Jan 06, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-01-06 5:00 PM

I will call to order the planning and zoning work session meeting for this evening at 5.02. The first thing on our agenda is citizens' comment on consent agenda items. It's item number one on the work session report. And we did have one individual. One citizen commented on the consent agenda 3A, FP20-0025B using the online form. This comment was against the item. A copy of this comment was emailed to all the commissioners and to staff to be recorded. That's the only comments that we have for the consent agenda this evening, one in opposition. The next item of business is to jump into the agenda for clarification of items. So starting with item two, the minutes. Is there any notes or changes that need to be made to the minutes? Seeing none, we'll move on. The consent agenda item 3A, FP20-0025B, since we did have comment on this and Haley is ready to go, let's go ahead and get a presentation on this singular consent agenda item. Good evening. This is FP20-0025. This should look familiar to you all. We looked at it at our last meeting in December. This is the Woodmere Edition located north of Ryan Road. The only remaining comment, if you remember, from that meeting in December was with regards to the conservation easements that needed to be accepted by the City Council. That occurred shortly after that PNZ meeting and so all of the comments on this plan have been resolved and staff is recommending approval. I do apologize there was a remnant in the caption on your agenda that said recommending denial but this item is on consent and staff is recommending approval. I'm happy to stand for any questions. Haley, could you specifically address Mr. Pruitt's comments about the stub outs and the maximum distances that was highlighted in his online form? Certainly. So the criteria that was referenced in that comment applies when the adjacent property is vacant. In this instance, the property that they share a boundary with to the west of them, if you see in the aerial here, is actually developed with a single family estate. This property is all under one ownership and is developed with a home and kind of estate features, if you will. There's golf course amenities, a pool, riding trails and things of that nature. So this property was not considered vacant so that connection was not required. I believe some additional background information was shared with you all in advance of the meeting with regard to response there but I'll go through it briefly. There is some history in this area with the mobility plan and the way this area developed. If you're familiar with the Montecito subdivision to the west of here, there are a few street stubs there that were provided before the rest of this area developed. Teasley Trails, located to the north of this site, did provide connections that will eventually go through for a couple of those streets. The closest one to this property, I believe, is El Paseo and in 2011, as Teasley Trails was developing, the mobility plan was actually amended to remove that street connection that would have gone across this property here. The owner was opposed to that and the council at the time actually voted to remove that street from the mobility plan, taking away that connection. So while there are not direct connections to the west with this subdivision, north of here in Teasley Trails, there are two stub outs that will eventually provide those east-west connection options north of Ryan Road. Great. Thank you so much for that clarification. Is there any questions for Haley on this item? Commissioner Beck? Yeah. Thank you. I think you've told this at a previous meeting, but because of the new road layout, we're not having that gate between the different subdivisions anymore, right? There will be, I'm sorry, the volume on this computer is a little bit low, but I believe you were inquiring about a gate between the subdivisions, is that correct? Yes. Yes. So with the planned development for this, there was a gate required at this point where Monte Carlo connects. So on your screen here, it would be right here where Monte Carlo comes up from the south. There will be a gate there, and that was a requirement of the plan development for the subdivision. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on this item? Thank you, Haley. That moves us to our next item, item four, individual considerations. I just want to let the record show, I don't know if I even mentioned to begin with, but Mr. Smith and Mr. Anderson have joined us, so we have a full commission present. Item four A is PP 20-0027A, this is Ron McGuida's item. Is he here or is he calling in or who's presenting? I believe he's on. Great. Ron, are you on? Hello, can you hear me? We can now. Sorry about that. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. The item for you today for consideration is a preliminary plat. Hopefully you all can see the slide as well. The subject item had originally been recommendation or denial, however, since Friday when the packet was sent out, the applicant and our engineers have worked through the drainage comments that were outstanding, and as of this afternoon, staff is recommending approval as it meets the preliminary plat criteria for approval, and again, this preliminary plat is for multifamily development located on the southwest corner of Mockingbird and Mingo Road. I'll stand for any questions. Great. Commissioner Beck. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Ron, the issue was that the easements, by the way, is this loud enough? I up the volume. Yes. Yes, I can hear you. That the utility easements were in a drainage or can you just clarify exactly what the issue was? Sure, sure. There were a couple items for clarification that the engineering department was wanting clarification on, primarily drainage easement, the size that they were requiring was 16 seat. The applicant was proposing 10 after consideration of what was going to be constructed, the engineering department was satisfied with the 10 feet, also the use of the drainage easement exclusively for just drainage and that there would not be any other improvements, that was also cleared and satisfied, and I think the last item that that was needing to be clarified was related to the amount of snow proposed on the site, and again, through the work of the engineers and the applicant, they were able to get to a point where they were satisfied with the amount that was proposed. And the engineers don't, I mean, I think if I'm reading, if I'm understanding the previous that they were concerned originally that the distance was too close to the drainage and that there might be flooding given the elevations, and the engineers don't think that's an issue anymore, right? After further clarification with certain information that was provided by the applicant, they have stated that they are satisfied with the responses, yes. And renters and/or future owners of this property are sold or they're not going to have any issues with that, I mean, it's all just clear drainage, there won't be any, like, you know, being too close to a floodplain kind of issues or something like that. That the drainage issues will be fine. That is exactly the point of the engineers' comments in making sure that all of the requirements are met and are satisfactory, and again, for your information, obviously, this is a pulmonary plat, obviously, a final plat will follow soon after, so a little bit more detail on the actual platting would come forward, and again, the planning zoning commission will see this again when the final plat is presented. Awesome. Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Any other questions for Ron? I do not see any. Ron, thank you so much for the presentation. Thank you. Next item of business is 4B, this is Haley Zagorski's item, and Haley, you're with us for a little while here, so hopefully you're comfortable, but this is FP20-0027A. Yes, so the plat before you this evening is for the Woodlands edition. This, as you may remember, is for a manufactured home development on the north side of McKinney Street. Since you saw this plant in December, the applicant has not been able to resolve all of the staff comments, there are still issues remaining with the civil engineering plans as well, so they're continuing to work through those, and at this time, staff is recommending denial for the reasons that are outlined in your backup. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Haley on this item? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. This is more of a comment to applaud staff, and maybe for any engineers and developers listening, the last meeting I specifically asked, I think it was Haley actually, if there would be sufficient time to resolve these issues, and I believe her response was, typically there is, that we've given them enough time, so this shot clock runs both ways, developers, and we need to maybe step it up a little bit, because you're just shooting yourself in the foot to have these things constantly, you know, have to get denied by not doing proper paperwork. So, Haley, I appreciate your efforts on this. Thank you. Any other questions for item 4B? Seeing none, I'll move to 4CFR20-0017A, this is also Haley's item. Yes, this is a replant for the razor cottages addition, so this is a site that you all have seen recently as well, in Razor Ranch, for the development of 37 cottage homes between Crescent and Linden Street. Since you all saw this in December, and since the agenda was posted on Friday, actually, they have been able to resolve the outstanding items. With this project specifically, it was the homeowners association documents that needed to be reviewed by our city attorney's office, and those have been reviewed and approved, so we were able to change the recommendation to approval for this plant. I'm happy to answer any questions. Great, thanks, Haley. Any questions on 4C? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to 4DPP20-0028A, and this is also Haley's. This is the preliminary plat for the Exeter, sorry, Denton Exeter edition number two, so this is a speculative warehouse project. This preliminary plat is for three lots located at Western and Jim Crystal. Again, since the posting of the agenda on Friday, we've been able to resolve the remaining items for this plat, specifically those related to a couple of engineering items with respect to how the floodplain boundaries and the distance to the adjacent creek were shown, and their tree preservation plan, so we've been able to work through all of those, and this plat now meets the criteria for approval, so we are recommending approval of the plat at this time. Great, any questions on item 4D? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to the last item for individual consideration, 4EPP20-0029A, also Haley's. All right, and this last plat is the preliminary plat for the woodlands on McKinney Street. These are the six one-acre single-family lots that are required by the zoning and specific use permit for the adjacent manufactured home park. Again, unfortunately, we've not been able to resolve all the comments at this time, so we are recommending denial of this plat for the reasons outlined in your backup. Thank you, Haley. Any questions on item 4E? Okay, that concludes our individual items for consideration. This moves us to our public hearings, starting with 5AZ20-0012, and this is also Haley. All right, good evening. This is a zoning case related to the Razor Ranch Overlay District. So the request before you has multiple parts, but they're all amendments to the Razor Ranch Overlay, specific to the eastern portion, which is the area between Heritage Trail and Bonnie Bray, roughly. So you can see the property outlined in yellow on the map. We'll go through each of the proposals in turn, but it essentially is some revisions to their concept and zoning map to update some items on the east side, and then the adoption of the final set of design criteria that's needed for the non-residential uses on the eastern part of the property. So I just wanted to provide some background about Razor in case anyone is not familiar with it. Essentially, the overlay district is divided into two pieces. The marketplace is the northern campus on the north side of Highway 380, and then the bottom part is referred to as the south campus, and that is broken up further into the town center portion, which is the RR1 area on the map you see in red. The south RR2 district is kind of the perimeter around that town center, which are the more kind of highway commercial type uses. And then everything else you see on the map here is referred to as the south mixed use district. So the entire east campus that we're looking at is part of that south mixed use area. This piece has developed pretty substantially over the last couple of years. We've seen in recent memory the adoption of the residential design standards for this area. So part of this amendment free tonight is adopting that last set of design standards for the non-residential uses in this area. So the first part of the changes before you all is some updates to the concept plan, which is kind of a very general loose site plan for Razor that shows what uses are allowed to go where. So it's a little more detailed than a typical zoning map. And what they've proposed, you can see the proposed map here on the left side and then the current map on the right. So there's really three key areas of change. The first is this lot here that's circled that's labeled south RR2. That area was previously designated for park uses. Over the last year, if you all have seen any of the council work sessions, there has been discussion of the development of this property with a park. The developers worked a lot over that on the last year and they will hopefully soon be taking a development agreement to council for the final dedication and acceptance of this park property. So since this area to the north is not part of that park that they've developed, they're looking to change this to a commercial designation. So they would like to call this the south RR2, which would be consistent with the property to the north. The second of those changes is for this area shown here. It's a very small parcel further south in the district that was previously again called out as a park on their concept plan. Through discussions regarding the larger nine acre Razor park that they're looking to dedicate to the city, our parks department indicated to them that they didn't have an interest in obtaining this smaller one acre parcel because it wouldn't make sense to have two public parks that close together. And so instead of that, the developer is now looking to make that consistent with the surrounding property so that it can be developed with multifamily or some lighter commercial uses or hotels perhaps, but to have that consistent zoning and use designation on the entire property. And then finally, the third piece is this part here that's shown in tan that's labeled as OSF. This property was previously designated strictly as SF or single family. However, with the recent updates to the reverse gas well setbacks, if you're familiar with the drill pad at Razor that's here on Bonnie Bray, that 500 foot setback would encumber most of this property making single family non-developable here. So they're looking to change this designation to also allow for office uses on the property. And then similarly, I won't go through those in detail again, but this is another exhibit to the Razor overlay district that shows the base zoning for the property, which again are rooted in our 2002 development code. They're not proposing any changes to that base zoning, they just needed to update this exhibit to show those consistent labels with the other exhibits. So those are the changes that you see here. So to look at each of these in a little more detail, kind of walk through these so I won't go into too much here, but this property north of the park and considering the updates there, we found that it makes logical sense to continue that commercial designation to the north and further having commercial uses here would be consistent with what the developer initially presented to the city council at their work session regarding the Razor park. They have interest in developing some complimentary commercial uses that like a dog park or some outdoor eating spaces there that would be like I said, complimentary to the park and also provide hopefully some parking and nearby restroom facilities that that park might need. For the southern property along Heritage Trail, again, it makes sense that since the city is not interested in having a second park at Razor Ranch due to the proximity here that this would have a consistent designation with the surrounding property. And then finally, again, those lots along Bonnie Bray, because of the new reverse setback and the need for them to comply with that, the single family designation no longer makes sense on that property, so offices seem a logical transition there since there's been recently a lot of similar medical office type uses developing along other parts of Bonnie Bray. Haley, we have a question from Kristina Beck. Yes, thank you. Haley, are you going to cover what types of uses are allowed within 500 feet in your presentation of the gas wall, specifically that third property? Sure, so, well, with this overlay, if they change this to the office or single family designation, those would be the only permitted uses. Single family is a protected use, so it could not go within 500 feet. They could potentially develop some single family on the very north end of that property. Other than that, they would be restricted to office uses if this designation change goes through. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Oh, no, just generally speaking in the rest of the city, most uses other than those that are deemed protected by the DDC are permitted within that gas wall setback. Protected uses are things like single family, multi family, any sort of dwelling, essentially. Things that would allow for overnight stays such as hospitals or hotels are considered protected uses, but those kind of daytime come and go uses such as commercial or office space are not considered protected, so those could go within the reverse setback. Okay. Okay, actually, that clarifies it for me, and anyway, thank you. So the next component to the proposed changes, again, is the adoption of those development standards. Those would become exhibits C2, D2, and E2 to the overlay. These design standards that were provided in your backup are intended to provide those site design standards, architectural guidelines, as well as parking, landscaping, and sign standards for any non-residential uses within the south mixed use campus, so within that east area. The standards that they proposed are very consistent and very similar to the development standards elsewhere in Razor Ranch for non-residential uses. So again, they're kind of based on our 2002 development code, but they do provide heightened architectural and landscaping standards compared to the standard DDC that was in place in 2002. They're not proposing any changes that would be anything different from what you already see at Razor Ranch, so similar architectural color palettes, materials, things of that nature, and again, anything that develops at Razor Ranch on the south campus would come back to you all through that site plan process to ensure that it meets those design standards. And then finally the other piece to this update is update to the main portion of the Razor Ranch overlay district. This used to be section 35.715 of our 2002 development code. If you remember with the adoption of the 2019, we have a placeholder for the Razor overlay to essentially be consolidated into one appendix, so these updates would be a part of that base text to the overlay district. These revisions that you saw as a red line in your backup are strictly to provide the references to those new exhibits where necessary, and then to clarify and kind of reorganize the uses permitted within the south mixed use district, so they're not making any changes to the permitted uses, just reorganizing those so that the designations you see on the map, like the OSF, are spelled out in detail in the text to make it easier to administer and follow the overlay. Public notification was sent regarding this request. We received one written opposition and one in favor as of today, so you can see those on the map. The opposition was across Bonnie Brage, just south of Linden Street, and then the owner for the town center portion of the overlay district provided a favorable response. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting just this week, so I'll let them talk you through how that went at their presentation during the regular meeting. And staff is recommending approval, and this is tentatively scheduled for city council on February 2nd. I'm happy to answer any questions, so I'll pull the screen down. Great. Thanks, Hayley. Is there any other questions on item 5A? Great. I do not see any. We can move on to the next agenda item, which is 5B, PD20-0008. This is also Hayley's item. One last item for the evening, for me at least. This is a planned development request for Habitat for Humanity. Habitat is the owner of just over eight acres that's located just south of the DCTA rail the corridor, the property is located off of Duncan Street and Hill Street. I do apologize, I had a dyslexic moment when writing this and got east and west backwards in the caption, so I hope that didn't confuse anyone. But it is located, as you see here on the map, with frontage on both Duncan and Hill Street. This is a look at our current zoning map, so you can see the property is currently zoned R4 consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, and they are proposing a planned development zoning, so the zoning map would be changed to look like what you see on the right side of the screen there. To take you through their development plan in a little more detail, for the total 8.2 acres, they are proposing 35 single family lots. They're proposing to develop this in two phases. Phase one is kind of shaded blue on your map, so that would include the extension of Boardwalk Lane between Hill and Duncan Street, and then the development of these lots on the southern part of the property, as well as the development of the detention facility for the site. Phase two would include the remainder of those lots, so 19 lots here, as well as the development of a street they're calling Caring Way. They are proposing a four-year build-out for each of these phases, so eight years overall for the total development. I wanted to show you all how the permitted uses would look for this PD compared to the standard zoning of R4, so R4 does permit a variety of uses by right. Those uses would be paired down to only allow for single-family detached dwellings as the primary use within this property, and then similarly, R4 permits a variety of accessory uses, such as accessory dwelling units, produce sales, things of that nature. This list would be paired down to permit home occupations as the only accessory use, so someone could have an office within their home or something of that nature. But all of these other uses, such as townhomes, duplexes, everything permitted with an SUP currently in R4 would be removed and only single-family detached permitted. And then similarly, I wanted to provide you a comparison of the PD dimensional standards compared to R4. So they based the PD off of the R6 district standard, so for comparison, that's how this would look. So it's a 6,000 square foot lot minimum as opposed to 7,000 for R4, the lots are proposed to be a minimum of 10 feet wider, so 40 foot lots as opposed to 50. The depth remains the same. The front yard setback is slightly decreased as well as that setback if you have a corner lot where the front yard becomes also the side yard setback. The building coverage is allowed to be slightly higher in the PD at 60% versus 50%. Other standards are not proposed to change at all, so they would follow our standard street tree standards. They are proposing one additional yard tree per lot as compared to the standard for the DDC. And then the other major change is associated with parking. So they are proposing, if you're familiar with Habitat, they typically don't have garages on their homes. So instead of the standard four off-street parking spaces that we require for single-family that is normally two in a garage and two in a driveway, they're proposing two off-street driveway parking spaces and one on-street parking space per dwelling. So three parking spaces for each unit would be provided. And then tree preservation would be the same standard as the DDC. So the general criteria for approval were all detailed in your backup. I won't go through those specifically, but we did find that they meet these criteria. What they're proposing is consistent with the DDC and comprehensive plan requirements except for those deviations that we just looked at. There are no prior approvals that we need to consider for this property. They are proposing irrational phasing for the development, and we're not expecting any significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts from this. And we'll go through each of the six PD criteria in a little more detail. So the first is consistency with our comprehensive plans. The first element to look at there is the future land use map, which is what you see here. So this property is in a pretty stark transitional area where most of the property has that low residential designation, but you can see here with the buffering it is right on the edge of an industrial commerce area. So in looking at this, the density that they're proposing is slightly above what we would normally see with low residential that calls for one to four dwelling units per acre. They're at 4.25, but that slightly higher density is still consistent with the other development in this area and is not out of character for what you would expect to see in a transitional area like this. And then other components of the comprehensive plan that are important to look at for this, the plan does have a significant discussion regarding affordable housing and infill development, and encourages a diversity of options be provided across the city. This PD is intended to help facilitate that, because these would be affordable housing units developed by Habitat for Humanity. And some of the features, such as the smaller lots and having, you know, for example, not having garages and having less parking do contribute to making the homes more affordable. The comprehensive plan also speaks a lot about urban design guidelines. There's an entire section and table that outlines kind of the guidelines for what we'd like to see for the city. It speaks to architectural variety and quality. And one of the unique features of this PD is that they have provided these sample elevations that speak to the character of the neighborhood they're trying to develop. The PD requires that these homes be developed with a kind of craftsman and mid-century modern elements so that there would be a continual architectural theme through the entire development. So it would provide for some community character that you might not normally find in a subdivision just developed under the DDC itself. The second criteria speaks to compliance with the DDC. So again, other than the deviations that you see here on this table with respect to lot size and parking, they would meet all of the requirements of the Denton Development Code. And then the third criteria is whether there would be greater building design amenities and connectivity. So again, they do have that heightened landscaping proposed for these lots with one additional tree, so enhanced tree canopy throughout the neighborhood. They are proposing that architectural theming with the craftsman style architecture that would help provide character and visual interest to the neighborhood. And then the streets that they would be providing would increase the overall connectivity of this area between Hill Street and Duncan Street. The fourth criterion is for residential uses, whether there would be compatible buildings uses and consistency with the character of the area. Again, we found they meet this criteria. This property, if the PD is approved, would be limited to those single family detached dwellings only, which is consistent with what you see elsewhere in this area. And then again, with those elevations that they provided, you can see that they would have this consistent architectural theming through the area. And if you look at the other homes in the area, single family, smaller homes with siding and brick mixture, that is what you'd see in this development. So it's consistent with the architecture and style of homes and size of homes in the area. The fifth criterion does not apply as there's no residential uses proposed. And then finally, we'll walk through the public facilities to show that they meet the -- that would be able to provide public facilities to support the development. With respect to schools, we did reach out to Denton ISD. Their student generation for the small number of lots is expected to be relatively low. So you can see less than 10 elementary students, only four to five middle school students expected and five to six high school students. And DISD indicated that all of these schools that they're zoned for would have capacity. With respect to parks, our threshold is the goal of a 10-minute walk to a park. So they are within an eight-minute walk of Fredmore Park to the north here, as you can see on the map. With respect to fire and law enforcement, we did not identify any issues. This area is zoned for response from the central fire station or Fire Station 1. They're well within the eight-minute response time boundary. And with this being a consistent use with this area, there was no concern of any increase in crime or nuisance concerns for our law enforcement. With respect to utilities, water and wastewater services are available, as you can see here, with water in blue, sewer in red. Those will be extended as necessary throughout the site to service these homes. And then with respect to streets, the expected trip generation, again, since this is only 35 homes, is relatively low. 30 peak hour trips and less than 400 daily trips are expected. It did not even come close to the thresholds for traffic impact analysis. So they haven't studied the traffic beyond the trip generation at this point. They will do so if necessary when it comes to civil engineering plans for the neighborhood. Perimeter street improvements, such as sidewalks, would be required along their frontage in Hill and Duncan. And then again, those two internal streets would provide some additional connectivity through this area. Neighborhood outreach was conducted. They did have a neighborhood meeting via Zoom on December 17th and had about 20 attendees at that meeting. We received no responses to date to those mail notices that were sent out to the surrounding properties. And staff is recommending approval of the request as we found it to comply with all of the criteria for approval. And again, this would be tentatively scheduled for council on February 2nd. We'll pull down the presentation and take any questions. Thanks, Haley, we have a question from Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Haley, I know you just pulled it down, but can you put your presentation back up and go to the uses? And while you do that, I want to the PD uses versus regular R4 uses table. And I want to come in, I'm really looking forward to this, I'm absolutely going to vote for it. I just have a curiosity question about what can you comment as to why the developers are are trying to limit the uses to, you know, so tightly digest the home occupation type uses. There are other sort of consistent uses, residential consistent uses that are, that are, you know, would be also consistent, I think you would have improved it if they had asked for them. But is there a rationale for just that kind of use? Well, I believe that is based on Habitat's typical model, so typically they only work with single family homes that would be able to be mortgaged and owned by the family that's receiving that home. In terms of the accessory uses, I believe again, it was just based on their expectations from what they see in their typical homes that these other things wouldn't be, wouldn't be customary in terms of having an accessory dwelling unit, because that would add to the expense of the property itself. So I believe that was their rationale for limiting this to home occupations, was just based on their experience with their typical client that would receive these homes. Okay, thank you. That clarifies. Thank you. I appreciate it. Any other questions for Haley on this item? I do not see any. Thank you, Haley. Next item of business is item 5C, DCA 20-0005. This is Julie Wyatt's item. And Julie, the floor is yours when ready. Okay. Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting DCA 20-0005, R3 setbacks. So the request before you is the city initiated DDC amendment to subchapter 3, related to the minimum R3 side yard setbacks. I believe this topic was discussed at the DCRC regarding issues with existing lots. You can see that map on your screen. Those areas in blue and red represent all of the R3 district within the city. It's about 9,200 acres. Only 233 of those lots or land area is undeveloped. That's about 130 acres. So I believe we did the math and it's about 1% of that R3 district is really undeveloped. And there are about 9,000 developed lots. So just generally wanted to talk about what the proposal is, and then we'll get more into the details. Currently, the R3 side yard setback for internal lots is 10 feet, and we are proposing a five-foot internal side yard setback. So before we get into the details, we'll talk about just what the dimensional requirements are for R3. So the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. The lot width is 80 feet. The front yard setback is 20 feet. And just to let you know, corner lots in the city of Denton essentially have two front yards, and that each street frontage does have to respect that front yard setback as shown in the graphic on your screen. The rear yard setback is 10 feet, and then that side yard setback, that internal setback is 10 feet. So the considerations we looked at when we looked at this text amendment, because as this has been applied, it's really created some challenges for homeowners and property owners within the city. So we really looked at it in terms of first kind of greenfield development, and I know there's not a lot of that, but there are some areas where R3 lots could be plotted. And then we looked at how it affects developed lots, those existing residential areas. So first, we're just going to talk about that greenfield development. We'll go through it pretty quickly. So for those newly plotted lots, a variety of architectural types and dwelling sizes are difficult to achieve with this side yard setback. So when you look at that 60-foot wide lot with those 10-foot side yard setbacks, it reduces that buildable area to only 40 feet wide for interior lots. And essentially, it creates the same building pad that we see in the R4, R6, and R7 districts. And this reduces a property owner's ability to either place kind of a larger or maybe a more architecturally distinctive structure on that lot, really kind of encourages a more homogeneous development pattern and look throughout the city. And we'll kind of look at that as we look at those lots. So I made some scaled models of those lot sizes. So you see R3 in this location. Once again, that's got that 60-foot wide lot. And then R4, R6, and R7 requires a minimum 50-foot wide lot. Now, in the R3, you've got the 10-foot side yard setbacks, which creates that buildable area of 40 feet wide. But when you then show that along that R4, R6, and R7, you can see that carries throughout. And we did an analysis of how many lots within the city of Denton had either an R3, R4, R6, or R7 zoning. And that's over 23,000 lots within the city of Denton. So it really kind of encourages just those 40-foot wide structures in all of those areas. So if you decrease those side yard setbacks with setbacks for internal lots, it would allow a variety of lot sizes. Of course, you could still put a 40-foot wide lot structure on those lots, but you could also then increase that to 50 feet or anywhere in between. And that would allow more architectural diversity within R3 and also include maybe larger one-story homes and ranch style homes. So and then we looked at established neighborhoods. So we have a lot of our city that does have R3 district. It's kind of one of our transitional zoning districts. A lot of our internal areas are zoned R3. And either redevelopment of those existing lots, or maybe additions to existing dwellings, something like adding a patio or another bathroom or room, is challenging to do that 10-foot side yard setback. So what comes into play is subchapter one of the Denton Development Code. So that code allowed or the adoption of the code did not cause any existing legally established single-family lot to become non-conforming. So those lots are all conforming. However, any new development or any changes to those lots must comply with current setback regulations. And given the long history of Denton's development, the variety of development regulations under which Denton's established neighborhoods were developed, and the variability of those conforming lot sizes, that current side yard setback could impede investment into those existing lots. So we'll look at a couple of examples here. So here's one infill development that was recently constructed near one of the universities. And as you can see, it's an infill lot. It is about a 60-foot wide lot. It does have a 7-foot setback on the north side, and then a little bit larger setback on the south side to accommodate a shared driveway with the adjacent property. So this was developed and constructed under the 2002 DDC. And if they came to us today, we wouldn't be allowed, it would not be permitted in its current configuration. They would have to put a smaller dwelling on there. And as you can see by the photos, it really relates to the street well. Another area, this is one of Denton's existing neighborhoods. It was platted, I believe, in 1955. The lots are about 63 feet wide. It's got varied architecture. Here's sort of a Google Street view. It's got a mix of one stories and two stories, a lot of kind of those ranch styles, those post-war ranch styles. And those dwellings are about 50 to 55 feet wide. They're often not centered in the lot. And so under the current standards, one of those property owners couldn't add a patio or addition to those side yards, even if there was room because of that greater setback because they currently don't conform. We also looked at the comprehensive plan. Element 4 outlines our urban design principles, and it does recommend architectural diversity and creativity should be encouraged to avoid homogeneity and sterility and to ensure high quality development. The proposed modification does not conflict with any other provisions within the Denton development code. It would allow for a more diverse architecture within the city allowing for those 40 to 50 foot wide plans within R3 for that typical lot size. And this is just a further part of the further refinement of the Denton development code. As we continue implementing it, we see areas where it needs to be modified. And so this is just part of that. So staff does recommend approval of this request. There is one error on this page, and it is actually scheduled to go before the city council on January 12th. I was incorrect in my month, so I did want to let you know that. And I'll take the presentation down and be happy to answer any questions. >> Appreciate it. Julie? Chris or Beck? >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. So I guess the -- what is the problem that we're trying to solve that is coming before staff often enough that this is staff generated? Staff has a lot of things to do, and I'm sort of curious what led staff to say this is a big enough problem that we want to tackle it. >> It does. We have had -- there were some challenges with the initial implementation of the 2019 DDC and implementing this setback, given where R3 is within the city. We have also heard from a couple of property owners who are looking to develop vacant lots within our city's core that really aren't able to build the type of home that they want to build on those lots, given those increased setbacks. And these are an increase from the previous codes. So it really is creating challenges for particularly that infill development. >> But there's nothing precluding them from building something that would sit on a 40-foot pad that would be a smaller home, that even if they wanted to have a patio or whatever element that came up against those setbacks, smaller and therefore more affordable, typically. If there's less -- there's less home, then, you know, that's a lower price range, which may not be to the developer's interest, but I think it's probably more in line with Denton's interest to get more people into more homes. I guess I'm at a loss to really see how this is solving a problem for anything other than developers wanting to build bigger homes. And so can you -- you know, maybe that's a false understanding. Can you clarify that for me? >> Well, and I think that's related to the amount of R3 that we have in the city, that really we're not generally talking about that sort of greenfield development or large developers coming in and wanting to build large houses on lots. It really is -- given the amount of square -- or the amount of land area, we only have 130 acres of R3 that's undeveloped within the city. So it's a pretty small -- that's a pretty small portion of the factor. The factor really has to do more with that infill and those existing lots, those existing areas. >> I guess I would go back to my comment, though, that put a smaller home on that and development office would sign off on it. >> Well, and the revised setback wouldn't preclude somebody from putting a smaller home on that lot. They could certainly do so. It would allow that variety. So if somebody wanted to put, you know, a single-family home or a ranch-style home or more architecturally distinctive home on the property, they could with that reduced setback. But it wouldn't be a requirement. That is just that minimum setback. >> I guess -- I guess at 1%, I'm not seeing the need to revise and with the ability to develop just a smaller home that's more affordable, I'm really not -- I'm not -- I'm not compelled. I'll stop with my question now. Thanks, Julie. I appreciate it. >> You bet. >> Commissioner Anderson, I believe, is next. And then Pernetta. >> Thank you, Chair. On Commissioner Beck's line of questions, you only -- am I going to rewrite this when we've -- you just said that we've only had a couple people want to do this out of 23,000 lots. That's not even .001%. And we only have 190-something acres left to develop. I don't see why we want to rewrite the whole R3 standard when you only have a small amount left to develop and only had two people request something like this. >> Well, this was part -- this was originally part of that entire package of DDC amendments. We're just pulling this to go a little earlier because we have had interest in revising those setbacks from the community. So it's -- this was always something that staff was intending to kind of move forward with that refinement of the debt and development code with that large package of code amendments. We're just pulling this a little ahead to, you know, to ensure that current property owners within that -- within that inner core can invest in their lots that they have. >> Thanks. Again, like Commissioner Beck said, it's -- I don't know if I can get behind this. It's just -- to me, it seems like -- I hate seeing houses built so close to each other. You can pretty much reach your hand out the window and shake your neighbor's hand. So I don't know, unless there's something else that can compel me to vote for this, I don't think I can do this one. >> Commissioner Panetta. >> Yeah, just a few things. You know, one of the things that kind of bothers me about this is, you know, when we set like a, you know, zoning of an R3 in there, we're not just thinking about, you know, density in terms of number of people in there. There's kind of an aesthetic, you know, involved, like, you know, how many houses are going -- how many houses and how big of a footprint is going to be on each individual acre. You know, it seems like going, okay, we're going to set this as an R3, but now we're going to make an adjustment to where there's less grass, less trees, less space in there. It seems like it's kind of counterproductive to the aesthetic we want to do. I really don't see, you know, like Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Beck, I'm not really sure that I understand the dilemma that we're solving here, because if the argument is that, you know, we're wanting developers to be able to create new kinds of houses, well, you know, as a person who's had to deal with creatives before, generally the level of creativity is based on creating something within certain criteria, right? And it sounds to me like what we're actually doing is going, you know, there is a cookie cutter formula right now that says, you know, we have this amount of house, but we can't fit this, you know, prefab amount of house design on what we've got existing for, you know, R3. I'm not sure that I'm really on board with this, but I guess the other thing is, you know, if this is a setback that we currently have, a side setback that we currently have for R4, et cetera, I mean, why wouldn't somebody just create a bigger house, you know, on an R4? You know what I mean? Instead of, you know, make it an R3 density on an R4 and that way you have bigger houses in the same area to sell, you know, does that make sense? I'm not sure I follow the, I'm not sure. If I understood Pranetta, excuse me, Commissioner Pranetta correctly, he's saying go to R4, but build R3 type size lots, and you still get the five foot setback. If you're in an R4 zoning, you could have a five foot setback on a larger lot, like a maybe a 70 foot with lot, but you can go five feet in an R4. If I understood Commissioner Pranetta correctly, basically create, you use R4 setbacks to create your product that you were thinking of wanting an R3. Well, and of course the property owner could always seek a rezoning. That's probably not something that we would always recommend, you know, we wouldn't necessarily recommend approval of an R4 district in the, for one lot in the center of R3, particularly because R4 introduces additional uses that the code kind of purposely put that R3 within our internal, our internal areas within the city. So of course we could always look at that, that rezoning for a property owner who wanted to have different setbacks. However that is something we would have to look at not only those setbacks, but also the uses permitted within that R4 district. Commissioner Pranetta, are you good? You saw the floor. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Julie, just because Margie, Commissioner Roselle, Commissioner Ellis and I were on DCRC together on this. When this was presented to us, it was in front of the commission's edification, it was really pitched more as it's an edit that lets people who currently exist in R3 zonings, who have current structures already on those lots, be able to make additions to their homes. And Julie briefly mentioned it in her presentation, but if they want to extend a patio or put a carport or covered, a covered area, they can't because of the way the setbacks, how some of their houses are built. So I think a lot of the conversation around using this, this maybe opening up the developers is certainly one that has led it again, I think the low amount of acres that are left and undeveloped R3 is probably, can you hear me? You're kind of breaking up. Your connection sounds a little spotty. Okay. How about now? A little better. Okay. I'll just get closer out of that. But because there really isn't that much undeveloped R3, according to what Julie said, about 130 acres in the city of Denton, I don't know if this is so much of a new development change to the code or change to the code that's really going to be shading towards new developers so much as it is allowing current property owners to make edits to their current residential structures. And to add to some points that I think Commissioner Beck brought up, I don't, and Julie, you can, I'd like to hear staff's historical view on this, but how many times have we seen affordable housing projects come in on R3 zoning? I don't think I could think of anybody really coming in on a development saying to build an R3, 1/3 acre lots for affordable housing, it seems like that's more in high density R4, R6 type of zoning. And I might be wrong, but I'd like to hear what the staff says about that. You are correct that R3 is one of our lower density zoning districts. They do require those 10,000 square foot lots. So it is not typically probably one of our more affordable districts, but we don't really know what the price of those houses are necessarily on those lots. So I couldn't speak to necessarily what the affordability of those resulting homes are. But it is one of our larger lot districts. And you are correct. And thank you for highlighting that, that a lot of this just really is stemming from those existing property owners who have a home in R3 that enjoyed a smaller setback under the previous codes in the 2002 code, it was a six foot setback. And in fact, back to 1941, it was a six foot setback. With the implementation of this didn't development code, it was increased to a 10 foot setback, which is really creating challenges for those property owners to invest in their homes. Thank you. Before we go around second time circle, I when I was looking at the presentation, Julie, there's the house that had the seven foot setback. That house specifically is a great example. If they came to the city to pull a permit for some project on the house, it would be denied because the house would be nonconforming under current rule, correct? By to Commissioner Smith's point, by going back to the five foot setback, the people, the individuals who had a six foot setback legally for decades are now back in conforming where the new code made them nonconforming because we increased it from six feet to 10 feet. So this edit is not a developer friendly type motion to build an extra, what, 300 homes in town. It's to correct a misalignment to what our property owners have already been enjoying. And so I just have a different paradigm completely from the other commissioners, but this seems like a kind of a cut and dry correction back to what our property owners have already been enjoying. So I know back in Fernandez, hands up at Commissioner Ellis and Richard haven't had a chance. I'm going to go to Commissioner Ellis first, and then I think Richard had something to add. Thank you, Chair. Yeah. Just real quick on that note, you know, we've got a lot of people wanting to be back downtown, wanting to be back, you know, close to walking distance on things, then wanting to invest in these homes. Many of these homes don't have parking structures. They may want to put a garage on. They may want to add some kind of a back patio, and we want them to do that. We want them to be able to invest in these properties. This does help them as well. Even if it does assist developers or make some changes even to new development, you know, being able to build diverse property in new construction areas, that's a really good thing. To be able to expand that lot, as Julie had shown in the presentation, is actually a really good thing to how a new construction neighborhood could develop. So it's just a win change to me. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis. Richard, did you have something to add? The only thing I wanted to add is when we're talking new construction, again, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but again, we're not talking large subdivisions. We're talking lots that may have been vacant for some time or lots that may have had a smaller home built in the '40s or '50s that for whatever reason just isn't able to be restored, so they want to build a new house. And so again, we're not talking about large, large developers. We're talking about single individuals that are wanting to build a house, and there's a lot of confusion, a lot of the old plats included the setbacks on those old plats. And so they're looking at their plat saying, "Hey, I have a plat that says my setback's six foot," and we're telling them, "No, it's 10 foot." And it's just caused a lot of confusion for those individuals that are wanting to build on those individual lots. That's all I wanted to add. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Beck, I think, was next. Thank you, Chair. Well, honestly, Richard, that does not convince me. It actually cements me more of my original opinion. Margie's, sorry, Commissioner Ellis' argument maybe was slightly more convincing for me. Just build a smaller home on that same lot if you're rebuilding to a new architectural standard or using new engineering principles, or if it's burned down or something. I take the point of wanting to develop additional uses. So I guess my question to staff is, why aren't the variants and the minor modification standards sufficient to allow one-off punctate changes rather than reset the entire R3 standard? The minor modification does allow for a property owner to encroach up to 10% in one of those setbacks. So if that was a 10 foot setback, it would be a foot on either side, which once again may not be adequate to allow for that reinvestment into those properties. So while minor modification has been used effectively in some areas, it really just didn't get them back to really where we were. I think Commissioner Rosell said it. It's kind of where they were for decades. And that really, with the implementation of the 2019 code, kind of changed the rules to increase those setbacks. And I guess I'm still not compelled by that. I guess the other question I have then following up is, in terms of affordability, I don't mean affordable housing. I don't want to make that-- that's not what we're talking about. But if you have a smaller property, if you-- we'll take it all the way back to the beginning. If you are in actual affordable housing, small housing, tiny homes, whatever, and you've been successful and you now can trade up, then it is a little bit more transitional for you to be on a smaller home on an R3 as you begin to trade up the housing scale that's more affordable. So we have a broader range of homes. The cost of the property is not the land. It's the house. And the bigger than you make that house, the more it's going to cost. So I don't mean affordable housing, but more affordable housing is maybe a better way to say that. So I'll stop my questions there and leave it. Thank you. I think Commissioner Anderson and then Prunetta. Thanks, Chair. What if a homeowner wanted to add a patio presently and they're going to be non-conforming? Why couldn't they just bring that one issue in front of something like us or a request to have their lot modified a little bit and do it on an as-needed basis instead of just restructuring the whole system? Well, that would go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and property owners certainly have done that. However, the criteria for approval for a variance is very limited. It really should be limited to unique circumstances that are physical to that property. So just because somebody wanted to put in a patio that would encroach into that setback, staff would be unlikely to support that request given the criteria for approval and the limited nature that variances occupy, that space that they occupy within our code. And it would be unlikely that the ZBA, I mean, it would be up to the ZBA, but it would be unlikely that staff could support it given that it probably wouldn't meet the criteria for approval unless there was a physical hardship on the property that would be unique to that property, which can be really, that can be a high bar to meet. And I mean, my other thing is, if we're trying to work together, why wouldn't someone talk to that board and sit there and say, hey, look, you know, this is all they're asking for is this. Let's just approve a 10 by 10 patio extension, you know what I mean? Instead of rewriting the whole thing, I think why doesn't that other board become more lenient instead of asking us to rewrite this whole thing? I don't understand, and then I think I'm done. I'm going to provide Christian Cole to jump in line here in front of Prenets since he hasn't spoken yet. Yeah, one reason would be in the ZBA, a super majority commission board, don't they have to have a super majority? I mean, that's, you know, you're at different individuals, whatever they think, you know, maybe somebody doesn't think you should be able to, I just don't, you know, I don't want to make this harder than it is. It needs to be easier. And the ZBA, it's kind of a, you're on another recourse outside of the ZBA, what's district court, you know, I mean, somebody wants to put on a patio or I mean, I've had to, I live in a house that was built in 1950. I can't tell you how many remodels I've had to do. And I just, you know, I don't want to, I want to give some people some flexibility, you know, instead of, I just, I'm kind of with commissioner Ellis about this, it's pretty cut and dry, you know, for me, but that's it. Commissioner Prunette, thanks Commissioner Cole. Yeah, I just kind of had a question. I didn't see this anywhere. We talked about the setbacks, you know, being smaller in the past. Do we know how many properties existing and, you know, that are currently R3 were made, you know, non-conforming when we went to the 10 foot setback as opposed to the six foot, et cetera? Given, you know, I really tried to go through the city and measure all of the setbacks, but given the length of time that those houses were built, those setbacks are, and that we don't necessarily have the records and those plot plans, those site plans for those homes, it really is, it's not information that we, that we can discern. It's kind of comes up as a case by case basis when somebody comes into the city and submits for a building permit and we, you know, look at their site plan and their survey, and that's when we give them the news. So I wish I could get that information. It's just not something given the length of, and when all of the houses were built, it's just not something we can discern. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Beck, and then we'll kind of wrap up for further discussion and public session. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I guess, I think we're trying to remedy a problem of flexibility by changing an entire definition of a zoning requirement, and so I think we run the risk of creating issues when we do that. I would rather remedy the need for flexibility with, you know, other changes to the DDC that allow for code amendment, like, you know, multiple, multiple zonings or, or enhanced ability for variance or, or enhanced the variability for minor modification, because those address, what do I do? Those other solutions and increasing their flexibility say, what do I do when it doesn't match the standard, but we all agree it should be allowed, because the standards are preventing McMansions from being dropped on to, you know, you know, just completely covering the lot, and we all, most of us agree that that is not, not a good thing. And yes, I'm being a little hyperbolic on that, but, and so I guess the final point, so I think, A, that we're using the wrong tool to fix the flexibility issue, and B, that is, so if we use this tool to fix the flexibility issue, and then we have an area that is zoned R3 and developers want to go and McMansion it, we can't have any tool to stop them, because now we've made that allowed. We have the home, just as everybody at the beginning of this conversation says, I don't want to reach out and touch my neighbors, you know, none of us want that really, for the most part. So the, you know, how do we then, if we take away that restriction, how do you stop that? Now, I, you know, I live in R4, so I don't really reach out and touch my neighbors, come on. But the, I think we're using the wrong tool to remedy this flexibility issue, and I guess I'm still not compelled. So thank you. Richard, you want to close us out on this item? Yeah, just wanted to provide sort of a little more background as to how staff sort of approached this, sort of looking at from a practical perspective, and I don't recall what the setback was required prior to 2002, I believe it was also six feet. So we kind of looked at it as, do we want to wind this back to what's been in place for 20, 30, maybe 40 years, or do we want to put a increased setback on those properties by four feet, and to me, it was, it made more sense from practical perspective to wind it back to what's been in place 20, 30, 40, maybe even longer. That wouldn't preclude even if I, and Matt can correct me if I'm wrong, but that wouldn't preclude that setback going to six foot, whether or not it goes back to where it was previously, but just wanted to throw that out there. Great. There might be more questions, I'm going to go ahead and stop the discussion during work session just so we can get through prior to 630. Thank you, Julie, for that presentation. The next item is item 5D PD 20-0002. This item has been requested to postpone. Richard confirming here, we don't need a presentation, we're not, we're not going to, we're not opening this, right? Correct. There'll be no action. Okay, so let's go ahead and go to the last item, which is 5E Z20-0011C. This is Karina's item. Karina, whenever you're ready, you have the floor. Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble finding it on the share screen. Okay, there we go. All right. My name is Karina Maldonado, I'll be presenting Z20-0011 for State School Road Estates. The request today is to rezone approximately 4.23 acres from a currently zoned plan development to the R1 district. The property is located on State School Road, pretty close to the, the, the state support facility. Sorry, I lost my slide, but you can see that the property on the screen, it's generally located around some moderate single family, single family residential on most sides. There is some vacant property on the west side that previously came before PNC a few years ago for a rezoning. The property itself does have significant tree canopy. However, the applicant is just proposing just a straight zoning to subdivide the property into four single family estate lots. So just very briefly, just want to show the concept plan. This is actually their draft preliminary plat. So they're proposing, again, four lots, approximately one acre in size, and this will come of course after the entitlement step. A bit of brief history on the site. So as I mentioned, this is currently zoned planned resident, I'm sorry, planned development. This is a legacy PD, PD-12 that was established in the 80s. It currently is only designated for single family with a maximum density between three to five bowling units per acre. That would come out to a maximum of 18 units on this just less than five acre site. And within this PD, they are restricted to following the process for plan developments under the 1969 zoning ordinance. Within this ordinance, they would be required to come to PNC and City Council for approval of a site plan prior to moving forward with any other development steps. And then those PD standards for this site are on the screen. So just briefly, the minimum area for lots developed within the site would be 7,700 square feet with a minimum lot size of 70 feet, lot depth of 110 feet. And this roughly comes out to what you would find in the, it's sort of in between an R3, R4 standard. So that's what it would look like today if we were to use our current zoning. But again, the request is for an R1 district. So as I just mentioned, it's currently a PD and it would, they are requesting R1 zoning. So I won't go through all the general approval criteria for this project. This is just a simple straight zoning request, but I am happy to answer any questions at the end for any specific items that I did not bring up. And again, just the zoning criteria for a rezoning. First would be the, on the general criteria would be related to the future land use. As you can see on the screen, this particular lot and a lot of the area along the edge of the city limits with the City of Denton, City of Corinth are designated for low density residential. So this is intended for single family neighborhoods up to four acres, dwelling units per acre. So that's typically either one acre lots on the urban fringe, or it could be up to four acres per, I'm sorry, four dwelling units per acre in those more suburban areas. And I won't go into too much detail again about the PD, but with this zoning request, what does occur is that if this were to be approved, a lot of the 2019 DDC standards would then be applied to this particular parcel. Whereas the current PD, because it's based on the 1969 zoning, doesn't actually have many of the things that we look at today in our current DDC. So as I mentioned, some of those things that would be brought forward with this development include the 2019 tree code protection standards. So again, under the current PD, under the 1969 zoning code of ordinances, there is no existing landscape requirements or tree preservation requirements. And so that would be pulled into this request, they would need to comply moving forward in any subsequent steps to make sure that 30% preservation of any heritage or quality trees is addressed at their planning stage. Just a brief comparison of the current PD and the R1 zoning district. You'll see a significant difference in the minimum lot area. So going again from that 7, like 7,700 square feet, all the way up to 32,000 square feet, which comes out to approximately 0.7 acres, it would be significantly larger and would allow for more open space, more tree preservation. And then you can see through the table building coverage is another thing that would change. The PD currently allows 45% building coverage, and that is reduced in the R1 district down to 30%. There are some slight changes in the setbacks, but overall, not quite different than what is currently existing in the surrounding area. So related to any adverse impacts, you know, with four single family lots, it doesn't appear to have any negative impact. So just looking at transportation for four single family homes, this would generate approximately 40 daily trips in a 24-hour period. State School Road is actually classified as a local street, which can accommodate up to 5,500 trips per day. So after speaking with traffic, there is no significant issue with this. Water is available and will be addressed at the platting stage, as well as extension of any wastewater. And again, any improvements that are needed for development of this site will take effect or will be reviewed at subsequent phases. So we did notice out twice for this project. There was a slight issue with just making sure that everyone got a notice due to a mapping error. But as you can see, three parcels or sorry, three residents were in favor of the request. Four did submit opposition for various reasons related to property values, traffic, and then some had a misunderstanding of multifamily that was clarified, and that's why you see a difference in the agenda packet that was sent out, an increase of one person in favor. With this, staff is recommending approval as the request complies with the criteria in section 2.45E of the DDC. And I forgot to add on this slide, but this will be going to city council on January 12. And with that, I can answer any questions and the applicant will give a brief presentation during the regular session. >> I'll take this. >> We do have a question. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Karina, you said it does have 25% opposition, so it will be a super majority at council, correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Thank you. >> Do I stop here? >> Any other questions for Karina on this item? Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. Karina, I think you said this, and I just want to clarify it in my head that leaving it as the PD-12 leaves all the design standards of the -- was it 86 rules, is that correct? >> So if this were to remain as the current PD, it would have to comply with the standards in the 1969 zoning code of ordinances, yes. And then in that current -- that current -- the standards that are there are related to that. Actually, there's no landscape standards, and then tree preservation is one thing that would not apply to that site. >> Yeah, I'm honestly a little surprised. >> Like I said, this is one of the -- >> They're going to a more restrictive -- but okay, cool. Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions? Okay. Karina, thank you for the presentation. That concludes the walkthrough of our agenda for this evening. I will close the meeting now. We'll come back to the same location at 630, so that's about seven minutes. I'll close the work session at 623, see you in seven minutes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning regular meeting for January 6th, 2021. Hope everyone is having a happy new year. I'll call the meeting to order, seeing that we have a quorum at 636. The first item of business is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag and Texas flag. And fellow commissioners, you can unmute yourself if you would like to join along with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one indivisible. Next item for business is item two, the consideration for the December 16th, 2020 minutes. Chair will hear a motion. Commissioner Smith. >> I make a motion to approve. >> We have first, Commissioner Beck. >> I second. >> We have first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cronin. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Aye. >> Chair also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. The next item for consideration is item three A, FP 20-0025B. Commissioner Smith. >> I make a motion to approve. >> We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Aye. >> Chair is also an aye. Motion carries seven zero. The next item of business is item four A, beginning our items for individual consideration. This item is PP 20-0027A. I'll invite Ron Manguita for presentation. >> Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. Hopefully you can hear me. >> We can. >> Also hopefully you were able to view the slide for this item. >> We are. >> This item is for a preliminary plaque for a multifamily development located on the southwest corner of Mingo and Mockingbird. The plaque, again, is a preliminary plaque. Staff is recommending approval as it meets the established approval criteria for a preliminary plaque. Just a quick note, the recommendation has changed. Since Friday, the applicant and our engineers have worked through outstanding comments related to drainage, and again, staff recommends approval. I'll stand for any questions. >> Any questions for Ron on this item? Okay. Thank you, Ron, I don't see any questions. Commissioner Anderson? >> I make a motion to approve. >> We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith? >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole? >> Aye. >> Chair is also in aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4B, FP20-0027A. And I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation. >> Good evening. This is a final plaque for the Woodlands edition. The property is located on the north side of McKinney Street, west of Trinity Boulevard, as you can see on the map. At this time, staff is recommending denial of this plaque as it does not meet the established requirements. And those details are provided in Exhibit 2 of your backup. I'm happy to stand for any questions. >> Is there any questions for Haley on this item? Okay. Thank you, Haley. Commissioner Smith? >> Make a motion to deny. >> Okay. We have a first. Commissioner Beck? >> I second that. >> Okay. We have a first and a second for denial. Prior to a motion or a vote, though, we do have one individual who has requested to speak over the phone regarding this item, and so we will certainly allow that individual to speak. I'll ask staff to connect them now. Is the individual connected? And are you there, caller, to speak on Item 4B? >> I think he was calling into the phone, so we're getting him plugged in now. >> Hello. My name is Chris Fairley, 5609 East McKinney Street, Denton, 76208. >> Good evening, Chris. And this -- I'm sorry? >> I said just good evening. Thank you for calling. >> Good evening. Thank you. This residential project is the Woodlands on McKinney Street. Was approved by City Council with 21 SUP conditions, special use provision conditions, some of which have created some unusual challenges for this private development, especially pertaining to the public, utility, and private easement requirements. Regardless, a meeting is being scheduled with the city development staff to clarify a few of the development code requirements. And the development will persevere and meet all of the Denton development code requirements once we, the developer, and the engineer understands some of the interpretations of the code. And that's all I have at this point. Thank you. >> I appreciate you calling in. Does anyone have any questions for the caller? I did not see any. Thank you very much for calling. >> Thank you. >> We do have a motion to deny made by Commissioner Smith with a second by Commissioner Beck. I apologize for not having the individual call before motions. Are the motions still in place, Commissioner Smith and Beck? Okay. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call just to remind you this is a vote of denial, so a yay is to deny. Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Aye. >> Chair has also an aye motion to deny is approved 7-0. Next item is 4CFR20-0017A. This is Hayley Zgurski's item. >> Good evening. This is a final replant for the razor cottages edition. The property, as you can see on the map, is located on the west side of Bonnie Bray between Linden and Crescent streets. Since your backup went out on Friday, the applicant has addressed all of the outstanding comments for this, so the staff recommendation has changed to approval for the plat at this time. I'm happy to stand for any questions. >> Great. Thank you, Hayley. Any questions for Hayley on this item? Okay. I don't see any questions. Is there a motion? Commissioner Beck. >> A motion to approve. >> We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis. >> Second. >> We have a second. So we have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote to be a roll call. We'll start with Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Aye. >> Chair is awesome. A motion carries 7-0. Next is item 4D, PP 20-0028A. This is also Hayley's item. >> This is a preliminary plat request for an industrial property located at the corner of Jim Crystal and Western Boulevard. Since the agenda posting on Friday, the outstanding items that were addressed in your backup have been addressed. So staff is changing the recommendation from denial to approval as we find that it now meets all of the established requirements. And I am happy to stand for any questions. >> Great. Thank you, Hayley. Any questions on this item? Great. Thank you for the presentation, Hayley. Commissioner Smith. >> I make a motion to approve. >> That's a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta. >> Second. >> First and second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Aye. >> Chair is awesome. A motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is 4EPP20-0029A. >> All right. The final of the plats before you this evening is another preliminary plat. This is for a different phase of the woodland projects. This is for the required six one-acre single-family lots to be located along Trinity Boulevard. At this time, the plat does not meet all of the requirements as outlined in exhibit two of your backups. The staff is recommending denial. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions for Hayley? We do have a caller for this. There's one individual who's requested to speak on this item, so I'll ask staff to connect that individual now. I think we're reaching out to him right now via phone. Just one minute. [Pause] [Pause] [Pause] [Pause] [Pause] [Pause] >> Hello? >> Yes. You are on with the P&Z. If you could just state your name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak. >> Yes. Hi. My name is Chris Fairley, 4000 South Trinity Road, Denton, Texas, 76208. And this preliminary plat pertains to this, as Hayley mentioned, the six one-acre lots which were created separately from a larger residential development due to an SUP requirement, special use permit condition. And the 30-day shot clock requirements proved to be a challenge in regards to, I guess, getting the plat surveyed individually, each individual lot separately surveyed and submitted in a timely manner. And going forward, we think that will certainly be resolved. Thank you. >> Great. I appreciate you being here for this item as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Goodbye. >> Is there a motion or discussion for this item? Commissioner Smith? >> I make a motion to deny. >> We have first, Commissioner Beck? >> I'll second that. >> We have first and second to deny. I will make the -- is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll make a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck? >> Aye. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Colle? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson? >> Aye. >> Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. This moves us to the public hearing items for this evening, starting with 5AZ20-0012. I will open the public hearing and ask Haley for presentation. >> Good evening. This is case Z2012 for the razor ranch east overlay amendments. The request before you is an amendment to the razor ranch overlay district to make changes specific to the south mixed use district on the eastern part of their south campus, which is outlined in yellow on the map. Specifically, we'll look at the proposed changes to their concept and zoning exhibits, as well as amendments and development standards that they're proposing to adopt specific to this part of the development. Just a little bit of brief background for you all. The razor ranch overlay district covers property on both the north and south side of university or highway 380. The north campus is referred to as the marketplace, and then the south is referred to largely as the south campus and consists of a couple of sub areas. So specifically within the south campus, what's called the town center is shown on their map as the RR1 area. Surrounding that in yellow is the south RR2 district, which allows for those more typical highway corridor type commercial developments. And then all of the other colors that you see on the map are what's collectively referred to as the south mixed use district. So specifically the changes we're looking at tonight are for this eastern part of that south mixed use district. The first of the proposed changes is to the conceptual plan, which is exhibit B1 to the overlay district. Specifically, the developer is looking to update this concept plan as it relates to the eastern campus. This area, if you'll notice, now reflects the streets and parcel boundaries that they recently plotted. This area was not plotted when this exhibit was last updated in 2017. So they'll be making those changes, which makes the map more legible and easier to apply in terms of which one of these colors associates with which lot. And then they are looking to change the use designation for three of those parcels. The first is this area shown in yellow, which is a proposed change from park to south RR2 designation. So that would change the permitted uses from only those park uses to a mixture of commercial restaurant retail type uses. The second change is for a property a little further south on Heritage Trail. Specifically, it's the smaller one-acre parcel. It's a little harder to see the property boundaries there. But you can see it's changing again from park to the light blue coloring, which represents hotel, single-family, multifamily, and restaurant retail. So a mixture of commercial uses that would be proposed for that property. And then the third change is for this property here, which you can see is shown now in tan in lieu of the purple shading for single-family. So this property was previously only allowed single-family uses. They're proposing to make a change to allow for office or single-family to have some options for that property. Those same changes are reflected on exhibit B4. So they're also looking to update this map, which is the zoning plan for Razor Ranch that reflects those base zonings from the 2002 code that their overlay district is based on. So they're proposing no changes to those base zonings. These changes would only be to reflect those same updates that we just looked at. So showing the property boundaries, the streets, and then updating these use categories consistent with the new proposals. So looking at each of those three considerations in a little more detail, staff is in agreement with updating the overall exhibit to show these property boundaries and streets, as I mentioned, that makes it much easier to administer when you can see associated with the lots that they've now plotted, what those designations are, as opposed to just general colored areas on the map. With respect to that northern property, they're proposing that change from park to south RR2. This would allow for continuation of those commercial uses that are permitted adjacent to that site to the north as well as to the west across Heritage Trail. In addition to being consistent with that, this would also be consistent with what was discussed with the city council. Just last year, they had a work session with council to discuss this property here that is shown as P, which is just over nine acres that is being developed and proposed to be dedicated to the city as a public park. And at that time, they discussed with council that a desire to put some complementary commercial uses such as kind of a dog park bar concept and some other restaurant uses north of the park to provide some easily walkable destinations for park users as well as to potentially provide some parking and restroom facilities in close proximity to the park. The second of the properties that they're proposing the change for, again, is the small parcel further south on Heritage Trail. Again, in this instance, the change would be from park to a mixed use commercial and residential designation. This would still, as I mentioned before, be consistent with the surrounding properties in the area that also have that hotel or multi-family, single-family designation. So a little less intense commercial or residential uses. This would allow for this block to be developed in a more cohesive manner. And the city's parks department was approached about whether they would be interested in this property designated as park, and they indicated that they -- that would not be an interest to them given the small size of the property and the larger park to the north that they would be potentially taking over ownership and maintenance for. And then the third change to the maps, again, is this property here along Bonnie Bray. The proposed change is from single-family only to office/single-family. This change is driven largely by the increase in gas wealth reverse setbacks. So previously the setback was 250 feet, which did encroach into the property, but not as significantly as the new 500-foot reverse setback that went into effect last year. With that change, almost half of this property would become undevelopable if the use was restricted to single-family because that is a protected use that's not permitted within the reverse setback. This change would allow them the option to, again, put in some office uses on this property, which is consistent with some of the changes we're seeing along Bonnie -- the northern Bonnie Bray corridor where many of the single-family uses are turning over into things like offices and daycares. The development standards that they've proposed were provided in full detail in your backup. If you look through those, you'll see that they are very consistent with everything else that we see at Razor Ranch for nonresidential uses. This is kind of the last missing piece to the development standards. Over the last couple of years, you've seen them adopt single-family and multi-family standards for the East Campus, so that missing piece is for those nonresidential uses. The design standards would provide site design requirements, architectural, parking, landscaping, and sign standards, and would be incorporated into the overlay as Exhibits C2, D2, and E2. As I mentioned, the changes are consistent in terms of architectural style, materials, landscaping standards with the rest of the Razor Ranch district, and those are still those heightened standards above what the overlay district was originally adopted under with the 2002 DDC. And that Razor Ranch site plan process would remain unchanged, so those future nonresidential uses would still come back to you all for final site plan approval. And then finally, the last piece of this change is more of just an administrative cleanup task, which is amending the actual text of the overlay district that's a part of the DDC to reflect those new exhibits that they're adopting, as well as to reorganize the list of uses for the South Mixed Use Campus so that it now aligns with those designations on the map to make the code overall easier to administer and to tell specifically which uses are permitted on which parcels. Notification was sent out regarding this request. We did receive one opposition, which is shown here on the map in red, and then one in favor from the adjacent owner of the town center portion of the overlay district. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting this week. Staff was not able to attend, but I believe they can speak to that in their presentation. And staff is recommending approval of this request. If it, assuming a vote tonight, they would tentatively be scheduled for city council on February 2nd. And I will pull down the slides and stand for any questions. Thanks, Haley, Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Haley, a question that occurred to me since the work session. If that easternmost property along Bonnie Bray is effectively precluded from single family, why aren't we just designating an office? Is there a rationale for office single family versus just office? The 500-foot reverse setback essentially cuts through the middle of the property, so the northern end of it could possibly still develop with a few single family lots. So I believe they wanted to leave that option open in case they ever intend to develop something similar to the cottages that we just looked at. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Haley. Is there any other questions for Haley? And, Haley, did you say that the applicant had a presentation? Yes, yes, they do have a slideshow. I believe Amy Bissett should be on the line for this item. Great. I'll go ahead and invite her for presentation. Good evening, Commissioners. This is Amy Bissett. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. I believe Haley has my slides that she can pull up for us. And then I just have a very brief presentation. Amy Bissett, 97 Land Company, 100 West Oak Street, Denton, 76201. I do want to let you know that we also have Kevin Bankhead with Allegiance Hillview on the line. He is the property owner and developer of these particular parcels. And also have Hodge's architecture on the line in case we have any specific questions related to the design standards that are being proposed. Haley, if you'll go ahead and advance to slide two. I'm going to be very brief here, and my presentation actually looks a lot like Haley's. As you all know, Razor Ranch is a large mixed-use development that encompasses over 400 acres that has developed over the course of several years. It encompasses areas both north and south of 380 and is generally between I-35 and Bonnie Bray. The development that exists today includes everything from the Walmart and Sands on the north end, that were one of the first pieces of the development, to the NDC Suites and Convention Center Hotel. On the south side, the Wynko Foods grocery store, multiple restaurants, Academy Coles, some multifamily that is going in on the south side, medical offices and rooms to go. It has developed over a number of years, and the area east of Heritage Trail that we're speaking about tonight is kind of some of the last pieces to start to develop. And especially the commercial uses have never had design standards written for them in this particular area. Haley, if you'll go to slide three, please. Haley went through a lot of the technical elements associated with the proposed changes in the ordinance itself. As you know, the Razor Ranch overlay district is almost like its own DDC. It's almost just as long and complicated. But our current request is to amend that overlay district for the south mixed-use district, which is east of Heritage Trail and south of 380. We're really here to accomplish two objectives. The first goal is to change the allowable land uses on three tracks that are outlined in red on the slide that is before you. And the second goal is to adopt commercial design standards for this portion of Razor Ranch that have previously not yet been drafted or adopted. I will walk through each parcel individually as well. I do want to point out that parcels, if you look, the ones that I have labeled one and two, which are the ones that are north and south of the 9.8-acre park that will be dedicated to the city, those are really remnant parcels that predate 2008 from the original agreement with the Razor family that, over time, that original agreement has changed or become no longer valid, and that's really the reason for the proposed changes to those two land uses. Haley, if you'll go to slide four, please, I want to talk about the north tract first. This is lot one, block F. It is 3.9 acres. As I mentioned previously, this is a remnant parcel that predates 2008 that we are proposing to change it to RR2 to be consistent with what's around it. The intent here really is to create some complementary recreational uses to the park that's immediately to the south. Haley, if you'll go to slide five, this is kind of generally the look and feel that we're going for here. We want to have, especially in this COVID era, outdoor restaurant-type uses that complement the park where you can have your dog on a leash and sit down and have some lunch, play some pickleball. Those types of uses are what we're after here, and as Haley mentioned, this would also be used to have some additional parking and restroom facilities for the park that is immediately to the south. Haley, if you'll go to slide six, the second parcel that we are requesting a change to the land use on is technically lot two, block E. It is highlighted in red here with the number two, and it's 1.79 acres. This also predates 2008 when the concept was originally conceived for this entire development. And at one point in history, it was conditionally restricted to park uses, but then those restrictions were lifted. And as Haley mentioned, there's no desire from the city to develop it as a park, so we simply want to integrate the zoning to be consistent with what's surrounding it. Partial seven -- I'm sorry, slide seven, Haley. If you look at the third area, this is lot one, block C. This is 4.7 acres that was originally designated for single-family only, just as the parcel to the north of that is, which is where razor cottages will be developed to improve that plot tonight. This particular lot was -- the impetus for this change is the increase in reverse setback, rendering most of this lot undevelopable for any protected uses, which includes residential uses as well as schools, churches, hospitals, things of that nature. We believe that office uses would be the most compatible uses since there are many medical and professional office developments along Bonnie Bray. So we wanted to restrict to only propose one additional use, and that would be offices, since those would be allowed within the reverse setback and most of the single-family use would be rendered inappropriate on the new reverse setback. Haley, if you'll go to slide eight, please. The second goal is really to adopt commercial design standards that don't exist today so that we have something to build to, and those would be applicable for the area that is outlined in dark blue. And generally speaking, they are stricter in terms of architectural details and building materials and the citywide code, and they're consistent with the surrounding uses -- sorry, the surrounding architecture and building materials and design requirements for Razor Ranch as a whole. They also do incorporate protections for surrounding residential uses, including restrictions on lighting as well as screening of mechanical equipment and things of that nature. Haley, if you'll go to slide nine, please. We did have a virtual neighborhood meeting. We mailed out invitations right before Christmas. We were kind of up against an interesting timeframe with everybody being gone over the holidays, so we held that neighborhood meeting this Monday. We just didn't want to -- we didn't want to overlook the opportunity to engage the neighborhood, and we did get five RSVPs and three attendees, and we made a presentation that's very similar to the one that I made here tonight and then emailed that presentation to everyone who RSVPed. I also had two separate phone call discussions with neighboring property owners. Generally, all of the feedback that we heard was positive, and in support of the project, I recognize and acknowledge that Haley received one response in opposition, but everybody that we engaged with directly expressed their support. And Haley, if you'll just go to the last slide, please. That is all I have, and I'm happy to answer any questions and also would remind you that we have the developer and the architect on the line if you have specific questions for them. Thank you. Great. Thank you. We do have a question for Commissioner Beck. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Amy, I'll ask you the same question I just asked Haley. Is there really any impetus or urge or desire to have that block be single family, that block three, or is it really the desire at this point to have it entirely be office space? So the developer for Razor Cottages, which is the plat that you approved earlier this evening, that's directly to the north, they will be the developer for the one directly to the south that's impacted by the gas bill setback. I believe the intent at this point is to allow it to develop with office uses. I think that if -- I can imagine a scenario where the cottages were so well received that the lots were acquired quickly and there was a desire from the community to see a few more that we might be able to put some along Linden Street that face Linden, perhaps, that really kind of integrate with the cottage development to the north of it. But for the most part, I would be -- and I think the intention at this point is to develop it with office uses. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? I do not see any. I will go on record to say for this item, we had one person make a comment using the online comment form. The comment was in support of this item, and the form was emailed to all the commissioners and to staff to be recorded. Seeing no other comments that I have in front of me, I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for motion and then discussion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson? I second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Kohl? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. And just as a way of managing the agenda a little bit, I apologize for not getting this done sooner, but item 5D tonight, that's 5 delta, we're taking no action on, so if anyone's listening at home along with this, we are taking no action on 5D, it's being postponed. And then because in work session, item 5C was a little bit longer of a discussion, we're going to go ahead and bump 5E before that. So we'll go 5B as in bravo next, 5E, and then we will finish the evening on 5C. With that, we'll go to the next item of business, item 5B, PD 20-0008. This is Haley Zegerski's item again, and I'll open the public hearing. I was muted there. Good evening again. This is item PD 20-0008, the Habitat for Humanity. So the request before you tonight is a rezoning from the R4 or residential 4 district to a planned development district for a property that is just over 8 acres. You can see the location of the property here on the map. It is located along Duncan and Hill Street, and my apologies in your backup. I did have those directions flip-flopped, so I apologize for any confusion, but the location is correct on the map. You can see here the current versus proposed zoning. So on the left side of the screen, you can see the R4 zoning consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. And then you can see what the map would change to if this were approved with the planned development zoning. I wanted to first go over the proposed development plan that would become part of the PD ordinance. So you can see here the layout that's been proposed for this subdivision. It would have 35 single-family lots split between two phases. Phase one is shown in blue and would include 16 lots as well as the extension of boardwalk lane. Phase two would be the northern part of the property. That would be 19 additional lots as well as a new street that is shown as carrying way on the map. Phase one would also include a detention pond that you can see here that would be located at the northern end of the property on Duncan Street adjacent to the rails to trail corridor. And the developer has indicated that this would most likely occur with a four-year build out for each phase, so eight total years to build out for these 35 lots. Looking at the development standards proposed for the PD, first wanted to go through the uses that are proposed. This PD would restrict the use of the property to single-family detached dwellings only for the primary use, with home occupation being the only permitted accessory use. You can see here the R4 district currently permits a pretty wide variety of uses both by right and with a specific use permit. So this would be essentially assuring that some of those more intensive uses such as townhomes or duplexes would not develop on the property and it would strictly be single-family detached dwellings. And then looking at the dimensional standards and some of the development standards that would apply to this development, this compares what's proposed with the PD to the R4 district. So they are proposing a little bit smaller lot, 6,000 square feet as opposed to 7,000. These dimensional standards are all essentially what we have in our R6-based zoning district. So some of these are slightly less than what we have in R4, so you can see 10-foot reductions in lot width and the front yard at setback as well as the side yard setback on corners. The other kind of major changes for this PD that are different from our DDC, they have proposed to increase the overall tree canopy by planting one additional tree per lot. And then they are proposing a reduction in parking because if you're familiar with Habitat Homes, they typically do not feature a garage. So where our code requires four off-street parking spaces that is most typically accomplished with two in a garage and two in a driveway. So they are proposing the driveway space for two cars still, but then also accommodating one space on street in the front of each dwelling. So loss of one space per unit essentially. For tree preservation and street trees, they are proposing no changes. Those would be per the development code. The general criteria for approval were all discussed in detail in your backup. Generally speaking, we found that they met all of these 13 criteria. What they're proposing is consistent with the DDC and our comp plan. They had no prior approvals that we needed to consider with this request. They are proposing a rational phasing plan and would have adequate infrastructure, as we'll look at later on. And staff did not find any concerns to indicate that there would be a significant negative impact in terms of environmental or fiscal impacts. We'll go through each of these six specific criteria for plan developments in a little more detail. So the first criterion is consistency with our dent in plan 2030. So we'll look at a few different elements of the comprehensive plan. The first being the future land use map, which you can see a screenshot of here. The property is largely designated as low density residential, so that would be one to four dwelling units per acre typically. But you can see there are in a transitional area where we have industrial commerce immediately adjacent to the site, both to the east and the south. In this transitional area, it would be typical to see the uses becoming more intense as you approach that industrial area. So their density that would be just over the four unit per acre mark is not a concern in this area. It's more of what we would expect to see on these edges of a low residential area. Some other elements of the comp plan that are applicable to this project. There is a large portion of the comp plan dedicated to affordable housing and infill development. This is one of those kind of remnant infill parcels in the central part of the city that's surrounded on all sides. So they are providing a compatible use in this area that would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. And they're also meeting that need for affordable housing that's called out in the DDC. If you're familiar with Habitat projects, that is their ultimate goal is providing affordable detached single family housing. So they would help meet that goal of the comp plan. Some of the proposal features such as the smaller lots and not having the driveways providing less parking would help contribute to the affordability of these lots. The comp plan also speaks to some urban design guidelines. Specifically, it calls for architectural variety and quality that help provide visual interest in the community. So I wanted to share with you some of the proposed elevations that are included in your backup so that you can see they are proposing a consistent kind of architectural theme for the neighborhood. They're focusing on traditional craftsman style architecture as well as some mid century elements to these homes. So that would provide for community character and visual interest in the neighborhood. The second criterion is compliance with the DDC. So this is the same table we looked at before. Other than the changes that you see on the screen here, they are proposing compliance with all other aspects of the development code. Third criterion would be rather they provide for greater building design amenities and connectivity. So as you've seen on the previous slides, they are proposing some additional landscaping requirements for the subdivision. They're proposing some enhanced architectural standards that would enhance that community character as we looked at on the previous slide with those elevations. And then they would be increasing connectivity through the area, providing those additional connections between Duncan and Hill streets. The fourth criterion is rather for residential uses. There's a compatibility of buildings, uses, and character in the area. This PD would limit those uses, as I mentioned, to only single family. So ensuring that some of those more intensive residential uses that might be out of character for the area wouldn't be developed on the property. They also provide for that consistency of character with those homes. If you've been through this part of Denton, it is largely single story. Kind of a lot of the homes are more towards that craftsman or ranch style architecture, so they would be consistent with that as well with the theme that they propose for the neighborhood. The fifth criterion is not applicable since there are no non-residential uses proposed. And then finally, criterion six is rather there would be provision of adequate public facilities to support the development. So we'll look at these briefly in turn. With respect to schools, there is a very minimal student generation expected from these 35 lots. You can see less than 10 students expected at any of the age intervals. Denton ISD did provide comment and indicate that all of these schools have capacity to handle those additional students. And then with respect to parks, our threshold and the goal for our Parks Department is to have a no more than a 10 minute walk to a park for our residential areas. As you can see on the map, the nearest park would be Fred Moore, which walking up Duncan Street would be approximately an eight minute walk from this development. With respect to fire and law enforcement, no concerns were identified here. They are well within the eight minute response time boundary from the nearest fire station, which is the central fire station on Belle Avenue and Hickory Street. And then for our police, there was generally no concern due to the consistency of the use in this area. With respect to public facilities, water and wastewater are both available to serve the site and would be continued throughout the site. You can see the sewer lines in red and water lines in blue on this map do occur on both perimeters of the property. And then finally, with respect to streets, there is adequate access to the site from Duncan Street, which is a collector and then from Hill Street, which is a local residential street. The trip generation expected from this development is rather minimal and does not trigger the threshold for traffic impact analysis. They would expect less than 400 daily trips and 30 peak hour trips from this number of homes at full build out. Perimeter street improvements would be provided along their frontages on Hill and Duncan, specifically sidewalk connections would be made here. And then internally, they would have the street extensions to provide for additional connectivity. Public outreach was done through newspaper website as well as mailings. We received no written responses to the 200 foot or 500 foot mailings. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting in December on the 17th. They held that via Zoom and had about 20 residents attend that meeting. And finally, staff is recommending approval of the request as we found it to meet all the criteria for approval for rezoning to PD. And again, this case would be tentatively scheduled for Council on February 2nd. So I will pull down the presentation and happy to stand for any questions. And I believe the applicant is also on the line and they have a brief presentation for you all. Any questions for Haley? Okay, let's go ahead and move to the applicant presentation at this time. Hi, everyone. My name is Laura Blakeslee Atkinson and I'm the executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Gittin County. The other members of our team that are on the line are our board president, David Johnson, our engineer, Steve Holmeier, and our marketing and development coordinator, Annie Folk. Haley, can you please go to slide two? And before I start my presentation, which is very brief, I just wanted to thank Haley for all her support and I wanted to thank the commissioners for looking at our proposal and considering it. So I wanted to start by going to slide two and just I wanted to highlight that we are a nonprofit and what our mission is and our vision is that everyone deserves a decent place to live and in Gittin County we do that by providing affordable housing. So Haley, if you could start the video on slide three. Thank you. Just one second and I will get that hold up. Habitat Village is an opportunity that Habitat has here in Denton. We've owned eight acres. We've been wanting to have the right opportunity to build a village where we can have 35 homes built and have the ability to create a community in southeast Denton. This is a very big deal because building lots are very difficult to find. They've become much more expensive in the last several years. The lots are being bought up by builders. The prices have gone up three and four times. In order to have a future, we've got to create the neighborhood because the individual lots are just not there like they were before. Denton County alone will grow at least by a million people just in the next 10 years. It's driving up home prices, land prices. We have to do what we can to keep the price of our homes very reasonable for our families so we can serve a much broader part of the community. The Habitat Village will solve this problem for us for five or six years. Maybe eight, maybe even 10 years. To have an epicenter of activity for several years is going to create great momentum for our organization. We will be able to have houses under construction that are in very, very close proximity. Think about we can really almost turned into almost like a production line, right? Where we are, the logistics are all a lot smoother. I think it'll, it'll more than double our ability to supply homes to low income people that need them here in Denton. And I've worked in the neighborhood now for about 15 years. So it's been really rewarding to see each of those families that I've worked with as they become homeowners and you see the pride whenever they go in. I was like I'm getting a brand new house, I can't wait. And you get to build it? Yeah, we got to build it our own selves. Each time we've built a group of houses together, the Habitat families have become very close friends. It's developed lifelong friendships. Before I started building my home, I had to do a certain number of split equity hours. I started building a house over on Curly Street. It was so neat because it was like I was learning so much and I was getting to help another family and I was able to give to somebody else who that kind of built my self-esteem. Anyone who's going through the Habitat building process, this is good to build families closer together. It's my home and I can call it my home not like I'm just coming here for a couple years. I can actually stay here until I graduate. There you can really see an indication of the impact that it's going to have on their lives. One of the best things about being a house leader is that you get to present the keys to the family for the first time and that's quite an experience for them. Let's hope that this really catches on of a really good feeling and great things that Habitat can do and truly, truly make a difference. I would say to the young adults who's going into their career or into the workforce, think to your family because through the process you'll be able to finish it out with them drawing closer as a family. Hi, Haley. If you could please go to slide five and thank you everybody for watching that video. We appreciate it. Oh, I'm sorry, slide four. There we go. Slide four is an aerial shot of where our development would be and I just really wanted to include it because it shows the other homes in the neighborhood and how our houses will complement it. Slide five, please, Haley. So on slide five is what Haley kind of went over. We're going to have two phases. Slide six shows that we have phase one with 16 lots and we will develop one street and the detention pond. Slide seven, Haley, please, and that shows that we will finish the 19 more lots and the second of the two streets. And then slide eight, please, Haley. What Haley showed you, again, I just wanted you guys to see the elevations and how we're putting stone and brick in the front. And then I included some floor plans on slide nine and if you want to see these more closely, they are on our website and we were really fortunate. We were able to work with design services and our designer was William Brown and he took our homes and really reinvented them and used this creativity to make them more artistic. So we just wanted to share those. Slide ten is more of the floor plans. As you see, our floor plans are about 1,350 square feet to a little over 1,400 and that does include the porch in the front, which is about 60 square feet. Slide 11 gives you a couple more floor plans and the really neat thing is our build committee that is made up of all volunteers came up with an affordable way to include islands in our kitchen. So we're very excited. Slide 12 I wanted to include because I wasn't sure if anybody had seen the inside of our homes and our homes are built with great quality and are energy efficient and very modern. So the first slide 12 shows our kitchen. Slide 13 please Hayley, it shows more of our kitchen. Slide 14 gives a view of a bedroom. You know, they're just, they're really great homes. They have high quality pieces in them. And then slide 15 shows our master bedroom, what it would look like and then all of our master bedrooms do come with a master bath. And then slide 16, I just didn't know if the commissioners realized that we sell our homes to our families at market value and they're praised by a third party and that really protects the community of the value of homes so that the community remains strong. So slide 17, Annie and I researched and one of our volunteers, Jerry Morgan, helped us research the current value from Denton County Appraisal District of some of our homes that are in that neighborhood right now. And so I wanted you guys to see that. And again, this is just the Denton County Appraisal so it's not market value. So these homes more than likely would sell for more. And then the final slide I wanted to include was just that we will provide two new streets, green space, and additional access to the Lincoln Park. So thank you for listening to our presentation and we just appreciate it. Thank you very much. Is there any questions from the commission on from the applicant or to the applicant? Okay, just want to let the commission know that for this item we had one person make a comment using our online form. That comment was in support of this item and the form was emailed to all the commissioners and to staff to be recorded. We do have one other individual wanting to speak on this item so I'll ask staff to patch him through now. Hello, can you hear me? We can if you can just state your name and address on the record and give us four minutes. Yes sir, I'm David Johnson. My address is 1721, 1721 North Carroll Boulevard. I am the board president for Habitat and I just wanted to chime in and show my support for this project and our huge, huge thanks to Haley for all her work. This has been a big, big effort for everyone and she's been very, very helpful. Habitat for Humanity in Denton County is very excited about how this project may come together, and we greatly appreciate the support of the commission and the city of Denton. And if any of you would like to think about volunteering at any of our projects coming up in the future, I'll throw that little, throw that little in comment in as well. So that's all I'll let you get on with your meeting. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Is Mr. Pruitt online now? I am. Mr. Pruitt, I appreciate you being patient. If you could just state your full name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak. Sure, this is Eric Pruitt, 2111 Westwood Drive. Let me be clear. I'm fully in favor of this PD. This is how you allow people to build naturally affordable housing. You reduce the parking requirements, you reduce the lot size and the street frontage. Quite frankly, I think it's somewhat shameful that in the majority of the land in Denton, these requests are not permitted by right, which essentially means people cannot build affordable single family detached homes on the majority of land in Denton. This is what planners mean when we talk about exclusionary zoning, which permits only single family detached homes in a manner that makes it unprofitable to build affordable homes. These requests also improve the fiscal impact to the city. And given that it's an info lot, I'm completely in favor of this development from a fiscal perspective. It won't require additional fire stations or large road and utility expansions. But, you know, I'm also somewhat disappointed that I have a but that has not asked for more flexibility to give these future residents and homeowners, not just a way to own a home, but to build on that foundation to a brighter future. When I first saw this agenda and backup items posted last Thursday, I got excited. Maybe I misread it, or maybe it was amended at some point. I'm not sure. But my recollection was that it allowed uses listed live work instead of just home occupation. Allowing live work uses here where a portion of the dwelling can be legally used for a business, especially in lots that backed up to Duncan or Hill Street could be a game changer for future residents. Residents could bootstrap low impact businesses to serve the neighborhood employees in the nearby industrial area and build wealth for their families with very little capital required. The floor plans could even incorporate this flexibility by planning a room or two with a secondary exterior entrance that could be closed off from the rest of the home. Home occupation is already permitted in R4. So this request is really an expansion of permission by reducing parking requirements and lot width while prohibiting almost every other by right feature that future homeowners would have, like building an ADU in their backyard for an aging parent several years after they move in. It seems Habitat may be asking for only the minimum permission that they require to build their planned buildings rather than asking for zoning, which maximizes the potential these properties can have to improve the lives of their future residents. Should we allow this PDE request? By all means. But I really wish organizations like Habitat and commercial developers would seek to add the variety in housing stock that our 2030 plan asks for while creating affordable housing and opportunity for our residents to build wealth. That can't happen with straight R4 zoning and it can't happen with this PDE request. We deserve better. Even simply approving all R4 conditions with the exceptions of the parking minimums reduced and lot width reduced or approving all R6 conditions with the exception of reduced parking minimums would be a vast improvement over the proposed PDE for the ability of the future residents to build wealth for their families. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Prunette. Is there any questions for the caller? Commissioner Beck. This is a comment more for staff but follows directly on from Mr. Prunette's comments. Is there anything precluding us or the Habitat organization or the future owners from requesting another zoning change that would allow for essentially what Mr. Prunette is suggesting a modified R4? There's nothing precluding that from going forward. Is that correct? Other uses could be proposed as part of the plan development. Mr. Prunette is correct. At one point an early draft of this PDE did include the work/live dwelling after talking with the applicant. We determined that that really wasn't the intent or what typically would occur with their homes because a work/live dwelling does require essentially the commercial business to be the majority of the home. It requires at least 50% of the structure to be dedicated to a commercial use, which in a home of this size would then greatly limit the living space of the home, which is not typically what you would see for a single family home that's intended for a family with multiple people living in the house. So that not only seemed out of character with the neighborhood to encourage those commercial uses within the neighborhood, it was also inconsistent with what Habitat's goals typically are for these homes. But certainly other uses could be added to the PDE as part of the request if the commission chose to pursue that. Okay. Thank you, Haley. Commissioner Prunette. I'm good. That answered my question. With that, given that I have seen no other individuals wishing to speak, I'm going to head and closing the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Prunette. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion on this item? Commissioner Ellis. Not really discussion, Chair. Thank you. Just a comment to say thank you very much for the wealth of information and terrific presentations all the way around. Fantastic. With that, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Yes, absolutely. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Prunette. Aye. I thoroughly enthusiastically join the rest of my commissioners in voting yes to this. It's a great project and I'm excited to see this go through. With that, motion carries 7-0. Congratulations. As mentioned earlier, we're going to go ahead and skip C. We're going to come back to that. Item D is taking no action this evening. With that, we will go to 5EZ20-0011C and I'll invite Karina Maldonado for presentation. We will open the public hearing. All right. Good evening. Karina Maldonado, assistant planner. I will be presenting Z20-0011, excuse me, state school voter states. This evening is to rezone approximately 4.23 acres from planned development district to R1 district. This property is located on State School Road, just shy of Winston Street and near the state supported facility. Surrounding this property is a majority of moderate single family residential with the exception of one undeveloped property on the west side that was recently, or not recently, but several years back, went through the zoning process before P&Z for the MN district. Beyond this property, you'll see a large tree canopy as well. I'm sorry. I'll end that there. And then the applicant's request is to subdivide the property into four single family estate lots. Just briefly, here is the concept plan for the development, which will come in a later subsequent phase. This is a draft preliminary plot showing or demonstrating the proposed four lots. As you can see on here, these are all approximately one acre in size. And again, the preliminary plot will come in a future phase. So just briefly, the planned development that is in existence today is shown on the screen. It was established in 1986 as plan development 12. The area in question, you can see within the red box, shows that this property was designated for single family dwellings only with a maximum density of three to five dwelling units per acre. This would actually equal out to a maximum of 18 units on this property. So the request is actually more restrictive. They're wanting to develop less single family homes than what is currently allowed today. Within the PD, the process for moving forward with development would have to follow the 1969 zoning ordinance for the process for this to move forward. So what that looks like is that if they would like to move forward with any kind of development, including the planning process, they would have to go before the planning and zoning commission as well as city council before they could move forward and get any approvals or any permits. And so just briefly, these are the standards that currently apply to the PD. So a minimum lot area of 7,700 square feet, minimum lot width of 70 feet, lot depth of 110 feet, and as well as a minimum dwelling size of 1,500 square feet. And I'll get into this comparison a little bit in more detail as we move forward. This is just the current zoning map showing that what is in existence today is a plan development. And what the applicant is proposing is the less restrictive larger lot R1 district. So I won't be going into all the approval criteria too thoroughly. This is a pretty straightforward, straight zoning. Most of the analysis is in the packet. So I'll just go over a few brief items and if you have any questions, I could go over them at the end. So the first criteria going over is how it complies with the Denton Plan 2030. As you can see on the screen, the future land use designation for this area is low density residential, which is intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre. So lot sizes within this designation are typically between one acre along the rural fringe and up to four dwelling units per acre in those suburban subdivision areas. And so the request is to zone out of the PD and into a low residential district like R1. And so in doing so, one of the things that would happen in this case would be the current standards, the 2019 standards, would then be applied to this property. Whereas any development that occurs today would have to again follow the 1969 zoning code of ordinances. So secondly, the second criteria relates to any adverse environmental impacts. So as we mentioned before, this particular site has a large canopy of trees. It hasn't been surveyed yet. That would come later in the plotting process. But just as an item to bring up or to mention, the existing PD, the standards that exist today, does not include any landscape standards or tree preservation standards. So zoning out of the PD would actually bring it up to the current standards that we apply to all development. And that would look like a minimum of 30% preservation of any heritage or quality trees on site. Next criteria relates to any minimum adverse impacts on surrounding property. So as I mentioned earlier, the majority of the properties surrounding this are moderate density, R4 districts. This property is also on the border of the city of Denton and city of Corinth. However, even on the city of Corinth side, it follows a similar density in comparison to what the applicant is proposing. So with this rezoning, it represents a reduction in the maximum permitted density, again, from three to five going units per acre to approximately 1.4 going units per acre. So you'll see the difference is significantly different between what the minimum lot area would be, as well as setbacks. The most significant or most important, I would say, is the building coverage on there. So it's going down from 45% down to 30% on larger lots. And then just briefly, as it relates to transportation, the proposals for four single family homes, again, which would only generate approximately 40 daily trips in a 24-hour period, this traffic would essentially go onto State School Road, which is a local street and can accommodate the additional trips without any significant impact to the level of service. There is water services available that the applicant could connect to, or sorry, the developer could connect to, and any wastewater extension would again be addressed with platting, as well as access and improvements to the streets. This item was re-noticed just to ensure that all surrounding property owners did receive a notice due to a mailing error with the boundary of the property. So 35 notices were sent out for those within 200 feet, and this includes only properties within the City of Denton, and then courtesy notices within 500 feet. In total, we did receive three responses in support of the project. However, the surrounding area within 200 feet, and we did receive four in opposition, which brings opposition to 25%, and it exceeds the minimum 20% that would force a supermajority at City Council. There were no neighborhood meetings held, however, the applicant did reach out to a few property owners on an individual basis. With this, staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with the criterion section 2.4.5E of the DDC, and this item will be moving forward to City Council on January 12th. With that, I can answer any questions. The applicant is also on the line and has a few slides that they would like to present, so I don't know if that's before or after questions. Great. Let's see if there's any questions for you, Karina, and then we'll go to the applicant. I do not see any, so if we could invite the applicant to speak, I would appreciate full name and addresses for the record, and then the applicant has up to 10 minutes to present. Good evening, Commissioners. This is Amy Bissett again. Can you hear me? We can. Karina, if you wouldn't mind, if you'd pull up our handful of slides, I would appreciate it. Amy Bissett, 97 Land Company, 100 West Oak, Denton, 76201. I will be very brief on this presentation tonight. Karina, if you can go ahead and advance to slide 2. I just want to provide a little bit of history on why we are requesting this zoning change. The PD that this particular piece of property is in is a legacy PD, as Karina mentioned, from the 1980s, the majority of which is actually in the city of Corinth. And so I've actually been working on this particular site since 2017, and a large part of that time has been spent trying to understand the components associated with the original PD and how they apply to this particular lot. As you can see, the way this lot is laid out, it has some peculiarities to it, the shape, and also it is very heavily treed, as Karina mentioned. And there was a lot of confusion, not only on our part, but also on the city's part about what land uses were allowed here, how to apply the general land use that was allowed, which in a broad sense is single family, up to four units per acre. And so we had originally gone straight to a preliminary plot application, which is what Karina showed you in Karina's field event slide 3. This was our preliminary plot application. As we began to process it, we all came to the realization that the way the old PD was written, we would be required to come back through planning and zoning commission and city council with public hearings with a detailed site plan, which is essentially the same process as zoning change, and with our very simple proposal of four estate lots, that the intent here is to sell those lots to individuals and families and allow them to obtain their own home builder and decide where on that lot they would like to build their home and preserve as many trees as possible, to have to come back through P&D and council with a detailed site plan to be consistent with a code that was from the 1980s with a base code from 1969. It just seemed onerous and really unnecessary when the proposal that we've got before you with four lots that are over an acre each would be permitted by right under the P&D as it exists today. It's just that that PD is confusing for everyone and convoluted and bringing in a detailed site plan for four single family homes that we don't have any idea what they would look like today didn't make a lot of sense to us. So it made more sense to just zone out of the PD and into the 2019 development code. We love trees and we love landscaping and we think the 2019 code is a, you know, years of advancement, obviously, from the 1969 code and are happy to comply with it. So it just made more sense to us to rezone to a straight R1 and that's why we're here before you. Karina, if you would advance to slide four, please. I do want to say that we did reach out to and speak with several individual homeowners in the neighborhood. And the obviously the the percentage of opposition that is increasing us to 25% is the property owner directly across the street and our understanding is that the opposition is because they intend to develop that for commercial uses in the future and they would like to see additional commercial uses, including on our lot. And we certainly understand that and respect that and the property owner who is my client is on the line to speak to that he did reach out to the broker to try to have a one on one conversation with that property owner. We looking at the surrounding neighborhood believe that with the single family that we back up to all the way around it, that obviously, in our opinion, residential is going to be the most appropriate to be located here. And we looked at trying to get closer to four units per acre, as would be permitted into the original PD, but with the with the trees, the way they are and the drainage, the way that it is natural the natural topography of the site. It just made more sense to go with a state style lots with that individual family individuals and families could choose to build a home on that met their individual desires. So, that's really it. In terms of a presentation, I'm happy to answer any questions I also have Brad Andrews on the line who is the property owner who can answer questions as well. Thank you. Great, I appreciate that miss miss it. Is there any questions for the applicant, Mr Smith. Thank you, Chair. This visit the couple of questions for you. Why, why not just go ahead and develop for houses on there yourself rather than doing it into separate lots and selling lots. Well, I, I've got Brad Andrews on the line he'd be better to answer that question as the property owner. And I think the intent is, you know, we're not we're not housing developers, but I will let him answer that in more detail. Brad if you can hit, hear me you may have to hit star six to unmute yourself. All right, am I on now. You are. Okay. Yeah, this Brad Andrews. The question really is the answer to the question really is, is Amy, is Amy say that we're simply not home builders, and so we're just looking to plot this or kind of semi develop this property in a way that will allow us to sell it in the best way possible. After many years as Amy's described many years of thinking we had one thing and trying to do different types of uses. We just kind of come to the conclusion this is bias and best use and most likely to get approved, not only by the city but to get neighborhood support. Despite the one guy across the street. Really, we believe we have strong support from the neighborhood for this type of use we lacking sewer. Without the easement through one of our neighbors to get to sewer. We really would have a hard time developing this in any way at all. And the only way he was going to provide tours to is to see this kind of use on the property and so working with him and other neighbors. This is what came down to book to answer your particular question. We're simply not home builders. And I respect that, you know, but I think I've seen both your names come across our table with other housing developments in the past, so I'm not quite sure maybe if there's a delineation going to get in between the two of those but and then I'll speak personally that I live less than 10th and while when this location is going to problem with the project at all, just would maybe bring up that the way it looks to me with trees that are on the, on the property that at least one of those lots is going to have a, they're going to be be probably adversely shaded to having to tree mitigation, specifically the south there I guess that would be the guest south lot if you want to call that southeastern lot the far right lot when looking at it from state school road, whereas the far left lot would not have nearly as many trees so going through developing it, you know, one builder building all four homes and being able to do the tree mitigation correctly might make a little bit easier for those lots to actually develop versus having individual homeowners come in and buy those lots and the person who buys the far right lot having to keep many more trees on their property. Well, we do we do hope to find one builder let me let me make that I mean that now it's not a promise and a commitment everybody means that we certainly hope to find a builder and have talked to several that have been expressed interest in in buying all of the trees on the far right lot to build homes on and, and work with, you know, custom clients on that on that front, but we, we've certainly been in front of this, this commission before for rezoning and we've developed office and other commercial properties in the city of Denny but we would not build homes, so it's not something we do. We wouldn't really be doing anything with this property had we not believed and been told by the city, 15 years ago that it does have a commercial zoning to it. We're, I don't want to, I don't want to express too much my frustrations on this subject but I'll just stay with that. Okay, and I'll just add one last thing before I kind of give the floor up. I would just. I know the planning process, what you would have in this business showed her a little while ago what Amy showed was was a conceptual plans as a reason, but I would, I would really caution on the planning piece. Come back with something that maybe is a little bit more accessible for those neighbors to be able to get in or get in and out of those lots, just how busy state school is and that's kind of a blind coming around as you head towards Robson that that are Robinson that Robson heading down towards Robinson, that if you have the four straight line lots essentially that all driveways back in and back out from state school road, it's going to be a little bit dangerous so I, I would maybe just something along those ends of some caution and come back to planning. Now if it's if it's inhibitive and you can't do anything other than straight line lots. Okay, totally fine, but just a word of caution there. Your other points about being being home developers that will just agree to disagree and I'll relinquish the floor. Thank you, Mr. Smith, Christian back you have questions for the applicant. Sort of. I guess my question is, thank you chair, by the way. So, your, your intent is to sort of simply prep this and get this ready for for future development. Is that correct Mr interest. That is correct. Actually, I'm going to take the exact. I know Mr. Commissioner Smith lives in the area, and I and I trust him to have a better feel for the community of that region of Denton. But in some degree, for these isolated islands of greenway. It absolutely makes more sense to have the flexibility and variability to put different products in the northwest and smaller more suitable tree related products in the southeast so I think actually Mr Andrews and said have this exactly right. So, that'll save more trees. Now, about the roads I actually caution you to please take Mr Smith's opinion, having you know driven that that curve many times, he's going to be, you know, what, what more experience that that. And so I urge you to take his opinion on that highly, but I think saving those trees and having the flexibility to build different products on those four lots is is absolutely the better answer. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant. Okay. Well, Mr. Anderson miss best visit Thank you for joining us this evening, seeing that no other individuals are requesting to speak I will close the public hearing on this item Christian Smith, like to make a motion to approve. I think the project is good for what it is. I said my pieces but think it's a good project, especially much better than the PD that's there now and how how unregulated, both on the tree piece as well as the density in the area. I think it's a good use for better than commercial in my opinion, could be better but if it's going to be developed it's going to be developed. I Christian back. Yeah, I'll second that, and I'll agree with much of what Commissioner Smith said. Okay, so first and a second for approval. Any discussion. Seeing none I'll call for a vote be a roll call Commissioner Alice. Hi, Christian back. Hi, Christian Smith. Hi, Christian Anderson. Hi, Christian Cole. Hi, Christian pernetta. Hi. Chair is also an I motion carries seven zero Congratulations. Next to our last item of business for this evening that's item five CDCA 20 dash 0005 and I want to buy Julie Wyatt for presentation, Julie whenever you're ready. You have the floor. Evening let me pull my presentation we'll get started. There we go. All right, I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting DCA 2000 five to you this evening. The request before you is a city initiated development code amendment to sub chapter three, related to the minimum side yard setbacks for the R three district. This was discussed at DC RC and it was to address issues related to existing lots. We talked about this a lot at the work session and we kind of talked about the, the, the existing lots and and any greenfield development. And what I want to do is highlight on this slide is the areas shown in blue on your map are those existing developed lots so as you can see the majority of our three and the city of Denton is currently developed with existing homes. Those areas shown in red are those remaining lots or land that have not been developed that have an R3 zoning designation. Those numbers shake out that in total R3 is about 9200 acres of that 9200 acres only about 130 of those acres are actually developed at this time, and that comes out to about 233 undeveloped lots and land so it really is a small percentage of the R3 that is is greenfield development it would be developed platted and developed as new neighborhoods. The majority of our R3 in the city is developed lots and that's about 9000 lots. So I just wanted to clarify that from the work session. So the proposed amendment this is just a summary slide to show we are proposing to modify the 2019 development code side yard setback from 10 feet to five feet and this really is going back closer to what the side yard setback was in the 2002 code for for the R3 development the 2002 code had a six foot side yard, and we increase that with the 2019 code to that 10 feet which is causing some challenges for our developed R3 lot so we're proposing to modify that side yard setback to five feet. Just some background on on those dimensional standards, essentially R3 is a 10,000 square foot lot for any newly planted lots on the lot with minimum lot with is 60 feet. So for front yards or for corner lots that front yard setback is applied on both street frontages so there's a 20 foot front yard setback for interior lots and then for corner lots a 20 foot front yard setback on both streets, 10 foot rear yard setback. And then there's a 10 foot interior side yard setback. So, as I mentioned when we when we were analyzing this request we looked at two different options. First of all, kind of greenfield development which is really limited. And then, and then that existing that those impacts to those existing neighborhoods so I'll quickly talk about that greenfield development. So when we're talking about newly planted R3 lots that would require it that 65 60 foot wide minimum lot with those two setbacks it reduces the buildable area to 40 feet wide for interior lots which is the same building size for dense medium density districts that's our for our six and our seven, and that just reduces a property owners ability to place either a larger or more distinctive architectural style on the home, which could encourage homogenous development throughout the city. So when we look at how how that looks out looks visually. We've got our, our, our three lots here which is that wider 60 foot wide lots. And but when you compare that to those are for through our seven lots, which are 5550 foot wide lots. We essentially only put that same dwelling type on it where it's that 5040 foot wide dwelling, and just to kind of give you a comparison that's that's about over 23,000 lots within the city of didn't have that that are within those zoning districts. So as proposed, it would modify those side yard interior setbacks to five feet, allowing for a larger buildable area, which could accommodate a variety of architectural styles, as well as it could, it could allow for smaller homes. This is just the maximum that would be allowed so it could allow for that diversity within architectural development. And where the crux of the argument really is is in our established neighborhood so if you remember back to our first slide all of that area and blue, all of those setbacks increased with the adoption of the 2019 code, four feet on either side so it really changed the rules for those developments. The code addresses that partly in section in sub chapter one, where it does not those those lots are legal in terms of their lot sizes. However, any development must comply with current setback really regulations that would include new development so if it was a vacant lot, building a home, it would also apply to a homeowner that wanted to expand their property, add on a patio or some other type of improvement. As I mentioned before, this proposal is consistent with those previous setbacks and in fact those those six foot setbacks for for 60 foot wide lots have been in place since 1941 so this was a change. That was, that was pretty inconsistent with what the rules they have implied prior to and given the variety of those development regulations, as well as the variability in those conforming lot sizes that current yard setback could impede that investment into existing lots, both in terms of new construction or just home improvements. Just to look at some infill, infill areas. First of all, this is a lot that's kind of north of one of our universities, it was, it was redeveloped, and with a residential structure that north property line has a seven foot setback. The south property line is a larger setback because it allows for that shared driveway so if they came in today to build this, it wouldn't be permitted, because, because it wouldn't meet that setback on the north side. Additionally, this is another neighborhood within the city of dead and it was plotted in the 50s and it was built at that time. The lots are 63 feet wide, it has varied architecture the dwellings are anywhere from 50 to 55 feet wide there's some outliers but that's really the average width. And if you apply today's standards, those would all be nonconforming and therefore they couldn't provide do any add on, even if there was space on on the side so no additional bathrooms or garages or patio or covered patios would be permitted in this area. We also looked at the dent plan and we always look at there to for guidance and and element for which is really outlines our community character and design principles. It does recommend that architectural diversity and creativity should be encouraged to ensure that high quality development. The application doesn't conflict with other provisions within the development code. It would allow for more diverse architectural architecture, allowing for both 40 and 50 foot wide plans within that typical lot in our three. And this is just a part of further refinement of that 2019 DDC as as you know we've come forward with several code amendments as it's been implemented we've we found things that needed to be modified. So, staff recommends approval of the request. I will be happy to answer any questions and I'll stop sharing my screen. Great thank you Julie any questions for Julie Christian back. Okay, Julie. What prompted the change I think I asked this earlier in work session but it didn't. I think we ended up rabbit hole in other topics. Was this a, you know, something that just organically came out in the development office or, you know, was a developer approach and said hey you know this is really cumbersome for me. Well who planted the seed for this. We actually had several instances, not necessarily actually none were new developers that were, you know, plotting large tracks. They have generally had to do with a property owner who has wanted to put an addition on their home and realize that the, they can't do to the setbacks. And then, and then we've also had one property owner, wanting to build a home on a lot within our, within our our three and kind of our infill area it's a vacant lot. And, and he's, he's been planning this and has designed the home and designed it under the 2002 regulations and when he came in to start moving forward we we said oh sorry, you know we've got new setbacks that that house will no longer fit on that lot. So that was that was really kind of the German as we looked at it and saw that you know really those setbacks in our three are creating such a similar buildable area and all of these zoning districts. It really, it really made sense to go back to those those previous regulations to provide that flexibility for property owners. Okay, I still am. I'm not going to belabor the comments that I made in work session earlier but I still have qualms that that we're using the wrong tool to satisfy the flexibility issue that we should enhance the ability to do exceptions to do you know enhance variances outside of the scope of current variances to it to enhance the ability for staff to do minor modifications or, or, I don't know, change the DDC to have something that's medium modifications. We're not talking about a individual person here we're talking about a will change across the DDC for our three. And, and, and I think, I think we're using, we're using the wrong tool to try to fix a flexibility issue. While at the same time, yes we would give the flexibility for for minor modifications, but maybe you should be building smaller homes for some of these infill developments. So, you know, I think we open the door for for, you know, I'm going to loosely term this McMansion or or overbuilding on infill and greenfield development by, you know, there is absolutely a need for flexibility but I think we're using the wrong tool, and the DDC and ordinances in a different way to give staff and developers the opportunity for flexibility in a different way than changing the entire are three pattern and I'll stop there because otherwise I'm, I'm just beating a dead horse. We do have one caller but if there's any other questions for staff that we'd like to ask now certainly want to have the floor open for a minute. Okay, seeing none right now go ahead and just read this off for this item we had 13 people make comments using our online form. There were zero in support for this item and 13 against this item. All these comments were emailed to all the commissioners and to our city secretary to be recorded. We do have one individual who's wishing to speak with us this evening. I'll ask staff to patch him through. Good evening here with PNC, if you could state your name and address. After that you'll be given four minutes to speak. Thank you. This is Eric Pruitt 2111 Westwood Drive. I wasn't actually going to call in about this but after hearing the work session, it seems like maybe we need a couple reminders. In my estimation we have a problem with R3 because of Denton's history that zoning district encompasses most of our old traditional neighborhoods built incrementally over decades. Many homes within that district do not fit the exact dimensional description in our zoning code. It's been evolved over time. It's quickly becoming a third rail, I would say, as amendments to this zoning district elicit all sorts of opinions coming out of the woodwork afraid of change. I don't know how many homes are made nonconforming due to having setbacks less than nine or 10 feet. But two years ago, when the 2019 DDC was going through the approval process I did an informal survey of just three streets in the R3 neighborhood north of UNT and I found over three dozen duplexes out of around 100 lots. No duplexes are permitted in R3, even with an SUP. Many existing R3 lots are less than 60 feet wide, making the setback flexibility even more crucial. I understand that the idea of replacing smaller homes with large McMansions doesn't add to our affordability. But in my estimation, the solution to that is not restrictions, which make it impossible for some existing homeowners to improve their homes. The solution is allowed to allow homeowners to convert their homes into duplexes or triplexes and retain their ability to add an ADU. Staff should be defended for trying to reduce the number of nonconforming homes. This was a sticking point during much of the 2019 DDC discussion with much talk about statuses such as legal nonconforming, but that status doesn't let someone make major improvements to their home to better serve their family. It doesn't let them build an expansion so they can look after an aging parent on their property instead of paying more money to house them in a nursing home where they get less interaction with a loving family. Please allow this modification to R3 and show staff that we as Denton want reasonable flexibility in our older neighborhoods to achieve a diverse housing stock near our core that the comprehensive plan calls us toward. I understand the comments about thinking that maybe there's some other tool that could achieve this, but it just sounds to me like that would add additional confusion and complexity instead of making it simple and saying, Denton homeowners, we want you to improve Denton. Please come. Thank you. Mr. Prude I appreciate you calling in and providing your insights that I have a quick question for you. You're a thoughtful individual over the several phone calls you've had with us. For 80 years, R3 or the like zoning has had a six foot setback. In my estimation, it seems like and I can take responsibility this I served on the commission while we regrowth the DDC 2019. It should have never gone to 10 feet, it should have at a minimum been six, but aligned with five I'm curious about your thoughts and I take your point about the duplex issue and maybe some overarching issues of RR three ongoing, granted, but in terms of the individuals over 80 years and property owners that have had and enjoyed a six foot setback to us changing it to a 10. I'm wondering your thoughts on just giving them back the setback that these property owners have had there's 200 property owners that we effectively two years ago, removed property rights from it's curious about your thoughts on that. Yeah, I think, at least going back to that six foot seems like an obvious first step. Right. And, and really you're talking about, you know, six feet with a 10 10% minor modification allowance so you're talking about maybe six inches right between that and, and the five foot, so I don't think the difference between a five and a six foot makes a material difference, but staff maybe have some more information about whether there are still a lot of properties that would be non conforming at a six foot setback I just don't know. So, if I understood that I appreciate that. If I understood that comment correctly. And I want to actually use your words, it seems obvious to move it back to to what it was. Yeah, I see I see no reason why a 10 foot setback is better than a six foot setback. Okay, I gotcha. It seems fair to keep it where it's been for decades. Okay, well, I don't see any other questions for you, Mr. But again I appreciate your thoughtfulness always an email and we correspond electronically so keep that up, and I'm sure we will talk soon. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see anyone else wishing to speak so I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval Christian Cole. We have a first and a second for approval. I'll turn to the day is for any discussion. Christian back. So, I think you could tell from the workstation this. My, my goal and some of my comments is, is to prevent, not what Mr Pruitt talked about which is a to use an expansion and what Commissioner Ellis and Mr Cole talked about which is adding porches and development, we all want that. The issue is. And I take staff's point that we have limited amounts of of our three in Phil, and so I think we really have a dichotomy here we have a distinction between our three in Phil and our three redevelopment in city which I completely agree with Mr Pruitt and actually the commissioners, we need to have that flexibility to change a changing dent in over time, and allow sort of customization. It's it's it's edge development, it's greenfield development, it's it's the rest that we do not need giant homes on on lots. So, I can, I can see which way the wind is blowing and I agree with the arguments of flexibility. So, I'll tell you what I'm actually going to reverse what you heard me say earlier and I'll vote for this, but I urge this commission and the staff and city to identify methods that will preclude the McMansion a greenfield development. I don't want to get in the way of flexibility but you know that we can have two problems. I guess that's what I'm saying. So, I'll leave my comment there. Christopher Neto. Yeah, I'm actually not going to do. I'm actually not going to reverse my opinion earlier but there are a few things I do want to address. You know, I don't like the idea of somebody having had it had a right for you know, 50 years and suddenly having it, you know, taken away, which was the problem I had with when we did the last revision was that we said we don't want to have any nonconformities and I think, you know, by right, having that right people shouldn't lose these things. One of the things that I have a problem with on this one is that, you know, it's not the people who already have, you know, who have already built, who want to add something onto the side. You know, whether or not you're going to get an effective deck on I don't see a lot of people adding a deck on the side of their house. But but you know, hey, maybe maybe people do in one of the things that I have a problem with is, you know, things going forward, and you know it is it is the idea, not so much of everything that's been out there before you know people wanting to to make adjustments to their house maybe add an extra room that kind of thing in the back, usually they do it in the back. It's what goes forward and the infill and basically putting bigger houses on these lots, you know, if we look at the homes that have been there forever. You know had the six foot setbacks were built in the 60s and things like that. They have a distinctly different aesthetic and character that kind of goes along with what we expect to see in a debt neighborhood. You know, if somebody could tell me, hey, that's kind of what we were going to do going forward with all the new info going on, it'd be kind of, you know, funky or kind of different kind of homie that that kind of environment that we're used to, I'd be way for it. I know that the new new developments that will want to go there that want to take advantage of this extra effective 10 feet aren't really going to aren't really going to be doing that right there not going to be, you know, old school debt and houses that we like to see. So, I'm going to be voting no on it. I'm not going to be voting no because I have no sympathy for people who have, you know, who had that setback for years I wish there was a way we could just go a y'all who were there forever. Y'all get what you always had going forward we want to make sure that we protect the character of Denton. You know that that's kind of what I'm voting for but we're voting. Yeah, anyway, that that's kind of those were that's all I really wanted to say, you know, I understand. You know, people having the right people wanting to do things on existing properties and having had that expectation. I don't support the fact that we that we took that away I wish there was a better way to do this with a scalpel, rather than a broadsword. But, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner pernetta Can I ask just for a little bit more clarity on what you were trying to say there just to understand. I, are you, are you afraid of new development, taking advantage of this, are you afraid of tear down and rebuilds, I'm trying to understand. Yeah, I mean, kind of that, I mean, because like I said, you know, as I mentioned earlier, the whole idea of an R3 has to me some some space in it, you know that we would be losing with this. And yeah, specifically it would be, it's, it's my concern about dropping a huge house on, you know, on that plot, as opposed to somebody just wanting to add something onto their existing house, that kind of thing, right. Okay, and I would just like to say, and we're talking about five feet on each side. Yeah, but it's five feet on each side, next to another five feet on each side, you know, basically two paces, right. In between each. So, before I go to Commissioner Smith, can I get a clarification from Richard on my understanding. If there is a home currently in our three. That is, has that seven foot setback like the the example given in the presentation. If they were wanting to build a dish and off the back of their home that doesn't go over the current easement or anything like that they just need to pull a permit for an extension directly off the back. Would it be flagged as non conforming and not be able to pull because I'm trying to is it that we can't put a side extension on or could someone, if we don't pass this tonight. Pull apartment to add a bathroom off the back of their house, if they're over the 10 foot setback, you'd have an offset. And so the existing house, it would be it can continue as is but if you're going to now add an additional structure, it would have to meet those new setback requirements. And so you would have a jog so whether or not it aligns with a bedroom or a clock, however they were they were looking to do it, it would not, it would not be a seamless fit, if you will. Thank you for that clarification is wanted to see the implications of someone want to add the back Christian really brought a good point about knowing as a side port so I was thinking the implications off the back, Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. No, I think I just want to make some clarifications of my thoughts on it. I think that it's been said in work session I want to say it here publicly just briefly. But being able to do something like this to be able to have the nonconformities, I understand that the type of liability this opens us up to as citizens in the city for allowing, whether as Commissioner Alice, you know I mentioned, you know, tear or rebuild or new development in the end film. It's, it's a little bit of the, you know, what's, what's really going to be the majority of what we're going to see with this, since it's being is just a lot of small amount of the undeveloped area undeveloped land right now and I agree. Sure, it could be rezoned for it but there's only 130 lots currently for it. I don't see it coming in I don't see really being an issue. And then to, you know, I think to commission else's point to Commissioner for another five, five feet on either side on a 50 foot by 50 foot square houses now adding five feet on their sides adding about 100 square feet in total to a to an actual building itself so to me it doesn't seem like it's, it's that big of a of an issue. I think that's where these conforming issues as chair brought up so yeah, just to reiterate my support for we're really arguing two different things we're arguing in support of two different things. We're arguing in support of, you know, exactly as Mr. Mr. Commissioner pernetta said that, you know, we all support the ability of people to modify their existing homes for uses that are consistent with the character of our neighborhood, but we're. The only way we don't get with Commissioner Smith said is if we say look we're going to sort of have a semi moratorium on our threes, or we're going to have some sort of, you know, put something some mechanism in place to prevent the expansion of these infills, and, and otherwise we are, we're opening ourselves up to, to, you know, giant homes on little lots as it were. And, you know, I, you know, I guess that's the to the taste of some people, but it's not really in the character of Denton, which is I think what Commissioner pernetta said and so I'm, I am really torn on this. You know I want that flexibility but as I said before, we, we need a different mechanism for that flexibility not. Anyway, I'm gonna I'm gonna cogitate while you guys talk. Well, talking is almost coming to a close. Not to rush you Commissioner back, I'll give you a little bit I'll filibuster for a little bit for you, because I have a couple thoughts. I think this is a healthy conversation. I think it's probably misplaced we're just corrected an issue. I don't see it any more than that I don't I don't think it's really changing anything except going back to the 80 years we've had as kind of a precedent for this. And so, I just, it doesn't seem ill intended it doesn't seem like really the the conversations about flexibility, per se, it seems like we just need to make a correction to something that I think we, we, me included as a commission, probably should do for the first time, but I will say this in terms of this this kind of maybe false binary that if we do don't why if we widen the lots we get a big home that this doesn't resonate with me I would think widen the lots actually provides a to use words, more consistency with the neighborhood as as a way of example if any of you have time drive down Eagan street Eagan is full of craftsman style homes post war, all of them. And then there's one lot that wanted to have a bigger home. But to be honest I don't know all the reasons that went into it, but it's like an elevator shaft in the middle of the neighborhood, it's got to be approaching 30 feet in the air. And I wonder if there is greater setbacks if they would have designed that house differently, and made it look more like the neighborhood. So I would probably argue that not widening the setbacks would give you a lot more inconsistency because you're going, they still can build 40 feet in the air. Think about a house being 40 feet wide and 40 feet tall. That doesn't sound like the right solution. And so I think to Commissioner Alice's point the work session, providing a little bit of width doesn't mean every builder is going to take it, especially if they need a side insurance driveway or something like that. They need more than five feet, but it provides a greater breadth of creativity and design options, and potentially more consistency with the inville structures already there. I don't even think it's worth noting new developments 2% of the market I just don't think new development has anything to do with this. And I appreciate when Keely kind of took lead on this in the DC RC to bring this forward for her district, who was having this it seemed like most, it was her district that had a lot of questions about this so it just seems like this, to me, no offense to those objecting to this it's a no brainer, just fixing the wrong and allowing individuals to build on their property. Commissioner back Did I give you enough time. Yeah, great. You can take the floor if you want it. Somebody else make the motion. The motions there and seconded. So, if you want the floor you can have it if not we'll proceed to the vote. Okay, make one last call for discussion. Christopher Cole. Yeah, you know it's funny I came in this thing. Totally against it. Thinking, you know, I looked at it as a giveaway to development to sardine can, you know, houses and aren't three but, you know, I live. I live in one of those non conforming properties. You know my house is non conforming because the gas well but my private property rights were snatched away from me. You know, and I voted I voted against my own interest I voted for the setbacks. But, you know, this is about flexibility to me, more than anything else in, in, I don't. I know so many people I grew up with that live between scripture and university, you know, Emory. You know Stanley Thomas cordell crescent all those streets. And, man, some of those homes. My friends, you know, their parents are aged they're in their 80s. They're going to be passing on. And these people are going to be their dreams to move back in this house and fix it up because I grew up there. You know, I don't want to be too. I don't want to micromanage and and take away people's flexibility but, you know, I came into this looking at this as a giveaway to development. Now I'm totally, you know, I know it's not, you know, because, you know, because of my personal experience, and also, you know, Eric Pruitt's, you know, talk so I'm going to support this and I just wanted to get that off the chest. Thank you. Thanks for your call. Any other discussion. Okay, send on will take a vote be a roll call Christian Ellis. I Christian or back. Hi. Christian Smith. I Christian Cole. Christian Pernitta. I'll be the name. Christian Anderson. I chairs and I motion carries six one. That concludes our agenda for this evening, leaving us with just the matrix to go over, I will turn it to Richard for any updates he can provide and then to the dais for any additions. Thank you, Chair, just wanted to just a quick update, we will have Christie here at the next meeting on on the ESA, and then work, we'll have Charlie come back and probably in February on the fee structure. So what I think one item that I would like to add maybe a kind of bring back the boot camp items is to just kind of talk a little bit about non conformities, as well as variances I know we had a lot of discussion tonight about, you know, having flexibility choices and, and they are some very strict criteria. And, and it is just a whole different sort of a different ballgame. And so I just want to just want to have that have that discussion, lay everything out but then also talk about other opportunities as we're getting ready to gear back up with the DC RC, and make sure that we could we could address these certain items, whether it be for affordable housing or infill development or the like so there are other other tools out there and I just think it's it's probably merits a or at least is worth the discussion. The only other thing I wanted to update last night. Council did approve the rezoning on 35. This was the that parcel. Next to. My goodness, the brick. For a second. My allergies are acting up for some reason. However, they did it. They did not take action. They postponed the Alisa to February they wanted to continue to look there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the buffer. Detention retention area so they are going to look at some items with respect to that redesigning it and bringing that back. Excuse me on February 16. And with that I'll be happy to answer any questions. Awesome. Thanks for the update Richard. Thank you chair, so just piggyback directly on that and partly because I spoke last night, the, and and piggybacking on Christie's upcoming isa. I would really like us to to visit the rationale for that 10 acre definition, because we don't have one we discussed that in the prior meeting where we voted on that item. And if if if Christie could prep something on on that and, you know, maybe something on on what other communities are using in anticipation, honestly, I'll just be blunt, I'm going to be pushing this might be pushing it really really hard. I mean pushing it as a citizen as a commissioner. And so I, I'm just sort of letting everybody know that I'm, I'm going to be pushing on this issue and I would like if staff could inform us about that, those sort of upland habitat limits. I even think Commissioner Roselle mentioned this at the previous meeting. Well, you know, so if we could get some clarity on that that would be helpful. Absolutely. And it might even merit its own own work session. I think there's a lot there to the to the upland habitat. But let me talk to Christie and I'll report back next week where we are. It might just be too much to put together over the, over the course of the next couple days. Right. Any other questions or additions. Okay, seeing none. I wish you a happy new year. Stay safe stay healthy. I will close this meeting at 843. Have a good night.