WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.840
 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission

00:00:05.840 --> 00:00:10.360
 work session for Wednesday, November 18, 2020.

00:00:10.360 --> 00:00:15.200
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 430.

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

00:00:20.200 --> 00:00:23.040
 into the clarification of agenda items.

00:00:23.040 --> 00:00:28.140
 We'll actually go right into work session reports, actually, which leads us to receive

00:00:28.140 --> 00:00:32.920
 a report and hold discussion regarding the 2020 Denton Mobility Plan update, and I'll

00:00:32.920 --> 00:00:35.440
 turn it over to staff to provide us this presentation.

00:00:35.440 --> 00:00:40.040
 Thank you very much, and good afternoon, members of the commission, Brian Yon, city traffic

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

00:00:45.240 --> 00:00:46.240
 Plan.

00:00:46.240 --> 00:00:54.560
 Let me share this screen, did everybody see that presentation?

00:00:54.560 --> 00:01:07.200
 Okay, so in order to kind of break the mobility plan into manageable sizes for presentation

00:01:07.200 --> 00:01:12.560
 purposes, we divided the city into five different areas, north, south, east, and west, and then

00:01:12.560 --> 00:01:15.440
 a downtown area as well.

00:01:15.440 --> 00:01:23.400
 And we have presented this mobility plan, these five, at least two or three times each,

00:01:23.400 --> 00:01:28.080
 so we're getting really good at the presentation portion for this.

00:01:28.080 --> 00:01:33.640
 Hold on, I'm gonna ask to move the mic a little bit closer.

00:01:33.640 --> 00:01:35.920
 Does that help?

00:01:35.920 --> 00:01:36.920
 That's much better, actually.

00:01:36.920 --> 00:01:38.880
 Okay, thank you.

00:01:38.880 --> 00:01:43.480
 So the presentation tonight is kind of a high-level presentation.

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.

00:01:50.560 --> 00:01:56.400
 All of the presentations are online at the cityofdenton.com/mobilityplan, and because

00:01:56.400 --> 00:02:02.580
 we recorded each of the five community, virtual community meetings, and the Q&A sections are

00:02:02.580 --> 00:02:06.640
 on there as well, both in the video and in a written summary.

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

00:02:12.320 --> 00:02:17.040
 you to delve a little bit deeper into those presentations, where we really talk about

00:02:17.040 --> 00:02:24.120
 very low-level specific issues and answer questions that the community has risen.

00:02:24.120 --> 00:02:25.880
 So just a brief overview.

00:02:25.880 --> 00:02:32.080
 The 2020 update of the mobility plan is the first update that really encompasses the three

00:02:32.080 --> 00:02:33.080
 areas.

00:02:33.080 --> 00:02:36.600
 We've got the thoroughfare plan, which we've all seen before.

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

00:02:42.400 --> 00:02:45.300
 a new pedestrian plan element in this as well.

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

00:02:49.600 --> 00:02:51.400
 of the updates that are included.

00:02:51.400 --> 00:02:57.240
 But this is the first fairly comprehensive mobility plan that the city of Denton is going

00:02:57.240 --> 00:03:06.000
 to publish, where we talk about roads, vehicular access, bike access, and pedestrian access.

00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:12.320
 Again, we try to update the plan every five years.

00:03:12.320 --> 00:03:17.240
 Every core function of the thoroughfare plan is corridor preservation.

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

00:03:27.560 --> 00:03:35.760
 both for bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular that we plan or project the need for in that

00:03:35.760 --> 00:03:40.140
 corridor and secure that right-of-way as development occurs.

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.

00:03:48.680 --> 00:03:52.320
 That's along the lines of our Vision Zero program.

00:03:52.320 --> 00:03:58.680
 We've also tried to improve connectivity and focus on our multimodal options, which is

00:03:58.680 --> 00:04:04.120
 really embedded in the complete streets approach that the city is about.

00:04:04.120 --> 00:04:07.080
 So I'll start with the thoroughfare plan.

00:04:07.080 --> 00:04:12.680
 So the foundation of the thoroughfare plan update is the comprehensive plan.

00:04:12.680 --> 00:04:21.000
 That identifies land uses and densities, et cetera, that are associated with the undeveloped

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

00:04:28.800 --> 00:04:33.120
 trip generation and facility and infrastructure needs.

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

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

00:04:45.840 --> 00:04:52.480
 forecast for not only the vehicular but the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes.

00:04:52.480 --> 00:04:54.240
 This is what I call the nerdy part.

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

00:05:00.040 --> 00:05:07.000
 analysis of, and each of the entire city was divided into several hundred of these zones.

00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:10.460
 Each has population and employment estimates.

00:05:10.460 --> 00:05:15.280
 So we take those population and employment estimates and use some regional factors from

00:05:15.280 --> 00:05:20.320
 the COG to turn those into trip generation and trip, and then we distribute those trips

00:05:20.320 --> 00:05:26.120
 again using some information we've got from COG and some travel demand, travel and some

00:05:26.120 --> 00:05:28.720
 origin destination information.

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

00:05:33.080 --> 00:05:38.800
 people we expect to bike or walk, and then also with our transit partners, what that

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

00:05:43.600 --> 00:05:50.560
 assigns all of these different trip modes to the infrastructure in the city of Denton.

00:05:50.560 --> 00:05:55.320
 So this helps identify corridors that may become overloaded.

00:05:55.320 --> 00:06:00.880
 We need to augment with parallel facility or it also helps in sizing the roadways and

00:06:00.880 --> 00:06:05.760
 determining classification of each of the roadways in the city and where our trails

00:06:05.760 --> 00:06:08.740
 and sidewalks need to be.

00:06:08.740 --> 00:06:13.120
 So again, I'm talking third of our plan, roadway classifications, freeways, and you'll see

00:06:13.120 --> 00:06:18.800
 those on our map as primarily black lines, typically owned and maintained by check stop,

00:06:18.800 --> 00:06:24.640
 right away varies, the number of lanes varies, and the capacity varies because these are facilities

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.

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

00:06:37.200 --> 00:06:41.480
 roads where you can't directly access the main roads.

00:06:41.480 --> 00:06:43.760
 So the next category is primary material.

00:06:43.760 --> 00:06:48.000
 This can be either city owned or check stop owned.

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

00:06:53.520 --> 00:07:01.360
 talk a little bit about cross section in a minute, but again, the primary arterial is

00:07:01.360 --> 00:07:07.400
 a little bit higher volume, higher speed, 25 to 50,000 cars a day estimate.

00:07:07.400 --> 00:07:11.280
 That's a comfortable capacity limit for primary arterial.

00:07:11.280 --> 00:07:19.280
 Secondary arterial, excuse me, primarily owned by the city, a little less regional in nature,

00:07:19.280 --> 00:07:23.920
 kind of feeds the primary arterial network, connects to the collectors and the residential

00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:30.520
 areas, a little bit less right of way, 110 feet, two to four lanes typically maximum,

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.

00:07:36.840 --> 00:07:41.200
 And then collector, these are almost all city owned.

00:07:41.200 --> 00:07:43.720
 We've actually got two collector sizes.

00:07:43.720 --> 00:07:50.760
 The typical collector is a 65 feet, in the criteria manual we identify a major collector,

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

00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:05.700
 three lanes and 10 to 15,000 vehicles a day, again, that comfortable expectation of capacity.

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

00:08:10.240 --> 00:08:16.740
 is one of the big areas of change in the mobility plan.

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

00:08:21.560 --> 00:08:22.560
 section.

00:08:22.560 --> 00:08:26.240
 It is defined as a six lane divided roadway with on street bike facilities and adjacent

00:08:26.240 --> 00:08:29.520
 sidewalks and 135 feet right of way.

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,

00:08:36.280 --> 00:08:37.880
 so this is greenfield construction.

00:08:37.880 --> 00:08:46.680
 We're trying to build some flexibility into what we can call a primary arterial because

00:08:46.680 --> 00:08:53.040
 it's really, again, context sensitive and complete streets practices tell us that the

00:08:53.040 --> 00:08:57.640
 character of the roadway can change even though the classification is not.

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

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

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

00:09:15.560 --> 00:09:21.240
 volume expected infrastructure, and we're just not really comfortable keeping the bikes

00:09:21.240 --> 00:09:22.240
 on street.

00:09:22.240 --> 00:09:24.400
 We'd rather move them to a side path.

00:09:24.400 --> 00:09:31.300
 And then again, this is greenfield construction, but as we build these primary roadways in

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

00:09:40.200 --> 00:09:46.560
 preserve that right away, the corridor with the expectation based on our travel demand

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

00:09:51.680 --> 00:09:52.680
 a day.

00:09:52.680 --> 00:09:53.980
 You may have 4,500 cars a day.

00:09:53.980 --> 00:10:00.840
 So we're trying to build in flexibility into the mobility plan to allow some different

00:10:00.840 --> 00:10:03.120
 approaches in roadway construction.

00:10:03.120 --> 00:10:10.160
 Again, primary arterial, this is a reconstruction in an urban alternative.

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

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

00:10:26.440 --> 00:10:31.760
 outside lanes as a buffered bike facility, something like what you've seen on Hickory

00:10:31.760 --> 00:10:39.480
 and Welch, and we'll see soon on Ankle up close to Windsor.

00:10:39.480 --> 00:10:48.320
 So again, flexibility, trying to identify different alternatives rather than just a

00:10:48.320 --> 00:10:52.500
 primary arterial, a six lane divided roadway, and that's that.

00:10:52.500 --> 00:10:56.400
 Very similar of a secondary arterial, our current cross section is a four lane divided

00:10:56.400 --> 00:10:59.200
 with on-street bike facilities.

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

00:11:02.480 --> 00:11:07.520
 bike facilities on a secondary arterial, we're recommending that they be buffered so that

00:11:07.520 --> 00:11:13.120
 you separate those cyclists from what could be a high volume, high speed roadway.

00:11:13.120 --> 00:11:16.760
 And then again, the rural alternatives, we don't need to start out with four lanes.

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

00:11:23.960 --> 00:11:27.000
 on the roadway infrastructure.

00:11:27.000 --> 00:11:31.480
 Again, same thing with the urban reconstruction alternatives.

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

00:11:37.960 --> 00:11:45.640
 sidewalks that serve as a side path, or we could even introduce on-street parking, and

00:11:45.640 --> 00:11:49.680
 this is a traffic calming measure.

00:11:49.680 --> 00:11:54.860
 Anytime we can introduce side friction, we can slow the speeds down and really change

00:11:54.860 --> 00:11:59.600
 the functionality and the feel of the roadway.

00:11:59.600 --> 00:12:00.600
 Collectors are the same thing.

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

00:12:05.760 --> 00:12:06.760
 turn lane.

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

00:12:10.880 --> 00:12:17.280
 bike parking, parallel, or this could represent diagonal or head end parking.

00:12:17.280 --> 00:12:25.480
 Again, just trying to increase the number of alternatives for new development and redevelopment.

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

00:12:30.640 --> 00:12:31.720
 high level.

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

00:12:35.960 --> 00:12:40.960
 mobility plan, and the right-hand side will be the draft 2020 plan.

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,

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

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.

00:13:04.640 --> 00:13:09.760
 This is fairly prescriptive, the spacing is fairly tight on the 2015 mobility plan, and

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

00:13:15.160 --> 00:13:21.400
 away in the undeveloped areas, and let the development guide that roadway spacing.

00:13:21.400 --> 00:13:26.400
 We'll identify the primary corridors and primary and secondary arterials, and we will allow

00:13:26.400 --> 00:13:32.960
 development and the type of development to determine the spacing of the number of collectors.

00:13:32.960 --> 00:13:34.960
 So that's a major takeaway.

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

00:13:42.600 --> 00:13:50.440
 are what we're calling our controlled access, our freeway facilities, 288 west of 35, 380

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

00:13:59.480 --> 00:14:05.920
 adopted plan yet, but TXSTOT is looking very closely at converting that two-lane rural

00:14:05.920 --> 00:14:16.320
 roadway to a potential four or six-lane controlled access facility, connecting to this, this

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.

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,

00:14:26.640 --> 00:14:34.280
 Garland and around Mesquite, just truly becomes an outer loop for the entire North Texas area,

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

00:14:41.960 --> 00:14:43.720
 access facility.

00:14:43.720 --> 00:14:47.760
 Again, this is the downtown area.

00:14:47.760 --> 00:14:48.760
 Sorry to interrupt, Brian.

00:14:48.760 --> 00:14:52.920
 Commissioner Beck, I think, has a question on the previous slide.

00:14:52.920 --> 00:14:53.920
 Thank you, Chair.

00:14:53.920 --> 00:15:02.560
 Brian, can you describe how, I mean, what's our process for interacting with TXSTOT and

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

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

00:15:14.760 --> 00:15:17.140
 and state-level perspective on some of these.

00:15:17.140 --> 00:15:25.900
 Can you describe how our advisory capacity is on those larger kind of roadways that are

00:15:25.900 --> 00:15:27.920
 not strictly owned by us?

00:15:27.920 --> 00:15:28.920
 Sure.

00:15:28.920 --> 00:15:36.080
 So, and again, we definitely play a role in the determination of these alignments and

00:15:36.080 --> 00:15:41.960
 the institution and the completion of these roadways through our area.

00:15:41.960 --> 00:15:47.680
 We have representation on the COG Regional Transportation Commission, the RTC.

00:15:47.680 --> 00:15:48.680
 TXSTOT's a little bit different.

00:15:48.680 --> 00:15:52.780
 We don't have representation with TXSTOT, but we do work very closely with them and

00:15:52.780 --> 00:16:01.840
 their planning group to identify preferred alignments and potential hazards.

00:16:01.840 --> 00:16:04.880
 So the city gets to voice its opinion.

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

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

00:16:21.520 --> 00:16:26.960
 of that truly is left in the hands of TXSTOT and COG.

00:16:26.960 --> 00:16:33.840
 So we are certainly advisors throughout that process, but the true interstate system and

00:16:33.840 --> 00:16:41.240
 the regional controlled access, the regional freeway system is something that many times

00:16:41.240 --> 00:16:46.080
 is we reflected on our plan because it's on TXSTOT's plan.

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

00:16:55.200 --> 00:16:56.840
 the books when I got here.

00:16:56.840 --> 00:17:04.080
 So it's something that has undergone excruciating public input and review.

00:17:04.080 --> 00:17:11.340
 And the alignment that you're seeing here is one of 20 different alignments that was

00:17:11.340 --> 00:17:18.000
 studied by the COG and TXSTOT as they looked at where the preferred corridor would be.

00:17:18.000 --> 00:17:21.320
 City didn't certainly play a role in that.

00:17:21.320 --> 00:17:25.520
 And so we ended up with this particular alignment.

00:17:25.520 --> 00:17:27.920
 428 is a little bit different.

00:17:27.920 --> 00:17:30.800
 That alignment is existing and they're not proposing a new alignment.

00:17:30.800 --> 00:17:39.140
 They're simply proposing or conducting a feasibility study to determine whether or not it justifies

00:17:39.140 --> 00:17:42.840
 the upgrade to a controlled access facility.

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

00:17:52.440 --> 00:18:02.040
 on securing and we still remain convicted, very interested and a large participant in

00:18:02.040 --> 00:18:05.560
 trying to get that executed and completed.

00:18:05.560 --> 00:18:11.160
 A lot of the alignment study, TXSTOT hires a consultant.

00:18:11.160 --> 00:18:15.080
 They go through the process, they go through the environmental process, and the city and

00:18:15.080 --> 00:18:21.480
 the public has the opportunity to offer input throughout that public process.

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

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

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

00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:43.160
 hearings?

00:18:43.160 --> 00:18:45.360
 Where's the greater impact on that?

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

00:18:52.240 --> 00:18:55.600
 and voicing a comment or an opinion is you would do both.

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

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

00:19:07.680 --> 00:19:10.000
 issues, the better.

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.

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

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.

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

00:19:38.600 --> 00:19:40.960
 community meetings, the virtual community meetings.

00:19:40.960 --> 00:19:48.280
 But when TXSTOT or the COG holds these regional public hearings and these public meetings,

00:19:48.280 --> 00:19:51.280
 we need to be in attendance to those as well.

00:19:51.280 --> 00:19:52.280
 Thank you so much.

00:19:52.280 --> 00:19:53.280
 I appreciate it.

00:19:53.280 --> 00:19:54.280
 Anything else?

00:19:54.280 --> 00:19:55.280
 Yes.

00:19:55.280 --> 00:19:56.280
 Commissioner Smith.

00:19:56.280 --> 00:19:57.280
 Thank you, Chair.

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

00:20:08.600 --> 00:20:16.240
 north of the 288 loop right there, what road is that?

00:20:16.240 --> 00:20:17.240
 I'm blanking.

00:20:17.240 --> 00:20:18.240
 I can.

00:20:18.240 --> 00:20:19.240
 Is it even in existence?

00:20:19.240 --> 00:20:20.240
 No, no, no.

00:20:20.240 --> 00:20:21.240
 It's not.

00:20:21.240 --> 00:20:22.240
 It's not.

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

00:20:31.880 --> 00:20:32.880
 alignment.

00:20:32.880 --> 00:20:33.880
 Is it north?

00:20:33.880 --> 00:20:34.880
 Is it north Bonnie?

00:20:34.880 --> 00:20:35.880
 Is it Bonnie Bray?

00:20:35.880 --> 00:20:38.800
 Well, it looks like it's tying into Bonnie Bray.

00:20:38.800 --> 00:20:42.280
 Bonnie Bray comes up right here, if you can see where our cursor is.

00:20:42.280 --> 00:20:43.280
 And it's an extension.

00:20:43.280 --> 00:20:46.240
 I'm not sure that we're calling it Bonnie Bray.

00:20:46.240 --> 00:20:47.640
 I have to go back and look.

00:20:47.640 --> 00:20:49.560
 I don't want to speak out of turn.

00:20:49.560 --> 00:20:54.480
 But Bonnie Bray hits loop 288 right about where it starts.

00:20:54.480 --> 00:20:59.040
 So it very well may be a geographic extension of Bonnie Bray.

00:20:59.040 --> 00:21:01.880
 Is that the hills of Denton?

00:21:01.880 --> 00:21:09.200
 Yes, and those, and my video is lagging here, so I apologize.

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

00:21:17.440 --> 00:21:24.120
 standpoint here, that it, I know this is really, we're not codifying anything whatsoever here.

00:21:24.120 --> 00:21:28.920
 But it seems like something should go north of Milam even, if we're basically creating

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

00:21:35.680 --> 00:21:38.120
 way north to that outer loop.

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.

00:21:42.840 --> 00:21:45.120
 So it's not really even under our control.

00:21:45.120 --> 00:21:46.120
 Right.

00:21:46.120 --> 00:21:48.360
 So part of that, I was just going to speak to that.

00:21:48.360 --> 00:21:55.960
 So you've got the city of Denton has its own mobility plan and thoroughfare plan.

00:21:55.960 --> 00:22:01.040
 The county has its own mobility plan and thoroughfare plan.

00:22:01.040 --> 00:22:06.520
 Most of our adjoining cities have some kind of a mobility plan.

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.

00:22:10.840 --> 00:22:14.680
 So we've got several different layers.

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

00:22:20.720 --> 00:22:24.160
 the county has a background plan as well.

00:22:24.160 --> 00:22:26.820
 I believe they adopted theirs in 2017.

00:22:26.820 --> 00:22:29.960
 So they've got a couple more years before they update.

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

00:22:34.080 --> 00:22:42.120
 reflect the thoughts of other agencies and municipalities and how that folds into, you

00:22:42.120 --> 00:22:45.280
 know, where do our roads connect to their roads, basically.

00:22:45.280 --> 00:22:46.280
 That works.

00:22:46.280 --> 00:22:47.280
 All right.

00:22:47.280 --> 00:22:48.280
 Thank you.

00:22:48.280 --> 00:22:49.280
 That's all I had.

00:22:49.280 --> 00:22:50.280
 Anything else?

00:22:50.280 --> 00:22:51.280
 I'll move on.

00:22:51.280 --> 00:22:54.280
 Okay.

00:22:54.280 --> 00:23:01.640
 So, again, back to the downtown sub-area.

00:23:01.640 --> 00:23:02.800
 Not a lot of changes.

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

00:23:06.920 --> 00:23:10.840
 primary to a secondary.

00:23:10.840 --> 00:23:16.800
 Those two roadways function, even if they remain as one-way facilities, they really

00:23:16.800 --> 00:23:21.400
 function at a different level than a U.S. 380 university.

00:23:21.400 --> 00:23:23.600
 That's a primary.

00:23:23.600 --> 00:23:28.620
 Even Carroll, but again, just really different context.

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

00:23:34.120 --> 00:23:42.160
 driveway density, and so we're bringing those down to a little bit different size.

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

00:23:48.560 --> 00:23:53.840
 of 35 is shown as a primary, and just for corridor consistency, we're bringing that

00:23:53.840 --> 00:23:57.000
 back to a secondary arterial.

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

00:24:04.800 --> 00:24:10.480
 is, again, that higher speed, higher volume facility.

00:24:10.480 --> 00:24:16.440
 All right, western sub-area.

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

00:24:24.360 --> 00:24:28.160
 a greater number of primaries.

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

00:24:36.100 --> 00:24:45.040
 also got this new facility here, 288 West, tying in through Hunter Cole.

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

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

00:25:00.240 --> 00:25:04.520
 on all of these, or if they want to modify those secondaries.

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,

00:25:10.640 --> 00:25:13.200
 we can get a four-lane roadway and call it a secondary.

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

00:25:17.840 --> 00:25:20.840
 the right-of-way.

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

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

00:25:36.200 --> 00:25:40.840
 fewer roadways, but in the western section, we actually are taking those.

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

00:25:46.120 --> 00:25:48.120
 capacity in this area.

00:25:48.120 --> 00:25:50.320
 Brian, I have a quick question for you.

00:25:50.320 --> 00:25:51.320
 Sure.

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

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

00:26:01.240 --> 00:26:08.240
 just hovering over, the dashed red primary, it was a green S-curve east to west.

00:26:08.240 --> 00:26:11.520
 On the 15 and on the 20, it's basically a straight line.

00:26:11.520 --> 00:26:14.860
 Can you talk about the rationale?

00:26:14.860 --> 00:26:19.760
 Because I understand that the mobility plan does not actually signify where roads are

00:26:19.760 --> 00:26:20.760
 to go.

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

00:26:26.560 --> 00:26:30.920
 all been straightened out with no perceived curvature to the roads.

00:26:30.920 --> 00:26:35.440
 Can you talk about the rationale in terms of the adherence to that or the expectations

00:26:35.440 --> 00:26:37.200
 to adhere to that?

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

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.

00:26:48.080 --> 00:26:55.240
 We need a roadway, and I'll use the 2020 as an example here.

00:26:55.240 --> 00:27:00.740
 We need an east-west archery, a secondary primary, from point A to point B. Typically,

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

00:27:07.840 --> 00:27:08.840
 follow property lines.

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

00:27:17.080 --> 00:27:18.680
 a roadway network.

00:27:18.680 --> 00:27:20.480
 We try to identify the primary links.

00:27:20.480 --> 00:27:23.680
 These are the major connections that we need to see through here.

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

00:27:30.400 --> 00:27:38.200
 with this update is to identify that backbone, that structure of primary and secondary arterials.

00:27:38.200 --> 00:27:43.640
 Major collectors will identify, but we really want to let the property develop and determine

00:27:43.640 --> 00:27:48.360
 where those intermediate connections need to be.

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

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

00:28:01.680 --> 00:28:08.920
 cross-section from one parcel, and let's let that development fill in the collector network,

00:28:08.920 --> 00:28:13.200
 because we've got requirements, and we do a traffic impact analysis.

00:28:13.200 --> 00:28:17.320
 They have to provide the roadway capacity to serve their development, but we don't want

00:28:17.320 --> 00:28:24.400
 to over-tax or over-exact the roadway cross-section.

00:28:24.400 --> 00:28:30.000
 So it is a simplification, and that was the intent, is to simplify the roadways where

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

00:28:35.080 --> 00:28:39.440
 where we want our roadways and our collectors, and try to reflect that.

00:28:39.440 --> 00:28:46.400
 But again, it really was just to identify here's the major, the backbone structure,

00:28:46.400 --> 00:28:49.160
 and we'll let the development fill in those intermediate connections.

00:28:49.160 --> 00:28:50.160
 Great.

00:28:50.160 --> 00:28:51.160
 I appreciate that.

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

00:28:56.000 --> 00:28:58.280
 extremely closely.

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,

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

00:29:09.920 --> 00:29:11.920
 not necessarily seeing the need for.

00:29:11.920 --> 00:29:17.720
 So we'll let the development, again, fill in that, the collector system, and that how

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

00:29:23.560 --> 00:29:27.960
 need to be, primarily, again, following existing protocols.

00:29:27.960 --> 00:29:28.960
 Thank you.

00:29:28.960 --> 00:29:29.960
 I appreciate that.

00:29:29.960 --> 00:29:30.960
 All right.

00:29:30.960 --> 00:29:38.280
 Southern sub-area, this probably changed the least.

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

00:29:44.960 --> 00:29:47.420
 arterials, are still primary arterials.

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

00:29:54.480 --> 00:29:56.560
 all the way to 35.

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

00:30:03.800 --> 00:30:08.560
 through that south portion, tying into 35.

00:30:08.560 --> 00:30:12.680
 And then, so again, not a lot of changes.

00:30:12.680 --> 00:30:15.480
 A lot of these are existing roadways.

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.

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.

00:30:31.880 --> 00:30:43.200
 So again, this one stays very, very closely to the same between 2015 and '21 plans.

00:30:43.200 --> 00:30:50.520
 And then the eastern sub-area, this is probably one of the areas of greatest change.

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,

00:30:55.120 --> 00:30:57.080
 and it comes down to Milam.

00:30:57.080 --> 00:31:03.960
 We've talked about the 428 possible conversion to a controlled-access facility.

00:31:03.960 --> 00:31:09.380
 We're also talking about 380 as a controlled-access facility with TechStop and the Cobb.

00:31:09.380 --> 00:31:11.920
 That is the ultimate plan, whether or not that's feasible.

00:31:11.920 --> 00:31:14.760
 Again, we're still studying that.

00:31:14.760 --> 00:31:23.480
 I know the county has some concerns about converting that 380 East to a controlled-access

00:31:23.480 --> 00:31:29.320
 facility because of the impact it might have on existing businesses and driveway access,

00:31:29.320 --> 00:31:30.320
 et cetera.

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

00:31:34.040 --> 00:31:37.440
 dashed line between 380 and 288.

00:31:37.440 --> 00:31:45.520
 So again, looking from a regional perspective, if we can identify a corridor where we can

00:31:45.520 --> 00:31:53.320
 put basically a freeway, a direct connection between future 380 as a freeway to future

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

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.

00:32:08.080 --> 00:32:16.320
 So again, trying to downplay the need for university as a through route by providing

00:32:16.320 --> 00:32:19.720
 a much more attractive, higher speed, higher volume, just more capacity.

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

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

00:32:32.040 --> 00:32:34.880
 as well.

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

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

00:32:43.880 --> 00:32:47.360
 by Cobb and TechStop.

00:32:47.360 --> 00:32:55.880
 They're calling it the integrated corridor, and the idea was to provide, because 380 is

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

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

00:33:12.760 --> 00:33:19.360
 corridor, they identified using existing alignments trying to connect various different county

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

00:33:31.240 --> 00:33:40.460
 to the 380 freeway section and before the loop nine freeway section is constructed.

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.

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.

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

00:33:59.520 --> 00:34:06.440
 have it in one of our mobility plan meetings where we talked about this corridor specifically.

00:34:06.440 --> 00:34:13.000
 So this is not something that the City of Denton developed, we're simply reflecting

00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:20.640
 the information that we have from the Cobb and TechStop.

00:34:20.640 --> 00:34:21.640
 Any questions?

00:34:21.640 --> 00:34:24.200
 Christopher Beck.

00:34:24.200 --> 00:34:25.200
 Thank you, Chair.

00:34:25.200 --> 00:34:29.880
 Brian, yeah, so maybe to just hammer home that earlier point.

00:34:29.880 --> 00:34:35.880
 As this impacts Carter Ranch, Clear Creek, some of the development in Hartley Field that

00:34:35.880 --> 00:34:40.920
 we've heard about recently, this development here, or this potential for this controlled

00:34:40.920 --> 00:34:48.320
 access road that looks like the northern parts of Agave.

00:34:48.320 --> 00:34:56.240
 If our citizens wanted to make sure their concerns were met, they not only should talk

00:34:56.240 --> 00:35:02.600
 with you as they have been at that, whatever, month ago beauty about the Northeast region,

00:35:02.600 --> 00:35:08.160
 that they should also be attending and comment to Cog, and they should also be attending

00:35:08.160 --> 00:35:13.640
 this December 2nd, I believe it's December 2nd, TechStop 380 corridor meeting.

00:35:13.640 --> 00:35:17.040
 They should be hitting all of those.

00:35:17.040 --> 00:35:18.040
 Correct.

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

00:35:24.160 --> 00:35:25.160
 dates.

00:35:25.160 --> 00:35:27.600
 So they're going to leave the public comment open.

00:35:27.600 --> 00:35:32.520
 They may have a Zoom meeting, but they typically leave their public comment period open for

00:35:32.520 --> 00:35:33.820
 quite some time.

00:35:33.820 --> 00:35:42.400
 And so yes, we encourage anyone who's got a concern about a proposed freeway through

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.

00:35:49.920 --> 00:35:55.960
 People have made comment on our interactive mobility plan map, but we do encourage them

00:35:55.960 --> 00:36:02.320
 to attend and voice those same concerns with the other stakeholders, and that will be the

00:36:02.320 --> 00:36:03.720
 Cog and TechStop.

00:36:03.720 --> 00:36:06.840
 So yes, definitely attend.

00:36:06.840 --> 00:36:08.880
 We can share that.

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

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

00:36:19.480 --> 00:36:25.040
 that the citizens can participate via those public meetings as well.

00:36:25.040 --> 00:36:30.360
 Yeah, it definitely seems like a sensitive, not sensitive, but well, sensitive right there

00:36:30.360 --> 00:36:34.740
 at the eastern boundary in the Clear Creek itself.

00:36:34.740 --> 00:36:39.640
 There's a lot of conflicting stakeholders for that particular alignment.

00:36:39.640 --> 00:36:42.420
 You can see how that would affect Carter development.

00:36:42.420 --> 00:36:44.020
 So developers might have concerns.

00:36:44.020 --> 00:36:47.720
 You can see how that would affect our infrastructure as a city.

00:36:47.720 --> 00:36:55.060
 You can see the environmental-oriented people having issues about that particular alignment.

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

00:37:02.160 --> 00:37:03.520
 some contention there.

00:37:03.520 --> 00:37:04.520
 Oh, definitely.

00:37:04.520 --> 00:37:06.680
 There already has been some, yes.

00:37:06.680 --> 00:37:07.680
 Yes.

00:37:07.680 --> 00:37:09.800
 There's quite a bit of concern.

00:37:09.800 --> 00:37:14.560
 Thanks, Brian, I appreciate it.

00:37:14.560 --> 00:37:15.560
 Okay.

00:37:15.560 --> 00:37:20.720
 So moving on to the second element, and that's the bicycle plan.

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

00:37:27.140 --> 00:37:32.280
 what we call the level of stress profiles, and that's the comfort level that different

00:37:32.280 --> 00:37:36.820
 riders have on different types of infrastructure.

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

00:37:42.800 --> 00:37:48.400
 total population are interested but concerned, they're not really comfortable with on-street

00:37:48.400 --> 00:37:49.960
 bike facilities.

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

00:37:55.640 --> 00:38:02.640
 looking to enhance our off-street, those side paths, those shared-use paths, the trail system,

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

00:38:08.600 --> 00:38:10.040
 protected bike lane.

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.

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

00:38:23.320 --> 00:38:25.280
 corridors or whatever.

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

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

00:38:37.040 --> 00:38:41.400
 if they have the right kind of bike facility.

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

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

00:38:55.400 --> 00:38:58.120
 the orange and the yellow and the red.

00:38:58.120 --> 00:39:02.720
 Some of the purple stuff is more trail-oriented on the 2015 plan.

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

00:39:08.840 --> 00:39:10.880
 brown is off-street as well.

00:39:10.880 --> 00:39:14.600
 So we're really, really trying to add to that off-street network.

00:39:14.600 --> 00:39:21.040
 The brown is trails, and the green would be our off-street shared site path.

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

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

00:39:32.480 --> 00:39:34.000
 to put a site path.

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

00:39:40.520 --> 00:39:47.480
 on Oak Street is we'll narrow the on-street vehicular lanes and provide that buffered

00:39:47.480 --> 00:39:48.480
 bike lane.

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,

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

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

00:40:04.600 --> 00:40:08.280
 of our on-street bike facilities, that's what we're going to be pushing.

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

00:40:13.960 --> 00:40:16.480
 facilities than we proposed in 2014.

00:40:16.480 --> 00:40:20.680
 Brian, I just wanted to pause real fast.

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.

00:40:26.480 --> 00:40:32.880
 Becky, are you there?

00:40:32.880 --> 00:40:48.040
 Well, I thought she was there, Richard.

00:40:48.040 --> 00:40:49.040
 Do you know if she's connected?

00:40:49.040 --> 00:40:53.040
 I haven't seen the participant list.

00:40:53.040 --> 00:41:01.440
 Yeah, it looks like she is connected.

00:41:01.440 --> 00:41:15.880
 Well, we can certainly circle back around and have her come back.

00:41:15.880 --> 00:41:16.880
 Thank you.

00:41:16.880 --> 00:41:17.880
 Oh, there she is.

00:41:17.880 --> 00:41:18.880
 Sorry about that.

00:41:18.880 --> 00:41:19.880
 Can you hear me now?

00:41:19.880 --> 00:41:20.880
 Yes.

00:41:20.880 --> 00:41:21.880
 My apologies.

00:41:21.880 --> 00:41:22.880
 Sorry.

00:41:22.880 --> 00:41:23.880
 Yes, thank you.

00:41:23.880 --> 00:41:27.560
 So this is Becky Devaney, city engineer, director of capital projects.

00:41:27.560 --> 00:41:30.320
 Brian, thank you for mentioning that public meeting.

00:41:30.320 --> 00:41:34.280
 I just wanted to provide that information.

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

00:41:39.120 --> 00:41:44.720
 study, and that will be conducted, like Brian mentioned, through a virtual public meeting.

00:41:44.720 --> 00:41:51.880
 The materials are posted on the keepitmovingdallas.com website, and the public meeting comment period

00:41:51.880 --> 00:41:58.280
 is from Wednesday, December 2nd through Thursday, December 17th, and we will make sure that we

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

00:42:02.680 --> 00:42:07.640
 our social media posts, so I just wanted to share that information with you, so thank

00:42:07.640 --> 00:42:11.920
 you for taking the time to let me pause and mention that.

00:42:11.920 --> 00:42:16.640
 Thank you, Becky.

00:42:16.640 --> 00:42:19.920
 Okay, so moving on.

00:42:19.920 --> 00:42:23.480
 So the last major element of our mobility plan is the pedestrian plan.

00:42:23.480 --> 00:42:36.480
 We've never really had a full-blown pedestrian plan with detailed descriptions and prioritization,

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

00:42:40.680 --> 00:42:41.880
 what the colors on this mean.

00:42:41.880 --> 00:42:51.520
 The yellow lines are existing pedestrian infrastructure, primarily sidewalks, and so you can see we've

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

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.

00:43:04.160 --> 00:43:09.920
 Those are sidewalks that are programmed or under construction associated with roadway

00:43:09.920 --> 00:43:15.600
 improvement projects or other capital projects that the city is sponsoring, so we've already

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,

00:43:22.860 --> 00:43:28.200
 five years, but they will be existing in five years.

00:43:28.200 --> 00:43:30.040
 They'll be shown as yellow.

00:43:30.040 --> 00:43:35.520
 And then what the mobility plan looked at was all the missing links, everything that

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

00:43:43.600 --> 00:43:50.280
 for a pedestrian need, so this is, again, this is the pedestrian plan, primarily these

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

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

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

00:44:12.840 --> 00:44:20.240
 ultimate goal is that every street in the city of Denton should provide pedestrian infrastructure

00:44:20.240 --> 00:44:23.440
 on at least one, if not both sides of the roadway.

00:44:23.440 --> 00:44:26.200
 And so that's really what we are looking for.

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.

00:44:32.080 --> 00:44:33.080
 I kind of backed out.

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

00:44:43.400 --> 00:44:54.120
 core area, outside 288, identifying with this plan the need for that complete street, context

00:44:54.120 --> 00:45:02.960
 sensitive, not everybody drives a car anymore, approach, and so this allows us to prioritize

00:45:02.960 --> 00:45:10.040
 these red and orange links with upcoming construction projects or to build a construction project

00:45:10.040 --> 00:45:18.400
 based on either a geographic or, again, the prioritization need for each of these sidewalks

00:45:18.400 --> 00:45:21.040
 or pedestrian infrastructure links.

00:45:21.040 --> 00:45:25.320
 So that's a kind of a 30,000 foot level of the pedestrian plan.

00:45:25.320 --> 00:45:26.920
 Again, we have an interactive map.

00:45:26.920 --> 00:45:27.920
 It's still online.

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,

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

00:45:41.080 --> 00:45:42.840
 meetings separately.

00:45:42.840 --> 00:45:47.400
 So we talk about the north, south, east, west, and downtown thoroughfare plan, bike plan,

00:45:47.400 --> 00:45:48.600
 and pedestrian plan.

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

00:45:54.000 --> 00:45:57.520
 presentations, they are available online.

00:45:57.520 --> 00:45:58.520
 Thank you, Chris.

00:45:58.520 --> 00:45:59.520
 You're back.

00:45:59.520 --> 00:46:00.520
 Thank you, Chair.

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

00:46:09.320 --> 00:46:19.840
 known and well understood in terms of our component going up Riddell and up Bingo, but

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

00:46:24.520 --> 00:46:29.960
 have a golf course in their worldview anymore?

00:46:29.960 --> 00:46:39.640
 They're planning pedestrian corridors through that former territory of the golf course.

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

00:46:47.200 --> 00:46:50.800
 they're planning for their state level plans, I guess?

00:46:50.800 --> 00:46:51.800
 Okay.

00:46:51.800 --> 00:46:52.800
 So good question.

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

00:46:57.440 --> 00:47:02.960
 with TWU very closely as they work through their master planning process, our parks department

00:47:02.960 --> 00:47:10.320
 is working with them to identify opportunities for trails on campus or connections to our

00:47:10.320 --> 00:47:12.220
 trail system.

00:47:12.220 --> 00:47:17.400
 They are looking at some pedestrian, for lack of a better word, pedestrian malls or pedestrian

00:47:17.400 --> 00:47:23.920
 corridors along Bell and certainly from Riddell moving west.

00:47:23.920 --> 00:47:31.200
 We are working very, very closely with them on the Riddell corridor and our Mingo corridor

00:47:31.200 --> 00:47:37.720
 as we identify either a trail or a side path along Mingo and additional sidewalk facilities

00:47:37.720 --> 00:47:44.280
 along Riddell to connect to their internal pedestrian infrastructure.

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

00:47:53.040 --> 00:47:59.480
 through not only access and pedestrian issues, but also utility issues and right-of-way issues

00:47:59.480 --> 00:48:01.640
 and general operational issues.

00:48:01.640 --> 00:48:10.400
 So that relationship has proven very beneficial and those meetings are playing a significant

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

00:48:15.960 --> 00:48:19.480
 we can connect to their infrastructure on campus.

00:48:19.480 --> 00:48:20.480
 Awesome.

00:48:20.480 --> 00:48:23.520
 Thank you.

00:48:23.520 --> 00:48:26.320
 Okay.

00:48:26.320 --> 00:48:31.120
 So one of the other questions that I was asked to address is the amendment process.

00:48:31.120 --> 00:48:35.680
 So once this plan is adopted, how do we change it?

00:48:35.680 --> 00:48:41.240
 How do we modify it and what steps do we take?

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

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

00:48:55.080 --> 00:48:56.080
 alignment study.

00:48:56.080 --> 00:49:03.460
 It is our consultant's best guess on where that roadway could go.

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

00:49:09.660 --> 00:49:16.760
 and try to avoid, you know, railroads and wetlands and floodplains.

00:49:16.760 --> 00:49:19.160
 But those are truly conceptual.

00:49:19.160 --> 00:49:22.600
 I won't even call them schematic.

00:49:22.600 --> 00:49:27.540
 To me, schematic confers some kind of an engineering level of detail.

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

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

00:49:46.840 --> 00:49:54.040
 their property, then they have the ability, without going back to – through the amendment

00:49:54.040 --> 00:49:56.720
 process, of shifting that roadway within reason.

00:49:56.720 --> 00:50:01.040
 And a lot of times we use 1,000 feet on a major roadway.

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

00:50:09.520 --> 00:50:11.560
 doesn't make much difference.

00:50:11.560 --> 00:50:17.480
 So there's some inherent flexibility in the mobility plan for the thoroughfares because

00:50:17.480 --> 00:50:20.440
 it is a line on a map and it's not an engineered alignment.

00:50:20.440 --> 00:50:27.520
 Well, typically, again, we'll try and stick with following existing property lines, but

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

00:50:36.640 --> 00:50:42.940
 or at least we maintain our connectivity, we're still getting our roadway, and we're

00:50:42.940 --> 00:50:54.960
 not doing some unproportional harm to some smaller properties where we've got a six-lane

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

00:50:59.880 --> 00:51:00.880
 taking.

00:51:00.880 --> 00:51:06.280
 So we try and work with the property owners in identifying what we need.

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

00:51:12.880 --> 00:51:15.840
 without at least undue harm?

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

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.

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,

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

00:51:46.240 --> 00:51:53.440
 impacts are, and then we'll submit, somebody needs to submit an application to begin that

00:51:53.440 --> 00:51:59.700
 process to the Director of Planning and Development Services.

00:51:59.700 --> 00:52:02.360
 Step three is staff review.

00:52:02.360 --> 00:52:09.000
 Step four is the public meeting process where staff will formulate a recommendation, we'll

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

00:52:14.880 --> 00:52:21.600
 in on the proposed modification, whether it be a classification or alignment.

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

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.

00:52:33.120 --> 00:52:39.640
 Now, this process may seem familiar because it's the same amendment process or modification

00:52:39.640 --> 00:52:42.980
 process that the comprehensive plan follows.

00:52:42.980 --> 00:52:51.240
 Both plans are governed by the same section of the municipal code, and so our position

00:52:51.240 --> 00:52:55.960
 is that the amendment process for both plans should be fairly similar.

00:52:55.960 --> 00:53:06.120
 And so, basically, what these next few slides show, there are some restrictions, mobility

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

00:53:11.440 --> 00:53:12.440
 plan adoption.

00:53:12.440 --> 00:53:19.800
 The City Council failed to take into account existing information, events, trends, or facts

00:53:19.800 --> 00:53:27.600
 after adoption have changed significantly enough to change the council's original findings,

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

00:53:34.640 --> 00:53:36.760
 improved.

00:53:36.760 --> 00:53:43.760
 So with that said, they're also subject to some limitations in that the proposed amendment

00:53:43.760 --> 00:53:49.840
 or modification is not in conflict with the goals and policies of the overall plan.

00:53:49.840 --> 00:53:54.760
 So we're not doing anything that we said originally that we shouldn't do.

00:53:54.760 --> 00:54:01.520
 And that the amendment constitutes a substantial benefit to the city and not solely for the

00:54:01.520 --> 00:54:03.000
 good of a particular landowner.

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

00:54:09.520 --> 00:54:19.240
 that we entertain, we still have to serve the overall overarching goals of the mobility

00:54:19.240 --> 00:54:20.240
 plan.

00:54:20.240 --> 00:54:26.200
 So if the mobility plan says we need a primary collector or primary arterial or secondary

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

00:54:32.720 --> 00:54:41.080
 that because the travel demand forecast model says we're going to need that much capacity.

00:54:41.080 --> 00:54:44.640
 Doesn't have to be exactly where the line is shown on the map, maybe not.

00:54:44.640 --> 00:54:52.880
 But unless we can all agree that the conditions have changed, the intensity is significantly

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

00:54:59.480 --> 00:55:00.960
 intent of the mobility plan.

00:55:00.960 --> 00:55:06.680
 And then the last point is the extent to which the proposed amendment or other amendments

00:55:06.680 --> 00:55:11.800
 are compatible with the land use goals, or in this case, the mobility goals, and that

00:55:11.800 --> 00:55:19.600
 they don't cause incompatible form or burden on the other public facilities.

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

00:55:27.120 --> 00:55:32.160
 plan model that that's going to overtax a parallel facility, then that would be cause

00:55:32.160 --> 00:55:33.160
 for denial.

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

00:55:41.960 --> 00:55:45.600
 some pedestrian corridors through their site.

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

00:55:51.980 --> 00:56:00.520
 between Chapel and College, and we conducted a study with TWU, they paid 50%, and they

00:56:00.520 --> 00:56:06.840
 paid 50%, to determine whether or not the adjacent roadways had adequate capacity in

00:56:06.840 --> 00:56:17.280
 our 2045 horizon year to accommodate what we expect from a tribal man need without Bell

00:56:17.280 --> 00:56:19.560
 in place, or without that through connection.

00:56:19.560 --> 00:56:24.160
 If Bell will still serve the university from the north and still serve the university and

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

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

00:56:36.640 --> 00:56:42.880
 show that, in fact, we do have the capacity in parallel facilities, so that amendment

00:56:42.880 --> 00:56:48.440
 does make sense.

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

00:56:54.600 --> 00:57:03.400
 impact existing land use, public services and facilities, sensitive areas.

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

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

00:57:16.880 --> 00:57:24.680
 are reasonable tests and criteria where the proposed amendments make sense, and then there

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

00:57:29.800 --> 00:57:38.000
 to stick with the original mobility plan and not accept the change.

00:57:38.000 --> 00:57:43.800
 So next steps for a mobility plan, we are incorporating currently the input we received

00:57:43.800 --> 00:57:48.440
 from the public meetings, we will develop the final thoroughfare bike and pedestrian

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

00:57:53.800 --> 00:57:59.200
 this that identifies a lot of the policy and these procedures such as the amendment process.

00:57:59.200 --> 00:58:08.840
 We will adopt those new plans, our current estimate is probably first quarter of '21,

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

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

00:58:23.320 --> 00:58:32.480
 it back incorporating whatever modifications that we have from the public comment period

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

00:58:36.560 --> 00:58:37.560
 of '21.

00:58:37.560 --> 00:58:41.800
 Now, immediately following that mobility plan adoption, we're going to be coming back with

00:58:41.800 --> 00:58:49.840
 the roadway impact fee update, another somewhat potentially contentious plan update, but something

00:58:49.840 --> 00:58:51.400
 that we really need to focus on.

00:58:51.400 --> 00:58:57.920
 We've started that process several months ago and we pushed it onto the back burner

00:58:57.920 --> 00:59:04.200
 while we got through the three portions of the mobility plan, the thoroughfare plan,

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

00:59:11.360 --> 00:59:15.600
 that fire back underneath on that burner for the roadway impact fees and bring those back

00:59:15.600 --> 00:59:18.920
 for that public discussion and ultimate approval.

00:59:18.920 --> 00:59:21.800
 So just imparting, stay connected.

00:59:21.800 --> 00:59:24.240
 Here's my phone number.

00:59:24.240 --> 00:59:27.080
 I really should put my cell phone on there.

00:59:27.080 --> 00:59:32.760
 Sometimes I get this Cisco messaging, sometimes they go through and sometimes they don't.

00:59:32.760 --> 00:59:35.920
 That's my desk phone number.

00:59:35.920 --> 00:59:40.720
 Here's the cityofdetton.com/mobilityplan, that's where you can see the interactive map

00:59:40.720 --> 00:59:44.920
 and the comments that have been made by the public to date.

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

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.

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

01:00:04.480 --> 01:00:10.680
 the previous presentations, look at the questions and answers that were incorporated into those

01:00:10.680 --> 01:00:18.240
 five presentations and if you have further questions, you can email me or call me.

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.

01:00:26.120 --> 01:00:30.480
 Brian, I appreciate the presentation and the information.

01:00:30.480 --> 01:00:31.480
 Very helpful.

01:00:31.480 --> 01:00:38.640
 Is there any questions for Brian when we have him in the hot seat?

01:00:38.640 --> 01:00:39.640
 Okay.

01:00:39.640 --> 01:00:40.640
 Thank you very much.

01:00:40.640 --> 01:00:41.640
 Thank you very much.

01:00:41.640 --> 01:00:42.640
 I appreciate your time.

01:00:42.640 --> 01:00:43.640
 No, thank you.

01:00:43.640 --> 01:00:50.400
 The next item for our work session reports is item 3B-PZ 20-249.

01:00:50.400 --> 01:00:54.200
 Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding code amendments

01:00:54.200 --> 01:01:03.200
 related to subchapter 2, administration and procedures.

01:01:03.200 --> 01:01:06.840
 And it is Ron Maguida for presentation.

01:01:06.840 --> 01:01:09.240
 Ron, whenever you're ready, you have the floor.

01:01:09.240 --> 01:01:10.240
 Thank you, sir.

01:01:10.240 --> 01:01:25.360
 Let me get my presentation loaded.

01:01:25.360 --> 01:01:54.520
 Okay, hopefully you all can see my presentation and can hear me.

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.

01:01:58.840 --> 01:02:04.160
 Ron, real fast, I noted just quickly that your presentation is 58 slides long.

01:02:04.160 --> 01:02:06.260
 Yes, sir.

01:02:06.260 --> 01:02:11.080
 Is there, do we need to make any arrangements on working through the agenda?

01:02:11.080 --> 01:02:13.200
 I think that's a good idea.

01:02:13.200 --> 01:02:16.400
 I know that there's a number of other presentations.

01:02:16.400 --> 01:02:19.300
 If we don't get through all of them, that's fine.

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

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

01:02:31.840 --> 01:02:33.560
 occur, we can do that as well.

01:02:33.560 --> 01:02:34.560
 Yeah.

01:02:34.560 --> 01:02:37.600
 Hey, Richard, do you have any idea on the actual working agenda?

01:02:37.600 --> 01:02:39.520
 You think Ron can get 30 minutes here?

01:02:39.520 --> 01:02:43.000
 Is 30 minutes enough for us to get through the other items?

01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:50.260
 Yeah, unless you want to take the other items first and we can come back.

01:02:50.260 --> 01:02:54.320
 Without any opposition from the commission, I probably would prefer that to prioritize

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

01:02:58.060 --> 01:03:00.640
 Ron as much time as we have left over.

01:03:00.640 --> 01:03:04.720
 Ron, I hate to second fiddle you, but that's fine.

01:03:04.720 --> 01:03:05.720
 That works.

01:03:05.720 --> 01:03:06.720
 Yeah.

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

01:03:10.320 --> 01:03:13.760
 pertinent to the agenda.

01:03:13.760 --> 01:03:14.760
 Sounds good.

01:03:14.760 --> 01:03:20.680
 We'll see you in a little bit, Ron.

01:03:20.680 --> 01:03:25.560
 So just for clarification for those joining us, we are going to go through the actual

01:03:25.560 --> 01:03:31.200
 normal agenda, starting with the minutes on item two, working in a consent individual

01:03:31.200 --> 01:03:32.200
 in public.

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

01:03:37.400 --> 01:03:38.840
 item three B.

01:03:38.840 --> 01:03:46.340
 So with that, is there any needed conversation around the minutes from November 4th?

01:03:46.340 --> 01:03:56.880
 Okay, seeing none, we'll go to item three A, FP20-0019A.

01:03:56.880 --> 01:04:00.120
 This item is being presented by Mark Laird.

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.

01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:08.440
 Could be on the phone.

01:04:08.440 --> 01:04:11.040
 Yes, this is Mark Laird.

01:04:11.040 --> 01:04:12.160
 Can you hear me?

01:04:12.160 --> 01:04:13.160
 We can.

01:04:13.160 --> 01:04:17.800
 And I think they're pulling up your presentation or?

01:04:17.800 --> 01:04:19.880
 Haley is pulling the slides up now.

01:04:19.880 --> 01:04:20.880
 Got it.

01:04:20.880 --> 01:04:41.520
 Haley, if you just pull up the final slide.

01:04:41.520 --> 01:04:49.440
 Mark, I'll let you know when it's pulled up.

01:04:49.440 --> 01:04:51.440
 Nevermind, you're good.

01:04:51.440 --> 01:04:52.440
 It's pulled up.

01:04:52.440 --> 01:04:53.440
 All right.

01:04:53.440 --> 01:04:54.440
 Thank you very much.

01:04:54.440 --> 01:04:55.440
 Again, my name is Mark Laird.

01:04:55.440 --> 01:04:57.200
 I'm a planner with the plan department.

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

01:05:02.040 --> 01:05:03.040
 phase one.

01:05:03.040 --> 01:05:07.280
 This plan was recently presented to you back in October.

01:05:07.280 --> 01:05:13.600
 And through our checks and balances, we noticed that the applicant only dedicated six to seven

01:05:13.600 --> 01:05:16.520
 or 65 feet for Bonnie Bray, which is needed.

01:05:16.520 --> 01:05:22.360
 It is one hundred and ten given this opportunity for additional right away.

01:05:22.360 --> 01:05:32.120
 It was our engineers thought it was the opportunity to have a additional standardized surer easement

01:05:32.120 --> 01:05:34.000
 dedicated on this easement.

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.

01:05:39.120 --> 01:05:44.960
 And since the boundary had changed slightly, we wanted to represent to you for consideration

01:05:44.960 --> 01:05:48.520
 and ask for any questions.

01:05:48.520 --> 01:05:49.520
 OK.

01:05:49.520 --> 01:05:53.880
 And just a clarification, Mark, it is being recommended for approval with no conditions

01:05:53.880 --> 01:05:55.480
 or anything.

01:05:55.480 --> 01:05:56.480
 No conditions whatsoever.

01:05:56.480 --> 01:05:57.480
 OK.

01:05:57.480 --> 01:06:01.480
 Is there any questions for Mark on this?

01:06:01.480 --> 01:06:05.880
 Mark, I do not see any.

01:06:05.880 --> 01:06:08.800
 Thank you for being here this evening.

01:06:08.800 --> 01:06:12.520
 Next item is 3BPP20-0021A.

01:06:12.520 --> 01:06:23.200
 This is Haley Zygurski's item.

01:06:23.200 --> 01:06:24.200
 And Haley is in office.

01:06:24.200 --> 01:06:25.200
 Haley, whenever we have, are we ready?

01:06:25.200 --> 01:06:26.200
 You have the floor.

01:06:26.200 --> 01:06:27.200
 All right.

01:06:27.200 --> 01:06:28.200
 Good evening.

01:06:28.200 --> 01:06:32.680
 So this is the preliminary plat for the Woodlands at McKinney Street.

01:06:32.680 --> 01:06:36.260
 You may remember two meetings ago, we had this plat before you and they had requested

01:06:36.260 --> 01:06:38.160
 a 30 day extension.

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

01:06:41.940 --> 01:06:46.480
 recommending the plat for approval this evening and I'm happy to stand for any questions.

01:06:46.480 --> 01:06:47.480
 Great.

01:06:47.480 --> 01:06:48.480
 Thank you.

01:06:48.480 --> 01:06:49.480
 Any questions for Haley?

01:06:49.480 --> 01:06:50.480
 All right.

01:06:50.480 --> 01:06:57.680
 Seeing none, we can move on to the next item.

01:06:57.680 --> 01:07:03.120
 That's item 3C, FP20-0026B.

01:07:03.120 --> 01:07:05.640
 This is Karina Maldonado's item.

01:07:05.640 --> 01:07:06.640
 Hello.

01:07:06.640 --> 01:07:11.240
 Can you hear me?

01:07:11.240 --> 01:07:12.240
 We can.

01:07:12.240 --> 01:07:13.240
 All right.

01:07:13.240 --> 01:07:14.240
 Karina Maldonado, Assistant Planner.

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

01:07:23.640 --> 01:07:25.000
 acre site.

01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:32.280
 We recently saw this at the last meeting where they extended, requested for an extension.

01:07:32.280 --> 01:07:39.360
 This plat was requested, requested an extension to address a last minute change to their waterline

01:07:39.360 --> 01:07:40.360
 plan.

01:07:40.360 --> 01:07:47.560
 So staff was previously recommending approval and it's also recommending approval today

01:07:47.560 --> 01:07:49.020
 as they address that item.

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

01:07:55.920 --> 01:08:02.680
 the easements associated with those public waterlines which will now be private, so those

01:08:02.680 --> 01:08:03.680
 have been removed.

01:08:03.680 --> 01:08:06.560
 Does that, I can take any questions?

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?

01:08:13.240 --> 01:08:18.480
 Or maybe I'm confused, but this looks like...

01:08:18.480 --> 01:08:19.840
 You are correct.

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

01:08:23.080 --> 01:08:24.080
 up.

01:08:24.080 --> 01:08:25.080
 This is correct for this item.

01:08:25.080 --> 01:08:26.080
 Okay.

01:08:26.080 --> 01:08:27.080
 Great.

01:08:27.080 --> 01:08:28.080
 Thanks for clarifying.

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.

01:08:31.560 --> 01:08:32.560
 Now I feel better.

01:08:32.560 --> 01:08:33.560
 Commissioner Beck.

01:08:33.560 --> 01:08:39.780
 Yeah, I had the same confusion, Chair, thank you for recognizing me, by the way.

01:08:39.780 --> 01:08:46.360
 Do we need to address the slide for the first item?

01:08:46.360 --> 01:08:54.520
 It feels like we're kind of not dotting our eyes on this one.

01:08:54.520 --> 01:08:57.640
 You're wanting to go back and lay eyes on it?

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

01:09:03.040 --> 01:09:09.840
 is discuss and ask.

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

01:09:15.720 --> 01:09:16.720
 include.

01:09:16.720 --> 01:09:17.720
 Okay.

01:09:17.720 --> 01:09:18.720
 Perfect.

01:09:18.720 --> 01:09:19.720
 Is there any questions for this item?

01:09:19.720 --> 01:09:24.420
 For Karina, we can come back to item 3A to review that slide.

01:09:24.420 --> 01:09:28.340
 I do not see any other questions for Karina.

01:09:28.340 --> 01:09:32.760
 Thank you for joining us, obviously.

01:09:32.760 --> 01:09:36.240
 That moves us to individual items for consideration.

01:09:36.240 --> 01:09:39.680
 Item 4A, PP20-0024.

01:09:39.680 --> 01:09:52.080
 This item is being denied and asking for extension until December 2nd.

01:09:52.080 --> 01:09:53.080
 Any reason?

01:09:53.080 --> 01:09:54.760
 Does anyone would like to see this presented?

01:09:54.760 --> 01:09:58.800
 Typically, on these, we don't have presentation on them.

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.

01:10:10.320 --> 01:10:18.080
 This is Julie Wyatt.

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

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

01:10:29.160 --> 01:10:31.240
 to review the Cambridge Broke Phase 1 edition.

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

01:10:36.640 --> 01:10:37.640
 that is.

01:10:37.640 --> 01:10:40.040
 But hopefully, we can get that slide, nevertheless.

01:10:40.040 --> 01:10:44.640
 Whenever Julie is ready, the floor is yours, Commissioner Beck.

01:10:44.640 --> 01:10:45.640
 Chair, thank you.

01:10:45.640 --> 01:10:48.200
 I don't have any questions about that first item.

01:10:48.200 --> 01:10:52.560
 I was just sort of being procedurally pedantic.

01:10:52.560 --> 01:10:55.960
 So if everyone is fine, I don't need to be procedurally pedantic.

01:10:55.960 --> 01:11:03.080
 I don't have personally any questions about that first 3A with Mr. Laird.

01:11:03.080 --> 01:11:06.480
 Okay, great.

01:11:06.480 --> 01:11:09.720
 All right.

01:11:09.720 --> 01:11:10.720
 Good evening.

01:11:10.720 --> 01:11:30.560
 I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm just about there with getting the presentation up.

01:11:30.560 --> 01:11:43.760
 Here we go.

01:11:43.760 --> 01:11:44.760
 Good evening, commissioners.

01:11:44.760 --> 01:11:53.440
 I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting Z19-0012D, Mockingbird Single Family Residential.

01:11:53.440 --> 01:11:55.680
 The request before you probably looks familiar.

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.

01:12:03.900 --> 01:12:08.440
 The request is to rezone from R2 District to R4 District.

01:12:08.440 --> 01:12:12.920
 There have been a couple or a few previous actions on the site.

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

01:12:21.400 --> 01:12:22.800
 to R4 District.

01:12:22.800 --> 01:12:27.440
 At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.

01:12:27.440 --> 01:12:32.840
 There was a lag between when the applicant wanted to go to city council.

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

01:12:40.680 --> 01:12:44.920
 to be heard in front of you on September 2nd of this year.

01:12:44.920 --> 01:12:48.880
 However, it was postponed to the September 16th meeting.

01:12:48.880 --> 01:12:55.340
 At that time, the applicant requested a condition that single family only would be permitted.

01:12:55.340 --> 01:12:58.560
 At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial.

01:12:58.560 --> 01:13:02.720
 It went to the council in October, October 20th.

01:13:02.720 --> 01:13:07.280
 At that meeting, the applicant requested an additional condition, an amendment to that

01:13:07.280 --> 01:13:11.480
 condition, limiting the number of dwelling units to nine.

01:13:11.480 --> 01:13:14.800
 Because that was new information that the Planning and Zoning Commission had not looked

01:13:14.800 --> 01:13:19.600
 at, council remanded that consideration back to the Planning and Zoning Commission just

01:13:19.600 --> 01:13:22.400
 to look at that amendment to it.

01:13:22.400 --> 01:13:24.440
 And so that's what brings us here today.

01:13:24.440 --> 01:13:27.560
 I wasn't going to go over the whole presentation because you have seen it before.

01:13:27.560 --> 01:13:29.960
 The public hearing has been closed.

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.

01:13:34.600 --> 01:13:37.840
 I have the whole thing and we can go through it.

01:13:37.840 --> 01:13:41.920
 But if not, I just have a couple of additional slides from our previous meeting.

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

01:13:47.680 --> 01:13:51.200
 ahead and get the updates relevant for tonight's consideration.

01:13:51.200 --> 01:13:52.200
 Perfect.

01:13:52.200 --> 01:13:53.200
 Okay.

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.

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

01:14:05.440 --> 01:14:10.760
 is one of those nebulous terms that really is kind of whatever document you're looking

01:14:10.760 --> 01:14:12.400
 at, that's kind of how they define it.

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

01:14:17.320 --> 01:14:20.120
 our comp plan actually treats it differently than our code.

01:14:20.120 --> 01:14:22.460
 So just kind of wanted to talk through that briefly.

01:14:22.460 --> 01:14:24.560
 And then we'll just get to staff recommendation.

01:14:24.560 --> 01:14:30.900
 So then Plan 2030 defines infill development as development and redevelopment of underused

01:14:30.900 --> 01:14:35.820
 buildings and vacant lots in areas served by existing infrastructure, development that

01:14:35.820 --> 01:14:41.460
 channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and conserves open space

01:14:41.460 --> 01:14:44.080
 and agriculture at the periphery of the city.

01:14:44.080 --> 01:14:50.340
 So when you look at that surrounding the area around the subject property and the subject

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

01:14:54.920 --> 01:14:57.240
 recent years.

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.

01:15:04.560 --> 01:15:08.760
 There's a plat that went before you tonight, it was actually requesting to be postponed

01:15:08.760 --> 01:15:10.960
 for this site right here.

01:15:10.960 --> 01:15:17.640
 There's an elderly housing facility that's under development here and then multifamily

01:15:17.640 --> 01:15:18.640
 to the north of the site.

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

01:15:23.480 --> 01:15:28.920
 by those existing roadway connections as well as water and sewer, which are those red and

01:15:28.920 --> 01:15:31.420
 blue lines.

01:15:31.420 --> 01:15:37.040
 And so by staff's analysis, the subject site does meet that definition for infill development.

01:15:37.040 --> 01:15:42.520
 So we looked further to see, well, what is the Denton Plan 2030 say about infill?

01:15:42.520 --> 01:15:45.240
 And there are two really areas I just want to highlight.

01:15:45.240 --> 01:15:49.680
 It states that the city should take every opportunity to ensure that as gaps in the

01:15:49.680 --> 01:15:55.480
 neighborhood fabric occur, infill development should be encouraged, but it should complement

01:15:55.480 --> 01:15:57.940
 the scale and character of each neighborhood.

01:15:57.940 --> 01:16:00.360
 So that's a really important part of that.

01:16:00.360 --> 01:16:05.400
 And then second, that we would identify and remove zoning and other regulatory impediments

01:16:05.400 --> 01:16:09.720
 to compatible infill and redevelopment.

01:16:09.720 --> 01:16:12.980
 And once again, you have that compatible word there.

01:16:12.980 --> 01:16:14.400
 So those were really just the two things.

01:16:14.400 --> 01:16:18.520
 Just wanted to highlight that regarding the comprehensive plan.

01:16:18.520 --> 01:16:22.600
 Even though the public hearing has closed, council did want us to go ahead and notify

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

01:16:27.920 --> 01:16:29.200
 Zoning Commission.

01:16:29.200 --> 01:16:34.160
 Those original opposition letters are still in effect, but we did just go ahead and send

01:16:34.160 --> 01:16:41.040
 out a notice that it would be coming back through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

01:16:41.040 --> 01:16:47.160
 We did receive a couple of them that were just consistent with response letters we had

01:16:47.160 --> 01:16:53.000
 received from property owners, one from this property owner, one from this property owner.

01:16:53.000 --> 01:16:54.760
 We did get a new notification.

01:16:54.760 --> 01:16:56.680
 It wasn't in your backup.

01:16:56.680 --> 01:17:00.960
 It actually the I got it today.

01:17:00.960 --> 01:17:02.000
 It came in the mail.

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

01:17:08.280 --> 01:17:10.540
 in opposition of the request.

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

01:17:16.120 --> 01:17:18.880
 Council to approve the request.

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

01:17:25.080 --> 01:17:30.120
 conditions, and so they're requested overlay conditions are on your screen now.

01:17:30.120 --> 01:17:34.880
 One that the development would be limited to nine single family detached homes only

01:17:34.880 --> 01:17:38.680
 and then to that all other land uses would be prohibited.

01:17:38.680 --> 01:17:43.880
 The applicant will be making a presentation tonight and I will be happy to answer any

01:17:43.880 --> 01:17:44.880
 questions.

01:17:44.880 --> 01:17:55.160
 >> Thank you, chair, just real quick, Julie, from what I remember, there were only ever

01:17:55.160 --> 01:17:59.680
 nine units shown in their neighborhood meeting.

01:17:59.680 --> 01:18:00.880
 So is that what you're saying?

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

01:18:05.360 --> 01:18:06.360
 nine?

01:18:06.360 --> 01:18:07.360
 >> That is correct.

01:18:07.360 --> 01:18:09.720
 >> And then council sent it back here because of that?

01:18:09.720 --> 01:18:10.720
 >> Correct.

01:18:10.720 --> 01:18:11.720
 >> I think that's interesting.

01:18:11.720 --> 01:18:12.720
 Okay.

01:18:12.720 --> 01:18:15.640
 Well, I appreciate you discussing info since we didn't discuss that before.

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,

01:18:20.040 --> 01:18:21.040
 thank you.

01:18:21.040 --> 01:18:22.040
 >> You bet.

01:18:22.040 --> 01:18:23.040
 >> Commissioner Beck.

01:18:23.040 --> 01:18:24.040
 >> Thank you, chair.

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

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

01:18:46.760 --> 01:18:47.760
 it.

01:18:47.760 --> 01:18:50.440
 >> Oh, I think I can get you there.

01:18:50.440 --> 01:18:51.440
 Hang on.

01:18:51.440 --> 01:18:52.440
 Just one second.

01:18:52.440 --> 01:18:53.440
 >> Okay.

01:18:53.440 --> 01:18:54.440
 That's perfect.

01:18:54.440 --> 01:18:58.080
 That will work, actually.

01:18:58.080 --> 01:19:00.520
 I actually don't have a problem with the density.

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

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

01:19:15.320 --> 01:19:25.280
 change this to R4, you're introducing an inconsistency with the surrounding territory, but not the

01:19:25.280 --> 01:19:29.300
 surrounding surrounding territory, the sort of second order territory.

01:19:29.300 --> 01:19:31.180
 I see the point is consistent.

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

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.

01:19:47.000 --> 01:19:49.960
 That's just a chunk of R2 in the middle there.

01:19:49.960 --> 01:19:52.720
 We're going to take the red star and make it R4.

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

01:19:58.160 --> 01:19:59.160
 me.

01:19:59.160 --> 01:20:00.160
 That's fine with me.

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

01:20:04.320 --> 01:20:06.400
 inconsistency, if that makes sense.

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?

01:20:13.600 --> 01:20:18.060
 Well, when we look at consistency, we kind of look at two things.

01:20:18.060 --> 01:20:22.000
 First of all, we look at use, and then we look at development scale.

01:20:22.000 --> 01:20:25.100
 Those are kind of the shorthands we look for for consistency.

01:20:25.100 --> 01:20:31.600
 In this instance, the surrounding lots are consistent in the proposed use and that they're

01:20:31.600 --> 01:20:36.760
 all kind of single-family residential development.

01:20:36.760 --> 01:20:41.600
 So even those larger lot areas do have that single-family residential component.

01:20:41.600 --> 01:20:49.440
 So it's consistent in use, but, yes, I think the question here is the scale.

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

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

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.

01:21:09.940 --> 01:21:14.400
 Their proposed lots are smaller than those lots, so that scale is different.

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.

01:21:19.920 --> 01:21:23.580
 So there is adjacency for that scale just to the south.

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.

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,

01:21:36.540 --> 01:21:40.760
 it isn't inconsistent with the surrounding development because those minimum lot sizes

01:21:40.760 --> 01:21:47.160
 would be similar to what you find in the surrounding area.

01:21:47.160 --> 01:21:52.020
 I don't know if that answers your question.

01:21:52.020 --> 01:21:53.020
 >> I see that.

01:21:53.020 --> 01:21:54.900
 I think that that's sufficient for me.

01:21:54.900 --> 01:21:59.100
 Thank you, Julie, I appreciate it.

01:21:59.100 --> 01:22:03.820
 >> Any other questions for Julie?

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

01:22:08.500 --> 01:22:11.340
 if he has something, he'll just chime up since I can't see his hand.

01:22:11.340 --> 01:22:15.500
 I know he is there listening, his video is having some issues.

01:22:15.500 --> 01:22:18.900
 So just want the record to show that.

01:22:18.900 --> 01:22:19.900
 Okay.

01:22:19.900 --> 01:22:24.760
 With no other questions for Julie, we'll move on to the next item.

01:22:24.760 --> 01:22:31.180
 It is Julie, it's 4C, PP20-0023.

01:22:31.180 --> 01:22:34.820
 This is being recommended for denial, and they're asking an extension.

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.

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

01:22:52.020 --> 01:22:56.600
 with an extension being sought for a date certain of December 16th.

01:22:56.600 --> 01:23:00.660
 Is there any questions for item 4D?

01:23:00.660 --> 01:23:03.580
 Okay.

01:23:03.580 --> 01:23:05.380
 Thank you very much, Julie.

01:23:05.380 --> 01:23:09.240
 That I think ends your agenda items.

01:23:09.240 --> 01:23:15.100
 Next up is item, the public hearing items, we'll start with 5A, Z20-0010.

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.

01:23:23.980 --> 01:23:28.660
 And this item is being heard this evening, Sean Jacobson will be presenting.

01:23:28.660 --> 01:23:55.300
 Sean, whenever you are ready, the floor is yours.

01:23:55.300 --> 01:24:07.940
 You are muted.

01:24:07.940 --> 01:24:10.460
 Can you hear me now?

01:24:10.460 --> 01:24:11.460
 Yes.

01:24:11.460 --> 01:24:14.380
 All right.

01:24:14.380 --> 01:24:17.180
 And can you see my screen?

01:24:17.180 --> 01:24:21.140
 Have you seen your presentation?

01:24:21.140 --> 01:24:23.140
 All right.

01:24:23.140 --> 01:24:28.460
 So good evening Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sean Jacobson, Planning

01:24:28.460 --> 01:24:29.460
 Department.

01:24:29.460 --> 01:24:35.620
 I'm here to present item S20-007, Quincy Court.

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

01:24:41.740 --> 01:24:42.740
 height.

01:24:42.740 --> 01:24:48.740
 This building is proposed for a vacant 1.57 acre lot zoned MN.

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,

01:24:54.060 --> 01:25:00.860
 but heights above 40 feet in between from 41 feet to 65 feet require SUP approval.

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

01:25:04.640 --> 01:25:05.640
 SUP.

01:25:05.640 --> 01:25:12.100
 I just want to give a brief background on the zoning history of this site.

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

01:25:17.580 --> 01:25:22.340
 of two previous zoning districts, NRMU and NRMU-12.

01:25:22.340 --> 01:25:28.300
 The NRMU district permitted 65 feet while NRMU-12 permitted 40 feet.

01:25:28.300 --> 01:25:34.180
 So that the compromise was between 40 and 65 would require an SUP.

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,

01:25:40.140 --> 01:25:42.140
 no SUP required.

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

01:25:47.620 --> 01:25:52.900
 east and lower images looking north so you can see the adjacent neighborhoods there,

01:25:52.900 --> 01:25:58.580
 loop 288 to the north and then Stewart Road along the west side of the property.

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

01:26:03.780 --> 01:26:09.420
 use district standards require a minimum ground floor height of 12 feet.

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

01:26:15.460 --> 01:26:19.700
 have to provide that which leaves a limited amount of space between that 12 foot ground

01:26:19.700 --> 01:26:26.140
 floor height and the 40 foot maximum without the SUP.

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

01:26:32.180 --> 01:26:37.380
 nine foot heights for all upper store units and would allow the ground floor entrances

01:26:37.380 --> 01:26:40.820
 for the proposed multifamily to be at grade.

01:26:40.820 --> 01:26:46.060
 Without the SUP, the applicant had proposed an alternative method of staying under that

01:26:46.060 --> 01:26:51.060
 40 foot height, which was approvable by staff, they would have constructed the building below

01:26:51.060 --> 01:26:55.140
 grade, you would have steps leading down to ground floor entrances, upper floors would

01:26:55.140 --> 01:26:58.140
 have been less than nine feet in height.

01:26:58.140 --> 01:27:02.900
 This would have been approvable under the DDC, but it was considered a less optimal design.

01:27:02.900 --> 01:27:07.820
 You'd escape the pedestrian experience walking by, you have sunken entrances, the overall

01:27:07.820 --> 01:27:13.660
 facade aesthetics, it was a less optimal design and therefore the applicant pursued this request.

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

01:27:19.020 --> 01:27:24.780
 the requested height under this SUP.

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

01:27:30.300 --> 01:27:37.200
 limit for the habitable structure without an SUP and then the dark green line shows

01:27:37.200 --> 01:27:42.180
 the height that's being requested.

01:27:42.180 --> 01:27:45.820
 And then just seeing that from the front, again, you can see that increase, the six

01:27:45.820 --> 01:27:49.260
 feet from what's permitted without the SUP and what's being requested.

01:27:49.260 --> 01:27:54.580
 The applicant actually only requested a height of 45 feet, three inches, staff felt it made

01:27:54.580 --> 01:27:56.540
 sense to round it up to 46.

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

01:28:00.180 --> 01:28:02.800
 increase.

01:28:02.800 --> 01:28:08.780
 So the question before you is whether the 46 foot height building meets our criteria

01:28:08.780 --> 01:28:09.860
 for approval.

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

01:28:14.360 --> 01:28:15.360
 for an SUP.

01:28:15.360 --> 01:28:18.980
 We'll hit on kind of the key questions within that.

01:28:18.980 --> 01:28:22.980
 First off, as usual is our future land use map.

01:28:22.980 --> 01:28:25.820
 This property is primarily neighborhood mixed use.

01:28:25.820 --> 01:28:31.240
 It's designed to promote a mix of compatible housing types and densities along with local

01:28:31.240 --> 01:28:36.520
 serving non-residential uses, moderate to high density residential uses are permitted.

01:28:36.520 --> 01:28:40.620
 But new higher density housing should be sensitive and scale informed to the surrounding built

01:28:40.620 --> 01:28:43.100
 and natural context.

01:28:43.100 --> 01:28:48.300
 The mixed, the multifamily use is consistent with the future land use map, but more importantly,

01:28:48.300 --> 01:28:52.780
 the height increase requested is consistent with the number of stories recommended for

01:28:52.780 --> 01:28:58.060
 neighborhood mixed use areas in the Denton Plan 2030 development criteria.

01:28:58.060 --> 01:29:03.380
 In addition, the design elements that allowing the taller building will permit that pedestrian

01:29:03.380 --> 01:29:07.300
 friendly first floor height, ground floor entrances, they're at grade.

01:29:07.300 --> 01:29:11.740
 It's more consistent with the Denton Plan 2030 design principles and it's more compatible

01:29:11.740 --> 01:29:15.260
 with the surrounding neighborhoods where your average house that's going to have an entrance

01:29:15.260 --> 01:29:21.100
 at grade similar to what would be permissible if the height increase is permitted.

01:29:21.100 --> 01:29:24.220
 We also need to look at compatibility with the surrounding area.

01:29:24.220 --> 01:29:30.540
 This is located on two corridors, Loop 288 corridor, where multi-story buildings at intersections

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

01:29:35.780 --> 01:29:36.780
 for it.

01:29:36.780 --> 01:29:40.060
 It's also on the Stewart Road corridor, where we have a development pattern that generally

01:29:40.060 --> 01:29:45.260
 flows from multi-story, multifamily buildings at major intersections and low to moderate

01:29:45.260 --> 01:29:48.300
 single family residential in between, and this would be consistent.

01:29:48.300 --> 01:29:52.660
 It's located, would be a taller multi-story building at an intersection consistent with

01:29:52.660 --> 01:29:53.660
 those patterns.

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

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.

01:30:06.740 --> 01:30:12.460
 Also want to explain a little more detail, the height in comparison with the surrounding

01:30:12.460 --> 01:30:19.580
 R6 zone neighborhoods to the south and to the east, so the maximum building height in

01:30:19.580 --> 01:30:21.780
 an R6 neighborhood is 40 feet.

01:30:21.780 --> 01:30:27.780
 However, we measure the height of any pitched roof or angled roof at the halfway point,

01:30:27.780 --> 01:30:32.500
 not at the very top, and so therefore a house in the adjacent neighborhood could actually

01:30:32.500 --> 01:30:37.100
 exceed 40 feet by right and could potentially even exceed 46 feet in height.

01:30:37.100 --> 01:30:40.780
 So there's a limited difference between the actual permitted height in the surrounding

01:30:40.780 --> 01:30:43.300
 neighborhoods and what's requested on this site.

01:30:43.300 --> 01:30:48.700
 Again, as we discussed, that increased height allows at great entrances, the more pedestrian

01:30:48.700 --> 01:30:53.180
 friendly design that's actually more consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and the

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

01:30:58.660 --> 01:31:00.660
 overall in the area.

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

01:31:05.720 --> 01:31:09.820
 and the first and most important is actually what the DDC has already built in section

01:31:09.820 --> 01:31:14.860
 710-6, what we call building height and transition areas.

01:31:14.860 --> 01:31:19.820
 Essentially that says that within 50 feet of a residential zone property, including

01:31:19.820 --> 01:31:26.460
 R6, a building has to match the height in the maximum height in that additional, it

01:31:26.460 --> 01:31:30.160
 can't exceed the maximum height in that adjacent residential area.

01:31:30.160 --> 01:31:36.960
 From 50 to 100 feet, it can't exceed that maximum height in the adjacent residential

01:31:36.960 --> 01:31:39.900
 plus 15 feet and you can't request an SCP.

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

01:31:45.500 --> 01:31:50.100
 residential district, or as in this case, request an SCP for a higher height, you have

01:31:50.100 --> 01:31:55.860
 to be at least 100 feet from an adjacent residentially zoned district.

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

01:32:01.560 --> 01:32:07.800
 from the neighborhoods on the south and over 150 feet from the adjacent neighborhoods on

01:32:07.800 --> 01:32:09.240
 the east.

01:32:09.240 --> 01:32:14.480
 So you could note that even without the SCP requirements, these transition area standards

01:32:14.480 --> 01:32:20.660
 are already built in to limit building height in close proximity to residential districts.

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

01:32:25.940 --> 01:32:32.320
 zoned property and that protection was built in already.

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

01:32:36.180 --> 01:32:45.100
 impacts, they're actually providing over 15% more in landscape area percentage, 9% more

01:32:45.100 --> 01:32:50.940
 in required tree canopy percentage on a site that has currently no trees that we would

01:32:50.940 --> 01:32:53.740
 consider needing to be preserved.

01:32:53.740 --> 01:32:58.260
 Buffer width is 20 feet versus minimum requirement of zero.

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

01:33:04.260 --> 01:33:08.220
 be required.

01:33:08.220 --> 01:33:11.900
 Other impacts to consider, lighting and glare.

01:33:11.900 --> 01:33:15.500
 You do have to under the DDC demonstrate a building permit, you're complying with all

01:33:15.500 --> 01:33:16.500
 of the standards.

01:33:16.500 --> 01:33:20.700
 So light spillover limits are set at all property lines, those need to be checked.

01:33:20.700 --> 01:33:24.700
 And all fixtures have to be downward directed or full cutoff shielded, so regardless of

01:33:24.700 --> 01:33:28.620
 the height, you have to meet those limitations on spillover.

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,

01:33:35.100 --> 01:33:41.340
 but it is important to note that required parking is provided, meets all of our requirements.

01:33:41.340 --> 01:33:46.140
 Touching briefly on infrastructure, again, not expected to vary significantly with this

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

01:33:51.980 --> 01:33:56.020
 of arterial and a collector, and they will actually be adding curb gutter new pavement

01:33:56.020 --> 01:34:02.620
 to Stewart Road there, sidewalks on the north and along that west side there along Stewart.

01:34:02.620 --> 01:34:05.060
 Water and wastewater service is available.

01:34:05.060 --> 01:34:08.860
 And I specifically checked in with fire, they confirmed that height of 46 feet would not

01:34:08.860 --> 01:34:11.860
 hinder their ability to provide fire service to this development.

01:34:11.860 --> 01:34:17.540
 We also, of course, look at our feedback and notify the neighborhood.

01:34:17.540 --> 01:34:18.880
 All standard notices were sent.

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

01:34:23.820 --> 01:34:24.820
 that we received.

01:34:24.820 --> 01:34:28.100
 The applicant actually held two neighborhood meetings.

01:34:28.100 --> 01:34:32.260
 One was not attended, and so they scheduled another, which had two attendees, I was able

01:34:32.260 --> 01:34:34.240
 to sit in on that.

01:34:34.240 --> 01:34:40.700
 The neighbors had some concerns about the safety of the intersection, the what how the

01:34:40.700 --> 01:34:44.100
 proposed apartments would be priced and how it affect their property values, and after

01:34:44.100 --> 01:34:46.180
 the discussion, they appear to be satisfied.

01:34:46.180 --> 01:34:50.100
 And when specifically asked about the actual height increase, they had no objections to

01:34:50.100 --> 01:34:51.100
 it.

01:34:51.100 --> 01:34:57.780
 So taking that all into consideration, staff is recommending approval of the SCP with conditions,

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

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

01:35:10.580 --> 01:35:12.780
 with the DDC.

01:35:12.780 --> 01:35:18.660
 City reserves the right to require approval of ordinance by ordinance.

01:35:18.660 --> 01:35:23.540
 And then the attached site plan landscape plan are incorporated as requirements to the

01:35:23.540 --> 01:35:24.540
 SCP.

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

01:35:31.300 --> 01:35:32.980
 have changed number of buildings.

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

01:35:36.620 --> 01:35:42.300
 DDC, but staff could approve that as well as small changes in building coverage, but

01:35:42.300 --> 01:35:47.020
 not in building height, of course, and then just that the zoning map needs to reflect

01:35:47.020 --> 01:35:49.180
 the specific use permit would be here.

01:35:49.180 --> 01:35:52.780
 So with that, I'll take any questions you have.

01:35:52.780 --> 01:35:58.140
 Sean, thank you for the great presentation.

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.

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

01:36:08.740 --> 01:36:09.740
 that.

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.

01:36:20.060 --> 01:36:37.100
 And that slide here.

01:36:37.100 --> 01:36:44.540
 All right, all right.

01:36:44.540 --> 01:36:45.540
 This is perfect.

01:36:45.540 --> 01:36:46.540
 I apologize for my confusion.

01:36:46.540 --> 01:36:48.260
 This might be simple.

01:36:48.260 --> 01:36:50.300
 It was zoned NRMU.

01:36:50.300 --> 01:36:51.300
 Is that correct?

01:36:51.300 --> 01:36:52.300
 Yes, sir.

01:36:52.300 --> 01:36:55.380
 And it got rezoned from the citywide rezoning to MN?

01:36:55.380 --> 01:36:56.380
 Yes.

01:36:56.380 --> 01:37:01.140
 Okay, so I'm looking at the development codebook here.

01:37:01.140 --> 01:37:04.740
 And MN has a building height of 65 feet.

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

01:37:12.780 --> 01:37:15.660
 of civic standards permit in MN districts.

01:37:15.660 --> 01:37:16.660
 Why?

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

01:37:26.260 --> 01:37:27.260
 for that height.

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.

01:37:33.980 --> 01:37:34.980
 Great.

01:37:34.980 --> 01:37:35.980
 That makes sense.

01:37:35.980 --> 01:37:40.660
 And for clarification, the old NRMU provided 65 feet by right?

01:37:40.660 --> 01:37:42.100
 Yes, sir.

01:37:42.100 --> 01:37:46.780
 So before the city changed their property, they had 65 feet by right?

01:37:46.780 --> 01:37:48.380
 Am I understanding correctly?

01:37:48.380 --> 01:37:53.060
 If they would have built this project two years ago, they wouldn't have needed this

01:37:53.060 --> 01:37:54.060
 same SUP?

01:37:54.060 --> 01:37:56.280
 My understanding is that is correct.

01:37:56.280 --> 01:38:00.580
 They would have had to meet adjacency standards similar to what we have built.

01:38:00.580 --> 01:38:03.940
 And now we have an improved version as we discussed.

01:38:03.940 --> 01:38:09.020
 So it would have still had to take into consideration proximity to the surrounding neighborhoods.

01:38:09.020 --> 01:38:11.380
 But yes, that is my understanding.

01:38:11.380 --> 01:38:12.380
 Okay.

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,

01:38:16.380 --> 01:38:17.500
 but it is an angled roof.

01:38:17.500 --> 01:38:21.340
 So they're getting that halfway measurement.

01:38:21.340 --> 01:38:22.880
 Sorry for the confusion on that.

01:38:22.880 --> 01:38:27.860
 This is a flat roofed building.

01:38:27.860 --> 01:38:35.340
 So it is it's being measured at the highest height of the habitable structure.

01:38:35.340 --> 01:38:40.820
 So that would be at 46 feet if this SUP was approved.

01:38:40.820 --> 01:38:41.820
 Okay.

01:38:41.820 --> 01:38:43.180
 Sean, I knew you could clarify it.

01:38:43.180 --> 01:38:44.500
 I appreciate it.

01:38:44.500 --> 01:38:47.620
 Any other questions for Sean on this item?

01:38:47.620 --> 01:38:48.620
 Sure.

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

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

01:38:57.700 --> 01:38:58.700
 requirements.

01:38:58.700 --> 01:39:01.220
 I think it's footnote two, where it talks about that height.

01:39:01.220 --> 01:39:05.640
 So just wanted to clarify in case someone was wondering where that is in the code.

01:39:05.640 --> 01:39:07.420
 So it is within SUP chapter three.

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

01:39:11.740 --> 01:39:14.820
 on on that.

01:39:14.820 --> 01:39:17.740
 Thank you for that clarification, Richard.

01:39:17.740 --> 01:39:22.020
 Is there any other questions for this item?

01:39:22.020 --> 01:39:25.380
 Okay, great, Sean.

01:39:25.380 --> 01:39:26.380
 Thank you.

01:39:26.380 --> 01:39:30.340
 We'll see a little bit in the regular work meeting.

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.

01:39:35.740 --> 01:39:38.100
 Would it be your recommendation?

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

01:39:43.540 --> 01:39:45.320
 until next meeting.

01:39:45.320 --> 01:39:46.320
 That would be mine.

01:39:46.320 --> 01:39:50.880
 I think that way we can have a better, longer, more robust conversation.

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

01:39:57.460 --> 01:40:01.940
 procedure items, I think it probably would be beneficial to have that as one block of

01:40:01.940 --> 01:40:02.940
 a discussion.

01:40:02.940 --> 01:40:04.700
 At least that would be my recommendation.

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

01:40:10.820 --> 01:40:17.020
 maps and I don't anticipate that being as long as Brian's presentation was today.

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.

01:40:22.740 --> 01:40:23.740
 Great.

01:40:23.740 --> 01:40:30.160
 I fully support giving us the breathing room to have a dialogue around that 3167.

01:40:30.160 --> 01:40:34.980
 So with that, I will close the work session at 611.

01:40:34.980 --> 01:40:39.540
 We will be back here at 630 promptly to do the regular meeting.

01:40:39.540 --> 01:40:40.540
 Thank you.

01:40:40.540 --> 01:40:49.060
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular

01:40:49.060 --> 01:40:53.060
 meeting for Wednesday, November 18th, 2020.

01:40:53.060 --> 01:40:57.620
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 631.

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

01:41:02.340 --> 01:41:03.340
 flag.

01:41:03.340 --> 01:41:13.220
 Commissioners, if you want to join along with me, you can certainly unmute yourself.

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

01:41:19.780 --> 01:41:29.740
 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:41:29.740 --> 01:41:31.340
 Honor the Texas flag.

01:41:31.340 --> 01:41:40.220
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.

01:41:40.220 --> 01:41:41.220
 Thank you.

01:41:41.220 --> 01:41:45.020
 The next item of business is item two, the consideration of the minutes from November

01:41:45.020 --> 01:41:46.020
 4th.

01:41:46.020 --> 01:41:47.020
 Commissioner Smith.

01:41:47.020 --> 01:41:48.020
 Make a motion to approve.

01:41:48.020 --> 01:41:50.060
 Commissioner Beck.

01:41:50.060 --> 01:41:51.060
 Second.

01:41:51.060 --> 01:41:52.900
 We have a first and a second.

01:41:52.900 --> 01:41:53.900
 Any discussion?

01:41:53.900 --> 01:41:56.540
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:41:56.540 --> 01:41:57.540
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:41:57.540 --> 01:41:58.540
 Aye.

01:41:58.540 --> 01:41:59.540
 Commissioner Beck.

01:41:59.540 --> 01:42:00.540
 Aye.

01:42:00.540 --> 01:42:01.540
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:42:01.540 --> 01:42:02.540
 Aye.

01:42:02.540 --> 01:42:03.540
 Commissioner Smith.

01:42:03.540 --> 01:42:04.540
 Aye.

01:42:04.540 --> 01:42:05.540
 Commissioner Cole.

01:42:05.540 --> 01:42:06.540
 Aye.

01:42:06.540 --> 01:42:07.540
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:42:07.540 --> 01:42:08.540
 Aye.

01:42:08.540 --> 01:42:10.140
 Chair is also an aye.

01:42:10.140 --> 01:42:11.140
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:42:11.140 --> 01:42:18.080
 The next item for consideration is our consent agenda, Commissioner Beck.

01:42:18.080 --> 01:42:21.180
 I motion to approve.

01:42:21.180 --> 01:42:22.180
 We have a first.

01:42:22.180 --> 01:42:23.180
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:42:23.180 --> 01:42:24.180
 Second.

01:42:24.180 --> 01:42:27.860
 We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda.

01:42:27.860 --> 01:42:28.860
 Any discussion?

01:42:28.860 --> 01:42:33.080
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:42:33.080 --> 01:42:34.080
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:42:34.080 --> 01:42:35.080
 Aye.

01:42:35.080 --> 01:42:36.080
 Commissioner Beck.

01:42:36.080 --> 01:42:37.080
 Aye.

01:42:37.080 --> 01:42:38.080
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:42:38.080 --> 01:42:39.080
 Aye.

01:42:39.080 --> 01:42:40.080
 Commissioner Smith.

01:42:40.080 --> 01:42:41.080
 Aye.

01:42:41.080 --> 01:42:42.080
 Commissioner Cole.

01:42:42.080 --> 01:42:43.080
 Aye.

01:42:43.080 --> 01:42:44.080
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:42:44.080 --> 01:42:45.080
 Aye.

01:42:45.080 --> 01:42:49.020
 Chair is also an aye.

01:42:49.020 --> 01:42:50.900
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:42:50.900 --> 01:42:57.500
 Next item for business is item 4A, PP20-0024.

01:42:57.500 --> 01:43:02.900
 This item is being recommended a denial from staff, however, the applicant is requesting

01:43:02.900 --> 01:43:08.060
 an extension of the 30 days to a date certain of December 2nd.

01:43:08.060 --> 01:43:09.060
 Commissioner Smith.

01:43:09.060 --> 01:43:13.900
 We have a motion to approve the extension to date certain of December 2nd.

01:43:13.900 --> 01:43:14.900
 Thank you.

01:43:14.900 --> 01:43:15.900
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:43:15.900 --> 01:43:17.900
 I second the motion.

01:43:17.900 --> 01:43:23.720
 We have a first and a second for an extension to date certain of December 2nd.

01:43:23.720 --> 01:43:24.720
 Any discussion?

01:43:24.720 --> 01:43:28.820
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:43:28.820 --> 01:43:29.820
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:43:29.820 --> 01:43:30.820
 Aye.

01:43:30.820 --> 01:43:31.820
 Commissioner Beck.

01:43:31.820 --> 01:43:32.820
 Aye.

01:43:32.820 --> 01:43:33.820
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:43:33.820 --> 01:43:34.820
 Aye.

01:43:34.820 --> 01:43:35.820
 Commissioner Smith.

01:43:35.820 --> 01:43:36.820
 Aye.

01:43:36.820 --> 01:43:37.820
 Commissioner Cole.

01:43:37.820 --> 01:43:38.820
 Aye.

01:43:38.820 --> 01:43:39.820
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:43:39.820 --> 01:43:40.820
 Aye.

01:43:40.820 --> 01:43:42.700
 Chair is also an aye.

01:43:42.700 --> 01:43:44.980
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:43:44.980 --> 01:43:51.020
 The next item of business is item 4B, Z-19-0012D.

01:43:51.020 --> 01:43:52.940
 This item will be presented by Julie Wyatt.

01:43:52.940 --> 01:43:55.940
 Julie, whenever you're ready, you have the floor.

01:43:55.940 --> 01:44:04.380
 All right, let me pull up my presentation and we will go through it.

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

01:44:11.580 --> 01:44:14.020
 Single-Family Residential.

01:44:14.020 --> 01:44:17.180
 So the request before you, you have seen it before.

01:44:17.180 --> 01:44:20.300
 It's 2.61 acres.

01:44:20.300 --> 01:44:23.980
 The request is to rezone from R2 to R4 district.

01:44:23.980 --> 01:44:26.900
 There have been previous actions on this application.

01:44:26.900 --> 01:44:34.660
 One, this time last year, where they were proposing the rezoning, they, P&Z recommended

01:44:34.660 --> 01:44:35.660
 approval of that.

01:44:35.660 --> 01:44:38.220
 However, there were delays in going to city council.

01:44:38.220 --> 01:44:43.540
 So it was re-noticed and sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

01:44:43.540 --> 01:44:47.580
 Planning Zoning Commission heard it on September 16th of this year and recommended denial.

01:44:47.580 --> 01:44:53.500
 At that meeting, the applicant did propose a condition to limit the uses to single-family

01:44:53.500 --> 01:44:55.420
 only.

01:44:55.420 --> 01:44:59.060
 And the item went to city council on October 20th.

01:44:59.060 --> 01:45:05.300
 And one clarification from the work session, so the applicant did propose a new condition.

01:45:05.300 --> 01:45:11.740
 Council was concerned because that additional condition was requested at the meeting.

01:45:11.740 --> 01:45:16.180
 So it wasn't something that planning staff had had a chance to look at yet.

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

01:45:20.540 --> 01:45:26.540
 and Zoning Commission, the council voted to remand this item back to the Planning and

01:45:26.540 --> 01:45:34.860
 Zoning Commission for that full vetting of the additional condition at that time.

01:45:34.860 --> 01:45:39.620
 I won't go over the full presentation unless you want me to.

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

01:45:46.740 --> 01:45:51.340
 for two slides that I just wanted to highlight.

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.

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

01:46:03.180 --> 01:46:07.340
 and skip to the updated features of tonight since we've heard it prior.

01:46:07.340 --> 01:46:08.340
 Great.

01:46:08.340 --> 01:46:09.340
 Okay.

01:46:09.340 --> 01:46:10.340
 So I'll be brief on it.

01:46:10.340 --> 01:46:15.380
 Part of what staff analyzed with this request was whether it was in-fill development or

01:46:15.380 --> 01:46:16.380
 not.

01:46:16.380 --> 01:46:21.700
 The In-Fill Development Plan 2030 does encourage in-fill development, but in-fill development

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.

01:46:25.580 --> 01:46:27.500
 There are changes that you could look at with that.

01:46:27.500 --> 01:46:32.460
 And in fact, in our own City of Denton documents, the Denton Development Code really defines

01:46:32.460 --> 01:46:35.300
 it differently than the Comprehensive Plan.

01:46:35.300 --> 01:46:39.660
 So I just kind of wanted to highlight how the Comp Plan defines in-fill development.

01:46:39.660 --> 01:46:44.340
 And they define it as development or redevelopment of underused buildings and vacant lots and

01:46:44.340 --> 01:46:47.500
 areas served by existing infrastructure.

01:46:47.500 --> 01:46:52.700
 And development that channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and

01:46:52.700 --> 01:46:56.100
 conserves open space and agriculture at the periphery of the city.

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

01:47:01.380 --> 01:47:04.620
 development has impacted the surrounding area.

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.

01:47:11.820 --> 01:47:18.100
 There's a plat that is currently under review for this property, multifamily to the north.

01:47:18.100 --> 01:47:24.460
 So as this area has developed, in-fill has come in and impacted the surrounding area.

01:47:24.460 --> 01:47:27.820
 And you can see it is served by existing water and sewer.

01:47:27.820 --> 01:47:32.020
 Those red and blue lines are the existing water and sewer, and that kind of follows

01:47:32.020 --> 01:47:34.580
 the street network that's in place.

01:47:34.580 --> 01:47:40.340
 So the subject site is consistent with that definition of in-fill development as the Comprehensive

01:47:40.340 --> 01:47:41.820
 Plan defines it.

01:47:41.820 --> 01:47:48.060
 And the Comp Plan supports compatible in-fill development with two policies and actions.

01:47:48.060 --> 01:47:53.100
 One, that the city should take every opportunity to ensure that gaps in neighborhood and fabric,

01:47:53.100 --> 01:48:00.260
 when they occur, that the in-fill -- that as gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur,

01:48:00.260 --> 01:48:04.920
 in-fill development would be encouraged, but it must complement the scale and character

01:48:04.920 --> 01:48:06.820
 of the surrounding neighborhoods.

01:48:06.820 --> 01:48:12.100
 And then also the city should identify and remove zoning and other regulatory impediments

01:48:12.100 --> 01:48:17.180
 to compatible in-fill and redevelopment.

01:48:17.180 --> 01:48:21.420
 The next couple of slides I just want to touch on was the public outreach.

01:48:21.420 --> 01:48:24.280
 There was public notification for those public hearings.

01:48:24.280 --> 01:48:29.440
 As I said, those have closed, but council, with the remanding back to the Planning and

01:48:29.440 --> 01:48:33.820
 Zoning Commission, did request that staff send out a public notification to property

01:48:33.820 --> 01:48:35.940
 owners within 200 feet.

01:48:35.940 --> 01:48:41.020
 And then those responses that we received for that public hearing are still in place.

01:48:41.020 --> 01:48:44.580
 So we did get one additional from what you see on this map.

01:48:44.580 --> 01:48:46.580
 It came in today by mail.

01:48:46.580 --> 01:48:48.220
 And it is this property right here.

01:48:48.220 --> 01:48:54.620
 They did provide an opposition letter to the city.

01:48:54.620 --> 01:48:58.900
 The opposition percentage surrounding the subject site is 34%.

01:48:58.900 --> 01:49:03.900
 So this will trigger a supermajority at City Council for approval, which is six out of

01:49:03.900 --> 01:49:06.740
 seven votes.

01:49:06.740 --> 01:49:08.780
 So staff recommends approval of the request.

01:49:08.780 --> 01:49:15.260
 And here's where that modification to the overlay conditions comes in.

01:49:15.260 --> 01:49:21.100
 Staff has looked at the applicant's request for those overlay conditions and has no objection

01:49:21.100 --> 01:49:22.460
 to them.

01:49:22.460 --> 01:49:26.460
 And those are that the development would be limited to nine single-family detached homes

01:49:26.460 --> 01:49:29.700
 only and all other land uses would be prohibited.

01:49:29.700 --> 01:49:31.700
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:49:31.700 --> 01:49:37.460
 And I believe the applicant is on the phone to also share a presentation with you.

01:49:37.460 --> 01:49:38.460
 >> Great.

01:49:38.460 --> 01:49:39.720
 Thanks, Julie.

01:49:39.720 --> 01:49:42.660
 Any questions for Julie at this time?

01:49:42.660 --> 01:49:44.700
 Commissioner Pernetta.

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

01:49:52.500 --> 01:49:59.060
 this specific one in the backup, where you're describing infill.

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

01:50:07.580 --> 01:50:12.420
 take every time -- the gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur in infill development.

01:50:12.420 --> 01:50:13.420
 Okay.

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

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

01:50:23.940 --> 01:50:24.940
 economic development.

01:50:24.940 --> 01:50:29.140
 I didn't see where this was economic development.

01:50:29.140 --> 01:50:35.540
 I just wanted to kind of double-check on the wording on this one real quick.

01:50:35.540 --> 01:50:36.540
 Thank you.

01:50:36.540 --> 01:50:37.540
 That's all I needed to do.

01:50:37.540 --> 01:50:38.540
 >> Sure.

01:50:38.540 --> 01:50:47.300
 >> Well, with that, Julie, I would say if the applicant has a presentation to provide,

01:50:47.300 --> 01:50:50.060
 let's go ahead and queue that up.

01:50:50.060 --> 01:50:55.340
 >> Do we have any commissioners?

01:50:55.340 --> 01:50:56.340
 >> Go ahead.

01:50:56.340 --> 01:50:59.900
 >> This is Amy Bissett with 97 Land Company.

01:50:59.900 --> 01:51:02.860
 I'm going to make -- or start the applicant presentation.

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.

01:51:07.420 --> 01:51:08.420
 >> Nope.

01:51:08.420 --> 01:51:11.180
 I was just making sure you were there.

01:51:11.180 --> 01:51:12.740
 >> I am here.

01:51:12.740 --> 01:51:17.900
 My address is 100 West Oak Street, Denton, 76201.

01:51:17.900 --> 01:51:19.940
 Thank you, Julie, for pulling up the presentation.

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

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

01:51:35.620 --> 01:51:39.980
 the applicant as well that you're hearing this for the third time.

01:51:39.980 --> 01:51:46.620
 But we did present some information to the City Council in their meeting in October.

01:51:46.620 --> 01:51:52.300
 That was new information that was born out of the conversation that we heard in your

01:51:52.300 --> 01:51:53.740
 vote in September.

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

01:51:57.540 --> 01:51:59.540
 this discussion.

01:51:59.540 --> 01:52:03.820
 Next slide, Julie.

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

01:52:09.540 --> 01:52:15.260
 conditions that are consistent with what our plan has been all along, which is to have

01:52:15.260 --> 01:52:18.220
 nine single-family detached homes.

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,

01:52:24.820 --> 01:52:30.460
 and under the proposed zoning, we are requesting the ability to develop nine lots.

01:52:30.460 --> 01:52:32.300
 Next slide, please.

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

01:52:39.060 --> 01:52:44.620
 how the project has evolved from our side in terms of neighborhood engagement and our

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

01:52:52.400 --> 01:52:54.860
 with the fabric of the neighborhood.

01:52:54.860 --> 01:53:01.660
 So a year ago this month, as you all know, you did hear this request.

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

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,

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

01:53:23.020 --> 01:53:31.180
 in dissent that the R4 zoning would allow for townhomes and duplexes with an SUP, and

01:53:31.180 --> 01:53:37.700
 that the straight R4 zoning could theoretically exceed the gross density of the definition

01:53:37.700 --> 01:53:44.460
 of a low residential district, which is what is called out as the designation for this

01:53:44.460 --> 01:53:47.620
 area in the future land use plan.

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

01:53:56.340 --> 01:54:00.360
 I think there was some reticence at the time to introduce overlay conditions under the

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

01:54:07.660 --> 01:54:12.980
 we had with the neighborhood, the property owner was reluctant to take it to city council

01:54:12.980 --> 01:54:20.500
 with the requirement of a supermajority vote, and so took some time to rethink that and

01:54:20.500 --> 01:54:25.460
 then reintroduced the idea of going forward with it.

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

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

01:54:37.520 --> 01:54:38.980
 meeting.

01:54:38.980 --> 01:54:47.380
 We had five neighbors attend at that point in time, and the main voice of opposition

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

01:54:53.900 --> 01:54:58.220
 not have any overlay conditions, that we could come back and propose something different

01:54:58.220 --> 01:55:04.180
 than what we show here, specifically something that would allow for some commercial or town

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

01:55:09.660 --> 01:55:17.340
 and some precedent set for allowing overlay conditions in building cases, we came back

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

01:55:23.380 --> 01:55:31.700
 overlay condition to limit it to single-family homes, and to be perfectly honest with you,

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

01:55:38.620 --> 01:55:44.340
 in on an assumption that your position would be generally the same and maybe slightly more

01:55:44.340 --> 01:55:49.300
 favorable because we were eliminating one of the concerns that were expressed at the

01:55:49.300 --> 01:55:50.300
 time.

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

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

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

01:56:07.700 --> 01:56:17.660
 project and that R2, leaving it as R2 zoning, would be economically viable.

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

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

01:56:31.100 --> 01:56:36.460
 bit more about infill development beyond what Julie presented in her staff presentation.

01:56:36.460 --> 01:56:43.500
 So when we went to council in October, we did have additional economic and market information

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

01:56:50.900 --> 01:56:55.780
 in time they remanded it back to you.

01:56:55.780 --> 01:56:59.080
 We did engage the neighborhood another time.

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

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

01:57:08.900 --> 01:57:13.580
 invited to a neighborhood meeting, we mailed a letter where we explained exactly what we

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

01:57:18.360 --> 01:57:26.100
 and we invited those neighbors to a meeting, a virtual meeting, or to call me personally

01:57:26.100 --> 01:57:28.680
 to ask questions or express concerns.

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

01:57:35.740 --> 01:57:39.780
 them and hear from them about overcoming their opposition.

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

01:57:46.220 --> 01:57:52.940
 that there would be no other uses other than single family, that the majority property

01:57:52.940 --> 01:57:58.300
 owner that is in opposition would remove that opposition and would support the project.

01:57:58.300 --> 01:58:02.900
 That's why we came back in September with the original request for the overlay condition

01:58:02.900 --> 01:58:09.420
 because we felt like we were accommodating what the neighbors were asking us to do.

01:58:09.420 --> 01:58:11.340
 Next slide, Julie.

01:58:11.340 --> 01:58:15.820
 This is the exact same slide you saw over a year ago.

01:58:15.820 --> 01:58:21.100
 Our intent has always been to subdivide into nine lots with private street and no connectivity

01:58:21.100 --> 01:58:27.660
 to adjacent neighborhoods with an HOA maintained detention, pond, street, and common areas.

01:58:27.660 --> 01:58:30.940
 At the time, it was one neighborhood meeting.

01:58:30.940 --> 01:58:36.300
 We're now at three, I believe, maybe four, and we had presented two concept plans.

01:58:36.300 --> 01:58:38.620
 Next slide, please.

01:58:38.620 --> 01:58:40.620
 The neighborhood gave us their preference.

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

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

01:58:52.660 --> 01:58:54.100
 it minimizes traffic.

01:58:54.100 --> 01:59:00.580
 It also provides a buffer to the lower density single family neighbors to the north, both

01:59:00.580 --> 01:59:03.380
 the detention pond and the street do.

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

01:59:10.500 --> 01:59:16.540
 of the project, and the lot dimensions gave us an opportunity to preserve existing trees

01:59:16.540 --> 01:59:20.780
 on the fence line that would provide privacy to them.

01:59:20.780 --> 01:59:24.100
 Next slide, please.

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

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

01:59:34.820 --> 01:59:40.740
 McKinney, you see that the majority of the properties within this quadrant of the city

01:59:40.740 --> 01:59:47.860
 are zoned R4, and the R property is the star on the upper right-hand side.

01:59:47.860 --> 01:59:50.460
 Next slide, please.

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,

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

02:00:02.300 --> 02:00:04.100
 the urban core of Denton.

02:00:04.100 --> 02:00:07.860
 Next slide, please.

02:00:07.860 --> 02:00:14.420
 While in the future land use plan, this is a low residential designated area.

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

02:00:20.540 --> 02:00:26.540
 properties currently zoned that and developed as R4 in that quadrant.

02:00:26.540 --> 02:00:29.260
 Next slide, please.

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

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

02:00:43.700 --> 02:00:44.700
 subdivisions.

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

02:00:51.740 --> 02:00:59.660
 the definition or the intent of low residential development, and by asking for the density

02:00:59.660 --> 02:01:04.740
 limitation of nine single-family detached homes, we ensure that we will never exceed

02:01:04.740 --> 02:01:05.740
 that.

02:01:05.740 --> 02:01:09.660
 Next slide, please.

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

02:01:17.460 --> 02:01:23.520
 meet the definition of infill development where our argument for supporting the zoning

02:01:23.520 --> 02:01:27.860
 case was related to infill development, and so the Denton Development Code definition

02:01:27.860 --> 02:01:34.300
 is very specific that it must have existing development contiguous on two sides, and it

02:01:34.300 --> 02:01:36.380
 is no greater than two acres in size.

02:01:36.380 --> 02:01:39.460
 Clearly, we do not meet that definition.

02:01:39.460 --> 02:01:40.460
 Next slide, please.

02:01:40.460 --> 02:01:45.660
 However, when you look at the Denton Development Code as a whole, how is infill development

02:01:45.660 --> 02:01:47.900
 referenced, and why is it referenced?

02:01:47.900 --> 02:01:54.540
 It is referenced four times in 517 pages, and all four times are related to providing

02:01:54.540 --> 02:01:59.900
 opportunities for exceptions to the development standards, an exception to the parking requirement,

02:01:59.900 --> 02:02:06.620
 an exception to off-street parking and layout, an exception to landscaping percentages, and

02:02:06.620 --> 02:02:10.580
 an exception to building and site design.

02:02:10.580 --> 02:02:16.460
 And so infill development, as it relates to this specific definition within the development

02:02:16.460 --> 02:02:23.100
 code, is talking about, do you meet the requirement to receive these exceptions to our development

02:02:23.100 --> 02:02:24.100
 standards?

02:02:24.100 --> 02:02:28.100
 In this particular case, we're not asking for exceptions to development standards.

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

02:02:32.780 --> 02:02:35.260
 infill development in the development code.

02:02:35.260 --> 02:02:36.260
 Next slide, please.

02:02:36.260 --> 02:02:41.240
 You can skip that one.

02:02:41.240 --> 02:02:47.420
 So in the Denton Plan 2030 definition, Julie did call this out, infill is defined very

02:02:47.420 --> 02:02:48.420
 differently.

02:02:48.420 --> 02:02:53.220
 It's defined as development and redevelopment of underused buildings and vacant lots in areas

02:02:53.220 --> 02:02:56.020
 served by existing infrastructure.

02:02:56.020 --> 02:03:00.180
 Development channels economic growth into existing urban and suburban areas and conserves

02:03:00.180 --> 02:03:03.860
 open space and agriculture at the periphery of the city.

02:03:03.860 --> 02:03:07.860
 I do believe with certainty that we meet that definition.

02:03:07.860 --> 02:03:10.180
 Next slide, please.

02:03:10.180 --> 02:03:16.300
 And the context of what infill development means in the Denton Plan is it is referenced

02:03:16.300 --> 02:03:20.540
 102 times in 415 pages.

02:03:20.540 --> 02:03:25.180
 Statements within the community vision statement, throughout Denton, we see a compact development

02:03:25.180 --> 02:03:30.940
 pattern and reinvestment in infill and underutilized areas of the city.

02:03:30.940 --> 02:03:36.060
 Compact development in infill is central to the Denton Plan 2030.

02:03:36.060 --> 02:03:40.200
 In the core of Denton, we see established neighborhoods where revitalization and compatible

02:03:40.200 --> 02:03:45.460
 infill development contributes to the stable, livable and historic character and fosters

02:03:45.460 --> 02:03:49.260
 neighborhood pride and home ownership.

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

02:03:54.900 --> 02:03:58.540
 theme to every goal that is set in the comp plan.

02:03:58.540 --> 02:04:00.780
 It is not just related to land use.

02:04:00.780 --> 02:04:03.820
 It is related to land use.

02:04:03.820 --> 02:04:06.900
 It's related to infrastructure management.

02:04:06.900 --> 02:04:10.140
 It is related to housing choice.

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,

02:04:14.060 --> 02:04:16.900
 but it is really integrated throughout.

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

02:04:22.860 --> 02:04:29.340
 neighborhoods and the policy and action associated with that is to promote infill in residential

02:04:29.340 --> 02:04:30.340
 areas.

02:04:30.340 --> 02:04:33.020
 Next slide, please.

02:04:33.020 --> 02:04:38.020
 Another goal is to design a fiscally advantageous land use pattern paired with fiscally responsible

02:04:38.020 --> 02:04:45.380
 infrastructure management investment and this is done through promoting infill development

02:04:45.380 --> 02:04:51.220
 and redevelopment to align development where resources and where infrastructure exists

02:04:51.220 --> 02:04:52.220
 already.

02:04:52.220 --> 02:04:55.220
 Next slide.

02:04:55.220 --> 02:05:00.500
 And a couple more goals to ensure continued viability of Denton's established neighborhoods.

02:05:00.500 --> 02:05:05.220
 The comp plan specifically states a principal means of reversing neighborhood decline is

02:05:05.220 --> 02:05:11.140
 infill development, new development on vacant or redeveloped properties.

02:05:11.140 --> 02:05:16.500
 Under the infrastructure and utilities management, there's a goal for cost effective service

02:05:16.500 --> 02:05:21.100
 that acknowledges a well maintained and operated infrastructure network is fundamental to a

02:05:21.100 --> 02:05:26.260
 healthy thriving community and that Denton's investment in this infrastructure will influence

02:05:26.260 --> 02:05:31.340
 and support the framework for compact development and infill that is central to the Denton plan

02:05:31.340 --> 02:05:32.340
 2030.

02:05:32.340 --> 02:05:34.700
 Next slide, please.

02:05:34.700 --> 02:05:37.820
 That really is at the crux of my presentation.

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

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

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

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

02:06:01.700 --> 02:06:04.700
 consistent with supporting infill development.

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

02:06:09.420 --> 02:06:16.860
 did some market research and who's going to present quickly some data on the question

02:06:16.860 --> 02:06:21.360
 of whether or not developing this project as R2 is economically viable.

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.

02:06:30.420 --> 02:06:31.420
 Thanks Amy.

02:06:31.420 --> 02:06:32.420
 Thanks everyone.

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

02:06:39.220 --> 02:06:42.540
 of went back to the market and did some analysis.

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

02:06:49.140 --> 02:06:52.140
 of take a hard look again to see if it's feasible.

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

02:06:58.940 --> 02:07:01.140
 neighborhood or in this area.

02:07:01.140 --> 02:07:07.860
 So five of them really, first scenario is really single-family homes, three-bedroom

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

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

02:07:25.000 --> 02:07:30.380
 just any time, right, because we kind of went through hundreds of properties kind of having

02:07:30.380 --> 02:07:37.060
 different scenarios, right, active, sold, some built in the 2015 and new and then some built

02:07:37.060 --> 02:07:38.060
 in a year.

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

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

02:07:48.100 --> 02:07:52.740
 is doing right at this moment.

02:07:52.740 --> 02:07:56.220
 Next slide, please.

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,

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.

02:08:14.060 --> 02:08:17.540
 We found about 116 homes that fit that description.

02:08:17.540 --> 02:08:20.700
 The average size is roughly around 1,934 square foot.

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

02:08:25.540 --> 02:08:26.540
 foot.

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

02:08:31.980 --> 02:08:35.140
 was 325,000.

02:08:35.140 --> 02:08:38.420
 Next one.

02:08:38.420 --> 02:08:45.980
 So the next scenario is somewhat similar, but what we factored in is built any year.

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.

02:08:52.300 --> 02:08:54.780
 So we did a kind of a historical search on that.

02:08:54.780 --> 02:08:58.420
 We found a lot more homes, obviously, because there's no time limit to it.

02:08:58.420 --> 02:09:00.660
 It's about 681 homes found.

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.

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

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.

02:09:23.540 --> 02:09:27.260
 Next one.

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

02:09:35.700 --> 02:09:41.380
 we kind of got the same search results as the previous scenario one.

02:09:41.380 --> 02:09:44.340
 The average size is around 1934.

02:09:44.340 --> 02:09:54.780
 Sales price is around 258,000 and the maximum was 325,000.

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

02:10:01.860 --> 02:10:08.340
 any build year sold between the last year, like starting in January of 2019 until the

02:10:08.340 --> 02:10:13.340
 date it was run, I believe it was back in October.

02:10:13.340 --> 02:10:19.420
 So what we've found is about 597 homes that were sold in the past year.

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

02:10:23.880 --> 02:10:26.380
 anything out there within the reach.

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

02:10:32.060 --> 02:10:38.900
 around 379,000 roughly.

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.

02:10:43.260 --> 02:10:48.500
 So we did a little bit of search and not many, about 22 homes.

02:10:48.500 --> 02:10:55.700
 The average square foot is around 1700 square foot, sales price is around 278,000 average.

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

02:11:00.980 --> 02:11:08.700
 about 316,000, but there are some active listings that are 341,000 price mark.

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

02:11:13.180 --> 02:11:19.020
 higher properties, we're really having a hard time finding anything that's anything more

02:11:19.020 --> 02:11:24.780
 than that 341,000 or 380,000 in a couple of scenarios.

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

02:11:29.460 --> 02:11:31.420
 do with these five lots, right?

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.

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

02:11:46.900 --> 02:11:49.300
 in a little bit of bigger house.

02:11:49.300 --> 02:11:56.840
 The reason for that is just it being almost a 15,000 square foot lot there.

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

02:12:01.700 --> 02:12:03.940
 aesthetic sense.

02:12:03.940 --> 02:12:11.780
 So these homes are conservatively, they were around 450,000 as a sales price, including

02:12:11.780 --> 02:12:15.540
 all the development costs that would incur everything factory.

02:12:15.540 --> 02:12:20.580
 So that kind of puts it right at $225 per square foot.

02:12:20.580 --> 02:12:24.300
 And this is somewhat unaffordable in this area.

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

02:12:28.060 --> 02:12:33.380
 comparables within the area and will probably have a very tough time getting these appraised

02:12:33.380 --> 02:12:35.940
 as well.

02:12:35.940 --> 02:12:41.780
 And we did the same math, the construction costs across nine lots.

02:12:41.780 --> 02:12:46.500
 The development costs are slightly higher on the nine lots, but then again, economies

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

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

02:12:59.820 --> 02:13:05.020
 and kind of not show it as a somewhat of a high end, right?

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

02:13:13.540 --> 02:13:16.220
 the surrounding markets.

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

02:13:20.860 --> 02:13:23.860
 us a comfortable target range to stay at.

02:13:23.860 --> 02:13:29.700
 And then the cost per square foot has also come down to $159 per square foot.

02:13:29.700 --> 02:13:35.940
 So that's more appealing and affordable considering the market.

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

02:13:42.720 --> 02:13:43.720
 impossible.

02:13:43.720 --> 02:13:50.420
 All right, I think that concludes our market research.

02:13:50.420 --> 02:13:56.900
 Well, Pandari and Amy, I appreciate you being here with the presentation.

02:13:56.900 --> 02:14:00.740
 I will turn to the virtual dais for any questions.

02:14:00.740 --> 02:14:07.300
 I'm going to start real fast and then Commissioner Anderson, I'll move to you.

02:14:07.300 --> 02:14:10.620
 Amy, are you online?

02:14:10.620 --> 02:14:15.020
 Yes, I'm here.

02:14:15.020 --> 02:14:21.460
 I appreciate the in-depth analysis you did on infill and kind of helping contextualize

02:14:21.460 --> 02:14:25.420
 kind of the discrepancies that the city might have in the definition of infill.

02:14:25.420 --> 02:14:30.780
 But based on your research, would you believe that building four or five homes there would

02:14:30.780 --> 02:14:34.900
 satisfy the infill requirements?

02:14:34.900 --> 02:14:36.260
 It would still be infill development.

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

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.

02:14:47.180 --> 02:14:50.700
 Yeah, I guess my next question real fast is maybe to you and Pandari.

02:14:50.700 --> 02:14:54.100
 There's a new construction happening on Ryan Road.

02:14:54.100 --> 02:14:55.900
 Right now it's the Creekside Reserve at Creekside.

02:14:55.900 --> 02:14:59.300
 They're building the exact same product that you're describing and they're building about

02:14:59.300 --> 02:15:02.580
 145 a foot and they're selling out pretty up and down.

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

02:15:07.020 --> 02:15:12.380
 you're talking about, 2 to 3,000 square feet, three-car garage type product.

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

02:15:19.260 --> 02:15:28.820
 out at what the rest of Dinton is building that for new properties?

02:15:28.820 --> 02:15:33.100
 Striving is the number of lots in that -- in that -- the neighborhood and the purchase

02:15:33.100 --> 02:15:35.740
 price and the development cost.

02:15:35.740 --> 02:15:39.260
 There's a lot of gradient work that needs to be done for this particular lot.

02:15:39.260 --> 02:15:41.660
 So I don't know what they're doing at Ryan Road.

02:15:41.660 --> 02:15:44.340
 I don't know if it's a 2.6-acre or a 3-acre.

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

02:15:50.860 --> 02:15:57.540
 our entry-level product, the mid-level product, which would be feasible within that 9-homes

02:15:57.540 --> 02:15:58.540
 versus 5-homes.

02:15:58.540 --> 02:16:05.100
 That kind of fits into that product.

02:16:05.100 --> 02:16:11.620
 I think maybe what Kandari is trying to say is that the development costs associated with

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

02:16:17.460 --> 02:16:22.220
 to be integrated into the cost of the home and into the cost of the lot.

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

02:16:29.220 --> 02:16:35.660
 not supportable, just to put in the infrastructure necessary to support only five lots.

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

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

02:16:46.340 --> 02:16:48.140
 to add one more lot.

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

02:16:54.340 --> 02:16:56.900
 isn't feasible to build anything.

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

02:17:02.620 --> 02:17:09.020
 could build it with a reasonable cost, and the costs were just too high.

02:17:09.020 --> 02:17:12.940
 >> Were any of those builders local?

02:17:12.940 --> 02:17:17.140
 And were they all developers, or were they one-off builders like Jay Thomas?

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

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

02:17:28.180 --> 02:17:29.180
 me.

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,

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.

02:17:45.980 --> 02:17:51.300
 So your feasibility delta in this project is $600,000?

02:17:51.300 --> 02:17:52.300
 >> That is correct.

02:17:52.300 --> 02:17:53.300
 >> Okay.

02:17:53.300 --> 02:17:55.300
 Commissioner Anderson, you had some questions?

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

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

02:18:06.980 --> 02:18:07.980
 in that area?

02:18:07.980 --> 02:18:12.940
 I mean, those homes surrounding it aren't $300-some-thousand homes, I don't believe,

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

02:18:18.400 --> 02:18:22.820
 in a neighborhood that's only nine houses that's surrounded by houses that range from

02:18:22.820 --> 02:18:25.460
 150 to 200,000.

02:18:25.460 --> 02:18:28.820
 I mean, have you all thought about that?

02:18:28.820 --> 02:18:29.820
 >> Not necessarily.

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,

02:18:36.100 --> 02:18:38.960
 there are homes out there that would fit into that price model.

02:18:38.960 --> 02:18:41.820
 We found about 22 homes, and they are selling, so.

02:18:41.820 --> 02:18:42.820
 >> Right.

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

02:18:51.940 --> 02:18:52.940
 that you're putting out there.

02:18:52.940 --> 02:18:57.220
 I'm trying to say it in a polite way.

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

02:19:05.060 --> 02:19:06.700
 to be a lot less.

02:19:06.700 --> 02:19:07.700
 I mean.

02:19:07.700 --> 02:19:08.700
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

02:19:08.700 --> 02:19:09.700
 >> It depends.

02:19:09.700 --> 02:19:11.540
 There's a mix of them, too, right?

02:19:11.540 --> 02:19:14.540
 Go ahead, Amy.

02:19:14.540 --> 02:19:18.460
 >> To your point, Commissioner Anderson, I think what we're talking about here with new

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

02:19:22.500 --> 02:19:24.920
 market value in the neighborhood.

02:19:24.920 --> 02:19:29.620
 However, in order -- that's developing at R4.

02:19:29.620 --> 02:19:38.860
 That's as economically -- just as reasonable -- economically reasonable as you can get with

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

02:19:43.380 --> 02:19:45.420
 support nine lots.

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,

02:19:52.020 --> 02:19:56.500
 which we absolutely don't think is marketable in that area.

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

02:20:02.620 --> 02:20:03.620
 up.

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

02:20:08.560 --> 02:20:11.180
 to make infill even feasible here.

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

02:20:15.620 --> 02:20:21.220
 range of some of the newer homes that are within that quadrant of the city.

02:20:21.220 --> 02:20:22.220
 >> Thanks, Amy.

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

02:20:28.700 --> 02:20:35.180
 to get financing, their underwriter looks for properties that are not half a mile away.

02:20:35.180 --> 02:20:41.900
 They're looking for neighborhood houses that are compatible that are within blocks of houses.

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

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

02:20:53.020 --> 02:20:56.620
 block over is $185,000.

02:20:56.620 --> 02:20:58.940
 That's what they call a white elephant.

02:20:58.940 --> 02:21:01.260
 So that's all I have to say.

02:21:01.260 --> 02:21:03.380
 I appreciate it.

02:21:03.380 --> 02:21:04.380
 >> Mr. Smith.

02:21:04.380 --> 02:21:05.380
 >> Thank you, Chair.

02:21:05.380 --> 02:21:10.700
 Amy or Pandari, can you guys remind me again the projected square footage of the houses

02:21:10.700 --> 02:21:13.300
 you're wanting to build again?

02:21:13.300 --> 02:21:18.020
 >> Between 2,000s to 3,000s at the most.

02:21:18.020 --> 02:21:19.020
 >> Okay.

02:21:19.020 --> 02:21:20.020
 Gotcha.

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

02:21:23.180 --> 02:21:25.380
 think I remember seeing from your slide, correct?

02:21:25.380 --> 02:21:26.380
 >> That's right.

02:21:26.380 --> 02:21:27.380
 >> Okay.

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

02:21:35.020 --> 02:21:38.060
 the lots that are being projected by the applicant.

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

02:21:42.220 --> 02:21:43.220
 range.

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

02:21:47.180 --> 02:21:53.460
 is because a lot size, based purely off lot size, is actually more dense.

02:21:53.460 --> 02:21:57.020
 There's bigger lot spaces that are within there.

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

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

02:22:06.100 --> 02:22:10.500
 a lot of those having, you know, probably appreciated since then and just thought, you

02:22:10.500 --> 02:22:15.260
 know, a straight line appreciation of average within the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

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

02:22:22.780 --> 02:22:27.980
 know, to Commissioner Anderson's point, I think that really if we're talking about,

02:22:27.980 --> 02:22:33.060
 you know, not rezoning this whatsoever and keeping it at R2, it's not even economically

02:22:33.060 --> 02:22:41.420
 feasible, as the applicant said, to try to move forward with the development and R2 zoning,

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.

02:22:46.740 --> 02:22:50.820
 Ignore economically feasibility right now, but if they wanted to build, by right, much

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

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

02:23:01.300 --> 02:23:07.140
 mortgage lending piece, so if anything, the rezoning would make it more accessible for

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

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

02:23:16.980 --> 02:23:20.420
 don't see why we're debating it.

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

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

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

02:23:38.660 --> 02:23:39.660
 see it.

02:23:39.660 --> 02:23:45.140
 I think we're facing a ghost here.

02:23:45.140 --> 02:23:46.140
 Kristerbeck.

02:23:46.140 --> 02:23:49.500
 Yeah, I'm sort of split here.

02:23:49.500 --> 02:23:53.580
 I don't actually have a problem, I agree with Commissioner Smith on the density.

02:23:53.580 --> 02:23:56.060
 I don't have a problem with the density.

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

02:24:03.860 --> 02:24:05.660
 with Julie earlier, but I don't.

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

02:24:16.500 --> 02:24:21.860
 that concerned me, and they addressed this last time, were the engineering of the street.

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,

02:24:27.680 --> 02:24:30.100
 you can do everything else you want in there.

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.

02:24:35.220 --> 02:24:39.540
 It feels twitchy to me, but then what do I know?

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

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

02:24:50.820 --> 02:24:52.820
 goes on, but that sort of thing happens.

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

02:24:58.220 --> 02:25:03.820
 Commissioner Smith, I don't think the density is an issue on this one.

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

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

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

02:25:17.100 --> 02:25:19.220
 have anything to close.

02:25:19.220 --> 02:25:21.940
 With regard to that, we'll go to Commissioner Pernetta.

02:25:21.940 --> 02:25:29.180
 Yeah, and kind of, I have the same opinion as Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Beck.

02:25:29.180 --> 02:25:34.540
 You know, when I look at this map, and this is an oddball, right?

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

02:25:39.920 --> 02:25:45.280
 be convinced to go in one direction or the other.

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

02:25:51.020 --> 02:25:53.000
 that immediately surround it, right?

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

02:25:58.380 --> 02:26:04.600
 asking for completely conforms to everything else that's built around it.

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

02:26:11.280 --> 02:26:15.580
 in there that would be feasible, that would be sellable.

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.

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

02:26:28.420 --> 02:26:32.380
 lots and bigger house there.

02:26:32.380 --> 02:26:38.700
 You know, ultimately, I think last time I was pretty heavily swayed by the opposition

02:26:38.700 --> 02:26:46.580
 of the people surrounding, but ultimately, you know, based on the clarification that

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

02:26:50.300 --> 02:26:55.380
 last time kind of didn't fit, this one makes a lot more sense.

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

02:27:01.100 --> 02:27:06.100
 people is that they can't do something with their property that makes sense, that almost

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

02:27:09.860 --> 02:27:14.740
 until their neighbors some day sell their house and they want to maximize their profits

02:27:14.740 --> 02:27:18.420
 on those.

02:27:18.420 --> 02:27:21.580
 I'm not sure that I'm feeling a no on this one.

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

02:27:26.380 --> 02:27:27.380
 me and I went, you know what?

02:27:27.380 --> 02:27:28.380
 It does make sense.

02:27:28.380 --> 02:27:29.380
 That's my thought.

02:27:29.380 --> 02:27:36.340
 >> Thank you, Commissioner Pernetta, Chair, we'll continue discussion and/or motion real

02:27:36.340 --> 02:27:37.340
 fast.

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

02:27:39.100 --> 02:27:45.260
 person make comments using our online form and they were in support of the project.

02:27:45.260 --> 02:27:48.060
 So the floor is yours, Commissioner Ellis.

02:27:48.060 --> 02:27:49.500
 >> I appreciate it, Chair.

02:27:49.500 --> 02:27:50.500
 Thank you.

02:27:50.500 --> 02:27:51.500
 Okay.

02:27:51.500 --> 02:27:54.380
 So we're getting kind of lost in density.

02:27:54.380 --> 02:27:59.060
 Density really is not the issue here, but compatibility is the issue and has been the

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.

02:28:07.140 --> 02:28:09.020
 We got a really nice presentation today.

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

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

02:28:23.880 --> 02:28:26.760
 of it by large lot homes.

02:28:26.760 --> 02:28:35.740
 The minority part, the southern part of this is what is the smaller lot, smaller homes.

02:28:35.740 --> 02:28:40.540
 But the majority and where all the opposition is coming, there's nothing new here.

02:28:40.540 --> 02:28:42.180
 It's always been nine lots.

02:28:42.180 --> 02:28:45.380
 That's what's been presented in the neighborhood meetings.

02:28:45.380 --> 02:28:48.140
 There's nothing new that we're getting back today.

02:28:48.140 --> 02:28:51.940
 And I do appreciate that the presentation is great.

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

02:28:59.300 --> 02:29:03.340
 the comp plan that we're suddenly using on today's presentation.

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.

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

02:29:15.140 --> 02:29:16.900
 time to us.

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,

02:29:25.660 --> 02:29:29.840
 the same data differently using different words and different definitions.

02:29:29.840 --> 02:29:33.740
 So for me, my mind hasn't changed.

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

02:29:39.820 --> 02:29:43.260
 not compatible for me.

02:29:43.260 --> 02:29:48.620
 Thank you, Mr. Ellis, again, we can continue discussion.

02:29:48.620 --> 02:29:49.620
 Chair also entertains a motion.

02:29:49.620 --> 02:29:50.620
 Commissioner Smith.

02:29:50.620 --> 02:29:55.260
 I'll make a motion to approve with the staff recommendations of the overlay.

02:29:55.260 --> 02:30:00.400
 I take Commissioner Ellis's point to heart.

02:30:00.400 --> 02:30:01.400
 I understand.

02:30:01.400 --> 02:30:02.400
 I agree with you.

02:30:02.400 --> 02:30:07.500
 We didn't have this infill conversation last time.

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

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

02:30:19.540 --> 02:30:20.540
 on that.

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

02:30:26.220 --> 02:30:28.420
 forward with this zoning.

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

02:30:32.900 --> 02:30:33.900
 their concerns.

02:30:33.900 --> 02:30:36.460
 So I make a motion to approve.

02:30:36.460 --> 02:30:37.460
 Thank you, Commissioner Smith.

02:30:37.460 --> 02:30:39.420
 Commissioner Anderson, do you have your hand up?

02:30:39.420 --> 02:30:42.380
 I was just going to second.

02:30:42.380 --> 02:30:43.380
 Okay.

02:30:43.380 --> 02:30:46.700
 You were going to or you are just for clarification.

02:30:46.700 --> 02:30:47.700
 I am.

02:30:47.700 --> 02:30:48.700
 Okay, great.

02:30:48.700 --> 02:30:52.860
 So we have a first and a second for approval on this item.

02:30:52.860 --> 02:30:57.860
 Any discussion?

02:30:57.860 --> 02:31:00.860
 Commissioner Beck.

02:31:00.860 --> 02:31:08.620
 I do have some question of the two definitions of infill.

02:31:08.620 --> 02:31:13.580
 Are they both binding on our decision process?

02:31:13.580 --> 02:31:15.140
 Can you clarify the question on what you mean?

02:31:15.140 --> 02:31:17.740
 We're not binding infill definitions on this.

02:31:17.740 --> 02:31:22.140
 So that we're using it, not binding, but you're correct to correct me.

02:31:22.140 --> 02:31:24.140
 There's two definitions of infill.

02:31:24.140 --> 02:31:30.940
 One, even the applicant says clearly I do not need, she said that.

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.

02:31:37.780 --> 02:31:42.860
 And then a larger comprehensive plan where there is sort of general consistency.

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

02:31:52.700 --> 02:31:55.000
 a factor in weighing our decision?

02:31:55.000 --> 02:32:00.940
 And one that is merely a guidance or are they both equally operant?

02:32:00.940 --> 02:32:03.820
 Richard, can you add clarification?

02:32:03.820 --> 02:32:06.980
 Is there a priority of the kind of conflicting definitions?

02:32:06.980 --> 02:32:08.820
 This might be something to add to the matrix later.

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

02:32:14.700 --> 02:32:17.180
 a little bit more applicable?

02:32:17.180 --> 02:32:20.280
 I think they can essentially equally considered.

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

02:32:24.460 --> 02:32:26.140
 comprehensive plan.

02:32:26.140 --> 02:32:29.980
 Obviously, we look at future land use first.

02:32:29.980 --> 02:32:36.900
 And then there's a multiple policies within the plan that give a lot of flexibility.

02:32:36.900 --> 02:32:40.220
 The definition in the DDC does not provide that flexibility.

02:32:40.220 --> 02:32:43.180
 It doesn't give if this, then that.

02:32:43.180 --> 02:32:49.300
 And so I don't know if Cynthia would like to add anything.

02:32:49.300 --> 02:32:51.540
 Cynthia Kirchhoff.

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

02:32:56.100 --> 02:32:59.620
 development in the development code would apply.

02:32:59.620 --> 02:33:03.780
 The comprehensive plan definition is a guiding document.

02:33:03.780 --> 02:33:08.860
 But the infill development and definition of the DDC is actually the ordinance or the

02:33:08.860 --> 02:33:11.580
 law in the city.

02:33:11.580 --> 02:33:19.700
 So I really, I really appreciate that because that sets up two different definitions.

02:33:19.700 --> 02:33:23.860
 And under that advice, I think I have to lean one way.

02:33:23.860 --> 02:33:24.860
 Thank you, Cynthia.

02:33:24.860 --> 02:33:25.860
 I appreciate it.

02:33:25.860 --> 02:33:26.860
 Commissioner Panetta.

02:33:26.860 --> 02:33:27.860
 Yeah.

02:33:27.860 --> 02:33:30.620
 And I just want to clarify something on that.

02:33:30.620 --> 02:33:35.940
 Well, I need some clarification on that clarification, I guess.

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

02:33:41.540 --> 02:33:46.380
 short discussion of infill last time we had this bought up.

02:33:46.380 --> 02:33:50.900
 And I think it actually was Commissioner Ellis who mentioned it in her closing statements.

02:33:50.900 --> 02:33:53.420
 And I found that persuasive at the time.

02:33:53.420 --> 02:33:59.700
 I think there was not much more to it that swung me in that direction.

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,

02:34:10.700 --> 02:34:17.980
 I guess the question is, Commissioner Beck was wondering which one we should go by.

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

02:34:25.820 --> 02:34:27.580
 denial or an approval?

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

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,

02:34:43.560 --> 02:34:46.260
 we wouldn't have to tie it to that justification.

02:34:46.260 --> 02:34:47.260
 Am I wrong on that?

02:34:47.260 --> 02:34:51.100
 Does that make sense what I'm saying?

02:34:51.100 --> 02:34:54.180
 Because ultimately, if you're going to vote against something, you would be able to tie

02:34:54.180 --> 02:34:57.600
 it to a specific citation.

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

02:35:02.180 --> 02:35:09.300
 which definition we ascribe to?

02:35:09.300 --> 02:35:11.300
 Is that my question as well?

02:35:11.300 --> 02:35:12.300
 Yes.

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

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.

02:35:30.420 --> 02:35:34.320
 And that's what you would have to use in making your decision.

02:35:34.320 --> 02:35:43.700
 And I believe Julie has those items laid out in her staff report.

02:35:43.700 --> 02:35:49.700
 Any other discussions we have first and second on the table?

02:35:49.700 --> 02:35:50.740
 Commissioner Beck?

02:35:50.740 --> 02:35:52.220
 Can we restate the motion?

02:35:52.220 --> 02:35:56.460
 I've blinked my eyes since the motion was proposed.

02:35:56.460 --> 02:36:00.820
 Commissioner Smith?

02:36:00.820 --> 02:36:04.860
 It was a motion to approve with staff recommendations for the overlay.

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.

02:36:16.180 --> 02:36:17.820
 I can't get behind this one.

02:36:17.820 --> 02:36:22.380
 I'm going to make that real dramatic there and lead with my decision.

02:36:22.380 --> 02:36:24.340
 I just can't support this.

02:36:24.340 --> 02:36:31.220
 I will say Pundari hiring AEG and having Amy present was a fantastic decision.

02:36:31.220 --> 02:36:37.300
 I can affirm that because I think Lee Allison and Amy Bassett combined always come with

02:36:37.300 --> 02:36:44.020
 the most well-prepared presentations and the most convincing persuasive arguments and quality

02:36:44.020 --> 02:36:45.380
 follow through most importantly.

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.

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

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

02:37:04.940 --> 02:37:13.140
 lots to the east, I just cannot understand how that would be destructive to the neighborhood

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

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

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

02:37:31.020 --> 02:37:34.940
 surrounding property owners and actually see if there can be a redevelopment of the entire

02:37:34.940 --> 02:37:41.500
 area because if you were to take those seven properties and the interior you could actually

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

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

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

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

02:38:02.420 --> 02:38:08.820
 on your investment minus out some infrastructure to build a road probably but it seems like

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

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

02:38:19.420 --> 02:38:24.340
 to vote no in anticipation of waiting for something better, not to say that the quality

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

02:38:28.540 --> 02:38:33.420
 the market probably sustains it regardless of the other properties around it being a

02:38:33.420 --> 02:38:39.100
 little bit lower in value according to some of your estimates but I just think waiting

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

02:38:43.100 --> 02:38:48.660
 that rather than taking a property you own and squeezing something in, that's my perspective

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

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

02:39:00.540 --> 02:39:06.100
 this evening to make a compelling argument to the contrary.

02:39:06.100 --> 02:39:10.220
 Is there anything else to be discussed?

02:39:10.220 --> 02:39:14.740
 We have a first and a second for approval on the table.

02:39:14.740 --> 02:39:19.460
 Seeing no further discussion, I will take a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner

02:39:19.460 --> 02:39:20.460
 Ellis.

02:39:20.460 --> 02:39:21.460
 Nay.

02:39:21.460 --> 02:39:22.460
 Commissioner Bec.

02:39:22.460 --> 02:39:26.820
 Nay for the reason Cynthia laid out.

02:39:26.820 --> 02:39:27.820
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:39:27.820 --> 02:39:28.820
 Aye.

02:39:28.820 --> 02:39:29.820
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:39:29.820 --> 02:39:30.820
 Aye.

02:39:30.820 --> 02:39:31.820
 Commissioner Cole.

02:39:31.820 --> 02:39:32.820
 Aye.

02:39:32.820 --> 02:39:36.380
 Commissioner Smith.

02:39:36.380 --> 02:39:37.700
 Aye.

02:39:37.700 --> 02:39:44.740
 Chair is a nay.

02:39:44.740 --> 02:39:48.380
 Motion fails 4-3-3-4.

02:39:48.380 --> 02:39:53.860
 There's four nays and three yays but motion fails.

02:39:53.860 --> 02:39:58.380
 Chair will entertain another motion, Commissioner Ellis.

02:39:58.380 --> 02:40:03.120
 Move denial.

02:40:03.120 --> 02:40:04.120
 Commissioner Bec.

02:40:04.120 --> 02:40:07.540
 I'll second that for the same reasons as earlier.

02:40:07.540 --> 02:40:13.420
 We have a first by Ellis for denial and a second by Commissioner Bec.

02:40:13.420 --> 02:40:16.420
 Any discussion?

02:40:16.420 --> 02:40:19.680
 We'll take a vote via roll call.

02:40:19.680 --> 02:40:20.680
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:40:20.680 --> 02:40:21.680
 Yay.

02:40:21.680 --> 02:40:24.300
 And just to clarify a yay is for denial.

02:40:24.300 --> 02:40:27.300
 I think Ellis knew that but just to clarify.

02:40:27.300 --> 02:40:28.300
 Commissioner Bec.

02:40:28.300 --> 02:40:29.300
 Yay.

02:40:29.300 --> 02:40:30.300
 Aye.

02:40:30.300 --> 02:40:31.300
 Affirmative.

02:40:31.300 --> 02:40:32.260
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:40:32.260 --> 02:40:33.260
 Aye.

02:40:33.260 --> 02:40:34.460
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:40:34.460 --> 02:40:35.460
 Nay.

02:40:35.460 --> 02:40:38.460
 Commissioner Cole.

02:40:38.460 --> 02:40:39.460
 Aye.

02:40:39.460 --> 02:40:43.460
 Commissioner Smith.

02:40:43.460 --> 02:40:45.140
 Nay.

02:40:45.140 --> 02:40:50.580
 Chair is a aye.

02:40:50.580 --> 02:40:54.820
 Motion carries 5-2 for a denial.

02:40:54.820 --> 02:41:00.460
 The next item of business is item 4CPP20-0023.

02:41:00.460 --> 02:41:04.620
 This item is being recommended for denial and is seeking an extension to a date certain

02:41:04.620 --> 02:41:05.620
 of December 16th.

02:41:05.620 --> 02:41:08.600
 Chair will entertain a motion to such.

02:41:08.600 --> 02:41:11.140
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:41:11.140 --> 02:41:14.340
 Motion to postpone until December 16th.

02:41:14.340 --> 02:41:15.340
 Commissioner Cole.

02:41:15.340 --> 02:41:16.340
 Second.

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.

02:41:21.500 --> 02:41:24.660
 Any discussion?

02:41:24.660 --> 02:41:26.900
 Seeing none I call for a vote via roll call.

02:41:26.900 --> 02:41:27.900
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:41:27.900 --> 02:41:28.900
 Aye.

02:41:28.900 --> 02:41:29.900
 Commissioner Bec.

02:41:29.900 --> 02:41:30.900
 Aye.

02:41:30.900 --> 02:41:31.900
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:41:31.900 --> 02:41:32.900
 Aye.

02:41:32.900 --> 02:41:33.900
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:41:33.900 --> 02:41:34.900
 Aye.

02:41:34.900 --> 02:41:35.900
 Commissioner Cole.

02:41:35.900 --> 02:41:36.900
 Aye.

02:41:36.900 --> 02:41:37.900
 Commissioner Smith.

02:41:37.900 --> 02:41:38.900
 Aye.

02:41:38.900 --> 02:41:41.360
 Chair is also an aye.

02:41:41.360 --> 02:41:42.360
 Motion carries 7-0.

02:41:42.360 --> 02:41:46.860
 Next item of business is item 4D.

02:41:46.860 --> 02:41:52.140
 This item PP20-0025 is also being recommended for denial but the applicant is seeking an

02:41:52.140 --> 02:41:55.220
 extension of 30 days to a date certain of December 16th.

02:41:55.220 --> 02:41:56.220
 Commissioner Smith.

02:41:56.220 --> 02:42:01.100
 Make a motion to approve the extension of date certain of December 16th.

02:42:01.100 --> 02:42:02.100
 We have a first.

02:42:02.100 --> 02:42:03.100
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:42:03.100 --> 02:42:04.100
 Second.

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.

02:42:11.060 --> 02:42:12.340
 Any discussion?

02:42:12.340 --> 02:42:16.060
 Seeing none I call for a vote via roll call.

02:42:16.060 --> 02:42:17.060
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:42:17.060 --> 02:42:18.060
 Aye.

02:42:18.060 --> 02:42:19.060
 Commissioner Bec.

02:42:19.060 --> 02:42:20.060
 Aye.

02:42:20.060 --> 02:42:21.060
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:42:21.060 --> 02:42:22.060
 Aye.

02:42:22.060 --> 02:42:23.060
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:42:23.060 --> 02:42:24.060
 Aye.

02:42:24.060 --> 02:42:25.060
 Commissioner Cole.

02:42:25.060 --> 02:42:26.060
 Aye.

02:42:26.060 --> 02:42:27.060
 Commissioner Smith.

02:42:27.060 --> 02:42:28.060
 Aye.

02:42:28.060 --> 02:42:29.180
 Chair is also an aye.

02:42:29.180 --> 02:42:31.860
 Motion carries 7-0.

02:42:31.860 --> 02:42:36.640
 Next item of business is our public hearing item 5AZ20-0010.

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.

02:42:48.220 --> 02:42:52.900
 I will open the public hearing and invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.

02:42:52.900 --> 02:42:56.900
 Thank you, Chair.

02:42:56.900 --> 02:43:00.020
 Pulling up my presentation now.

02:43:00.020 --> 02:43:02.220
 Okay.

02:43:02.220 --> 02:43:12.020
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.

02:43:12.020 --> 02:43:14.580
 My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner.

02:43:14.580 --> 02:43:20.260
 I'll be presenting S20-0007 Quincy Court.

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

02:43:26.100 --> 02:43:27.100
 in height.

02:43:27.100 --> 02:43:33.260
 The building is proposed for a vacant 1.57 acre lot zoned MN mixed use neighborhood.

02:43:33.260 --> 02:43:36.620
 The multifamily use proposed is permitted by right.

02:43:36.620 --> 02:43:41.700
 The maximum permitted height in the mixed use neighborhood zoning district is 65 feet,

02:43:41.700 --> 02:43:47.260
 but heights between 41 feet and 65 feet do require a specific use permit.

02:43:47.260 --> 02:43:51.300
 That's the request coming before you.

02:43:51.300 --> 02:43:52.300
 Okay.

02:43:52.300 --> 02:43:55.980
 Planner, I'll be presenting.

02:43:55.980 --> 02:44:02.020
 The requested building height would be an increase of 6 feet over what is permitted

02:44:02.020 --> 02:44:04.340
 without an SUV.

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

02:44:10.980 --> 02:44:14.220
 to it in the 2019 city-wide rezoning.

02:44:14.220 --> 02:44:15.780
 That was a common MN zoning.

02:44:15.780 --> 02:44:21.340
 That was a combination of the previous NRMU and NRMU 12 districts.

02:44:21.340 --> 02:44:27.020
 NRMU permitted a height of 65 feet, NRMU 12 permitted a height of 40 feet.

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

02:44:32.860 --> 02:44:38.220
 40 feet, 40 to 65, that would require approval of a specific use permit.

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

02:44:45.260 --> 02:44:49.380
 maximum height of 65 feet by right, no specific use permit required.

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

02:44:55.220 --> 02:45:00.660
 north, you can see the adjacent residential as well as Stewart Road, Loop 288 that bound

02:45:00.660 --> 02:45:01.660
 this site.

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

02:45:07.620 --> 02:45:13.260
 use district standards that require a minimum ground floor height of 12 feet.

02:45:13.260 --> 02:45:18.740
 And that's within our two MD and MN districts, we require that.

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

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.

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

02:45:38.100 --> 02:45:42.020
 upper stories to have a standard nine foot height and the ground floor entrances could

02:45:42.020 --> 02:45:44.500
 be at grade.

02:45:44.500 --> 02:45:48.500
 Without the SUP, the applicant did provide an alternative plan that staff could approve

02:45:48.500 --> 02:45:53.740
 initially discuss that with them that would get their four stories within that 40 feet

02:45:53.740 --> 02:45:55.380
 without needing an SUP.

02:45:55.380 --> 02:45:58.740
 That alternative would require constructing the building below grade, you'd have steps

02:45:58.740 --> 02:46:03.140
 leading down to the ground floor entrances, upper floors would be less than nine feet

02:46:03.140 --> 02:46:04.380
 in height.

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,

02:46:09.920 --> 02:46:16.660
 the pedestrian experience, and by the aesthetics of the facade were just not as optimal as

02:46:16.660 --> 02:46:19.660
 the original design, which would have required that SUP.

02:46:19.660 --> 02:46:23.020
 And so the applicants brought forward this request for the height increase.

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

02:46:28.220 --> 02:46:33.940
 the building design if the SUP was approved for that additional six feet.

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

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

02:46:50.340 --> 02:46:53.940
 permitted building frame height if the SUP was approved, so you can see that six foot

02:46:53.940 --> 02:46:54.940
 difference there.

02:46:54.940 --> 02:46:57.980
 It's the front and rear elevations.

02:46:57.980 --> 02:47:03.980
 Similarly, on the broader side, west and east, you can see the difference between the height

02:47:03.980 --> 02:47:10.080
 that could be permitted without the SUP and what's being requested.

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

02:47:14.780 --> 02:47:15.780
 approval?

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,

02:47:20.900 --> 02:47:24.900
 and we'll touch specifically on some of the most important of those.

02:47:24.900 --> 02:47:27.600
 First off, it's important to look at our future land use map.

02:47:27.600 --> 02:47:35.180
 This property is designated primarily as neighborhood mixed use, so the future land use map there

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

02:47:39.020 --> 02:47:43.820
 in that area, along with local serving non-residential uses.

02:47:43.820 --> 02:47:48.660
 Moderate to high density residential uses are permitted, but new higher density housing

02:47:48.660 --> 02:47:53.780
 should be sensitive in scale and form to the surrounding built and natural context.

02:47:53.780 --> 02:47:57.940
 The multi-family use is consistent with the future land use map, but more importantly,

02:47:57.940 --> 02:48:02.460
 the height increase question that would be consistent with the number of stories recommended

02:48:02.460 --> 02:48:07.980
 for neighborhood mixed use by the didn't plan 2030 development criteria be within what's

02:48:07.980 --> 02:48:10.900
 recommended for this area.

02:48:10.900 --> 02:48:15.220
 Moreover, the design elements that would be possible with that height increase, pedestrian

02:48:15.220 --> 02:48:19.900
 friendly first floor height, ground floor entrance that grade, those are more consistent

02:48:19.900 --> 02:48:25.020
 with didn't plan 2030 design principles was the surrounding neighborhoods than the alternative

02:48:25.020 --> 02:48:30.460
 plan of sunken first floor and a significant difference from first floor and upper story

02:48:30.460 --> 02:48:31.460
 heights.

02:48:31.460 --> 02:48:35.260
 We also need to look at compatibility with the surrounding area.

02:48:35.260 --> 02:48:40.340
 This property is located on two corridors, Loop 288 and Stewart Road.

02:48:40.340 --> 02:48:47.540
 Along Loop 288, a typical pattern is to have either current or planned multi-story development

02:48:47.540 --> 02:48:53.300
 at your major intersections on Stewart Road, and that corridor tends to flow from multi-story,

02:48:53.300 --> 02:48:58.060
 multi-family major intersections in between, you have low to moderate single family, and

02:48:58.060 --> 02:49:00.740
 then back at those intersections.

02:49:00.740 --> 02:49:04.940
 So this proposed development, taller multi-story building at an intersection would be consistent

02:49:04.940 --> 02:49:07.540
 with both those corridor patterns.

02:49:07.540 --> 02:49:12.680
 Also note that the undeveloped property to the north and west is similarly zoned MN,

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

02:49:17.500 --> 02:49:23.460
 do, delving deeper into that compatibility with surrounding area.

02:49:23.460 --> 02:49:28.980
 We know that the maximum building height in those adjacent R6 neighborhoods is 40 feet,

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

02:49:34.540 --> 02:49:39.900
 exceed 40 feet at its peak because for pitch roofs, which many single family residents

02:49:39.900 --> 02:49:44.200
 have, we measure height at the halfway point of that roof.

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

02:49:50.180 --> 02:49:56.020
 in excess of 46 feet by right within those adjoining neighborhoods.

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

02:50:00.540 --> 02:50:05.300
 height and the surrounding R6 zoning and the requested height for this site.

02:50:05.300 --> 02:50:09.740
 Again, noting that that increased height allows for at-grade entrances, more pedestrian-friendly

02:50:09.740 --> 02:50:14.140
 design that's actually more consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods

02:50:14.140 --> 02:50:19.300
 than the alternative design that would be needed with the 40-foot limitation in place.

02:50:19.300 --> 02:50:23.500
 So that increase of 6 feet in height is expected to have a minimal background compatibility

02:50:23.500 --> 02:50:25.700
 to building overall with the area.

02:50:25.700 --> 02:50:31.260
 We also want to look at mitigating potential negative impacts of the increased height.

02:50:31.260 --> 02:50:35.420
 One of those comes from what's already in the DDC, our building height and transition

02:50:35.420 --> 02:50:41.060
 areas, and what that provides, the projection that provides, it states that within 50 feet

02:50:41.060 --> 02:50:48.020
 of an adjacent residentially-zoned property, such as R6, any building needs to not exceed

02:50:48.020 --> 02:50:53.860
 the maximum permitted height in that R6 zoning or other residential zoning.

02:50:53.860 --> 02:51:00.620
 Within 100 feet, a building can only go up to the maximum in the neighboring residential

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.

02:51:06.580 --> 02:51:11.660
 So taken together, those restrictions are part of why you see that this building is

02:51:11.660 --> 02:51:19.620
 moved at least 100 feet from both of the neighboring residential areas, actually 150 feet from

02:51:19.620 --> 02:51:21.660
 the neighborhood to the east.

02:51:21.660 --> 02:51:25.260
 But just important to realize that even without this SUP requirement, the transition area

02:51:25.260 --> 02:51:29.100
 standards limit building height in close proximity to residential districts.

02:51:29.100 --> 02:51:36.540
 We provide a protection so that you don't have maximum height building right next to

02:51:36.540 --> 02:51:39.460
 those single-family districts.

02:51:39.460 --> 02:51:44.100
 There are also protections from negative impacts within the site design.

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

02:51:50.380 --> 02:51:51.380
 required.

02:51:51.380 --> 02:51:56.480
 The tree canopy would exceed the minimum required by 9 percent.

02:51:56.480 --> 02:52:00.220
 Buffer width on the east there, that would be -- there's a zero-width requirement.

02:52:00.220 --> 02:52:02.220
 They would provide a 20-foot buffer.

02:52:02.220 --> 02:52:08.920
 The south to zero-width requirement, 45 feet, the buffer would be provided between the homes

02:52:08.920 --> 02:52:14.420
 in the beginning of even the parking on the site, much less the property.

02:52:14.420 --> 02:52:17.020
 So look at the effects of lighting and glare.

02:52:17.020 --> 02:52:22.980
 Like any development, this would, at building permit, need to show compliance with all DDC

02:52:22.980 --> 02:52:26.400
 standards for lighting, including that light spillover limits at all property lines need

02:52:26.400 --> 02:52:32.180
 to be met and all fixtures need to be downward directed or full cutoff shielded.

02:52:32.180 --> 02:52:37.500
 Traffic is not expected to be any different width without the SUP most likely the same

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

02:52:42.820 --> 02:52:43.820
 they're proposing.

02:52:43.820 --> 02:52:49.200
 And going quickly through providing adequate public resources, the amount of traffic expected

02:52:49.200 --> 02:52:52.460
 to be generated by this site did not require a TIA.

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

02:52:57.740 --> 02:53:02.900
 be constructing new curb, gutter, and new pavement for half-width of Stewart Road as

02:53:02.900 --> 02:53:10.300
 part of this project, as well as new sidewalks or sidewalks along both frontages, ensuring

02:53:10.300 --> 02:53:12.700
 good transportation infrastructure.

02:53:12.700 --> 02:53:15.180
 Water and wastewater service is available.

02:53:15.180 --> 02:53:19.500
 The site is within the eight minutes of last response time for the fire department, specifically

02:53:19.500 --> 02:53:23.660
 check and they confirmed that 46 foot high would not hinder their ability to provide

02:53:23.660 --> 02:53:26.060
 fire service to this development.

02:53:26.060 --> 02:53:31.220
 Of course, it's important to consider our neighborhood input.

02:53:31.220 --> 02:53:35.260
 We did send out all of the standard notifications, received one letter in opposition, which is

02:53:35.260 --> 02:53:39.100
 a new backup, as well as one letter in favor, which is also a new backup.

02:53:39.100 --> 02:53:41.660
 The applicant held two neighborhood meetings.

02:53:41.660 --> 02:53:46.460
 The first one did not have any attendees, so a second one was held.

02:53:46.460 --> 02:53:50.060
 I was able to attend that as well, and there were two attendees.

02:53:50.060 --> 02:53:55.820
 They discussed concerns about the safety of the intersection, the proposed cost of the

02:53:55.820 --> 02:54:00.620
 units, and the effect on their property values, and following the discussion, they appeared

02:54:00.620 --> 02:54:02.620
 to be satisfied with the answers.

02:54:02.620 --> 02:54:10.020
 When specifically asked if they had any objection to the height increase request, they did not.

02:54:10.020 --> 02:54:15.180
 For all these reasons, staff recommends approval of the SUP with conditions as it meets criteria

02:54:15.180 --> 02:54:20.300
 for approval, and is consistent with Denton plan 2030.

02:54:20.300 --> 02:54:23.460
 Essentially the conditions cover the fact that the attached preliminary site plan landscape

02:54:23.460 --> 02:54:26.380
 plan reflects an intent to comply.

02:54:26.380 --> 02:54:31.860
 Minor alterations can be approved by staff, but the overall plan needs to meet all the

02:54:31.860 --> 02:54:34.020
 standards of the DDC.

02:54:34.020 --> 02:54:37.620
 Notwithstanding that, the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of

02:54:37.620 --> 02:54:42.340
 any amendments to the SUP, the attached site plan, the attached landscape plan, and any

02:54:42.340 --> 02:54:45.100
 elements in these conditions.

02:54:45.100 --> 02:54:50.220
 The attached site plan landscape plan are incorporated as requirements of the SUP.

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

02:54:54.900 --> 02:55:01.500
 specified requirements A to D below, other than number of buildings, so of course that

02:55:01.500 --> 02:55:07.060
 does not include maximum building height that's subject to this, and the zoning map shall

02:55:07.060 --> 02:55:12.260
 reflect the specific use permit on the property consistent with the 2019 DDC.

02:55:12.260 --> 02:55:16.620
 But with that, my presentation is concluded.

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

02:55:20.860 --> 02:55:24.140
 are needed, and I will stand for any questions you all have.

02:55:24.140 --> 02:55:26.500
 Thank you Sean for the presentation.

02:55:26.500 --> 02:55:32.940
 Any questions for either staff or the applicant who is on the line?

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

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

02:55:45.980 --> 02:55:46.980
 motion.

02:55:46.980 --> 02:55:47.980
 Commissioner Smith?

02:55:47.980 --> 02:55:51.820
 Make a motion to approve with the staff recommendations.

02:55:51.820 --> 02:55:52.820
 Great.

02:55:52.820 --> 02:55:53.820
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:55:53.820 --> 02:56:03.140
 I will second and also thank Sean for a very thorough presentation.

02:56:03.140 --> 02:56:04.460
 Concur with that.

02:56:04.460 --> 02:56:07.020
 Any discussion on this item?

02:56:07.020 --> 02:56:17.940
 I just want to echo and say great presentation Sean.

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.

02:56:23.260 --> 02:56:24.260
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:56:24.260 --> 02:56:25.260
 Aye.

02:56:25.260 --> 02:56:26.260
 Commissioner Beck?

02:56:26.260 --> 02:56:27.260
 Aye.

02:56:27.260 --> 02:56:28.260
 Commissioner Anderson?

02:56:28.260 --> 02:56:29.260
 Aye.

02:56:29.260 --> 02:56:30.260
 Commissioner Pernetta?

02:56:30.260 --> 02:56:31.260
 Aye.

02:56:31.260 --> 02:56:32.260
 Commissioner Cole?

02:56:32.260 --> 02:56:33.260
 Aye.

02:56:33.260 --> 02:56:34.260
 Commissioner Smith?

02:56:34.260 --> 02:56:35.260
 Aye.

02:56:35.260 --> 02:56:42.860
 Chair is also an aye, motion carries seven zero.

02:56:42.860 --> 02:56:47.660
 Next item of business, item six, which is our planning and zoning project matrix.

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.

02:56:53.780 --> 02:56:57.060
 Chair, there's really no updates on the matrix.

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

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

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

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

02:57:18.420 --> 02:57:23.320
 a little bit of a better idea when those things will be coming forward.

02:57:23.320 --> 02:57:25.780
 Thank you.

02:57:25.780 --> 02:57:29.020
 I have one item to add to the matrix.

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

02:57:36.140 --> 02:57:37.140
 specifically.

02:57:37.140 --> 02:57:41.660
 As we look for downtown redevelopment, in the south portion especially, I had a citizen

02:57:41.660 --> 02:57:47.140
 reach out to me with a very thorough kind of diagnostic of the impact parking minimums

02:57:47.140 --> 02:57:53.660
 could have to the urbanization of downtown, and so I just wanted to hear the rationalization

02:57:53.660 --> 02:58:01.500
 for keeping all of the parking minimums what they are and then what mechanisms are provided

02:58:01.500 --> 02:58:10.620
 to planning zoning and to council to put overlays or encourage development that is not hindered

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

02:58:15.980 --> 02:58:22.060
 a city-funded garage that eliminates some of the development's need for parking or that

02:58:22.060 --> 02:58:28.620
 type of conversation I would like to engage with, to really incentivize and plan for a

02:58:28.620 --> 02:58:35.060
 walkable and dense downtown and vibrancy to Denton.

02:58:35.060 --> 02:58:36.060
 So that's all I have.

02:58:36.060 --> 02:58:40.360
 Any other commissioners have anything to add to the matrix?

02:58:40.360 --> 02:58:46.220
 Okay, seeing none, thank you for another great meeting on Zoom.

02:58:46.220 --> 02:58:48.820
 I will call this meeting to an end at 748.

02:58:48.820 --> 02:58:50.780
 You all have a good night.

02:58:50.780 --> 02:58:51.620
 - Happy Thanksgiving.

02:58:51.620 --> 02:58:52.460
 - Happy Thanksgiving.