:06,760 --> 00:12:10,880
 And you can see that we've got a number of alternatives with on-street bike, off-street

144
00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:17,280
 bike parking, parallel, or this could represent diagonal or head end parking.

145
00:12:17,280 --> 00:12:25,480
 Again, just trying to increase the number of alternatives for new development and redevelopment.

146
00:12:25,480 --> 00:12:30,640
 So now I'm going to start with the northern sub area, and again, this is going to be fairly

147
00:12:30,640 --> 00:12:31,720
 high level.

148
00:12:31,720 --> 00:12:35,960
 So the left-hand side of your screen and all these shots is going to be the existing 2015

149
00:12:35,960 --> 00:12:40,960
 mobility plan, and the right-hand side will be the draft 2020 plan.

150
00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:48,560
 And what you'll see, and I think fairly consistently on all five sectors, is if you look on this,

151
00:12:48,560 --> 00:12:57,680
 it's a great example, we've identified a lot of future links, a lot of collectors that

152
00:12:57,680 --> 00:13:04,640
 are these dashed lines, and what we've tried to do is clean up a lot of that connectivity.

153
00:13:04,640 --> 00:13:09,760
 This is fairly prescriptive, the spacing is fairly tight on the 2015 mobility plan, and

154
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:15,160
 what we want to do is just provide a base infrastructure, take a lot of the collectors

155
00:13:15,160 --> 00:13:21,400
 away in the undeveloped areas, and let the development guide that roadway spacing.

156
00:13:21,400 --> 00:13:26,400
 We'll identify the primary corridors and primary and secondary arterials, and we will allow

157
00:13:26,400 --> 00:13:32,960
 development and the type of development to determine the spacing of the number of collectors.

158
00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:34,960
 So that's a major takeaway.

159
00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:42,600
 On this, this is the northern sub area, which you'll see here, this, again, the black facilities

160
00:13:42,600 --> 00:13:50,440
 are what we're calling our controlled access, our freeway facilities, 288 west of 35, 380

161
00:13:50,440 --> 00:13:59,480
 west of 288, and then 428 becomes, and this is currently in feasibility, so it's not an

162
00:13:59,480 --> 00:14:05,920
 adopted plan yet, but TXSTOT is looking very closely at converting that two-lane rural

163
00:14:05,920 --> 00:14:16,320
 roadway to a potential four or six-lane controlled access facility, connecting to this, this

164
00:14:16,320 --> 00:14:21,200
 is called the outer loop, and this is something that's been on the books for many, many years.

165
00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:26,640
 That is a very regional nature, perhaps all the way around the eastern side of the Metroplex,

166
00:14:26,640 --> 00:14:34,280
 Garland and around Mesquite, just truly becomes an outer loop for the entire North Texas area,

167
00:14:34,280 --> 00:14:41,960
 but connecting that to our loop 288 facility, and then over to 35, again, with a controlled

168
00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:43,720
 access facility.

169
00:14:43,720 --> 00:14:47,760
 Again, this is the downtown area.

170
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:48,760
 Sorry to interrupt, Brian.

171
00:14:48,760 --> 00:14:52,920
 Commissioner Beck, I think, has a question on the previous slide.

172
00:14:52,920 --> 00:14:53,920
 Thank you, Chair.

173
00:14:53,920 --> 00:15:02,560
 Brian, can you describe how, I mean, what's our process for interacting with TXSTOT and

174
00:15:02,560 --> 00:15:10,440
 COG on these large regional, you know, they're going through our territory, as it were, so

175
00:15:10,440 --> 00:15:14,760
 we should have a large say, but, I mean, I understand that they're also taking a regional

176
00:15:14,760 --> 00:15:17,140
 and state-level perspective on some of these.

177
00:15:17,140 --> 00:15:25,900
 Can you describe how our advisory capacity is on those larger kind of roadways that are

178
00:15:25,900 --> 00:15:27,920
 not strictly owned by us?

179
00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:28,920
 Sure.

180
00:15:28,920 --> 00:15:36,080
 So, and again, we definitely play a role in the determination of these alignments and

181
00:15:36,080 --> 00:15:41,960
 the institution and the completion of these roadways through our area.

182
00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:47,680
 We have representation on the COG Regional Transportation Commission, the RTC.

183
00:15:47,680 --> 00:15:48,680
 TXSTOT's a little bit different.

184
00:15:48,680 --> 00:15:52,780
 We don't have representation with TXSTOT, but we do work very closely with them and

185
00:15:52,780 --> 00:16:01,840
 their planning group to identify preferred alignments and potential hazards.

186
00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:04,880
 So the city gets to voice its opinion.

187
00:16:04,880 --> 00:16:14,980
 At the end of the day, if the TXSTOT and the COG determine that this is the preferred alignment

188
00:16:14,980 --> 00:16:21,520
 and they go through the public hearing process and dot the I's and cross the T's, a lot

189
00:16:21,520 --> 00:16:26,960
 of that truly is left in the hands of TXSTOT and COG.

190
00:16:26,960 --> 00:16:33,840
 So we are certainly advisors throughout that process, but the true interstate system and

191
00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:41,240
 the regional controlled access, the regional freeway system is something that many times

192
00:16:41,240 --> 00:16:46,080
 is we reflected on our plan because it's on TXSTOT's plan.

193
00:16:46,080 --> 00:16:55,200
 And so Loop 9 has evolved over, and I've been in the Metroplex for 30 years and it was on

194
00:16:55,200 --> 00:16:56,840
 the books when I got here.

195
00:16:56,840 --> 00:17:04,080
 So it's something that has undergone excruciating public input and review.

196
00:17:04,080 --> 00:17:11,340
 And the alignment that you're seeing here is one of 20 different alignments that was

197
00:17:11,340 --> 00:17:18,000
 studied by the COG and TXSTOT as they looked at where the preferred corridor would be.

198
00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:21,320
 City didn't certainly play a role in that.

199
00:17:21,320 --> 00:17:25,520
 And so we ended up with this particular alignment.

200
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:27,920
 428 is a little bit different.

201
00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:30,800
 That alignment is existing and they're not proposing a new alignment.

202
00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:39,140
 They're simply proposing or conducting a feasibility study to determine whether or not it justifies

203
00:17:39,140 --> 00:17:42,840
 the upgrade to a controlled access facility.

204
00:17:42,840 --> 00:17:52,440
 So in the 288 West, that corridor certainly is something that the city of Denton was keen

205
00:17:52,440 --> 00:18:02,040
 on securing and we still remain convicted, very interested and a large participant in

206
00:18:02,040 --> 00:18:05,560
 trying to get that executed and completed.

207
00:18:05,560 --> 00:18:11,160
 A lot of the alignment study, TXSTOT hires a consultant.

208
00:18:11,160 --> 00:18:15,080
 They go through the process, they go through the environmental process, and the city and

209
00:18:15,080 --> 00:18:21,480
 the public has the opportunity to offer input throughout that public process.

210
00:18:21,480 --> 00:18:27,160
 So would you recommend that, I mean, if citizens wanted to be, if Denton citizens wanted to

211
00:18:27,160 --> 00:18:35,640
 be involved, is the best place to insert, is it to insert opinion at our local hearings

212
00:18:35,640 --> 00:18:42,160
 when we discuss this like you just did recently, or is it better to insert in the TXSTOT public

213
00:18:42,160 --> 00:18:43,160
 hearings?

214
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:45,360
 Where's the greater impact on that?

215
00:18:45,360 --> 00:18:52,240
 I think you need to do, my recommendation would to someone who is, has an interest in

216
00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:55,600
 and voicing a comment or an opinion is you would do both.

217
00:18:55,600 --> 00:19:03,280
 So the more times that TXSTOT or COG hears a comment, if they hear it from the city and

218
00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:07,680
 if they hear it at their own public hearings, the more times they hear that concern or those

219
00:19:07,680 --> 00:19:10,000
 issues, the better.

220
00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:14,760
 So I don't know that there's one that would actually, you know, this trumps the other.

221
00:19:14,760 --> 00:19:23,840
 I think you need, if it's truly important to your, either your property or your business

222
00:19:23,840 --> 00:19:30,960
 or just as to you as a citizen, then you need to be as active as you can.

223
00:19:30,960 --> 00:19:38,600
 And so we certainly, we relay the input that we get from those, that we receive from our

224
00:19:38,600 --> 00:19:40,960
 community meetings, the virtual community meetings.

225
00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:48,280
 But when TXSTOT or the COG holds these regional public hearings and these public meetings,

226
00:19:48,280 --> 00:19:51,280
 we need to be in attendance to those as well.

227
00:19:51,280 --> 00:19:52,280
 Thank you so much.

228
00:19:52,280 --> 00:19:53,280
 I appreciate it.

229
00:19:53,280 --> 00:19:54,280
 Anything else?

230
00:19:54,280 --> 00:19:55,280
 Yes.

231
00:19:55,280 --> 00:19:56,280
 Commissioner Smith.

232
00:19:56,280 --> 00:19:57,280
 Thank you, Chair.

233
00:19:57,280 --> 00:20:08,600
 What is the road that is the red dotted north-south line between 35 and then the locust there

234
00:20:08,600 --> 00:20:16,240
 north of the 288 loop right there, what road is that?

235
00:20:16,240 --> 00:20:17,240
 I'm blanking.

236
00:20:17,240 --> 00:20:18,240
 I can.

237
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:19,240
 Is it even in existence?

238
00:20:19,240 --> 00:20:20,240
 No, no, no.

239
00:20:20,240 --> 00:20:21,240
 It's not.

240
00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:22,240
 It's not.

241
00:20:22,240 --> 00:20:31,880
 And so that's where, when you see a dash line, that's a proposed facility that's not on existing

242
00:20:31,880 --> 00:20:32,880
 alignment.

243
00:20:32,880 --> 00:20:33,880
 Is it north?

244
00:20:33,880 --> 00:20:34,880
 Is it north Bonnie?

245
00:20:34,880 --> 00:20:35,880
 Is it Bonnie Bray?

246
00:20:35,880 --> 00:20:38,800
 Well, it looks like it's tying into Bonnie Bray.

247
00:20:38,800 --> 00:20:42,280
 Bonnie Bray comes up right here, if you can see where our cursor is.

248
00:20:42,280 --> 00:20:43,280
 And it's an extension.

249
00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:46,240
 I'm not sure that we're calling it Bonnie Bray.

250
00:20:46,240 --> 00:20:47,640
 I have to go back and look.

251
00:20:47,640 --> 00:20:49,560
 I don't want to speak out of turn.

252
00:20:49,560 --> 00:20:54,480
 But Bonnie Bray hits loop 288 right about where it starts.

253
00:20:54,480 --> 00:20:59,040
 So it very well may be a geographic extension of Bonnie Bray.

254
00:20:59,040 --> 00:21:01,880
 Is that the hills of Denton?

255
00:21:01,880 --> 00:21:09,200
 Yes, and those, and my video is lagging here, so I apologize.

256
00:21:09,200 --> 00:21:17,440
 But I guess the decisions on where those are projected, I'm just seeing this from a planning

257
00:21:17,440 --> 00:21:24,120
 standpoint here, that it, I know this is really, we're not codifying anything whatsoever here.

258
00:21:24,120 --> 00:21:28,920
 But it seems like something should go north of Milam even, if we're basically creating

259
00:21:28,920 --> 00:21:35,680
 with what the extension of 156 over to 35, and then the extension of locusts all the

260
00:21:35,680 --> 00:21:38,120
 way north to that outer loop.

261
00:21:38,120 --> 00:21:42,840
 And we're talking about probably either land that's in the ETJ or it's in Sanger's ETJ.

262
00:21:42,840 --> 00:21:45,120
 So it's not really even under our control.

263
00:21:45,120 --> 00:21:46,120
 Right.

264
00:21:46,120 --> 00:21:48,360
 So part of that, I was just going to speak to that.

265
00:21:48,360 --> 00:21:55,960
 So you've got the city of Denton has its own mobility plan and thoroughfare plan.

266
00:21:55,960 --> 00:22:01,040
 The county has its own mobility plan and thoroughfare plan.

267
00:22:01,040 --> 00:22:06,520
 Most of our adjoining cities have some kind of a mobility plan.

268
00:22:06,520 --> 00:22:10,840
 It's very possible that they adopt the county plan and then Cog has a regional plan.

269
00:22:10,840 --> 00:22:14,680
 So we've got several different layers.

270
00:22:14,680 --> 00:22:20,720
 Just because it's not shown on our mobility plan, it very well may be an ETJ and, but

271
00:22:20,720 --> 00:22:24,160
 the county has a background plan as well.

272
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:26,820
 I believe they adopted theirs in 2017.

273
00:22:26,820 --> 00:22:29,960
 So they've got a couple more years before they update.

274
00:22:29,960 --> 00:22:34,080
 We tend to work with all of our stakeholder partners, the county and the Cog, trying to

275
00:22:34,080 --> 00:22:42,120
 reflect the thoughts of other agencies and municipalities and how that folds into, you

276
00:22:42,120 --> 00:22:45,280
 know, where do our roads connect to their roads, basically.

277
00:22:45,280 --> 00:22:46,280
 That works.

278
00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:47,280
 All right.

279
00:22:47,280 --> 00:22:48,280
 Thank you.

280
00:22:48,280 --> 00:22:49,280
 That's all I had.

281
00:22:49,280 --> 00:22:50,280
 Anything else?

282
00:22:50,280 --> 00:22:51,280
 I'll move on.

283
00:22:51,280 --> 00:22:54,280
 Okay.

284
00:22:54,280 --> 00:23:01,640
 So, again, back to the downtown sub-area.

285
00:23:01,640 --> 00:23:02,800
 Not a lot of changes.

286
00:23:02,800 --> 00:23:06,920
 Some of the major changes that we see here are Elm and Locust, we're taking those from

287
00:23:06,920 --> 00:23:10,840
 primary to a secondary.

288
00:23:10,840 --> 00:23:16,800
 Those two roadways function, even if they remain as one-way facilities, they really

289
00:23:16,800 --> 00:23:21,400
 function at a different level than a U.S. 380 university.

290
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:23,600
 That's a primary.

291
00:23:23,600 --> 00:23:28,620
 Even Carroll, but again, just really different context.

292
00:23:28,620 --> 00:23:34,120
 They go through the downtown area, they've got on-street parking, they've got a higher

293
00:23:34,120 --> 00:23:42,160
 driveway density, and so we're bringing those down to a little bit different size.

294
00:23:42,160 --> 00:23:48,560
 If you look at the 2015 plan on your left, West Oak Street tying back on the other side

295
00:23:48,560 --> 00:23:53,840
 of 35 is shown as a primary, and just for corridor consistency, we're bringing that

296
00:23:53,840 --> 00:23:57,000
 back to a secondary arterial.

297
00:23:57,000 --> 00:24:04,800
 A lot of these roadways are just, the context does not lend itself to be a primary, which

298
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:10,480
 is, again, that higher speed, higher volume facility.

299
00:24:10,480 --> 00:24:16,440
 All right, western sub-area.

300
00:24:16,440 --> 00:24:24,360
 Here we're working with a lot of our development partners, and if you'll notice, we've got

301
00:24:24,360 --> 00:24:28,160
 a greater number of primaries.

302
00:24:28,160 --> 00:24:36,100
 Some of it is, we're reflecting 156, it doesn't show on the 2015 map, and 2449, but we've

303
00:24:36,100 --> 00:24:45,040
 also got this new facility here, 288 West, tying in through Hunter Cole.

304
00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:51,260
 We've reflected a lot of their roadway alignments and cross-sections, and in fact, we're still

305
00:24:51,260 --> 00:25:00,240
 working with them on some of their thought processes on whether or not a primary is required

306
00:25:00,240 --> 00:25:04,520
 on all of these, or if they want to modify those secondaries.

307
00:25:04,520 --> 00:25:10,640
 Again, the primary and secondary, we can get a four-lane roadway and call it a primary,

308
00:25:10,640 --> 00:25:13,200
 we can get a four-lane roadway and call it a secondary.

309
00:25:13,200 --> 00:25:17,840
 The primary difference is the right-of-way, and what amenities that allows us to put in

310
00:25:17,840 --> 00:25:20,840
 the right-of-way.

311
00:25:20,840 --> 00:25:27,160
 Our initial take is we'd like to get the 135 feet, because it gives us a lot of room for

312
00:25:27,160 --> 00:25:36,200
 off-street shared use side paths or our bicycle facilities, but again, we've seen a lot of

313
00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:40,840
 fewer roadways, but in the western section, we actually are taking those.

314
00:25:40,840 --> 00:25:46,120
 We see the growth, we see the rooftops coming, and we're projecting a greater need for roadway

315
00:25:46,120 --> 00:25:48,120
 capacity in this area.

316
00:25:48,120 --> 00:25:50,320
 Brian, I have a quick question for you.

317
00:25:50,320 --> 00:25:51,320
 Sure.

318
00:25:51,320 --> 00:25:54,680
 It seems like in the couple you've shown us thus far, there's been a simplification on

319
00:25:54,680 --> 00:26:01,240
 linear pathways, like point A to point B. On the left-hand side even, that one you're

320
00:26:01,240 --> 00:26:08,240
 just hovering over, the dashed red primary, it was a green S-curve east to west.

321
00:26:08,240 --> 00:26:11,520
 On the 15 and on the 20, it's basically a straight line.

322
00:26:11,520 --> 00:26:14,860
 Can you talk about the rationale?

323
00:26:14,860 --> 00:26:19,760
 Because I understand that the mobility plan does not actually signify where roads are

324
00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:20,760
 to go.

325
00:26:20,760 --> 00:26:26,560
 It kind of just gives a general picture, but on the right-hand side, it seems like they've

326
00:26:26,560 --> 00:26:30,920
 all been straightened out with no perceived curvature to the roads.

327
00:26:30,920 --> 00:26:35,440
 Can you talk about the rationale in terms of the adherence to that or the expectations

328
00:26:35,440 --> 00:26:37,200
 to adhere to that?

329
00:26:37,200 --> 00:26:42,520
 So a couple of different things, and I do want to touch on the fact that what we're

330
00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:48,080
 showing is a very conceptual, and that's what a mobility plan is supposed to be, very conceptual.

331
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:55,240
 We need a roadway, and I'll use the 2020 as an example here.

332
00:26:55,240 --> 00:27:00,740
 We need an east-west archery, a secondary primary, from point A to point B. Typically,

333
00:27:00,740 --> 00:27:07,840
 what we'll do is follow property lines, and what the 2015 mobility plan did was not to

334
00:27:07,840 --> 00:27:08,840
 follow property lines.

335
00:27:08,840 --> 00:27:17,080
 So we ended up bisecting a lot of properties, and that's very, very difficult to develop

336
00:27:17,080 --> 00:27:18,680
 a roadway network.

337
00:27:18,680 --> 00:27:20,480
 We try to identify the primary links.

338
00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:23,680
 These are the major connections that we need to see through here.

339
00:27:23,680 --> 00:27:30,400
 We do have some collectors shown as you get a little closer to 28835, but our concept

340
00:27:30,400 --> 00:27:38,200
 with this update is to identify that backbone, that structure of primary and secondary arterials.

341
00:27:38,200 --> 00:27:43,640
 Major collectors will identify, but we really want to let the property develop and determine

342
00:27:43,640 --> 00:27:48,360
 where those intermediate connections need to be.

343
00:27:48,360 --> 00:27:56,080
 So out to the west, you've got some very large parcels, and we're simply trying to be sensitive

344
00:27:56,080 --> 00:28:01,680
 to let's keep the roadways kind of on the property lines where we don't take the entire

345
00:28:01,680 --> 00:28:08,920
 cross-section from one parcel, and let's let that development fill in the collector network,

346
00:28:08,920 --> 00:28:13,200
 because we've got requirements, and we do a traffic impact analysis.

347
00:28:13,200 --> 00:28:17,320
 They have to provide the roadway capacity to serve their development, but we don't want

348
00:28:17,320 --> 00:28:24,400
 to over-tax or over-exact the roadway cross-section.

349
00:28:24,400 --> 00:28:30,000
 So it is a simplification, and that was the intent, is to simplify the roadways where

350
00:28:30,000 --> 00:28:35,080
 we have a partner like Utter Coal, and they can give us a better background of here's

351
00:28:35,080 --> 00:28:39,440
 where we want our roadways and our collectors, and try to reflect that.

352
00:28:39,440 --> 00:28:46,400
 But again, it really was just to identify here's the major, the backbone structure,

353
00:28:46,400 --> 00:28:49,160
 and we'll let the development fill in those intermediate connections.

354
00:28:49,160 --> 00:28:50,160
 Great.

355
00:28:50,160 --> 00:28:51,160
 I appreciate that.

356
00:28:51,160 --> 00:28:56,000
 Some of the stuff, if you look at the left-hand side, those secondary arterials are spaced

357
00:28:56,000 --> 00:28:58,280
 extremely closely.

358
00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:04,760
 For primaries and secondaries, you're looking from a half mile to a mile is pretty typical,

359
00:29:04,760 --> 00:29:09,920
 and so we've got, there's a lot of roadway capacity in that 2015 mobility plan that we're

360
00:29:09,920 --> 00:29:11,920
 not necessarily seeing the need for.

361
00:29:11,920 --> 00:29:17,720
 So we'll let the development, again, fill in that, the collector system, and that how

362
00:29:17,720 --> 00:29:23,560
 do we get our people to the major roadways, and we'll identify where those major corridors

363
00:29:23,560 --> 00:29:27,960
 need to be, primarily, again, following existing protocols.

364
00:29:27,960 --> 00:29:28,960
 Thank you.

365
00:29:28,960 --> 00:29:29,960
 I appreciate that.

366
00:29:29,960 --> 00:29:30,960
 All right.

367
00:29:30,960 --> 00:29:38,280
 Southern sub-area, this probably changed the least.

368
00:29:38,280 --> 00:29:44,960
 From between 2015 and 2020, you can see that most of the red lines, the major, the primary

369
00:29:44,960 --> 00:29:47,420
 arterials, are still primary arterials.

370
00:29:47,420 --> 00:29:54,480
 We do have this new connection along Hickory Creek, Rush Creek, that we're tying into 2499

371
00:29:54,480 --> 00:29:56,560
 all the way to 35.

372
00:29:56,560 --> 00:30:03,800
 And again, that connects over to some of the 100 coal stuff, and 288 is now a major corridor

373
00:30:03,800 --> 00:30:08,560
 through that south portion, tying into 35.

374
00:30:08,560 --> 00:30:12,680
 And then, so again, not a lot of changes.

375
00:30:12,680 --> 00:30:15,480
 A lot of these are existing roadways.

376
00:30:15,480 --> 00:30:23,720
 You can see the amount of dashed, red, green, and blue, versus some of the previous slides.

377
00:30:23,720 --> 00:30:31,880
 A lot of these are already existing, and we did not see the need to eliminate or add.

378
00:30:31,880 --> 00:30:43,200
 So again, this one stays very, very closely to the same between 2015 and '21 plans.

379
00:30:43,200 --> 00:30:50,520
 And then the eastern sub-area, this is probably one of the areas of greatest change.

380
00:30:50,520 --> 00:30:55,120
 And so we've talked a little bit about the outer loop that's up here off of Sherman,

381
00:30:55,120 --> 00:30:57,080
 and it comes down to Milam.

382
00:30:57,080 --> 00:31:03,960
 We've talked about the 428 possible conversion to a controlled-access facility.

383
00:31:03,960 --> 00:31:09,380
 We're also talking about 380 as a controlled-access facility with TechStop and the Cobb.

384
00:31:09,380 --> 00:31:11,920
 That is the ultimate plan, whether or not that's feasible.

385
00:31:11,920 --> 00:31:14,760
 Again, we're still studying that.

386
00:31:14,760 --> 00:31:23,480
 I know the county has some concerns about converting that 380 East to a controlled-access

387
00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:29,320
 facility because of the impact it might have on existing businesses and driveway access,

388
00:31:29,320 --> 00:31:30,320
 et cetera.

389
00:31:30,320 --> 00:31:34,040
 And one of the other things that we're talking about with the Cobb and TechStop is this little

390
00:31:34,040 --> 00:31:37,440
 dashed line between 380 and 288.

391
00:31:37,440 --> 00:31:45,520
 So again, looking from a regional perspective, if we can identify a corridor where we can

392
00:31:45,520 --> 00:31:53,320
 put basically a freeway, a direct connection between future 380 as a freeway to future

393
00:31:53,320 --> 00:32:01,200
 288 as a freeway, then we can take our intent is to make it more attractive for through

394
00:32:01,200 --> 00:32:08,080
 traffic just to follow this line and stay on 288 instead of coming through town on university.

395
00:32:08,080 --> 00:32:16,320
 So again, trying to downplay the need for university as a through route by providing

396
00:32:16,320 --> 00:32:19,720
 a much more attractive, higher speed, higher volume, just more capacity.

397
00:32:19,720 --> 00:32:25,440
 If we stay on the freeway sections, we'll get through town quicker, especially if you'll

398
00:32:25,440 --> 00:32:32,040
 remember that we're looking at on the west side of 288, 380 as a controlled access corridor

399
00:32:32,040 --> 00:32:34,880
 as well.

400
00:32:34,880 --> 00:32:38,040
 I know it's going to come up, so I'm going to go ahead and talk about this black line

401
00:32:38,040 --> 00:32:43,880
 here that we're showing cutting across the green belt is something that's been put out

402
00:32:43,880 --> 00:32:47,360
 by Cobb and TechStop.

403
00:32:47,360 --> 00:32:55,880
 They're calling it the integrated corridor, and the idea was to provide, because 380 is

404
00:32:55,880 --> 00:33:01,680
 kind of stalled as far as some of the improvements that the Cobb wanted to make, and loop nine

405
00:33:01,680 --> 00:33:12,760
 is probably pretty far off in the future and pretty far north as far as viability for intermediate

406
00:33:12,760 --> 00:33:19,360
 corridor, they identified using existing alignments trying to connect various different county

407
00:33:19,360 --> 00:33:31,240
 roads and city roads all the way from common county to 428 as a kind of an alternative

408
00:33:31,240 --> 00:33:40,460
 to the 380 freeway section and before the loop nine freeway section is constructed.

409
00:33:40,460 --> 00:33:47,520
 We are simply reflecting that on our plan because it's being examined, it's being studied.

410
00:33:47,520 --> 00:33:52,960
 It may not turn out to be viable, and I think there's a public meeting in December.

411
00:33:52,960 --> 00:33:59,520
 I forget the actual date, but I believe it may be on TechStop's website or we may actually

412
00:33:59,520 --> 00:34:06,440
 have it in one of our mobility plan meetings where we talked about this corridor specifically.

413
00:34:06,440 --> 00:34:13,000
 So this is not something that the City of Denton developed, we're simply reflecting

414
00:34:13,000 --> 00:34:20,640
 the information that we have from the Cobb and TechStop.

415
00:34:20,640 --> 00:34:21,640
 Any questions?

416
00:34:21,640 --> 00:34:24,200
 Christopher Beck.

417
00:34:24,200 --> 00:34:25,200
 Thank you, Chair.

418
00:34:25,200 --> 00:34:29,880
 Brian, yeah, so maybe to just hammer home that earlier point.

419
00:34:29,880 --> 00:34:35,880
 As this impacts Carter Ranch, Clear Creek, some of the development in Hartley Field that

420
00:34:35,880 --> 00:34:40,920
 we've heard about recently, this development here, or this potential for this controlled

421
00:34:40,920 --> 00:34:48,320
 access road that looks like the northern parts of Agave.

422
00:34:48,320 --> 00:34:56,240
 If our citizens wanted to make sure their concerns were met, they not only should talk

423
00:34:56,240 --> 00:35:02,600
 with you as they have been at that, whatever, month ago beauty about the Northeast region,

424
00:35:02,600 --> 00:35:08,160
 that they should also be attending and comment to Cog, and they should also be attending

425
00:35:08,160 --> 00:35:13,640
 this December 2nd, I believe it's December 2nd, TechStop 380 corridor meeting.

426
00:35:13,640 --> 00:35:17,040
 They should be hitting all of those.

427
00:35:17,040 --> 00:35:18,040
 Correct.

428
00:35:18,040 --> 00:35:24,160
 And so I believe the way that TechStop's doing their public meetings now, it's a range of

429
00:35:24,160 --> 00:35:25,160
 dates.

430
00:35:25,160 --> 00:35:27,600
 So they're going to leave the public comment open.

431
00:35:27,600 --> 00:35:32,520
 They may have a Zoom meeting, but they typically leave their public comment period open for

432
00:35:32,520 --> 00:35:33,820
 quite some time.

433
00:35:33,820 --> 00:35:42,400
 And so yes, we encourage anyone who's got a concern about a proposed freeway through

434
00:35:42,400 --> 00:35:49,920
 this part of the county and the city, please, yes, we've received a number of comments.

435
00:35:49,920 --> 00:35:55,960
 People have made comment on our interactive mobility plan map, but we do encourage them

436
00:35:55,960 --> 00:36:02,320
 to attend and voice those same concerns with the other stakeholders, and that will be the

437
00:36:02,320 --> 00:36:03,720
 Cog and TechStop.

438
00:36:03,720 --> 00:36:06,840
 So yes, definitely attend.

439
00:36:06,840 --> 00:36:08,880
 We can share that.

440
00:36:08,880 --> 00:36:14,840
 I'm not sure that we know the exact date right now, but when we have that, we can certainly

441
00:36:14,840 --> 00:36:19,480
 share that with this group and any other who will put it on our mobility plan website so

442
00:36:19,480 --> 00:36:25,040
 that the citizens can participate via those public meetings as well.

443
00:36:25,040 --> 00:36:30,360
 Yeah, it definitely seems like a sensitive, not sensitive, but well, sensitive right there

444
00:36:30,360 --> 00:36:34,740
 at the eastern boundary in the Clear Creek itself.

445
00:36:34,740 --> 00:36:39,640
 There's a lot of conflicting stakeholders for that particular alignment.

446
00:36:39,640 --> 00:36:42,420
 You can see how that would affect Carter development.

447
00:36:42,420 --> 00:36:44,020
 So developers might have concerns.

448
00:36:44,020 --> 00:36:47,720
 You can see how that would affect our infrastructure as a city.

449
00:36:47,720 --> 00:36:55,060
 You can see the environmental-oriented people having issues about that particular alignment.

450
00:36:55,060 --> 00:37:02,160
 There's a lot of stakeholders in the shown alignment, and I think there's going to be

451
00:37:02,160 --> 00:37:03,520
 some contention there.

452
00:37:03,520 --> 00:37:04,520
 Oh, definitely.

453
00:37:04,520 --> 00:37:06,680
 There already has been some, yes.

454
00:37:06,680 --> 00:37:07,680
 Yes.

455
00:37:07,680 --> 00:37:09,800
 There's quite a bit of concern.

456
00:37:09,800 --> 00:37:14,560
 Thanks, Brian, I appreciate it.

457
00:37:14,560 --> 00:37:15,560
 Okay.

458
00:37:15,560 --> 00:37:20,720
 So moving on to the second element, and that's the bicycle plan.

459
00:37:20,720 --> 00:37:27,140
 One of the approaches that we've taken with this update of the bike plan is to look at

460
00:37:27,140 --> 00:37:32,280
 what we call the level of stress profiles, and that's the comfort level that different

461
00:37:32,280 --> 00:37:36,820
 riders have on different types of infrastructure.

462
00:37:36,820 --> 00:37:42,800
 And if you just focus on nothing else, just this left-hand part, more than 50% of the

463
00:37:42,800 --> 00:37:48,400
 total population are interested but concerned, they're not really comfortable with on-street

464
00:37:48,400 --> 00:37:49,960
 bike facilities.

465
00:37:49,960 --> 00:37:55,640
 And this is, in our discussions with council, this is one of the primary reasons why we're

466
00:37:55,640 --> 00:38:02,640
 looking to enhance our off-street, those side paths, those shared-use paths, the trail system,

467
00:38:02,640 --> 00:38:08,600
 enhance that network versus more of a focus on on-street, the buffered bike lane or the

468
00:38:08,600 --> 00:38:10,040
 protected bike lane.

469
00:38:10,040 --> 00:38:17,320
 There are elements in town, excuse me, areas in town where we'll always have on-street.

470
00:38:17,320 --> 00:38:23,320
 It's not really feasible to build an off-street pathway either due to right-of-way or drainage

471
00:38:23,320 --> 00:38:25,280
 corridors or whatever.

472
00:38:25,280 --> 00:38:29,360
 So we'll always have some on-street infrastructure, but we're really looking for every opportunity

473
00:38:29,360 --> 00:38:37,040
 to move that off-street and, by doing so, serve more of those people who would ride

474
00:38:37,040 --> 00:38:41,400
 if they have the right kind of bike facility.

475
00:38:41,400 --> 00:38:47,600
 So with that in mind, I'll look at, this is the 2014 bike plan, and I'm not going to get

476
00:38:47,600 --> 00:38:55,400
 into color, but if you look, it's pretty easy to tell the, a lot of the on-street, and that's

477
00:38:55,400 --> 00:38:58,120
 the orange and the yellow and the red.

478
00:38:58,120 --> 00:39:02,720
 Some of the purple stuff is more trail-oriented on the 2015 plan.

479
00:39:02,720 --> 00:39:08,840
 But if you look at the 2020 plan, what's green is off-street, and it's hard to see that what's

480
00:39:08,840 --> 00:39:10,880
 brown is off-street as well.

481
00:39:10,880 --> 00:39:14,600
 So we're really, really trying to add to that off-street network.

482
00:39:14,600 --> 00:39:21,040
 The brown is trails, and the green would be our off-street shared site path.

483
00:39:21,040 --> 00:39:26,760
 The blue is the on-street network that we, a lot of it is already existing, and a lot

484
00:39:26,760 --> 00:39:32,480
 of it is in areas where it's just not feasible for us to go get an additional 20-feet right-of-way

485
00:39:32,480 --> 00:39:34,000
 to put a site path.

486
00:39:34,000 --> 00:39:40,520
 So what we're trying to do is what we've done on Hickory and Welch and what we'll be doing

487
00:39:40,520 --> 00:39:47,480
 on Oak Street is we'll narrow the on-street vehicular lanes and provide that buffered

488
00:39:47,480 --> 00:39:48,480
 bike lane.

489
00:39:48,480 --> 00:39:53,760
 If you've seen the bollards, we're going to be using more and more of those to create,

490
00:39:53,760 --> 00:39:59,480
 I call it, it's not really a separated or a protected bike lane because those bollards

491
00:39:59,480 --> 00:40:04,600
 won't stop a car, but it's an aggressively buffered bike lane, and that's, for a lot

492
00:40:04,600 --> 00:40:08,280
 of our on-street bike facilities, that's what we're going to be pushing.

493
00:40:08,280 --> 00:40:13,960
 So just to take away from this, you'll see a lot more green and brown, which is our off-street

494
00:40:13,960 --> 00:40:16,480
 facilities than we proposed in 2014.

495
00:40:16,480 --> 00:40:20,680
 Brian, I just wanted to pause real fast.

496
00:40:20,680 --> 00:40:26,480
 I think Becky, the city engineer, is on the line and maybe can provide insight to this.

497
00:40:26,480 --> 00:40:32,880
 Becky, are you there?

498
00:40:32,880 --> 00:40:48,040
 Well, I thought she was there, Richard.

499
00:40:48,040 --> 00:40:49,040
 Do you know if she's connected?

500
00:40:49,040 --> 00:40:53,040
 I haven't seen the participant list.

501
00:40:53,040 --> 00:41:01,440
 Yeah, it looks like she is connected.

502
00:41:01,440 --> 00:41:15,880
 Well, we can certainly circle back around and have her come back.

503
00:41:15,880 --> 00:41:16,880
 Thank you.

504
00:41:16,880 --> 00:41:17,880
 Oh, there she is.

505
00:41:17,880 --> 00:41:18,880
 Sorry about that.

506
00:41:18,880 --> 00:41:19,880
 Can you hear me now?

507
00:41:19,880 --> 00:41:20,880
 Yes.

508
00:41:20,880 --> 00:41:21,880
 My apologies.

509
00:41:21,880 --> 00:41:22,880
 Sorry.

510
00:41:22,880 --> 00:41:23,880
 Yes, thank you.

511
00:41:23,880 --> 00:41:27,560
 So this is Becky Devaney, city engineer, director of capital projects.

512
00:41:27,560 --> 00:41:30,320
 Brian, thank you for mentioning that public meeting.

513
00:41:30,320 --> 00:41:34,280
 I just wanted to provide that information.

514
00:41:34,280 --> 00:41:39,120
 TxDOT is going to have the second public meeting on the U.S. 380 Denton County feasibility

515
00:41:39,120 --> 00:41:44,720
 study, and that will be conducted, like Brian mentioned, through a virtual public meeting.

516
00:41:44,720 --> 00:41:51,880
 The materials are posted on the keepitmovingdallas.com website, and the public meeting comment period

517
00:41:51,880 --> 00:41:58,280
 is from Wednesday, December 2nd through Thursday, December 17th, and we will make sure that we

518
00:41:58,280 --> 00:42:02,680
 get with our public affairs team and have that posted on the city website and also through

519
00:42:02,680 --> 00:42:07,640
 our social media posts, so I just wanted to share that information with you, so thank

520
00:42:07,640 --> 00:42:11,920
 you for taking the time to let me pause and mention that.

521
00:42:11,920 --> 00:42:16,640
 Thank you, Becky.

522
00:42:16,640 --> 00:42:19,920
 Okay, so moving on.

523
00:42:19,920 --> 00:42:23,480
 So the last major element of our mobility plan is the pedestrian plan.

524
00:42:23,480 --> 00:42:36,480
 We've never really had a full-blown pedestrian plan with detailed descriptions and prioritization,

525
00:42:36,480 --> 00:42:40,680
 so there is no before picture to look at, but I will spend a little bit of time explaining

526
00:42:40,680 --> 00:42:41,880
 what the colors on this mean.

527
00:42:41,880 --> 00:42:51,520
 The yellow lines are existing pedestrian infrastructure, primarily sidewalks, and so you can see we've

528
00:42:51,520 --> 00:43:00,360
 got pretty good coverage, a lot of the newer areas better coverage, but we've got a couple

529
00:43:00,360 --> 00:43:04,160
 of other colors that I don't need to talk about, and that's this blue color.

530
00:43:04,160 --> 00:43:09,920
 Those are sidewalks that are programmed or under construction associated with roadway

531
00:43:09,920 --> 00:43:15,600
 improvement projects or other capital projects that the city is sponsoring, so we've already

532
00:43:15,600 --> 00:43:22,860
 got these yellow, and then the blue are known all the way, possibly in the next three years,

533
00:43:22,860 --> 00:43:28,200
 five years, but they will be existing in five years.

534
00:43:28,200 --> 00:43:30,040
 They'll be shown as yellow.

535
00:43:30,040 --> 00:43:35,520
 And then what the mobility plan looked at was all the missing links, everything that

536
00:43:35,520 --> 00:43:43,600
 isn't yellow or blue, and prioritized it based on adjacent land use and really the potential

537
00:43:43,600 --> 00:43:50,280
 for a pedestrian need, so this is, again, this is the pedestrian plan, primarily these

538
00:43:50,280 --> 00:43:57,080
 are sidewalks, and so if we're adjacent to a school or to retail or to transit, then

539
00:43:57,080 --> 00:44:02,560
 those links were identified as high priority, and that's what's shown in red, and then everything

540
00:44:02,560 --> 00:44:12,840
 else was shown as orange, and that's not necessarily low priority, but low wear priority, and the

541
00:44:12,840 --> 00:44:20,240
 ultimate goal is that every street in the city of Denton should provide pedestrian infrastructure

542
00:44:20,240 --> 00:44:23,440
 on at least one, if not both sides of the roadway.

543
00:44:23,440 --> 00:44:26,200
 And so that's really what we are looking for.

544
00:44:26,200 --> 00:44:32,080
 If you zoom in on the website with the interactive map, you can see a lot better coverage.

545
00:44:32,080 --> 00:44:33,080
 I kind of backed out.

546
00:44:33,080 --> 00:44:43,400
 I wanted you to see some of what we're including, again, a lot of infrastructure outside the

547
00:44:43,400 --> 00:44:54,120
 core area, outside 288, identifying with this plan the need for that complete street, context

548
00:44:54,120 --> 00:45:02,960
 sensitive, not everybody drives a car anymore, approach, and so this allows us to prioritize

549
00:45:02,960 --> 00:45:10,040
 these red and orange links with upcoming construction projects or to build a construction project

550
00:45:10,040 --> 00:45:18,400
 based on either a geographic or, again, the prioritization need for each of these sidewalks

551
00:45:18,400 --> 00:45:21,040
 or pedestrian infrastructure links.

552
00:45:21,040 --> 00:45:25,320
 So that's a kind of a 30,000 foot level of the pedestrian plan.

553
00:45:25,320 --> 00:45:26,920
 Again, we have an interactive map.

554
00:45:26,920 --> 00:45:27,920
 It's still online.

555
00:45:27,920 --> 00:45:32,720
 The comment period is closed, but the map is still up there if you want more detail,

556
00:45:32,720 --> 00:45:41,080
 and then as I said before, each of the five sections we talked about in the virtual community

557
00:45:41,080 --> 00:45:42,840
 meetings separately.

558
00:45:42,840 --> 00:45:47,400
 So we talk about the north, south, east, west, and downtown thoroughfare plan, bike plan,

559
00:45:47,400 --> 00:45:48,600
 and pedestrian plan.

560
00:45:48,600 --> 00:45:54,000
 So if you want to, if you've got a lot of time on your hands and you want to watch those

561
00:45:54,000 --> 00:45:57,520
 presentations, they are available online.

562
00:45:57,520 --> 00:45:58,520
 Thank you, Chris.

563
00:45:58,520 --> 00:45:59,520
 You're back.

564
00:45:59,520 --> 00:46:00,520
 Thank you, Chair.

565
00:46:00,520 --> 00:46:09,320
 Brian, I know the TWU Golf Course, TWU property with the adjacent red high priority is well

566
00:46:09,320 --> 00:46:19,840
 known and well understood in terms of our component going up Riddell and up Bingo, but

567
00:46:19,840 --> 00:46:24,520
 to what extent are the pedestrian ways that I know TWU is planning now that they don't

568
00:46:24,520 --> 00:46:29,960
 have a golf course in their worldview anymore?

569
00:46:29,960 --> 00:46:39,640
 They're planning pedestrian corridors through that former territory of the golf course.

570
00:46:39,640 --> 00:46:47,200
 To what extent do we coordinate our efforts to kind of help fill in that gap with what

571
00:46:47,200 --> 00:46:50,800
 they're planning for their state level plans, I guess?

572
00:46:50,800 --> 00:46:51,800
 Okay.

573
00:46:51,800 --> 00:46:52,800
 So good question.

574
00:46:52,800 --> 00:46:57,440
 We work with, we work actually the last couple of months, we've kind of upped our game working

575
00:46:57,440 --> 00:47:02,960
 with TWU very closely as they work through their master planning process, our parks department

576
00:47:02,960 --> 00:47:10,320
 is working with them to identify opportunities for trails on campus or connections to our

577
00:47:10,320 --> 00:47:12,220
 trail system.

578
00:47:12,220 --> 00:47:17,400
 They are looking at some pedestrian, for lack of a better word, pedestrian malls or pedestrian

579
00:47:17,400 --> 00:47:23,920
 corridors along Bell and certainly from Riddell moving west.

580
00:47:23,920 --> 00:47:31,200
 We are working very, very closely with them on the Riddell corridor and our Mingo corridor

581
00:47:31,200 --> 00:47:37,720
 as we identify either a trail or a side path along Mingo and additional sidewalk facilities

582
00:47:37,720 --> 00:47:44,280
 along Riddell to connect to their internal pedestrian infrastructure.

583
00:47:44,280 --> 00:47:53,040
 So we work, I think we meet every two to three weeks with their staff and our staff and work

584
00:47:53,040 --> 00:47:59,480
 through not only access and pedestrian issues, but also utility issues and right-of-way issues

585
00:47:59,480 --> 00:48:01,640
 and general operational issues.

586
00:48:01,640 --> 00:48:10,400
 So that relationship has proven very beneficial and those meetings are playing a significant

587
00:48:10,400 --> 00:48:15,960
 role in helping us see what they're doing and allowing them the opportunity to see how

588
00:48:15,960 --> 00:48:19,480
 we can connect to their infrastructure on campus.

589
00:48:19,480 --> 00:48:20,480
 Awesome.

590
00:48:20,480 --> 00:48:23,520
 Thank you.

591
00:48:23,520 --> 00:48:26,320
 Okay.

592
00:48:26,320 --> 00:48:31,120
 So one of the other questions that I was asked to address is the amendment process.

593
00:48:31,120 --> 00:48:35,680
 So once this plan is adopted, how do we change it?

594
00:48:35,680 --> 00:48:41,240
 How do we modify it and what steps do we take?

595
00:48:41,240 --> 00:48:48,560
 So before I get into the amendment process, I want to, again, talk about the nature of

596
00:48:48,560 --> 00:48:55,080
 the lines on the map and they are truly, when you see a dashed line, that is not an engineered

597
00:48:55,080 --> 00:48:56,080
 alignment study.

598
00:48:56,080 --> 00:49:03,460
 It is our consultant's best guess on where that roadway could go.

599
00:49:03,460 --> 00:49:09,660
 So they have not gotten into the two-foot contour maps and they look at major obstacles

600
00:49:09,660 --> 00:49:16,760
 and try to avoid, you know, railroads and wetlands and floodplains.

601
00:49:16,760 --> 00:49:19,160
 But those are truly conceptual.

602
00:49:19,160 --> 00:49:22,600
 I won't even call them schematic.

603
00:49:22,600 --> 00:49:27,540
 To me, schematic confers some kind of an engineering level of detail.

604
00:49:27,540 --> 00:49:39,800
 So one of the things we always want to restate is that as property develops, if a property

605
00:49:39,800 --> 00:49:46,840
 – and I'll use the carter – if they're impacted by a dashed line that's coming through

606
00:49:46,840 --> 00:49:54,040
 their property, then they have the ability, without going back to – through the amendment

607
00:49:54,040 --> 00:49:56,720
 process, of shifting that roadway within reason.

608
00:49:56,720 --> 00:50:01,040
 And a lot of times we use 1,000 feet on a major roadway.

609
00:50:01,040 --> 00:50:09,520
 When you're a mile or a mile and a half from the next adjacent roadway, 1,000 feet really

610
00:50:09,520 --> 00:50:11,560
 doesn't make much difference.

611
00:50:11,560 --> 00:50:17,480
 So there's some inherent flexibility in the mobility plan for the thoroughfares because

612
00:50:17,480 --> 00:50:20,440
 it is a line on a map and it's not an engineered alignment.

613
00:50:20,440 --> 00:50:27,520
 Well, typically, again, we'll try and stick with following existing property lines, but

614
00:50:27,520 --> 00:50:36,640
 we do have the ability to change some curvature, move an alignment if it serves the city better

615
00:50:36,640 --> 00:50:42,940
 or at least we maintain our connectivity, we're still getting our roadway, and we're

616
00:50:42,940 --> 00:50:54,960
 not doing some unproportional harm to some smaller properties where we've got a six-lane

617
00:50:54,960 --> 00:50:59,880
 or 135-feet of right-of-way going through a 12-acre property, that's pretty significant

618
00:50:59,880 --> 00:51:00,880
 taking.

619
00:51:00,880 --> 00:51:06,280
 So we try and work with the property owners in identifying what we need.

620
00:51:06,280 --> 00:51:12,880
 We still need to get a roadway through there, but how can we best serve the entire community

621
00:51:12,880 --> 00:51:15,840
 without at least undue harm?

622
00:51:15,840 --> 00:51:23,600
 So this portion is really about if we want to change a cross-section, if we want to remove

623
00:51:23,600 --> 00:51:31,040
 a roadway altogether, if we want to add a roadway, I'll say it's a six-step process.

624
00:51:31,040 --> 00:51:40,360
 Typically, we ask that the applicant, whether it be a city or a property owner in the city,

625
00:51:40,360 --> 00:51:46,240
 that we sit down and talk about it first so we all know what the extents and the potential

626
00:51:46,240 --> 00:51:53,440
 impacts are, and then we'll submit, somebody needs to submit an application to begin that

627
00:51:53,440 --> 00:51:59,700
 process to the Director of Planning and Development Services.

628
00:51:59,700 --> 00:52:02,360
 Step three is staff review.

629
00:52:02,360 --> 00:52:09,000
 Step four is the public meeting process where staff will formulate a recommendation, we'll

630
00:52:09,000 --> 00:52:14,880
 take it to P&Z, we'll take it to City Council, and give the public the opportunity to weigh

631
00:52:14,880 --> 00:52:21,600
 in on the proposed modification, whether it be a classification or alignment.

632
00:52:21,600 --> 00:52:26,720
 And then P&Z and City Council will make that decision as to whether or not to accept the

633
00:52:26,720 --> 00:52:33,120
 application, to modify it, or to deny it, and that action is final and cannot be appealed.

634
00:52:33,120 --> 00:52:39,640
 Now, this process may seem familiar because it's the same amendment process or modification

635
00:52:39,640 --> 00:52:42,980
 process that the comprehensive plan follows.

636
00:52:42,980 --> 00:52:51,240
 Both plans are governed by the same section of the municipal code, and so our position

637
00:52:51,240 --> 00:52:55,960
 is that the amendment process for both plans should be fairly similar.

638
00:52:55,960 --> 00:53:06,120
 And so, basically, what these next few slides show, there are some restrictions, mobility

639
00:53:06,120 --> 00:53:11,440
 plan amendments can be approved if we can agree that there is an error in the original

640
00:53:11,440 --> 00:53:12,440
 plan adoption.

641
00:53:12,440 --> 00:53:19,800
 The City Council failed to take into account existing information, events, trends, or facts

642
00:53:19,800 --> 00:53:27,600
 after adoption have changed significantly enough to change the council's original findings,

643
00:53:27,600 --> 00:53:34,640
 or they've changed the character of the area, so to make that amendment, that change necessary

644
00:53:34,640 --> 00:53:36,760
 improved.

645
00:53:36,760 --> 00:53:43,760
 So with that said, they're also subject to some limitations in that the proposed amendment

646
00:53:43,760 --> 00:53:49,840
 or modification is not in conflict with the goals and policies of the overall plan.

647
00:53:49,840 --> 00:53:54,760
 So we're not doing anything that we said originally that we shouldn't do.

648
00:53:54,760 --> 00:54:01,520
 And that the amendment constitutes a substantial benefit to the city and not solely for the

649
00:54:01,520 --> 00:54:03,000
 good of a particular landowner.

650
00:54:03,000 --> 00:54:09,520
 So this goes back to what I was saying, even if we don't go to PNC and council, any change

651
00:54:09,520 --> 00:54:19,240
 that we entertain, we still have to serve the overall overarching goals of the mobility

652
00:54:19,240 --> 00:54:20,240
 plan.

653
00:54:20,240 --> 00:54:26,200
 So if the mobility plan says we need a primary collector or primary arterial or secondary

654
00:54:26,200 --> 00:54:32,720
 east, west between point A and point B and or north south, then we still have to provide

655
00:54:32,720 --> 00:54:41,080
 that because the travel demand forecast model says we're going to need that much capacity.

656
00:54:41,080 --> 00:54:44,640
 Doesn't have to be exactly where the line is shown on the map, maybe not.

657
00:54:44,640 --> 00:54:52,880
 But unless we can all agree that the conditions have changed, the intensity is significantly

658
00:54:52,880 --> 00:54:59,480
 lower than what we were forecasting, or significantly higher, then we still have to serve the original

659
00:54:59,480 --> 00:55:00,960
 intent of the mobility plan.

660
00:55:00,960 --> 00:55:06,680
 And then the last point is the extent to which the proposed amendment or other amendments

661
00:55:06,680 --> 00:55:11,800
 are compatible with the land use goals, or in this case, the mobility goals, and that

662
00:55:11,800 --> 00:55:19,600
 they don't cause incompatible form or burden on the other public facilities.

663
00:55:19,600 --> 00:55:27,120
 So if we take a roadway off or if we downsize a given roadway, and we can show our travel

664
00:55:27,120 --> 00:55:32,160
 plan model that that's going to overtax a parallel facility, then that would be cause

665
00:55:32,160 --> 00:55:33,160
 for denial.

666
00:55:33,160 --> 00:55:41,960
 So just as an example, working with TWU, Commissioner Beck just mentioned that they're looking for

667
00:55:41,960 --> 00:55:45,600
 some pedestrian corridors through their site.

668
00:55:45,600 --> 00:55:51,980
 So one of the things that we looked at with them was the potential for making Bell discontinuous

669
00:55:51,980 --> 00:56:00,520
 between Chapel and College, and we conducted a study with TWU, they paid 50%, and they

670
00:56:00,520 --> 00:56:06,840
 paid 50%, to determine whether or not the adjacent roadways had adequate capacity in

671
00:56:06,840 --> 00:56:17,280
 our 2045 horizon year to accommodate what we expect from a tribal man need without Bell

672
00:56:17,280 --> 00:56:19,560
 in place, or without that through connection.

673
00:56:19,560 --> 00:56:24,160
 If Bell will still serve the university from the north and still serve the university and

674
00:56:24,160 --> 00:56:30,840
 the neighborhoods to the south, we just won't be able to go between Mingo and University

675
00:56:30,840 --> 00:56:36,640
 Drive without making some turns, so the straight shot's going to be, but we did the study to

676
00:56:36,640 --> 00:56:42,880
 show that, in fact, we do have the capacity in parallel facilities, so that amendment

677
00:56:42,880 --> 00:56:48,440
 does make sense.

678
00:56:48,440 --> 00:56:54,600
 And we can read these, but most of these are just making sure that we don't significantly

679
00:56:54,600 --> 00:57:03,400
 impact existing land use, public services and facilities, sensitive areas.

680
00:57:03,400 --> 00:57:08,920
 We want to make sure that as we make these changes, as we look at the impacts, that we're

681
00:57:08,920 --> 00:57:16,880
 not just shifting the burden from one area or from one roadway to another, and so there

682
00:57:16,880 --> 00:57:24,680
 are reasonable tests and criteria where the proposed amendments make sense, and then there

683
00:57:24,680 --> 00:57:29,800
 are also tests and criteria that will determine that it really doesn't make sense and we need

684
00:57:29,800 --> 00:57:38,000
 to stick with the original mobility plan and not accept the change.

685
00:57:38,000 --> 00:57:43,800
 So next steps for a mobility plan, we are incorporating currently the input we received

686
00:57:43,800 --> 00:57:48,440
 from the public meetings, we will develop the final thoroughfare bike and pedestrian

687
00:57:48,440 --> 00:57:53,800
 plans, and that includes not only the map, but there's a written document that goes with

688
00:57:53,800 --> 00:57:59,200
 this that identifies a lot of the policy and these procedures such as the amendment process.

689
00:57:59,200 --> 00:58:08,840
 We will adopt those new plans, our current estimate is probably first quarter of '21,

690
00:58:08,840 --> 00:58:16,840
 I think it makes sense to let the new council be seated and maybe give some brief updates

691
00:58:16,840 --> 00:58:23,320
 as far as and give them some time to get comfortable with the mobility plan itself, and then take

692
00:58:23,320 --> 00:58:32,480
 it back incorporating whatever modifications that we have from the public comment period

693
00:58:32,480 --> 00:58:36,560
 and then take them back to council probably to say they're probably in the first quarter

694
00:58:36,560 --> 00:58:37,560
 of '21.

695
00:58:37,560 --> 00:58:41,800
 Now, immediately following that mobility plan adoption, we're going to be coming back with

696
00:58:41,800 --> 00:58:49,840
 the roadway impact fee update, another somewhat potentially contentious plan update, but something

697
00:58:49,840 --> 00:58:51,400
 that we really need to focus on.

698
00:58:51,400 --> 00:58:57,920
 We've started that process several months ago and we pushed it onto the back burner

699
00:58:57,920 --> 00:59:04,200
 while we got through the three portions of the mobility plan, the thoroughfare plan,

700
00:59:04,200 --> 00:59:11,360
 the bike plan and pedestrian plan and as soon as we bring that for adoption, we'll light

701
00:59:11,360 --> 00:59:15,600
 that fire back underneath on that burner for the roadway impact fees and bring those back

702
00:59:15,600 --> 00:59:18,920
 for that public discussion and ultimate approval.

703
00:59:18,920 --> 00:59:21,800
 So just imparting, stay connected.

704
00:59:21,800 --> 00:59:24,240
 Here's my phone number.

705
00:59:24,240 --> 00:59:27,080
 I really should put my cell phone on there.

706
00:59:27,080 --> 00:59:32,760
 Sometimes I get this Cisco messaging, sometimes they go through and sometimes they don't.

707
00:59:32,760 --> 00:59:35,920
 That's my desk phone number.

708
00:59:35,920 --> 00:59:40,720
 Here's the cityofdetton.com/mobilityplan, that's where you can see the interactive map

709
00:59:40,720 --> 00:59:44,920
 and the comments that have been made by the public to date.

710
00:59:44,920 --> 00:59:51,560
 And then we also on that same website, we have this overview, have all of the virtual

711
00:59:51,560 --> 00:59:58,800
 community meetings and the Q&A and then we'll have timeline updates and much, much more.

712
00:59:58,800 --> 01:00:04,480
 So if you really want to get into the weeds, I encourage you to visit the website, watch

713
01:00:04,480 --> 01:00:10,680
 the previous presentations, look at the questions and answers that were incorporated into those

714
01:00:10,680 --> 01:00:18,240
 five presentations and if you have further questions, you can email me or call me.

715
01:00:18,240 --> 01:00:26,120
 So with that, I'll stop sharing and we can answer any questions that we might have.

716
01:00:26,120 --> 01:00:30,480
 Brian, I appreciate the presentation and the information.

717
01:00:30,480 --> 01:00:31,480
 Very helpful.

718
01:00:31,480 --> 01:00:38,640
 Is there any questions for Brian when we have him in the hot seat?

719
01:00:38,640 --> 01:00:39,640
 Okay.

720
01:00:39,640 --> 01:00:40,640
 Thank you very much.

721
01:00:40,640 --> 01:00:41,640
 Thank you very much.

722
01:00:41,640 --> 01:00:42,640
 I appreciate your time.

723
01:00:42,640 --> 01:00:43,640
 No, thank you.

724
01:00:43,640 --> 01:00:50,400
 The next item for our work session reports is item 3B-PZ 20-249.

725
01:00:50,400 --> 01:00:54,200
 Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding code amendments

726
01:00:54,200 --> 01:01:03,200
 related to subchapter 2, administration and procedures.

727
01:01:03,200 --> 01:01:06,840
 And it is Ron Maguida for presentation.

728
01:01:06,840 --> 01:01:09,240
 Ron, whenever you're ready, you have the floor.

729
01:01:09,240 --> 01:01:10,240
 Thank you, sir.

730
01:01:10,240 --> 01:01:25,360
 Let me get my presentation loaded.

731
01:01:25,360 --> 01:01:54,520
 Okay, hopefully you all can see my presentation and can hear me.

732
01:01:54,520 --> 01:01:58,840
 I'm going to move the mic closer to my voice here and we can get started.

733
01:01:58,840 --> 01:02:04,160
 Ron, real fast, I noted just quickly that your presentation is 58 slides long.

734
01:02:04,160 --> 01:02:06,260
 Yes, sir.

735
01:02:06,260 --> 01:02:11,080
 Is there, do we need to make any arrangements on working through the agenda?

736
01:02:11,080 --> 01:02:13,200
 I think that's a good idea.

737
01:02:13,200 --> 01:02:16,400
 I know that there's a number of other presentations.

738
01:02:16,400 --> 01:02:19,300
 If we don't get through all of them, that's fine.

739
01:02:19,300 --> 01:02:25,200
 We can continue to the next PNZ meeting, probably halfway through if you want to keep track

740
01:02:25,200 --> 01:02:31,840
 of time and let me know if the perfect time to kind of pause and have the other presentation

741
01:02:31,840 --> 01:02:33,560
 occur, we can do that as well.

742
01:02:33,560 --> 01:02:34,560
 Yeah.

743
01:02:34,560 --> 01:02:37,600
 Hey, Richard, do you have any idea on the actual working agenda?

744
01:02:37,600 --> 01:02:39,520
 You think Ron can get 30 minutes here?

745
01:02:39,520 --> 01:02:43,000
 Is 30 minutes enough for us to get through the other items?

746
01:02:43,000 --> 01:02:50,260
 Yeah, unless you want to take the other items first and we can come back.

747
01:02:50,260 --> 01:02:54,320
 Without any opposition from the commission, I probably would prefer that to prioritize

748
01:02:54,320 --> 01:02:58,060
 the things that we're going to be discussing tonight and then that if that we can give

749
01:02:58,060 --> 01:03:00,640
 Ron as much time as we have left over.

750
01:03:00,640 --> 01:03:04,720
 Ron, I hate to second fiddle you, but that's fine.

751
01:03:04,720 --> 01:03:05,720
 That works.

752
01:03:05,720 --> 01:03:06,720
 Yeah.

753
01:03:06,720 --> 01:03:10,320
 Let's go ahead and do that just because I don't want to rush any conversation that are

754
01:03:10,320 --> 01:03:13,760
 pertinent to the agenda.

755
01:03:13,760 --> 01:03:14,760
 Sounds good.

756
01:03:14,760 --> 01:03:20,680
 We'll see you in a little bit, Ron.

757
01:03:20,680 --> 01:03:25,560
 So just for clarification for those joining us, we are going to go through the actual

758
01:03:25,560 --> 01:03:31,200
 normal agenda, starting with the minutes on item two, working in a consent individual

759
01:03:31,200 --> 01:03:32,200
 in public.

760
01:03:32,200 --> 01:03:37,400
 And then as time permits, we'll have Ron back up to go back through the work session report

761
01:03:37,400 --> 01:03:38,840
 item three B.

762
01:03:38,840 --> 01:03:46,340
 So with that, is there any needed conversation around the minutes from November 4th?

763
01:03:46,340 --> 01:03:56,880
 Okay, seeing none, we'll go to item three A, FP20-0019A.

764
01:03:56,880 --> 01:04:00,120
 This item is being presented by Mark Laird.

765
01:04:00,120 --> 01:04:06,000
 I don't know if Mark's calling in or if he's actually in the room.

766
01:04:06,000 --> 01:04:08,440
 Could be on the phone.

767
01:04:08,440 --> 01:04:11,040
 Yes, this is Mark Laird.

768
01:04:11,040 --> 01:04:12,160
 Can you hear me?

769
01:04:12,160 --> 01:04:13,160
 We can.

770
01:04:13,160 --> 01:04:17,800
 And I think they're pulling up your presentation or?

771
01:04:17,800 --> 01:04:19,880
 Haley is pulling the slides up now.

772
01:04:19,880 --> 01:04:20,880
 Got it.

773
01:04:20,880 --> 01:04:41,520
 Haley, if you just pull up the final slide.

774
01:04:41,520 --> 01:04:49,440
 Mark, I'll let you know when it's pulled up.

775
01:04:49,440 --> 01:04:51,440
 Nevermind, you're good.

776
01:04:51,440 --> 01:04:52,440
 It's pulled up.

777
01:04:52,440 --> 01:04:53,440
 All right.

778
01:04:53,440 --> 01:04:54,440
 Thank you very much.

779
01:04:54,440 --> 01:04:55,440
 Again, my name is Mark Laird.

780
01:04:55,440 --> 01:04:57,200
 I'm a planner with the plan department.

781
01:04:57,200 --> 01:05:02,040
 And for this evening, I have for your consideration is the final plan of Cambridge Brook edition

782
01:05:02,040 --> 01:05:03,040
 phase one.

783
01:05:03,040 --> 01:05:07,280
 This plan was recently presented to you back in October.

784
01:05:07,280 --> 01:05:13,600
 And through our checks and balances, we noticed that the applicant only dedicated six to seven

785
01:05:13,600 --> 01:05:16,520
 or 65 feet for Bonnie Bray, which is needed.

786
01:05:16,520 --> 01:05:22,360
 It is one hundred and ten given this opportunity for additional right away.

787
01:05:22,360 --> 01:05:32,120
 It was our engineers thought it was the opportunity to have a additional standardized surer easement

788
01:05:32,120 --> 01:05:34,000
 dedicated on this easement.

789
01:05:34,000 --> 01:05:39,120
 This plan is being represented to you guys just so that you can make note of the changes.

790
01:05:39,120 --> 01:05:44,960
 And since the boundary had changed slightly, we wanted to represent to you for consideration

791
01:05:44,960 --> 01:05:48,520
 and ask for any questions.

792
01:05:48,520 --> 01:05:49,520
 OK.

793
01:05:49,520 --> 01:05:53,880
 And just a clarification, Mark, it is being recommended for approval with no conditions

794
01:05:53,880 --> 01:05:55,480
 or anything.

795
01:05:55,480 --> 01:05:56,480
 No conditions whatsoever.

796
01:05:56,480 --> 01:05:57,480
 OK.

797
01:05:57,480 --> 01:06:01,480
 Is there any questions for Mark on this?

798
01:06:01,480 --> 01:06:05,880
 Mark, I do not see any.

799
01:06:05,880 --> 01:06:08,800
 Thank you for being here this evening.

800
01:06:08,800 --> 01:06:12,520
 Next item is 3BPP20-0021A.

801
01:06:12,520 --> 01:06:23,200
 This is Haley Zygurski's item.

802
01:06:23,200 --> 01:06:24,200
 And Haley is in office.

803
01:06:24,200 --> 01:06:25,200
 Haley, whenever we have, are we ready?

804
01:06:25,200 --> 01:06:26,200
 You have the floor.

805
01:06:26,200 --> 01:06:27,200
 All right.

806
01:06:27,200 --> 01:06:28,200
 Good evening.

807
01:06:28,200 --> 01:06:32,680
 So this is the preliminary plat for the Woodlands at McKinney Street.

808
01:06:32,680 --> 01:06:36,260
 You may remember two meetings ago, we had this plat before you and they had requested

809
01:06:36,260 --> 01:06:38,160
 a 30 day extension.

810
01:06:38,160 --> 01:06:41,940
 During that time, they were able to work through all of the outstanding comments and we are

811
01:06:41,940 --> 01:06:46,480
 recommending the plat for approval this evening and I'm happy to stand for any questions.

812
01:06:46,480 --> 01:06:47,480
 Great.

813
01:06:47,480 --> 01:06:48,480
 Thank you.

814
01:06:48,480 --> 01:06:49,480
 Any questions for Haley?

815
01:06:49,480 --> 01:06:50,480
 All right.

816
01:06:50,480 --> 01:06:57,680
 Seeing none, we can move on to the next item.

817
01:06:57,680 --> 01:07:03,120
 That's item 3C, FP20-0026B.

818
01:07:03,120 --> 01:07:05,640
 This is Karina Maldonado's item.

819
01:07:05,640 --> 01:07:06,640
 Hello.

820
01:07:06,640 --> 01:07:11,240
 Can you hear me?

821
01:07:11,240 --> 01:07:12,240
 We can.

822
01:07:12,240 --> 01:07:13,240
 All right.

823
01:07:13,240 --> 01:07:14,240
 Karina Maldonado, Assistant Planner.

824
01:07:14,240 --> 01:07:23,640
 So this request is for a final plat of the Denton Industrial Office Edition, the 7.6

825
01:07:23,640 --> 01:07:25,000
 acre site.

826
01:07:25,000 --> 01:07:32,280
 We recently saw this at the last meeting where they extended, requested for an extension.

827
01:07:32,280 --> 01:07:39,360
 This plat was requested, requested an extension to address a last minute change to their waterline

828
01:07:39,360 --> 01:07:40,360
 plan.

829
01:07:40,360 --> 01:07:47,560
 So staff was previously recommending approval and it's also recommending approval today

830
01:07:47,560 --> 01:07:49,020
 as they address that item.

831
01:07:49,020 --> 01:07:55,920
 As you can see on the slide, if it's up on the screen, they're basically just removing

832
01:07:55,920 --> 01:08:02,680
 the easements associated with those public waterlines which will now be private, so those

833
01:08:02,680 --> 01:08:03,680
 have been removed.

834
01:08:03,680 --> 01:08:06,560
 Does that, I can take any questions?

835
01:08:06,560 --> 01:08:13,240
 Yeah, Karina, can staff verify this slide is the one we just saw for Mark's presentation?

836
01:08:13,240 --> 01:08:18,480
 Or maybe I'm confused, but this looks like...

837
01:08:18,480 --> 01:08:19,840
 You are correct.

838
01:08:19,840 --> 01:08:23,080
 I was not able to locate the slide for that first plat and accidentally pulled this one

839
01:08:23,080 --> 01:08:24,080
 up.

840
01:08:24,080 --> 01:08:25,080
 This is correct for this item.

841
01:08:25,080 --> 01:08:26,080
 Okay.

842
01:08:26,080 --> 01:08:27,080
 Great.

843
01:08:27,080 --> 01:08:28,080
 Thanks for clarifying.

844
01:08:28,080 --> 01:08:31,560
 On the other one, I was searching for Bonnie Bray for all my life and couldn't see it.

845
01:08:31,560 --> 01:08:32,560
 Now I feel better.

846
01:08:32,560 --> 01:08:33,560
 Commissioner Beck.

847
01:08:33,560 --> 01:08:39,780
 Yeah, I had the same confusion, Chair, thank you for recognizing me, by the way.

848
01:08:39,780 --> 01:08:46,360
 Do we need to address the slide for the first item?

849
01:08:46,360 --> 01:08:54,520
 It feels like we're kind of not dotting our eyes on this one.

850
01:08:54,520 --> 01:08:57,640
 You're wanting to go back and lay eyes on it?

851
01:08:57,640 --> 01:09:03,040
 Just to give the commission an opportunity to do what we're doing at the moment, which

852
01:09:03,040 --> 01:09:09,840
 is discuss and ask.

853
01:09:09,840 --> 01:09:15,720
 If we can continue to go through, let me make sure we have the PDF that we can pull up and

854
01:09:15,720 --> 01:09:16,720
 include.

855
01:09:16,720 --> 01:09:17,720
 Okay.

856
01:09:17,720 --> 01:09:18,720
 Perfect.

857
01:09:18,720 --> 01:09:19,720
 Is there any questions for this item?

858
01:09:19,720 --> 01:09:24,420
 For Karina, we can come back to item 3A to review that slide.

859
01:09:24,420 --> 01:09:28,340
 I do not see any other questions for Karina.

860
01:09:28,340 --> 01:09:32,760
 Thank you for joining us, obviously.

861
01:09:32,760 --> 01:09:36,240
 That moves us to individual items for consideration.

862
01:09:36,240 --> 01:09:39,680
 Item 4A, PP20-0024.

863
01:09:39,680 --> 01:09:52,080
 This item is being denied and asking for extension until December 2nd.

864
01:09:52,080 --> 01:09:53,080
 Any reason?

865
01:09:53,080 --> 01:09:54,760
 Does anyone would like to see this presented?

866
01:09:54,760 --> 01:09:58,800
 Typically, on these, we don't have presentation on them.

867
01:09:58,800 --> 01:10:10,320
 I do not see any commissioners moving to such, so we'll go ahead and move to item 4B, Z19-0012D.

868
01:10:10,320 --> 01:10:18,080
 This is Julie Wyatt.

869
01:10:18,080 --> 01:10:22,320
 And while she's getting there, I just wanted to remind the commission that Mark Laird's

870
01:10:22,320 --> 01:10:29,160
 item is in the backup if the public wanted to view it, or if any commissioner needed

871
01:10:29,160 --> 01:10:31,240
 to review the Cambridge Broke Phase 1 edition.

872
01:10:31,240 --> 01:10:36,640
 If we don't get that slide, I still think there's been a decent disclosure about what

873
01:10:36,640 --> 01:10:37,640
 that is.

874
01:10:37,640 --> 01:10:40,040
 But hopefully, we can get that slide, nevertheless.

875
01:10:40,040 --> 01:10:44,640
 Whenever Julie is ready, the floor is yours, Commissioner Beck.

876
01:10:44,640 --> 01:10:45,640
 Chair, thank you.

877
01:10:45,640 --> 01:10:48,200
 I don't have any questions about that first item.

878
01:10:48,200 --> 01:10:52,560
 I was just sort of being procedurally pedantic.

879
01:10:52,560 --> 01:10:55,960
 So if everyone is fine, I don't need to be procedurally pedantic.

880
01:10:55,960 --> 01:11:03,080
 I don't have personally any questions about that first 3A with Mr. Laird.

881
01:11:03,080 --> 01:11:06,480
 Okay, great.

882
01:11:06,480 --> 01:11:09,720
 All right.

883
01:11:09,720 --> 01:11:10,720
 Good evening.

884
01:11:10,720 --> 01:11:30,560
 I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm just about there with getting the presentation up.

885
01:11:30,560 --> 01:11:43,760
 Here we go.

886
01:11:43,760 --> 01:11:44,760
 Good evening, commissioners.

887
01:11:44,760 --> 01:11:53,440
 I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting Z19-0012D, Mockingbird Single Family Residential.

888
01:11:53,440 --> 01:11:55,680
 The request before you probably looks familiar.

889
01:11:55,680 --> 01:12:03,900
 Here it is the 2.61-acre site located just east of Mockingbird, south of Audre Lane.

890
01:12:03,900 --> 01:12:08,440
 The request is to rezone from R2 District to R4 District.

891
01:12:08,440 --> 01:12:12,920
 There have been a couple or a few previous actions on the site.

892
01:12:12,920 --> 01:12:21,400
 Almost a year ago today, this item came before you with the proposed rezoning from R2 District

893
01:12:21,400 --> 01:12:22,800
 to R4 District.

894
01:12:22,800 --> 01:12:27,440
 At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.

895
01:12:27,440 --> 01:12:32,840
 There was a lag between when the applicant wanted to go to city council.

896
01:12:32,840 --> 01:12:40,680
 And so as such, staff, there was a re-notification of the project and was originally scheduled

897
01:12:40,680 --> 01:12:44,920
 to be heard in front of you on September 2nd of this year.

898
01:12:44,920 --> 01:12:48,880
 However, it was postponed to the September 16th meeting.

899
01:12:48,880 --> 01:12:55,340
 At that time, the applicant requested a condition that single family only would be permitted.

900
01:12:55,340 --> 01:12:58,560
 At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial.

901
01:12:58,560 --> 01:13:02,720
 It went to the council in October, October 20th.

902
01:13:02,720 --> 01:13:07,280
 At that meeting, the applicant requested an additional condition, an amendment to that

903
01:13:07,280 --> 01:13:11,480
 condition, limiting the number of dwelling units to nine.

904
01:13:11,480 --> 01:13:14,800
 Because that was new information that the Planning and Zoning Commission had not looked

905
01:13:14,800 --> 01:13:19,600
 at, council remanded that consideration back to the Planning and Zoning Commission just

906
01:13:19,600 --> 01:13:22,400
 to look at that amendment to it.

907
01:13:22,400 --> 01:13:24,440
 And so that's what brings us here today.

908
01:13:24,440 --> 01:13:27,560
 I wasn't going to go over the whole presentation because you have seen it before.

909
01:13:27,560 --> 01:13:29,960
 The public hearing has been closed.

910
01:13:29,960 --> 01:13:34,600
 But I did want to, if you want to go over the whole presentation, I absolutely can.

911
01:13:34,600 --> 01:13:37,840
 I have the whole thing and we can go through it.

912
01:13:37,840 --> 01:13:41,920
 But if not, I just have a couple of additional slides from our previous meeting.

913
01:13:41,920 --> 01:13:47,680
 Yeah, Julie, based on the head shaking, without any opposition, I would say let's just go

914
01:13:47,680 --> 01:13:51,200
 ahead and get the updates relevant for tonight's consideration.

915
01:13:51,200 --> 01:13:52,200
 Perfect.

916
01:13:52,200 --> 01:13:53,200
 Okay.

917
01:13:53,200 --> 01:13:58,640
 Well, it really just has to do with the analysis of the case and the comprehensive plan.

918
01:13:58,640 --> 01:14:05,440
 So as part of our analysis, we looked at that the site as an infill development and infill

919
01:14:05,440 --> 01:14:10,760
 is one of those nebulous terms that really is kind of whatever document you're looking

920
01:14:10,760 --> 01:14:12,400
 at, that's kind of how they define it.

921
01:14:12,400 --> 01:14:17,320
 And so I kind of just wanted to talk through how the comprehensive plan treats infill because

922
01:14:17,320 --> 01:14:20,120
 our comp plan actually treats it differently than our code.

923
01:14:20,120 --> 01:14:22,460
 So just kind of wanted to talk through that briefly.

924
01:14:22,460 --> 01:14:24,560
 And then we'll just get to staff recommendation.

925
01:14:24,560 --> 01:14:30,900
 So then Plan 2030 defines infill development as development and redevelopment of underused

926
01:14:30,900 --> 01:14:35,820
 buildings and vacant lots in areas served by existing infrastructure, development that

927
01:14:35,820 --> 01:14:41,460
 channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and conserves open space

928
01:14:41,460 --> 01:14:44,080
 and agriculture at the periphery of the city.

929
01:14:44,080 --> 01:14:50,340
 So when you look at that surrounding the area around the subject property and the subject

930
01:14:50,340 --> 01:14:54,920
 property is right here outlined in blue, you could see we've had a lot of infill in the

931
01:14:54,920 --> 01:14:57,240
 recent years.

932
01:14:57,240 --> 01:15:04,560
 We had a couple of zoning cases you may remember from 2017 and 2018, just off of Audra.

933
01:15:04,560 --> 01:15:08,760
 There's a plat that went before you tonight, it was actually requesting to be postponed

934
01:15:08,760 --> 01:15:10,960
 for this site right here.

935
01:15:10,960 --> 01:15:17,640
 There's an elderly housing facility that's under development here and then multifamily

936
01:15:17,640 --> 01:15:18,640
 to the north of the site.

937
01:15:18,640 --> 01:15:23,480
 So we've actually seen a lot of infill in this area and as you can see it is served

938
01:15:23,480 --> 01:15:28,920
 by those existing roadway connections as well as water and sewer, which are those red and

939
01:15:28,920 --> 01:15:31,420
 blue lines.

940
01:15:31,420 --> 01:15:37,040
 And so by staff's analysis, the subject site does meet that definition for infill development.

941
01:15:37,040 --> 01:15:42,520
 So we looked further to see, well, what is the Denton Plan 2030 say about infill?

942
01:15:42,520 --> 01:15:45,240
 And there are two really areas I just want to highlight.

943
01:15:45,240 --> 01:15:49,680
 It states that the city should take every opportunity to ensure that as gaps in the

944
01:15:49,680 --> 01:15:55,480
 neighborhood fabric occur, infill development should be encouraged, but it should complement

945
01:15:55,480 --> 01:15:57,940
 the scale and character of each neighborhood.

946
01:15:57,940 --> 01:16:00,360
 So that's a really important part of that.

947
01:16:00,360 --> 01:16:05,400
 And then second, that we would identify and remove zoning and other regulatory impediments

948
01:16:05,400 --> 01:16:09,720
 to compatible infill and redevelopment.

949
01:16:09,720 --> 01:16:12,980
 And once again, you have that compatible word there.

950
01:16:12,980 --> 01:16:14,400
 So those were really just the two things.

951
01:16:14,400 --> 01:16:18,520
 Just wanted to highlight that regarding the comprehensive plan.

952
01:16:18,520 --> 01:16:22,600
 Even though the public hearing has closed, council did want us to go ahead and notify

953
01:16:22,600 --> 01:16:27,920
 those property owners within 200 feet of the site of this going back to the Planning and

954
01:16:27,920 --> 01:16:29,200
 Zoning Commission.

955
01:16:29,200 --> 01:16:34,160
 Those original opposition letters are still in effect, but we did just go ahead and send

956
01:16:34,160 --> 01:16:41,040
 out a notice that it would be coming back through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

957
01:16:41,040 --> 01:16:47,160
 We did receive a couple of them that were just consistent with response letters we had

958
01:16:47,160 --> 01:16:53,000
 received from property owners, one from this property owner, one from this property owner.

959
01:16:53,000 --> 01:16:54,760
 We did get a new notification.

960
01:16:54,760 --> 01:16:56,680
 It wasn't in your backup.

961
01:16:56,680 --> 01:17:00,960
 It actually the I got it today.

962
01:17:00,960 --> 01:17:02,000
 It came in the mail.

963
01:17:02,000 --> 01:17:08,280
 So I did want to alert you that this property owner right here across Audra has also responded

964
01:17:08,280 --> 01:17:10,540
 in opposition of the request.

965
01:17:10,540 --> 01:17:16,120
 So because the opposition is in excess of 20%, it will require a super majority at City

966
01:17:16,120 --> 01:17:18,880
 Council to approve the request.

967
01:17:18,880 --> 01:17:25,080
 So why we're here tonight is because the applicant did add an additional element to those overlay

968
01:17:25,080 --> 01:17:30,120
 conditions, and so they're requested overlay conditions are on your screen now.

969
01:17:30,120 --> 01:17:34,880
 One that the development would be limited to nine single family detached homes only

970
01:17:34,880 --> 01:17:38,680
 and then to that all other land uses would be prohibited.

971
01:17:38,680 --> 01:17:43,880
 The applicant will be making a presentation tonight and I will be happy to answer any

972
01:17:43,880 --> 01:17:44,880
 questions.

973
01:17:44,880 --> 01:17:55,160
 >> Thank you, chair, just real quick, Julie, from what I remember, there were only ever

974
01:17:55,160 --> 01:17:59,680
 nine units shown in their neighborhood meeting.

975
01:17:59,680 --> 01:18:00,880
 So is that what you're saying?

976
01:18:00,880 --> 01:18:05,360
 That's the only thing about the overlay condition that changed that just they added the word

977
01:18:05,360 --> 01:18:06,360
 nine?

978
01:18:06,360 --> 01:18:07,360
 >> That is correct.

979
01:18:07,360 --> 01:18:09,720
 >> And then council sent it back here because of that?

980
01:18:09,720 --> 01:18:10,720
 >> Correct.

981
01:18:10,720 --> 01:18:11,720
 >> I think that's interesting.

982
01:18:11,720 --> 01:18:12,720
 Okay.

983
01:18:12,720 --> 01:18:15,640
 Well, I appreciate you discussing info since we didn't discuss that before.

984
01:18:15,640 --> 01:18:20,040
 Well, we discussed it in our meeting, but it wasn't before in staff analysis, but okay,

985
01:18:20,040 --> 01:18:21,040
 thank you.

986
01:18:21,040 --> 01:18:22,040
 >> You bet.

987
01:18:22,040 --> 01:18:23,040
 >> Commissioner Beck.

988
01:18:23,040 --> 01:18:24,040
 >> Thank you, chair.

989
01:18:24,040 --> 01:18:37,300
 Julie, can you please put up the proposed -- there was a slide that had the current and future

990
01:18:37,300 --> 01:18:46,760
 land map that flew -- and if you don't have that, that's fine because I can discuss without

991
01:18:46,760 --> 01:18:47,760
 it.

992
01:18:47,760 --> 01:18:50,440
 >> Oh, I think I can get you there.

993
01:18:50,440 --> 01:18:51,440
 Hang on.

994
01:18:51,440 --> 01:18:52,440
 Just one second.

995
01:18:52,440 --> 01:18:53,440
 >> Okay.

996
01:18:53,440 --> 01:18:54,440
 That's perfect.

997
01:18:54,440 --> 01:18:58,080
 That will work, actually.

998
01:18:58,080 --> 01:19:00,520
 I actually don't have a problem with the density.

999
01:19:00,520 --> 01:19:04,920
 I do have a problem with the neighbors not liking it, but I don't have a problem with

1000
01:19:04,920 --> 01:19:15,320
 the R4, but I will -- what I wanted to point out was get your opinion on if the -- if we

1001
01:19:15,320 --> 01:19:25,280
 change this to R4, you're introducing an inconsistency with the surrounding territory, but not the

1002
01:19:25,280 --> 01:19:29,300
 surrounding surrounding territory, the sort of second order territory.

1003
01:19:29,300 --> 01:19:31,180
 I see the point is consistent.

1004
01:19:31,180 --> 01:19:41,260
 So can you discuss what our code or comprehensive or previous guidelines say about sort of that

1005
01:19:41,260 --> 01:19:47,000
 sort of micro level of consistency because that's a square block of what is that, R2.

1006
01:19:47,000 --> 01:19:49,960
 That's just a chunk of R2 in the middle there.

1007
01:19:49,960 --> 01:19:52,720
 We're going to take the red star and make it R4.

1008
01:19:52,720 --> 01:19:58,160
 I personally don't have a problem with the density going up, so the density doesn't bother

1009
01:19:58,160 --> 01:19:59,160
 me.

1010
01:19:59,160 --> 01:20:00,160
 That's fine with me.

1011
01:20:00,160 --> 01:20:04,320
 But I'm just highlighting the issue that we're -- it feels like we might be introducing an

1012
01:20:04,320 --> 01:20:06,400
 inconsistency, if that makes sense.

1013
01:20:06,400 --> 01:20:13,600
 So can you educate me on how tight our plans are when we are talking about consistency?

1014
01:20:13,600 --> 01:20:18,060
 Well, when we look at consistency, we kind of look at two things.

1015
01:20:18,060 --> 01:20:22,000
 First of all, we look at use, and then we look at development scale.

1016
01:20:22,000 --> 01:20:25,100
 Those are kind of the shorthands we look for for consistency.

1017
01:20:25,100 --> 01:20:31,600
 In this instance, the surrounding lots are consistent in the proposed use and that they're

1018
01:20:31,600 --> 01:20:36,760
 all kind of single-family residential development.

1019
01:20:36,760 --> 01:20:41,600
 So even those larger lot areas do have that single-family residential component.

1020
01:20:41,600 --> 01:20:49,440
 So it's consistent in use, but, yes, I think the question here is the scale.

1021
01:20:49,440 --> 01:20:57,100
 And so when we look at that, there are some -- there are differences in what they're proposing

1022
01:20:57,100 --> 01:21:03,160
 in terms of scale from those large lot development that's immediately adjacent to the north on

1023
01:21:03,160 --> 01:21:09,940
 Audra, and then to the east of the site, and then that little piece to the west.

1024
01:21:09,940 --> 01:21:14,400
 Their proposed lots are smaller than those lots, so that scale is different.

1025
01:21:14,400 --> 01:21:19,920
 However, it's not a scale that's inconsistent with what is generally found in the area.

1026
01:21:19,920 --> 01:21:23,580
 So there is adjacency for that scale just to the south.

1027
01:21:23,580 --> 01:21:30,960
 And then you see that scale across Mockingbird as well as to the east of that large lot.

1028
01:21:30,960 --> 01:21:36,540
 So while there are some differences, and that's kind of where we have to look at those edges,

1029
01:21:36,540 --> 01:21:40,760
 it isn't inconsistent with the surrounding development because those minimum lot sizes

1030
01:21:40,760 --> 01:21:47,160
 would be similar to what you find in the surrounding area.

1031
01:21:47,160 --> 01:21:52,020
 I don't know if that answers your question.

1032
01:21:52,020 --> 01:21:53,020
 >> I see that.

1033
01:21:53,020 --> 01:21:54,900
 I think that that's sufficient for me.

1034
01:21:54,900 --> 01:21:59,100
 Thank you, Julie, I appreciate it.

1035
01:21:59,100 --> 01:22:03,820
 >> Any other questions for Julie?

1036
01:22:03,820 --> 01:22:08,500
 And just for everyone, I got a text from Commissioner Smith, his video is lagging, so I trust that

1037
01:22:08,500 --> 01:22:11,340
 if he has something, he'll just chime up since I can't see his hand.

1038
01:22:11,340 --> 01:22:15,500
 I know he is there listening, his video is having some issues.

1039
01:22:15,500 --> 01:22:18,900
 So just want the record to show that.

1040
01:22:18,900 --> 01:22:19,900
 Okay.

1041
01:22:19,900 --> 01:22:24,760
 With no other questions for Julie, we'll move on to the next item.

1042
01:22:24,760 --> 01:22:31,180
 It is Julie, it's 4C, PP20-0023.

1043
01:22:31,180 --> 01:22:34,820
 This is being recommended for denial, and they're asking an extension.

1044
01:22:34,820 --> 01:22:43,540
 So just like item 3 or 4A, we can progress to 4D unless anyone has any questions on 4C.

1045
01:22:43,540 --> 01:22:52,020
 Seeing none, 4D is also Julie Wyatt, PP20-0025, and it is also being recommended for denial

1046
01:22:52,020 --> 01:22:56,600
 with an extension being sought for a date certain of December 16th.

1047
01:22:56,600 --> 01:23:00,660
 Is there any questions for item 4D?

1048
01:23:00,660 --> 01:23:03,580
 Okay.

1049
01:23:03,580 --> 01:23:05,380
 Thank you very much, Julie.

1050
01:23:05,380 --> 01:23:09,240
 That I think ends your agenda items.

1051
01:23:09,240 --> 01:23:15,100
 Next up is item, the public hearing items, we'll start with 5A, Z20-0010.

1052
01:23:15,100 --> 01:23:23,980
 This item has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we'll move to item 5B, as in Bravo, S20-0007.

1053
01:23:23,980 --> 01:23:28,660
 And this item is being heard this evening, Sean Jacobson will be presenting.

1054
01:23:28,660 --> 01:23:55,300
 Sean, whenever you are ready, the floor is yours.

1055
01:23:55,300 --> 01:24:07,940
 You are muted.

1056
01:24:07,940 --> 01:24:10,460
 Can you hear me now?

1057
01:24:10,460 --> 01:24:11,460
 Yes.

1058
01:24:11,460 --> 01:24:14,380
 All right.

1059
01:24:14,380 --> 01:24:17,180
 And can you see my screen?

1060
01:24:17,180 --> 01:24:21,140
 Have you seen your presentation?

1061
01:24:21,140 --> 01:24:23,140
 All right.

1062
01:24:23,140 --> 01:24:28,460
 So good evening Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sean Jacobson, Planning

1063
01:24:28,460 --> 01:24:29,460
 Department.

1064
01:24:29,460 --> 01:24:35,620
 I'm here to present item S20-007, Quincy Court.

1065
01:24:35,620 --> 01:24:41,740
 This is a request for a specific use permit to allow a building no more than 46 feet in

1066
01:24:41,740 --> 01:24:42,740
 height.

1067
01:24:42,740 --> 01:24:48,740
 This building is proposed for a vacant 1.57 acre lot zoned MN.

1068
01:24:48,740 --> 01:24:54,060
 Building use is permitted by right in MN and the maximum permitted height in MN is 65 feet,

1069
01:24:54,060 --> 01:25:00,860
 but heights above 40 feet in between from 41 feet to 65 feet require SUP approval.

1070
01:25:00,860 --> 01:25:04,640
 The requested building height would be an increase of 6 feet over what's permitted without an

1071
01:25:04,640 --> 01:25:05,640
 SUP.

1072
01:25:05,640 --> 01:25:12,100
 I just want to give a brief background on the zoning history of this site.

1073
01:25:12,100 --> 01:25:17,580
 The MN zoning was applied to the site with the 2019 citywide rezoning, it was a combination

1074
01:25:17,580 --> 01:25:22,340
 of two previous zoning districts, NRMU and NRMU-12.

1075
01:25:22,340 --> 01:25:28,300
 The NRMU district permitted 65 feet while NRMU-12 permitted 40 feet.

1076
01:25:28,300 --> 01:25:34,180
 So that the compromise was between 40 and 65 would require an SUP.

1077
01:25:34,180 --> 01:25:40,140
 So pre 2019, this property was zoned NRMU and had a permitted height of 65 feet by right,

1078
01:25:40,140 --> 01:25:42,140
 no SUP required.

1079
01:25:42,140 --> 01:25:47,620
 Just to give you a sense of the site here, you see the upper image is looking to the

1080
01:25:47,620 --> 01:25:52,900
 east and lower images looking north so you can see the adjacent neighborhoods there,

1081
01:25:52,900 --> 01:25:58,580
 loop 288 to the north and then Stewart Road along the west side of the property.

1082
01:25:58,580 --> 01:26:03,780
 To give you the details on this request, first it's important to know that the DDC's mixed

1083
01:26:03,780 --> 01:26:09,420
 use district standards require a minimum ground floor height of 12 feet.

1084
01:26:09,420 --> 01:26:15,460
 So that's in the mixed use neighborhood zoning district as well as the MD district, so they

1085
01:26:15,460 --> 01:26:19,700
 have to provide that which leaves a limited amount of space between that 12 foot ground

1086
01:26:19,700 --> 01:26:26,140
 floor height and the 40 foot maximum without the SUP.

1087
01:26:26,140 --> 01:26:32,180
 The approval of the six foot increase in height that's being requested would allow for standard

1088
01:26:32,180 --> 01:26:37,380
 nine foot heights for all upper store units and would allow the ground floor entrances

1089
01:26:37,380 --> 01:26:40,820
 for the proposed multifamily to be at grade.

1090
01:26:40,820 --> 01:26:46,060
 Without the SUP, the applicant had proposed an alternative method of staying under that

1091
01:26:46,060 --> 01:26:51,060
 40 foot height, which was approvable by staff, they would have constructed the building below

1092
01:26:51,060 --> 01:26:55,140
 grade, you would have steps leading down to ground floor entrances, upper floors would

1093
01:26:55,140 --> 01:26:58,140
 have been less than nine feet in height.

1094
01:26:58,140 --> 01:27:02,900
 This would have been approvable under the DDC, but it was considered a less optimal design.

1095
01:27:02,900 --> 01:27:07,820
 You'd escape the pedestrian experience walking by, you have sunken entrances, the overall

1096
01:27:07,820 --> 01:27:13,660
 facade aesthetics, it was a less optimal design and therefore the applicant pursued this request.

1097
01:27:13,660 --> 01:27:19,020
 Just so you can get a sense of the concept elevations, what this would look like with

1098
01:27:19,020 --> 01:27:24,780
 the requested height under this SUP.

1099
01:27:24,780 --> 01:27:30,300
 Just to lay this out here so you can see that blue line is the 40 foot height that sets the

1100
01:27:30,300 --> 01:27:37,200
 limit for the habitable structure without an SUP and then the dark green line shows

1101
01:27:37,200 --> 01:27:42,180
 the height that's being requested.

1102
01:27:42,180 --> 01:27:45,820
 And then just seeing that from the front, again, you can see that increase, the six

1103
01:27:45,820 --> 01:27:49,260
 feet from what's permitted without the SUP and what's being requested.

1104
01:27:49,260 --> 01:27:54,580
 The applicant actually only requested a height of 45 feet, three inches, staff felt it made

1105
01:27:54,580 --> 01:27:56,540
 sense to round it up to 46.

1106
01:27:56,540 --> 01:28:00,180
 Things can happen as you're designing a building, hate to have someone come back for a two inch

1107
01:28:00,180 --> 01:28:02,800
 increase.

1108
01:28:02,800 --> 01:28:08,780
 So the question before you is whether the 46 foot height building meets our criteria

1109
01:28:08,780 --> 01:28:09,860
 for approval.

1110
01:28:09,860 --> 01:28:14,360
 So we look at, of course, our general criteria for approval as well as the specific criteria

1111
01:28:14,360 --> 01:28:15,360
 for an SUP.

1112
01:28:15,360 --> 01:28:18,980
 We'll hit on kind of the key questions within that.

1113
01:28:18,980 --> 01:28:22,980
 First off, as usual is our future land use map.

1114
01:28:22,980 --> 01:28:25,820
 This property is primarily neighborhood mixed use.

1115
01:28:25,820 --> 01:28:31,240
 It's designed to promote a mix of compatible housing types and densities along with local

1116
01:28:31,240 --> 01:28:36,520
 serving non-residential uses, moderate to high density residential uses are permitted.

1117
01:28:36,520 --> 01:28:40,620
 But new higher density housing should be sensitive and scale informed to the surrounding built

1118
01:28:40,620 --> 01:28:43,100
 and natural context.

1119
01:28:43,100 --> 01:28:48,300
 The mixed, the multifamily use is consistent with the future land use map, but more importantly,

1120
01:28:48,300 --> 01:28:52,780
 the height increase requested is consistent with the number of stories recommended for

1121
01:28:52,780 --> 01:28:58,060
 neighborhood mixed use areas in the Denton Plan 2030 development criteria.

1122
01:28:58,060 --> 01:29:03,380
 In addition, the design elements that allowing the taller building will permit that pedestrian

1123
01:29:03,380 --> 01:29:07,300
 friendly first floor height, ground floor entrances, they're at grade.

1124
01:29:07,300 --> 01:29:11,740
 It's more consistent with the Denton Plan 2030 design principles and it's more compatible

1125
01:29:11,740 --> 01:29:15,260
 with the surrounding neighborhoods where your average house that's going to have an entrance

1126
01:29:15,260 --> 01:29:21,100
 at grade similar to what would be permissible if the height increase is permitted.

1127
01:29:21,100 --> 01:29:24,220
 We also need to look at compatibility with the surrounding area.

1128
01:29:24,220 --> 01:29:30,540
 This is located on two corridors, Loop 288 corridor, where multi-story buildings at intersections

1129
01:29:30,540 --> 01:29:35,780
 are part of the current with a planned development pattern, there you see the zoning that allows

1130
01:29:35,780 --> 01:29:36,780
 for it.

1131
01:29:36,780 --> 01:29:40,060
 It's also on the Stewart Road corridor, where we have a development pattern that generally

1132
01:29:40,060 --> 01:29:45,260
 flows from multi-story, multifamily buildings at major intersections and low to moderate

1133
01:29:45,260 --> 01:29:48,300
 single family residential in between, and this would be consistent.

1134
01:29:48,300 --> 01:29:52,660
 It's located, would be a taller multi-story building at an intersection consistent with

1135
01:29:52,660 --> 01:29:53,660
 those patterns.

1136
01:29:53,660 --> 01:29:58,900
 I can also note that the surrounding undeveloped property in the north and west is also zoned

1137
01:29:58,900 --> 01:30:06,740
 MN and this would not impact the ability of those sites to develop along with that zoning.

1138
01:30:06,740 --> 01:30:12,460
 Also want to explain a little more detail, the height in comparison with the surrounding

1139
01:30:12,460 --> 01:30:19,580
 R6 zone neighborhoods to the south and to the east, so the maximum building height in

1140
01:30:19,580 --> 01:30:21,780
 an R6 neighborhood is 40 feet.

1141
01:30:21,780 --> 01:30:27,780
 However, we measure the height of any pitched roof or angled roof at the halfway point,

1142
01:30:27,780 --> 01:30:32,500
 not at the very top, and so therefore a house in the adjacent neighborhood could actually

1143
01:30:32,500 --> 01:30:37,100
 exceed 40 feet by right and could potentially even exceed 46 feet in height.

1144
01:30:37,100 --> 01:30:40,780
 So there's a limited difference between the actual permitted height in the surrounding

1145
01:30:40,780 --> 01:30:43,300
 neighborhoods and what's requested on this site.

1146
01:30:43,300 --> 01:30:48,700
 Again, as we discussed, that increased height allows at great entrances, the more pedestrian

1147
01:30:48,700 --> 01:30:53,180
 friendly design that's actually more consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and the

1148
01:30:53,180 --> 01:30:58,660
 increase of six feet is expected to have a minimal impact on the effect of the building

1149
01:30:58,660 --> 01:31:00,660
 overall in the area.

1150
01:31:00,660 --> 01:31:05,720
 So we also want to look at how potential negative impacts would be mitigated with this plan

1151
01:31:05,720 --> 01:31:09,820
 and the first and most important is actually what the DDC has already built in section

1152
01:31:09,820 --> 01:31:14,860
 710-6, what we call building height and transition areas.

1153
01:31:14,860 --> 01:31:19,820
 Essentially that says that within 50 feet of a residential zone property, including

1154
01:31:19,820 --> 01:31:26,460
 R6, a building has to match the height in the maximum height in that additional, it

1155
01:31:26,460 --> 01:31:30,160
 can't exceed the maximum height in that adjacent residential area.

1156
01:31:30,160 --> 01:31:36,960
 From 50 to 100 feet, it can't exceed that maximum height in the adjacent residential

1157
01:31:36,960 --> 01:31:39,900
 plus 15 feet and you can't request an SCP.

1158
01:31:39,900 --> 01:31:45,500
 So to get to the point where you can exceed 15 feet above the maximum height in the adjacent

1159
01:31:45,500 --> 01:31:50,100
 residential district, or as in this case, request an SCP for a higher height, you have

1160
01:31:50,100 --> 01:31:55,860
 to be at least 100 feet from an adjacent residentially zoned district.

1161
01:31:55,860 --> 01:32:01,560
 So you can see here because of those provisions, this building is located at least 100 feet

1162
01:32:01,560 --> 01:32:07,800
 from the neighborhoods on the south and over 150 feet from the adjacent neighborhoods on

1163
01:32:07,800 --> 01:32:09,240
 the east.

1164
01:32:09,240 --> 01:32:14,480
 So you could note that even without the SCP requirements, these transition area standards

1165
01:32:14,480 --> 01:32:20,660
 are already built in to limit building height in close proximity to residential districts.

1166
01:32:20,660 --> 01:32:25,940
 Even without the SCP, there's a limitation on how tall you can go next to a residentially

1167
01:32:25,940 --> 01:32:32,320
 zoned property and that protection was built in already.

1168
01:32:32,320 --> 01:32:36,180
 Looking at the site design as a whole and how that helps kind of mitigate any negative

1169
01:32:36,180 --> 01:32:45,100
 impacts, they're actually providing over 15% more in landscape area percentage, 9% more

1170
01:32:45,100 --> 01:32:50,940
 in required tree canopy percentage on a site that has currently no trees that we would

1171
01:32:50,940 --> 01:32:53,740
 consider needing to be preserved.

1172
01:32:53,740 --> 01:32:58,260
 Buffer width is 20 feet versus minimum requirement of zero.

1173
01:32:58,260 --> 01:33:04,260
 On the east and on the south, we have a 45-foot buffer versus zero buffer width that would

1174
01:33:04,260 --> 01:33:08,220
 be required.

1175
01:33:08,220 --> 01:33:11,900
 Other impacts to consider, lighting and glare.

1176
01:33:11,900 --> 01:33:15,500
 You do have to under the DDC demonstrate a building permit, you're complying with all

1177
01:33:15,500 --> 01:33:16,500
 of the standards.

1178
01:33:16,500 --> 01:33:20,700
 So light spillover limits are set at all property lines, those need to be checked.

1179
01:33:20,700 --> 01:33:24,700
 And all fixtures have to be downward directed or full cutoff shielded, so regardless of

1180
01:33:24,700 --> 01:33:28,620
 the height, you have to meet those limitations on spillover.

1181
01:33:28,620 --> 01:33:35,100
 In terms of traffic, now the SCP is not expected to affect how many units would be on the site,

1182
01:33:35,100 --> 01:33:41,340
 but it is important to note that required parking is provided, meets all of our requirements.

1183
01:33:41,340 --> 01:33:46,140
 Touching briefly on infrastructure, again, not expected to vary significantly with this

1184
01:33:46,140 --> 01:33:51,980
 SCP, but their trip generation was such it did not require a TIA, we're at an intersection

1185
01:33:51,980 --> 01:33:56,020
 of arterial and a collector, and they will actually be adding curb gutter new pavement

1186
01:33:56,020 --> 01:34:02,620
 to Stewart Road there, sidewalks on the north and along that west side there along Stewart.

1187
01:34:02,620 --> 01:34:05,060
 Water and wastewater service is available.

1188
01:34:05,060 --> 01:34:08,860
 And I specifically checked in with fire, they confirmed that height of 46 feet would not

1189
01:34:08,860 --> 01:34:11,860
 hinder their ability to provide fire service to this development.

1190
01:34:11,860 --> 01:34:17,540
 We also, of course, look at our feedback and notify the neighborhood.

1191
01:34:17,540 --> 01:34:18,880
 All standard notices were sent.

1192
01:34:18,880 --> 01:34:23,820
 We did receive one letter in opposition, that's in your backup, as is the one letter in favor

1193
01:34:23,820 --> 01:34:24,820
 that we received.

1194
01:34:24,820 --> 01:34:28,100
 The applicant actually held two neighborhood meetings.

1195
01:34:28,100 --> 01:34:32,260
 One was not attended, and so they scheduled another, which had two attendees, I was able

1196
01:34:32,260 --> 01:34:34,240
 to sit in on that.

1197
01:34:34,240 --> 01:34:40,700
 The neighbors had some concerns about the safety of the intersection, the what how the

1198
01:34:40,700 --> 01:34:44,100
 proposed apartments would be priced and how it affect their property values, and after

1199
01:34:44,100 --> 01:34:46,180
 the discussion, they appear to be satisfied.

1200
01:34:46,180 --> 01:34:50,100
 And when specifically asked about the actual height increase, they had no objections to

1201
01:34:50,100 --> 01:34:51,100
 it.

1202
01:34:51,100 --> 01:34:57,780
 So taking that all into consideration, staff is recommending approval of the SCP with conditions,

1203
01:34:57,780 --> 01:35:04,540
 and these are long, but I'll sum up that the preliminary site plan and landscape plan designed

1204
01:35:04,540 --> 01:35:10,580
 to comply with DDC requirements, minor alterations can be made as long as it remains in compliance

1205
01:35:10,580 --> 01:35:12,780
 with the DDC.

1206
01:35:12,780 --> 01:35:18,660
 City reserves the right to require approval of ordinance by ordinance.

1207
01:35:18,660 --> 01:35:23,540
 And then the attached site plan landscape plan are incorporated as requirements to the

1208
01:35:23,540 --> 01:35:24,540
 SCP.

1209
01:35:24,540 --> 01:35:31,300
 We can have an increase or decrease of 5% on items A through D below other than can

1210
01:35:31,300 --> 01:35:32,980
 have changed number of buildings.

1211
01:35:32,980 --> 01:35:36,620
 But if units or parking spaces went up or down a little bit, they'd have to comply with

1212
01:35:36,620 --> 01:35:42,300
 DDC, but staff could approve that as well as small changes in building coverage, but

1213
01:35:42,300 --> 01:35:47,020
 not in building height, of course, and then just that the zoning map needs to reflect

1214
01:35:47,020 --> 01:35:49,180
 the specific use permit would be here.

1215
01:35:49,180 --> 01:35:52,780
 So with that, I'll take any questions you have.

1216
01:35:52,780 --> 01:35:58,140
 Sean, thank you for the great presentation.

1217
01:35:58,140 --> 01:36:04,660
 I don't I just have the agenda kind of overall here in front of me, I don't have the backup.

1218
01:36:04,660 --> 01:36:08,740
 Can you just pull up the prior zoning, the new zoning, I have a couple questions regarding

1219
01:36:08,740 --> 01:36:09,740
 that.

1220
01:36:09,740 --> 01:36:20,060
 I think it's like you're one of your first two slides, sir, something back up here.

1221
01:36:20,060 --> 01:36:37,100
 And that slide here.

1222
01:36:37,100 --> 01:36:44,540
 All right, all right.

1223
01:36:44,540 --> 01:36:45,540
 This is perfect.

1224
01:36:45,540 --> 01:36:46,540
 I apologize for my confusion.

1225
01:36:46,540 --> 01:36:48,260
 This might be simple.

1226
01:36:48,260 --> 01:36:50,300
 It was zoned NRMU.

1227
01:36:50,300 --> 01:36:51,300
 Is that correct?

1228
01:36:51,300 --> 01:36:52,300
 Yes, sir.

1229
01:36:52,300 --> 01:36:55,380
 And it got rezoned from the citywide rezoning to MN?

1230
01:36:55,380 --> 01:36:56,380
 Yes.

1231
01:36:56,380 --> 01:37:01,140
 Okay, so I'm looking at the development codebook here.

1232
01:37:01,140 --> 01:37:04,740
 And MN has a building height of 65 feet.

1233
01:37:04,740 --> 01:37:12,780
 And I'm looking at the use regulations, multifamily dwelling is permitted by right with the use

1234
01:37:12,780 --> 01:37:15,660
 of civic standards permit in MN districts.

1235
01:37:15,660 --> 01:37:16,660
 Why?

1236
01:37:16,660 --> 01:37:26,260
 Because between 40 feet, so 41 feet to 65 feet, it's permitted but it requires an SUP

1237
01:37:26,260 --> 01:37:27,260
 for that height.

1238
01:37:27,260 --> 01:37:33,980
 So once you up to 40 feet, no SUP required 41 feet to 65 feet, that does require an SUP.

1239
01:37:33,980 --> 01:37:34,980
 Great.

1240
01:37:34,980 --> 01:37:35,980
 That makes sense.

1241
01:37:35,980 --> 01:37:40,660
 And for clarification, the old NRMU provided 65 feet by right?

1242
01:37:40,660 --> 01:37:42,100
 Yes, sir.

1243
01:37:42,100 --> 01:37:46,780
 So before the city changed their property, they had 65 feet by right?

1244
01:37:46,780 --> 01:37:48,380
 Am I understanding correctly?

1245
01:37:48,380 --> 01:37:53,060
 If they would have built this project two years ago, they wouldn't have needed this

1246
01:37:53,060 --> 01:37:54,060
 same SUP?

1247
01:37:54,060 --> 01:37:56,280
 My understanding is that is correct.

1248
01:37:56,280 --> 01:38:00,580
 They would have had to meet adjacency standards similar to what we have built.

1249
01:38:00,580 --> 01:38:03,940
 And now we have an improved version as we discussed.

1250
01:38:03,940 --> 01:38:09,020
 So it would have still had to take into consideration proximity to the surrounding neighborhoods.

1251
01:38:09,020 --> 01:38:11,380
 But yes, that is my understanding.

1252
01:38:11,380 --> 01:38:12,380
 Okay.

1253
01:38:12,380 --> 01:38:16,380
 And then lastly, just looking at the building designs, the front of it's above 46 feet,

1254
01:38:16,380 --> 01:38:17,500
 but it is an angled roof.

1255
01:38:17,500 --> 01:38:21,340
 So they're getting that halfway measurement.

1256
01:38:21,340 --> 01:38:22,880
 Sorry for the confusion on that.

1257
01:38:22,880 --> 01:38:27,860
 This is a flat roofed building.

1258
01:38:27,860 --> 01:38:35,340
 So it is it's being measured at the highest height of the habitable structure.

1259
01:38:35,340 --> 01:38:40,820
 So that would be at 46 feet if this SUP was approved.

1260
01:38:40,820 --> 01:38:41,820
 Okay.

1261
01:38:41,820 --> 01:38:43,180
 Sean, I knew you could clarify it.

1262
01:38:43,180 --> 01:38:44,500
 I appreciate it.

1263
01:38:44,500 --> 01:38:47,620
 Any other questions for Sean on this item?

1264
01:38:47,620 --> 01:38:48,620
 Sure.

1265
01:38:48,620 --> 01:38:53,820
 If I may, I just wanted to add that the dimensional standards for the height, if anyone is looking

1266
01:38:53,820 --> 01:38:57,700
 or wanted to see where those are there, they're within SUP chapter three within the district

1267
01:38:57,700 --> 01:38:58,700
 requirements.

1268
01:38:58,700 --> 01:39:01,220
 I think it's footnote two, where it talks about that height.

1269
01:39:01,220 --> 01:39:05,640
 So just wanted to clarify in case someone was wondering where that is in the code.

1270
01:39:05,640 --> 01:39:07,420
 So it is within SUP chapter three.

1271
01:39:07,420 --> 01:39:11,740
 Yeah, it's actually referenced here that was I just didn't look at that bar right column

1272
01:39:11,740 --> 01:39:14,820
 on on that.

1273
01:39:14,820 --> 01:39:17,740
 Thank you for that clarification, Richard.

1274
01:39:17,740 --> 01:39:22,020
 Is there any other questions for this item?

1275
01:39:22,020 --> 01:39:25,380
 Okay, great, Sean.

1276
01:39:25,380 --> 01:39:26,380
 Thank you.

1277
01:39:26,380 --> 01:39:30,340
 We'll see a little bit in the regular work meeting.

1278
01:39:30,340 --> 01:39:35,740
 So Richard, the item that Ron has is set to be a more of a lengthy one.

1279
01:39:35,740 --> 01:39:38,100
 Would it be your recommendation?

1280
01:39:38,100 --> 01:39:43,540
 We break now for a decent meal and then come back at 630 and just table that discussion

1281
01:39:43,540 --> 01:39:45,320
 until next meeting.

1282
01:39:45,320 --> 01:39:46,320
 That would be mine.

1283
01:39:46,320 --> 01:39:50,880
 I think that way we can have a better, longer, more robust conversation.

1284
01:39:50,880 --> 01:39:57,460
 I think as we get into 3167 and the less than four votes tie votes and some of the other

1285
01:39:57,460 --> 01:40:01,940
 procedure items, I think it probably would be beneficial to have that as one block of

1286
01:40:01,940 --> 01:40:02,940
 a discussion.

1287
01:40:02,940 --> 01:40:04,700
 At least that would be my recommendation.

1288
01:40:04,700 --> 01:40:10,820
 I do know for the next meeting, the only other item we had for a work session were the GIS

1289
01:40:10,820 --> 01:40:17,020
 maps and I don't anticipate that being as long as Brian's presentation was today.

1290
01:40:17,020 --> 01:40:22,740
 So I think we can easily fit that fit the entire item in at the next meeting.

1291
01:40:22,740 --> 01:40:23,740
 Great.

1292
01:40:23,740 --> 01:40:30,160
 I fully support giving us the breathing room to have a dialogue around that 3167.

1293
01:40:30,160 --> 01:40:34,980
 So with that, I will close the work session at 611.

1294
01:40:34,980 --> 01:40:39,540
 We will be back here at 630 promptly to do the regular meeting.

1295
01:40:39,540 --> 01:40:40,540
 Thank you.

1296
01:40:40,540 --> 01:40:49,060
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular

1297
01:40:49,060 --> 01:40:53,060
 meeting for Wednesday, November 18th, 2020.

1298
01:40:53,060 --> 01:40:57,620
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 631.

1299
01:40:57,620 --> 01:41:02,340
 The first item of business is to provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas

1300
01:41:02,340 --> 01:41:03,340
 flag.

1301
01:41:03,340 --> 01:41:13,220
 Commissioners, if you want to join along with me, you can certainly unmute yourself.

1302
01:41:13,220 --> 01:41:19,780
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

1303
01:41:19,780 --> 01:41:29,740
 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1304
01:41:29,740 --> 01:41:31,340
 Honor the Texas flag.

1305
01:41:31,340 --> 01:41:40,220
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.

1306
01:41:40,220 --> 01:41:41,220
 Thank you.

1307
01:41:41,220 --> 01:41:45,020
 The next item of business is item two, the consideration of the minutes from November

1308
01:41:45,020 --> 01:41:46,020
 4th.

1309
01:41:46,020 --> 01:41:47,020
 Commissioner Smith.

1310
01:41:47,020 --> 01:41:48,020
 Make a motion to approve.

1311
01:41:48,020 --> 01:41:50,060
 Commissioner Beck.

1312
01:41:50,060 --> 01:41:51,060
 Second.

1313
01:41:51,060 --> 01:41:52,900
 We have a first and a second.

1314
01:41:52,900 --> 01:41:53,900
 Any discussion?

1315
01:41:53,900 --> 01:41:56,540
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1316
01:41:56,540 --> 01:41:57,540
 Commissioner Ellis.

1317
01:41:57,540 --> 01:41:58,540
 Aye.

1318
01:41:58,540 --> 01:41:59,540
 Commissioner Beck.

1319
01:41:59,540 --> 01:42:00,540
 Aye.

1320
01:42:00,540 --> 01:42:01,540
 Commissioner Anderson.

1321
01:42:01,540 --> 01:42:02,540
 Aye.

1322
01:42:02,540 --> 01:42:03,540
 Commissioner Smith.

1323
01:42:03,540 --> 01:42:04,540
 Aye.

1324
01:42:04,540 --> 01:42:05,540
 Commissioner Cole.

1325
01:42:05,540 --> 01:42:06,540
 Aye.

1326
01:42:06,540 --> 01:42:07,540
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1327
01:42:07,540 --> 01:42:08,540
 Aye.

1328
01:42:08,540 --> 01:42:10,140
 Chair is also an aye.

1329
01:42:10,140 --> 01:42:11,140
 Motion carries 7-0.

1330
01:42:11,140 --> 01:42:18,080
 The next item for consideration is our consent agenda, Commissioner Beck.

1331
01:42:18,080 --> 01:42:21,180
 I motion to approve.

1332
01:42:21,180 --> 01:42:22,180
 We have a first.

1333
01:42:22,180 --> 01:42:23,180
 Commissioner Ellis.

1334
01:42:23,180 --> 01:42:24,180
 Second.

1335
01:42:24,180 --> 01:42:27,860
 We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda.

1336
01:42:27,860 --> 01:42:28,860
 Any discussion?

1337
01:42:28,860 --> 01:42:33,080
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1338
01:42:33,080 --> 01:42:34,080
 Commissioner Ellis.

1339
01:42:34,080 --> 01:42:35,080
 Aye.

1340
01:42:35,080 --> 01:42:36,080
 Commissioner Beck.

1341
01:42:36,080 --> 01:42:37,080
 Aye.

1342
01:42:37,080 --> 01:42:38,080
 Commissioner Anderson.

1343
01:42:38,080 --> 01:42:39,080
 Aye.

1344
01:42:39,080 --> 01:42:40,080
 Commissioner Smith.

1345
01:42:40,080 --> 01:42:41,080
 Aye.

1346
01:42:41,080 --> 01:42:42,080
 Commissioner Cole.

1347
01:42:42,080 --> 01:42:43,080
 Aye.

1348
01:42:43,080 --> 01:42:44,080
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1349
01:42:44,080 --> 01:42:45,080
 Aye.

1350
01:42:45,080 --> 01:42:49,020
 Chair is also an aye.

1351
01:42:49,020 --> 01:42:50,900
 Motion carries 7-0.

1352
01:42:50,900 --> 01:42:57,500
 Next item for business is item 4A, PP20-0024.

1353
01:42:57,500 --> 01:43:02,900
 This item is being recommended a denial from staff, however, the applicant is requesting

1354
01:43:02,900 --> 01:43:08,060
 an extension of the 30 days to a date certain of December 2nd.

1355
01:43:08,060 --> 01:43:09,060
 Commissioner Smith.

1356
01:43:09,060 --> 01:43:13,900
 We have a motion to approve the extension to date certain of December 2nd.

1357
01:43:13,900 --> 01:43:14,900
 Thank you.

1358
01:43:14,900 --> 01:43:15,900
 Commissioner Anderson.

1359
01:43:15,900 --> 01:43:17,900
 I second the motion.

1360
01:43:17,900 --> 01:43:23,720
 We have a first and a second for an extension to date certain of December 2nd.

1361
01:43:23,720 --> 01:43:24,720
 Any discussion?

1362
01:43:24,720 --> 01:43:28,820
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1363
01:43:28,820 --> 01:43:29,820
 Commissioner Ellis.

1364
01:43:29,820 --> 01:43:30,820
 Aye.

1365
01:43:30,820 --> 01:43:31,820
 Commissioner Beck.

1366
01:43:31,820 --> 01:43:32,820
 Aye.

1367
01:43:32,820 --> 01:43:33,820
 Commissioner Anderson.

1368
01:43:33,820 --> 01:43:34,820
 Aye.

1369
01:43:34,820 --> 01:43:35,820
 Commissioner Smith.

1370
01:43:35,820 --> 01:43:36,820
 Aye.

1371
01:43:36,820 --> 01:43:37,820
 Commissioner Cole.

1372
01:43:37,820 --> 01:43:38,820
 Aye.

1373
01:43:38,820 --> 01:43:39,820
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1374
01:43:39,820 --> 01:43:40,820
 Aye.

1375
01:43:40,820 --> 01:43:42,700
 Chair is also an aye.

1376
01:43:42,700 --> 01:43:44,980
 Motion carries 7-0.

1377
01:43:44,980 --> 01:43:51,020
 The next item of business is item 4B, Z-19-0012D.

1378
01:43:51,020 --> 01:43:52,940
 This item will be presented by Julie Wyatt.

1379
01:43:52,940 --> 01:43:55,940
 Julie, whenever you're ready, you have the floor.

1380
01:43:55,940 --> 01:44:04,380
 All right, let me pull up my presentation and we will go through it.

1381
01:44:04,380 --> 01:44:11,580
 I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton and I'm presenting Z-19-0012D, Mockingbird

1382
01:44:11,580 --> 01:44:14,020
 Single-Family Residential.

1383
01:44:14,020 --> 01:44:17,180
 So the request before you, you have seen it before.

1384
01:44:17,180 --> 01:44:20,300
 It's 2.61 acres.

1385
01:44:20,300 --> 01:44:23,980
 The request is to rezone from R2 to R4 district.

1386
01:44:23,980 --> 01:44:26,900
 There have been previous actions on this application.

1387
01:44:26,900 --> 01:44:34,660
 One, this time last year, where they were proposing the rezoning, they, P&Z recommended

1388
01:44:34,660 --> 01:44:35,660
 approval of that.

1389
01:44:35,660 --> 01:44:38,220
 However, there were delays in going to city council.

1390
01:44:38,220 --> 01:44:43,540
 So it was re-noticed and sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

1391
01:44:43,540 --> 01:44:47,580
 Planning Zoning Commission heard it on September 16th of this year and recommended denial.

1392
01:44:47,580 --> 01:44:53,500
 At that meeting, the applicant did propose a condition to limit the uses to single-family

1393
01:44:53,500 --> 01:44:55,420
 only.

1394
01:44:55,420 --> 01:44:59,060
 And the item went to city council on October 20th.

1395
01:44:59,060 --> 01:45:05,300
 And one clarification from the work session, so the applicant did propose a new condition.

1396
01:45:05,300 --> 01:45:11,740
 Council was concerned because that additional condition was requested at the meeting.

1397
01:45:11,740 --> 01:45:16,180
 So it wasn't something that planning staff had had a chance to look at yet.

1398
01:45:16,180 --> 01:45:20,540
 And so at that time, because planning staff hadn't had a chance to look at it or the Planning

1399
01:45:20,540 --> 01:45:26,540
 and Zoning Commission, the council voted to remand this item back to the Planning and

1400
01:45:26,540 --> 01:45:34,860
 Zoning Commission for that full vetting of the additional condition at that time.

1401
01:45:34,860 --> 01:45:39,620
 I won't go over the full presentation unless you want me to.

1402
01:45:39,620 --> 01:45:46,740
 The public hearing has closed and there haven't been any changes to staff's presentation except

1403
01:45:46,740 --> 01:45:51,340
 for two slides that I just wanted to highlight.

1404
01:45:51,340 --> 01:45:57,660
 But I'll be happy to go through all the slides if you'd like for me to.

1405
01:45:57,660 --> 01:46:03,180
 So without any opposition from the commission, and I don't see any, let's just go ahead

1406
01:46:03,180 --> 01:46:07,340
 and skip to the updated features of tonight since we've heard it prior.

1407
01:46:07,340 --> 01:46:08,340
 Great.

1408
01:46:08,340 --> 01:46:09,340
 Okay.

1409
01:46:09,340 --> 01:46:10,340
 So I'll be brief on it.

1410
01:46:10,340 --> 01:46:15,380
 Part of what staff analyzed with this request was whether it was in-fill development or

1411
01:46:15,380 --> 01:46:16,380
 not.

1412
01:46:16,380 --> 01:46:21,700
 The In-Fill Development Plan 2030 does encourage in-fill development, but in-fill development

1413
01:46:21,700 --> 01:46:25,580
 is one of those words that it really is defined by whatever document you're looking at.

1414
01:46:25,580 --> 01:46:27,500
 There are changes that you could look at with that.

1415
01:46:27,500 --> 01:46:32,460
 And in fact, in our own City of Denton documents, the Denton Development Code really defines

1416
01:46:32,460 --> 01:46:35,300
 it differently than the Comprehensive Plan.

1417
01:46:35,300 --> 01:46:39,660
 So I just kind of wanted to highlight how the Comp Plan defines in-fill development.

1418
01:46:39,660 --> 01:46:44,340
 And they define it as development or redevelopment of underused buildings and vacant lots and

1419
01:46:44,340 --> 01:46:47,500
 areas served by existing infrastructure.

1420
01:46:47,500 --> 01:46:52,700
 And development that channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and

1421
01:46:52,700 --> 01:46:56,100
 conserves open space and agriculture at the periphery of the city.

1422
01:46:56,100 --> 01:47:01,380
 So the subject site is right here outlined in blue, and you can kind of see how in-fill

1423
01:47:01,380 --> 01:47:04,620
 development has impacted the surrounding area.

1424
01:47:04,620 --> 01:47:11,820
 You saw some rezoning cases in the last few years in this general area off of Audra.

1425
01:47:11,820 --> 01:47:18,100
 There's a plat that is currently under review for this property, multifamily to the north.

1426
01:47:18,100 --> 01:47:24,460
 So as this area has developed, in-fill has come in and impacted the surrounding area.

1427
01:47:24,460 --> 01:47:27,820
 And you can see it is served by existing water and sewer.

1428
01:47:27,820 --> 01:47:32,020
 Those red and blue lines are the existing water and sewer, and that kind of follows

1429
01:47:32,020 --> 01:47:34,580
 the street network that's in place.

1430
01:47:34,580 --> 01:47:40,340
 So the subject site is consistent with that definition of in-fill development as the Comprehensive

1431
01:47:40,340 --> 01:47:41,820
 Plan defines it.

1432
01:47:41,820 --> 01:47:48,060
 And the Comp Plan supports compatible in-fill development with two policies and actions.

1433
01:47:48,060 --> 01:47:53,100
 One, that the city should take every opportunity to ensure that gaps in neighborhood and fabric,

1434
01:47:53,100 --> 01:48:00,260
 when they occur, that the in-fill -- that as gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur,

1435
01:48:00,260 --> 01:48:04,920
 in-fill development would be encouraged, but it must complement the scale and character

1436
01:48:04,920 --> 01:48:06,820
 of the surrounding neighborhoods.

1437
01:48:06,820 --> 01:48:12,100
 And then also the city should identify and remove zoning and other regulatory impediments

1438
01:48:12,100 --> 01:48:17,180
 to compatible in-fill and redevelopment.

1439
01:48:17,180 --> 01:48:21,420
 The next couple of slides I just want to touch on was the public outreach.

1440
01:48:21,420 --> 01:48:24,280
 There was public notification for those public hearings.

1441
01:48:24,280 --> 01:48:29,440
 As I said, those have closed, but council, with the remanding back to the Planning and

1442
01:48:29,440 --> 01:48:33,820
 Zoning Commission, did request that staff send out a public notification to property

1443
01:48:33,820 --> 01:48:35,940
 owners within 200 feet.

1444
01:48:35,940 --> 01:48:41,020
 And then those responses that we received for that public hearing are still in place.

1445
01:48:41,020 --> 01:48:44,580
 So we did get one additional from what you see on this map.

1446
01:48:44,580 --> 01:48:46,580
 It came in today by mail.

1447
01:48:46,580 --> 01:48:48,220
 And it is this property right here.

1448
01:48:48,220 --> 01:48:54,620
 They did provide an opposition letter to the city.

1449
01:48:54,620 --> 01:48:58,900
 The opposition percentage surrounding the subject site is 34%.

1450
01:48:58,900 --> 01:49:03,900
 So this will trigger a supermajority at City Council for approval, which is six out of

1451
01:49:03,900 --> 01:49:06,740
 seven votes.

1452
01:49:06,740 --> 01:49:08,780
 So staff recommends approval of the request.

1453
01:49:08,780 --> 01:49:15,260
 And here's where that modification to the overlay conditions comes in.

1454
01:49:15,260 --> 01:49:21,100
 Staff has looked at the applicant's request for those overlay conditions and has no objection

1455
01:49:21,100 --> 01:49:22,460
 to them.

1456
01:49:22,460 --> 01:49:26,460
 And those are that the development would be limited to nine single-family detached homes

1457
01:49:26,460 --> 01:49:29,700
 only and all other land uses would be prohibited.

1458
01:49:29,700 --> 01:49:31,700
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

1459
01:49:31,700 --> 01:49:37,460
 And I believe the applicant is on the phone to also share a presentation with you.

1460
01:49:37,460 --> 01:49:38,460
 >> Great.

1461
01:49:38,460 --> 01:49:39,720
 Thanks, Julie.

1462
01:49:39,720 --> 01:49:42,660
 Any questions for Julie at this time?

1463
01:49:42,660 --> 01:49:44,700
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1464
01:49:44,700 --> 01:49:52,500
 >> Yeah, I just wanted to -- can we go back and look at this slide, because I can't find

1465
01:49:52,500 --> 01:49:59,060
 this specific one in the backup, where you're describing infill.

1466
01:49:59,060 --> 01:50:07,580
 And it's -- the line is about basically the filling up the neighborhoods as a -- so you

1467
01:50:07,580 --> 01:50:12,420
 take every time -- the gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur in infill development.

1468
01:50:12,420 --> 01:50:13,420
 Okay.

1469
01:50:13,420 --> 01:50:18,820
 I just wanted to kind of look at this one, because I think, you know, my previous thoughts

1470
01:50:18,820 --> 01:50:23,940
 on how infill was based on the other definition, which, you know, the other one kind of mentioned

1471
01:50:23,940 --> 01:50:24,940
 economic development.

1472
01:50:24,940 --> 01:50:29,140
 I didn't see where this was economic development.

1473
01:50:29,140 --> 01:50:35,540
 I just wanted to kind of double-check on the wording on this one real quick.

1474
01:50:35,540 --> 01:50:36,540
 Thank you.

1475
01:50:36,540 --> 01:50:37,540
 That's all I needed to do.

1476
01:50:37,540 --> 01:50:38,540
 >> Sure.

1477
01:50:38,540 --> 01:50:47,300
 >> Well, with that, Julie, I would say if the applicant has a presentation to provide,

1478
01:50:47,300 --> 01:50:50,060
 let's go ahead and queue that up.

1479
01:50:50,060 --> 01:50:55,340
 >> Do we have any commissioners?

1480
01:50:55,340 --> 01:50:56,340
 >> Go ahead.

1481
01:50:56,340 --> 01:50:59,900
 >> This is Amy Bissett with 97 Land Company.

1482
01:50:59,900 --> 01:51:02,860
 I'm going to make -- or start the applicant presentation.

1483
01:51:02,860 --> 01:51:07,420
 Chair Rizal, if you had something that you'd like to say before I begin, please go ahead.

1484
01:51:07,420 --> 01:51:08,420
 >> Nope.

1485
01:51:08,420 --> 01:51:11,180
 I was just making sure you were there.

1486
01:51:11,180 --> 01:51:12,740
 >> I am here.

1487
01:51:12,740 --> 01:51:17,900
 My address is 100 West Oak Street, Denton, 76201.

1488
01:51:17,900 --> 01:51:19,940
 Thank you, Julie, for pulling up the presentation.

1489
01:51:19,940 --> 01:51:26,660
 I'm going to ask the commission to indulge me for a moment and look at this project with

1490
01:51:26,660 --> 01:51:35,620
 fresh eyes, even though I sense the frustration and it is common with the -- on the side of

1491
01:51:35,620 --> 01:51:39,980
 the applicant as well that you're hearing this for the third time.

1492
01:51:39,980 --> 01:51:46,620
 But we did present some information to the City Council in their meeting in October.

1493
01:51:46,620 --> 01:51:52,300
 That was new information that was born out of the conversation that we heard in your

1494
01:51:52,300 --> 01:51:53,740
 vote in September.

1495
01:51:53,740 --> 01:51:57,540
 So we do want to have the opportunity to present that to you and have you consider it with

1496
01:51:57,540 --> 01:51:59,540
 this discussion.

1497
01:51:59,540 --> 01:52:03,820
 Next slide, Julie.

1498
01:52:03,820 --> 01:52:09,540
 So as you know, real quick, we are requesting the rezone from R2 to R4 with two overlay

1499
01:52:09,540 --> 01:52:15,260
 conditions that are consistent with what our plan has been all along, which is to have

1500
01:52:15,260 --> 01:52:18,220
 nine single-family detached homes.

1501
01:52:18,220 --> 01:52:24,820
 Under the current zoning, we would be permitted to have five lots in terms of gross density,

1502
01:52:24,820 --> 01:52:30,460
 and under the proposed zoning, we are requesting the ability to develop nine lots.

1503
01:52:30,460 --> 01:52:32,300
 Next slide, please.

1504
01:52:32,300 --> 01:52:39,060
 This is the slide that I want to spend a little bit of time on to provide some context of

1505
01:52:39,060 --> 01:52:44,620
 how the project has evolved from our side in terms of neighborhood engagement and our

1506
01:52:44,620 --> 01:52:52,400
 approach to how we're looking at this in terms of its consistency with the comp plan and

1507
01:52:52,400 --> 01:52:54,860
 with the fabric of the neighborhood.

1508
01:52:54,860 --> 01:53:01,660
 So a year ago this month, as you all know, you did hear this request.

1509
01:53:01,660 --> 01:53:08,300
 At the time, it was a straight zoning request from R2 to R4, and if you recall, it was right

1510
01:53:08,300 --> 01:53:17,520
 on the heels of the adoption of the 2019 code, where PDs became a new opportunity for zoning,

1511
01:53:17,520 --> 01:53:23,020
 and we heard concerns from both the neighbors as well as those of you who ultimately voted

1512
01:53:23,020 --> 01:53:31,180
 in dissent that the R4 zoning would allow for townhomes and duplexes with an SUP, and

1513
01:53:31,180 --> 01:53:37,700
 that the straight R4 zoning could theoretically exceed the gross density of the definition

1514
01:53:37,700 --> 01:53:44,460
 of a low residential district, which is what is called out as the designation for this

1515
01:53:44,460 --> 01:53:47,620
 area in the future land use plan.

1516
01:53:47,620 --> 01:53:56,340
 So ultimately, you did vote to approve it with a 4-2-1 with no overlay conditions because

1517
01:53:56,340 --> 01:54:00,360
 I think there was some reticence at the time to introduce overlay conditions under the

1518
01:54:00,360 --> 01:54:07,660
 new code, and there was no precedent for that, so between your vote and the opposition that

1519
01:54:07,660 --> 01:54:12,980
 we had with the neighborhood, the property owner was reluctant to take it to city council

1520
01:54:12,980 --> 01:54:20,500
 with the requirement of a supermajority vote, and so took some time to rethink that and

1521
01:54:20,500 --> 01:54:25,460
 then reintroduced the idea of going forward with it.

1522
01:54:25,460 --> 01:54:31,700
 When we brought that back up with city staff, they did ask us to go back through P&D again

1523
01:54:31,700 --> 01:54:37,520
 and re-notice the project, and so in preparing to do that, we did host another neighborhood

1524
01:54:37,520 --> 01:54:38,980
 meeting.

1525
01:54:38,980 --> 01:54:47,380
 We had five neighbors attend at that point in time, and the main voice of opposition

1526
01:54:47,380 --> 01:54:53,900
 that we heard and the main reason for opposition that we heard was the belief that if we did

1527
01:54:53,900 --> 01:54:58,220
 not have any overlay conditions, that we could come back and propose something different

1528
01:54:58,220 --> 01:55:04,180
 than what we show here, specifically something that would allow for some commercial or town

1529
01:55:04,180 --> 01:55:09,660
 home or duplex uses, and so with a year having passed since the adoption of the new code

1530
01:55:09,660 --> 01:55:17,340
 and some precedent set for allowing overlay conditions in building cases, we came back

1531
01:55:17,340 --> 01:55:23,380
 to you in September with the same request that we had made in 2019, but with the additional

1532
01:55:23,380 --> 01:55:31,700
 overlay condition to limit it to single-family homes, and to be perfectly honest with you,

1533
01:55:31,700 --> 01:55:38,620
 I was not prepared for that meeting because you had heard the project before and I went

1534
01:55:38,620 --> 01:55:44,340
 in on an assumption that your position would be generally the same and maybe slightly more

1535
01:55:44,340 --> 01:55:49,300
 favorable because we were eliminating one of the concerns that were expressed at the

1536
01:55:49,300 --> 01:55:50,300
 time.

1537
01:55:50,300 --> 01:55:57,220
 So when you voted to recommend denial in September, the two main concerns that I heard expressed

1538
01:55:57,220 --> 01:56:02,260
 by you all as commissioners were that we didn't meet the criteria for infill development and

1539
01:56:02,260 --> 01:56:07,700
 that the argument, the case being made to support the project, was that it was an infill

1540
01:56:07,700 --> 01:56:17,660
 project and that R2, leaving it as R2 zoning, would be economically viable.

1541
01:56:17,660 --> 01:56:25,340
 So coming out of that meeting, we did do an economic analysis to take a look at the market

1542
01:56:25,340 --> 01:56:31,100
 in the area and we will present that information to you tonight, and we will also talk a little

1543
01:56:31,100 --> 01:56:36,460
 bit more about infill development beyond what Julie presented in her staff presentation.

1544
01:56:36,460 --> 01:56:43,500
 So when we went to council in October, we did have additional economic and market information

1545
01:56:43,500 --> 01:56:50,900
 that they knew that you all had not seen before and had not considered, and at that point

1546
01:56:50,900 --> 01:56:55,780
 in time they remanded it back to you.

1547
01:56:55,780 --> 01:56:59,080
 We did engage the neighborhood another time.

1548
01:56:59,080 --> 01:57:04,380
 We mailed out a letter and Julie, if you have that where you could display it on the screen

1549
01:57:04,380 --> 01:57:08,900
 for a moment, that would be helpful, if not, that's fine, but rather than a generic you're

1550
01:57:08,900 --> 01:57:13,580
 invited to a neighborhood meeting, we mailed a letter where we explained exactly what we

1551
01:57:13,580 --> 01:57:18,360
 were proposing and why and how we thought that it would be more compatible for the neighborhood

1552
01:57:18,360 --> 01:57:26,100
 and we invited those neighbors to a meeting, a virtual meeting, or to call me personally

1553
01:57:26,100 --> 01:57:28,680
 to ask questions or express concerns.

1554
01:57:28,680 --> 01:57:35,740
 Unfortunately, we heard from no one, despite the effort that we made to really try to engage

1555
01:57:35,740 --> 01:57:39,780
 them and hear from them about overcoming their opposition.

1556
01:57:39,780 --> 01:57:46,220
 When we came to you guys in September, we heard that if we could write into the ordinance

1557
01:57:46,220 --> 01:57:52,940
 that there would be no other uses other than single family, that the majority property

1558
01:57:52,940 --> 01:57:58,300
 owner that is in opposition would remove that opposition and would support the project.

1559
01:57:58,300 --> 01:58:02,900
 That's why we came back in September with the original request for the overlay condition

1560
01:58:02,900 --> 01:58:09,420
 because we felt like we were accommodating what the neighbors were asking us to do.

1561
01:58:09,420 --> 01:58:11,340
 Next slide, Julie.

1562
01:58:11,340 --> 01:58:15,820
 This is the exact same slide you saw over a year ago.

1563
01:58:15,820 --> 01:58:21,100
 Our intent has always been to subdivide into nine lots with private street and no connectivity

1564
01:58:21,100 --> 01:58:27,660
 to adjacent neighborhoods with an HOA maintained detention, pond, street, and common areas.

1565
01:58:27,660 --> 01:58:30,940
 At the time, it was one neighborhood meeting.

1566
01:58:30,940 --> 01:58:36,300
 We're now at three, I believe, maybe four, and we had presented two concept plans.

1567
01:58:36,300 --> 01:58:38,620
 Next slide, please.

1568
01:58:38,620 --> 01:58:40,620
 The neighborhood gave us their preference.

1569
01:58:40,620 --> 01:58:46,900
 They told us which concept plan they preferred, which was this one, and the reason they preferred

1570
01:58:46,900 --> 01:58:52,660
 it is because the street on the north side of the development is a private street and

1571
01:58:52,660 --> 01:58:54,100
 it minimizes traffic.

1572
01:58:54,100 --> 01:59:00,580
 It also provides a buffer to the lower density single family neighbors to the north, both

1573
01:59:00,580 --> 01:59:03,380
 the detention pond and the street do.

1574
01:59:03,380 --> 01:59:10,500
 Then we had increased lot depth as well, which provided privacy to the neighbors to the south

1575
01:59:10,500 --> 01:59:16,540
 of the project, and the lot dimensions gave us an opportunity to preserve existing trees

1576
01:59:16,540 --> 01:59:20,780
 on the fence line that would provide privacy to them.

1577
01:59:20,780 --> 01:59:24,100
 Next slide, please.

1578
01:59:24,100 --> 01:59:29,500
 Very quickly, because Julie didn't go through it, we are requesting R4, and if you look

1579
01:59:29,500 --> 01:59:34,820
 at this quadrant of the city, which I have highlighted in red with Mingo, Loop 288, and

1580
01:59:34,820 --> 01:59:40,740
 McKinney, you see that the majority of the properties within this quadrant of the city

1581
01:59:40,740 --> 01:59:47,860
 are zoned R4, and the R property is the star on the upper right-hand side.

1582
01:59:47,860 --> 01:59:50,460
 Next slide, please.

1583
01:59:50,460 --> 01:59:56,220
 I went through and traced all of the R4 properties and kind of grayed them out, if you will,

1584
01:59:56,220 --> 02:00:02,300
 so you can see more in bulk how much of R4 is represented within this area of kind of

1585
02:00:02,300 --> 02:00:04,100
 the urban core of Denton.

1586
02:00:04,100 --> 02:00:07,860
 Next slide, please.

1587
02:00:07,860 --> 02:00:14,420
 While in the future land use plan, this is a low residential designated area.

1588
02:00:14,420 --> 02:00:20,540
 You can see where our property is or where our project is, and so is all the other R4

1589
02:00:20,540 --> 02:00:26,540
 properties currently zoned that and developed as R4 in that quadrant.

1590
02:00:26,540 --> 02:00:29,260
 Next slide, please.

1591
02:00:29,260 --> 02:00:38,100
 So the definition of low residential is that lot sizes range from one acre or more in rural

1592
02:00:38,100 --> 02:00:43,700
 fringe areas and up to four units per acre gross density through many of the city's suburban

1593
02:00:43,700 --> 02:00:44,700
 subdivisions.

1594
02:00:44,700 --> 02:00:51,740
 Our lot area is 2.61 acres, and our gross density is 3.45 units per acre, so we do meet

1595
02:00:51,740 --> 02:00:59,660
 the definition or the intent of low residential development, and by asking for the density

1596
02:00:59,660 --> 02:01:04,740
 limitation of nine single-family detached homes, we ensure that we will never exceed

1597
02:01:04,740 --> 02:01:05,740
 that.

1598
02:01:05,740 --> 02:01:09,660
 Next slide, please.

1599
02:01:09,660 --> 02:01:17,460
 So to Chair Rosell's comment in the last meeting, there was concerns expressed that we didn't

1600
02:01:17,460 --> 02:01:23,520
 meet the definition of infill development where our argument for supporting the zoning

1601
02:01:23,520 --> 02:01:27,860
 case was related to infill development, and so the Denton Development Code definition

1602
02:01:27,860 --> 02:01:34,300
 is very specific that it must have existing development contiguous on two sides, and it

1603
02:01:34,300 --> 02:01:36,380
 is no greater than two acres in size.

1604
02:01:36,380 --> 02:01:39,460
 Clearly, we do not meet that definition.

1605
02:01:39,460 --> 02:01:40,460
 Next slide, please.

1606
02:01:40,460 --> 02:01:45,660
 However, when you look at the Denton Development Code as a whole, how is infill development

1607
02:01:45,660 --> 02:01:47,900
 referenced, and why is it referenced?

1608
02:01:47,900 --> 02:01:54,540
 It is referenced four times in 517 pages, and all four times are related to providing

1609
02:01:54,540 --> 02:01:59,900
 opportunities for exceptions to the development standards, an exception to the parking requirement,

1610
02:01:59,900 --> 02:02:06,620
 an exception to off-street parking and layout, an exception to landscaping percentages, and

1611
02:02:06,620 --> 02:02:10,580
 an exception to building and site design.

1612
02:02:10,580 --> 02:02:16,460
 And so infill development, as it relates to this specific definition within the development

1613
02:02:16,460 --> 02:02:23,100
 code, is talking about, do you meet the requirement to receive these exceptions to our development

1614
02:02:23,100 --> 02:02:24,100
 standards?

1615
02:02:24,100 --> 02:02:28,100
 In this particular case, we're not asking for exceptions to development standards.

1616
02:02:28,100 --> 02:02:32,780
 We're asking for a zoning change, which is not really spoken to at all in reference to

1617
02:02:32,780 --> 02:02:35,260
 infill development in the development code.

1618
02:02:35,260 --> 02:02:36,260
 Next slide, please.

1619
02:02:36,260 --> 02:02:41,240
 You can skip that one.

1620
02:02:41,240 --> 02:02:47,420
 So in the Denton Plan 2030 definition, Julie did call this out, infill is defined very

1621
02:02:47,420 --> 02:02:48,420
 differently.

1622
02:02:48,420 --> 02:02:53,220
 It's defined as development and redevelopment of underused buildings and vacant lots in areas

1623
02:02:53,220 --> 02:02:56,020
 served by existing infrastructure.

1624
02:02:56,020 --> 02:03:00,180
 Development channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and conserves

1625
02:03:00,180 --> 02:03:03,860
 open space and agriculture at the periphery of the city.

1626
02:03:03,860 --> 02:03:07,860
 I do believe with certainty that we meet that definition.

1627
02:03:07,860 --> 02:03:10,180
 Next slide, please.

1628
02:03:10,180 --> 02:03:16,300
 And the context of what infill development means in the Denton Plan is it is referenced

1629
02:03:16,300 --> 02:03:20,540
 102 times in 415 pages.

1630
02:03:20,540 --> 02:03:25,180
 Statements within the community vision statement, throughout Denton, we see a compact development

1631
02:03:25,180 --> 02:03:30,940
 pattern and reinvestment in infill and underutilized areas of the city.

1632
02:03:30,940 --> 02:03:36,060
 Compact development in infill is central to the Denton Plan 2030.

1633
02:03:36,060 --> 02:03:40,200
 In the core of Denton, we see established neighborhoods where revitalization and compatible

1634
02:03:40,200 --> 02:03:45,460
 infill development contributes to the stable, livable and historic character and fosters

1635
02:03:45,460 --> 02:03:49,260
 neighborhood pride and home ownership.

1636
02:03:49,260 --> 02:03:54,900
 The point I want to make here is that infill development in our comp plan is a central

1637
02:03:54,900 --> 02:03:58,540
 theme to every goal that is set in the comp plan.

1638
02:03:58,540 --> 02:04:00,780
 It is not just related to land use.

1639
02:04:00,780 --> 02:04:03,820
 It is related to land use.

1640
02:04:03,820 --> 02:04:06,900
 It's related to infrastructure management.

1641
02:04:06,900 --> 02:04:10,140
 It is related to housing choice.

1642
02:04:10,140 --> 02:04:14,060
 And I'm just going to quickly flip through the next few slides where it's referenced,

1643
02:04:14,060 --> 02:04:16,900
 but it is really integrated throughout.

1644
02:04:16,900 --> 02:04:22,860
 So one place that it's referenced, a goal is to grow our assets and maintain and strengthen

1645
02:04:22,860 --> 02:04:29,340
 neighborhoods and the policy and action associated with that is to promote infill in residential

1646
02:04:29,340 --> 02:04:30,340
 areas.

1647
02:04:30,340 --> 02:04:33,020
 Next slide, please.

1648
02:04:33,020 --> 02:04:38,020
 Another goal is to design a fiscally advantageous land use pattern paired with fiscally responsible

1649
02:04:38,020 --> 02:04:45,380
 infrastructure management investment and this is done through promoting infill development

1650
02:04:45,380 --> 02:04:51,220
 and redevelopment to align development where resources and where infrastructure exists

1651
02:04:51,220 --> 02:04:52,220
 already.

1652
02:04:52,220 --> 02:04:55,220
 Next slide.

1653
02:04:55,220 --> 02:05:00,500
 And a couple more goals to ensure continued viability of Denton's established neighborhoods.

1654
02:05:00,500 --> 02:05:05,220
 The comp plan specifically states a principal means of reversing neighborhood decline is

1655
02:05:05,220 --> 02:05:11,140
 infill development, new development on vacant or redeveloped properties.

1656
02:05:11,140 --> 02:05:16,500
 Under the infrastructure and utilities management, there's a goal for cost effective service

1657
02:05:16,500 --> 02:05:21,100
 that acknowledges a well maintained and operated infrastructure network is fundamental to a

1658
02:05:21,100 --> 02:05:26,260
 healthy thriving community and that Denton's investment in this infrastructure will influence

1659
02:05:26,260 --> 02:05:31,340
 and support the framework for compact development and infill that is central to the Denton plan

1660
02:05:31,340 --> 02:05:32,340
 2030.

1661
02:05:32,340 --> 02:05:34,700
 Next slide, please.

1662
02:05:34,700 --> 02:05:37,820
 That really is at the crux of my presentation.

1663
02:05:37,820 --> 02:05:42,980
 I wanted to make sure and acknowledge what we heard from you guys in 2019 about what

1664
02:05:42,980 --> 02:05:51,080
 your concerns were as well as what the neighbors' concerns were and why we requested the conditions

1665
02:05:51,080 --> 02:05:56,380
 that we did in order to try to alleviate the neighbors' concerns and get them to a place

1666
02:05:56,380 --> 02:06:01,700
 that they could support the project and also to address why we do believe that this is

1667
02:06:01,700 --> 02:06:04,700
 consistent with supporting infill development.

1668
02:06:04,700 --> 02:06:09,420
 And then I'm going to actually hand this off to Pindari Pasini, our property owner who

1669
02:06:09,420 --> 02:06:16,860
 did some market research and who's going to present quickly some data on the question

1670
02:06:16,860 --> 02:06:21,360
 of whether or not developing this project as R2 is economically viable.

1671
02:06:21,360 --> 02:06:30,420
 Julie, you can go ahead and advance the slide and one more and I'll turn it over to Pindari.

1672
02:06:30,420 --> 02:06:31,420
 Thanks Amy.

1673
02:06:31,420 --> 02:06:32,420
 Thanks everyone.

1674
02:06:32,420 --> 02:06:39,220
 So we've heard on the last meeting that the NR2 would be economically viable, so we kind

1675
02:06:39,220 --> 02:06:42,540
 of went back to the market and did some analysis.

1676
02:06:42,540 --> 02:06:49,140
 We've leveraged one of our agents to pull some MLS data to see what's, you know, kind

1677
02:06:49,140 --> 02:06:52,140
 of take a hard look again to see if it's feasible.

1678
02:06:52,140 --> 02:06:58,940
 So we came up with a few scenarios, what we felt like it is a good product to put in this

1679
02:06:58,940 --> 02:07:01,140
 neighborhood or in this area.

1680
02:07:01,140 --> 02:07:07,860
 So five of them really, first scenario is really single-family homes, three-bedroom

1681
02:07:07,860 --> 02:07:14,980
 too bad, third or above, sold between 2014 to 2020, right, because that's kind of gives

1682
02:07:14,980 --> 02:07:25,000
 us the most recent data and then we went back beyond, you know, six years or older and even

1683
02:07:25,000 --> 02:07:30,380
 just any time, right, because we kind of went through hundreds of properties kind of having

1684
02:07:30,380 --> 02:07:37,060
 different scenarios, right, active, sold, some built in the 2015 and new and then some built

1685
02:07:37,060 --> 02:07:38,060
 in a year.

1686
02:07:38,060 --> 02:07:42,500
 And the last scenario, what we came up with is some of the recent homes that are being

1687
02:07:42,500 --> 02:07:48,100
 built in the area, so that kind of gives us more realistic approach on what the market

1688
02:07:48,100 --> 02:07:52,740
 is doing right at this moment.

1689
02:07:52,740 --> 02:07:56,220
 Next slide, please.

1690
02:07:56,220 --> 02:08:04,260
 So the first scenario where we did some search within about a half mile within the area,

1691
02:08:04,260 --> 02:08:14,060
 I believe it's a mile, did all the existing sales up to the last six years.

1692
02:08:14,060 --> 02:08:17,540
 We found about 116 homes that fit that description.

1693
02:08:17,540 --> 02:08:20,700
 The average size is roughly around 1,934 square foot.

1694
02:08:20,700 --> 02:08:25,540
 There's some homes that are over 2,000 and then some homes that are almost 1,500 square

1695
02:08:25,540 --> 02:08:26,540
 foot.

1696
02:08:26,540 --> 02:08:31,980
 So the average sales price was around 257,000 and the maximum sales price that we found

1697
02:08:31,980 --> 02:08:35,140
 was 325,000.

1698
02:08:35,140 --> 02:08:38,420
 Next one.

1699
02:08:38,420 --> 02:08:45,980
 So the next scenario is somewhat similar, but what we factored in is built any year.

1700
02:08:45,980 --> 02:08:52,300
 So we went back a long time, like I believe the MLS goes to 20 years back.

1701
02:08:52,300 --> 02:08:54,780
 So we did a kind of a historical search on that.

1702
02:08:54,780 --> 02:08:58,420
 We found a lot more homes, obviously, because there's no time limit to it.

1703
02:08:58,420 --> 02:09:00,660
 It's about 681 homes found.

1704
02:09:00,660 --> 02:09:07,220
 The average size dropped a little bit because there's some of the older homes are smaller.

1705
02:09:07,220 --> 02:09:12,820
 So your size sort of dropped there, but the average sales price was around 207 and there

1706
02:09:12,820 --> 02:09:23,540
 was maybe one or two homes that fit into that maximum sales price, which is around 380,000.

1707
02:09:23,540 --> 02:09:27,260
 Next one.

1708
02:09:27,260 --> 02:09:35,700
 So similar search again, so we went back to homes that are five years or newer built and

1709
02:09:35,700 --> 02:09:41,380
 we kind of got the same search results as the previous scenario one.

1710
02:09:41,380 --> 02:09:44,340
 The average size is around 1934.

1711
02:09:44,340 --> 02:09:54,780
 Sales price is around 258,000 and the maximum was 325,000.

1712
02:09:54,780 --> 02:10:01,860
 Then the fourth scenario is similar to the scenario three, but we've kind of went with

1713
02:10:01,860 --> 02:10:08,340
 any build year sold between the last year, like starting in January of 2019 until the

1714
02:10:08,340 --> 02:10:13,340
 date it was run, I believe it was back in October.

1715
02:10:13,340 --> 02:10:19,420
 So what we've found is about 597 homes that were sold in the past year.

1716
02:10:19,420 --> 02:10:23,880
 We went back a little bit wider net, I believe it's a little bit over a mile to see if there's

1717
02:10:23,880 --> 02:10:26,380
 anything out there within the reach.

1718
02:10:26,380 --> 02:10:32,060
 So the average sales price is roughly around at 209,000 and then the sales price was pushing

1719
02:10:32,060 --> 02:10:38,900
 around 379,000 roughly.

1720
02:10:38,900 --> 02:10:43,260
 The last scenario is really some of the newer homes that are being built in the area.

1721
02:10:43,260 --> 02:10:48,500
 So we did a little bit of search and not many, about 22 homes.

1722
02:10:48,500 --> 02:10:55,700
 The average square foot is around 1700 square foot, sales price is around 278,000 average.

1723
02:10:55,700 --> 02:11:00,980
 So there are a few homes that are the maximum sales price that are sold properties, we found

1724
02:11:00,980 --> 02:11:08,700
 about 316,000, but there are some active listings that are 341,000 price mark.

1725
02:11:08,700 --> 02:11:13,180
 So kind of the pattern sort of emerging as we keep searching for the three bedroom or

1726
02:11:13,180 --> 02:11:19,020
 higher properties, we're really having a hard time finding anything that's anything more

1727
02:11:19,020 --> 02:11:24,780
 than that 341,000 or 380,000 in a couple of scenarios.

1728
02:11:24,780 --> 02:11:29,460
 So as a conclusion, what we ended up concluding is we went back and let's see what we can

1729
02:11:29,460 --> 02:11:31,420
 do with these five lots, right?

1730
02:11:31,420 --> 02:11:41,100
 So our target price range for the market that can bear the prices around 258,000 to 340,000.

1731
02:11:41,100 --> 02:11:46,900
 But when we did the calculations for five lots, similar home sizes, but you'll have to fit

1732
02:11:46,900 --> 02:11:49,300
 in a little bit of bigger house.

1733
02:11:49,300 --> 02:11:56,840
 The reason for that is just it being almost a 15,000 square foot lot there.

1734
02:11:56,840 --> 02:12:01,700
 So you do have a bigger lot, so you do need a little bit of a bigger product to have an

1735
02:12:01,700 --> 02:12:03,940
 aesthetic sense.

1736
02:12:03,940 --> 02:12:11,780
 So these homes are conservatively, they were around 450,000 as a sales price, including

1737
02:12:11,780 --> 02:12:15,540
 all the development costs that would incur everything factory.

1738
02:12:15,540 --> 02:12:20,580
 So that kind of puts it right at $225 per square foot.

1739
02:12:20,580 --> 02:12:24,300
 And this is somewhat unaffordable in this area.

1740
02:12:24,300 --> 02:12:28,060
 Just considering the market, any buyer who wants to buy a house, they would look at the

1741
02:12:28,060 --> 02:12:33,380
 comparables within the area and will probably have a very tough time getting these appraised

1742
02:12:33,380 --> 02:12:35,940
 as well.

1743
02:12:35,940 --> 02:12:41,780
 And we did the same math, the construction costs across nine lots.

1744
02:12:41,780 --> 02:12:46,500
 The development costs are slightly higher on the nine lots, but then again, economies

1745
02:12:46,500 --> 02:12:53,100
 of scales, we have more doors to be able to market and we could afford somewhat of a entry

1746
02:12:53,100 --> 02:12:59,820
 level home to a mid-level home in a smaller lot to fit into the neighborhood's aesthetics

1747
02:12:59,820 --> 02:13:05,020
 and kind of not show it as a somewhat of a high end, right?

1748
02:13:05,020 --> 02:13:13,540
 So that would allow us to target an estimated sales price of 318,000, which fits right in

1749
02:13:13,540 --> 02:13:16,220
 the surrounding markets.

1750
02:13:16,220 --> 02:13:20,860
 I mean, even though we have some homes that can go up to 379,000, but it kind of gives

1751
02:13:20,860 --> 02:13:23,860
 us a comfortable target range to stay at.

1752
02:13:23,860 --> 02:13:29,700
 And then the cost per square foot has also come down to $159 per square foot.

1753
02:13:29,700 --> 02:13:35,940
 So that's more appealing and affordable considering the market.

1754
02:13:35,940 --> 02:13:42,720
 Anything more than that would be a really difficult sale process for us, and it's almost

1755
02:13:42,720 --> 02:13:43,720
 impossible.

1756
02:13:43,720 --> 02:13:50,420
 All right, I think that concludes our market research.

1757
02:13:50,420 --> 02:13:56,900
 Well, Pandari and Amy, I appreciate you being here with the presentation.

1758
02:13:56,900 --> 02:14:00,740
 I will turn to the virtual dais for any questions.

1759
02:14:00,740 --> 02:14:07,300
 I'm going to start real fast and then Commissioner Anderson, I'll move to you.

1760
02:14:07,300 --> 02:14:10,620
 Amy, are you online?

1761
02:14:10,620 --> 02:14:15,020
 Yes, I'm here.

1762
02:14:15,020 --> 02:14:21,460
 I appreciate the in-depth analysis you did on infill and kind of helping contextualize

1763
02:14:21,460 --> 02:14:25,420
 kind of the discrepancies that the city might have in the definition of infill.

1764
02:14:25,420 --> 02:14:30,780
 But based on your research, would you believe that building four or five homes there would

1765
02:14:30,780 --> 02:14:34,900
 satisfy the infill requirements?

1766
02:14:34,900 --> 02:14:36,260
 It would still be infill development.

1767
02:14:36,260 --> 02:14:40,700
 I just don't think it's economically viable to -- what will end up happening is there

1768
02:14:40,700 --> 02:14:47,180
 will be no homes built there because half-million-dollar homes are not marketable in that area.

1769
02:14:47,180 --> 02:14:50,700
 Yeah, I guess my next question real fast is maybe to you and Pandari.

1770
02:14:50,700 --> 02:14:54,100
 There's a new construction happening on Ryan Road.

1771
02:14:54,100 --> 02:14:55,900
 Right now it's the Creekside Reserve at Creekside.

1772
02:14:55,900 --> 02:14:59,300
 They're building the exact same product that you're describing and they're building about

1773
02:14:59,300 --> 02:15:02,580
 145 a foot and they're selling out pretty up and down.

1774
02:15:02,580 --> 02:15:07,020
 It's hard to get into Creekside right now at 145 a foot and it's basically the product

1775
02:15:07,020 --> 02:15:12,380
 you're talking about, 2 to 3,000 square feet, three-car garage type product.

1776
02:15:12,380 --> 02:15:19,260
 So I'm curious of how you arbitrarily decided 225 a build price for that area and not build

1777
02:15:19,260 --> 02:15:28,820
 out at what the rest of Dinton is building that for new properties?

1778
02:15:28,820 --> 02:15:33,100
 Striving is the number of lots in that -- in that -- the neighborhood and the purchase

1779
02:15:33,100 --> 02:15:35,740
 price and the development cost.

1780
02:15:35,740 --> 02:15:39,260
 There's a lot of gradient work that needs to be done for this particular lot.

1781
02:15:39,260 --> 02:15:41,660
 So I don't know what they're doing at Ryan Road.

1782
02:15:41,660 --> 02:15:44,340
 I don't know if it's a 2.6-acre or a 3-acre.

1783
02:15:44,340 --> 02:15:50,860
 I really don't know what they're building, but what that 145 per square foot sounds like

1784
02:15:50,860 --> 02:15:57,540
 our entry-level product, the mid-level product, which would be feasible within that 9-homes

1785
02:15:57,540 --> 02:15:58,540
 versus 5-homes.

1786
02:15:58,540 --> 02:16:05,100
 That kind of fits into that product.

1787
02:16:05,100 --> 02:16:11,620
 I think maybe what Kandari is trying to say is that the development costs associated with

1788
02:16:11,620 --> 02:16:17,460
 bringing five lots online to put in a road and put in a detention pond, those costs have

1789
02:16:17,460 --> 02:16:22,220
 to be integrated into the cost of the home and into the cost of the lot.

1790
02:16:22,220 --> 02:16:29,220
 And in order to develop that site, it brings up the cost of the homes to an area that's

1791
02:16:29,220 --> 02:16:35,660
 not supportable, just to put in the infrastructure necessary to support only five lots.

1792
02:16:35,660 --> 02:16:41,460
 We've ran this by a couple of developers in the area as well, and almost all of them said

1793
02:16:41,460 --> 02:16:46,340
 nine lots is something that's feasible and that some even said they'd love to be able

1794
02:16:46,340 --> 02:16:48,140
 to add one more lot.

1795
02:16:48,140 --> 02:16:54,340
 But all of them, for five lots, they kind of just backed off and they're saying this

1796
02:16:54,340 --> 02:16:56,900
 isn't feasible to build anything.

1797
02:16:56,900 --> 02:17:02,620
 So it wasn't just my analysis, there's a few builders that we marketed this to see if they

1798
02:17:02,620 --> 02:17:09,020
 could build it with a reasonable cost, and the costs were just too high.

1799
02:17:09,020 --> 02:17:12,940
 >> Were any of those builders local?

1800
02:17:12,940 --> 02:17:17,140
 And were they all developers, or were they one-off builders like Jay Thomas?

1801
02:17:17,140 --> 02:17:23,340
 >> They were, I don't know how large scale they are, but they do build a few smaller

1802
02:17:23,340 --> 02:17:28,180
 communities in the area, and I can get the name for you, I don't have it in front of

1803
02:17:28,180 --> 02:17:29,180
 me.

1804
02:17:29,180 --> 02:17:37,140
 >> Okay, and if I'm just doing back the math, you're looking at 450,000 times five homes,

1805
02:17:37,140 --> 02:17:45,980
 and so that's 2.25 million, or 318,000 times nine homes, which is 2.8.

1806
02:17:45,980 --> 02:17:51,300
 So your feasibility delta in this project is $600,000?

1807
02:17:51,300 --> 02:17:52,300
 >> That is correct.

1808
02:17:52,300 --> 02:17:53,300
 >> Okay.

1809
02:17:53,300 --> 02:17:55,300
 Commissioner Anderson, you had some questions?

1810
02:17:55,300 --> 02:18:01,460
 >> Yeah, it kind of goes along the line of yours, I'm always for development of lots

1811
02:18:01,460 --> 02:18:06,980
 and nice houses, but isn't your neighborhood kind of going to be a white elephant neighborhood

1812
02:18:06,980 --> 02:18:07,980
 in that area?

1813
02:18:07,980 --> 02:18:12,940
 I mean, those homes surrounding it aren't $300-some-thousand homes, I don't believe,

1814
02:18:12,940 --> 02:18:18,400
 and I think you're going to have a hard time attracting $300-some-thousand home buyers

1815
02:18:18,400 --> 02:18:22,820
 in a neighborhood that's only nine houses that's surrounded by houses that range from

1816
02:18:22,820 --> 02:18:25,460
 150 to 200,000.

1817
02:18:25,460 --> 02:18:28,820
 I mean, have you all thought about that?

1818
02:18:28,820 --> 02:18:29,820
 >> Not necessarily.

1819
02:18:29,820 --> 02:18:36,100
 The reason is when we did the newer homes that are active listing within the half mile,

1820
02:18:36,100 --> 02:18:38,960
 there are homes out there that would fit into that price model.

1821
02:18:38,960 --> 02:18:41,820
 We found about 22 homes, and they are selling, so.

1822
02:18:41,820 --> 02:18:42,820
 >> Right.

1823
02:18:42,820 --> 02:18:51,940
 I get that, but I'm saying you are surrounded by houses that aren't equal to the product

1824
02:18:51,940 --> 02:18:52,940
 that you're putting out there.

1825
02:18:52,940 --> 02:18:57,220
 I'm trying to say it in a polite way.

1826
02:18:57,220 --> 02:19:05,060
 Your house's price point is going to be $300-some-thousand home, and the houses around you are going

1827
02:19:05,060 --> 02:19:06,700
 to be a lot less.

1828
02:19:06,700 --> 02:19:07,700
 I mean.

1829
02:19:07,700 --> 02:19:08,700
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

1830
02:19:08,700 --> 02:19:09,700
 >> It depends.

1831
02:19:09,700 --> 02:19:11,540
 There's a mix of them, too, right?

1832
02:19:11,540 --> 02:19:14,540
 Go ahead, Amy.

1833
02:19:14,540 --> 02:19:18,460
 >> To your point, Commissioner Anderson, I think what we're talking about here with new

1834
02:19:18,460 --> 02:19:22,500
 homes is that they are going to be priced generally on the upper end of the average

1835
02:19:22,500 --> 02:19:24,920
 market value in the neighborhood.

1836
02:19:24,920 --> 02:19:29,620
 However, in order -- that's developing at R4.

1837
02:19:29,620 --> 02:19:38,860
 That's as economically -- just as reasonable -- economically reasonable as you can get with

1838
02:19:38,860 --> 02:19:43,380
 the amount of infrastructure that holds to be put in with a road and detention pond to

1839
02:19:43,380 --> 02:19:45,420
 support nine lots.

1840
02:19:45,420 --> 02:19:52,020
 On the flip side of that, under R2, we would be talking about $450,000 to $500,000 homes,

1841
02:19:52,020 --> 02:19:56,500
 which we absolutely don't think is marketable in that area.

1842
02:19:56,500 --> 02:20:02,620
 And that is a function of the development cost per lot is what is driving that number

1843
02:20:02,620 --> 02:20:03,620
 up.

1844
02:20:03,620 --> 02:20:08,560
 We need to be able to split the development cost over a higher number of lots in order

1845
02:20:08,560 --> 02:20:11,180
 to make infill even feasible here.

1846
02:20:11,180 --> 02:20:15,620
 And we are at a place with nine lots to be able to get it down at least within the market

1847
02:20:15,620 --> 02:20:21,220
 range of some of the newer homes that are within that quadrant of the city.

1848
02:20:21,220 --> 02:20:22,220
 >> Thanks, Amy.

1849
02:20:22,220 --> 02:20:28,700
 I get that, but me being in the mortgage business in the past, I know whenever a borrower goes

1850
02:20:28,700 --> 02:20:35,180
 to get financing, their underwriter looks for properties that are not half a mile away.

1851
02:20:35,180 --> 02:20:41,900
 They're looking for neighborhood houses that are compatible that are within blocks of houses.

1852
02:20:41,900 --> 02:20:47,500
 And I mean, I think you are doing a good thing, but I'm just saying it might be a hard sell

1853
02:20:47,500 --> 02:20:53,020
 to an underwriter that I have a house here that's $350,000, and the house on the next

1854
02:20:53,020 --> 02:20:56,620
 block over is $185,000.

1855
02:20:56,620 --> 02:20:58,940
 That's what they call a white elephant.

1856
02:20:58,940 --> 02:21:01,260
 So that's all I have to say.

1857
02:21:01,260 --> 02:21:03,380
 I appreciate it.

1858
02:21:03,380 --> 02:21:04,380
 >> Mr. Smith.

1859
02:21:04,380 --> 02:21:05,380
 >> Thank you, Chair.

1860
02:21:05,380 --> 02:21:10,700
 Amy or Pandari, can you guys remind me again the projected square footage of the houses

1861
02:21:10,700 --> 02:21:13,300
 you're wanting to build again?

1862
02:21:13,300 --> 02:21:18,020
 >> Between 2,000s to 3,000s at the most.

1863
02:21:18,020 --> 02:21:19,020
 >> Okay.

1864
02:21:19,020 --> 02:21:20,020
 Gotcha.

1865
02:21:20,020 --> 02:21:23,180
 And then most of those lots are between 7,000, the smallest, and 8,000 at the highest, I

1866
02:21:23,180 --> 02:21:25,380
 think I remember seeing from your slide, correct?

1867
02:21:25,380 --> 02:21:26,380
 >> That's right.

1868
02:21:26,380 --> 02:21:27,380
 >> Okay.

1869
02:21:27,380 --> 02:21:35,020
 I mean, to me, guys, the lots that are surrounding this neighborhood are all much smaller than

1870
02:21:35,020 --> 02:21:38,060
 the lots that are being projected by the applicant.

1871
02:21:38,060 --> 02:21:42,220
 Just along Whispering Oaks, most of these lots I'm looking at on Zillow are in the 7,000

1872
02:21:42,220 --> 02:21:43,220
 range.

1873
02:21:43,220 --> 02:21:47,180
 If it's a density issue, I don't think that, you know, I think the existing neighborhood

1874
02:21:47,180 --> 02:21:53,460
 is because a lot size, based purely off lot size, is actually more dense.

1875
02:21:53,460 --> 02:21:57,020
 There's bigger lot spaces that are within there.

1876
02:21:57,020 --> 02:22:01,100
 The price that I'm seeing on here as well is that, you know, most of these homes are

1877
02:22:01,100 --> 02:22:06,100
 having been recently sold in the last two years even, being sold in the mid-twos, and

1878
02:22:06,100 --> 02:22:10,500
 a lot of those having, you know, probably appreciated since then and just thought, you

1879
02:22:10,500 --> 02:22:15,260
 know, a straight line appreciation of average within the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

1880
02:22:15,260 --> 02:22:22,780
 You're probably looking at the high mid-twos now on those home values, and then to, you

1881
02:22:22,780 --> 02:22:27,980
 know, to Commissioner Anderson's point, I think that really if we're talking about,

1882
02:22:27,980 --> 02:22:33,060
 you know, not rezoning this whatsoever and keeping it at R2, it's not even economically

1883
02:22:33,060 --> 02:22:41,420
 feasible, as the applicant said, to try to move forward with the development and R2 zoning,

1884
02:22:41,420 --> 02:22:46,740
 they're not going to build $250,000 homes on R2 zoning either, even if they wanted to.

1885
02:22:46,740 --> 02:22:50,820
 Ignore economically feasibility right now, but if they wanted to build, by right, much

1886
02:22:50,820 --> 02:22:57,060
 larger homes, you know, $750,000 homes on, you know, half-acre lots, that wouldn't work

1887
02:22:57,060 --> 02:23:01,300
 out as well on the same point that you made there, Ronnie, about white elephants in the

1888
02:23:01,300 --> 02:23:07,140
 mortgage lending piece, so if anything, the rezoning would make it more accessible for

1889
02:23:07,140 --> 02:23:12,620
 there to be a lending for the house bought in that area, but I just don't see why, and

1890
02:23:12,620 --> 02:23:16,980
 this is kind of the first point I made the last meeting when it was a denial, I just

1891
02:23:16,980 --> 02:23:20,420
 don't see why we're debating it.

1892
02:23:20,420 --> 02:23:27,020
 It looks like, and Phil, to me, the lots actually look bigger, so the density that's there really

1893
02:23:27,020 --> 02:23:33,220
 doesn't seem to be a huge issue, and we're talking about nine homes, you know, with the

1894
02:23:33,220 --> 02:23:38,660
 very most 18 cars and mobility issues and everything else being brought up, I just don't

1895
02:23:38,660 --> 02:23:39,660
 see it.

1896
02:23:39,660 --> 02:23:45,140
 I think we're facing a ghost here.

1897
02:23:45,140 --> 02:23:46,140
 Kristerbeck.

1898
02:23:46,140 --> 02:23:49,500
 Yeah, I'm sort of split here.

1899
02:23:49,500 --> 02:23:53,580
 I don't actually have a problem, I agree with Commissioner Smith on the density.

1900
02:23:53,580 --> 02:23:56,060
 I don't have a problem with the density.

1901
02:23:56,060 --> 02:24:03,860
 I know it sounded like I had a problem with the overall regional issues when I was talking

1902
02:24:03,860 --> 02:24:05,660
 with Julie earlier, but I don't.

1903
02:24:05,660 --> 02:24:16,500
 I think this, in terms of density, is fairly well infilled density, but I do, the two things

1904
02:24:16,500 --> 02:24:21,860
 that concerned me, and they addressed this last time, were the engineering of the street.

1905
02:24:21,860 --> 02:24:27,680
 I still feel qualms, but the city engineers tell us that you can get a fire truck in there,

1906
02:24:27,680 --> 02:24:30,100
 you can do everything else you want in there.

1907
02:24:30,100 --> 02:24:35,220
 I'm not a street engineer, so I'm going to trust the engineers on that one.

1908
02:24:35,220 --> 02:24:39,540
 It feels twitchy to me, but then what do I know?

1909
02:24:39,540 --> 02:24:42,960
 The only other issue is the one I brought up in work session, and that is you're sort

1910
02:24:42,960 --> 02:24:50,820
 of chopping up an R2, it feels like maybe an anticipation of more chop-ups as the time

1911
02:24:50,820 --> 02:24:52,820
 goes on, but that sort of thing happens.

1912
02:24:52,820 --> 02:24:58,220
 So, I honestly could go either way on this, but I don't think the density, I agree with

1913
02:24:58,220 --> 02:25:03,820
 Commissioner Smith, I don't think the density is an issue on this one.

1914
02:25:03,820 --> 02:25:08,020
 So what I'd like to do is, if we have questions for the applicant or for staff, let's get

1915
02:25:08,020 --> 02:25:13,260
 those addressed, and then once we kind of conclude that, we can close the, kind of the

1916
02:25:13,260 --> 02:25:17,100
 discussion into, I guess it's not a public hearing, what am I talking about, I don't

1917
02:25:17,100 --> 02:25:19,220
 have anything to close.

1918
02:25:19,220 --> 02:25:21,940
 With regard to that, we'll go to Commissioner Pernetta.

1919
02:25:21,940 --> 02:25:29,180
 Yeah, and kind of, I have the same opinion as Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Beck.

1920
02:25:29,180 --> 02:25:34,540
 You know, when I look at this map, and this is an oddball, right?

1921
02:25:34,540 --> 02:25:39,920
 This is a little oddball area, and I think on any day of the week, any one of us could

1922
02:25:39,920 --> 02:25:45,280
 be convinced to go in one direction or the other.

1923
02:25:45,280 --> 02:25:51,020
 One of the things that kind of strikes me is, it's an oddball because of the few houses

1924
02:25:51,020 --> 02:25:53,000
 that immediately surround it, right?

1925
02:25:53,000 --> 02:25:58,380
 Because if those weren't, you know, just, you know, big lots and everything, what they're

1926
02:25:58,380 --> 02:26:04,600
 asking for completely conforms to everything else that's built around it.

1927
02:26:04,600 --> 02:26:11,280
 It's an odd little thing, but I can't see where we would be able to put anything else

1928
02:26:11,280 --> 02:26:15,580
 in there that would be feasible, that would be sellable.

1929
02:26:15,580 --> 02:26:22,700
 I have family that live close by, so I know the area and I know the density around it.

1930
02:26:22,700 --> 02:26:28,420
 I don't think you could get a lot of money for a larger property, you know, for larger

1931
02:26:28,420 --> 02:26:32,380
 lots and bigger house there.

1932
02:26:32,380 --> 02:26:38,700
 You know, ultimately, I think last time I was pretty heavily swayed by the opposition

1933
02:26:38,700 --> 02:26:46,580
 of the people surrounding, but ultimately, you know, based on the clarification that

1934
02:26:46,580 --> 02:26:50,300
 we have on infill now, because the last one, the last definition of infill that we had

1935
02:26:50,300 --> 02:26:55,380
 last time kind of didn't fit, this one makes a lot more sense.

1936
02:26:55,380 --> 02:27:01,100
 I think if we, for me, I feel like if I say no on this one, basically what I'm telling

1937
02:27:01,100 --> 02:27:06,100
 people is that they can't do something with their property that makes sense, that almost

1938
02:27:06,100 --> 02:27:09,860
 every other property around them is already doing and that we're going to have to wait

1939
02:27:09,860 --> 02:27:14,740
 until their neighbors some day sell their house and they want to maximize their profits

1940
02:27:14,740 --> 02:27:18,420
 on those.

1941
02:27:18,420 --> 02:27:21,580
 I'm not sure that I'm feeling a no on this one.

1942
02:27:21,580 --> 02:27:26,380
 I think, you know, this just happens to be the day of the week when this came before

1943
02:27:26,380 --> 02:27:27,380
 me and I went, you know what?

1944
02:27:27,380 --> 02:27:28,380
 It does make sense.

1945
02:27:28,380 --> 02:27:29,380
 That's my thought.

1946
02:27:29,380 --> 02:27:36,340
 >> Thank you, Commissioner Pernetta, Chair, we'll continue discussion and/or motion real

1947
02:27:36,340 --> 02:27:37,340
 fast.

1948
02:27:37,340 --> 02:27:39,100
 Commissioner Ellis, I just wanted to read for the record that on this item we had one

1949
02:27:39,100 --> 02:27:45,260
 person make comments using our online form and they were in support of the project.

1950
02:27:45,260 --> 02:27:48,060
 So the floor is yours, Commissioner Ellis.

1951
02:27:48,060 --> 02:27:49,500
 >> I appreciate it, Chair.

1952
02:27:49,500 --> 02:27:50,500
 Thank you.

1953
02:27:50,500 --> 02:27:51,500
 Okay.

1954
02:27:51,500 --> 02:27:54,380
 So we're getting kind of lost in density.

1955
02:27:54,380 --> 02:27:59,060
 Density really is not the issue here, but compatibility is the issue and has been the

1956
02:27:59,060 --> 02:28:07,140
 issue and there's nothing new here than we saw two months ago when we denied this project.

1957
02:28:07,140 --> 02:28:09,020
 We got a really nice presentation today.

1958
02:28:09,020 --> 02:28:15,580
 We got some economic data today, but we have the same project that was before us two months

1959
02:28:15,580 --> 02:28:23,880
 ago and it's the fact of the matter that this piece of property is surrounded on the majority

1960
02:28:23,880 --> 02:28:26,760
 of it by large lot homes.

1961
02:28:26,760 --> 02:28:35,740
 The minority part, the southern part of this is what is the smaller lot, smaller homes.

1962
02:28:35,740 --> 02:28:40,540
 But the majority and where all the opposition is coming, there's nothing new here.

1963
02:28:40,540 --> 02:28:42,180
 It's always been nine lots.

1964
02:28:42,180 --> 02:28:45,380
 That's what's been presented in the neighborhood meetings.

1965
02:28:45,380 --> 02:28:48,140
 There's nothing new that we're getting back today.

1966
02:28:48,140 --> 02:28:51,940
 And I do appreciate that the presentation is great.

1967
02:28:51,940 --> 02:28:59,300
 I personally don't consider R2 zoning an impediment as it relates to the infill definition in

1968
02:28:59,300 --> 02:29:03,340
 the comp plan that we're suddenly using on today's presentation.

1969
02:29:03,340 --> 02:29:10,200
 And I'd also like to bring up that we weren't even talking about infill until today.

1970
02:29:10,200 --> 02:29:15,140
 As many times as this has been brought up, that was not even part of staff analysis last

1971
02:29:15,140 --> 02:29:16,900
 time to us.

1972
02:29:16,900 --> 02:29:25,660
 We have the discussion here in our meeting, but now we're just being presented, I guess,

1973
02:29:25,660 --> 02:29:29,840
 the same data differently using different words and different definitions.

1974
02:29:29,840 --> 02:29:33,740
 So for me, my mind hasn't changed.

1975
02:29:33,740 --> 02:29:39,820
 I mean, it's being opposed by the majority of the landowners around it, and it's just

1976
02:29:39,820 --> 02:29:43,260
 not compatible for me.

1977
02:29:43,260 --> 02:29:48,620
 Thank you, Mr. Ellis, again, we can continue discussion.

1978
02:29:48,620 --> 02:29:49,620
 Chair also entertains a motion.

1979
02:29:49,620 --> 02:29:50,620
 Commissioner Smith.

1980
02:29:50,620 --> 02:29:55,260
 I'll make a motion to approve with the staff recommendations of the overlay.

1981
02:29:55,260 --> 02:30:00,400
 I take Commissioner Ellis's point to heart.

1982
02:30:00,400 --> 02:30:01,400
 I understand.

1983
02:30:01,400 --> 02:30:02,400
 I agree with you.

1984
02:30:02,400 --> 02:30:07,500
 We didn't have this infill conversation last time.

1985
02:30:07,500 --> 02:30:15,120
 But if you look at the entire, take a quarter of a mile radius around this property, I just

1986
02:30:15,120 --> 02:30:19,540
 don't see how we don't see this as infill, and I just have to have to disagree with you

1987
02:30:19,540 --> 02:30:20,540
 on that.

1988
02:30:20,540 --> 02:30:26,220
 Density, you know, included in there, I think that makes little sense for us not to move

1989
02:30:26,220 --> 02:30:28,420
 forward with this zoning.

1990
02:30:28,420 --> 02:30:32,900
 I don't think it's going to be an impediment to the surrounding neighbors, even given with

1991
02:30:32,900 --> 02:30:33,900
 their concerns.

1992
02:30:33,900 --> 02:30:36,460
 So I make a motion to approve.

1993
02:30:36,460 --> 02:30:37,460
 Thank you, Commissioner Smith.

1994
02:30:37,460 --> 02:30:39,420
 Commissioner Anderson, do you have your hand up?

1995
02:30:39,420 --> 02:30:42,380
 I was just going to second.

1996
02:30:42,380 --> 02:30:43,380
 Okay.

1997
02:30:43,380 --> 02:30:46,700
 You were going to or you are just for clarification.

1998
02:30:46,700 --> 02:30:47,700
 I am.

1999
02:30:47,700 --> 02:30:48,700
 Okay, great.

2000
02:30:48,700 --> 02:30:52,860
 So we have a first and a second for approval on this item.

2001
02:30:52,860 --> 02:30:57,860
 Any discussion?

2002
02:30:57,860 --> 02:31:00,860
 Commissioner Beck.

2003
02:31:00,860 --> 02:31:08,620
 I do have some question of the two definitions of infill.

2004
02:31:08,620 --> 02:31:13,580
 Are they both binding on our decision process?

2005
02:31:13,580 --> 02:31:15,140
 Can you clarify the question on what you mean?

2006
02:31:15,140 --> 02:31:17,740
 We're not binding infill definitions on this.

2007
02:31:17,740 --> 02:31:22,140
 So that we're using it, not binding, but you're correct to correct me.

2008
02:31:22,140 --> 02:31:24,140
 There's two definitions of infill.

2009
02:31:24,140 --> 02:31:30,940
 One, even the applicant says clearly I do not need, she said that.

2010
02:31:30,940 --> 02:31:37,780
 And I think we all agree that there's three sides of the square where this is not consistent.

2011
02:31:37,780 --> 02:31:42,860
 And then a larger comprehensive plan where there is sort of general consistency.

2012
02:31:42,860 --> 02:31:52,700
 And so in meeting those definitions, is there one that's operant that should be more of

2013
02:31:52,700 --> 02:31:55,000
 a factor in weighing our decision?

2014
02:31:55,000 --> 02:32:00,940
 And one that is merely a guidance or are they both equally operant?

2015
02:32:00,940 --> 02:32:03,820
 Richard, can you add clarification?

2016
02:32:03,820 --> 02:32:06,980
 Is there a priority of the kind of conflicting definitions?

2017
02:32:06,980 --> 02:32:08,820
 This might be something to add to the matrix later.

2018
02:32:08,820 --> 02:32:14,700
 But for this purpose, are they, should they be equally considered or is there one that's

2019
02:32:14,700 --> 02:32:17,180
 a little bit more applicable?

2020
02:32:17,180 --> 02:32:20,280
 I think they can essentially equally considered.

2021
02:32:20,280 --> 02:32:24,460
 But obviously, I think the one that's in the DDC, I mean, there are provisions within the

2022
02:32:24,460 --> 02:32:26,140
 comprehensive plan.

2023
02:32:26,140 --> 02:32:29,980
 Obviously, we look at future land use first.

2024
02:32:29,980 --> 02:32:36,900
 And then there's a multiple policies within the plan that give a lot of flexibility.

2025
02:32:36,900 --> 02:32:40,220
 The definition in the DDC does not provide that flexibility.

2026
02:32:40,220 --> 02:32:43,180
 It doesn't give if this, then that.

2027
02:32:43,180 --> 02:32:49,300
 And so I don't know if Cynthia would like to add anything.

2028
02:32:49,300 --> 02:32:51,540
 Cynthia Kirchhoff.

2029
02:32:51,540 --> 02:32:56,100
 Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I would, it's my opinion that the definition of infill

2030
02:32:56,100 --> 02:32:59,620
 development in the development code would apply.

2031
02:32:59,620 --> 02:33:03,780
 The comprehensive plan definition is a guiding document.

2032
02:33:03,780 --> 02:33:08,860
 But the infill development and definition of the DDC is actually the ordinance or the

2033
02:33:08,860 --> 02:33:11,580
 law in the city.

2034
02:33:11,580 --> 02:33:19,700
 So I really, I really appreciate that because that sets up two different definitions.

2035
02:33:19,700 --> 02:33:23,860
 And under that advice, I think I have to lean one way.

2036
02:33:23,860 --> 02:33:24,860
 Thank you, Cynthia.

2037
02:33:24,860 --> 02:33:25,860
 I appreciate it.

2038
02:33:25,860 --> 02:33:26,860
 Commissioner Panetta.

2039
02:33:26,860 --> 02:33:27,860
 Yeah.

2040
02:33:27,860 --> 02:33:30,620
 And I just want to clarify something on that.

2041
02:33:30,620 --> 02:33:35,940
 Well, I need some clarification on that clarification, I guess.

2042
02:33:35,940 --> 02:33:41,540
 Because real quick, I do want to kind of bring up that there was a slide, there was a very

2043
02:33:41,540 --> 02:33:46,380
 short discussion of infill last time we had this bought up.

2044
02:33:46,380 --> 02:33:50,900
 And I think it actually was Commissioner Ellis who mentioned it in her closing statements.

2045
02:33:50,900 --> 02:33:53,420
 And I found that persuasive at the time.

2046
02:33:53,420 --> 02:33:59,700
 I think there was not much more to it that swung me in that direction.

2047
02:33:59,700 --> 02:34:10,700
 But knowing that we have two definitions and one is in the DDC and the other one is not,

2048
02:34:10,700 --> 02:34:17,980
 I guess the question is, Commissioner Beck was wondering which one we should go by.

2049
02:34:17,980 --> 02:34:25,820
 My question is, does it make a difference whether or not we're using the rationale for

2050
02:34:25,820 --> 02:34:27,580
 denial or an approval?

2051
02:34:27,580 --> 02:34:34,580
 Because to me, it sounds like since we have two of them, we would have to go by one mainly

2052
02:34:34,580 --> 02:34:43,560
 if we were doing a denial, but if we were approving either way, you know, we could basically,

2053
02:34:43,560 --> 02:34:46,260
 we wouldn't have to tie it to that justification.

2054
02:34:46,260 --> 02:34:47,260
 Am I wrong on that?

2055
02:34:47,260 --> 02:34:51,100
 Does that make sense what I'm saying?

2056
02:34:51,100 --> 02:34:54,180
 Because ultimately, if you're going to vote against something, you would be able to tie

2057
02:34:54,180 --> 02:34:57,600
 it to a specific citation.

2058
02:34:57,600 --> 02:35:02,180
 But if we're not denying something, do we have a little bit more leeway in terms of

2059
02:35:02,180 --> 02:35:09,300
 which definition we ascribe to?

2060
02:35:09,300 --> 02:35:11,300
 Is that my question as well?

2061
02:35:11,300 --> 02:35:12,300
 Yes.

2062
02:35:12,300 --> 02:35:19,460
 Well, it's my opinion that we would have to use the criteria that are in 2.72(d) of the

2063
02:35:19,460 --> 02:35:30,420
 DDC where it lists the items that you must consider for a zoning map approval or action.

2064
02:35:30,420 --> 02:35:34,320
 And that's what you would have to use in making your decision.

2065
02:35:34,320 --> 02:35:43,700
 And I believe Julie has those items laid out in her staff report.

2066
02:35:43,700 --> 02:35:49,700
 Any other discussions we have first and second on the table?

2067
02:35:49,700 --> 02:35:50,740
 Commissioner Beck?

2068
02:35:50,740 --> 02:35:52,220
 Can we restate the motion?

2069
02:35:52,220 --> 02:35:56,460
 I've blinked my eyes since the motion was proposed.

2070
02:35:56,460 --> 02:36:00,820
 Commissioner Smith?

2071
02:36:00,820 --> 02:36:04,860
 It was a motion to approve with staff recommendations for the overlay.

2072
02:36:04,860 --> 02:36:16,180
 Prior to taking a vote, I just wanted to say a couple things myself as a way of discussion.

2073
02:36:16,180 --> 02:36:17,820
 I can't get behind this one.

2074
02:36:17,820 --> 02:36:22,380
 I'm going to make that real dramatic there and lead with my decision.

2075
02:36:22,380 --> 02:36:24,340
 I just can't support this.

2076
02:36:24,340 --> 02:36:31,220
 I will say Pundari hiring AEG and having Amy present was a fantastic decision.

2077
02:36:31,220 --> 02:36:37,300
 I can affirm that because I think Lee Allison and Amy Bassett combined always come with

2078
02:36:37,300 --> 02:36:44,020
 the most well-prepared presentations and the most convincing persuasive arguments and quality

2079
02:36:44,020 --> 02:36:45,380
 follow through most importantly.

2080
02:36:45,380 --> 02:36:53,420
 So first I want to affirm the property owner's decision to align himself with that team.

2081
02:36:53,420 --> 02:36:58,700
 It's unfortunate in my opinion that this is surrounded by big lots and so just looking

2082
02:36:58,700 --> 02:37:04,940
 on a map and seeing an acre lot to the west and sizable lots to the north and sizable

2083
02:37:04,940 --> 02:37:13,140
 lots to the east, I just cannot understand how that would be destructive to the neighborhood

2084
02:37:13,140 --> 02:37:18,420
 and moreover kind of like I expressed I believe as in last PNZ meeting about kind of a bigger

2085
02:37:18,420 --> 02:37:24,700
 picture and thinking outside the box of planning in terms of we had that Shady Shores item

2086
02:37:24,700 --> 02:37:31,020
 last meeting, I wonder if there's an opportunity right now in that area to talk to the seven

2087
02:37:31,020 --> 02:37:34,940
 surrounding property owners and actually see if there can be a redevelopment of the entire

2088
02:37:34,940 --> 02:37:41,500
 area because if you were to take those seven properties and the interior you could actually

2089
02:37:41,500 --> 02:37:47,020
 create an R4 full neighborhood and I don't want to get in the negotiations of land but

2090
02:37:47,020 --> 02:37:52,060
 if you're telling me that the market price in that area is about $300,000 which is what

2091
02:37:52,060 --> 02:37:55,820
 your data showed in all five scenarios and you're also telling me that each home you

2092
02:37:55,820 --> 02:38:02,420
 can sell for $450,000 then just buying those lots at fair market value gets you a 33% return

2093
02:38:02,420 --> 02:38:08,820
 on your investment minus out some infrastructure to build a road probably but it seems like

2094
02:38:08,820 --> 02:38:12,700
 I would rather see that than this weird kind of alleyway in between two homes that goes

2095
02:38:12,700 --> 02:38:19,420
 in the backyards of big lots and squeezes in nine properties, I'd rather and I'm going

2096
02:38:19,420 --> 02:38:24,340
 to vote no in anticipation of waiting for something better, not to say that the quality

2097
02:38:24,340 --> 02:38:28,540
 of the homes isn't gonna be great or that you couldn't sell nine in that area, I think

2098
02:38:28,540 --> 02:38:33,420
 the market probably sustains it regardless of the other properties around it being a

2099
02:38:33,420 --> 02:38:39,100
 little bit lower in value according to some of your estimates but I just think waiting

2100
02:38:39,100 --> 02:38:43,100
 and seeing what you can do with other property owners to see if there's any negotiation on

2101
02:38:43,100 --> 02:38:48,660
 that rather than taking a property you own and squeezing something in, that's my perspective

2102
02:38:48,660 --> 02:38:55,940
 on it, might have the votes tonight the applicant but for me it's gonna be a no for this development

2103
02:38:55,940 --> 02:39:00,540
 as it was last time because as Commissioner Ellis said nothing new is brought to my attention

2104
02:39:00,540 --> 02:39:06,100
 this evening to make a compelling argument to the contrary.

2105
02:39:06,100 --> 02:39:10,220
 Is there anything else to be discussed?

2106
02:39:10,220 --> 02:39:14,740
 We have a first and a second for approval on the table.

2107
02:39:14,740 --> 02:39:19,460
 Seeing no further discussion, I will take a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner

2108
02:39:19,460 --> 02:39:20,460
 Ellis.

2109
02:39:20,460 --> 02:39:21,460
 Nay.

2110
02:39:21,460 --> 02:39:22,460
 Commissioner Bec.

2111
02:39:22,460 --> 02:39:26,820
 Nay for the reason Cynthia laid out.

2112
02:39:26,820 --> 02:39:27,820
 Commissioner Anderson.

2113
02:39:27,820 --> 02:39:28,820
 Aye.

2114
02:39:28,820 --> 02:39:29,820
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2115
02:39:29,820 --> 02:39:30,820
 Aye.

2116
02:39:30,820 --> 02:39:31,820
 Commissioner Cole.

2117
02:39:31,820 --> 02:39:32,820
 Aye.

2118
02:39:32,820 --> 02:39:36,380
 Commissioner Smith.

2119
02:39:36,380 --> 02:39:37,700
 Aye.

2120
02:39:37,700 --> 02:39:44,740
 Chair is a nay.

2121
02:39:44,740 --> 02:39:48,380
 Motion fails 4-3-3-4.

2122
02:39:48,380 --> 02:39:53,860
 There's four nays and three yays but motion fails.

2123
02:39:53,860 --> 02:39:58,380
 Chair will entertain another motion, Commissioner Ellis.

2124
02:39:58,380 --> 02:40:03,120
 Move denial.

2125
02:40:03,120 --> 02:40:04,120
 Commissioner Bec.

2126
02:40:04,120 --> 02:40:07,540
 I'll second that for the same reasons as earlier.

2127
02:40:07,540 --> 02:40:13,420
 We have a first by Ellis for denial and a second by Commissioner Bec.

2128
02:40:13,420 --> 02:40:16,420
 Any discussion?

2129
02:40:16,420 --> 02:40:19,680
 We'll take a vote via roll call.

2130
02:40:19,680 --> 02:40:20,680
 Commissioner Ellis.

2131
02:40:20,680 --> 02:40:21,680
 Yay.

2132
02:40:21,680 --> 02:40:24,300
 And just to clarify a yay is for denial.

2133
02:40:24,300 --> 02:40:27,300
 I think Ellis knew that but just to clarify.

2134
02:40:27,300 --> 02:40:28,300
 Commissioner Bec.

2135
02:40:28,300 --> 02:40:29,300
 Yay.

2136
02:40:29,300 --> 02:40:30,300
 Aye.

2137
02:40:30,300 --> 02:40:31,300
 Affirmative.

2138
02:40:31,300 --> 02:40:32,260
 Commissioner Anderson.

2139
02:40:32,260 --> 02:40:33,260
 Aye.

2140
02:40:33,260 --> 02:40:34,460
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2141
02:40:34,460 --> 02:40:35,460
 Nay.

2142
02:40:35,460 --> 02:40:38,460
 Commissioner Cole.

2143
02:40:38,460 --> 02:40:39,460
 Aye.

2144
02:40:39,460 --> 02:40:43,460
 Commissioner Smith.

2145
02:40:43,460 --> 02:40:45,140
 Nay.

2146
02:40:45,140 --> 02:40:50,580
 Chair is a aye.

2147
02:40:50,580 --> 02:40:54,820
 Motion carries 5-2 for a denial.

2148
02:40:54,820 --> 02:41:00,460
 The next item of business is item 4CPP20-0023.

2149
02:41:00,460 --> 02:41:04,620
 This item is being recommended for denial and is seeking an extension to a date certain

2150
02:41:04,620 --> 02:41:05,620
 of December 16th.

2151
02:41:05,620 --> 02:41:08,600
 Chair will entertain a motion to such.

2152
02:41:08,600 --> 02:41:11,140
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2153
02:41:11,140 --> 02:41:14,340
 Motion to postpone until December 16th.

2154
02:41:14,340 --> 02:41:15,340
 Commissioner Cole.

2155
02:41:15,340 --> 02:41:16,340
 Second.

2156
02:41:16,340 --> 02:41:21,500
 We have a first and a second for a 30-day extension to a date certain of December 16th.

2157
02:41:21,500 --> 02:41:24,660
 Any discussion?

2158
02:41:24,660 --> 02:41:26,900
 Seeing none I call for a vote via roll call.

2159
02:41:26,900 --> 02:41:27,900
 Commissioner Ellis.

2160
02:41:27,900 --> 02:41:28,900
 Aye.

2161
02:41:28,900 --> 02:41:29,900
 Commissioner Bec.

2162
02:41:29,900 --> 02:41:30,900
 Aye.

2163
02:41:30,900 --> 02:41:31,900
 Commissioner Anderson.

2164
02:41:31,900 --> 02:41:32,900
 Aye.

2165
02:41:32,900 --> 02:41:33,900
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2166
02:41:33,900 --> 02:41:34,900
 Aye.

2167
02:41:34,900 --> 02:41:35,900
 Commissioner Cole.

2168
02:41:35,900 --> 02:41:36,900
 Aye.

2169
02:41:36,900 --> 02:41:37,900
 Commissioner Smith.

2170
02:41:37,900 --> 02:41:38,900
 Aye.

2171
02:41:38,900 --> 02:41:41,360
 Chair is also an aye.

2172
02:41:41,360 --> 02:41:42,360
 Motion carries 7-0.

2173
02:41:42,360 --> 02:41:46,860
 Next item of business is item 4D.

2174
02:41:46,860 --> 02:41:52,140
 This item PP20-0025 is also being recommended for denial but the applicant is seeking an

2175
02:41:52,140 --> 02:41:55,220
 extension of 30 days to a date certain of December 16th.

2176
02:41:55,220 --> 02:41:56,220
 Commissioner Smith.

2177
02:41:56,220 --> 02:42:01,100
 Make a motion to approve the extension of date certain of December 16th.

2178
02:42:01,100 --> 02:42:02,100
 We have a first.

2179
02:42:02,100 --> 02:42:03,100
 Commissioner Ellis.

2180
02:42:03,100 --> 02:42:04,100
 Second.

2181
02:42:04,100 --> 02:42:11,060
 We have a first and a second to extend for 30 days to a date certain of December 16th.

2182
02:42:11,060 --> 02:42:12,340
 Any discussion?

2183
02:42:12,340 --> 02:42:16,060
 Seeing none I call for a vote via roll call.

2184
02:42:16,060 --> 02:42:17,060
 Commissioner Ellis.

2185
02:42:17,060 --> 02:42:18,060
 Aye.

2186
02:42:18,060 --> 02:42:19,060
 Commissioner Bec.

2187
02:42:19,060 --> 02:42:20,060
 Aye.

2188
02:42:20,060 --> 02:42:21,060
 Commissioner Anderson.

2189
02:42:21,060 --> 02:42:22,060
 Aye.

2190
02:42:22,060 --> 02:42:23,060
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2191
02:42:23,060 --> 02:42:24,060
 Aye.

2192
02:42:24,060 --> 02:42:25,060
 Commissioner Cole.

2193
02:42:25,060 --> 02:42:26,060
 Aye.

2194
02:42:26,060 --> 02:42:27,060
 Commissioner Smith.

2195
02:42:27,060 --> 02:42:28,060
 Aye.

2196
02:42:28,060 --> 02:42:29,180
 Chair is also an aye.

2197
02:42:29,180 --> 02:42:31,860
 Motion carries 7-0.

2198
02:42:31,860 --> 02:42:36,640
 Next item of business is our public hearing item 5AZ20-0010.

2199
02:42:36,640 --> 02:42:48,220
 This item has been withdrawn by the applicant which leads us to our next item 5B, S20-0007.

2200
02:42:48,220 --> 02:42:52,900
 I will open the public hearing and invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.

2201
02:42:52,900 --> 02:42:56,900
 Thank you, Chair.

2202
02:42:56,900 --> 02:43:00,020
 Pulling up my presentation now.

2203
02:43:00,020 --> 02:43:02,220
 Okay.

2204
02:43:02,220 --> 02:43:12,020
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.

2205
02:43:12,020 --> 02:43:14,580
 My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner.

2206
02:43:14,580 --> 02:43:20,260
 I'll be presenting S20-0007 Quincy Court.

2207
02:43:20,260 --> 02:43:26,100
 This is a request for a specific use permit to allow a building of no more than 46 feet

2208
02:43:26,100 --> 02:43:27,100
 in height.

2209
02:43:27,100 --> 02:43:33,260
 The building is proposed for a vacant 1.57 acre lot zoned MN mixed use neighborhood.

2210
02:43:33,260 --> 02:43:36,620
 The multifamily use proposed is permitted by right.

2211
02:43:36,620 --> 02:43:41,700
 The maximum permitted height in the mixed use neighborhood zoning district is 65 feet,

2212
02:43:41,700 --> 02:43:47,260
 but heights between 41 feet and 65 feet do require a specific use permit.

2213
02:43:47,260 --> 02:43:51,300
 That's the request coming before you.

2214
02:43:51,300 --> 02:43:52,300
 Okay.

2215
02:43:52,300 --> 02:43:55,980
 Planner, I'll be presenting.

2216
02:43:55,980 --> 02:44:02,020
 The requested building height would be an increase of 6 feet over what is permitted

2217
02:44:02,020 --> 02:44:04,340
 without an SUV.

2218
02:44:04,340 --> 02:44:10,980
 To give you a little bit of history on the zoning of this site, the MN zoning was applied

2219
02:44:10,980 --> 02:44:14,220
 to it in the 2019 city-wide rezoning.

2220
02:44:14,220 --> 02:44:15,780
 That was a common MN zoning.

2221
02:44:15,780 --> 02:44:21,340
 That was a combination of the previous NRMU and NRMU 12 districts.

2222
02:44:21,340 --> 02:44:27,020
 NRMU permitted a height of 65 feet, NRMU 12 permitted a height of 40 feet.

2223
02:44:27,020 --> 02:44:32,860
 And so for MN, it was determined that 65 foot height would be permitted, but that above

2224
02:44:32,860 --> 02:44:38,220
 40 feet, 40 to 65, that would require approval of a specific use permit.

2225
02:44:38,220 --> 02:44:45,260
 This site, the subject property prior to that 2019 rezoning was zoned NRMU and had a permitted

2226
02:44:45,260 --> 02:44:49,380
 maximum height of 65 feet by right, no specific use permit required.

2227
02:44:49,380 --> 02:44:55,220
 Just to give you a sense of the property, looking to the east and then looking to the

2228
02:44:55,220 --> 02:45:00,660
 north, you can see the adjacent residential as well as Stewart Road, Loop 288 that bound

2229
02:45:00,660 --> 02:45:01,660
 this site.

2230
02:45:01,660 --> 02:45:07,620
 To get into the details of this request, first it's important to know that the DDC has mixed

2231
02:45:07,620 --> 02:45:13,260
 use district standards that require a minimum ground floor height of 12 feet.

2232
02:45:13,260 --> 02:45:18,740
 And that's within our two MD and MN districts, we require that.

2233
02:45:18,740 --> 02:45:25,980
 And so there's a limited amount of space left between that maximum 12 foot and the 40 foot

2234
02:45:25,980 --> 02:45:32,300
 cap that is set without an SUP to fit in the remainder of the story of your building.

2235
02:45:32,300 --> 02:45:38,100
 The request for a six foot height increase, if that was approved, would allow all of the

2236
02:45:38,100 --> 02:45:42,020
 upper stories to have a standard nine foot height and the ground floor entrances could

2237
02:45:42,020 --> 02:45:44,500
 be at grade.

2238
02:45:44,500 --> 02:45:48,500
 Without the SUP, the applicant did provide an alternative plan that staff could approve

2239
02:45:48,500 --> 02:45:53,740
 initially discuss that with them that would get their four stories within that 40 feet

2240
02:45:53,740 --> 02:45:55,380
 without needing an SUP.

2241
02:45:55,380 --> 02:45:58,740
 That alternative would require constructing the building below grade, you'd have steps

2242
02:45:58,740 --> 02:46:03,140
 leading down to the ground floor entrances, upper floors would be less than nine feet

2243
02:46:03,140 --> 02:46:04,380
 in height.

2244
02:46:04,380 --> 02:46:09,920
 While that could be approved by the DDC, it was a less optimal design at the streetscape,

2245
02:46:09,920 --> 02:46:16,660
 the pedestrian experience, and by the aesthetics of the facade were just not as optimal as

2246
02:46:16,660 --> 02:46:19,660
 the original design, which would have required that SUP.

2247
02:46:19,660 --> 02:46:23,020
 And so the applicants brought forward this request for the height increase.

2248
02:46:23,020 --> 02:46:28,220
 So that you can get a sense of what that would look like, you can see here, this would be

2249
02:46:28,220 --> 02:46:33,940
 the building design if the SUP was approved for that additional six feet.

2250
02:46:33,940 --> 02:46:42,180
 A little more detail here, so you can see the darker blue line shows the 40 foot height

2251
02:46:42,180 --> 02:46:50,340
 that's permitted without an SUP for the building frame, and see also the dark green line shows

2252
02:46:50,340 --> 02:46:53,940
 permitted building frame height if the SUP was approved, so you can see that six foot

2253
02:46:53,940 --> 02:46:54,940
 difference there.

2254
02:46:54,940 --> 02:46:57,980
 It's the front and rear elevations.

2255
02:46:57,980 --> 02:47:03,980
 Similarly, on the broader side, west and east, you can see the difference between the height

2256
02:47:03,980 --> 02:47:10,080
 that could be permitted without the SUP and what's being requested.

2257
02:47:10,080 --> 02:47:14,780
 So the question is, would this 46 foot building height, would that meet our SUP criteria for

2258
02:47:14,780 --> 02:47:15,780
 approval?

2259
02:47:15,780 --> 02:47:20,900
 So of course, we look at our general approval, as well as the specific SUP criteria for approval,

2260
02:47:20,900 --> 02:47:24,900
 and we'll touch specifically on some of the most important of those.

2261
02:47:24,900 --> 02:47:27,600
 First off, it's important to look at our future land use map.

2262
02:47:27,600 --> 02:47:35,180
 This property is designated primarily as neighborhood mixed use, so the future land use map there

2263
02:47:35,180 --> 02:47:39,020
 didn't plan 2030 states that that should have a mix of compatible housing types and densities

2264
02:47:39,020 --> 02:47:43,820
 in that area, along with local serving non-residential uses.

2265
02:47:43,820 --> 02:47:48,660
 Moderate to high density residential uses are permitted, but new higher density housing

2266
02:47:48,660 --> 02:47:53,780
 should be sensitive in scale and form to the surrounding built and natural context.

2267
02:47:53,780 --> 02:47:57,940
 The multi-family use is consistent with the future land use map, but more importantly,

2268
02:47:57,940 --> 02:48:02,460
 the height increase question that would be consistent with the number of stories recommended

2269
02:48:02,460 --> 02:48:07,980
 for neighborhood mixed use by the didn't plan 2030 development criteria be within what's

2270
02:48:07,980 --> 02:48:10,900
 recommended for this area.

2271
02:48:10,900 --> 02:48:15,220
 Moreover, the design elements that would be possible with that height increase, pedestrian

2272
02:48:15,220 --> 02:48:19,900
 friendly first floor height, ground floor entrance that grade, those are more consistent

2273
02:48:19,900 --> 02:48:25,020
 with didn't plan 2030 design principles was the surrounding neighborhoods than the alternative

2274
02:48:25,020 --> 02:48:30,460
 plan of sunken first floor and a significant difference from first floor and upper story

2275
02:48:30,460 --> 02:48:31,460
 heights.

2276
02:48:31,460 --> 02:48:35,260
 We also need to look at compatibility with the surrounding area.

2277
02:48:35,260 --> 02:48:40,340
 This property is located on two corridors, Loop 288 and Stewart Road.

2278
02:48:40,340 --> 02:48:47,540
 Along Loop 288, a typical pattern is to have either current or planned multi-story development

2279
02:48:47,540 --> 02:48:53,300
 at your major intersections on Stewart Road, and that corridor tends to flow from multi-story,

2280
02:48:53,300 --> 02:48:58,060
 multi-family major intersections in between, you have low to moderate single family, and

2281
02:48:58,060 --> 02:49:00,740
 then back at those intersections.

2282
02:49:00,740 --> 02:49:04,940
 So this proposed development, taller multi-story building at an intersection would be consistent

2283
02:49:04,940 --> 02:49:07,540
 with both those corridor patterns.

2284
02:49:07,540 --> 02:49:12,680
 Also note that the undeveloped property to the north and west is similarly zoned MN,

2285
02:49:12,680 --> 02:49:17,500
 so what's proposed would not limit the ability to develop those in the way they currently

2286
02:49:17,500 --> 02:49:23,460
 do, delving deeper into that compatibility with surrounding area.

2287
02:49:23,460 --> 02:49:28,980
 We know that the maximum building height in those adjacent R6 neighborhoods is 40 feet,

2288
02:49:28,980 --> 02:49:34,540
 but it's important to note that a house built in one of those neighborhoods could actually

2289
02:49:34,540 --> 02:49:39,900
 exceed 40 feet at its peak because for pitch roofs, which many single family residents

2290
02:49:39,900 --> 02:49:44,200
 have, we measure height at the halfway point of that roof.

2291
02:49:44,200 --> 02:49:50,180
 So a house in one of the adjoining neighborhoods could be built in excess of 40 feet, possibly

2292
02:49:50,180 --> 02:49:56,020
 in excess of 46 feet by right within those adjoining neighborhoods.

2293
02:49:56,020 --> 02:50:00,540
 So the difference is a little bit more limited than it might seem between the actual permitted

2294
02:50:00,540 --> 02:50:05,300
 height and the surrounding R6 zoning and the requested height for this site.

2295
02:50:05,300 --> 02:50:09,740
 Again, noting that that increased height allows for at-grade entrances, more pedestrian-friendly

2296
02:50:09,740 --> 02:50:14,140
 design that's actually more consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods

2297
02:50:14,140 --> 02:50:19,300
 than the alternative design that would be needed with the 40-foot limitation in place.

2298
02:50:19,300 --> 02:50:23,500
 So that increase of 6 feet in height is expected to have a minimal background compatibility

2299
02:50:23,500 --> 02:50:25,700
 to building overall with the area.

2300
02:50:25,700 --> 02:50:31,260
 We also want to look at mitigating potential negative impacts of the increased height.

2301
02:50:31,260 --> 02:50:35,420
 One of those comes from what's already in the DDC, our building height and transition

2302
02:50:35,420 --> 02:50:41,060
 areas, and what that provides, the projection that provides, it states that within 50 feet

2303
02:50:41,060 --> 02:50:48,020
 of an adjacent residentially-zoned property, such as R6, any building needs to not exceed

2304
02:50:48,020 --> 02:50:53,860
 the maximum permitted height in that R6 zoning or other residential zoning.

2305
02:50:53,860 --> 02:51:00,620
 Within 100 feet, a building can only go up to the maximum in the neighboring residential

2306
02:51:00,620 --> 02:51:06,580
 plus 15 feet, and you can't request an SUP for height increase, as is being done tonight.

2307
02:51:06,580 --> 02:51:11,660
 So taken together, those restrictions are part of why you see that this building is

2308
02:51:11,660 --> 02:51:19,620
 moved at least 100 feet from both of the neighboring residential areas, actually 150 feet from

2309
02:51:19,620 --> 02:51:21,660
 the neighborhood to the east.

2310
02:51:21,660 --> 02:51:25,260
 But just important to realize that even without this SUP requirement, the transition area

2311
02:51:25,260 --> 02:51:29,100
 standards limit building height in close proximity to residential districts.

2312
02:51:29,100 --> 02:51:36,540
 We provide a protection so that you don't have maximum height building right next to

2313
02:51:36,540 --> 02:51:39,460
 those single-family districts.

2314
02:51:39,460 --> 02:51:44,100
 There are also protections from negative impacts within the site design.

2315
02:51:44,100 --> 02:51:50,380
 So this landscape area for this proposed development would be over 15 percent higher than the minimum

2316
02:51:50,380 --> 02:51:51,380
 required.

2317
02:51:51,380 --> 02:51:56,480
 The tree canopy would exceed the minimum required by 9 percent.

2318
02:51:56,480 --> 02:52:00,220
 Buffer width on the east there, that would be -- there's a zero-width requirement.

2319
02:52:00,220 --> 02:52:02,220
 They would provide a 20-foot buffer.

2320
02:52:02,220 --> 02:52:08,920
 The south to zero-width requirement, 45 feet, the buffer would be provided between the homes

2321
02:52:08,920 --> 02:52:14,420
 in the beginning of even the parking on the site, much less the property.

2322
02:52:14,420 --> 02:52:17,020
 So look at the effects of lighting and glare.

2323
02:52:17,020 --> 02:52:22,980
 Like any development, this would, at building permit, need to show compliance with all DDC

2324
02:52:22,980 --> 02:52:26,400
 standards for lighting, including that light spillover limits at all property lines need

2325
02:52:26,400 --> 02:52:32,180
 to be met and all fixtures need to be downward directed or full cutoff shielded.

2326
02:52:32,180 --> 02:52:37,500
 Traffic is not expected to be any different width without the SUP most likely the same

2327
02:52:37,500 --> 02:52:42,820
 number of units, but they do provide all of the parking necessary for the number of units

2328
02:52:42,820 --> 02:52:43,820
 they're proposing.

2329
02:52:43,820 --> 02:52:49,200
 And going quickly through providing adequate public resources, the amount of traffic expected

2330
02:52:49,200 --> 02:52:52,460
 to be generated by this site did not require a TIA.

2331
02:52:52,460 --> 02:52:57,740
 It is located at the corner of an arterial and a collector, and the applicant will actually

2332
02:52:57,740 --> 02:53:02,900
 be constructing new curb, gutter, and new pavement for half-width of Stewart Road as

2333
02:53:02,900 --> 02:53:10,300
 part of this project, as well as new sidewalks or sidewalks along both frontages, ensuring

2334
02:53:10,300 --> 02:53:12,700
 good transportation infrastructure.

2335
02:53:12,700 --> 02:53:15,180
 Water and wastewater service is available.

2336
02:53:15,180 --> 02:53:19,500
 The site is within the eight minutes of last response time for the fire department, specifically

2337
02:53:19,500 --> 02:53:23,660
 check and they confirmed that 46 foot high would not hinder their ability to provide

2338
02:53:23,660 --> 02:53:26,060
 fire service to this development.

2339
02:53:26,060 --> 02:53:31,220
 Of course, it's important to consider our neighborhood input.

2340
02:53:31,220 --> 02:53:35,260
 We did send out all of the standard notifications, received one letter in opposition, which is

2341
02:53:35,260 --> 02:53:39,100
 a new backup, as well as one letter in favor, which is also a new backup.

2342
02:53:39,100 --> 02:53:41,660
 The applicant held two neighborhood meetings.

2343
02:53:41,660 --> 02:53:46,460
 The first one did not have any attendees, so a second one was held.

2344
02:53:46,460 --> 02:53:50,060
 I was able to attend that as well, and there were two attendees.

2345
02:53:50,060 --> 02:53:55,820
 They discussed concerns about the safety of the intersection, the proposed cost of the

2346
02:53:55,820 --> 02:54:00,620
 units, and the effect on their property values, and following the discussion, they appeared

2347
02:54:00,620 --> 02:54:02,620
 to be satisfied with the answers.

2348
02:54:02,620 --> 02:54:10,020
 When specifically asked if they had any objection to the height increase request, they did not.

2349
02:54:10,020 --> 02:54:15,180
 For all these reasons, staff recommends approval of the SUP with conditions as it meets criteria

2350
02:54:15,180 --> 02:54:20,300
 for approval, and is consistent with Denton plan 2030.

2351
02:54:20,300 --> 02:54:23,460
 Essentially the conditions cover the fact that the attached preliminary site plan landscape

2352
02:54:23,460 --> 02:54:26,380
 plan reflects an intent to comply.

2353
02:54:26,380 --> 02:54:31,860
 Minor alterations can be approved by staff, but the overall plan needs to meet all the

2354
02:54:31,860 --> 02:54:34,020
 standards of the DDC.

2355
02:54:34,020 --> 02:54:37,620
 Notwithstanding that, the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of

2356
02:54:37,620 --> 02:54:42,340
 any amendments to the SUP, the attached site plan, the attached landscape plan, and any

2357
02:54:42,340 --> 02:54:45,100
 elements in these conditions.

2358
02:54:45,100 --> 02:54:50,220
 The attached site plan landscape plan are incorporated as requirements of the SUP.

2359
02:54:50,220 --> 02:54:54,900
 Staff has the ability to approve an increase or decrease of up to five percent, any amount

2360
02:54:54,900 --> 02:55:01,500
 specified requirements A to D below, other than number of buildings, so of course that

2361
02:55:01,500 --> 02:55:07,060
 does not include maximum building height that's subject to this, and the zoning map shall

2362
02:55:07,060 --> 02:55:12,260
 reflect the specific use permit on the property consistent with the 2019 DDC.

2363
02:55:12,260 --> 02:55:16,620
 But with that, my presentation is concluded.

2364
02:55:16,620 --> 02:55:20,860
 The applicant does not have a presentation, but is I believe on the line if any questions

2365
02:55:20,860 --> 02:55:24,140
 are needed, and I will stand for any questions you all have.

2366
02:55:24,140 --> 02:55:26,500
 Thank you Sean for the presentation.

2367
02:55:26,500 --> 02:55:32,940
 Any questions for either staff or the applicant who is on the line?

2368
02:55:32,940 --> 02:55:39,760
 Great, do we have anyone on the phone or, okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing

2369
02:55:39,760 --> 02:55:45,980
 on this, seeing that there's no one calling in and turn to the dais for discussion or

2370
02:55:45,980 --> 02:55:46,980
 motion.

2371
02:55:46,980 --> 02:55:47,980
 Commissioner Smith?

2372
02:55:47,980 --> 02:55:51,820
 Make a motion to approve with the staff recommendations.

2373
02:55:51,820 --> 02:55:52,820
 Great.

2374
02:55:52,820 --> 02:55:53,820
 Commissioner Ellis?

2375
02:55:53,820 --> 02:56:03,140
 I will second and also thank Sean for a very thorough presentation.

2376
02:56:03,140 --> 02:56:04,460
 Concur with that.

2377
02:56:04,460 --> 02:56:07,020
 Any discussion on this item?

2378
02:56:07,020 --> 02:56:17,940
 I just want to echo and say great presentation Sean.

2379
02:56:17,940 --> 02:56:23,260
 Okay with that I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote via roll call.

2380
02:56:23,260 --> 02:56:24,260
 Commissioner Ellis?

2381
02:56:24,260 --> 02:56:25,260
 Aye.

2382
02:56:25,260 --> 02:56:26,260
 Commissioner Beck?

2383
02:56:26,260 --> 02:56:27,260
 Aye.

2384
02:56:27,260 --> 02:56:28,260
 Commissioner Anderson?

2385
02:56:28,260 --> 02:56:29,260
 Aye.

2386
02:56:29,260 --> 02:56:30,260
 Commissioner Pernetta?

2387
02:56:30,260 --> 02:56:31,260
 Aye.

2388
02:56:31,260 --> 02:56:32,260
 Commissioner Cole?

2389
02:56:32,260 --> 02:56:33,260
 Aye.

2390
02:56:33,260 --> 02:56:34,260
 Commissioner Smith?

2391
02:56:34,260 --> 02:56:35,260
 Aye.

2392
02:56:35,260 --> 02:56:42,860
 Chair is also an aye, motion carries seven zero.

2393
02:56:42,860 --> 02:56:47,660
 Next item of business, item six, which is our planning and zoning project matrix.

2394
02:56:47,660 --> 02:56:53,780
 I will turn the floor over to Richard for any updates he has and then for discussion.

2395
02:56:53,780 --> 02:56:57,060
 Chair, there's really no updates on the matrix.

2396
02:56:57,060 --> 02:57:02,180
 I know we'll be shuffling a few things around adding the item that Ron was going to present

2397
02:57:02,180 --> 02:57:06,380
 back in and then what I'm going to start to do, because I know there's a number of them

2398
02:57:06,380 --> 02:57:12,620
 that relate to code items that we said we would bring back and just try to give a guesstimate

2399
02:57:12,620 --> 02:57:18,420
 or estimate as to when that will be brought back in front of the commission just to give

2400
02:57:18,420 --> 02:57:23,320
 a little bit of a better idea when those things will be coming forward.

2401
02:57:23,320 --> 02:57:25,780
 Thank you.

2402
02:57:25,780 --> 02:57:29,020
 I have one item to add to the matrix.

2403
02:57:29,020 --> 02:57:36,140
 I'd like to have a presentation on parking minimums as they pertain to the downtown area

2404
02:57:36,140 --> 02:57:37,140
 specifically.

2405
02:57:37,140 --> 02:57:41,660
 As we look for downtown redevelopment, in the south portion especially, I had a citizen

2406
02:57:41,660 --> 02:57:47,140
 reach out to me with a very thorough kind of diagnostic of the impact parking minimums

2407
02:57:47,140 --> 02:57:53,660
 could have to the urbanization of downtown, and so I just wanted to hear the rationalization

2408
02:57:53,660 --> 02:58:01,500
 for keeping all of the parking minimums what they are and then what mechanisms are provided

2409
02:58:01,500 --> 02:58:10,620
 to planning zoning and to council to put overlays or encourage development that is not hindered

2410
02:58:10,620 --> 02:58:15,980
 too much by parking minimums, and I don't know if that, in my mind I'm thinking if there's

2411
02:58:15,980 --> 02:58:22,060
 a city-funded garage that eliminates some of the development's need for parking or that

2412
02:58:22,060 --> 02:58:28,620
 type of conversation I would like to engage with, to really incentivize and plan for a

2413
02:58:28,620 --> 02:58:35,060
 walkable and dense downtown and vibrancy to Denton.

2414
02:58:35,060 --> 02:58:36,060
 So that's all I have.

2415
02:58:36,060 --> 02:58:40,360
 Any other commissioners have anything to add to the matrix?

2416
02:58:40,360 --> 02:58:46,220
 Okay, seeing none, thank you for another great meeting on Zoom.

2417
02:58:46,220 --> 02:58:48,820
 I will call this meeting to an end at 748.

2418
02:58:48,820 --> 02:58:50,780
 You all have a good night.

2419
02:58:50,780 --> 02:58:51,620
 - Happy Thanksgiving.

2420
02:58:51,620 --> 02:58:52,460
 - Happy Thanksgiving.