1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:16,640
 I will call to order the planning and zoning work session meeting for this evening at 5.02.

2
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:20,960
 The first thing on our agenda is citizens' comment on consent agenda items.

3
00:00:20,960 --> 00:00:23,360
 It's item number one on the work session report.

4
00:00:23,360 --> 00:00:26,600
 And we did have one individual.

5
00:00:26,600 --> 00:00:32,760
 One citizen commented on the consent agenda 3A, FP20-0025B using the online form.

6
00:00:32,760 --> 00:00:34,640
 This comment was against the item.

7
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:40,160
 A copy of this comment was emailed to all the commissioners and to staff to be recorded.

8
00:00:40,160 --> 00:00:46,080
 That's the only comments that we have for the consent agenda this evening, one in opposition.

9
00:00:46,080 --> 00:00:52,280
 The next item of business is to jump into the agenda for clarification of items.

10
00:00:52,280 --> 00:00:55,720
 So starting with item two, the minutes.

11
00:00:55,720 --> 00:01:03,000
 Is there any notes or changes that need to be made to the minutes?

12
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:05,200
 Seeing none, we'll move on.

13
00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:13,920
 The consent agenda item 3A, FP20-0025B, since we did have comment on this and Haley is ready

14
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:27,720
 to go, let's go ahead and get a presentation on this singular consent agenda item.

15
00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:28,720
 Good evening.

16
00:01:28,720 --> 00:01:29,720
 This is FP20-0025.

17
00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:31,840
 This should look familiar to you all.

18
00:01:31,840 --> 00:01:34,840
 We looked at it at our last meeting in December.

19
00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:39,320
 This is the Woodmere Edition located north of Ryan Road.

20
00:01:39,320 --> 00:01:43,360
 The only remaining comment, if you remember, from that meeting in December was with regards

21
00:01:43,360 --> 00:01:48,040
 to the conservation easements that needed to be accepted by the City Council.

22
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:53,840
 That occurred shortly after that PNZ meeting and so all of the comments on this plan have

23
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:56,400
 been resolved and staff is recommending approval.

24
00:01:56,400 --> 00:02:01,200
 I do apologize there was a remnant in the caption on your agenda that said recommending

25
00:02:01,200 --> 00:02:05,000
 denial but this item is on consent and staff is recommending approval.

26
00:02:05,000 --> 00:02:07,960
 I'm happy to stand for any questions.

27
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:12,680
 Haley, could you specifically address Mr. Pruitt's comments about the stub outs and the maximum

28
00:02:12,680 --> 00:02:16,840
 distances that was highlighted in his online form?

29
00:02:16,840 --> 00:02:17,880
 Certainly.

30
00:02:17,880 --> 00:02:23,600
 So the criteria that was referenced in that comment applies when the adjacent property

31
00:02:23,600 --> 00:02:24,600
 is vacant.

32
00:02:24,600 --> 00:02:30,560
 In this instance, the property that they share a boundary with to the west of them, if you

33
00:02:30,560 --> 00:02:34,920
 see in the aerial here, is actually developed with a single family estate.

34
00:02:34,920 --> 00:02:39,360
 This property is all under one ownership and is developed with a home and kind of estate

35
00:02:39,360 --> 00:02:40,360
 features, if you will.

36
00:02:40,360 --> 00:02:44,960
 There's golf course amenities, a pool, riding trails and things of that nature.

37
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:49,560
 So this property was not considered vacant so that connection was not required.

38
00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:53,680
 I believe some additional background information was shared with you all in advance of the

39
00:02:53,680 --> 00:02:57,680
 meeting with regard to response there but I'll go through it briefly.

40
00:02:57,680 --> 00:03:03,520
 There is some history in this area with the mobility plan and the way this area developed.

41
00:03:03,520 --> 00:03:09,160
 If you're familiar with the Montecito subdivision to the west of here, there are a few street

42
00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:13,020
 stubs there that were provided before the rest of this area developed.

43
00:03:13,020 --> 00:03:17,960
 Teasley Trails, located to the north of this site, did provide connections that will eventually

44
00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:20,560
 go through for a couple of those streets.

45
00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:25,880
 The closest one to this property, I believe, is El Paseo and in 2011, as Teasley Trails

46
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:29,860
 was developing, the mobility plan was actually amended to remove that street connection that

47
00:03:29,860 --> 00:03:32,540
 would have gone across this property here.

48
00:03:32,540 --> 00:03:36,440
 The owner was opposed to that and the council at the time actually voted to remove that

49
00:03:36,440 --> 00:03:40,480
 street from the mobility plan, taking away that connection.

50
00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:46,160
 So while there are not direct connections to the west with this subdivision, north of

51
00:03:46,160 --> 00:03:49,640
 here in Teasley Trails, there are two stub outs that will eventually provide those east-west

52
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:52,640
 connection options north of Ryan Road.

53
00:03:52,640 --> 00:03:53,640
 Great.

54
00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:57,200
 Thank you so much for that clarification.

55
00:03:57,200 --> 00:03:59,320
 Is there any questions for Haley on this item?

56
00:03:59,320 --> 00:04:00,320
 Commissioner Beck?

57
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:01,320
 Yeah.

58
00:04:01,320 --> 00:04:02,320
 Thank you.

59
00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:07,720
 I think you've told this at a previous meeting, but because of the new road layout, we're

60
00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:15,000
 not having that gate between the different subdivisions anymore, right?

61
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,560
 There will be, I'm sorry, the volume on this computer is a little bit low, but I believe

62
00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:22,800
 you were inquiring about a gate between the subdivisions, is that correct?

63
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:23,800
 Yes.

64
00:04:23,800 --> 00:04:24,800
 Yes.

65
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:30,200
 So with the planned development for this, there was a gate required at this point where

66
00:04:30,200 --> 00:04:31,920
 Monte Carlo connects.

67
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:37,000
 So on your screen here, it would be right here where Monte Carlo comes up from the south.

68
00:04:37,000 --> 00:04:40,880
 There will be a gate there, and that was a requirement of the plan development for the

69
00:04:40,880 --> 00:04:41,880
 subdivision.

70
00:04:41,880 --> 00:04:42,880
 Okay.

71
00:04:42,880 --> 00:04:43,880
 Thank you.

72
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:51,120
 Any other questions on this item?

73
00:04:51,120 --> 00:04:52,120
 Thank you, Haley.

74
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:57,200
 That moves us to our next item, item four, individual considerations.

75
00:04:57,200 --> 00:05:00,720
 I just want to let the record show, I don't know if I even mentioned to begin with, but

76
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:06,640
 Mr. Smith and Mr. Anderson have joined us, so we have a full commission present.

77
00:05:06,640 --> 00:05:12,880
 Item four A is PP 20-0027A, this is Ron McGuida's item.

78
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:19,180
 Is he here or is he calling in or who's presenting?

79
00:05:19,180 --> 00:05:20,640
 I believe he's on.

80
00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:21,640
 Great.

81
00:05:21,640 --> 00:05:39,840
 Ron, are you on?

82
00:05:39,840 --> 00:05:45,320
 Hello, can you hear me?

83
00:05:45,320 --> 00:05:46,320
 We can now.

84
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:47,320
 Sorry about that.

85
00:05:47,320 --> 00:05:50,680
 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.

86
00:05:50,680 --> 00:05:55,320
 The item for you today for consideration is a preliminary plat.

87
00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:57,520
 Hopefully you all can see the slide as well.

88
00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:05,440
 The subject item had originally been recommendation or denial, however, since Friday when the packet

89
00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:10,700
 was sent out, the applicant and our engineers have worked through the drainage comments

90
00:06:10,700 --> 00:06:16,120
 that were outstanding, and as of this afternoon, staff is recommending approval as it meets

91
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:23,160
 the preliminary plat criteria for approval, and again, this preliminary plat is for multifamily

92
00:06:23,160 --> 00:06:29,920
 development located on the southwest corner of Mockingbird and Mingo Road.

93
00:06:29,920 --> 00:06:31,840
 I'll stand for any questions.

94
00:06:31,840 --> 00:06:32,840
 Great.

95
00:06:32,840 --> 00:06:33,840
 Commissioner Beck.

96
00:06:33,840 --> 00:06:34,840
 Yes.

97
00:06:34,840 --> 00:06:35,840
 Thank you, Chair.

98
00:06:35,840 --> 00:06:42,320
 Ron, the issue was that the easements, by the way, is this loud enough?

99
00:06:42,320 --> 00:06:43,320
 I up the volume.

100
00:06:43,320 --> 00:06:44,320
 Yes.

101
00:06:44,320 --> 00:06:45,320
 Yes, I can hear you.

102
00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:52,240
 That the utility easements were in a drainage or can you just clarify exactly what the issue

103
00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:53,240
 was?

104
00:06:53,240 --> 00:06:54,240
 Sure, sure.

105
00:06:54,240 --> 00:07:00,760
 There were a couple items for clarification that the engineering department was wanting

106
00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:08,880
 clarification on, primarily drainage easement, the size that they were requiring was 16 seat.

107
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:15,240
 The applicant was proposing 10 after consideration of what was going to be constructed, the engineering

108
00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:23,080
 department was satisfied with the 10 feet, also the use of the drainage easement exclusively

109
00:07:23,080 --> 00:07:28,840
 for just drainage and that there would not be any other improvements, that was also cleared

110
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:34,960
 and satisfied, and I think the last item that that was needing to be clarified was related

111
00:07:34,960 --> 00:07:41,360
 to the amount of snow proposed on the site, and again, through the work of the engineers

112
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:46,640
 and the applicant, they were able to get to a point where they were satisfied with the

113
00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:50,240
 amount that was proposed.

114
00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:56,640
 And the engineers don't, I mean, I think if I'm reading, if I'm understanding the previous

115
00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:05,560
 that they were concerned originally that the distance was too close to the drainage and

116
00:08:05,560 --> 00:08:12,680
 that there might be flooding given the elevations, and the engineers don't think that's an issue

117
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:15,600
 anymore, right?

118
00:08:15,600 --> 00:08:22,460
 After further clarification with certain information that was provided by the applicant, they have

119
00:08:22,460 --> 00:08:28,200
 stated that they are satisfied with the responses, yes.

120
00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:33,040
 And renters and/or future owners of this property are sold or they're not going to have any

121
00:08:33,040 --> 00:08:43,200
 issues with that, I mean, it's all just clear drainage, there won't be any, like, you know,

122
00:08:43,200 --> 00:08:46,160
 being too close to a floodplain kind of issues or something like that.

123
00:08:46,160 --> 00:08:48,980
 That the drainage issues will be fine.

124
00:08:48,980 --> 00:08:53,400
 That is exactly the point of the engineers' comments in making sure that all of the requirements

125
00:08:53,400 --> 00:08:58,520
 are met and are satisfactory, and again, for your information, obviously, this is a pulmonary

126
00:08:58,520 --> 00:09:03,960
 plat, obviously, a final plat will follow soon after, so a little bit more detail on the

127
00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:08,800
 actual platting would come forward, and again, the planning zoning commission will see this

128
00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:11,480
 again when the final plat is presented.

129
00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:12,480
 Awesome.

130
00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:13,480
 Thank you for clarifying that.

131
00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:14,480
 I appreciate it.

132
00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:15,480
 You're welcome.

133
00:09:15,480 --> 00:09:18,760
 Any other questions for Ron?

134
00:09:18,760 --> 00:09:19,760
 I do not see any.

135
00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:22,320
 Ron, thank you so much for the presentation.

136
00:09:22,320 --> 00:09:23,640
 Thank you.

137
00:09:23,640 --> 00:09:29,320
 Next item of business is 4B, this is Haley Zagorski's item, and Haley, you're with us

138
00:09:29,320 --> 00:09:36,440
 for a little while here, so hopefully you're comfortable, but this is FP20-0027A.

139
00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:44,160
 Yes, so the plat before you this evening is for the Woodlands edition.

140
00:09:44,160 --> 00:09:48,960
 This, as you may remember, is for a manufactured home development on the north side of McKinney

141
00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:51,200
 Street.

142
00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:54,800
 Since you saw this plant in December, the applicant has not been able to resolve all

143
00:09:54,800 --> 00:09:58,720
 of the staff comments, there are still issues remaining with the civil engineering plans

144
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:02,880
 as well, so they're continuing to work through those, and at this time, staff is recommending

145
00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:05,680
 denial for the reasons that are outlined in your backup.

146
00:10:05,680 --> 00:10:08,760
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

147
00:10:08,760 --> 00:10:10,680
 Any questions for Haley on this item?

148
00:10:10,680 --> 00:10:12,800
 Commissioner Beck.

149
00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:13,800
 Thank you, Chair.

150
00:10:13,800 --> 00:10:20,600
 This is more of a comment to applaud staff, and maybe for any engineers and developers

151
00:10:20,600 --> 00:10:26,800
 listening, the last meeting I specifically asked, I think it was Haley actually, if there

152
00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:34,640
 would be sufficient time to resolve these issues, and I believe her response was, typically

153
00:10:34,640 --> 00:10:40,680
 there is, that we've given them enough time, so this shot clock runs both ways, developers,

154
00:10:40,680 --> 00:10:48,680
 and we need to maybe step it up a little bit, because you're just shooting yourself in the

155
00:10:48,680 --> 00:10:53,480
 foot to have these things constantly, you know, have to get denied by not doing proper

156
00:10:53,480 --> 00:10:54,480
 paperwork.

157
00:10:54,480 --> 00:10:56,920
 So, Haley, I appreciate your efforts on this.

158
00:10:56,920 --> 00:10:57,920
 Thank you.

159
00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:03,120
 Any other questions for item 4B?

160
00:11:03,120 --> 00:11:10,560
 Seeing none, I'll move to 4CFR20-0017A, this is also Haley's item.

161
00:11:10,560 --> 00:11:16,280
 Yes, this is a replant for the razor cottages addition, so this is a site that you all have

162
00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:21,640
 seen recently as well, in Razor Ranch, for the development of 37 cottage homes between

163
00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:23,920
 Crescent and Linden Street.

164
00:11:23,920 --> 00:11:28,360
 Since you all saw this in December, and since the agenda was posted on Friday, actually,

165
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:31,360
 they have been able to resolve the outstanding items.

166
00:11:31,360 --> 00:11:35,280
 With this project specifically, it was the homeowners association documents that needed

167
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:39,400
 to be reviewed by our city attorney's office, and those have been reviewed and approved,

168
00:11:39,400 --> 00:11:42,880
 so we were able to change the recommendation to approval for this plant.

169
00:11:42,880 --> 00:11:46,440
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

170
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:47,440
 Great, thanks, Haley.

171
00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:49,440
 Any questions on 4C?

172
00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:50,440
 Okay.

173
00:11:50,440 --> 00:12:01,280
 Seeing none, we'll go to 4DPP20-0028A, and this is also Haley's.

174
00:12:01,280 --> 00:12:06,520
 This is the preliminary plat for the Exeter, sorry, Denton Exeter edition number two, so

175
00:12:06,520 --> 00:12:09,100
 this is a speculative warehouse project.

176
00:12:09,100 --> 00:12:13,000
 This preliminary plat is for three lots located at Western and Jim Crystal.

177
00:12:13,000 --> 00:12:16,800
 Again, since the posting of the agenda on Friday, we've been able to resolve the remaining

178
00:12:16,800 --> 00:12:21,860
 items for this plat, specifically those related to a couple of engineering items with respect

179
00:12:21,860 --> 00:12:26,640
 to how the floodplain boundaries and the distance to the adjacent creek were shown, and their

180
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:30,000
 tree preservation plan, so we've been able to work through all of those, and this plat

181
00:12:30,000 --> 00:12:34,160
 now meets the criteria for approval, so we are recommending approval of the plat at this

182
00:12:34,160 --> 00:12:36,160
 time.

183
00:12:36,160 --> 00:12:40,440
 Great, any questions on item 4D?

184
00:12:40,440 --> 00:12:50,300
 Okay, seeing none, we'll go to the last item for individual consideration, 4EPP20-0029A,

185
00:12:50,300 --> 00:12:51,300
 also Haley's.

186
00:12:51,300 --> 00:12:58,640
 All right, and this last plat is the preliminary plat for the woodlands on McKinney Street.

187
00:12:58,640 --> 00:13:03,480
 These are the six one-acre single-family lots that are required by the zoning and specific

188
00:13:03,480 --> 00:13:06,640
 use permit for the adjacent manufactured home park.

189
00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:10,320
 Again, unfortunately, we've not been able to resolve all the comments at this time,

190
00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:18,000
 so we are recommending denial of this plat for the reasons outlined in your backup.

191
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:19,000
 Thank you, Haley.

192
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:21,360
 Any questions on item 4E?

193
00:13:21,360 --> 00:13:26,560
 Okay, that concludes our individual items for consideration.

194
00:13:26,560 --> 00:13:36,760
 This moves us to our public hearings, starting with 5AZ20-0012, and this is also Haley.

195
00:13:36,760 --> 00:13:46,800
 All right, good evening.

196
00:13:46,800 --> 00:13:51,960
 This is a zoning case related to the Razor Ranch Overlay District.

197
00:13:51,960 --> 00:13:56,360
 So the request before you has multiple parts, but they're all amendments to the Razor

198
00:13:56,360 --> 00:14:01,440
 Ranch Overlay, specific to the eastern portion, which is the area between Heritage Trail and

199
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:03,120
 Bonnie Bray, roughly.

200
00:14:03,120 --> 00:14:06,200
 So you can see the property outlined in yellow on the map.

201
00:14:06,200 --> 00:14:10,120
 We'll go through each of the proposals in turn, but it essentially is some revisions

202
00:14:10,120 --> 00:14:14,100
 to their concept and zoning map to update some items on the east side, and then the

203
00:14:14,100 --> 00:14:18,820
 adoption of the final set of design criteria that's needed for the non-residential uses

204
00:14:18,820 --> 00:14:21,900
 on the eastern part of the property.

205
00:14:21,900 --> 00:14:25,360
 So I just wanted to provide some background about Razor in case anyone is not familiar

206
00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:26,360
 with it.

207
00:14:26,360 --> 00:14:30,480
 Essentially, the overlay district is divided into two pieces.

208
00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:34,760
 The marketplace is the northern campus on the north side of Highway 380, and then the

209
00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:42,040
 bottom part is referred to as the south campus, and that is broken up further into the town

210
00:14:42,040 --> 00:14:45,780
 center portion, which is the RR1 area on the map you see in red.

211
00:14:45,780 --> 00:14:51,160
 The south RR2 district is kind of the perimeter around that town center, which are the more

212
00:14:51,160 --> 00:14:53,880
 kind of highway commercial type uses.

213
00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:57,120
 And then everything else you see on the map here is referred to as the south mixed use

214
00:14:57,120 --> 00:14:58,120
 district.

215
00:14:58,120 --> 00:15:01,840
 So the entire east campus that we're looking at is part of that south mixed use area.

216
00:15:01,840 --> 00:15:06,080
 This piece has developed pretty substantially over the last couple of years.

217
00:15:06,080 --> 00:15:10,320
 We've seen in recent memory the adoption of the residential design standards for this

218
00:15:10,320 --> 00:15:11,320
 area.

219
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:16,080
 So part of this amendment free tonight is adopting that last set of design standards

220
00:15:16,080 --> 00:15:21,000
 for the non-residential uses in this area.

221
00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:25,860
 So the first part of the changes before you all is some updates to the concept plan, which

222
00:15:25,860 --> 00:15:30,960
 is kind of a very general loose site plan for Razor that shows what uses are allowed

223
00:15:30,960 --> 00:15:31,960
 to go where.

224
00:15:31,960 --> 00:15:35,040
 So it's a little more detailed than a typical zoning map.

225
00:15:35,040 --> 00:15:40,400
 And what they've proposed, you can see the proposed map here on the left side and then

226
00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:42,100
 the current map on the right.

227
00:15:42,100 --> 00:15:44,600
 So there's really three key areas of change.

228
00:15:44,600 --> 00:15:49,120
 The first is this lot here that's circled that's labeled south RR2.

229
00:15:49,120 --> 00:15:53,920
 That area was previously designated for park uses.

230
00:15:53,920 --> 00:15:58,420
 Over the last year, if you all have seen any of the council work sessions, there has been

231
00:15:58,420 --> 00:16:00,720
 discussion of the development of this property with a park.

232
00:16:00,720 --> 00:16:05,300
 The developers worked a lot over that on the last year and they will hopefully soon be

233
00:16:05,300 --> 00:16:09,400
 taking a development agreement to council for the final dedication and acceptance of

234
00:16:09,400 --> 00:16:11,420
 this park property.

235
00:16:11,420 --> 00:16:15,680
 So since this area to the north is not part of that park that they've developed, they're

236
00:16:15,680 --> 00:16:18,520
 looking to change this to a commercial designation.

237
00:16:18,520 --> 00:16:22,840
 So they would like to call this the south RR2, which would be consistent with the property

238
00:16:22,840 --> 00:16:24,600
 to the north.

239
00:16:24,600 --> 00:16:27,120
 The second of those changes is for this area shown here.

240
00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:33,420
 It's a very small parcel further south in the district that was previously again called

241
00:16:33,420 --> 00:16:35,980
 out as a park on their concept plan.

242
00:16:35,980 --> 00:16:40,420
 Through discussions regarding the larger nine acre Razor park that they're looking to dedicate

243
00:16:40,420 --> 00:16:44,720
 to the city, our parks department indicated to them that they didn't have an interest

244
00:16:44,720 --> 00:16:48,860
 in obtaining this smaller one acre parcel because it wouldn't make sense to have two

245
00:16:48,860 --> 00:16:50,460
 public parks that close together.

246
00:16:50,460 --> 00:16:54,940
 And so instead of that, the developer is now looking to make that consistent with the surrounding

247
00:16:54,940 --> 00:16:59,860
 property so that it can be developed with multifamily or some lighter commercial uses

248
00:16:59,860 --> 00:17:06,380
 or hotels perhaps, but to have that consistent zoning and use designation on the entire property.

249
00:17:06,380 --> 00:17:10,240
 And then finally, the third piece is this part here that's shown in tan that's labeled

250
00:17:10,240 --> 00:17:12,080
 as OSF.

251
00:17:12,080 --> 00:17:16,140
 This property was previously designated strictly as SF or single family.

252
00:17:16,140 --> 00:17:20,840
 However, with the recent updates to the reverse gas well setbacks, if you're familiar with

253
00:17:20,840 --> 00:17:25,760
 the drill pad at Razor that's here on Bonnie Bray, that 500 foot setback would encumber

254
00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:30,240
 most of this property making single family non-developable here.

255
00:17:30,240 --> 00:17:37,360
 So they're looking to change this designation to also allow for office uses on the property.

256
00:17:37,360 --> 00:17:41,160
 And then similarly, I won't go through those in detail again, but this is another exhibit

257
00:17:41,160 --> 00:17:46,120
 to the Razor overlay district that shows the base zoning for the property, which again

258
00:17:46,120 --> 00:17:48,760
 are rooted in our 2002 development code.

259
00:17:48,760 --> 00:17:52,080
 They're not proposing any changes to that base zoning, they just needed to update this

260
00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:55,720
 exhibit to show those consistent labels with the other exhibits.

261
00:17:55,720 --> 00:17:59,860
 So those are the changes that you see here.

262
00:17:59,860 --> 00:18:03,580
 So to look at each of these in a little more detail, kind of walk through these so I won't

263
00:18:03,580 --> 00:18:09,520
 go into too much here, but this property north of the park and considering the updates there,

264
00:18:09,520 --> 00:18:14,320
 we found that it makes logical sense to continue that commercial designation to the north and

265
00:18:14,320 --> 00:18:18,940
 further having commercial uses here would be consistent with what the developer initially

266
00:18:18,940 --> 00:18:23,520
 presented to the city council at their work session regarding the Razor park.

267
00:18:23,520 --> 00:18:28,560
 They have interest in developing some complimentary commercial uses that like a dog park or some

268
00:18:28,560 --> 00:18:33,720
 outdoor eating spaces there that would be like I said, complimentary to the park and

269
00:18:33,720 --> 00:18:39,880
 also provide hopefully some parking and nearby restroom facilities that that park might need.

270
00:18:39,880 --> 00:18:46,000
 For the southern property along Heritage Trail, again, it makes sense that since the city

271
00:18:46,000 --> 00:18:50,960
 is not interested in having a second park at Razor Ranch due to the proximity here that

272
00:18:50,960 --> 00:18:54,920
 this would have a consistent designation with the surrounding property.

273
00:18:54,920 --> 00:18:58,920
 And then finally, again, those lots along Bonnie Bray, because of the new reverse setback

274
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:03,000
 and the need for them to comply with that, the single family designation no longer makes

275
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:08,080
 sense on that property, so offices seem a logical transition there since there's been

276
00:19:08,080 --> 00:19:12,880
 recently a lot of similar medical office type uses developing along other parts of Bonnie

277
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:13,880
 Bray.

278
00:19:13,880 --> 00:19:17,240
 Haley, we have a question from Kristina Beck.

279
00:19:17,240 --> 00:19:19,840
 Yes, thank you.

280
00:19:19,840 --> 00:19:27,480
 Haley, are you going to cover what types of uses are allowed within 500 feet in your presentation

281
00:19:27,480 --> 00:19:31,680
 of the gas wall, specifically that third property?

282
00:19:31,680 --> 00:19:38,560
 Sure, so, well, with this overlay, if they change this to the office or single family

283
00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:41,720
 designation, those would be the only permitted uses.

284
00:19:41,720 --> 00:19:45,000
 Single family is a protected use, so it could not go within 500 feet.

285
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:50,080
 They could potentially develop some single family on the very north end of that property.

286
00:19:50,080 --> 00:19:53,480
 Other than that, they would be restricted to office uses if this designation change

287
00:19:53,480 --> 00:19:54,480
 goes through.

288
00:19:54,480 --> 00:19:55,480
 Go ahead.

289
00:19:55,480 --> 00:19:56,480
 I'm sorry.

290
00:19:56,480 --> 00:20:02,440
 Oh, no, just generally speaking in the rest of the city, most uses other than those that

291
00:20:02,440 --> 00:20:07,000
 are deemed protected by the DDC are permitted within that gas wall setback.

292
00:20:07,000 --> 00:20:12,800
 Protected uses are things like single family, multi family, any sort of dwelling, essentially.

293
00:20:12,800 --> 00:20:17,280
 Things that would allow for overnight stays such as hospitals or hotels are considered

294
00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:22,440
 protected uses, but those kind of daytime come and go uses such as commercial or office

295
00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:26,800
 space are not considered protected, so those could go within the reverse setback.

296
00:20:26,800 --> 00:20:27,800
 Okay.

297
00:20:27,800 --> 00:20:38,200
 Okay, actually, that clarifies it for me, and anyway, thank you.

298
00:20:38,200 --> 00:20:41,960
 So the next component to the proposed changes, again, is the adoption of those development

299
00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:42,960
 standards.

300
00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:47,600
 Those would become exhibits C2, D2, and E2 to the overlay.

301
00:20:47,600 --> 00:20:51,360
 These design standards that were provided in your backup are intended to provide those

302
00:20:51,360 --> 00:20:56,200
 site design standards, architectural guidelines, as well as parking, landscaping, and sign

303
00:20:56,200 --> 00:21:01,280
 standards for any non-residential uses within the south mixed use campus, so within that

304
00:21:01,280 --> 00:21:03,320
 east area.

305
00:21:03,320 --> 00:21:08,480
 The standards that they proposed are very consistent and very similar to the development

306
00:21:08,480 --> 00:21:12,000
 standards elsewhere in Razor Ranch for non-residential uses.

307
00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:15,880
 So again, they're kind of based on our 2002 development code, but they do provide heightened

308
00:21:15,880 --> 00:21:23,720
 architectural and landscaping standards compared to the standard DDC that was in place in 2002.

309
00:21:23,720 --> 00:21:26,960
 They're not proposing any changes that would be anything different from what you already

310
00:21:26,960 --> 00:21:31,520
 see at Razor Ranch, so similar architectural color palettes, materials, things of that

311
00:21:31,520 --> 00:21:36,360
 nature, and again, anything that develops at Razor Ranch on the south campus would come

312
00:21:36,360 --> 00:21:42,280
 back to you all through that site plan process to ensure that it meets those design standards.

313
00:21:42,280 --> 00:21:48,320
 And then finally the other piece to this update is update to the main portion of the Razor

314
00:21:48,320 --> 00:21:49,320
 Ranch overlay district.

315
00:21:49,320 --> 00:21:54,280
 This used to be section 35.715 of our 2002 development code.

316
00:21:54,280 --> 00:21:58,480
 If you remember with the adoption of the 2019, we have a placeholder for the Razor overlay

317
00:21:58,480 --> 00:22:03,560
 to essentially be consolidated into one appendix, so these updates would be a part of that base

318
00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:05,440
 text to the overlay district.

319
00:22:05,440 --> 00:22:09,280
 These revisions that you saw as a red line in your backup are strictly to provide the

320
00:22:09,280 --> 00:22:14,160
 references to those new exhibits where necessary, and then to clarify and kind of reorganize

321
00:22:14,160 --> 00:22:19,160
 the uses permitted within the south mixed use district, so they're not making any changes

322
00:22:19,160 --> 00:22:23,640
 to the permitted uses, just reorganizing those so that the designations you see on the map,

323
00:22:23,640 --> 00:22:28,000
 like the OSF, are spelled out in detail in the text to make it easier to administer and

324
00:22:28,000 --> 00:22:32,400
 follow the overlay.

325
00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:35,000
 Public notification was sent regarding this request.

326
00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:40,120
 We received one written opposition and one in favor as of today, so you can see those

327
00:22:40,120 --> 00:22:41,120
 on the map.

328
00:22:41,120 --> 00:22:45,600
 The opposition was across Bonnie Brage, just south of Linden Street, and then the owner

329
00:22:45,600 --> 00:22:50,680
 for the town center portion of the overlay district provided a favorable response.

330
00:22:50,680 --> 00:22:53,560
 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting just this week, so I'll let them talk you

331
00:22:53,560 --> 00:22:59,000
 through how that went at their presentation during the regular meeting.

332
00:22:59,000 --> 00:23:03,320
 And staff is recommending approval, and this is tentatively scheduled for city council

333
00:23:03,320 --> 00:23:04,900
 on February 2nd.

334
00:23:04,900 --> 00:23:08,040
 I'm happy to answer any questions, so I'll pull the screen down.

335
00:23:08,040 --> 00:23:09,040
 Great.

336
00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:10,040
 Thanks, Hayley.

337
00:23:10,040 --> 00:23:14,840
 Is there any other questions on item 5A?

338
00:23:14,840 --> 00:23:17,560
 Great.

339
00:23:17,560 --> 00:23:18,560
 I do not see any.

340
00:23:18,560 --> 00:23:26,160
 We can move on to the next agenda item, which is 5B, PD20-0008.

341
00:23:26,160 --> 00:23:35,360
 This is also Hayley's item.

342
00:23:35,360 --> 00:23:39,200
 One last item for the evening, for me at least.

343
00:23:39,200 --> 00:23:45,000
 This is a planned development request for Habitat for Humanity.

344
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:52,440
 Habitat is the owner of just over eight acres that's located just south of the DCTA rail

345
00:23:52,440 --> 00:23:56,280
 the corridor, the property is located off of Duncan Street and Hill Street.

346
00:23:56,280 --> 00:24:00,760
 I do apologize, I had a dyslexic moment when writing this and got east and west backwards

347
00:24:00,760 --> 00:24:04,760
 in the caption, so I hope that didn't confuse anyone.

348
00:24:04,760 --> 00:24:08,760
 But it is located, as you see here on the map, with frontage on both Duncan and Hill

349
00:24:08,760 --> 00:24:11,600
 Street.

350
00:24:11,600 --> 00:24:16,260
 This is a look at our current zoning map, so you can see the property is currently zoned

351
00:24:16,260 --> 00:24:20,640
 R4 consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, and they are proposing a planned development

352
00:24:20,640 --> 00:24:24,000
 zoning, so the zoning map would be changed to look like what you see on the right side

353
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:27,560
 of the screen there.

354
00:24:27,560 --> 00:24:32,560
 To take you through their development plan in a little more detail, for the total 8.2

355
00:24:32,560 --> 00:24:35,520
 acres, they are proposing 35 single family lots.

356
00:24:35,520 --> 00:24:37,920
 They're proposing to develop this in two phases.

357
00:24:37,920 --> 00:24:42,620
 Phase one is kind of shaded blue on your map, so that would include the extension of Boardwalk

358
00:24:42,620 --> 00:24:46,680
 Lane between Hill and Duncan Street, and then the development of these lots on the southern

359
00:24:46,680 --> 00:24:51,720
 part of the property, as well as the development of the detention facility for the site.

360
00:24:51,720 --> 00:24:56,880
 Phase two would include the remainder of those lots, so 19 lots here, as well as the development

361
00:24:56,880 --> 00:25:00,200
 of a street they're calling Caring Way.

362
00:25:00,200 --> 00:25:04,320
 They are proposing a four-year build-out for each of these phases, so eight years overall

363
00:25:04,320 --> 00:25:06,960
 for the total development.

364
00:25:06,960 --> 00:25:15,400
 I wanted to show you all how the permitted uses would look for this PD compared to the

365
00:25:15,400 --> 00:25:20,800
 standard zoning of R4, so R4 does permit a variety of uses by right.

366
00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:24,400
 Those uses would be paired down to only allow for single-family detached dwellings as the

367
00:25:24,400 --> 00:25:30,840
 primary use within this property, and then similarly, R4 permits a variety of accessory

368
00:25:30,840 --> 00:25:35,140
 uses, such as accessory dwelling units, produce sales, things of that nature.

369
00:25:35,140 --> 00:25:39,320
 This list would be paired down to permit home occupations as the only accessory use, so

370
00:25:39,320 --> 00:25:44,440
 someone could have an office within their home or something of that nature.

371
00:25:44,440 --> 00:25:49,120
 But all of these other uses, such as townhomes, duplexes, everything permitted with an SUP

372
00:25:49,120 --> 00:25:54,520
 currently in R4 would be removed and only single-family detached permitted.

373
00:25:54,520 --> 00:25:59,760
 And then similarly, I wanted to provide you a comparison of the PD dimensional standards

374
00:25:59,760 --> 00:26:01,640
 compared to R4.

375
00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:06,880
 So they based the PD off of the R6 district standard, so for comparison, that's how this

376
00:26:06,880 --> 00:26:09,300
 would look.

377
00:26:09,300 --> 00:26:15,520
 So it's a 6,000 square foot lot minimum as opposed to 7,000 for R4, the lots are proposed

378
00:26:15,520 --> 00:26:19,800
 to be a minimum of 10 feet wider, so 40 foot lots as opposed to 50.

379
00:26:19,800 --> 00:26:21,240
 The depth remains the same.

380
00:26:21,240 --> 00:26:25,680
 The front yard setback is slightly decreased as well as that setback if you have a corner

381
00:26:25,680 --> 00:26:29,440
 lot where the front yard becomes also the side yard setback.

382
00:26:29,440 --> 00:26:35,820
 The building coverage is allowed to be slightly higher in the PD at 60% versus 50%.

383
00:26:35,820 --> 00:26:39,240
 Other standards are not proposed to change at all, so they would follow our standard

384
00:26:39,240 --> 00:26:41,200
 street tree standards.

385
00:26:41,200 --> 00:26:46,360
 They are proposing one additional yard tree per lot as compared to the standard for the

386
00:26:46,360 --> 00:26:47,700
 DDC.

387
00:26:47,700 --> 00:26:50,740
 And then the other major change is associated with parking.

388
00:26:50,740 --> 00:26:54,840
 So they are proposing, if you're familiar with Habitat, they typically don't have garages

389
00:26:54,840 --> 00:26:56,400
 on their homes.

390
00:26:56,400 --> 00:27:00,640
 So instead of the standard four off-street parking spaces that we require for single-family

391
00:27:00,640 --> 00:27:05,080
 that is normally two in a garage and two in a driveway, they're proposing two off-street

392
00:27:05,080 --> 00:27:09,480
 driveway parking spaces and one on-street parking space per dwelling.

393
00:27:09,480 --> 00:27:12,760
 So three parking spaces for each unit would be provided.

394
00:27:12,760 --> 00:27:19,080
 And then tree preservation would be the same standard as the DDC.

395
00:27:19,080 --> 00:27:22,360
 So the general criteria for approval were all detailed in your backup.

396
00:27:22,360 --> 00:27:28,080
 I won't go through those specifically, but we did find that they meet these criteria.

397
00:27:28,080 --> 00:27:32,120
 What they're proposing is consistent with the DDC and comprehensive plan requirements

398
00:27:32,120 --> 00:27:35,420
 except for those deviations that we just looked at.

399
00:27:35,420 --> 00:27:38,720
 There are no prior approvals that we need to consider for this property.

400
00:27:38,720 --> 00:27:42,200
 They are proposing irrational phasing for the development, and we're not expecting

401
00:27:42,200 --> 00:27:47,960
 any significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts from this.

402
00:27:47,960 --> 00:27:51,840
 And we'll go through each of the six PD criteria in a little more detail.

403
00:27:51,840 --> 00:27:55,280
 So the first is consistency with our comprehensive plans.

404
00:27:55,280 --> 00:27:58,840
 The first element to look at there is the future land use map, which is what you see

405
00:27:58,840 --> 00:28:00,200
 here.

406
00:28:00,200 --> 00:28:05,940
 So this property is in a pretty stark transitional area where most of the property has that low

407
00:28:05,940 --> 00:28:10,200
 residential designation, but you can see here with the buffering it is right on the edge

408
00:28:10,200 --> 00:28:12,440
 of an industrial commerce area.

409
00:28:12,440 --> 00:28:16,920
 So in looking at this, the density that they're proposing is slightly above what we would

410
00:28:16,920 --> 00:28:21,360
 normally see with low residential that calls for one to four dwelling units per acre.

411
00:28:21,360 --> 00:28:26,500
 They're at 4.25, but that slightly higher density is still consistent with the other

412
00:28:26,500 --> 00:28:30,360
 development in this area and is not out of character for what you would expect to see

413
00:28:30,360 --> 00:28:34,000
 in a transitional area like this.

414
00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:39,160
 And then other components of the comprehensive plan that are important to look at for this,

415
00:28:39,160 --> 00:28:44,440
 the plan does have a significant discussion regarding affordable housing and infill development,

416
00:28:44,440 --> 00:28:48,100
 and encourages a diversity of options be provided across the city.

417
00:28:48,100 --> 00:28:52,860
 This PD is intended to help facilitate that, because these would be affordable housing

418
00:28:52,860 --> 00:28:56,200
 units developed by Habitat for Humanity.

419
00:28:56,200 --> 00:29:00,080
 And some of the features, such as the smaller lots and having, you know, for example, not

420
00:29:00,080 --> 00:29:05,080
 having garages and having less parking do contribute to making the homes more affordable.

421
00:29:05,080 --> 00:29:08,720
 The comprehensive plan also speaks a lot about urban design guidelines.

422
00:29:08,720 --> 00:29:11,880
 There's an entire section and table that outlines kind of the guidelines for what we'd like

423
00:29:11,880 --> 00:29:13,960
 to see for the city.

424
00:29:13,960 --> 00:29:16,640
 It speaks to architectural variety and quality.

425
00:29:16,640 --> 00:29:22,560
 And one of the unique features of this PD is that they have provided these sample elevations

426
00:29:22,560 --> 00:29:25,400
 that speak to the character of the neighborhood they're trying to develop.

427
00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:30,120
 The PD requires that these homes be developed with a kind of craftsman and mid-century modern

428
00:29:30,120 --> 00:29:34,940
 elements so that there would be a continual architectural theme through the entire development.

429
00:29:34,940 --> 00:29:39,900
 So it would provide for some community character that you might not normally find in a subdivision

430
00:29:39,900 --> 00:29:44,440
 just developed under the DDC itself.

431
00:29:44,440 --> 00:29:47,720
 The second criteria speaks to compliance with the DDC.

432
00:29:47,720 --> 00:29:51,880
 So again, other than the deviations that you see here on this table with respect to lot

433
00:29:51,880 --> 00:29:58,760
 size and parking, they would meet all of the requirements of the Denton Development Code.

434
00:29:58,760 --> 00:30:03,040
 And then the third criteria is whether there would be greater building design amenities

435
00:30:03,040 --> 00:30:04,520
 and connectivity.

436
00:30:04,520 --> 00:30:08,520
 So again, they do have that heightened landscaping proposed for these lots with one additional

437
00:30:08,520 --> 00:30:11,840
 tree, so enhanced tree canopy throughout the neighborhood.

438
00:30:11,840 --> 00:30:15,760
 They are proposing that architectural theming with the craftsman style architecture that

439
00:30:15,760 --> 00:30:19,200
 would help provide character and visual interest to the neighborhood.

440
00:30:19,200 --> 00:30:22,680
 And then the streets that they would be providing would increase the overall connectivity of

441
00:30:22,680 --> 00:30:27,320
 this area between Hill Street and Duncan Street.

442
00:30:27,320 --> 00:30:31,240
 The fourth criterion is for residential uses, whether there would be compatible buildings

443
00:30:31,240 --> 00:30:34,360
 uses and consistency with the character of the area.

444
00:30:34,360 --> 00:30:37,720
 Again, we found they meet this criteria.

445
00:30:37,720 --> 00:30:41,840
 This property, if the PD is approved, would be limited to those single family detached

446
00:30:41,840 --> 00:30:47,000
 dwellings only, which is consistent with what you see elsewhere in this area.

447
00:30:47,000 --> 00:30:51,120
 And then again, with those elevations that they provided, you can see that they would

448
00:30:51,120 --> 00:30:55,260
 have this consistent architectural theming through the area.

449
00:30:55,260 --> 00:31:00,040
 And if you look at the other homes in the area, single family, smaller homes with siding

450
00:31:00,040 --> 00:31:03,520
 and brick mixture, that is what you'd see in this development.

451
00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:09,800
 So it's consistent with the architecture and style of homes and size of homes in the area.

452
00:31:09,800 --> 00:31:14,400
 The fifth criterion does not apply as there's no residential uses proposed.

453
00:31:14,400 --> 00:31:20,360
 And then finally, we'll walk through the public facilities to show that they meet the -- that

454
00:31:20,360 --> 00:31:24,340
 would be able to provide public facilities to support the development.

455
00:31:24,340 --> 00:31:26,920
 With respect to schools, we did reach out to Denton ISD.

456
00:31:26,920 --> 00:31:31,240
 Their student generation for the small number of lots is expected to be relatively low.

457
00:31:31,240 --> 00:31:36,000
 So you can see less than 10 elementary students, only four to five middle school students expected

458
00:31:36,000 --> 00:31:38,120
 and five to six high school students.

459
00:31:38,120 --> 00:31:43,200
 And DISD indicated that all of these schools that they're zoned for would have capacity.

460
00:31:43,200 --> 00:31:47,740
 With respect to parks, our threshold is the goal of a 10-minute walk to a park.

461
00:31:47,740 --> 00:31:51,800
 So they are within an eight-minute walk of Fredmore Park to the north here, as you can

462
00:31:51,800 --> 00:31:55,640
 see on the map.

463
00:31:55,640 --> 00:31:59,320
 With respect to fire and law enforcement, we did not identify any issues.

464
00:31:59,320 --> 00:32:03,320
 This area is zoned for response from the central fire station or Fire Station 1.

465
00:32:03,320 --> 00:32:06,480
 They're well within the eight-minute response time boundary.

466
00:32:06,480 --> 00:32:10,880
 And with this being a consistent use with this area, there was no concern of any increase

467
00:32:10,880 --> 00:32:16,040
 in crime or nuisance concerns for our law enforcement.

468
00:32:16,040 --> 00:32:20,480
 With respect to utilities, water and wastewater services are available, as you can see here,

469
00:32:20,480 --> 00:32:22,980
 with water in blue, sewer in red.

470
00:32:22,980 --> 00:32:28,720
 Those will be extended as necessary throughout the site to service these homes.

471
00:32:28,720 --> 00:32:32,920
 And then with respect to streets, the expected trip generation, again, since this is only

472
00:32:32,920 --> 00:32:35,160
 35 homes, is relatively low.

473
00:32:35,160 --> 00:32:39,280
 30 peak hour trips and less than 400 daily trips are expected.

474
00:32:39,280 --> 00:32:43,640
 It did not even come close to the thresholds for traffic impact analysis.

475
00:32:43,640 --> 00:32:48,300
 So they haven't studied the traffic beyond the trip generation at this point.

476
00:32:48,300 --> 00:32:53,360
 They will do so if necessary when it comes to civil engineering plans for the neighborhood.

477
00:32:53,360 --> 00:32:56,400
 Perimeter street improvements, such as sidewalks, would be required along their frontage in

478
00:32:56,400 --> 00:32:57,800
 Hill and Duncan.

479
00:32:57,800 --> 00:33:01,660
 And then again, those two internal streets would provide some additional connectivity

480
00:33:01,660 --> 00:33:05,420
 through this area.

481
00:33:05,420 --> 00:33:07,120
 Neighborhood outreach was conducted.

482
00:33:07,120 --> 00:33:11,400
 They did have a neighborhood meeting via Zoom on December 17th and had about 20 attendees

483
00:33:11,400 --> 00:33:12,660
 at that meeting.

484
00:33:12,660 --> 00:33:18,680
 We received no responses to date to those mail notices that were sent out to the surrounding

485
00:33:18,680 --> 00:33:21,160
 properties.

486
00:33:21,160 --> 00:33:24,520
 And staff is recommending approval of the request as we found it to comply with all

487
00:33:24,520 --> 00:33:26,240
 of the criteria for approval.

488
00:33:26,240 --> 00:33:30,240
 And again, this would be tentatively scheduled for council on February 2nd.

489
00:33:30,240 --> 00:33:34,120
 We'll pull down the presentation and take any questions.

490
00:33:34,120 --> 00:33:38,520
 Thanks, Haley, we have a question from Commissioner Beck.

491
00:33:38,520 --> 00:33:43,400
 Thank you, Haley, I know you just pulled it down, but can you put your presentation back

492
00:33:43,400 --> 00:33:45,920
 up and go to the uses?

493
00:33:45,920 --> 00:33:52,720
 And while you do that, I want to the PD uses versus regular R4 uses table.

494
00:33:52,720 --> 00:33:56,440
 And I want to come in, I'm really looking forward to this, I'm absolutely going to vote

495
00:33:56,440 --> 00:33:57,440
 for it.

496
00:33:57,440 --> 00:34:04,080
 I just have a curiosity question about what can you comment as to why the developers are

497
00:34:04,080 --> 00:34:12,760
 are trying to limit the uses to, you know, so tightly digest the home occupation type

498
00:34:12,760 --> 00:34:13,760
 uses.

499
00:34:13,760 --> 00:34:20,040
 There are other sort of consistent uses, residential consistent uses that are, that are, you know,

500
00:34:20,040 --> 00:34:23,800
 would be also consistent, I think you would have improved it if they had asked for them.

501
00:34:23,800 --> 00:34:27,640
 But is there a rationale for just that kind of use?

502
00:34:27,640 --> 00:34:34,320
 Well, I believe that is based on Habitat's typical model, so typically they only work

503
00:34:34,320 --> 00:34:38,240
 with single family homes that would be able to be mortgaged and owned by the family that's

504
00:34:38,240 --> 00:34:40,300
 receiving that home.

505
00:34:40,300 --> 00:34:45,080
 In terms of the accessory uses, I believe again, it was just based on their expectations

506
00:34:45,080 --> 00:34:49,520
 from what they see in their typical homes that these other things wouldn't be, wouldn't

507
00:34:49,520 --> 00:34:52,840
 be customary in terms of having an accessory dwelling unit, because that would add to the

508
00:34:52,840 --> 00:34:55,880
 expense of the property itself.

509
00:34:55,880 --> 00:35:00,880
 So I believe that was their rationale for limiting this to home occupations, was just

510
00:35:00,880 --> 00:35:06,320
 based on their experience with their typical client that would receive these homes.

511
00:35:06,320 --> 00:35:07,600
 Okay, thank you.

512
00:35:07,600 --> 00:35:08,600
 That clarifies.

513
00:35:08,600 --> 00:35:09,600
 Thank you.

514
00:35:09,600 --> 00:35:10,600
 I appreciate it.

515
00:35:10,600 --> 00:35:15,560
 Any other questions for Haley on this item?

516
00:35:15,560 --> 00:35:16,720
 I do not see any.

517
00:35:16,720 --> 00:35:17,720
 Thank you, Haley.

518
00:35:17,720 --> 00:35:24,040
 Next item of business is item 5C, DCA 20-0005.

519
00:35:24,040 --> 00:35:29,140
 This is Julie Wyatt's item.

520
00:35:29,140 --> 00:35:58,160
 And Julie, the floor is yours when ready.

521
00:35:58,160 --> 00:36:05,160
 Okay.

522
00:36:28,160 --> 00:36:47,980
 Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting DCA 20-0005, R3 setbacks.

523
00:36:47,980 --> 00:36:53,940
 So the request before you is the city initiated DDC amendment to subchapter 3, related to

524
00:36:53,940 --> 00:36:57,240
 the minimum R3 side yard setbacks.

525
00:36:57,240 --> 00:37:03,680
 I believe this topic was discussed at the DCRC regarding issues with existing lots.

526
00:37:03,680 --> 00:37:06,400
 You can see that map on your screen.

527
00:37:06,400 --> 00:37:11,860
 Those areas in blue and red represent all of the R3 district within the city.

528
00:37:11,860 --> 00:37:14,440
 It's about 9,200 acres.

529
00:37:14,440 --> 00:37:21,000
 Only 233 of those lots or land area is undeveloped.

530
00:37:21,000 --> 00:37:22,520
 That's about 130 acres.

531
00:37:22,520 --> 00:37:30,040
 So I believe we did the math and it's about 1% of that R3 district is really undeveloped.

532
00:37:30,040 --> 00:37:34,200
 And there are about 9,000 developed lots.

533
00:37:34,200 --> 00:37:39,480
 So just generally wanted to talk about what the proposal is, and then we'll get more into

534
00:37:39,480 --> 00:37:40,480
 the details.

535
00:37:40,480 --> 00:37:47,400
 Currently, the R3 side yard setback for internal lots is 10 feet, and we are proposing a five-foot

536
00:37:47,400 --> 00:37:51,040
 internal side yard setback.

537
00:37:51,040 --> 00:37:55,400
 So before we get into the details, we'll talk about just what the dimensional requirements

538
00:37:55,400 --> 00:37:57,040
 are for R3.

539
00:37:57,040 --> 00:37:59,840
 So the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet.

540
00:37:59,840 --> 00:38:02,320
 The lot width is 80 feet.

541
00:38:02,320 --> 00:38:04,480
 The front yard setback is 20 feet.

542
00:38:04,480 --> 00:38:10,640
 And just to let you know, corner lots in the city of Denton essentially have two front

543
00:38:10,640 --> 00:38:15,600
 yards, and that each street frontage does have to respect that front yard setback as

544
00:38:15,600 --> 00:38:18,920
 shown in the graphic on your screen.

545
00:38:18,920 --> 00:38:22,840
 The rear yard setback is 10 feet, and then that side yard setback, that internal setback

546
00:38:22,840 --> 00:38:26,160
 is 10 feet.

547
00:38:26,160 --> 00:38:30,840
 So the considerations we looked at when we looked at this text amendment, because as

548
00:38:30,840 --> 00:38:35,520
 this has been applied, it's really created some challenges for homeowners and property

549
00:38:35,520 --> 00:38:36,600
 owners within the city.

550
00:38:36,600 --> 00:38:41,000
 So we really looked at it in terms of first kind of greenfield development, and I know

551
00:38:41,000 --> 00:38:46,880
 there's not a lot of that, but there are some areas where R3 lots could be plotted.

552
00:38:46,880 --> 00:38:53,400
 And then we looked at how it affects developed lots, those existing residential areas.

553
00:38:53,400 --> 00:38:56,080
 So first, we're just going to talk about that greenfield development.

554
00:38:56,080 --> 00:38:57,720
 We'll go through it pretty quickly.

555
00:38:57,720 --> 00:39:03,000
 So for those newly plotted lots, a variety of architectural types and dwelling sizes are

556
00:39:03,000 --> 00:39:06,480
 difficult to achieve with this side yard setback.

557
00:39:06,480 --> 00:39:13,840
 So when you look at that 60-foot wide lot with those 10-foot side yard setbacks, it

558
00:39:13,840 --> 00:39:18,840
 reduces that buildable area to only 40 feet wide for interior lots.

559
00:39:18,840 --> 00:39:25,680
 And essentially, it creates the same building pad that we see in the R4, R6, and R7 districts.

560
00:39:25,680 --> 00:39:30,320
 And this reduces a property owner's ability to either place kind of a larger or maybe

561
00:39:30,320 --> 00:39:35,400
 a more architecturally distinctive structure on that lot, really kind of encourages a more

562
00:39:35,400 --> 00:39:39,960
 homogeneous development pattern and look throughout the city.

563
00:39:39,960 --> 00:39:43,000
 And we'll kind of look at that as we look at those lots.

564
00:39:43,000 --> 00:39:46,040
 So I made some scaled models of those lot sizes.

565
00:39:46,040 --> 00:39:48,880
 So you see R3 in this location.

566
00:39:48,880 --> 00:39:51,920
 Once again, that's got that 60-foot wide lot.

567
00:39:51,920 --> 00:39:57,840
 And then R4, R6, and R7 requires a minimum 50-foot wide lot.

568
00:39:57,840 --> 00:40:03,320
 Now, in the R3, you've got the 10-foot side yard setbacks, which creates that buildable

569
00:40:03,320 --> 00:40:05,520
 area of 40 feet wide.

570
00:40:05,520 --> 00:40:12,160
 But when you then show that along that R4, R6, and R7, you can see that carries throughout.

571
00:40:12,160 --> 00:40:18,960
 And we did an analysis of how many lots within the city of Denton had either an R3, R4, R6,

572
00:40:18,960 --> 00:40:20,280
 or R7 zoning.

573
00:40:20,280 --> 00:40:23,000
 And that's over 23,000 lots within the city of Denton.

574
00:40:23,000 --> 00:40:33,640
 So it really kind of encourages just those 40-foot wide structures in all of those areas.

575
00:40:33,640 --> 00:40:39,680
 So if you decrease those side yard setbacks with setbacks for internal lots, it would

576
00:40:39,680 --> 00:40:42,320
 allow a variety of lot sizes.

577
00:40:42,320 --> 00:40:46,440
 Of course, you could still put a 40-foot wide lot structure on those lots, but you could

578
00:40:46,440 --> 00:40:50,480
 also then increase that to 50 feet or anywhere in between.

579
00:40:50,480 --> 00:40:55,960
 And that would allow more architectural diversity within R3 and also include maybe larger one-story

580
00:40:55,960 --> 00:41:00,720
 homes and ranch style homes.

581
00:41:00,720 --> 00:41:04,680
 So and then we looked at established neighborhoods.

582
00:41:04,680 --> 00:41:08,640
 So we have a lot of our city that does have R3 district.

583
00:41:08,640 --> 00:41:12,200
 It's kind of one of our transitional zoning districts.

584
00:41:12,200 --> 00:41:17,240
 A lot of our internal areas are zoned R3.

585
00:41:17,240 --> 00:41:22,240
 And either redevelopment of those existing lots, or maybe additions to existing dwellings,

586
00:41:22,240 --> 00:41:26,880
 something like adding a patio or another bathroom or room, is challenging to do that 10-foot

587
00:41:26,880 --> 00:41:29,040
 side yard setback.

588
00:41:29,040 --> 00:41:35,240
 So what comes into play is subchapter one of the Denton Development Code.

589
00:41:35,240 --> 00:41:41,800
 So that code allowed or the adoption of the code did not cause any existing legally established

590
00:41:41,800 --> 00:41:44,100
 single-family lot to become non-conforming.

591
00:41:44,100 --> 00:41:46,680
 So those lots are all conforming.

592
00:41:46,680 --> 00:41:52,400
 However, any new development or any changes to those lots must comply with current setback

593
00:41:52,400 --> 00:41:53,400
 regulations.

594
00:41:53,400 --> 00:41:59,040
 And given the long history of Denton's development, the variety of development regulations under

595
00:41:59,040 --> 00:42:03,600
 which Denton's established neighborhoods were developed, and the variability of those conforming

596
00:42:03,600 --> 00:42:08,120
 lot sizes, that current side yard setback could impede investment into those existing

597
00:42:08,120 --> 00:42:10,360
 lots.

598
00:42:10,360 --> 00:42:12,840
 So we'll look at a couple of examples here.

599
00:42:12,840 --> 00:42:19,800
 So here's one infill development that was recently constructed near one of the universities.

600
00:42:19,800 --> 00:42:22,320
 And as you can see, it's an infill lot.

601
00:42:22,320 --> 00:42:24,840
 It is about a 60-foot wide lot.

602
00:42:24,840 --> 00:42:29,720
 It does have a 7-foot setback on the north side, and then a little bit larger setback

603
00:42:29,720 --> 00:42:34,840
 on the south side to accommodate a shared driveway with the adjacent property.

604
00:42:34,840 --> 00:42:40,840
 So this was developed and constructed under the 2002 DDC.

605
00:42:40,840 --> 00:42:47,120
 And if they came to us today, we wouldn't be allowed, it would not be permitted in its

606
00:42:47,120 --> 00:42:48,120
 current configuration.

607
00:42:48,120 --> 00:42:50,600
 They would have to put a smaller dwelling on there.

608
00:42:50,600 --> 00:42:57,640
 And as you can see by the photos, it really relates to the street well.

609
00:42:57,640 --> 00:43:01,500
 Another area, this is one of Denton's existing neighborhoods.

610
00:43:01,500 --> 00:43:04,920
 It was platted, I believe, in 1955.

611
00:43:04,920 --> 00:43:07,560
 The lots are about 63 feet wide.

612
00:43:07,560 --> 00:43:09,240
 It's got varied architecture.

613
00:43:09,240 --> 00:43:10,960
 Here's sort of a Google Street view.

614
00:43:10,960 --> 00:43:15,840
 It's got a mix of one stories and two stories, a lot of kind of those ranch styles, those

615
00:43:15,840 --> 00:43:18,880
 post-war ranch styles.

616
00:43:18,880 --> 00:43:22,760
 And those dwellings are about 50 to 55 feet wide.

617
00:43:22,760 --> 00:43:25,480
 They're often not centered in the lot.

618
00:43:25,480 --> 00:43:30,240
 And so under the current standards, one of those property owners couldn't add a patio

619
00:43:30,240 --> 00:43:40,200
 or addition to those side yards, even if there was room because of that greater setback because

620
00:43:40,200 --> 00:43:44,620
 they currently don't conform.

621
00:43:44,620 --> 00:43:47,160
 We also looked at the comprehensive plan.

622
00:43:47,160 --> 00:43:53,300
 Element 4 outlines our urban design principles, and it does recommend architectural diversity

623
00:43:53,300 --> 00:44:00,580
 and creativity should be encouraged to avoid homogeneity and sterility and to ensure high

624
00:44:00,580 --> 00:44:02,480
 quality development.

625
00:44:02,480 --> 00:44:06,160
 The proposed modification does not conflict with any other provisions within the Denton

626
00:44:06,160 --> 00:44:08,000
 development code.

627
00:44:08,000 --> 00:44:17,440
 It would allow for a more diverse architecture within the city allowing for those 40 to 50

628
00:44:17,440 --> 00:44:22,040
 foot wide plans within R3 for that typical lot size.

629
00:44:22,040 --> 00:44:25,640
 And this is just a further part of the further refinement of the Denton development code.

630
00:44:25,640 --> 00:44:30,560
 As we continue implementing it, we see areas where it needs to be modified.

631
00:44:30,560 --> 00:44:32,960
 And so this is just part of that.

632
00:44:32,960 --> 00:44:35,520
 So staff does recommend approval of this request.

633
00:44:35,520 --> 00:44:40,600
 There is one error on this page, and it is actually scheduled to go before the city council

634
00:44:40,600 --> 00:44:42,640
 on January 12th.

635
00:44:42,640 --> 00:44:47,480
 I was incorrect in my month, so I did want to let you know that.

636
00:44:47,480 --> 00:44:52,760
 And I'll take the presentation down and be happy to answer any questions.

637
00:44:52,760 --> 00:44:54,720
 >> Appreciate it.

638
00:44:54,720 --> 00:44:55,720
 Julie?

639
00:44:55,720 --> 00:44:57,160
 Chris or Beck?

640
00:44:57,160 --> 00:45:00,620
 >> Yeah, thank you, Chair.

641
00:45:00,620 --> 00:45:08,360
 So I guess the -- what is the problem that we're trying to solve that is coming before

642
00:45:08,360 --> 00:45:14,080
 staff often enough that this is staff generated?

643
00:45:14,080 --> 00:45:20,400
 Staff has a lot of things to do, and I'm sort of curious what led staff to say this is a

644
00:45:20,400 --> 00:45:23,600
 big enough problem that we want to tackle it.

645
00:45:23,600 --> 00:45:24,600
 >> It does.

646
00:45:24,600 --> 00:45:29,520
 We have had -- there were some challenges with the initial implementation of the 2019

647
00:45:29,520 --> 00:45:35,920
 DDC and implementing this setback, given where R3 is within the city.

648
00:45:35,920 --> 00:45:41,120
 We have also heard from a couple of property owners who are looking to develop vacant lots

649
00:45:41,120 --> 00:45:48,440
 within our city's core that really aren't able to build the type of home that they want

650
00:45:48,440 --> 00:45:52,920
 to build on those lots, given those increased setbacks.

651
00:45:52,920 --> 00:45:56,040
 And these are an increase from the previous codes.

652
00:45:56,040 --> 00:46:02,540
 So it really is creating challenges for particularly that infill development.

653
00:46:02,540 --> 00:46:06,400
 >> But there's nothing precluding them from building something that would sit on a 40-foot

654
00:46:06,400 --> 00:46:13,560
 pad that would be a smaller home, that even if they wanted to have a patio or whatever

655
00:46:13,560 --> 00:46:20,840
 element that came up against those setbacks, smaller and therefore more affordable, typically.

656
00:46:20,840 --> 00:46:27,320
 If there's less -- there's less home, then, you know, that's a lower price range, which

657
00:46:27,320 --> 00:46:32,920
 may not be to the developer's interest, but I think it's probably more in line with Denton's

658
00:46:32,920 --> 00:46:35,160
 interest to get more people into more homes.

659
00:46:35,160 --> 00:46:43,360
 I guess I'm at a loss to really see how this is solving a problem for anything other than

660
00:46:43,360 --> 00:46:45,640
 developers wanting to build bigger homes.

661
00:46:45,640 --> 00:46:49,240
 And so can you -- you know, maybe that's a false understanding.

662
00:46:49,240 --> 00:46:51,720
 Can you clarify that for me?

663
00:46:51,720 --> 00:46:57,440
 >> Well, and I think that's related to the amount of R3 that we have in the city, that

664
00:46:57,440 --> 00:47:03,640
 really we're not generally talking about that sort of greenfield development or large developers

665
00:47:03,640 --> 00:47:07,680
 coming in and wanting to build large houses on lots.

666
00:47:07,680 --> 00:47:13,520
 It really is -- given the amount of square -- or the amount of land area, we only have

667
00:47:13,520 --> 00:47:18,480
 130 acres of R3 that's undeveloped within the city.

668
00:47:18,480 --> 00:47:23,720
 So it's a pretty small -- that's a pretty small portion of the factor.

669
00:47:23,720 --> 00:47:29,160
 The factor really has to do more with that infill and those existing lots, those existing

670
00:47:29,160 --> 00:47:30,160
 areas.

671
00:47:30,160 --> 00:47:37,720
 >> I guess I would go back to my comment, though, that put a smaller home on that and

672
00:47:37,720 --> 00:47:40,560
 development office would sign off on it.

673
00:47:40,560 --> 00:47:45,800
 >> Well, and the revised setback wouldn't preclude somebody from putting a smaller home

674
00:47:45,800 --> 00:47:46,800
 on that lot.

675
00:47:46,800 --> 00:47:48,160
 They could certainly do so.

676
00:47:48,160 --> 00:47:49,680
 It would allow that variety.

677
00:47:49,680 --> 00:47:54,600
 So if somebody wanted to put, you know, a single-family home or a ranch-style home or

678
00:47:54,600 --> 00:47:58,800
 more architecturally distinctive home on the property, they could with that reduced setback.

679
00:47:58,800 --> 00:48:00,720
 But it wouldn't be a requirement.

680
00:48:00,720 --> 00:48:04,240
 That is just that minimum setback.

681
00:48:04,240 --> 00:48:12,400
 >> I guess -- I guess at 1%, I'm not seeing the need to revise and with the ability to

682
00:48:12,400 --> 00:48:18,480
 develop just a smaller home that's more affordable, I'm really not -- I'm not -- I'm not compelled.

683
00:48:18,480 --> 00:48:20,080
 I'll stop with my question now.

684
00:48:20,080 --> 00:48:21,080
 Thanks, Julie.

685
00:48:21,080 --> 00:48:22,080
 I appreciate it.

686
00:48:22,080 --> 00:48:23,080
 >> You bet.

687
00:48:23,080 --> 00:48:24,080
 >> Commissioner Anderson, I believe, is next.

688
00:48:24,080 --> 00:48:25,080
 And then Pernetta.

689
00:48:25,080 --> 00:48:27,440
 >> Thank you, Chair.

690
00:48:27,440 --> 00:48:33,760
 On Commissioner Beck's line of questions, you only -- am I going to rewrite this when we've

691
00:48:33,760 --> 00:48:40,760
 -- you just said that we've only had a couple people want to do this out of 23,000 lots.

692
00:48:40,760 --> 00:48:45,040
 That's not even .001%.

693
00:48:45,040 --> 00:48:49,120
 And we only have 190-something acres left to develop.

694
00:48:49,120 --> 00:48:55,800
 I don't see why we want to rewrite the whole R3 standard when you only have a small amount

695
00:48:55,800 --> 00:48:59,760
 left to develop and only had two people request something like this.

696
00:48:59,760 --> 00:49:06,640
 >> Well, this was part -- this was originally part of that entire package of DDC amendments.

697
00:49:06,640 --> 00:49:13,280
 We're just pulling this to go a little earlier because we have had interest in revising those

698
00:49:13,280 --> 00:49:15,440
 setbacks from the community.

699
00:49:15,440 --> 00:49:19,640
 So it's -- this was always something that staff was intending to kind of move forward

700
00:49:19,640 --> 00:49:24,600
 with that refinement of the debt and development code with that large package of code amendments.

701
00:49:24,600 --> 00:49:31,560
 We're just pulling this a little ahead to, you know, to ensure that current property

702
00:49:31,560 --> 00:49:39,080
 owners within that -- within that inner core can invest in their lots that they have.

703
00:49:39,080 --> 00:49:40,080
 >> Thanks.

704
00:49:40,080 --> 00:49:45,920
 Again, like Commissioner Beck said, it's -- I don't know if I can get behind this.

705
00:49:45,920 --> 00:49:50,240
 It's just -- to me, it seems like -- I hate seeing houses built so close to each other.

706
00:49:50,240 --> 00:49:53,240
 You can pretty much reach your hand out the window and shake your neighbor's hand.

707
00:49:53,240 --> 00:49:56,700
 So I don't know, unless there's something else that can compel me to vote for this,

708
00:49:56,700 --> 00:49:59,440
 I don't think I can do this one.

709
00:49:59,440 --> 00:50:01,480
 >> Commissioner Panetta.

710
00:50:01,480 --> 00:50:03,960
 >> Yeah, just a few things.

711
00:50:03,960 --> 00:50:07,760
 You know, one of the things that kind of bothers me about this is, you know, when we set like

712
00:50:07,760 --> 00:50:13,560
 a, you know, zoning of an R3 in there, we're not just thinking about, you know, density

713
00:50:13,560 --> 00:50:15,800
 in terms of number of people in there.

714
00:50:15,800 --> 00:50:21,240
 There's kind of an aesthetic, you know, involved, like, you know, how many houses are going -- how

715
00:50:21,240 --> 00:50:25,720
 many houses and how big of a footprint is going to be on each individual acre.

716
00:50:25,720 --> 00:50:30,800
 You know, it seems like going, okay, we're going to set this as an R3, but now we're

717
00:50:30,800 --> 00:50:35,520
 going to make an adjustment to where there's less grass, less trees, less space in there.

718
00:50:35,520 --> 00:50:41,600
 It seems like it's kind of counterproductive to the aesthetic we want to do.

719
00:50:41,600 --> 00:50:46,080
 I really don't see, you know, like Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Beck, I'm not really

720
00:50:46,080 --> 00:50:53,080
 sure that I understand the dilemma that we're solving here, because if the argument is that,

721
00:50:53,080 --> 00:51:03,040
 you know, we're wanting developers to be able to create new kinds of houses, well, you know,

722
00:51:03,040 --> 00:51:08,580
 as a person who's had to deal with creatives before, generally the level of creativity

723
00:51:08,580 --> 00:51:14,240
 is based on creating something within certain criteria, right?

724
00:51:14,240 --> 00:51:18,920
 And it sounds to me like what we're actually doing is going, you know, there is a cookie

725
00:51:18,920 --> 00:51:24,840
 cutter formula right now that says, you know, we have this amount of house, but we can't

726
00:51:24,840 --> 00:51:30,600
 fit this, you know, prefab amount of house design on what we've got existing for, you

727
00:51:30,600 --> 00:51:31,600
 know, R3.

728
00:51:31,600 --> 00:51:39,800
 I'm not sure that I'm really on board with this, but I guess the other thing is, you

729
00:51:39,800 --> 00:51:44,480
 know, if this is a setback that we currently have, a side setback that we currently have

730
00:51:44,480 --> 00:51:51,280
 for R4, et cetera, I mean, why wouldn't somebody just create a bigger house, you know, on an

731
00:51:51,280 --> 00:51:52,280
 R4?

732
00:51:52,280 --> 00:51:53,280
 You know what I mean?

733
00:51:53,280 --> 00:51:57,480
 Instead of, you know, make it an R3 density on an R4 and that way you have bigger houses

734
00:51:57,480 --> 00:52:06,760
 in the same area to sell, you know, does that make sense?

735
00:52:06,760 --> 00:52:12,280
 I'm not sure I follow the, I'm not sure.

736
00:52:12,280 --> 00:52:17,400
 If I understood Pranetta, excuse me, Commissioner Pranetta correctly, he's saying go to R4,

737
00:52:17,400 --> 00:52:22,160
 but build R3 type size lots, and you still get the five foot setback.

738
00:52:22,160 --> 00:52:28,920
 If you're in an R4 zoning, you could have a five foot setback on a larger lot, like

739
00:52:28,920 --> 00:52:35,800
 a maybe a 70 foot with lot, but you can go five feet in an R4.

740
00:52:35,800 --> 00:52:42,840
 If I understood Commissioner Pranetta correctly, basically create, you use R4 setbacks to create

741
00:52:42,840 --> 00:52:46,040
 your product that you were thinking of wanting an R3.

742
00:52:46,040 --> 00:52:50,400
 Well, and of course the property owner could always seek a rezoning.

743
00:52:50,400 --> 00:52:54,320
 That's probably not something that we would always recommend, you know, we wouldn't necessarily

744
00:52:54,320 --> 00:53:00,760
 recommend approval of an R4 district in the, for one lot in the center of R3, particularly

745
00:53:00,760 --> 00:53:08,640
 because R4 introduces additional uses that the code kind of purposely put that R3 within

746
00:53:08,640 --> 00:53:13,260
 our internal, our internal areas within the city.

747
00:53:13,260 --> 00:53:18,600
 So of course we could always look at that, that rezoning for a property owner who wanted

748
00:53:18,600 --> 00:53:23,680
 to have different setbacks.

749
00:53:23,680 --> 00:53:27,680
 However that is something we would have to look at not only those setbacks, but also

750
00:53:27,680 --> 00:53:31,320
 the uses permitted within that R4 district.

751
00:53:31,320 --> 00:53:35,820
 Commissioner Pranetta, are you good?

752
00:53:35,820 --> 00:53:38,160
 You saw the floor.

753
00:53:38,160 --> 00:53:39,160
 Commissioner Smith.

754
00:53:39,160 --> 00:53:40,720
 Thank you, Chair.

755
00:53:40,720 --> 00:53:48,560
 Julie, just because Margie, Commissioner Roselle, Commissioner Ellis and I were on DCRC together

756
00:53:48,560 --> 00:53:49,560
 on this.

757
00:53:49,560 --> 00:53:54,200
 When this was presented to us, it was in front of the commission's edification, it was really

758
00:53:54,200 --> 00:54:00,240
 pitched more as it's an edit that lets people who currently exist in R3 zonings, who have

759
00:54:00,240 --> 00:54:05,200
 current structures already on those lots, be able to make additions to their homes.

760
00:54:05,200 --> 00:54:10,480
 And Julie briefly mentioned it in her presentation, but if they want to extend a patio or put

761
00:54:10,480 --> 00:54:17,080
 a carport or covered, a covered area, they can't because of the way the setbacks, how

762
00:54:17,080 --> 00:54:18,600
 some of their houses are built.

763
00:54:18,600 --> 00:54:25,840
 So I think a lot of the conversation around using this, this maybe opening up the developers

764
00:54:25,840 --> 00:54:34,880
 is certainly one that has led it again, I think the low amount of acres that are left

765
00:54:34,880 --> 00:54:39,560
 and undeveloped R3 is probably, can you hear me?

766
00:54:39,560 --> 00:54:41,160
 You're kind of breaking up.

767
00:54:41,160 --> 00:54:43,080
 Your connection sounds a little spotty.

768
00:54:43,080 --> 00:54:44,080
 Okay.

769
00:54:44,080 --> 00:54:45,080
 How about now?

770
00:54:45,080 --> 00:54:46,080
 A little better.

771
00:54:46,080 --> 00:54:47,080
 Okay.

772
00:54:47,080 --> 00:54:49,400
 I'll just get closer out of that.

773
00:54:49,400 --> 00:54:54,920
 But because there really isn't that much undeveloped R3, according to what Julie said, about 130

774
00:54:54,920 --> 00:55:00,240
 acres in the city of Denton, I don't know if this is so much of a new development change

775
00:55:00,240 --> 00:55:04,880
 to the code or change to the code that's really going to be shading towards new developers

776
00:55:04,880 --> 00:55:11,840
 so much as it is allowing current property owners to make edits to their current residential

777
00:55:11,840 --> 00:55:12,840
 structures.

778
00:55:12,840 --> 00:55:18,640
 And to add to some points that I think Commissioner Beck brought up, I don't, and Julie, you can,

779
00:55:18,640 --> 00:55:27,880
 I'd like to hear staff's historical view on this, but how many times have we seen affordable

780
00:55:27,880 --> 00:55:31,400
 housing projects come in on R3 zoning?

781
00:55:31,400 --> 00:55:36,800
 I don't think I could think of anybody really coming in on a development saying to build

782
00:55:36,800 --> 00:55:43,320
 an R3, 1/3 acre lots for affordable housing, it seems like that's more in high density

783
00:55:43,320 --> 00:55:45,520
 R4, R6 type of zoning.

784
00:55:45,520 --> 00:55:52,200
 And I might be wrong, but I'd like to hear what the staff says about that.

785
00:55:52,200 --> 00:55:56,040
 You are correct that R3 is one of our lower density zoning districts.

786
00:55:56,040 --> 00:55:58,840
 They do require those 10,000 square foot lots.

787
00:55:58,840 --> 00:56:04,760
 So it is not typically probably one of our more affordable districts, but we don't really

788
00:56:04,760 --> 00:56:08,400
 know what the price of those houses are necessarily on those lots.

789
00:56:08,400 --> 00:56:13,680
 So I couldn't speak to necessarily what the affordability of those resulting homes are.

790
00:56:13,680 --> 00:56:15,840
 But it is one of our larger lot districts.

791
00:56:15,840 --> 00:56:16,840
 And you are correct.

792
00:56:16,840 --> 00:56:20,200
 And thank you for highlighting that, that a lot of this just really is stemming from

793
00:56:20,200 --> 00:56:26,880
 those existing property owners who have a home in R3 that enjoyed a smaller setback

794
00:56:26,880 --> 00:56:32,040
 under the previous codes in the 2002 code, it was a six foot setback.

795
00:56:32,040 --> 00:56:36,460
 And in fact, back to 1941, it was a six foot setback.

796
00:56:36,460 --> 00:56:41,720
 With the implementation of this didn't development code, it was increased to a 10 foot setback,

797
00:56:41,720 --> 00:56:47,880
 which is really creating challenges for those property owners to invest in their homes.

798
00:56:47,880 --> 00:56:48,880
 Thank you.

799
00:56:48,880 --> 00:56:54,280
 Before we go around second time circle, I when I was looking at the presentation, Julie,

800
00:56:54,280 --> 00:56:56,640
 there's the house that had the seven foot setback.

801
00:56:56,640 --> 00:56:58,280
 That house specifically is a great example.

802
00:56:58,280 --> 00:57:03,080
 If they came to the city to pull a permit for some project on the house, it would be

803
00:57:03,080 --> 00:57:08,940
 denied because the house would be nonconforming under current rule, correct?

804
00:57:08,940 --> 00:57:13,920
 By to Commissioner Smith's point, by going back to the five foot setback, the people,

805
00:57:13,920 --> 00:57:19,440
 the individuals who had a six foot setback legally for decades are now back in conforming

806
00:57:19,440 --> 00:57:25,480
 where the new code made them nonconforming because we increased it from six feet to 10

807
00:57:25,480 --> 00:57:26,480
 feet.

808
00:57:26,480 --> 00:57:31,400
 So this edit is not a developer friendly type motion to build an extra, what, 300 homes

809
00:57:31,400 --> 00:57:32,560
 in town.

810
00:57:32,560 --> 00:57:38,920
 It's to correct a misalignment to what our property owners have already been enjoying.

811
00:57:38,920 --> 00:57:44,960
 And so I just have a different paradigm completely from the other commissioners, but this seems

812
00:57:44,960 --> 00:57:49,520
 like a kind of a cut and dry correction back to what our property owners have already been

813
00:57:49,520 --> 00:57:50,520
 enjoying.

814
00:57:50,520 --> 00:57:56,520
 So I know back in Fernandez, hands up at Commissioner Ellis and Richard haven't had a chance.

815
00:57:56,520 --> 00:58:01,840
 I'm going to go to Commissioner Ellis first, and then I think Richard had something to

816
00:58:01,840 --> 00:58:02,840
 add.

817
00:58:02,840 --> 00:58:03,840
 Thank you, Chair.

818
00:58:03,840 --> 00:58:04,840
 Yeah.

819
00:58:04,840 --> 00:58:08,600
 Just real quick on that note, you know, we've got a lot of people wanting to be back downtown,

820
00:58:08,600 --> 00:58:12,640
 wanting to be back, you know, close to walking distance on things, then wanting to invest

821
00:58:12,640 --> 00:58:13,640
 in these homes.

822
00:58:13,640 --> 00:58:16,640
 Many of these homes don't have parking structures.

823
00:58:16,640 --> 00:58:18,600
 They may want to put a garage on.

824
00:58:18,600 --> 00:58:22,600
 They may want to add some kind of a back patio, and we want them to do that.

825
00:58:22,600 --> 00:58:25,320
 We want them to be able to invest in these properties.

826
00:58:25,320 --> 00:58:29,640
 This does help them as well.

827
00:58:29,640 --> 00:58:37,800
 Even if it does assist developers or make some changes even to new development, you

828
00:58:37,800 --> 00:58:43,920
 know, being able to build diverse property in new construction areas, that's a really

829
00:58:43,920 --> 00:58:45,120
 good thing.

830
00:58:45,120 --> 00:58:51,840
 To be able to expand that lot, as Julie had shown in the presentation, is actually a really

831
00:58:51,840 --> 00:58:57,680
 good thing to how a new construction neighborhood could develop.

832
00:58:57,680 --> 00:59:03,240
 So it's just a win change to me.

833
00:59:03,240 --> 00:59:06,080
 Thank you, Commissioner Ellis.

834
00:59:06,080 --> 00:59:08,400
 Richard, did you have something to add?

835
00:59:08,400 --> 00:59:11,960
 The only thing I wanted to add is when we're talking new construction, again, I don't want

836
00:59:11,960 --> 00:59:16,040
 to beat a dead horse here, but again, we're not talking large subdivisions.

837
00:59:16,040 --> 00:59:21,600
 We're talking lots that may have been vacant for some time or lots that may have had a

838
00:59:21,600 --> 00:59:28,840
 smaller home built in the '40s or '50s that for whatever reason just isn't able to be

839
00:59:28,840 --> 00:59:32,040
 restored, so they want to build a new house.

840
00:59:32,040 --> 00:59:34,680
 And so again, we're not talking about large, large developers.

841
00:59:34,680 --> 00:59:39,040
 We're talking about single individuals that are wanting to build a house, and there's

842
00:59:39,040 --> 00:59:45,160
 a lot of confusion, a lot of the old plats included the setbacks on those old plats.

843
00:59:45,160 --> 00:59:48,840
 And so they're looking at their plat saying, "Hey, I have a plat that says my setback's

844
00:59:48,840 --> 00:59:52,880
 six foot," and we're telling them, "No, it's 10 foot."

845
00:59:52,880 --> 00:59:58,360
 And it's just caused a lot of confusion for those individuals that are wanting to build

846
00:59:58,360 --> 00:59:59,760
 on those individual lots.

847
00:59:59,760 --> 01:00:00,760
 That's all I wanted to add.

848
01:00:00,760 --> 01:00:01,760
 Great.

849
01:00:01,760 --> 01:00:02,760
 Thank you.

850
01:00:02,760 --> 01:00:04,800
 Commissioner Beck, I think, was next.

851
01:00:04,800 --> 01:00:07,440
 Thank you, Chair.

852
01:00:07,440 --> 01:00:11,920
 Well, honestly, Richard, that does not convince me.

853
01:00:11,920 --> 01:00:16,880
 It actually cements me more of my original opinion.

854
01:00:16,880 --> 01:00:24,680
 Margie's, sorry, Commissioner Ellis' argument maybe was slightly more convincing for me.

855
01:00:24,680 --> 01:00:32,720
 Just build a smaller home on that same lot if you're rebuilding to a new architectural

856
01:00:32,720 --> 01:00:39,400
 standard or using new engineering principles, or if it's burned down or something.

857
01:00:39,400 --> 01:00:44,400
 I take the point of wanting to develop additional uses.

858
01:00:44,400 --> 01:00:55,480
 So I guess my question to staff is, why aren't the variants and the minor modification standards

859
01:00:55,480 --> 01:01:05,880
 sufficient to allow one-off punctate changes rather than reset the entire R3 standard?

860
01:01:05,880 --> 01:01:15,520
 The minor modification does allow for a property owner to encroach up to 10% in one of those

861
01:01:15,520 --> 01:01:16,520
 setbacks.

862
01:01:16,520 --> 01:01:22,200
 So if that was a 10 foot setback, it would be a foot on either side, which once again

863
01:01:22,200 --> 01:01:29,080
 may not be adequate to allow for that reinvestment into those properties.

864
01:01:29,080 --> 01:01:34,960
 So while minor modification has been used effectively in some areas, it really just

865
01:01:34,960 --> 01:01:37,960
 didn't get them back to really where we were.

866
01:01:37,960 --> 01:01:39,880
 I think Commissioner Rosell said it.

867
01:01:39,880 --> 01:01:42,640
 It's kind of where they were for decades.

868
01:01:42,640 --> 01:01:49,240
 And that really, with the implementation of the 2019 code, kind of changed the rules to

869
01:01:49,240 --> 01:01:53,960
 increase those setbacks.

870
01:01:53,960 --> 01:02:00,480
 And I guess I'm still not compelled by that.

871
01:02:00,480 --> 01:02:08,480
 I guess the other question I have then following up is, in terms of affordability, I don't

872
01:02:08,480 --> 01:02:09,920
 mean affordable housing.

873
01:02:09,920 --> 01:02:13,600
 I don't want to make that-- that's not what we're talking about.

874
01:02:13,600 --> 01:02:21,160
 But if you have a smaller property, if you-- we'll take it all the way back to the beginning.

875
01:02:21,160 --> 01:02:27,440
 If you are in actual affordable housing, small housing, tiny homes, whatever, and you've

876
01:02:27,440 --> 01:02:35,240
 been successful and you now can trade up, then it is a little bit more transitional

877
01:02:35,240 --> 01:02:41,320
 for you to be on a smaller home on an R3 as you begin to trade up the housing scale that's

878
01:02:41,320 --> 01:02:42,560
 more affordable.

879
01:02:42,560 --> 01:02:45,360
 So we have a broader range of homes.

880
01:02:45,360 --> 01:02:48,560
 The cost of the property is not the land.

881
01:02:48,560 --> 01:02:50,180
 It's the house.

882
01:02:50,180 --> 01:02:53,600
 And the bigger than you make that house, the more it's going to cost.

883
01:02:53,600 --> 01:03:01,080
 So I don't mean affordable housing, but more affordable housing is maybe a better way to

884
01:03:01,080 --> 01:03:02,080
 say that.

885
01:03:02,080 --> 01:03:05,640
 So I'll stop my questions there and leave it.

886
01:03:05,640 --> 01:03:06,640
 Thank you.

887
01:03:06,640 --> 01:03:09,720
 I think Commissioner Anderson and then Prunetta.

888
01:03:09,720 --> 01:03:11,640
 Thanks, Chair.

889
01:03:11,640 --> 01:03:17,800
 What if a homeowner wanted to add a patio presently and they're going to be non-conforming?

890
01:03:17,800 --> 01:03:24,280
 Why couldn't they just bring that one issue in front of something like us or a request

891
01:03:24,280 --> 01:03:28,880
 to have their lot modified a little bit and do it on an as-needed basis instead of just

892
01:03:28,880 --> 01:03:30,680
 restructuring the whole system?

893
01:03:30,680 --> 01:03:35,440
 Well, that would go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and property owners certainly

894
01:03:35,440 --> 01:03:36,480
 have done that.

895
01:03:36,480 --> 01:03:41,120
 However, the criteria for approval for a variance is very limited.

896
01:03:41,120 --> 01:03:49,060
 It really should be limited to unique circumstances that are physical to that property.

897
01:03:49,060 --> 01:03:57,680
 So just because somebody wanted to put in a patio that would encroach into that setback,

898
01:03:57,680 --> 01:04:03,840
 staff would be unlikely to support that request given the criteria for approval and the limited

899
01:04:03,840 --> 01:04:15,200
 nature that variances occupy, that space that they occupy within our code.

900
01:04:15,200 --> 01:04:19,480
 And it would be unlikely that the ZBA, I mean, it would be up to the ZBA, but it would be

901
01:04:19,480 --> 01:04:23,260
 unlikely that staff could support it given that it probably wouldn't meet the criteria

902
01:04:23,260 --> 01:04:28,640
 for approval unless there was a physical hardship on the property that would be unique to that

903
01:04:28,640 --> 01:04:32,800
 property, which can be really, that can be a high bar to meet.

904
01:04:32,800 --> 01:04:38,160
 And I mean, my other thing is, if we're trying to work together, why wouldn't someone talk

905
01:04:38,160 --> 01:04:43,680
 to that board and sit there and say, hey, look, you know, this is all they're asking

906
01:04:43,680 --> 01:04:44,680
 for is this.

907
01:04:44,680 --> 01:04:48,160
 Let's just approve a 10 by 10 patio extension, you know what I mean?

908
01:04:48,160 --> 01:04:53,680
 Instead of rewriting the whole thing, I think why doesn't that other board become more lenient

909
01:04:53,680 --> 01:04:56,840
 instead of asking us to rewrite this whole thing?

910
01:04:56,840 --> 01:05:03,800
 I don't understand, and then I think I'm done.

911
01:05:03,800 --> 01:05:07,520
 I'm going to provide Christian Cole to jump in line here in front of Prenets since he

912
01:05:07,520 --> 01:05:08,920
 hasn't spoken yet.

913
01:05:08,920 --> 01:05:16,920
 Yeah, one reason would be in the ZBA, a super majority commission board, don't they have

914
01:05:16,920 --> 01:05:17,920
 to have a super majority?

915
01:05:17,920 --> 01:05:24,960
 I mean, that's, you know, you're at different individuals, whatever they think, you know,

916
01:05:24,960 --> 01:05:28,600
 maybe somebody doesn't think you should be able to, I just don't, you know, I don't want

917
01:05:28,600 --> 01:05:30,840
 to make this harder than it is.

918
01:05:30,840 --> 01:05:31,840
 It needs to be easier.

919
01:05:31,840 --> 01:05:38,440
 And the ZBA, it's kind of a, you're on another recourse outside of the ZBA, what's district

920
01:05:38,440 --> 01:05:44,880
 court, you know, I mean, somebody wants to put on a patio or I mean, I've had to, I live

921
01:05:44,880 --> 01:05:47,160
 in a house that was built in 1950.

922
01:05:47,160 --> 01:05:50,680
 I can't tell you how many remodels I've had to do.

923
01:05:50,680 --> 01:05:56,440
 And I just, you know, I don't want to, I want to give some people some flexibility, you

924
01:05:56,440 --> 01:06:04,600
 know, instead of, I just, I'm kind of with commissioner Ellis about this, it's pretty

925
01:06:04,600 --> 01:06:10,000
 cut and dry, you know, for me, but that's it.

926
01:06:10,000 --> 01:06:11,800
 Commissioner Prunette, thanks Commissioner Cole.

927
01:06:11,800 --> 01:06:14,040
 Yeah, I just kind of had a question.

928
01:06:14,040 --> 01:06:15,680
 I didn't see this anywhere.

929
01:06:15,680 --> 01:06:21,400
 We talked about the setbacks, you know, being smaller in the past.

930
01:06:21,400 --> 01:06:28,600
 Do we know how many properties existing and, you know, that are currently R3 were made,

931
01:06:28,600 --> 01:06:33,920
 you know, non-conforming when we went to the 10 foot setback as opposed to the six foot,

932
01:06:33,920 --> 01:06:35,480
 et cetera?

933
01:06:35,480 --> 01:06:42,400
 Given, you know, I really tried to go through the city and measure all of the setbacks,

934
01:06:42,400 --> 01:06:48,960
 but given the length of time that those houses were built, those setbacks are, and that we

935
01:06:48,960 --> 01:06:54,160
 don't necessarily have the records and those plot plans, those site plans for those homes,

936
01:06:54,160 --> 01:07:00,600
 it really is, it's not information that we, that we can discern.

937
01:07:00,600 --> 01:07:06,160
 It's kind of comes up as a case by case basis when somebody comes into the city and submits

938
01:07:06,160 --> 01:07:13,760
 for a building permit and we, you know, look at their site plan and their survey, and that's

939
01:07:13,760 --> 01:07:15,200
 when we give them the news.

940
01:07:15,200 --> 01:07:18,440
 So I wish I could get that information.

941
01:07:18,440 --> 01:07:24,000
 It's just not something given the length of, and when all of the houses were built, it's

942
01:07:24,000 --> 01:07:26,640
 just not something we can discern.

943
01:07:26,640 --> 01:07:28,480
 Okay, thank you.

944
01:07:28,480 --> 01:07:32,680
 Commissioner Beck, and then we'll kind of wrap up for further discussion and public

945
01:07:32,680 --> 01:07:33,680
 session.

946
01:07:33,680 --> 01:07:36,200
 Yeah, thank you, Chair.

947
01:07:36,200 --> 01:07:43,880
 I guess, I think we're trying to remedy a problem of flexibility by changing an entire

948
01:07:43,880 --> 01:07:51,440
 definition of a zoning requirement, and so I think we run the risk of creating issues

949
01:07:51,440 --> 01:07:52,440
 when we do that.

950
01:07:52,440 --> 01:08:00,480
 I would rather remedy the need for flexibility with, you know, other changes to the DDC that

951
01:08:00,480 --> 01:08:06,960
 allow for code amendment, like, you know, multiple, multiple zonings or, or enhanced

952
01:08:06,960 --> 01:08:15,720
 ability for variance or, or enhanced the variability for minor modification, because those address,

953
01:08:15,720 --> 01:08:16,840
 what do I do?

954
01:08:16,840 --> 01:08:21,000
 Those other solutions and increasing their flexibility say, what do I do when it doesn't

955
01:08:21,000 --> 01:08:29,640
 match the standard, but we all agree it should be allowed, because the standards are preventing

956
01:08:29,640 --> 01:08:36,560
 McMansions from being dropped on to, you know, you know, just completely covering the lot,

957
01:08:36,560 --> 01:08:41,120
 and we all, most of us agree that that is not, not a good thing.

958
01:08:41,120 --> 01:08:46,640
 And yes, I'm being a little hyperbolic on that, but, and so I guess the final point,

959
01:08:46,640 --> 01:08:54,280
 so I think, A, that we're using the wrong tool to fix the flexibility issue, and B,

960
01:08:54,280 --> 01:09:00,960
 that is, so if we use this tool to fix the flexibility issue, and then we have an area

961
01:09:00,960 --> 01:09:06,600
 that is zoned R3 and developers want to go and McMansion it, we can't have any tool

962
01:09:06,600 --> 01:09:09,720
 to stop them, because now we've made that allowed.

963
01:09:09,720 --> 01:09:13,760
 We have the home, just as everybody at the beginning of this conversation says, I don't

964
01:09:13,760 --> 01:09:17,640
 want to reach out and touch my neighbors, you know, none of us want that really, for

965
01:09:17,640 --> 01:09:18,640
 the most part.

966
01:09:18,640 --> 01:09:24,760
 So the, you know, how do we then, if we take away that restriction, how do you stop that?

967
01:09:24,760 --> 01:09:32,000
 Now, I, you know, I live in R4, so I don't really reach out and touch my neighbors, come

968
01:09:32,000 --> 01:09:33,000
 on.

969
01:09:33,000 --> 01:09:38,680
 But the, I think we're using the wrong tool to remedy this flexibility issue, and I guess

970
01:09:38,680 --> 01:09:40,520
 I'm still not compelled.

971
01:09:40,520 --> 01:09:41,520
 So thank you.

972
01:09:41,520 --> 01:09:44,120
 Richard, you want to close us out on this item?

973
01:09:44,120 --> 01:09:49,560
 Yeah, just wanted to provide sort of a little more background as to how staff sort of approached

974
01:09:49,560 --> 01:09:54,000
 this, sort of looking at from a practical perspective, and I don't recall what the setback

975
01:09:54,000 --> 01:09:58,280
 was required prior to 2002, I believe it was also six feet.

976
01:09:58,280 --> 01:10:02,360
 So we kind of looked at it as, do we want to wind this back to what's been in place

977
01:10:02,360 --> 01:10:08,640
 for 20, 30, maybe 40 years, or do we want to put a increased setback on those properties

978
01:10:08,640 --> 01:10:14,760
 by four feet, and to me, it was, it made more sense from practical perspective to wind it

979
01:10:14,760 --> 01:10:19,160
 back to what's been in place 20, 30, 40, maybe even longer.

980
01:10:19,160 --> 01:10:24,680
 That wouldn't preclude even if I, and Matt can correct me if I'm wrong, but that wouldn't

981
01:10:24,680 --> 01:10:32,200
 preclude that setback going to six foot, whether or not it goes back to where it was previously,

982
01:10:32,200 --> 01:10:35,800
 but just wanted to throw that out there.

983
01:10:35,800 --> 01:10:38,320
 Great.

984
01:10:38,320 --> 01:10:41,640
 There might be more questions, I'm going to go ahead and stop the discussion during work

985
01:10:41,640 --> 01:10:47,000
 session just so we can get through prior to 630.

986
01:10:47,000 --> 01:10:49,320
 Thank you, Julie, for that presentation.

987
01:10:49,320 --> 01:10:53,480
 The next item is item 5D PD 20-0002.

988
01:10:53,480 --> 01:10:56,800
 This item has been requested to postpone.

989
01:10:56,800 --> 01:11:01,160
 Richard confirming here, we don't need a presentation, we're not, we're not going to, we're not opening

990
01:11:01,160 --> 01:11:02,160
 this, right?

991
01:11:02,160 --> 01:11:03,160
 Correct.

992
01:11:03,160 --> 01:11:04,960
 There'll be no action.

993
01:11:04,960 --> 01:11:14,440
 Okay, so let's go ahead and go to the last item, which is 5E Z20-0011C.

994
01:11:14,440 --> 01:11:15,880
 This is Karina's item.

995
01:11:15,880 --> 01:11:37,960
 Karina, whenever you're ready, you have the floor.

996
01:11:37,960 --> 01:12:00,080
 Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble finding it on the share screen.

997
01:12:00,080 --> 01:12:12,960
 Okay, there we go.

998
01:12:12,960 --> 01:12:13,960
 All right.

999
01:12:13,960 --> 01:12:21,960
 My name is Karina Maldonado, I'll be presenting Z20-0011 for State School Road Estates.

1000
01:12:21,960 --> 01:12:29,160
 The request today is to rezone approximately 4.23 acres from a currently zoned plan development

1001
01:12:29,160 --> 01:12:31,420
 to the R1 district.

1002
01:12:31,420 --> 01:12:39,320
 The property is located on State School Road, pretty close to the, the, the state support

1003
01:12:39,320 --> 01:12:40,320
 facility.

1004
01:12:40,320 --> 01:12:47,440
 Sorry, I lost my slide, but you can see that the property on the screen, it's generally

1005
01:12:47,440 --> 01:12:53,200
 located around some moderate single family, single family residential on most sides.

1006
01:12:53,200 --> 01:12:58,640
 There is some vacant property on the west side that previously came before PNC a few

1007
01:12:58,640 --> 01:13:01,360
 years ago for a rezoning.

1008
01:13:01,360 --> 01:13:05,240
 The property itself does have significant tree canopy.

1009
01:13:05,240 --> 01:13:11,160
 However, the applicant is just proposing just a straight zoning to subdivide the property

1010
01:13:11,160 --> 01:13:15,200
 into four single family estate lots.

1011
01:13:15,200 --> 01:13:18,300
 So just very briefly, just want to show the concept plan.

1012
01:13:18,300 --> 01:13:20,860
 This is actually their draft preliminary plat.

1013
01:13:20,860 --> 01:13:27,880
 So they're proposing, again, four lots, approximately one acre in size, and this will come of course

1014
01:13:27,880 --> 01:13:30,880
 after the entitlement step.

1015
01:13:30,880 --> 01:13:33,720
 A bit of brief history on the site.

1016
01:13:33,720 --> 01:13:38,120
 So as I mentioned, this is currently zoned planned resident, I'm sorry, planned development.

1017
01:13:38,120 --> 01:13:44,140
 This is a legacy PD, PD-12 that was established in the 80s.

1018
01:13:44,140 --> 01:13:49,840
 It currently is only designated for single family with a maximum density between three

1019
01:13:49,840 --> 01:13:51,940
 to five bowling units per acre.

1020
01:13:51,940 --> 01:13:58,080
 That would come out to a maximum of 18 units on this just less than five acre site.

1021
01:13:58,080 --> 01:14:04,120
 And within this PD, they are restricted to following the process for plan developments

1022
01:14:04,120 --> 01:14:08,100
 under the 1969 zoning ordinance.

1023
01:14:08,100 --> 01:14:15,720
 Within this ordinance, they would be required to come to PNC and City Council for approval

1024
01:14:15,720 --> 01:14:21,720
 of a site plan prior to moving forward with any other development steps.

1025
01:14:21,720 --> 01:14:24,960
 And then those PD standards for this site are on the screen.

1026
01:14:24,960 --> 01:14:32,080
 So just briefly, the minimum area for lots developed within the site would be 7,700 square

1027
01:14:32,080 --> 01:14:38,860
 feet with a minimum lot size of 70 feet, lot depth of 110 feet.

1028
01:14:38,860 --> 01:14:45,720
 And this roughly comes out to what you would find in the, it's sort of in between an R3,

1029
01:14:45,720 --> 01:14:48,000
 R4 standard.

1030
01:14:48,000 --> 01:14:52,120
 So that's what it would look like today if we were to use our current zoning.

1031
01:14:52,120 --> 01:14:56,040
 But again, the request is for an R1 district.

1032
01:14:56,040 --> 01:15:04,000
 So as I just mentioned, it's currently a PD and it would, they are requesting R1 zoning.

1033
01:15:04,000 --> 01:15:07,840
 So I won't go through all the general approval criteria for this project.

1034
01:15:07,840 --> 01:15:13,280
 This is just a simple straight zoning request, but I am happy to answer any questions at

1035
01:15:13,280 --> 01:15:16,320
 the end for any specific items that I did not bring up.

1036
01:15:16,320 --> 01:15:22,720
 And again, just the zoning criteria for a rezoning.

1037
01:15:22,720 --> 01:15:26,800
 First would be the, on the general criteria would be related to the future land use.

1038
01:15:26,800 --> 01:15:33,440
 As you can see on the screen, this particular lot and a lot of the area along the edge of

1039
01:15:33,440 --> 01:15:39,880
 the city limits with the City of Denton, City of Corinth are designated for low density residential.

1040
01:15:39,880 --> 01:15:46,520
 So this is intended for single family neighborhoods up to four acres, dwelling units per acre.

1041
01:15:46,520 --> 01:15:53,400
 So that's typically either one acre lots on the urban fringe, or it could be up to four

1042
01:15:53,400 --> 01:16:01,920
 acres per, I'm sorry, four dwelling units per acre in those more suburban areas.

1043
01:16:01,920 --> 01:16:07,220
 And I won't go into too much detail again about the PD, but with this zoning request,

1044
01:16:07,220 --> 01:16:13,840
 what does occur is that if this were to be approved, a lot of the 2019 DDC standards

1045
01:16:13,840 --> 01:16:18,280
 would then be applied to this particular parcel.

1046
01:16:18,280 --> 01:16:24,560
 Whereas the current PD, because it's based on the 1969 zoning, doesn't actually have

1047
01:16:24,560 --> 01:16:30,680
 many of the things that we look at today in our current DDC.

1048
01:16:30,680 --> 01:16:35,480
 So as I mentioned, some of those things that would be brought forward with this development

1049
01:16:35,480 --> 01:16:41,000
 include the 2019 tree code protection standards.

1050
01:16:41,000 --> 01:16:47,200
 So again, under the current PD, under the 1969 zoning code of ordinances, there is no

1051
01:16:47,200 --> 01:16:51,740
 existing landscape requirements or tree preservation requirements.

1052
01:16:51,740 --> 01:16:57,040
 And so that would be pulled into this request, they would need to comply moving forward in

1053
01:16:57,040 --> 01:17:02,600
 any subsequent steps to make sure that 30% preservation of any heritage or quality trees

1054
01:17:02,600 --> 01:17:06,640
 is addressed at their planning stage.

1055
01:17:06,640 --> 01:17:13,200
 Just a brief comparison of the current PD and the R1 zoning district.

1056
01:17:13,200 --> 01:17:16,520
 You'll see a significant difference in the minimum lot area.

1057
01:17:16,520 --> 01:17:22,520
 So going again from that 7, like 7,700 square feet, all the way up to 32,000 square feet,

1058
01:17:22,520 --> 01:17:30,200
 which comes out to approximately 0.7 acres, it would be significantly larger and would

1059
01:17:30,200 --> 01:17:36,080
 allow for more open space, more tree preservation.

1060
01:17:36,080 --> 01:17:40,560
 And then you can see through the table building coverage is another thing that would change.

1061
01:17:40,560 --> 01:17:46,000
 The PD currently allows 45% building coverage, and that is reduced in the R1 district down

1062
01:17:46,000 --> 01:17:50,880
 to 30%.

1063
01:17:50,880 --> 01:17:57,480
 There are some slight changes in the setbacks, but overall, not quite different than what

1064
01:17:57,480 --> 01:18:02,380
 is currently existing in the surrounding area.

1065
01:18:02,380 --> 01:18:08,420
 So related to any adverse impacts, you know, with four single family lots, it doesn't appear

1066
01:18:08,420 --> 01:18:11,080
 to have any negative impact.

1067
01:18:11,080 --> 01:18:16,760
 So just looking at transportation for four single family homes, this would generate approximately

1068
01:18:16,760 --> 01:18:20,840
 40 daily trips in a 24-hour period.

1069
01:18:20,840 --> 01:18:25,480
 State School Road is actually classified as a local street, which can accommodate up to

1070
01:18:25,480 --> 01:18:28,440
 5,500 trips per day.

1071
01:18:28,440 --> 01:18:36,100
 So after speaking with traffic, there is no significant issue with this.

1072
01:18:36,100 --> 01:18:40,180
 Water is available and will be addressed at the platting stage, as well as extension of

1073
01:18:40,180 --> 01:18:42,100
 any wastewater.

1074
01:18:42,100 --> 01:18:47,100
 And again, any improvements that are needed for development of this site will take effect

1075
01:18:47,100 --> 01:18:52,040
 or will be reviewed at subsequent phases.

1076
01:18:52,040 --> 01:18:55,260
 So we did notice out twice for this project.

1077
01:18:55,260 --> 01:19:01,000
 There was a slight issue with just making sure that everyone got a notice due to a mapping

1078
01:19:01,000 --> 01:19:02,000
 error.

1079
01:19:02,000 --> 01:19:09,060
 But as you can see, three parcels or sorry, three residents were in favor of the request.

1080
01:19:09,060 --> 01:19:19,320
 Four did submit opposition for various reasons related to property values, traffic, and then

1081
01:19:19,320 --> 01:19:23,760
 some had a misunderstanding of multifamily that was clarified, and that's why you see

1082
01:19:23,760 --> 01:19:30,960
 a difference in the agenda packet that was sent out, an increase of one person in favor.

1083
01:19:30,960 --> 01:19:35,640
 With this, staff is recommending approval as the request complies with the criteria

1084
01:19:35,640 --> 01:19:39,800
 in section 2.45E of the DDC.

1085
01:19:39,800 --> 01:19:44,920
 And I forgot to add on this slide, but this will be going to city council on January 12.

1086
01:19:44,920 --> 01:19:50,480
 And with that, I can answer any questions and the applicant will give a brief presentation

1087
01:19:50,480 --> 01:19:51,480
 during the regular session.

1088
01:19:51,480 --> 01:19:54,160
 >> I'll take this.

1089
01:19:54,160 --> 01:19:55,160
 >> We do have a question.

1090
01:19:55,160 --> 01:19:56,160
 Commissioner Smith.

1091
01:19:56,160 --> 01:19:57,160
 >> Thank you, Chair.

1092
01:19:57,160 --> 01:20:02,320
 Karina, you said it does have 25% opposition, so it will be a super majority at council,

1093
01:20:02,320 --> 01:20:03,320
 correct?

1094
01:20:03,320 --> 01:20:04,320
 >> Yes, that is correct.

1095
01:20:04,320 --> 01:20:05,320
 >> Thank you.

1096
01:20:05,320 --> 01:20:08,320
 >> Do I stop here?

1097
01:20:08,320 --> 01:20:11,240
 >> Any other questions for Karina on this item?

1098
01:20:11,240 --> 01:20:12,240
 Commissioner Beck.

1099
01:20:12,240 --> 01:20:13,240
 >> Thank you, Chair.

1100
01:20:13,240 --> 01:20:19,760
 Karina, I think you said this, and I just want to clarify it in my head that leaving

1101
01:20:19,760 --> 01:20:28,400
 it as the PD-12 leaves all the design standards of the -- was it 86 rules, is that correct?

1102
01:20:28,400 --> 01:20:34,640
 >> So if this were to remain as the current PD, it would have to comply with the standards

1103
01:20:34,640 --> 01:20:39,120
 in the 1969 zoning code of ordinances, yes.

1104
01:20:39,120 --> 01:20:46,320
 And then in that current -- that current -- the standards that are there are related to that.

1105
01:20:46,320 --> 01:20:50,060
 Actually, there's no landscape standards, and then tree preservation is one thing that

1106
01:20:50,060 --> 01:20:53,200
 would not apply to that site.

1107
01:20:53,200 --> 01:20:57,080
 >> Yeah, I'm honestly a little surprised.

1108
01:20:57,080 --> 01:21:03,160
 >> Like I said, this is one of the -- >> They're going to a more restrictive -- but

1109
01:21:03,160 --> 01:21:04,160
 okay, cool.

1110
01:21:04,160 --> 01:21:05,160
 Okay.

1111
01:21:05,160 --> 01:21:06,160
 Thank you.

1112
01:21:06,160 --> 01:21:07,160
 That answers my question.

1113
01:21:07,160 --> 01:21:08,160
 >> Yeah.

1114
01:21:08,160 --> 01:21:09,160
 >> Any other questions?

1115
01:21:09,160 --> 01:21:10,160
 Okay.

1116
01:21:10,160 --> 01:21:14,480
 Karina, thank you for the presentation.

1117
01:21:14,480 --> 01:21:17,960
 That concludes the walkthrough of our agenda for this evening.

1118
01:21:17,960 --> 01:21:20,480
 I will close the meeting now.

1119
01:21:20,480 --> 01:21:24,920
 We'll come back to the same location at 630, so that's about seven minutes.

1120
01:21:24,920 --> 01:21:33,440
 I'll close the work session at 623, see you in seven minutes.

1121
01:21:33,440 --> 01:21:36,820
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning regular meeting

1122
01:21:36,820 --> 01:21:39,720
 for January 6th, 2021.

1123
01:21:39,720 --> 01:21:42,760
 Hope everyone is having a happy new year.

1124
01:21:42,760 --> 01:21:48,120
 I'll call the meeting to order, seeing that we have a quorum at 636.

1125
01:21:48,120 --> 01:21:52,480
 The first item of business is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag and

1126
01:21:52,480 --> 01:21:55,280
 Texas flag.

1127
01:21:55,280 --> 01:22:00,120
 And fellow commissioners, you can unmute yourself if you would like to join along with me.

1128
01:22:00,120 --> 01:22:17,000
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

1129
01:22:17,000 --> 01:22:18,000
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

1130
01:22:18,000 --> 01:22:19,000
 Honor the Texas flag.

1131
01:22:19,000 --> 01:22:27,760
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one indivisible.

1132
01:22:27,760 --> 01:22:33,640
 Next item for business is item two, the consideration for the December 16th, 2020 minutes.

1133
01:22:33,640 --> 01:22:35,760
 Chair will hear a motion.

1134
01:22:35,760 --> 01:22:36,760
 Commissioner Smith.

1135
01:22:36,760 --> 01:22:37,760
 >> I make a motion to approve.

1136
01:22:37,760 --> 01:22:40,040
 >> We have first, Commissioner Beck.

1137
01:22:40,040 --> 01:22:41,040
 >> I second.

1138
01:22:41,040 --> 01:22:43,880
 >> We have first and a second for approval.

1139
01:22:43,880 --> 01:22:46,520
 Any discussion on this item?

1140
01:22:46,520 --> 01:22:48,800
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1141
01:22:48,800 --> 01:22:49,800
 Commissioner Smith.

1142
01:22:49,800 --> 01:22:50,800
 >> Aye.

1143
01:22:50,800 --> 01:22:51,800
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

1144
01:22:51,800 --> 01:22:52,800
 >> Aye.

1145
01:22:52,800 --> 01:22:53,800
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

1146
01:22:53,800 --> 01:22:54,800
 >> Aye.

1147
01:22:54,800 --> 01:22:55,800
 >> Commissioner Beck.

1148
01:22:55,800 --> 01:22:56,800
 >> Aye.

1149
01:22:56,800 --> 01:22:57,800
 >> Commissioner Cronin.

1150
01:22:57,800 --> 01:22:58,800
 >> Aye.

1151
01:22:58,800 --> 01:22:59,800
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

1152
01:22:59,800 --> 01:23:00,800
 >> Aye.

1153
01:23:00,800 --> 01:23:01,800
 >> Commissioner Cole.

1154
01:23:01,800 --> 01:23:02,800
 >> Aye.

1155
01:23:02,800 --> 01:23:03,800
 >> Chair also an aye.

1156
01:23:03,800 --> 01:23:04,800
 Motion carries seven zero.

1157
01:23:04,800 --> 01:23:13,800
 The next item for consideration is item three A, FP 20-0025B.

1158
01:23:13,800 --> 01:23:16,800
 Commissioner Smith.

1159
01:23:16,800 --> 01:23:19,280
 >> I make a motion to approve.

1160
01:23:19,280 --> 01:23:21,280
 >> We have a first for approval.

1161
01:23:21,280 --> 01:23:22,280
 Commissioner Ellis.

1162
01:23:22,280 --> 01:23:23,280
 >> Second.

1163
01:23:23,280 --> 01:23:25,200
 >> We have a first and a second for approval.

1164
01:23:25,200 --> 01:23:28,400
 Any discussion on this item?

1165
01:23:28,400 --> 01:23:30,400
 Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call.

1166
01:23:30,400 --> 01:23:31,400
 Commissioner Smith.

1167
01:23:31,400 --> 01:23:32,400
 >> Aye.

1168
01:23:32,400 --> 01:23:33,400
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

1169
01:23:33,400 --> 01:23:34,400
 >> Aye.

1170
01:23:34,400 --> 01:23:35,400
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

1171
01:23:35,400 --> 01:23:36,400
 >> Aye.

1172
01:23:36,400 --> 01:23:37,400
 >> Commissioner Beck.

1173
01:23:37,400 --> 01:23:38,400
 >> Aye.

1174
01:23:38,400 --> 01:23:39,400
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

1175
01:23:39,400 --> 01:23:40,400
 >> Aye.

1176
01:23:40,400 --> 01:23:41,400
 >> Commissioner Cole.

1177
01:23:41,400 --> 01:23:42,400
 >> Aye.

1178
01:23:42,400 --> 01:23:44,400
 >> Chair is also an aye.

1179
01:23:44,400 --> 01:23:45,720
 Motion carries seven zero.

1180
01:23:45,720 --> 01:23:51,240
 The next item of business is item four A, beginning our items for individual consideration.

1181
01:23:51,240 --> 01:23:55,520
 This item is PP 20-0027A.

1182
01:23:55,520 --> 01:23:59,600
 I'll invite Ron Manguita for presentation.

1183
01:23:59,600 --> 01:24:01,320
 >> Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.

1184
01:24:01,320 --> 01:24:03,320
 Hopefully you can hear me.

1185
01:24:03,320 --> 01:24:05,040
 >> We can.

1186
01:24:05,040 --> 01:24:08,800
 >> Also hopefully you were able to view the slide for this item.

1187
01:24:08,800 --> 01:24:09,800
 >> We are.

1188
01:24:09,800 --> 01:24:16,440
 >> This item is for a preliminary plaque for a multifamily development located on the southwest

1189
01:24:16,440 --> 01:24:19,640
 corner of Mingo and Mockingbird.

1190
01:24:19,640 --> 01:24:22,200
 The plaque, again, is a preliminary plaque.

1191
01:24:22,200 --> 01:24:27,640
 Staff is recommending approval as it meets the established approval criteria for a preliminary

1192
01:24:27,640 --> 01:24:28,640
 plaque.

1193
01:24:28,640 --> 01:24:32,280
 Just a quick note, the recommendation has changed.

1194
01:24:32,280 --> 01:24:38,040
 Since Friday, the applicant and our engineers have worked through outstanding comments related

1195
01:24:38,040 --> 01:24:41,360
 to drainage, and again, staff recommends approval.

1196
01:24:41,360 --> 01:24:44,480
 I'll stand for any questions.

1197
01:24:44,480 --> 01:24:47,000
 >> Any questions for Ron on this item?

1198
01:24:47,000 --> 01:24:48,000
 Okay.

1199
01:24:48,000 --> 01:24:51,200
 Thank you, Ron, I don't see any questions.

1200
01:24:51,200 --> 01:24:52,200
 Commissioner Anderson?

1201
01:24:52,200 --> 01:24:54,400
 >> I make a motion to approve.

1202
01:24:54,400 --> 01:24:55,400
 >> We have a first for approval.

1203
01:24:55,400 --> 01:24:56,400
 Commissioner Smith?

1204
01:24:56,400 --> 01:24:57,400
 >> Second.

1205
01:24:57,400 --> 01:24:59,760
 >> We have a first and a second for approval.

1206
01:24:59,760 --> 01:25:00,760
 Any discussion?

1207
01:25:00,760 --> 01:25:04,560
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1208
01:25:04,560 --> 01:25:05,560
 Commissioner Smith?

1209
01:25:05,560 --> 01:25:06,560
 >> Aye.

1210
01:25:06,560 --> 01:25:07,560
 >> Commissioner Ellis?

1211
01:25:07,560 --> 01:25:08,560
 >> Aye.

1212
01:25:08,560 --> 01:25:09,560
 >> Commissioner Anderson?

1213
01:25:09,560 --> 01:25:10,560
 >> Aye.

1214
01:25:10,560 --> 01:25:11,560
 >> Commissioner Beck?

1215
01:25:11,560 --> 01:25:12,560
 >> Aye.

1216
01:25:12,560 --> 01:25:13,560
 >> Commissioner Pernetta?

1217
01:25:13,560 --> 01:25:14,560
 >> Aye.

1218
01:25:14,560 --> 01:25:15,560
 >> Commissioner Cole?

1219
01:25:15,560 --> 01:25:16,560
 >> Aye.

1220
01:25:16,560 --> 01:25:18,800
 >> Chair is also in aye.

1221
01:25:18,800 --> 01:25:19,800
 Motion carries 7-0.

1222
01:25:19,800 --> 01:25:27,240
 The next item of business is item 4B, FP20-0027A.

1223
01:25:27,240 --> 01:25:30,840
 And I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation.

1224
01:25:30,840 --> 01:25:35,000
 >> Good evening.

1225
01:25:35,000 --> 01:25:37,360
 This is a final plaque for the Woodlands edition.

1226
01:25:37,360 --> 01:25:41,880
 The property is located on the north side of McKinney Street, west of Trinity Boulevard,

1227
01:25:41,880 --> 01:25:43,640
 as you can see on the map.

1228
01:25:43,640 --> 01:25:47,380
 At this time, staff is recommending denial of this plaque as it does not meet the established

1229
01:25:47,380 --> 01:25:48,380
 requirements.

1230
01:25:48,380 --> 01:25:50,640
 And those details are provided in Exhibit 2 of your backup.

1231
01:25:50,640 --> 01:25:53,680
 I'm happy to stand for any questions.

1232
01:25:53,680 --> 01:26:00,920
 >> Is there any questions for Haley on this item?

1233
01:26:00,920 --> 01:26:04,000
 Okay.

1234
01:26:04,000 --> 01:26:05,000
 Thank you, Haley.

1235
01:26:05,000 --> 01:26:06,000
 Commissioner Smith?

1236
01:26:06,000 --> 01:26:08,920
 >> Make a motion to deny.

1237
01:26:08,920 --> 01:26:10,160
 >> Okay.

1238
01:26:10,160 --> 01:26:11,160
 We have a first.

1239
01:26:11,160 --> 01:26:12,160
 Commissioner Beck?

1240
01:26:12,160 --> 01:26:13,920
 >> I second that.

1241
01:26:13,920 --> 01:26:14,920
 >> Okay.

1242
01:26:14,920 --> 01:26:16,560
 We have a first and a second for denial.

1243
01:26:16,560 --> 01:26:20,600
 Prior to a motion or a vote, though, we do have one individual who has requested to

1244
01:26:20,600 --> 01:26:25,880
 speak over the phone regarding this item, and so we will certainly allow that individual

1245
01:26:25,880 --> 01:26:26,880
 to speak.

1246
01:26:26,880 --> 01:26:50,480
 I'll ask staff to connect them now.

1247
01:26:50,480 --> 01:27:06,880
 Is the individual connected?

1248
01:27:06,880 --> 01:27:32,080
 And are you there, caller, to speak on Item 4B?

1249
01:27:32,080 --> 01:27:46,600
 >> I think he was calling into the phone, so we're getting him plugged in now.

1250
01:27:46,600 --> 01:27:50,520
 >> Hello.

1251
01:27:50,520 --> 01:27:57,920
 My name is Chris Fairley, 5609 East McKinney Street, Denton, 76208.

1252
01:27:57,920 --> 01:28:00,280
 >> Good evening, Chris.

1253
01:28:00,280 --> 01:28:02,280
 And this -- I'm sorry?

1254
01:28:02,280 --> 01:28:03,880
 >> I said just good evening.

1255
01:28:03,880 --> 01:28:05,800
 Thank you for calling.

1256
01:28:05,800 --> 01:28:06,800
 >> Good evening.

1257
01:28:06,800 --> 01:28:08,680
 Thank you.

1258
01:28:08,680 --> 01:28:13,640
 This residential project is the Woodlands on McKinney Street.

1259
01:28:13,640 --> 01:28:23,440
 Was approved by City Council with 21 SUP conditions, special use provision conditions, some of

1260
01:28:23,440 --> 01:28:30,800
 which have created some unusual challenges for this private development, especially pertaining

1261
01:28:30,800 --> 01:28:37,840
 to the public, utility, and private easement requirements.

1262
01:28:37,840 --> 01:28:44,600
 Regardless, a meeting is being scheduled with the city development staff to clarify a few

1263
01:28:44,600 --> 01:28:47,560
 of the development code requirements.

1264
01:28:47,560 --> 01:28:52,920
 And the development will persevere and meet all of the Denton development code requirements

1265
01:28:52,920 --> 01:29:05,640
 once we, the developer, and the engineer understands some of the interpretations of the code.

1266
01:29:05,640 --> 01:29:07,320
 And that's all I have at this point.

1267
01:29:07,320 --> 01:29:08,320
 Thank you.

1268
01:29:08,320 --> 01:29:09,760
 >> I appreciate you calling in.

1269
01:29:09,760 --> 01:29:14,600
 Does anyone have any questions for the caller?

1270
01:29:14,600 --> 01:29:15,600
 I did not see any.

1271
01:29:15,600 --> 01:29:17,920
 Thank you very much for calling.

1272
01:29:17,920 --> 01:29:20,480
 >> Thank you.

1273
01:29:20,480 --> 01:29:26,680
 >> We do have a motion to deny made by Commissioner Smith with a second by Commissioner Beck.

1274
01:29:26,680 --> 01:29:31,160
 I apologize for not having the individual call before motions.

1275
01:29:31,160 --> 01:29:35,320
 Are the motions still in place, Commissioner Smith and Beck?

1276
01:29:35,320 --> 01:29:36,320
 Okay.

1277
01:29:36,320 --> 01:29:39,920
 Is there any discussion on this item?

1278
01:29:39,920 --> 01:29:47,840
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call just to remind you this is a vote of

1279
01:29:47,840 --> 01:29:51,920
 denial, so a yay is to deny.

1280
01:29:51,920 --> 01:29:52,920
 Commissioner Smith.

1281
01:29:52,920 --> 01:29:53,920
 >> Aye.

1282
01:29:53,920 --> 01:29:54,920
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

1283
01:29:54,920 --> 01:29:55,920
 >> Aye.

1284
01:29:55,920 --> 01:29:56,920
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

1285
01:29:56,920 --> 01:29:57,920
 >> Aye.

1286
01:29:57,920 --> 01:29:58,920
 >> Commissioner Beck.

1287
01:29:58,920 --> 01:29:59,920
 >> Aye.

1288
01:29:59,920 --> 01:30:00,920
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

1289
01:30:00,920 --> 01:30:01,920
 >> Aye.

1290
01:30:01,920 --> 01:30:02,920
 >> Commissioner Cole.

1291
01:30:02,920 --> 01:30:03,920
 >> Aye.

1292
01:30:03,920 --> 01:30:12,660
 >> Chair has also an aye motion to deny is approved 7-0.

1293
01:30:12,660 --> 01:30:17,160
 Next item is 4CFR20-0017A.

1294
01:30:17,160 --> 01:30:20,720
 This is Hayley Zgurski's item.

1295
01:30:20,720 --> 01:30:27,400
 >> Good evening.

1296
01:30:27,400 --> 01:30:31,160
 This is a final replant for the razor cottages edition.

1297
01:30:31,160 --> 01:30:34,880
 The property, as you can see on the map, is located on the west side of Bonnie Bray between

1298
01:30:34,880 --> 01:30:37,240
 Linden and Crescent streets.

1299
01:30:37,240 --> 01:30:41,560
 Since your backup went out on Friday, the applicant has addressed all of the outstanding

1300
01:30:41,560 --> 01:30:45,200
 comments for this, so the staff recommendation has changed to approval for the plat at this

1301
01:30:45,200 --> 01:30:46,200
 time.

1302
01:30:46,200 --> 01:30:47,560
 I'm happy to stand for any questions.

1303
01:30:47,560 --> 01:30:48,560
 >> Great.

1304
01:30:48,560 --> 01:30:49,560
 Thank you, Hayley.

1305
01:30:49,560 --> 01:30:50,560
 Any questions for Hayley on this item?

1306
01:30:50,560 --> 01:30:51,560
 Okay.

1307
01:30:51,560 --> 01:30:54,920
 I don't see any questions.

1308
01:30:54,920 --> 01:30:55,920
 Is there a motion?

1309
01:30:55,920 --> 01:30:56,920
 Commissioner Beck.

1310
01:30:56,920 --> 01:30:59,080
 >> A motion to approve.

1311
01:30:59,080 --> 01:31:00,080
 >> We have a first for approval.

1312
01:31:00,080 --> 01:31:01,080
 Commissioner Ellis.

1313
01:31:01,080 --> 01:31:02,080
 >> Second.

1314
01:31:02,080 --> 01:31:03,080
 >> We have a second.

1315
01:31:03,080 --> 01:31:07,000
 So we have a first and a second for approval.

1316
01:31:07,000 --> 01:31:08,000
 Any discussion?

1317
01:31:08,000 --> 01:31:12,680
 Seeing none, I call for a vote to be a roll call.

1318
01:31:12,680 --> 01:31:13,680
 We'll start with Commissioner Smith.

1319
01:31:13,680 --> 01:31:14,680
 >> Aye.

1320
01:31:14,680 --> 01:31:15,680
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

1321
01:31:15,680 --> 01:31:16,680
 >> Aye.

1322
01:31:16,680 --> 01:31:17,680
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

1323
01:31:17,680 --> 01:31:18,680
 >> Aye.

1324
01:31:18,680 --> 01:31:19,680
 >> Commissioner Beck.

1325
01:31:19,680 --> 01:31:20,680
 >> Aye.

1326
01:31:20,680 --> 01:31:21,680
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

1327
01:31:21,680 --> 01:31:22,680
 >> Aye.

1328
01:31:22,680 --> 01:31:23,680
 >> Commissioner Cole.

1329
01:31:23,680 --> 01:31:24,680
 >> Aye.

1330
01:31:24,680 --> 01:31:25,680
 >> Chair is awesome.

1331
01:31:25,680 --> 01:31:26,680
 A motion carries 7-0.

1332
01:31:26,680 --> 01:31:33,680
 Next is item 4D, PP 20-0028A.

1333
01:31:33,680 --> 01:31:40,560
 This is also Hayley's item.

1334
01:31:40,560 --> 01:31:44,800
 >> This is a preliminary plat request for an industrial property located at the corner

1335
01:31:44,800 --> 01:31:48,840
 of Jim Crystal and Western Boulevard.

1336
01:31:48,840 --> 01:31:53,560
 Since the agenda posting on Friday, the outstanding items that were addressed in your backup have

1337
01:31:53,560 --> 01:31:54,560
 been addressed.

1338
01:31:54,560 --> 01:31:58,320
 So staff is changing the recommendation from denial to approval as we find that it now

1339
01:31:58,320 --> 01:32:00,800
 meets all of the established requirements.

1340
01:32:00,800 --> 01:32:03,040
 And I am happy to stand for any questions.

1341
01:32:03,040 --> 01:32:04,040
 >> Great.

1342
01:32:04,040 --> 01:32:05,040
 Thank you, Hayley.

1343
01:32:05,040 --> 01:32:06,040
 Any questions on this item?

1344
01:32:06,040 --> 01:32:07,040
 Great.

1345
01:32:07,040 --> 01:32:09,560
 Thank you for the presentation, Hayley.

1346
01:32:09,560 --> 01:32:10,560
 Commissioner Smith.

1347
01:32:10,560 --> 01:32:13,560
 >> I make a motion to approve.

1348
01:32:13,560 --> 01:32:15,720
 >> That's a first for approval.

1349
01:32:15,720 --> 01:32:16,720
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1350
01:32:16,720 --> 01:32:17,720
 >> Second.

1351
01:32:17,720 --> 01:32:18,960
 >> First and second for approval.

1352
01:32:18,960 --> 01:32:21,760
 Any discussion on this item?

1353
01:32:21,760 --> 01:32:23,800
 Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call.

1354
01:32:23,800 --> 01:32:24,800
 Commissioner Smith.

1355
01:32:24,800 --> 01:32:25,800
 >> Aye.

1356
01:32:25,800 --> 01:32:26,800
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

1357
01:32:26,800 --> 01:32:27,800
 >> Aye.

1358
01:32:27,800 --> 01:32:28,800
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

1359
01:32:28,800 --> 01:32:29,800
 >> Aye.

1360
01:32:29,800 --> 01:32:30,800
 >> Commissioner Beck.

1361
01:32:30,800 --> 01:32:31,800
 >> Aye.

1362
01:32:31,800 --> 01:32:32,800
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

1363
01:32:32,800 --> 01:32:33,800
 >> Aye.

1364
01:32:33,800 --> 01:32:34,800
 >> Commissioner Cole.

1365
01:32:34,800 --> 01:32:35,800
 >> Aye.

1366
01:32:35,800 --> 01:32:36,800
 >> Chair is awesome.

1367
01:32:36,800 --> 01:32:37,800
 A motion carries 7-0.

1368
01:32:37,800 --> 01:32:47,460
 Next item of business is 4EPP20-0029A.

1369
01:32:47,460 --> 01:32:56,280
 >> All right.

1370
01:32:56,280 --> 01:33:00,880
 The final of the plats before you this evening is another preliminary plat.

1371
01:33:00,880 --> 01:33:03,960
 This is for a different phase of the woodland projects.

1372
01:33:03,960 --> 01:33:10,120
 This is for the required six one-acre single-family lots to be located along Trinity Boulevard.

1373
01:33:10,120 --> 01:33:13,760
 At this time, the plat does not meet all of the requirements as outlined in exhibit two

1374
01:33:13,760 --> 01:33:14,760
 of your backups.

1375
01:33:14,760 --> 01:33:16,360
 The staff is recommending denial.

1376
01:33:16,360 --> 01:33:18,720
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

1377
01:33:18,720 --> 01:33:21,480
 >> Any questions for Hayley?

1378
01:33:21,480 --> 01:33:23,360
 We do have a caller for this.

1379
01:33:23,360 --> 01:33:27,480
 There's one individual who's requested to speak on this item, so I'll ask staff to connect

1380
01:33:27,480 --> 01:33:34,360
 that individual now.

1381
01:33:34,360 --> 01:33:48,120
 I think we're reaching out to him right now via phone.

1382
01:33:48,120 --> 01:33:54,520
 Just one minute.

1383
01:33:54,520 --> 01:33:59,520
 [Pause]

1384
01:33:59,520 --> 01:34:25,520
 [Pause]

1385
01:34:25,520 --> 01:34:33,520
 [Pause]

1386
01:34:33,520 --> 01:34:41,520
 [Pause]

1387
01:34:41,520 --> 01:34:56,520
 [Pause]

1388
01:34:56,520 --> 01:35:14,520
 [Pause]

1389
01:35:14,520 --> 01:35:15,520
 >> Hello?

1390
01:35:15,520 --> 01:35:16,520
 >> Yes.

1391
01:35:16,520 --> 01:35:17,520
 You are on with the P&Z.

1392
01:35:17,520 --> 01:35:20,520
 If you could just state your name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak.

1393
01:35:20,520 --> 01:35:21,520
 >> Yes.

1394
01:35:21,520 --> 01:35:22,520
 Hi.

1395
01:35:22,520 --> 01:35:35,520
 My name is Chris Fairley, 4000 South Trinity Road, Denton, Texas, 76208.

1396
01:35:35,520 --> 01:35:43,520
 And this preliminary plat pertains to this, as Hayley mentioned, the six one-acre lots

1397
01:35:43,520 --> 01:35:52,520
 which were created separately from a larger residential development due to an SUP requirement,

1398
01:35:52,520 --> 01:35:56,520
 special use permit condition.

1399
01:35:56,520 --> 01:36:04,520
 And the 30-day shot clock requirements proved to be a challenge in regards to, I guess,

1400
01:36:04,520 --> 01:36:14,520
 getting the plat surveyed individually, each individual lot separately surveyed and submitted

1401
01:36:14,520 --> 01:36:16,520
 in a timely manner.

1402
01:36:16,520 --> 01:36:21,520
 And going forward, we think that will certainly be resolved.

1403
01:36:21,520 --> 01:36:22,520
 Thank you.

1404
01:36:22,520 --> 01:36:23,520
 >> Great.

1405
01:36:23,520 --> 01:36:26,520
 I appreciate you being here for this item as well.

1406
01:36:26,520 --> 01:36:27,520
 Thank you.

1407
01:36:27,520 --> 01:36:28,520
 >> Thank you.

1408
01:36:28,520 --> 01:36:29,520
 Goodbye.

1409
01:36:29,520 --> 01:36:34,520
 >> Is there a motion or discussion for this item?

1410
01:36:34,520 --> 01:36:35,520
 Commissioner Smith?

1411
01:36:35,520 --> 01:36:37,520
 >> I make a motion to deny.

1412
01:36:37,520 --> 01:36:40,520
 >> We have first, Commissioner Beck?

1413
01:36:40,520 --> 01:36:42,520
 >> I'll second that.

1414
01:36:42,520 --> 01:36:44,520
 >> We have first and second to deny.

1415
01:36:44,520 --> 01:36:48,520
 I will make the -- is there any discussion?

1416
01:36:48,520 --> 01:36:51,520
 Seeing none, we'll make a vote via roll call.

1417
01:36:51,520 --> 01:36:52,520
 Commissioner Smith?

1418
01:36:52,520 --> 01:36:53,520
 >> Aye.

1419
01:36:53,520 --> 01:36:54,520
 >> Commissioner Ellis?

1420
01:36:54,520 --> 01:36:55,520
 >> Aye.

1421
01:36:55,520 --> 01:36:56,520
 >> Commissioner Beck?

1422
01:36:56,520 --> 01:36:57,520
 >> Aye.

1423
01:36:57,520 --> 01:36:59,520
 >> All in favor?

1424
01:36:59,520 --> 01:37:00,520
 >> Aye.

1425
01:37:00,520 --> 01:37:01,520
 >> Commissioner Colle?

1426
01:37:01,520 --> 01:37:02,520
 >> Aye.

1427
01:37:02,520 --> 01:37:03,520
 >> Commissioner Pernetta?

1428
01:37:03,520 --> 01:37:04,520
 >> Aye.

1429
01:37:04,520 --> 01:37:05,520
 >> Commissioner Anderson?

1430
01:37:05,520 --> 01:37:06,520
 >> Aye.

1431
01:37:06,520 --> 01:37:08,520
 >> Chair is also an aye.

1432
01:37:08,520 --> 01:37:10,520
 Motion carries 7-0.

1433
01:37:10,520 --> 01:37:18,520
 This moves us to the public hearing items for this evening, starting with 5AZ20-0012.

1434
01:37:18,520 --> 01:37:34,520
 I will open the public hearing and ask Haley for presentation.

1435
01:37:34,520 --> 01:37:35,520
 >> Good evening.

1436
01:37:35,520 --> 01:37:41,520
 This is case Z2012 for the razor ranch east overlay amendments.

1437
01:37:41,520 --> 01:37:46,520
 The request before you is an amendment to the razor ranch overlay district to make changes

1438
01:37:46,520 --> 01:37:50,520
 specific to the south mixed use district on the eastern part of their south campus, which

1439
01:37:50,520 --> 01:37:52,520
 is outlined in yellow on the map.

1440
01:37:52,520 --> 01:37:57,520
 Specifically, we'll look at the proposed changes to their concept and zoning exhibits, as well

1441
01:37:57,520 --> 01:38:02,520
 as amendments and development standards that they're proposing to adopt specific to this

1442
01:38:02,520 --> 01:38:04,520
 part of the development.

1443
01:38:04,520 --> 01:38:07,520
 Just a little bit of brief background for you all.

1444
01:38:07,520 --> 01:38:12,520
 The razor ranch overlay district covers property on both the north and south side of university

1445
01:38:12,520 --> 01:38:13,520
 or highway 380.

1446
01:38:13,520 --> 01:38:19,520
 The north campus is referred to as the marketplace, and then the south is referred to largely

1447
01:38:19,520 --> 01:38:23,520
 as the south campus and consists of a couple of sub areas.

1448
01:38:23,520 --> 01:38:28,520
 So specifically within the south campus, what's called the town center is shown on their map

1449
01:38:28,520 --> 01:38:30,520
 as the RR1 area.

1450
01:38:30,520 --> 01:38:35,520
 Surrounding that in yellow is the south RR2 district, which allows for those more typical

1451
01:38:35,520 --> 01:38:38,520
 highway corridor type commercial developments.

1452
01:38:38,520 --> 01:38:41,520
 And then all of the other colors that you see on the map are what's collectively referred

1453
01:38:41,520 --> 01:38:43,520
 to as the south mixed use district.

1454
01:38:43,520 --> 01:38:47,520
 So specifically the changes we're looking at tonight are for this eastern part of that

1455
01:38:47,520 --> 01:38:51,520
 south mixed use district.

1456
01:38:51,520 --> 01:38:56,520
 The first of the proposed changes is to the conceptual plan, which is exhibit B1 to the

1457
01:38:56,520 --> 01:38:57,520
 overlay district.

1458
01:38:57,520 --> 01:39:03,520
 Specifically, the developer is looking to update this concept plan as it relates to

1459
01:39:03,520 --> 01:39:04,520
 the eastern campus.

1460
01:39:04,520 --> 01:39:08,520
 This area, if you'll notice, now reflects the streets and parcel boundaries that they

1461
01:39:08,520 --> 01:39:09,520
 recently plotted.

1462
01:39:09,520 --> 01:39:13,520
 This area was not plotted when this exhibit was last updated in 2017.

1463
01:39:13,520 --> 01:39:18,520
 So they'll be making those changes, which makes the map more legible and easier to apply

1464
01:39:18,520 --> 01:39:22,520
 in terms of which one of these colors associates with which lot.

1465
01:39:22,520 --> 01:39:27,520
 And then they are looking to change the use designation for three of those parcels.

1466
01:39:27,520 --> 01:39:34,520
 The first is this area shown in yellow, which is a proposed change from park to south RR2

1467
01:39:34,520 --> 01:39:35,520
 designation.

1468
01:39:35,520 --> 01:39:42,520
 So that would change the permitted uses from only those park uses to a mixture of commercial

1469
01:39:42,520 --> 01:39:45,520
 restaurant retail type uses.

1470
01:39:45,520 --> 01:39:49,520
 The second change is for a property a little further south on Heritage Trail.

1471
01:39:49,520 --> 01:39:51,520
 Specifically, it's the smaller one-acre parcel.

1472
01:39:51,520 --> 01:39:55,520
 It's a little harder to see the property boundaries there.

1473
01:39:55,520 --> 01:40:00,520
 But you can see it's changing again from park to the light blue coloring, which represents

1474
01:40:00,520 --> 01:40:03,520
 hotel, single-family, multifamily, and restaurant retail.

1475
01:40:03,520 --> 01:40:07,520
 So a mixture of commercial uses that would be proposed for that property.

1476
01:40:07,520 --> 01:40:12,520
 And then the third change is for this property here, which you can see is shown now in tan

1477
01:40:12,520 --> 01:40:15,520
 in lieu of the purple shading for single-family.

1478
01:40:15,520 --> 01:40:20,520
 So this property was previously only allowed single-family uses.

1479
01:40:20,520 --> 01:40:24,520
 They're proposing to make a change to allow for office or single-family to have some options

1480
01:40:24,520 --> 01:40:26,520
 for that property.

1481
01:40:26,520 --> 01:40:30,520
 Those same changes are reflected on exhibit B4.

1482
01:40:30,520 --> 01:40:35,520
 So they're also looking to update this map, which is the zoning plan for Razor Ranch that

1483
01:40:35,520 --> 01:40:39,520
 reflects those base zonings from the 2002 code that their overlay district is based

1484
01:40:39,520 --> 01:40:40,520
 on.

1485
01:40:40,520 --> 01:40:42,520
 So they're proposing no changes to those base zonings.

1486
01:40:42,520 --> 01:40:46,520
 These changes would only be to reflect those same updates that we just looked at.

1487
01:40:46,520 --> 01:40:51,520
 So showing the property boundaries, the streets, and then updating these use categories consistent

1488
01:40:51,520 --> 01:40:54,520
 with the new proposals.

1489
01:40:54,520 --> 01:40:59,520
 So looking at each of those three considerations in a little more detail, staff is in agreement

1490
01:40:59,520 --> 01:41:03,520
 with updating the overall exhibit to show these property boundaries and streets, as I

1491
01:41:03,520 --> 01:41:08,520
 mentioned, that makes it much easier to administer when you can see associated with the lots

1492
01:41:08,520 --> 01:41:12,520
 that they've now plotted, what those designations are, as opposed to just general colored areas

1493
01:41:12,520 --> 01:41:14,520
 on the map.

1494
01:41:14,520 --> 01:41:20,520
 With respect to that northern property, they're proposing that change from park to south RR2.

1495
01:41:20,520 --> 01:41:24,520
 This would allow for continuation of those commercial uses that are permitted adjacent to

1496
01:41:24,520 --> 01:41:29,520
 that site to the north as well as to the west across Heritage Trail.

1497
01:41:29,520 --> 01:41:33,520
 In addition to being consistent with that, this would also be consistent with what was

1498
01:41:33,520 --> 01:41:35,520
 discussed with the city council.

1499
01:41:35,520 --> 01:41:39,520
 Just last year, they had a work session with council to discuss this property here that

1500
01:41:39,520 --> 01:41:45,520
 is shown as P, which is just over nine acres that is being developed and proposed to be

1501
01:41:45,520 --> 01:41:47,520
 dedicated to the city as a public park.

1502
01:41:47,520 --> 01:41:52,520
 And at that time, they discussed with council that a desire to put some complementary commercial

1503
01:41:52,520 --> 01:41:57,520
 uses such as kind of a dog park bar concept and some other restaurant uses north of the

1504
01:41:57,520 --> 01:42:04,520
 park to provide some easily walkable destinations for park users as well as to potentially

1505
01:42:04,520 --> 01:42:08,520
 provide some parking and restroom facilities in close proximity to the park.

1506
01:42:08,520 --> 01:42:12,520
 The second of the properties that they're proposing the change for, again, is the small

1507
01:42:12,520 --> 01:42:15,520
 parcel further south on Heritage Trail.

1508
01:42:15,520 --> 01:42:19,520
 Again, in this instance, the change would be from park to a mixed use commercial and

1509
01:42:19,520 --> 01:42:21,520
 residential designation.

1510
01:42:21,520 --> 01:42:25,520
 This would still, as I mentioned before, be consistent with the surrounding properties

1511
01:42:25,520 --> 01:42:29,520
 in the area that also have that hotel or multi-family, single-family designation.

1512
01:42:29,520 --> 01:42:33,520
 So a little less intense commercial or residential uses.

1513
01:42:33,520 --> 01:42:38,520
 This would allow for this block to be developed in a more cohesive manner.

1514
01:42:38,520 --> 01:42:42,520
 And the city's parks department was approached about whether they would be interested in

1515
01:42:42,520 --> 01:42:46,520
 this property designated as park, and they indicated that they -- that would not be an

1516
01:42:46,520 --> 01:42:50,520
 interest to them given the small size of the property and the larger park to the north

1517
01:42:50,520 --> 01:42:54,520
 that they would be potentially taking over ownership and maintenance for.

1518
01:42:54,520 --> 01:42:59,520
 And then the third change to the maps, again, is this property here along Bonnie Bray.

1519
01:42:59,520 --> 01:43:04,520
 The proposed change is from single-family only to office/single-family.

1520
01:43:04,520 --> 01:43:08,520
 This change is driven largely by the increase in gas wealth reverse setbacks.

1521
01:43:08,520 --> 01:43:13,520
 So previously the setback was 250 feet, which did encroach into the property, but not as

1522
01:43:13,520 --> 01:43:18,520
 significantly as the new 500-foot reverse setback that went into effect last year.

1523
01:43:18,520 --> 01:43:23,520
 With that change, almost half of this property would become undevelopable if the use was

1524
01:43:23,520 --> 01:43:27,520
 restricted to single-family because that is a protected use that's not permitted within

1525
01:43:27,520 --> 01:43:29,520
 the reverse setback.

1526
01:43:29,520 --> 01:43:33,520
 This change would allow them the option to, again, put in some office uses on this property,

1527
01:43:33,520 --> 01:43:37,520
 which is consistent with some of the changes we're seeing along Bonnie -- the northern

1528
01:43:37,520 --> 01:43:41,520
 Bonnie Bray corridor where many of the single-family uses are turning over into things like

1529
01:43:41,520 --> 01:43:45,520
 offices and daycares.

1530
01:43:45,520 --> 01:43:49,520
 The development standards that they've proposed were provided in full detail in your backup.

1531
01:43:49,520 --> 01:43:53,520
 If you look through those, you'll see that they are very consistent with everything else

1532
01:43:53,520 --> 01:43:56,520
 that we see at Razor Ranch for nonresidential uses.

1533
01:43:56,520 --> 01:43:59,520
 This is kind of the last missing piece to the development standards.

1534
01:43:59,520 --> 01:44:03,520
 Over the last couple of years, you've seen them adopt single-family and multi-family

1535
01:44:03,520 --> 01:44:08,520
 standards for the East Campus, so that missing piece is for those nonresidential uses.

1536
01:44:08,520 --> 01:44:13,520
 The design standards would provide site design requirements, architectural, parking,

1537
01:44:13,520 --> 01:44:18,520
 landscaping, and sign standards, and would be incorporated into the overlay as Exhibits

1538
01:44:18,520 --> 01:44:20,520
 C2, D2, and E2.

1539
01:44:20,520 --> 01:44:24,520
 As I mentioned, the changes are consistent in terms of architectural style, materials,

1540
01:44:24,520 --> 01:44:28,520
 landscaping standards with the rest of the Razor Ranch district, and those are still

1541
01:44:28,520 --> 01:44:33,520
 those heightened standards above what the overlay district was originally adopted under

1542
01:44:33,520 --> 01:44:35,520
 with the 2002 DDC.

1543
01:44:35,520 --> 01:44:39,520
 And that Razor Ranch site plan process would remain unchanged, so those future nonresidential

1544
01:44:39,520 --> 01:44:45,520
 uses would still come back to you all for final site plan approval.

1545
01:44:45,520 --> 01:44:50,520
 And then finally, the last piece of this change is more of just an administrative cleanup

1546
01:44:50,520 --> 01:44:55,520
 task, which is amending the actual text of the overlay district that's a part of the

1547
01:44:55,520 --> 01:45:00,520
 DDC to reflect those new exhibits that they're adopting, as well as to reorganize the list

1548
01:45:00,520 --> 01:45:04,520
 of uses for the South Mixed Use Campus so that it now aligns with those designations

1549
01:45:04,520 --> 01:45:09,520
 on the map to make the code overall easier to administer and to tell specifically which

1550
01:45:09,520 --> 01:45:13,520
 uses are permitted on which parcels.

1551
01:45:13,520 --> 01:45:15,520
 Notification was sent out regarding this request.

1552
01:45:15,520 --> 01:45:20,520
 We did receive one opposition, which is shown here on the map in red, and then one in favor

1553
01:45:20,520 --> 01:45:24,520
 from the adjacent owner of the town center portion of the overlay district.

1554
01:45:24,520 --> 01:45:26,520
 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting this week.

1555
01:45:26,520 --> 01:45:32,520
 Staff was not able to attend, but I believe they can speak to that in their presentation.

1556
01:45:32,520 --> 01:45:35,520
 And staff is recommending approval of this request.

1557
01:45:35,520 --> 01:45:40,520
 If it, assuming a vote tonight, they would tentatively be scheduled for city council

1558
01:45:40,520 --> 01:45:41,520
 on February 2nd.

1559
01:45:41,520 --> 01:45:48,520
 And I will pull down the slides and stand for any questions.

1560
01:45:48,520 --> 01:45:51,520
 Thanks, Haley, Commissioner Beck.

1561
01:45:51,520 --> 01:45:52,520
 Thank you, Chair.

1562
01:45:52,520 --> 01:45:55,520
 Haley, a question that occurred to me since the work session.

1563
01:45:55,520 --> 01:46:01,520
 If that easternmost property along Bonnie Bray is effectively precluded from single family,

1564
01:46:01,520 --> 01:46:06,520
 why aren't we just designating an office?

1565
01:46:06,520 --> 01:46:11,520
 Is there a rationale for office single family versus just office?

1566
01:46:11,520 --> 01:46:15,520
 The 500-foot reverse setback essentially cuts through the middle of the property, so the

1567
01:46:15,520 --> 01:46:19,520
 northern end of it could possibly still develop with a few single family lots.

1568
01:46:19,520 --> 01:46:23,520
 So I believe they wanted to leave that option open in case they ever intend to develop

1569
01:46:23,520 --> 01:46:26,520
 something similar to the cottages that we just looked at.

1570
01:46:26,520 --> 01:46:27,520
 Okay.

1571
01:46:27,520 --> 01:46:29,520
 Thank you.

1572
01:46:29,520 --> 01:46:31,520
 Thank you, Haley.

1573
01:46:31,520 --> 01:46:33,520
 Is there any other questions for Haley?

1574
01:46:33,520 --> 01:46:38,520
 And, Haley, did you say that the applicant had a presentation?

1575
01:46:38,520 --> 01:46:40,520
 Yes, yes, they do have a slideshow.

1576
01:46:40,520 --> 01:46:42,520
 I believe Amy Bissett should be on the line for this item.

1577
01:46:42,520 --> 01:46:44,520
 Great.

1578
01:46:44,520 --> 01:46:53,520
 I'll go ahead and invite her for presentation.

1579
01:46:53,520 --> 01:46:54,520
 Good evening, Commissioners.

1580
01:46:54,520 --> 01:46:55,520
 This is Amy Bissett.

1581
01:46:55,520 --> 01:46:57,520
 Can you hear me?

1582
01:46:57,520 --> 01:46:59,520
 Yes.

1583
01:46:59,520 --> 01:47:00,520
 Okay, great.

1584
01:47:00,520 --> 01:47:04,520
 I believe Haley has my slides that she can pull up for us.

1585
01:47:04,520 --> 01:47:08,520
 And then I just have a very brief presentation.

1586
01:47:08,520 --> 01:47:14,520
 Amy Bissett, 97 Land Company, 100 West Oak Street, Denton, 76201.

1587
01:47:14,520 --> 01:47:20,520
 I do want to let you know that we also have Kevin Bankhead with Allegiance Hillview on the line.

1588
01:47:20,520 --> 01:47:28,520
 He is the property owner and developer of these particular parcels.

1589
01:47:28,520 --> 01:47:34,520
 And also have Hodge's architecture on the line in case we have any specific questions

1590
01:47:34,520 --> 01:47:39,520
 related to the design standards that are being proposed.

1591
01:47:39,520 --> 01:47:42,520
 Haley, if you'll go ahead and advance to slide two.

1592
01:47:42,520 --> 01:47:47,520
 I'm going to be very brief here, and my presentation actually looks a lot like Haley's.

1593
01:47:47,520 --> 01:47:55,520
 As you all know, Razor Ranch is a large mixed-use development that encompasses over 400 acres

1594
01:47:55,520 --> 01:47:59,520
 that has developed over the course of several years.

1595
01:47:59,520 --> 01:48:09,520
 It encompasses areas both north and south of 380 and is generally between I-35 and Bonnie Bray.

1596
01:48:09,520 --> 01:48:17,520
 The development that exists today includes everything from the Walmart and Sands on the north end,

1597
01:48:17,520 --> 01:48:23,520
 that were one of the first pieces of the development, to the NDC Suites and Convention Center Hotel.

1598
01:48:23,520 --> 01:48:31,520
 On the south side, the Wynko Foods grocery store, multiple restaurants, Academy Coles,

1599
01:48:31,520 --> 01:48:37,520
 some multifamily that is going in on the south side, medical offices and rooms to go.

1600
01:48:37,520 --> 01:48:43,520
 It has developed over a number of years, and the area east of Heritage Trail

1601
01:48:43,520 --> 01:48:51,520
 that we're speaking about tonight is kind of some of the last pieces to start to develop.

1602
01:48:51,520 --> 01:48:58,520
 And especially the commercial uses have never had design standards written for them in this particular area.

1603
01:48:58,520 --> 01:49:02,520
 Haley, if you'll go to slide three, please.

1604
01:49:02,520 --> 01:49:09,520
 Haley went through a lot of the technical elements associated with the proposed changes in the ordinance itself.

1605
01:49:09,520 --> 01:49:14,520
 As you know, the Razor Ranch overlay district is almost like its own DDC.

1606
01:49:14,520 --> 01:49:18,520
 It's almost just as long and complicated.

1607
01:49:18,520 --> 01:49:26,520
 But our current request is to amend that overlay district for the south mixed-use district,

1608
01:49:26,520 --> 01:49:33,520
 which is east of Heritage Trail and south of 380. We're really here to accomplish two objectives.

1609
01:49:33,520 --> 01:49:41,520
 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.

1610
01:49:41,520 --> 01:49:48,520
 And the second goal is to adopt commercial design standards for this portion of Razor Ranch

1611
01:49:48,520 --> 01:49:52,520
 that have previously not yet been drafted or adopted.

1612
01:49:52,520 --> 01:49:56,520
 I will walk through each parcel individually as well.

1613
01:49:56,520 --> 01:50:02,520
 I do want to point out that parcels, if you look, the ones that I have labeled one and two,

1614
01:50:02,520 --> 01:50:09,520
 which are the ones that are north and south of the 9.8-acre park that will be dedicated to the city,

1615
01:50:09,520 --> 01:50:19,520
 those are really remnant parcels that predate 2008 from the original agreement with the Razor family

1616
01:50:19,520 --> 01:50:27,520
 that, over time, that original agreement has changed or become no longer valid,

1617
01:50:27,520 --> 01:50:33,520
 and that's really the reason for the proposed changes to those two land uses.

1618
01:50:33,520 --> 01:50:40,520
 Haley, if you'll go to slide four, please, I want to talk about the north tract first.

1619
01:50:40,520 --> 01:50:45,520
 This is lot one, block F. It is 3.9 acres.

1620
01:50:45,520 --> 01:50:51,520
 As I mentioned previously, this is a remnant parcel that predates 2008

1621
01:50:51,520 --> 01:50:57,520
 that we are proposing to change it to RR2 to be consistent with what's around it.

1622
01:50:57,520 --> 01:51:05,520
 The intent here really is to create some complementary recreational uses to the park that's immediately to the south.

1623
01:51:05,520 --> 01:51:11,520
 Haley, if you'll go to slide five, this is kind of generally the look and feel that we're going for here.

1624
01:51:11,520 --> 01:51:22,520
 We want to have, especially in this COVID era, outdoor restaurant-type uses that complement the park

1625
01:51:22,520 --> 01:51:28,520
 where you can have your dog on a leash and sit down and have some lunch, play some pickleball.

1626
01:51:28,520 --> 01:51:34,520
 Those types of uses are what we're after here, and as Haley mentioned,

1627
01:51:34,520 --> 01:51:44,520
 this would also be used to have some additional parking and restroom facilities for the park that is immediately to the south.

1628
01:51:44,520 --> 01:51:55,520
 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.

1629
01:51:55,520 --> 01:52:04,520
 It is highlighted in red here with the number two, and it's 1.79 acres.

1630
01:52:04,520 --> 01:52:13,520
 This also predates 2008 when the concept was originally conceived for this entire development.

1631
01:52:13,520 --> 01:52:22,520
 And at one point in history, it was conditionally restricted to park uses, but then those restrictions were lifted.

1632
01:52:22,520 --> 01:52:27,520
 And as Haley mentioned, there's no desire from the city to develop it as a park,

1633
01:52:27,520 --> 01:52:33,520
 so we simply want to integrate the zoning to be consistent with what's surrounding it.

1634
01:52:33,520 --> 01:52:38,520
 Partial seven -- I'm sorry, slide seven, Haley.

1635
01:52:38,520 --> 01:52:42,520
 If you look at the third area, this is lot one, block C.

1636
01:52:42,520 --> 01:52:50,520
 This is 4.7 acres that was originally designated for single-family only, just as the parcel to the north of that is,

1637
01:52:50,520 --> 01:52:55,520
 which is where razor cottages will be developed to improve that plot tonight.

1638
01:52:55,520 --> 01:53:04,520
 This particular lot was -- the impetus for this change is the increase in reverse setback,

1639
01:53:04,520 --> 01:53:08,520
 rendering most of this lot undevelopable for any protected uses,

1640
01:53:08,520 --> 01:53:16,520
 which includes residential uses as well as schools, churches, hospitals, things of that nature.

1641
01:53:16,520 --> 01:53:21,520
 We believe that office uses would be the most compatible uses

1642
01:53:21,520 --> 01:53:27,520
 since there are many medical and professional office developments along Bonnie Bray.

1643
01:53:27,520 --> 01:53:35,520
 So we wanted to restrict to only propose one additional use, and that would be offices,

1644
01:53:35,520 --> 01:53:45,520
 since those would be allowed within the reverse setback and most of the single-family use would be rendered inappropriate

1645
01:53:45,520 --> 01:53:48,520
 on the new reverse setback.

1646
01:53:48,520 --> 01:53:51,520
 Haley, if you'll go to slide eight, please.

1647
01:53:51,520 --> 01:53:59,520
 The second goal is really to adopt commercial design standards that don't exist today so that we have something to build to,

1648
01:53:59,520 --> 01:54:06,520
 and those would be applicable for the area that is outlined in dark blue.

1649
01:54:06,520 --> 01:54:14,520
 And generally speaking, they are stricter in terms of architectural details and building materials

1650
01:54:14,520 --> 01:54:21,520
 and the citywide code, and they're consistent with the surrounding uses --

1651
01:54:21,520 --> 01:54:29,520
 sorry, the surrounding architecture and building materials and design requirements for Razor Ranch as a whole.

1652
01:54:29,520 --> 01:54:33,520
 They also do incorporate protections for surrounding residential uses,

1653
01:54:33,520 --> 01:54:43,520
 including restrictions on lighting as well as screening of mechanical equipment and things of that nature.

1654
01:54:43,520 --> 01:54:46,520
 Haley, if you'll go to slide nine, please.

1655
01:54:46,520 --> 01:54:49,520
 We did have a virtual neighborhood meeting.

1656
01:54:49,520 --> 01:54:53,520
 We mailed out invitations right before Christmas.

1657
01:54:53,520 --> 01:54:59,520
 We were kind of up against an interesting timeframe with everybody being gone over the holidays,

1658
01:54:59,520 --> 01:55:03,520
 so we held that neighborhood meeting this Monday.

1659
01:55:03,520 --> 01:55:10,520
 We just didn't want to -- we didn't want to overlook the opportunity to engage the neighborhood,

1660
01:55:10,520 --> 01:55:14,520
 and we did get five RSVPs and three attendees,

1661
01:55:14,520 --> 01:55:20,520
 and we made a presentation that's very similar to the one that I made here tonight

1662
01:55:20,520 --> 01:55:23,520
 and then emailed that presentation to everyone who RSVPed.

1663
01:55:23,520 --> 01:55:28,520
 I also had two separate phone call discussions with neighboring property owners.

1664
01:55:28,520 --> 01:55:34,520
 Generally, all of the feedback that we heard was positive, and in support of the project,

1665
01:55:34,520 --> 01:55:40,520
 I recognize and acknowledge that Haley received one response in opposition,

1666
01:55:40,520 --> 01:55:46,520
 but everybody that we engaged with directly expressed their support.

1667
01:55:46,520 --> 01:55:48,520
 And Haley, if you'll just go to the last slide, please.

1668
01:55:48,520 --> 01:55:52,520
 That is all I have, and I'm happy to answer any questions

1669
01:55:52,520 --> 01:55:56,520
 and also would remind you that we have the developer and the architect on the line

1670
01:55:56,520 --> 01:55:58,520
 if you have specific questions for them.

1671
01:55:58,520 --> 01:55:59,520
 Thank you.

1672
01:55:59,520 --> 01:56:00,520
 Great. Thank you.

1673
01:56:00,520 --> 01:56:02,520
 We do have a question for Commissioner Beck.

1674
01:56:02,520 --> 01:56:06,520
 Yeah, thank you, Chair. Amy, I'll ask you the same question I just asked Haley.

1675
01:56:06,520 --> 01:56:15,520
 Is there really any impetus or urge or desire to have that block be single family,

1676
01:56:15,520 --> 01:56:22,520
 that block three, or is it really the desire at this point to have it entirely be office space?

1677
01:56:22,520 --> 01:56:32,520
 So the developer for Razor Cottages, which is the plat that you approved earlier this evening,

1678
01:56:32,520 --> 01:56:41,520
 that's directly to the north, they will be the developer for the one directly to the south

1679
01:56:41,520 --> 01:56:44,520
 that's impacted by the gas bill setback.

1680
01:56:44,520 --> 01:56:49,520
 I believe the intent at this point is to allow it to develop with office uses.

1681
01:56:49,520 --> 01:56:59,520
 I think that if -- I can imagine a scenario where the cottages were so well received

1682
01:56:59,520 --> 01:57:08,520
 that the lots were acquired quickly and there was a desire from the community to see a few more

1683
01:57:08,520 --> 01:57:13,520
 that we might be able to put some along Linden Street that face Linden, perhaps,

1684
01:57:13,520 --> 01:57:19,520
 that really kind of integrate with the cottage development to the north of it.

1685
01:57:19,520 --> 01:57:26,520
 But for the most part, I would be -- and I think the intention at this point is to develop it with office uses.

1686
01:57:26,520 --> 01:57:28,520
 Okay, thank you.

1687
01:57:28,520 --> 01:57:32,520
 Any other questions for the applicant?

1688
01:57:32,520 --> 01:57:39,520
 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.

1689
01:57:39,520 --> 01:57:46,520
 The comment was in support of this item, and the form was emailed to all the commissioners and to staff to be recorded.

1690
01:57:46,520 --> 01:57:54,520
 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.

1691
01:57:54,520 --> 01:57:55,520
 Commissioner Smith?

1692
01:57:55,520 --> 01:57:57,520
 Make a motion to approve.

1693
01:57:57,520 --> 01:57:59,520
 We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson?

1694
01:57:59,520 --> 01:58:00,520
 I second.

1695
01:58:00,520 --> 01:58:04,520
 We have a first and a second. Any discussion?

1696
01:58:04,520 --> 01:58:07,520
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1697
01:58:07,520 --> 01:58:09,520
 Commissioner Ellis?

1698
01:58:09,520 --> 01:58:10,520
 Aye.

1699
01:58:10,520 --> 01:58:11,520
 Commissioner Beck?

1700
01:58:11,520 --> 01:58:12,520
 Aye.

1701
01:58:12,520 --> 01:58:13,520
 Commissioner Kohl?

1702
01:58:13,520 --> 01:58:14,520
 Aye.

1703
01:58:14,520 --> 01:58:16,520
 Commissioner Anderson?

1704
01:58:16,520 --> 01:58:17,520
 Aye.

1705
01:58:17,520 --> 01:58:18,520
 Commissioner Smith?

1706
01:58:18,520 --> 01:58:19,520
 Aye.

1707
01:58:19,520 --> 01:58:20,520
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1708
01:58:20,520 --> 01:58:22,520
 Aye.

1709
01:58:22,520 --> 01:58:25,520
 Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0.

1710
01:58:25,520 --> 01:58:35,520
 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,

1711
01:58:35,520 --> 01:58:43,520
 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.

1712
01:58:43,520 --> 01:58:54,520
 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.

1713
01:58:54,520 --> 01:59:03,520
 So we'll go 5B as in bravo next, 5E, and then we will finish the evening on 5C.

1714
01:59:03,520 --> 01:59:10,520
 With that, we'll go to the next item of business, item 5B, PD 20-0008.

1715
01:59:10,520 --> 01:59:21,520
 This is Haley Zegerski's item again, and I'll open the public hearing.

1716
01:59:21,520 --> 01:59:23,520
 I was muted there.

1717
01:59:23,520 --> 01:59:34,520
 Good evening again. This is item PD 20-0008, the Habitat for Humanity.

1718
01:59:34,520 --> 01:59:44,520
 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.

1719
01:59:44,520 --> 01:59:47,520
 You can see the location of the property here on the map.

1720
01:59:47,520 --> 01:59:53,520
 It is located along Duncan and Hill Street, and my apologies in your backup.

1721
01:59:53,520 --> 02:00:01,520
 I did have those directions flip-flopped, so I apologize for any confusion, but the location is correct on the map.

1722
02:00:01,520 --> 02:00:05,520
 You can see here the current versus proposed zoning.

1723
02:00:05,520 --> 02:00:10,520
 So on the left side of the screen, you can see the R4 zoning consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

1724
02:00:10,520 --> 02:00:17,520
 And then you can see what the map would change to if this were approved with the planned development zoning.

1725
02:00:17,520 --> 02:00:23,520
 I wanted to first go over the proposed development plan that would become part of the PD ordinance.

1726
02:00:23,520 --> 02:00:27,520
 So you can see here the layout that's been proposed for this subdivision.

1727
02:00:27,520 --> 02:00:31,520
 It would have 35 single-family lots split between two phases.

1728
02:00:31,520 --> 02:00:37,520
 Phase one is shown in blue and would include 16 lots as well as the extension of boardwalk lane.

1729
02:00:37,520 --> 02:00:40,520
 Phase two would be the northern part of the property.

1730
02:00:40,520 --> 02:00:46,520
 That would be 19 additional lots as well as a new street that is shown as carrying way on the map.

1731
02:00:46,520 --> 02:00:57,520
 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.

1732
02:00:57,520 --> 02:01:08,520
 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.

1733
02:01:08,520 --> 02:01:15,520
 Looking at the development standards proposed for the PD, first wanted to go through the uses that are proposed.

1734
02:01:15,520 --> 02:01:24,520
 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.

1735
02:01:24,520 --> 02:01:32,520
 You can see here the R4 district currently permits a pretty wide variety of uses both by right and with a specific use permit.

1736
02:01:32,520 --> 02:01:44,520
 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.

1737
02:01:44,520 --> 02:01:53,520
 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.

1738
02:01:53,520 --> 02:01:59,520
 So they are proposing a little bit smaller lot, 6,000 square feet as opposed to 7,000.

1739
02:01:59,520 --> 02:02:05,520
 These dimensional standards are all essentially what we have in our R6-based zoning district.

1740
02:02:05,520 --> 02:02:15,520
 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.

1741
02:02:15,520 --> 02:02:26,520
 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.

1742
02:02:26,520 --> 02:02:33,520
 And then they are proposing a reduction in parking because if you're familiar with Habitat Homes, they typically do not feature a garage.

1743
02:02:33,520 --> 02:02:41,520
 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.

1744
02:02:41,520 --> 02:02:49,520
 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.

1745
02:02:49,520 --> 02:02:56,520
 So loss of one space per unit essentially. For tree preservation and street trees, they are proposing no changes.

1746
02:02:56,520 --> 02:03:00,520
 Those would be per the development code.

1747
02:03:00,520 --> 02:03:04,520
 The general criteria for approval were all discussed in detail in your backup.

1748
02:03:04,520 --> 02:03:08,520
 Generally speaking, we found that they met all of these 13 criteria.

1749
02:03:08,520 --> 02:03:12,520
 What they're proposing is consistent with the DDC and our comp plan.

1750
02:03:12,520 --> 02:03:16,520
 They had no prior approvals that we needed to consider with this request.

1751
02:03:16,520 --> 02:03:21,520
 They are proposing a rational phasing plan and would have adequate infrastructure, as we'll look at later on.

1752
02:03:21,520 --> 02:03:30,520
 And staff did not find any concerns to indicate that there would be a significant negative impact in terms of environmental or fiscal impacts.

1753
02:03:30,520 --> 02:03:36,520
 We'll go through each of these six specific criteria for plan developments in a little more detail.

1754
02:03:36,520 --> 02:03:40,520
 So the first criterion is consistency with our dent in plan 2030.

1755
02:03:40,520 --> 02:03:43,520
 So we'll look at a few different elements of the comprehensive plan.

1756
02:03:43,520 --> 02:03:48,520
 The first being the future land use map, which you can see a screenshot of here.

1757
02:03:48,520 --> 02:03:55,520
 The property is largely designated as low density residential, so that would be one to four dwelling units per acre typically.

1758
02:03:55,520 --> 02:04:04,520
 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.

1759
02:04:04,520 --> 02:04:11,520
 In this transitional area, it would be typical to see the uses becoming more intense as you approach that industrial area.

1760
02:04:11,520 --> 02:04:18,520
 So their density that would be just over the four unit per acre mark is not a concern in this area.

1761
02:04:18,520 --> 02:04:24,520
 It's more of what we would expect to see on these edges of a low residential area.

1762
02:04:24,520 --> 02:04:29,520
 Some other elements of the comp plan that are applicable to this project.

1763
02:04:29,520 --> 02:04:34,520
 There is a large portion of the comp plan dedicated to affordable housing and infill development.

1764
02:04:34,520 --> 02:04:40,520
 This is one of those kind of remnant infill parcels in the central part of the city that's surrounded on all sides.

1765
02:04:40,520 --> 02:04:46,520
 So they are providing a compatible use in this area that would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

1766
02:04:46,520 --> 02:04:50,520
 And they're also meeting that need for affordable housing that's called out in the DDC.

1767
02:04:50,520 --> 02:05:00,520
 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.

1768
02:05:00,520 --> 02:05:09,520
 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.

1769
02:05:09,520 --> 02:05:17,520
 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.

1770
02:05:17,520 --> 02:05:28,520
 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.

1771
02:05:28,520 --> 02:05:34,520
 They're focusing on traditional craftsman style architecture as well as some mid century elements to these homes.

1772
02:05:34,520 --> 02:05:40,520
 So that would provide for community character and visual interest in the neighborhood.

1773
02:05:40,520 --> 02:05:45,520
 The second criterion is compliance with the DDC. So this is the same table we looked at before.

1774
02:05:45,520 --> 02:05:54,520
 Other than the changes that you see on the screen here, they are proposing compliance with all other aspects of the development code.

1775
02:05:54,520 --> 02:05:59,520
 Third criterion would be rather they provide for greater building design amenities and connectivity.

1776
02:05:59,520 --> 02:06:05,520
 So as you've seen on the previous slides, they are proposing some additional landscaping requirements for the subdivision.

1777
02:06:05,520 --> 02:06:22,520
 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.

1778
02:06:22,520 --> 02:06:30,520
 The fourth criterion is rather for residential uses. There's a compatibility of buildings, uses, and character in the area.

1779
02:06:30,520 --> 02:06:41,520
 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.

1780
02:06:41,520 --> 02:07:00,520
 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.

1781
02:07:00,520 --> 02:07:05,520
 The fifth criterion is not applicable since there are no non-residential uses proposed.

1782
02:07:05,520 --> 02:07:14,520
 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.

1783
02:07:14,520 --> 02:07:23,520
 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.

1784
02:07:23,520 --> 02:07:30,520
 Denton ISD did provide comment and indicate that all of these schools have capacity to handle those additional students.

1785
02:07:30,520 --> 02:07:41,520
 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.

1786
02:07:41,520 --> 02:07:50,520
 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.

1787
02:07:50,520 --> 02:08:02,520
 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.

1788
02:08:02,520 --> 02:08:11,520
 And then for our police, there was generally no concern due to the consistency of the use in this area.

1789
02:08:11,520 --> 02:08:18,520
 With respect to public facilities, water and wastewater are both available to serve the site and would be continued throughout the site.

1790
02:08:18,520 --> 02:08:26,520
 You can see the sewer lines in red and water lines in blue on this map do occur on both perimeters of the property.

1791
02:08:26,520 --> 02:08:35,520
 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.

1792
02:08:35,520 --> 02:08:49,520
 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.

1793
02:08:49,520 --> 02:08:56,520
 Perimeter street improvements would be provided along their frontages on Hill and Duncan, specifically sidewalk connections would be made here.

1794
02:08:56,520 --> 02:09:03,520
 And then internally, they would have the street extensions to provide for additional connectivity.

1795
02:09:03,520 --> 02:09:11,520
 Public outreach was done through newspaper website as well as mailings. We received no written responses to the 200 foot or 500 foot mailings.

1796
02:09:11,520 --> 02:09:20,520
 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.

1797
02:09:20,520 --> 02:09:27,520
 And finally, staff is recommending approval of the request as we found it to meet all the criteria for approval for rezoning to PD.

1798
02:09:27,520 --> 02:09:42,520
 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.

1799
02:09:42,520 --> 02:09:47,520
 Any questions for Haley?

1800
02:09:47,520 --> 02:09:52,520
 Okay, let's go ahead and move to the applicant presentation at this time.

1801
02:09:52,520 --> 02:10:00,520
 Hi, everyone. My name is Laura Blakeslee Atkinson and I'm the executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Gittin County.

1802
02:10:00,520 --> 02:10:12,520
 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.

1803
02:10:12,520 --> 02:10:29,520
 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.

1804
02:10:29,520 --> 02:10:49,520
 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.

1805
02:10:49,520 --> 02:10:55,520
 So Haley, if you could start the video on slide three. Thank you.

1806
02:10:55,520 --> 02:11:09,520
 Just one second and I will get that hold up.

1807
02:11:09,520 --> 02:11:25,520
 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.

1808
02:11:25,520 --> 02:11:33,520
 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.

1809
02:11:33,520 --> 02:11:46,520
 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.

1810
02:11:46,520 --> 02:12:00,520
 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.

1811
02:12:00,520 --> 02:12:12,520
 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.

1812
02:12:12,520 --> 02:12:25,520
 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.

1813
02:12:25,520 --> 02:12:32,520
 I think it'll, it'll more than double our ability to supply homes to low income people that need them here in Denton.

1814
02:12:32,520 --> 02:12:50,520
 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.

1815
02:12:50,520 --> 02:13:04,520
 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.

1816
02:13:04,520 --> 02:13:14,520
 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.

1817
02:13:14,520 --> 02:13:23,520
 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.

1818
02:13:23,520 --> 02:13:38,520
 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.

1819
02:13:38,520 --> 02:13:44,520
 There you can really see an indication of the impact that it's going to have on their lives.

1820
02:13:44,520 --> 02:13:53,520
 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.

1821
02:13:53,520 --> 02:14:15,520
 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.

1822
02:14:15,520 --> 02:14:28,520
 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.

1823
02:14:45,520 --> 02:14:58,520
 Hi, Haley. If you could please go to slide five and thank you everybody for watching that video. We appreciate it.

1824
02:14:58,520 --> 02:15:01,520
 Oh, I'm sorry, slide four.

1825
02:15:01,520 --> 02:15:04,520
 There we go.

1826
02:15:04,520 --> 02:15:18,520
 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.

1827
02:15:18,520 --> 02:15:24,520
 Slide five, please, Haley.

1828
02:15:24,520 --> 02:15:39,520
 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.

1829
02:15:39,520 --> 02:15:59,520
 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.

1830
02:15:59,520 --> 02:16:24,520
 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.

1831
02:16:24,520 --> 02:16:41,520
 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.

1832
02:16:41,520 --> 02:16:55,520
 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.

1833
02:16:55,520 --> 02:17:11,520
 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.

1834
02:17:11,520 --> 02:17:25,520
 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.

1835
02:17:25,520 --> 02:17:34,520
 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.

1836
02:17:34,520 --> 02:17:50,520
 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.

1837
02:17:50,520 --> 02:18:04,520
 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.

1838
02:18:04,520 --> 02:18:14,520
 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.

1839
02:18:14,520 --> 02:18:31,520
 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.

1840
02:18:31,520 --> 02:18:40,520
 Thank you very much. Is there any questions from the commission on from the applicant or to the applicant?

1841
02:18:40,520 --> 02:18:52,520
 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.

1842
02:18:52,520 --> 02:19:04,520
 We do have one other individual wanting to speak on this item so I'll ask staff to patch him through now.

1843
02:19:04,520 --> 02:19:07,520
 Hello, can you hear me?

1844
02:19:07,520 --> 02:19:10,520
 We can if you can just state your name and address on the record and give us four minutes.

1845
02:19:10,520 --> 02:19:13,520
 Yes sir, I'm David Johnson.

1846
02:19:13,520 --> 02:19:20,520
 My address is 1721, 1721 North Carroll Boulevard.

1847
02:19:20,520 --> 02:19:32,520
 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.

1848
02:19:32,520 --> 02:19:37,520
 This has been a big, big effort for everyone and she's been very, very helpful.

1849
02:19:37,520 --> 02:19:46,520
 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.

1850
02:19:46,520 --> 02:19:59,520
 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.

1851
02:19:59,520 --> 02:20:04,520
 Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Is Mr. Pruitt online now?

1852
02:20:04,520 --> 02:20:05,520
 I am.

1853
02:20:05,520 --> 02:20:11,520
 Mr. Pruitt, I appreciate you being patient. If you could just state your full name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak.

1854
02:20:11,520 --> 02:20:15,520
 Sure, this is Eric Pruitt, 2111 Westwood Drive.

1855
02:20:15,520 --> 02:20:29,520
 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.

1856
02:20:29,520 --> 02:20:43,520
 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.

1857
02:20:43,520 --> 02:20:54,520
 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.

1858
02:20:54,520 --> 02:21:08,520
 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.

1859
02:21:08,520 --> 02:21:22,520
 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.

1860
02:21:22,520 --> 02:21:38,520
 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.

1861
02:21:38,520 --> 02:22:00,520
 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.

1862
02:22:00,520 --> 02:22:10,520
 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.

1863
02:22:10,520 --> 02:22:30,520
 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.

1864
02:22:30,520 --> 02:22:44,520
 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.

1865
02:22:44,520 --> 02:23:00,520
 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.

1866
02:23:00,520 --> 02:23:29,520
 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.

1867
02:23:29,520 --> 02:23:34,520
 Thank you.

1868
02:23:34,520 --> 02:23:40,520
 I appreciate your comments, Mr. Prunette. Is there any questions for the caller?

1869
02:23:40,520 --> 02:23:42,520
 Commissioner Beck.

1870
02:23:42,520 --> 02:24:05,520
 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?

1871
02:24:05,520 --> 02:24:09,520
 There's nothing precluding that from going forward. Is that correct?

1872
02:24:09,520 --> 02:24:21,520
 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.

1873
02:24:21,520 --> 02:24:50,520
 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.

1874
02:24:50,520 --> 02:25:02,520
 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.

1875
02:25:02,520 --> 02:25:12,520
 But certainly other uses could be added to the PDE as part of the request if the commission chose to pursue that.

1876
02:25:12,520 --> 02:25:31,520
 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.

1877
02:25:31,520 --> 02:25:45,520
 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.

1878
02:25:45,520 --> 02:25:57,520
 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.

1879
02:25:57,520 --> 02:26:09,520
 Fantastic. With that, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Yes, absolutely. Commissioner Cole. Aye.

1880
02:26:09,520 --> 02:26:31,520
 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.

1881
02:26:31,520 --> 02:26:51,520
 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.

1882
02:26:51,520 --> 02:27:08,520
 We will open the public hearing.

1883
02:27:08,520 --> 02:27:19,520
 All right. Good evening. Karina Maldonado, assistant planner. I will be presenting Z20-0011, excuse me, state school voter states.

1884
02:27:19,520 --> 02:27:28,520
 This evening is to rezone approximately 4.23 acres from planned development district to R1 district.

1885
02:27:28,520 --> 02:27:38,520
 This property is located on State School Road, just shy of Winston Street and near the state supported facility.

1886
02:27:38,520 --> 02:27:58,520
 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.

1887
02:27:58,520 --> 02:28:15,520
 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.

1888
02:28:15,520 --> 02:28:36,520
 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.

1889
02:28:36,520 --> 02:28:49,520
 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.

1890
02:28:49,520 --> 02:29:08,520
 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.

1891
02:29:08,520 --> 02:29:23,520
 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.

1892
02:29:23,520 --> 02:29:52,520
 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.

1893
02:29:52,520 --> 02:30:11,520
 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.

1894
02:30:11,520 --> 02:30:17,520
 And I'll get into this comparison a little bit in more detail as we move forward.

1895
02:30:17,520 --> 02:30:29,520
 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.

1896
02:30:29,520 --> 02:30:46,520
 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.

1897
02:30:46,520 --> 02:31:06,520
 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.

1898
02:31:06,520 --> 02:31:20,520
 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.

1899
02:31:20,520 --> 02:31:40,520
 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.

1900
02:31:40,520 --> 02:32:01,520
 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.

1901
02:32:01,520 --> 02:32:17,520
 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.

1902
02:32:17,520 --> 02:32:32,520
 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.

1903
02:32:32,520 --> 02:32:51,520
 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.

1904
02:32:51,520 --> 02:33:06,520
 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.

1905
02:33:06,520 --> 02:33:27,520
 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.

1906
02:33:27,520 --> 02:33:39,520
 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.

1907
02:33:39,520 --> 02:34:02,520
 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.

1908
02:34:02,520 --> 02:34:17,520
 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.

1909
02:34:17,520 --> 02:34:29,520
 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.

1910
02:34:29,520 --> 02:34:41,520
 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.

1911
02:34:41,520 --> 02:35:03,520
 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.

1912
02:35:03,520 --> 02:35:12,520
 There were no neighborhood meetings held, however, the applicant did reach out to a few property owners on an individual basis.

1913
02:35:12,520 --> 02:35:35,520
 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.

1914
02:35:35,520 --> 02:35:40,520
 Great. Let's see if there's any questions for you, Karina, and then we'll go to the applicant.

1915
02:35:40,520 --> 02:35:52,520
 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.

1916
02:35:52,520 --> 02:35:57,520
 Good evening, Commissioners. This is Amy Bissett again. Can you hear me? We can.

1917
02:35:57,520 --> 02:36:15,520
 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.

1918
02:36:15,520 --> 02:36:35,520
 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.

1919
02:36:35,520 --> 02:36:55,520
 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.

1920
02:36:55,520 --> 02:37:11,520
 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.

1921
02:37:11,520 --> 02:37:35,520
 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.

1922
02:37:35,520 --> 02:37:47,520
 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.

1923
02:37:47,520 --> 02:38:04,520
 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

1924
02:38:04,520 --> 02:38:29,520
 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

1925
02:38:29,520 --> 02:38:48,520
 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.

1926
02:38:48,520 --> 02:39:06,520
 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.

1927
02:39:06,520 --> 02:39:21,520
 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.

1928
02:39:21,520 --> 02:39:42,520
 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.

1929
02:39:42,520 --> 02:39:53,520
 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.

1930
02:39:53,520 --> 02:40:01,520
 I do want to say that we did reach out to and speak with several individual homeowners in the neighborhood.

1931
02:40:01,520 --> 02:40:25,520
 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.

1932
02:40:25,520 --> 02:40:41,520
 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.

1933
02:40:41,520 --> 02:40:57,520
 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.

1934
02:40:57,520 --> 02:41:14,520
 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.

1935
02:41:14,520 --> 02:41:31,520
 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.

1936
02:41:31,520 --> 02:41:45,520
 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.

1937
02:41:45,520 --> 02:41:49,520
 Great, I appreciate that miss miss it. Is there any questions for the applicant, Mr Smith.

1938
02:41:49,520 --> 02:42:07,520
 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.

1939
02:42:07,520 --> 02:42:25,520
 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.

1940
02:42:25,520 --> 02:42:34,520
 Brad if you can hit, hear me you may have to hit star six to unmute yourself.

1941
02:42:34,520 --> 02:42:37,520
 All right, am I on now. You are.

1942
02:42:37,520 --> 02:42:41,520
 Okay. Yeah, this Brad Andrews.

1943
02:42:41,520 --> 02:43:01,520
 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.

1944
02:43:01,520 --> 02:43:19,520
 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.

1945
02:43:19,520 --> 02:43:22,520
 Despite the one guy across the street.

1946
02:43:22,520 --> 02:43:30,520
 Really, we believe we have strong support from the neighborhood for this type of use we lacking sewer.

1947
02:43:30,520 --> 02:43:51,520
 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.

1948
02:43:51,520 --> 02:43:58,520
 This is what came down to book to answer your particular question. We're simply not home builders.

1949
02:43:58,520 --> 02:44:16,520
 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

1950
02:44:16,520 --> 02:44:35,520
 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

1951
02:44:35,520 --> 02:44:54,520
 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

1952
02:44:54,520 --> 02:45:10,520
 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

1953
02:45:10,520 --> 02:45:18,520
 lot having to keep many more trees on their property.

1954
02:45:18,520 --> 02:45:32,520
 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

1955
02:45:32,520 --> 02:45:52,520
 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

1956
02:45:52,520 --> 02:46:12,520
 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.

1957
02:46:12,520 --> 02:46:23,520
 We're, I don't want to, I don't want to express too much my frustrations on this subject but

1958
02:46:23,520 --> 02:46:30,520
 I'll just stay with that. Okay, and I'll just add one last thing before I kind of give the floor up.

1959
02:46:30,520 --> 02:46:45,520
 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.

1960
02:46:45,520 --> 02:47:01,520
 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

1961
02:47:01,520 --> 02:47:14,520
 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

1962
02:47:14,520 --> 02:47:26,520
 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.

1963
02:47:26,520 --> 02:47:35,520
 Your other points about being being home developers that will just agree to disagree and I'll relinquish the floor.

1964
02:47:35,520 --> 02:47:40,520
 Thank you, Mr. Smith, Christian back you have questions for the applicant.

1965
02:47:40,520 --> 02:47:46,520
 Sort of. I guess my question is, thank you chair, by the way.

1966
02:47:46,520 --> 02:47:57,520
 So, your, your intent is to sort of simply prep this and get this ready for for future development. Is that correct Mr interest.

1967
02:47:57,520 --> 02:47:59,520
 That is correct.

1968
02:47:59,520 --> 02:48:13,520
 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.

1969
02:48:13,520 --> 02:48:33,520
 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

1970
02:48:33,520 --> 02:48:37,520
 I think actually Mr Andrews and said have this exactly right.

1971
02:48:37,520 --> 02:48:40,520
 So, that'll save more trees.

1972
02:48:40,520 --> 02:48:54,520
 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.

1973
02:48:54,520 --> 02:49:06,520
 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.

1974
02:49:06,520 --> 02:49:08,520
 Thank you.

1975
02:49:08,520 --> 02:49:13,520
 Any other questions for the applicant.

1976
02:49:13,520 --> 02:49:27,520
 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.

1977
02:49:27,520 --> 02:49:30,520
 I think the project is good for what it is.

1978
02:49:30,520 --> 02:49:44,520
 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.

1979
02:49:44,520 --> 02:49:51,520
 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.

1980
02:49:51,520 --> 02:49:53,520
 I Christian back.

1981
02:49:53,520 --> 02:49:59,520
 Yeah, I'll second that, and I'll agree with much of what Commissioner Smith said.

1982
02:49:59,520 --> 02:50:04,520
 Okay, so first and a second for approval. Any discussion.

1983
02:50:04,520 --> 02:50:10,520
 Seeing none I'll call for a vote be a roll call Commissioner Alice. Hi, Christian back.

1984
02:50:10,520 --> 02:50:15,520
 Hi, Christian Smith. Hi, Christian Anderson.

1985
02:50:15,520 --> 02:50:25,520
 Hi, Christian Cole. Hi, Christian pernetta. Hi. Chair is also an I motion carries seven zero Congratulations.

1986
02:50:25,520 --> 02:50:37,520
 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.

1987
02:50:37,520 --> 02:50:46,520
 You have the floor.

1988
02:50:46,520 --> 02:50:54,520
 Evening let me pull my presentation we'll get started.

1989
02:50:54,520 --> 02:50:57,520
 There we go.

1990
02:50:57,520 --> 02:51:04,520
 All right, I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting DCA 2000 five to you this evening.

1991
02:51:04,520 --> 02:51:17,520
 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.

1992
02:51:17,520 --> 02:51:24,520
 This was discussed at DC RC and it was to address issues related to existing lots.

1993
02:51:24,520 --> 02:51:35,520
 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.

1994
02:51:35,520 --> 02:51:53,520
 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.

1995
02:51:53,520 --> 02:52:13,520
 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

1996
02:52:13,520 --> 02:52:28,520
 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.

1997
02:52:28,520 --> 02:52:34,520
 The majority of our R3 in the city is developed lots and that's about 9000 lots.

1998
02:52:34,520 --> 02:52:37,520
 So I just wanted to clarify that from the work session.

1999
02:52:37,520 --> 02:52:58,520
 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

2000
02:52:58,520 --> 02:53:16,520
 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.

2001
02:53:16,520 --> 02:53:29,520
 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.

2002
02:53:29,520 --> 02:53:46,520
 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.

2003
02:53:46,520 --> 02:53:52,520
 And then there's a 10 foot interior side yard setback.

2004
02:53:52,520 --> 02:54:02,520
 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.

2005
02:54:02,520 --> 02:54:20,520
 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

2006
02:54:20,520 --> 02:54:38,520
 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

2007
02:54:38,520 --> 02:54:47,520
 distinctive architectural style on the home, which could encourage homogenous development throughout the city.

2008
02:54:47,520 --> 02:55:03,520
 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.

2009
02:55:03,520 --> 02:55:25,520
 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.

2010
02:55:25,520 --> 02:55:44,520
 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.

2011
02:55:44,520 --> 02:55:52,520
 This is just the maximum that would be allowed so it could allow for that diversity within architectural development.

2012
02:55:52,520 --> 02:56:09,520
 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

2013
02:56:09,520 --> 02:56:11,520
 rules for those developments.

2014
02:56:11,520 --> 02:56:23,520
 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.

2015
02:56:23,520 --> 02:56:43,520
 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.

2016
02:56:43,520 --> 02:56:57,520
 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.

2017
02:56:57,520 --> 02:57:14,520
 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

2018
02:57:14,520 --> 02:57:21,520
 existing lots, both in terms of new construction or just home improvements.

2019
02:57:21,520 --> 02:57:39,520
 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.

2020
02:57:39,520 --> 02:57:55,520
 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.

2021
02:57:55,520 --> 02:58:13,520
 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

2022
02:58:13,520 --> 02:58:33,520
 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

2023
02:58:33,520 --> 02:58:36,520
 in this area.

2024
02:58:36,520 --> 02:58:47,520
 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.

2025
02:58:47,520 --> 02:58:56,520
 It does recommend that architectural diversity and creativity should be encouraged to ensure that high quality development.

2026
02:58:56,520 --> 02:59:10,520
 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.

2027
02:59:10,520 --> 02:59:23,520
 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.

2028
02:59:23,520 --> 02:59:33,520
 So, staff recommends approval of the request. I will be happy to answer any questions and I'll

2029
02:59:33,520 --> 02:59:38,520
 stop sharing my screen.

2030
02:59:38,520 --> 02:59:43,520
 Great thank you Julie any questions for Julie Christian back.

2031
02:59:43,520 --> 03:00:00,520
 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

2032
03:00:00,520 --> 03:00:07,520
 approach and said hey you know this is really cumbersome for me. Well who planted the seed for this.

2033
03:00:07,520 --> 03:00:18,520
 We actually had several instances, not necessarily actually none were new developers that were, you know, plotting large tracks.

2034
03:00:18,520 --> 03:00:27,520
 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.

2035
03:00:27,520 --> 03:00:40,520
 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.

2036
03:00:40,520 --> 03:00:58,520
 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.

2037
03:00:58,520 --> 03:01:11,520
 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.

2038
03:01:11,520 --> 03:01:21,520
 It really, it really made sense to go back to those those previous regulations to provide that flexibility for property owners.

2039
03:01:21,520 --> 03:01:40,520
 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

2040
03:01:40,520 --> 03:01:53,520
 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.

2041
03:01:53,520 --> 03:02:10,520
 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.

2042
03:02:10,520 --> 03:02:23,520
 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.

2043
03:02:23,520 --> 03:02:43,520
 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,

2044
03:02:43,520 --> 03:02:58,520
 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.

2045
03:02:58,520 --> 03:03:08,520
 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.

2046
03:03:08,520 --> 03:03:20,520
 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.

2047
03:03:20,520 --> 03:03:28,520
 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.

2048
03:03:28,520 --> 03:03:48,520
 I'll ask staff to patch him through.

2049
03:03:48,520 --> 03:04:00,520
 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.

2050
03:04:00,520 --> 03:04:09,520
 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.

2051
03:04:09,520 --> 03:04:21,520
 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.

2052
03:04:21,520 --> 03:04:30,520
 Many homes within that district do not fit the exact dimensional description in our zoning code. It's been evolved over time.

2053
03:04:30,520 --> 03:04:39,520
 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.

2054
03:04:39,520 --> 03:04:55,520
 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

2055
03:04:55,520 --> 03:05:04,520
 of UNT and I found over three dozen duplexes out of around 100 lots. No duplexes are permitted in R3, even with an SUP.

2056
03:05:04,520 --> 03:05:11,520
 Many existing R3 lots are less than 60 feet wide, making the setback flexibility even more crucial.

2057
03:05:11,520 --> 03:05:18,520
 I understand that the idea of replacing smaller homes with large McMansions doesn't add to our affordability.

2058
03:05:18,520 --> 03:05:27,520
 But in my estimation, the solution to that is not restrictions, which make it impossible for some existing homeowners to improve their homes.

2059
03:05:27,520 --> 03:05:35,520
 The solution is allowed to allow homeowners to convert their homes into duplexes or triplexes and retain their ability to add an ADU.

2060
03:05:35,520 --> 03:05:40,520
 Staff should be defended for trying to reduce the number of nonconforming homes.

2061
03:05:40,520 --> 03:05:54,520
 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.

2062
03:05:54,520 --> 03:06:06,520
 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.

2063
03:06:06,520 --> 03:06:23,520
 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.

2064
03:06:23,520 --> 03:06:41,520
 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.

2065
03:06:41,520 --> 03:06:44,520
 Please come.

2066
03:06:44,520 --> 03:06:46,520
 Thank you.

2067
03:06:46,520 --> 03:06:56,520
 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.

2068
03:06:56,520 --> 03:07:08,520
 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.

2069
03:07:08,520 --> 03:07:24,520
 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

2070
03:07:24,520 --> 03:07:39,520
 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

2071
03:07:39,520 --> 03:07:55,520
 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.

2072
03:07:55,520 --> 03:08:12,520
 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

2073
03:08:12,520 --> 03:08:22,520
 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.

2074
03:08:22,520 --> 03:08:26,520
 So, if I understood that I appreciate that.

2075
03:08:26,520 --> 03:08:36,520
 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.

2076
03:08:36,520 --> 03:08:48,520
 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.

2077
03:08:48,520 --> 03:09:00,520
 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.

2078
03:09:00,520 --> 03:09:02,520
 Thank you.

2079
03:09:02,520 --> 03:09:04,520
 Thank you.

2080
03:09:04,520 --> 03:09:11,520
 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.

2081
03:09:11,520 --> 03:09:14,520
 Make a motion to approve.

2082
03:09:14,520 --> 03:09:17,520
 We have a first for approval Christian Cole.

2083
03:09:17,520 --> 03:09:22,520
 We have a first and a second for approval. I'll turn to the day is for any discussion.

2084
03:09:22,520 --> 03:09:24,520
 Christian back.

2085
03:09:24,520 --> 03:09:29,520
 So, I think you could tell from the workstation this.

2086
03:09:29,520 --> 03:09:50,520
 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.

2087
03:09:50,520 --> 03:09:53,520
 The issue is.

2088
03:09:53,520 --> 03:10:12,520
 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

2089
03:10:12,520 --> 03:10:21,520
 the commissioners, we need to have that flexibility to change a changing dent in over time, and allow sort of customization.

2090
03:10:21,520 --> 03:10:31,520
 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.

2091
03:10:31,520 --> 03:10:49,520
 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

2092
03:10:49,520 --> 03:11:00,520
 and city to identify methods that will preclude the McMansion a greenfield development.

2093
03:11:00,520 --> 03:11:06,520
 I don't want to get in the way of flexibility but you know that we can have two problems.

2094
03:11:06,520 --> 03:11:10,520
 I guess that's what I'm saying. So, I'll leave my comment there.

2095
03:11:10,520 --> 03:11:12,520
 Christopher Neto.

2096
03:11:12,520 --> 03:11:21,520
 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.

2097
03:11:21,520 --> 03:11:40,520
 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

2098
03:11:40,520 --> 03:11:48,520
 nonconformities and I think, you know, by right, having that right people shouldn't lose these things.

2099
03:11:48,520 --> 03:11:59,520
 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.

2100
03:11:59,520 --> 03:12:07,520
 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.

2101
03:12:07,520 --> 03:12:23,520
 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

2102
03:12:23,520 --> 03:12:28,520
 adjustments to their house maybe add an extra room that kind of thing in the back, usually they do it in the back.

2103
03:12:28,520 --> 03:12:42,520
 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.

2104
03:12:42,520 --> 03:12:53,520
 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.

2105
03:12:53,520 --> 03:13:09,520
 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.

2106
03:13:09,520 --> 03:13:27,520
 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.

2107
03:13:27,520 --> 03:13:41,520
 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.

2108
03:13:41,520 --> 03:13:48,520
 Y'all get what you always had going forward we want to make sure that we protect the character of Denton.

2109
03:13:48,520 --> 03:13:57,520
 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.

2110
03:13:57,520 --> 03:14:03,520
 You know, people having the right people wanting to do things on existing properties and having had that expectation.

2111
03:14:03,520 --> 03:14:13,520
 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.

2112
03:14:13,520 --> 03:14:18,520
 But, yeah, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

2113
03:14:18,520 --> 03:14:26,520
 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.

2114
03:14:26,520 --> 03:14:38,520
 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.

2115
03:14:38,520 --> 03:14:55,520
 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.

2116
03:14:55,520 --> 03:15:11,520
 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.

2117
03:15:11,520 --> 03:15:16,520
 Okay, and I would just like to say, and we're talking about five feet on each side.

2118
03:15:16,520 --> 03:15:27,520
 Yeah, but it's five feet on each side, next to another five feet on each side, you know, basically two paces, right.

2119
03:15:27,520 --> 03:15:40,520
 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.

2120
03:15:40,520 --> 03:15:46,520
 That is, has that seven foot setback like the the example given in the presentation.

2121
03:15:46,520 --> 03:16:00,520
 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.

2122
03:16:00,520 --> 03:16:12,520
 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.

2123
03:16:12,520 --> 03:16:21,520
 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.

2124
03:16:21,520 --> 03:16:30,520
 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.

2125
03:16:30,520 --> 03:16:40,520
 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.

2126
03:16:40,520 --> 03:16:52,520
 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.

2127
03:16:52,520 --> 03:17:02,520
 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.

2128
03:17:02,520 --> 03:17:18,520
 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

2129
03:17:18,520 --> 03:17:33,520
 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

2130
03:17:33,520 --> 03:17:49,520
 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

2131
03:17:49,520 --> 03:18:05,520
 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.

2132
03:18:05,520 --> 03:18:19,520
 I think that's where these conforming issues as chair brought up so yeah, just to reiterate my support for

2133
03:18:19,520 --> 03:18:37,520
 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

2134
03:18:37,520 --> 03:18:45,520
 existing homes for uses that are consistent with the character of our neighborhood, but we're.

2135
03:18:45,520 --> 03:18:59,520
 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

2136
03:18:59,520 --> 03:19:16,520
 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

2137
03:19:16,520 --> 03:19:27,520
 character of Denton, which is I think what Commissioner pernetta said and so I'm, I am really torn on this.

2138
03:19:27,520 --> 03:19:35,520
 You know I want that flexibility but as I said before, we, we need a different mechanism for that flexibility not.

2139
03:19:35,520 --> 03:19:39,520
 Anyway, I'm gonna I'm gonna cogitate while you guys talk.

2140
03:19:39,520 --> 03:19:42,520
 Well, talking is almost coming to a close.

2141
03:19:42,520 --> 03:19:50,520
 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.

2142
03:19:50,520 --> 03:19:57,520
 I think this is a healthy conversation. I think it's probably misplaced we're just corrected an issue.

2143
03:19:57,520 --> 03:20:08,520
 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.

2144
03:20:08,520 --> 03:20:26,520
 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

2145
03:20:26,520 --> 03:20:43,520
 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

2146
03:20:43,520 --> 03:20:56,520
 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.

2147
03:20:56,520 --> 03:21:09,520
 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.

2148
03:21:09,520 --> 03:21:24,520
 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,

2149
03:21:24,520 --> 03:21:32,520
 they still can build 40 feet in the air. Think about a house being 40 feet wide and 40 feet tall.

2150
03:21:32,520 --> 03:21:44,520
 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

2151
03:21:44,520 --> 03:22:02,520
 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

2152
03:22:02,520 --> 03:22:19,520
 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

2153
03:22:19,520 --> 03:22:31,520
 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.

2154
03:22:31,520 --> 03:22:36,520
 Commissioner back Did I give you enough time.

2155
03:22:36,520 --> 03:22:46,520
 Yeah, great. You can take the floor if you want it.

2156
03:22:46,520 --> 03:22:48,520
 Somebody else make the motion.

2157
03:22:48,520 --> 03:22:52,520
 The motions there and seconded.

2158
03:22:52,520 --> 03:22:57,520
 So, if you want the floor you can have it if not we'll proceed to the vote.

2159
03:22:57,520 --> 03:23:02,520
 Okay, make one last call for discussion.

2160
03:23:02,520 --> 03:23:04,520
 Christopher Cole.

2161
03:23:04,520 --> 03:23:07,520
 Yeah, you know it's funny I came in this thing.

2162
03:23:07,520 --> 03:23:09,520
 Totally against it.

2163
03:23:09,520 --> 03:23:19,520
 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.

2164
03:23:19,520 --> 03:23:22,520
 I live in one of those non conforming properties.

2165
03:23:22,520 --> 03:23:29,520
 You know my house is non conforming because the gas well but my private property rights were snatched away from me.

2166
03:23:29,520 --> 03:23:33,520
 You know, and I voted I voted against my own interest I voted for the setbacks.

2167
03:23:33,520 --> 03:23:42,520
 But, you know, this is about flexibility to me, more than anything else in, in, I don't.

2168
03:23:42,520 --> 03:23:51,520
 I know so many people I grew up with that live between scripture and university, you know, Emory.

2169
03:23:51,520 --> 03:23:56,520
 You know Stanley Thomas cordell crescent all those streets.

2170
03:23:56,520 --> 03:23:59,520
 And, man, some of those homes.

2171
03:23:59,520 --> 03:24:04,520
 My friends, you know, their parents are aged they're in their 80s.

2172
03:24:04,520 --> 03:24:06,520
 They're going to be passing on.

2173
03:24:06,520 --> 03:24:12,520
 And these people are going to be their dreams to move back in this house and fix it up because I grew up there.

2174
03:24:12,520 --> 03:24:24,520
 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.

2175
03:24:24,520 --> 03:24:43,520
 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.

2176
03:24:43,520 --> 03:24:46,520
 Thank you.

2177
03:24:46,520 --> 03:24:49,520
 Thanks for your call. Any other discussion.

2178
03:24:49,520 --> 03:24:54,520
 Okay, send on will take a vote be a roll call Christian Ellis.

2179
03:24:54,520 --> 03:24:58,520
 I Christian or back.

2180
03:24:58,520 --> 03:25:00,520
 Hi.

2181
03:25:00,520 --> 03:25:02,520
 Christian Smith.

2182
03:25:02,520 --> 03:25:06,520
 I Christian Cole.

2183
03:25:06,520 --> 03:25:08,520
 Christian Pernitta.

2184
03:25:08,520 --> 03:25:10,520
 I'll be the name.

2185
03:25:10,520 --> 03:25:13,520
 Christian Anderson.

2186
03:25:13,520 --> 03:25:18,520
 I chairs and I motion carries six one.

2187
03:25:18,520 --> 03:25:34,520
 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.

2188
03:25:34,520 --> 03:25:47,520
 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.

2189
03:25:47,520 --> 03:26:05,520
 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

2190
03:26:05,520 --> 03:26:22,520
 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

2191
03:26:22,520 --> 03:26:37,520
 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

2192
03:26:37,520 --> 03:26:41,520
 it's probably merits a or at least is worth the discussion.

2193
03:26:41,520 --> 03:26:45,520
 The only other thing I wanted to update last night.

2194
03:26:45,520 --> 03:26:48,520
 Council did approve the rezoning on 35.

2195
03:26:48,520 --> 03:26:52,520
 This was the that parcel.

2196
03:26:52,520 --> 03:26:55,520
 Next to.

2197
03:26:55,520 --> 03:26:59,520
 My goodness, the brick.

2198
03:26:59,520 --> 03:27:01,520
 For a second.

2199
03:27:01,520 --> 03:27:04,520
 My allergies are acting up for some reason.

2200
03:27:04,520 --> 03:27:17,520
 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.

2201
03:27:17,520 --> 03:27:27,520
 Detention retention area so they are going to look at some items with respect to that redesigning it and bringing that back.

2202
03:27:27,520 --> 03:27:30,520
 Excuse me on February 16.

2203
03:27:30,520 --> 03:27:33,520
 And with that I'll be happy to answer any questions.

2204
03:27:33,520 --> 03:27:35,520
 Awesome. Thanks for the update Richard.

2205
03:27:35,520 --> 03:27:48,520
 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.

2206
03:27:48,520 --> 03:28:01,520
 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.

2207
03:28:01,520 --> 03:28:15,520
 And if if if Christie could prep something on on that and, you know, maybe something on on what other communities are using

2208
03:28:15,520 --> 03:28:25,520
 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.

2209
03:28:25,520 --> 03:28:42,520
 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.

2210
03:28:42,520 --> 03:28:47,520
 I even think Commissioner Roselle mentioned this at the previous meeting.

2211
03:28:47,520 --> 03:28:53,520
 Well, you know, so if we could get some clarity on that that would be helpful.

2212
03:28:53,520 --> 03:28:58,520
 Absolutely. And it might even merit its own own work session.

2213
03:28:58,520 --> 03:29:11,520
 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.

2214
03:29:11,520 --> 03:29:17,520
 Right. Any other questions or additions.

2215
03:29:17,520 --> 03:29:27,520
 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.