Apr 07, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-04-07 5:00 PM

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning commission work session portion of our meeting for Wednesday, April 7th, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 5.01. This evening, we'll actually just hop right into the agenda. We have no presentations or anything discussed prior or before the actual agenda. So before we just hop into the agenda, I just wanted to ask Richard if there's anything of note to change in the agenda this evening? There's not. I think Selena had sent some updated materials prior, but since that time, no additional changes. Okay. Fantastic. So let's just go ahead and jump right into it, starting with the minutes. Is there any changes or edits to the minutes by anybody? Great. Seeing none, we'll go into individual considerations. There's no consent this evening. First item is 3A, PP21-0002. This item is Carina Maldonado's. And whenever you're ready, you can take the floor. Sorry, I think I was muted. I'm just going to pull up the presentations. Sorry, it feels like it's been a while. I'm trying to figure out how to do this again. Okay. All right, sorry about that. All right. The plat before you is for a preliminary plat on State School Road. If you could remember, this actually came up as a rezoning case back in January to rezone this property or down zone this property. The plat is being recommended for denial. However, the applicant has requested an extension to the May 5th planning and zoning meeting. With that, I can answer any questions. Any questions on this item? I will reiterate in public session, we do have a citizen feedback on this who is in favor of granting the extension. Seeing no questions, we can move to the next item. It is Mark Laird's 3B, PP21-3. Good evening. This is Mark Laird. I work with the development service department. Before you this evening, you have Giesling and 380 industrial addition. This property is located on the east and west side of Giesling Road, being south of US 380, also known as University Drive. I stand for any questions that you may have. Yes, we do have a question, Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. My questions are, and I'm sure this is a known answer for the first one, how close can you build a detention pond to an electrical substation? I presume that this is allowed, but it seems like that's really close. Right. The substation is directly to the south of it. The improvements are south of that property line, so they're within their rights to do it. This is acceptable. Okay, I was going to say, is there a minimum setback from an electrical operation for a water feature? Not that I'm aware of, but DME has reviewed these plans and have made comments in regards to it. I don't think that was the comment that came up. All right. If they're happy with it, they know what they're doing. I'm just surprised. My other question is, I don't know, I guess it's more of a comment. It seems like they're going to have a heck of a time with tree preservation on that northern property. Okay, if they think they can do it, I know we said in the documentations that they would have to follow our guidelines, but it seems like that's going to be a challenge. Yes, sir, you're absolutely correct. You're absolutely correct. They will be required to meet our guidelines, the standards for tree preservation. All right, that's all I had. Thank you. Any other questions for Mark? All right, seeing none, thank you, Mark, for the presentation. We'll move on to item 3C, FP21-00007. This is Julie Wyatt's item. Julie, whenever you're ready. You're muted. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting FP21-00007. This is the final phase to a plan development that you probably remember from a few years ago. I did want to make one note. There is a hot off the presses approval of the HOA documents, so staff is now... They were requesting an extension, but now they have complied with all of the criteria for approval, and so staff recommends approval of this plan. Great. Thanks, Julie. Any questions? Chris, you're back. Thank you, Chair. I just have one procedural question and then one general question. Procedurally, if they ask for an extension, they can just retract that request. Is that correct? If they ask for an extension, we don't have to review that request. They can just retract that and proceed on with the approval that you would be willing to give them? That is my understanding of how we've approached it. I don't know if Richard wanted to weigh in here, but that extension gives them that flexibility to try to get all of these corrections made, so you wouldn't have to necessarily grant that extension at this meeting. They certainly could... Just as they can ask, they're certainly allowed to retract. Okay. I assume that was the case, but I don't always know how... Sometimes these dominoes have to fall. My other question is more just general. I see two entrances for this at a property adjacent to future Bronco Way. Is that correct? This phase does connect to Bronco Way. They're on the west side of the subject property. It also connects to phase one, which has connection to Bronco Way as well. I guess at some point, traffic will or has reviewed some of these materials, but it seems like on football games, those poor residents, when they move in, are never getting in and they're never getting out because there's only two entrances and they're both Bronco Way. When that high school gets built, it's going to be ugly for those residents. They also will have connection to Bonnie Bray to the... Phase one also has an additional connection to Bonnie Bray, so that will help and provide an additional way in and out for them as well. I'm not going to dig in my heels. I just want to put a pin in the future for when residents come back to council or planning and zoning and said, "Why did you approve this? We can't get in. We can't get out." Anyway, thanks. Any other questions for Julie? All right, Julie, thank you very much. You have the next one too, so we'll keep you here and go to item 3D, PP21-4. This property is located within the city's ETJ. They still have some comments left to address, so they are recommending or requesting an extension to that May 5th meeting in order to address those staff comments. Great. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I think I was reading this on the map, but a dry well is the same as a capped well in that upper Northwest part of the development. Is that correct? Yes. It is correct. Yes, sir. Okay. That's my question. Thank you. Great. Any other questions for Julie on this item? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to item 3E, FP21-0009. I will ask Karina to come back and present. All right. This is a request for a final plat for Phase 6 of the North Point Addition. It's located south of 288. Staff is recommending denials that they have not yet met all the requirements for this plat. However, they have requested an extension to the May 5th planning and zoning meeting. With that, I can take any questions. Any questions for Karina on this? Great. I don't see any. Karina, thank you for the presentation. That moves us into our public hearing portion of the evening, starting with Hailey Zygursky's item of 4AMP21-0007. Good evening. This is a residential replant for a single lot within the Lakeview Ranch Phase 1 subdivision. The property is located on Stallion Street. The sole purpose of the replant is to relocate the platted building line from 40 feet to 20 feet. When the property was originally platted, a 40-foot front setback was required for the agricultural zoning that was in place. However, since 2002 when the property's had a residential zoning, a 20-foot setback has been all that's required, so they are seeking a replant to make that adjustment to be consistent with the zoning. I did want to note that this is a little different procedurally than what we would normally see. State law does have two options, essentially, for residential replants. You can either have the plat approved and then notify afterwards. It can either be approved by the P&Z or administratively, depending on the qualifications of the plat. And then there is a second option to hold a public hearing and notify in advance. In this instance, since the need for this replant was brought to staff's attention due to complaints from some neighbors within Lakeview Ranch, we did opt for the more transparent of those options, which was to notify in advance and hold a public hearing. So we did send 10 notifications to the properties that are within the 200-foot radius of this lot. We've received no written responses to date, but I did have several calls and questions regarding what the purpose of the plat was prior to the meeting, but no formal written responses. And with that, I will pull down the screen, and happy to stand for any questions. Thanks, Haley. Christopher Beck. Yeah, so this is not directly to Haley, although she may be responsible, and that is the email that we got just like an hour ago. Can I get some clarification on the impacts? And I'm being a little cagey, because I'm not sure how we talk about that or the rules on that. Right. I'm assuming you're referring to a letter from our office, which if we want to go into executive session to discuss or have questions on it, we can certainly go into executive session at some point during this work session if you would like to. I have just some questions that I think you could clarify, and I saw some other head nods, so with that, I'll just sort of back off. So do we have any other questions for Haley? Marcia, I know you had some questions. Is yours down the same avenue of asking Max some questions? No, not at all. Okay. I'll just have, so yeah, can I ask a quick question? Yeah, why don't you go ahead and then we can consider a closed session. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Haley, I'm just curious if you talk to the HOA at all. I just was wondering their opinion, if we know it. So we did send a notification to all the contact methods that we had for the HOA, so a mailed letter as well as some emails. I received no formal response or contact from the HOA itself, just from a few residents who said they had attended an HOA meeting where this was discussed, but no member of the HOA has actually contacted me. Okay. Appreciate it. I was just curious. Thank you. And without any opposition from the commissioners, what I'd like to do is we can go ahead and take this to closed session so that the commissioner back and our own notification can understand. Just for context, our commission received a letter from the city attorney this afternoon regarding this property and some commissioners or at least one commissioner would like some clarification on that. So what I'd like to do is pause for just 30 seconds to a minute to shut off the public recording of this and we'll take this into closed session. And then as soon as that's done, we will be back here for public viewing. Chairman, on the record, we have to state the reason we're going into closed session. So you'd have to say pursuant to 551-071 of the government code for attorney-client communication, we're going to discuss this item. That just needs to be on the record and then we can recess in the closed session. Absolutely. And you said that was 551-071? Correct. Okay. For that reason and for client privileges, we're going to go into a closed session to discuss further. Thank you for providing us that intermission to go into closed session to speak about this item. We are now back in public session at 527, continuing the discussion on item 4AMP21-0007. This is Haley Zegerski's item. Is there any other questions for Haley on this item? Seeing none, I will proceed to the next item of business. Item 4B, AESA21-0001A, and this is Christy Upton's presentation. Good evening. Good evening, Christy Upton, and I will be presenting alternative AESA plan for an Exeter Martino property, and diving right into it, this site is located at the intersection of Western Boulevard and Jim Crystal Road. It's about 104 acres, and there was a preliminary plat that was approved on January 6th, and there are two projects under review at the moment. The request is to temporarily disturb 0.4 acres of riparian buffer ESA. The riparian buffer is part of a tributary of Dry Fork Hickory Creek, and there was an ephemeral stream that was found to be fair, and then a remnant stream that is alongside of the ephemeral stream that is feeding that tributary. They call this a remnant stream because it receives stormwater flows at times and continues to support riparian vegetation. There was two other tributaries to this corner of the property, but at the time that Western Boulevard was constructed, these areas were channelized and are no longer riparian areas. The floodplain was also found to be undeveloped within this area. The disturbance and the overall project is to construct two stormwater outfall structures that will serve the warehouse that is proposed to be constructed on the property. This will cause for the applicant to have to remove the riparian vegetation within this corner, and I just want to bring to your attention that the placement of utilities and undeveloped floodplain is a permitted activity, and there is going to be 0.53 acres of undeveloped floodplain that would be disturbed. The entire area, the undeveloped floodplain and the riparian buffers would be revegetated with a mix of drain field and riparian vegetation to help recover the vegetation that supports this stream. Notifications were sent, and there was one response in favor of the project, and there was a neighborhood meeting on March 4th, and one attendee at the neighborhood meeting who also spoke in favor of the project. The staff is recommending approval of this project with the following conditions, that the land disturbance within the riparian buffer is limited to the area as defined in the plan. Time 14 days of following the construction of the stormwater infrastructure that the applicant revegetates with the vegetation as described in the plan, and number three and number four, the typical request that staff places to ensure that the restoration occurs in a manner that would, final acceptance, sorry, I'm really stumbling over that one today. Okay, and with that, I will take any questions. Great. Thanks, Kristy. Any questions? Commissioner Beck. You knew there would be a question from Commissioner Beck for Kristy. Kristy knows it at this point. I actually want to first lead off and say that you can tell that Kristy and the engineers have done a lot of work for a property that seems like it's on the edge of development. You can see that a lot of work went into that. So I want to applaud both the staff and the engineers just by lead in. I had sort of more of an education question for Kristy, and that is for these drainages, the western boundary drainage that's no longer riparian, the two channelized things. I mean, it's not like the elevations have gone away. They're just not classified as ESAs and riparian and upland drainages anymore. But stormwater is still going to run into that. Because it's such that we're fairly confident that you won't be asking too much of this little ESA to absorb all that runoff and that we're not really going to flood the warehouse or we're not going to flood the gas well across the street when it backs up. I guess I see a lot of work going in. I'm just kind of asking for clarification that we don't expect stormwater issues on this. So I think I understand your question. You're asking once they complete the construction of the storm drainage outfalls, that the channel that is receiving the stormwater wouldn't become scoured out and eroded? Is that what you're asking? Exactly. Yes, perfect. So in addition to this project, and I didn't highlight it in this plan, there is a zoning compliance plan currently under review and a civil plan under review. And in that project, those are exhibits that they are showing that they're going to add detention adjacent to the floodplain. So that detention will be receiving the stormwater actually from the warehouse. And then these outfalls are the outfall of the detention. And that will, the detention design will meet the criteria outlined in ISWM. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions for Kristi? All right, seeing none, we'll move to the next item is item 4C, Z20-0006A. This is Julie Wyatt's item. Julie, whenever you're ready. She's pulling it up. All right, I am pulling up my presentation. Here we go. Okay, so I, Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I am presenting Z20-0006A. Z20-0006A, BCCC to you this evening. So the request is for a rezoning for the subject property from Light Industrial District to Heavy Industrial District. The subject property kind of has an irregular boundary. It is outlined here in yellow. It is adjacent to I-35W, just west of that, and south of Airport Road. A portion of the property is used for parking for tractor trailers. The remainder is undeveloped. The surrounding land uses include warehouses, some distribution, commercial uses, some freight uses, Light Industrial, as well as some athletic facilities to the east of the subject property. And the purpose is to facilitate the development of a high-impact manufacturing use that they would like to locate a concrete crushing facility on the site that does require approval of a specific use permit if the zoning change is approved. So that specific use permit would be coming back to you. All right, so first I want to look at the current zoning map versus the proposed zoning map. So as you can see, this is the existing zoning right here. We've got the LI in the light blue and the HI in the purple. You can see by that red line there, there really is a kind of a boundary from where you see HI to the west of the subject property, and then LI as you get closer to the I-35 corridor. So there's kind of that demarcation there. There is one exception to that. There's some HI zoning to the south of the subject property. That was actually a zoning case that was approved in 2005 for a light manufacturing distribution and office use. At that time, distribution was not permitted in that, in the lower zoning designation. All of those uses now are permitted in the LI district, however. If the zoning is approved, it would extend the HI district into that LI area and connect it to that I-35 corridor. The criteria for approval for zoning cases, there's general and specific. I won't read these to you, but we'll touch on them as we talk through the project. First thing we always look at is the Denton Plan 2030, and I want to take a moment to talk about the future land use map and the future land use designation here. So the subject property has an industrial commerce, future land use designation. Those predominant uses include both light and heavy industrial activities. And as part of that development criteria, the Denton Plan 2030 discusses that future development should avoid sensitive land uses and ensure appropriate transitions. And when we look at future land use designations from just a broad standpoint, I tend to think of them as an umbrella. That they are kind of an overarching policy, but that several zoning districts could fit underneath that umbrella. And that's where you look at things like the context of a specific site, including things like access, adjacent uses, physical characteristics, and other factors. And there you can get that more fine-grain analysis of the land use. And so when we take a little bit closer look at the subject property, I've brought in the zoning that's kind of underneath that future land use umbrella. So kind of got the same area, that industrial commerce area, and you can see the variety of zoning districts within that. Typically, in this future land use designation, we see HI and LI. Those are most closely associated with it. For those LI district, that's where those sites that are highly visible and that are surrounded by lower impact development, things that are encouraged, warehousing distribution and light manufacturing. So you can see along that 35 corridor, that's where you get your LI zoning, as well as along university. You've got some sensitive land uses along university, Highway 380. There's residential just to the north of there. So that's where that LI and even you have GO in some areas. So that's where you get that fine-grain analysis and land use. And then areas that are buffered from the less intense uses and then are set back from those primary roadways, that's where the HI district comes in. And that does include that higher impact manufacturing use. So that's where you see that purple come in. It's set off of that highway corridor, but it still has that access along our arterials within that industrial sector. It is staff's analysis that HI district does not meet the intent of the future land use designation in this situation, as it doesn't avoid those sensitive land uses and ensure those appropriate transitions. That visibility from the I-35 corridor, that primary corridor and that proximity to other uses that the athletic facilities and those commercial uses along the 35 corridor indicate that HI just really isn't appropriate in this area. And that the existing zoning of LI would still allow for that variety of lower intensity industrial uses. It would meet the intent of the future land use designation, but it would take that context into consideration. Next, minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property. There's a lot of words on this, so I'm going to try to break this out. So first I want to talk about just the history of this area. Then we'll talk about what's current. So I don't know exactly the date when the I-35W corridor was constructed, but it was sometime after 1972. And after that, those warehouse and light industrial facilities began to develop incrementally along that highway corridor. In the last 10 years, the UNT has relocated those athletic facilities near the subject property just south of where they used to be. And then there are also large distribution centers that have developed along Airport Road. And so the character has shifted from industrial periphery on the edge of town to a mixed use distribution hub along this primary corridor within the city. As the area continues to develop, we anticipate that the zoning and uses will correspond to the existing LI zoning and that generally light industrial and distribution uses would develop along the I-35 corridor with those heavier industrial uses toward the west, kind of really consistent with that current zoning pattern. HI district permits a lot of uses that are more intense than the current zoning, and those could create impacts for those adjacent properties. And so we need to think about the sensitivity to those adjacent properties as we're expanding the permitted uses. And so that surrounding development as it's evolving on that existing zoning pattern, that adjacency to I-35 once again indicate that HI just really isn't appropriate in this area and that LI district should remain in place. Significant changes to warrant a zoning change, we really aren't seeing any significant changes that would warrant the zoning change to HI. Just to kind of let you see how the area has evolved, I always like to look at the historical maps. You can see 1972, that corridor was recently there. It started then developing in '84 and then continued to develop and then you see how it is today. There is adequate access to this property from the I-35 corridor, and the applicant did provide a trip generation analysis. They anticipate that based upon their other locations, that the use would generate about 1700 loads of material per week, and the site can connect to existing water and sewer lines. Just to provide you some site photos, here is looking kind of at the subject property from I-35, from those travel lanes, looking west toward the subject property. Here's looking southwest toward the subject property and some of that existing development along I-35W. This is looking kind of from the travel lanes toward the east of the subject site. And then this is looking toward the northwest of the subject property. So that development that's along the southern end of the subject site. We did send out a notification for the request. We have received four letters in opposition. Three of those are within the 200 foot boundary of the request and then three in favor of the request. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends a denial of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions and the applicant will be available, has a presentation to speak this evening and will also be available for questions. Great. Thank you, Julie. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Julie, will you go back to the response map? You bet. Do you have a good day, Julie? I am. No, no one ever asks you staff whenever we're going to ask you if you're having a good day or not. It is a lovely day. Good. Glad to hear. Who were the positive responses on the northwest side there? This is from Philip Baker, who represents this property and this location as well as this property. And then we did receive a letter in favor from one of the current property owners and in the applicant, the concrete crushing is kind of the way I see it. And the opposition responses? The opposition, they are from adjacent property owners. Let me pull that up, sorry. From their adjacent property owner in this location, they work with Peterbilt and Peterbilt trucks are parked on their property in this location. Also have heard from property owners adjacent to the subject site in these locations and I can pull up their names if you'd like. All right, you're fine. The nothing from, I know it's on the other side of the university from UNT, but nothing, I'm guessing UNT probably wasn't even notified, but you probably didn't even get anything back. You hear anything from UNT at all about this? No, sir. Understood. Okay. I think that's all the questions I've got. Thank you. Any other questions for Julie? Great. Thank you very much, Julie. That moves us to our last item for the public hearing section, which is 4DS20-0008. And this is Karina Maldonado's item. All right. Let me pull this up. All right. Are we still afternoon or evening now? Good evening, Karina Maldonado, assistant planner. The presentation today is for a specific use permit for S20-0008. That is for legacy multifamily. The request today is to permit multifamily dwellings on approximately 16.106 acres. This is located in the R7 zoning district. Previous zoning action was last taken in 2012. This was part of an initial zoning request after annexation. The initial request was originally tied to a community mixed use general, which is still shown on the west side, as well as neighborhood residential mixed use 12 NRMU. It then transitioned in 2019 to R7. The request is for six three-story buildings, approximately 264 units. These would be one, two, and three-bedroom units. I did want to point out one error from the staff analysis, which is regarding parking spaces. They're actually proposing 519 parking spaces. That does include covered and uncovered. It's hard to point out, these are the buildings right here. And then parking, you can see in the shaded gray area. With that, include 28 bicycle spaces. Along with this proposal is the inclusion of some internal bicycle and pedestrian circulation. You can see that shown in green here. That is the internal bicycle circulation, which then connects down to the sidewalks that are along East McKinney Street. Along with this, I can't see it on my screen, but I believe you could see it. There's two entrances for this development. The one on the western end is a full access, in and out, both directions, a driveway. And then the driveway to the south is exit only. That's to help redistribute the traffic so that we can kind of ensure that there's no pile up during those traffic hours. And I did want to point out, there are sidewalks proposed that are, I'm sorry, currently under construction for the East McKinney Street widening project. That includes expansion of the roadway from a two lane to a four lane with a continuous turn lane, as well as improvements to water, sewer, storm water. And then most importantly, on the northern side of East McKinney Street will be a 12 foot mixed use path that would allow for both bike ped traffic. And then on the south side, adjacent to the property, would be just a six foot sidewalk. The proposed landscaping does exceed our minimum requirements for this zoning district. They are proposing 41% landscaped area and 47% tree canopy. This is actually based on the development impact area, which stays out of the flood plain and ESA that's located to the south of the site. I'll go back one slide really quickly. This is the flood plain that I forgot to mention. There is some riparian buffer, but again, they do intend to stay completely out of that area. They are proposing street trees along East McKinney, as well as some additional right of way screening along the driveway exits to just make sure that they're properly screening any visible parking, even though it is set back behind the building line. As well as a landscape median within their parking plan, as well as islands and end caps. So they did end up choosing multiple of our elements beyond what is required. They did also show, if you can see in red on here, this is a six foot masonry wall to buffer the proposed multifamily from what is currently under construction, the Texas Department of Safety new facility. They are also proposing perimeter fence for the development that will also serve to ensure that residents don't encroach into that sensitive area. In addition, they are exceeding the minimum for tree preservation, as well as providing significant amount of open space beyond the required 8%. That also includes passive and active recreation space. There is a large courtyard area between the buildings to the rear, resort style pools, picnic areas, as well as an outdoor grilling area and dog park for residents. Here's just briefly some concept elevations for this site. You can see that they're maintaining some earth tones for the proposed buildings. It's not quite shown on this slide, but they are maintaining the residential maximum height of 40 feet. So this is a property right here on the south side of McKinney. So the existing development surrounding this, as I mentioned, is the tex.dps facility, which is currently under construction. To the south we have, which is generally just flood plain, however, it is owned by the city. Residential does surround to the north, however, this is large lot residential. Most of the dwellings are set back significantly out of view and I believe beyond 500 feet from the right of way. You'll see here that these three parcels as well as some a little bit further to the east are undeveloped. We do have a development that is in review currently that will come to you later through public hearing. The properties to the north of McKinney, one is owned by the church, so we anticipate that that would remain a church use and that remaining vacant property is also zoned for residential. However, it does have that potential to move forward to this commercial areas and I'll speak to that in just a few slides. So there are general approval criteria for an SUP as well as specific criteria for an SUP. I won't go into every single one, but I will touch on a few high points that can also be found in the staff report. So first, of course, with all our presentations, we do want to highlight Denton Plan 2030. So this is the future land use plan for this site. This is primarily designated for community mixed use. As you can see, there is a large chunk of community mixed use in the surrounding area. So this does promote a mix of uses, mostly commercial, but where moderate and high density do support these commercial uses, it is seen as complementary. So it is consistent with the future land use designation as well as the corridor focus area. So along McKinney and Mayhill and then a little bit further west to Loop 288, this area is designated as what's called that corridor focus area within our future land use plan. Within that area, it's just looking at specific design standards to make sure that this corridor does develop commercially and consistent to a certain amount of standards. After reviewing this, this proposal does meet the intent of that goal. It does encourage the use of multimodal transportation with access to that multi-use path, providing amenities to bike ped as well as being adjacent to a transit facility, which is just 800 feet east of the site. The proposal does include some parking reductions for that transit proximity as well as increased landscaping, particularly along the right of way to make sure that we're maintaining that residential focus as well as orienting and making connections again to that public realm. And lastly, they do provide elements from table 4.1 regarding urban design principles and most of those design principles have been incorporated into the development code for this district as well as for multifamily design. Just briefly wanted to talk about the proposal and how it minimizes adverse environmental impacts. As I mentioned earlier, there is a significant area of floodplain as well as ESA to the south. This is totaling approximately two acres of the subject property. However, the applicant or the developer is proposing to remain entirely out of this area to ensure that tree preservation and both preservation of the sensitive area remains. Going back to the surrounding area and talking about how it's compatible or how the proposal is compatible with the surrounding use, the R7 district does support that compatibility between single family neighborhoods that we do see on the northern side of McKinney as well as higher intensity mixed use such as this multifamily development. As mentioned before, the existing residential is on larger property that appears to be kind of remnants of what was subdivisions by deed. These properties are also located significantly out of the right-of-way view. It's not an established subdivision per se, so while it is residential, there is no clear cut or defined residential character associated with that existing residential. The property is also adjacent to that commercial institutional use being adjacent to the Texas DPS facility as well as some city property to the north that I believe is being used for the expansion of McKinney. As I mentioned earlier, also the undeveloped property that remains is zoned R2. We also have R7 and MN to the east. Multifamily would also be permitted with an SUP and by right in the MN district. And then just briefly, the setbacks proposed by the development do stay within what is required for most residential districts, which is 10 feet. They're proposing 10 to 20 feet from the right-of-way as well as maintaining that maximum height of 40 feet. They're proposing about 37 feet. As I mentioned, the East McKinney Street widening project does expand the roadway from a two-lane to a four-lane. When this was developed, it did incorporate those high traffic uses, so it does accommodate the proposed traffic from this development. An increase of 1,436 daily trips would be generated from this development, but again, the roadway would be able to support it. Additionally, there is that 12-foot mixed use path as well as the sidewalk on the south side to help facilitate pedestrian traffic. And then the bus stop that is located 800 feet east of the site and is actually across the street from Ryan High School. A TIA was conducted for this development. The recommendations out of that TIA indicated that a right-turn diesel lane would be required, and the applicant has shown that on their site plan. They do have access to water and wastewater via an existing 16-inch line on the south side of East McKinney as well as an 8-inch wastewater line on the north side of McKinney. This will be evaluated further when they come in for platting and then permitting. They do have access to park space, which has yet to be developed by parks, but it is within the designated distance required by parks. Until that does develop, the development has proposed some on-site amenities, including that community pool, fitness center. There are large landscaped areas and gathering spaces that residents could use. And then, of course, park dedication fees and development fees will be assessed with the final plat. We did reach out to DISD regarding the high influx of students that would be generated with this proposal. They did indicate that they can accommodate this increase and do not see any concerns with the proposed development. Public notices were sent out to those within 200 and 500 feet. As of today, we did not receive any response. The applicant did not hold a neighborhood meeting, however, they did reach out individually to property owners, and I don't believe they had any negative requests received. The recommendations are for approval with some conditions. These are just administrative conditions, which allow staff to make minor administrative changes to landscaping, street trees, and various items on the landscape plan, as well as indicating the SUP, if approved on the zoning map, and any other administrative approvals within reason. And then finally, just making sure that the approval does incorporate the elements that are proposed on the site plan today, which includes 264 units, various gathering spaces and amenities, as well as parking, the two driveway accesses, and then the earth tone color palette building design. Again, this will be incorporated into the ordinance just to allow minor administrative changes less than 5%. And with that, I can take any questions that you might have. Thank you so much for the presentation. Any questions? Yes, Christian or Beck? Thank you. Can you go back to slide two and then I'll ask for slide three? So while you do that, I will lead off and say that I have no issues with the multifamily. I have no issues. I'm glad that the traffic impact analysis was done and the school district, all that is completed, but my issues will be clear on slide two. And that is, you know, it's actually just with that building five. It's not the multifamily, it's not the parks, it's not the dog park, everything about this property is good. I would support it. It is that Southwest building and the adjacent structures. And I'll try to point that out if it pops up. I apologize, it's something a little strange is happening here. Yeah. Let me try to reopen it. It doesn't want to cooperate right now. Okay. Well, and to give you time to do that, I will verbally say my issues. If we look at the flow of Pecan Creek, which is one of our major waterways in our town. Oh, awesome. So the satellite view. Yeah, that's perfect, and then we'll go to the next one in a second. So we can see that the future Pebble Something or other park is there to the west. And you know that, I mean, this is one of our major, you know, we have UNT projects all up and down Pecan Creek, it goes out to the lake. This is one of our major wildlife flora fauna corridors with sensitive nowhere else or limited in Texas, flora and fauna. It's adjacent, and I know it's May Hill, but it's still adjacent across to that park. And you can see that the flow is directly in this picture, left to right, east, west. It's right up against that building five's parking lot. I'm calling it five, whatever the building is to the southwest. So if these planners had included the four northern buildings and then adjusted, like what I'm calling building six to the southeast, and made that sort of where it is now or a little north, I would have no problem, I'd be happily voting for this as a way of extending density in this corridor. But this property right there, those elevations are such that you're, I mean, you can even see it in the plans. They're having to put a masonry wall, yes, thank you for, that's exactly, they're having to put that masonry wall to the north or to the west, in this picture to the top. They're building directly on top of the floodplain, whatever those are, I can't see what those accessory structures are. Is that parking? - Sorry, I'm not- - Along the northwest? And so if they had simply taken those two red buildings and rotated one up and made it sort of more northern, I mean, I would be just voting all over the place for this. But I mean, that flow is from the top of the screen down into that building, and it's just going to continue to erode out. You can even see if you flip back one page to the flood map, look at the rest of the creek bed, you can see it's oxbowing right now to the southwest. It's going, it wants to rejoin the other creek drainages in the future by poly and whatnot. So I mean, it's going to continue to move eastward into this property. And it's just foolish to think that there won't be any impacts financially or environmentally of that southwest building. So I just really wish the developers had taken that one building and rotated it around, and I'd be all over voting for this. But this is going to be problematic and impactful. And I could sit here and cite the rules like we want to do, but I mean, I think you know. So I just, this is going to be, this is that one building, and you can see that the fact that they're putting in fencing and masonry walls, it's not like the DPS building to the west. But you know, that is north of the east-west blow. That is also a government facility, so if there's issues, the government can control it. All right, this is going to be private property where it's going to impact our public lands that are owned by everyone, with sensitive species in this adjacent region, as well as downstream towards the lake. But in this region, there are sensitive species. And so I, this is, it's so unfortunate because I would absolutely have voted for this if that one building was moved. So I know there wasn't a question in there, I know it was more of comment, but I do want to provide some clarification related to the drainage. So part of this request, before going to public hearing, they are required to do what's considered a downstream assessment that evaluates how their, if they are not going to detain their flow of stormwater, how it's going to impact, I believe, the floodplain. So they did submit that study and they did receive review from our engineers and receive approval of that. Another component related to the drainage is, I mean, you probably know this way better than I do, but the FEMA floodplain often changes every so often. And so we do have what is called, I believe it's part of that downstream assessment where they evaluate the boundary of the floodplain. And I believe that was done with this study. Again, like you said, it might change later, but I did want to point out that that was something that was reviewed by staff during the process. And then to address your comment about the orientation of the building, the applicant will be available during the regular session after my presentation. They do not have a presentation available, but they will be available to answer any concerns or questions that you have directly related to them. I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions for Karina? Great. Seeing none, that takes us to the end of our work session agenda. I will close the work session at 6.11. We'll meet back here at 6.30 to start the regular meeting. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning regular meeting for April 7th, 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 6.32. The first item of our agenda this evening is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. If fellow commissioners would like to join me, you can certainly unmute yourself. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one and indivisible. The next item of business is the consideration of our minutes from March 17th, 2021. Commissioner Ellis? Move approval. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Coal? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is our individual consideration items, starting with 3A, PP21-0002. This is Corina Maldonado's presentation, and as soon as you're ready, the floor is yours. Okay, can you one second to pull this back up? I'm having the same issue as earlier. Okay, there you go. All right, good evening, everyone. This is a preliminary plat 21-0002. This is for the state school road estates. This previously came before you for a rezoning earlier this year. Staff is recommending denial of this preliminary plat request as it does not meet the established requirements outlined in Exhibit 2. The applicant, however, has requested an extension to the May 5th meeting, and staff is not opposed to this request. Thank you very much for the presentation. Any questions for Corina? Okay. Seeing none, I certainly hear a motion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to extend to the date certain of May 5th, 2020. We have a first for the 30-day extension to May 5th, 2021. Commissioner Beck? I second that. So, we have a first and a second for the approval for the 30-day extension to a date certain of May 5th. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item for business is Item 3B, PP21-0003. I'll invite Mark Laird for presentation. Mark's on, I believe he's muted. Good evening, this is Mark Laird, I'm a planner with the development service department. Before you have the plenary plait of Giesling and 380 Industrial Edition. This development is generally located on the east and west lines of Giesling Road, being south of U.S. 380, also known as University Drive. This development is within the City of Ditton, I stand for any questions or comments you may have. Great. Thanks, Mark. Any questions on this presentation? Seeing none, the chair will certainly entertain a motion on the item. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item for business is item 3C, FP21-0007 and Julie Wyatt here to present. Evening. Let me share the screen. All right. This is FP21-0007. Finally in your packet, it had a recommendation of denial. They were making some corrections to the HOA documents requested by legal. They have since made those corrections. So although they are requesting an extension tonight, they have satisfied all of the requirements and so staff recommends approval of the request. It's for a single family development, it's phase two of a planned development and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thanks, Julie. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for discussion. Commissioner Beck? So just a procedural, thank you, Chair, just a procedural question, are we, what is the chair asking us to proceed on? The application, the extension, what are we being asked to make a motion on? Julie, can you clarify, this is recommended for approval, correct? Yes, sir. It is a recommendation for approval. So the applicants need to retract their request for extension? Julie or Richard, do you have any insight? I don't know. I don't know. And maybe Matt can add, but I don't even know that since we're recommending approval, I don't even know that it's really... Is it not germane? Yeah, it's really not relevant. So we are being asked to make a motion on their original application. Correct. Okay. Commissioner Smith. The motion to approve. Thank you. There's a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson? I second. We have a first and a second for approval of the application. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote, be a roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Young? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries seven, zero. The next item of business is item 3D, PP21-0004. This is also Julie's item. All right, let me share my screen. All right, so this is PP21-0004. The subject property is within the city's ETJ. It is outside of the city boundary. They still have some comments that they need to work through. And so staff recommends denial of the request. But they have requested an extension, and that would be to the May 5th Planning and Zoning Commission. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Julie on this item? Seeing none, Chair will entertain discussion or motion. Commissioner Ellis? I move approval of the requested extension to a date certain of May 5th. Great. We have a first for the extension. Commissioner Anderson? I second the motion. We have a first and a second for the approval of the 30-day extension going to the May 5th meeting. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call. Commissioner Ellis? I. Commissioner Smith? I. Commissioner Beck? I. Commissioner Anderson? I. Commissioner Cole? I. Commissioner Pernetta? I. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The last item of our individual consideration items is item 3E FP21-0009, and this is Carina Maldonado's item. All right. Am I on the right slide? Here we go. Now you are. All right. So this is a request for a final plat. This is FP21-0009. This is for Phase 6 of the North Point Addition. This is located just south of Loop 288. Staff is recommending denial of this request as it still has not met all criteria. However, the applicant has requested an extension to the May 5th, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and staff is not opposed to this request. With that, I can take any questions. Great. Any questions for Carina? Commissioner Pernetta? You're taking a motion? Absolutely. Motion to postpone to the May 5th. Great. Commissioner Cole with the first? Second. We have a first and a second for an approval of the 30-day extension to a date certain of May 5th. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair, there's also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next items for business will begin our public hearing. The first one is 4AMP21-0007. I'll invite Haley Zygirsky for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening. All right, the plot before you tonight is a residential replant for a single lot within the Lakeview Ranch subdivision. The property, as you can see here on the screen, is a lot 35, block 9. The purpose of the replant is relocating the building line, which you can see in this location that was originally plotted at 40 feet to a location that would be 20 feet off the property line, which is consistent with the current zoning. The previous 40-foot building line was a zoning requirement at the time of original plotting of the Lakeview Ranch addition, but since 2002 that zoning setback has been set to 20 feet. Because of the residential zoning designation for the property, the local government code offers two options for approval of those plots. The plot can either be approved and then notices could be sent to properties within a 200-foot radius after the approval, or a public hearing can be held with notification in advance of the hearing. Because of neighborhood concerns that we heard before this application was even made, staff did opt for the public hearing option for greater transparency and to give the neighbors a notice of what was happening. So, 10 notices were sent for this request and to date we have received no written responses to those. So, with that, I will pull down the presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Do we have any questions for Haley? And just to verify from staff, is there any applicant presentations or callers for this item? I believe the applicant is on the line, but they do not have a separate presentation. Okay. Great. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and ask commissioners for a motion and then discussion. Commissioner Anderson? I'll make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval and Commissioner Pernetta? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, Haley, for the presentation. The next item for business is item 4B, AESA 21-0001A. I'll invite Christy Upton for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening. I'm Christy Upton and I will be presenting alternative ESA plan for an Exeter Martina property. This site is located at the Western Boulevard and Jim Crystal Road and it's 104 acres that will be developed into warehousing. There is a preliminary plat that was approved on January 6th and two project reviews under review right now. The request is temporarily disturbed, 0.4 acres of riparian buffer ESA. The riparian buffer was confirmed to exist on a tributary of Dry Fork of Hickory Creek along the southwest corner of the property. The riparian buffer is located on an ephemeral stream that was rated in fair condition and a remnant stream that is along that ephemeral stream and also in fair condition. There are two upstream systems traversing the property that had been previously channelized and does not support riparian vegetation. The area that the riparian buffers are located also is considered to be undeveloped floodplain. The disturbance is for the 0.4 acres of riparian buffer and that is to construct two stormwater outfall structures that will support the warehouse development. Just want to bring to your attention that the applicant is proposing 0.5 acres of disturbance of undeveloped floodplain which is permitted under the code for the placement of utilities in that undeveloped floodplain. The restoration activity will be to revegetate both the undeveloped floodplain and the riparian buffer areas with a mix of native seeds adapted to drain fields and a riparian mix that will promote the recovery of this riparian vegetation. Notifications were made and a neighborhood meeting was held on March 4th and one written response was received in favor of the project. The staff is recommending approval with the following conditions that first of all the land disturbance be limited to the areas described in the plan and then within 14 days of construction of the infrastructure that the vegetation be applied as described in the plan and number 3 and number 4 staff is recommending for the insurance of that vegetation to get a chance to get established. With that. Great, thank you for the presentation Kristi. Is there any questions for Kristi? Okay, and just to verify staff is, Commissioner Beck do you have a question? Okay. Just to verify staff is do you know if the applicant is has a presentation or is available? They have not shared that they had a presentation to make but I do believe that they are on the line if there's any questions for the applicant tonight. Great, is there any public comment for this? Is there any questions for the applicant before I close the public hearing? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and ask for a motion and then we can go to discussion. Commissioner Beck. Yeah, I before I make my motion I just want to say what I said in work session that I think the staff and the engineers did a lot of work and I think that shows and it's a lot of work on an actually relatively small piece of property but I appreciate their diligence trying to sustain green space in Denton, that's awesome. So with that I'd like to make a motion to approve with staff conditions. Yeah. Okay, we have a first for approval, Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval with conditions, any discussion? Seeing none. Call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye, motion carries 7-0. That brings us to our next item for business which is item 4CZ20-0006A, this is Julie Wyatt's item and I will open the public session, public hearing. Good evening, let me pull up my presentation. Okay, this is Z20-0006A, BCCC. The request before you is to consider rezoning from light industrial district to heavy industrial district. The subject property is outlined there in yellow. It is on the west side of the I-35W service road and south of airport road. It has an irregular property boundary. Currently the site is being used for parking, but the applicant is requesting the zoning change to facilitate the redevelopment of the site for a high impact manufacturing uses for a concrete crushing facility. That use would also require approval of a specific use permit. So if the zoning change is approved, then you would see that specific use permit coming forward. Briefly I just want to compare the current zoning map with the proposed. So as you can see, the current zoning map shows the subject property with the LI zoning which is consistent with the adjacent properties. I've put a line here that runs north south parallel to that I-35 corridor and that really shows where that line of demarcation between HI district and LI district. Except for one area to the south, that area transitioned from ICG district which was under our 2002 Denton Development Code. That site was approved for a light manufacturing distribution and office use, but I just wanted to note all of those uses are actually permitted in LI district. So generally you can see that HI district is set back from that highway corridor. If approved, that HI district would expand the HI toward that I-35 corridor introducing kind of a new zoning pattern within this area. So the criteria for approval are in subchapter two of the Denton Development Code. First we look at Denton Plan 2030. I want to take a moment to talk about the future land use designation and then future land use designations in general. So in this instance, it is considered industrial commerce, it is that dark purple area. And this is intended for both light and heavy industrial uses, but future development should be sensitive to avoid sensitive land uses and also to ensure appropriate transitions. And the way I like to look at the future land use designation is it is an umbrella. It is that policy directive umbrella. Several zoning districts could fit underneath that umbrella. And that's where we talk about things like context, those areas of access, adjacent uses, physical characteristics and other items. So that's where we look at what specific zoning district would fit underneath that umbrella. So more specifically related to the site, I wanted to show what that zoning pattern looks like within that overall industrial commerce, future land use designation. So typically industrial commerce, it supports HI and LI districts. But then when you look at that more fine grain detail, those sites that are highly visible, maybe they're surrounded by lower impact development, ILY district would be more appropriate in that context. It would encourage still industrial uses like warehousing, distribution and light manufacturing. But it doesn't have the intensity of the uses that HI does. Areas that are buffered from those less intense uses and they're set back off of primary roadways, those are more appropriate for that HI district and that's where you see that demarcation come in. You've got that dark purple, that's that HI, it's set off from 380 and I-35 and really has that LI buffer between those areas. It is staff's analysis that HI district does not meet the intent of the future land use designations criterion to avoid sensitive land uses and ensure appropriate transitions. And it really is given that visibility to the I-35 corridor, the proximity to adjacent uses like the University of North Texas athletic facilities across the highway and also those surrounding land uses, those light industrial uses adjacent to the subject property. And we really feel that that existing zoning of LI district permits, still permits those industrial uses, those types of uses that we want to see in industrial commerce. But it just ensures that compatibility in terms of those uses. So we really, we're relying on the wisdom of that existing zoning. Now I want to talk about adverse impacts or impacts to the surrounding property. One criterion for approval is that those, a rezoning should minimize those adverse impacts and I know there's a lot of words on this slide so I'll try to break it down in terms of first, historically how this area has evolved and then we'll get to the subject request. So I misspoke in the work session, the I-35W corridor was actually constructed prior to 1972. I don't know the exact date, but it was prior to 1972. And with the advent of that road, this area started to develop with warehouse and light industrial facilities. In recent years, UNT has relocated their athletic facilities near this subject property south of the campus area. And there have been other developments, distribution centers along Airport Road and other commercial developments along the 35. So it really has kind of shifted the character of the area from this industrial periphery from the 1970s when it was kind of out on the edge of Denton. And now it's kind of this mixed use distribution hub. It's got that industrial uses, but it has a mix of uses. As this area continues to develop, we anticipate it will develop consistent with that existing zoning and use pattern. With those light industrial and distribution uses along that I-35 corridor and those heavier industrial uses toward the west, HI does permit uses, higher impact uses, which could affect adjacent properties. And given how this area has evolved, the existing zoning pattern, that adjacency to that primary corridor within the city, that indicates that HI is just not appropriate in this area. There could be negative impacts created with some of those more intense uses in HI. And so once again, therefore, that existing LI district really is appropriate in this area. Have there been any significant changes in the area to warrant the zoning change? There haven't been any significant changes to warrant a zoning change to a heavier industrial zoning designation. And once again, that development has been incremental. You can see that kind of the way the area has developed from 1972 to today. And it is consistent with that existing LI district. Public facilities, there is adequate access to the I-35 corridor. The applicant did provide trip generation, and based upon their other sites, and they anticipate that this site would generate about 1,700 loads of materials per week. And they would be able to connect to existing water and sewer facilities. We do have some site photos just kind of showing the general area. The site, the photo to the north is looking west from the travel lanes of I-35W. The photo to the south is looking southwest toward the site in those adjacent uses. This next photo is looking across the highway from the travel lanes of I-35W. And then this final photo is just showing the adjacent development to the south of the subject property. So this is looking northwest. I do want to make one correction. I heard from our GIS department after work session, and given the opposition letters, the written opposition that staff has received, we have received 48% opposition to the request. So it will require a supermajority at council to approve the request. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff does recommend denial of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here with the presentation as well. Great. Thanks, Julie. Any questions for Julie? Okay. Then I think at this time, we can go ahead and listen to the applicant's presentation. Good evening, Commission. This is Amy Bissett. Can you hear me? We can. All right. Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton, Texas, 76201. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about this project tonight. I want to say, first of all, that I'm going to speak for a few minutes, and then I'm going to turn it over to a representative from Big City Crush Concrete. But as Julie pulls up the presentation, I want to start by just acknowledging that this is a tough one for me, because I really don't like bringing a project to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a recommendation of denial from staff. Our application was submitted close to a year ago now, and we have worked diligently to try to arrive at a place with the staff that they would feel comfortable recommending approval, and Julie and Richard have both been very helpful through that process. But as you know, obviously, they're recommending denial. I took this case because I believe that there is clear policy direction from the city council that this is a vital use that is necessary for the city of Denton, as well as its citizens. And I believed that the specific use permit process would allow us the opportunity to address and mitigate for any nuisance issues or adverse impacts. Additionally, my client, Big City Crush Concrete, bought this property in response to the same perceived policy direction from city council, which I will briefly touch on just so that you have the background of how this project came about. But before I move on and dive in, I want to ask you to think about the question, if not here, then where? And the reason that I ask you to think about that question is because if your recommendation is denial, it would be much appreciated from the commission to receive some direction about where you think the use would be appropriate. Julie, would you go to slide two, please? I want to introduce you to our client. Big City Crush Concrete is a family-owned and operated business that has been around for 30 years. They have multiple locations in DFW and around Texas. They have been a preferred contractor for the city of Denton's recycling program for the last 10 years, since 2010. They've been an essential part of the city's building material recovery program. And they have been an essential component to the street reconstruction projects that are taking place all over the city today, as you know, in a very aggressive manner to improve the street conditions in Denton. They actually operated this exact type of concrete crushing or recycling facility on the city of Denton landfill property from 2010 to 2019. There's an error in the slide, it actually was discontinued in 2019. In 2018, the city council commissioned a study by Blue Ridge Solutions to take a comprehensive look at the solid waste programs that were being offered by the city of Denton. And the concrete recycling was a component of those programs that were being offered on site on the landfill. One of the recommendations that came out of that study was that they believed that the service was essential to the city and the citizens, but that it could be handled by the market and by private entities and that it was not necessary for the landfill to subsidize the cost of those operations. And so in response to that, BCCC decommissioned their landfill operation and purchased the site that you're contemplating today. I want to talk to you for a moment about, you know, what is this operation? What does it do? The slide that you're looking at, hopefully, which is slide two, shows a panoramic view of their Lewisville plant that is in operation today. It's a very flat site, you really don't see a lot of visually intrusive structures or stockpiles on site, but basically, you know, just to talk through what this would look like in the city of Denton, the city of Denton Street construction crew would go out and rip all the concrete out of Hickory Street as they're currently doing right now in that reconstruction process. They would take it to the big city plant where that old concrete that's been pulled out of road would be crushed and recycled into road base that then the street crew would pick up and use to create the new Hickory Street. It is truly a recycling operation that is intended to prevent the disposal of concrete in the city of Denton landfill. Why does that matter? Julie, if you'll go to slide three, please. I just want to talk a little bit briefly about concrete waste as a whole in the solid waste industry, according to the construction and demolition recycling association, construction and demolition waste makes up 25% of all solid waste generated nationally and concrete makes up 75% of that waste. The city of Denton solid waste department recognized years ago that this was an important part of landfill diversion and have for many years been an international leader in recycling and landfill diversion and so they implemented that program as a part of their landfill services at that time. Furthermore, it aligns with the city streets department program for street maintenance and reconstruction and the city's environmental services program. The use of road base made by big city is an important component in qualifying for lead certified building programs. Furthermore, this particular type of operation does align with the city council's priorities that were adopted on February 23rd of this year, one of which is to develop a comprehensive solid waste management strategy and the last bullet point of slide three to create a robust construction building and operational environment that support solid waste reduction goals. There is no bigger impact to reduction of construction waste than concrete recycling. Julie, will you go to slide four, please? She's reviewed your zoning request. Our zoning request, I'm not going to review it again. However, I do want to speak to a couple of specific concerns that we have heard through the review process with the city over the last 10 or 11 months. The first one being the encroachment of HI zoning towards 35W. I think that we would all say that we agree completely that has the potential for setting a precedent for surrounding land uses to request the same encroachment of HI zoning and I'll go into that a little bit further in a moment. We've heard concerns from the city about noise nuisances and also how it would affect the long term view corridor of I-35. Slide five, please. Hopefully you're looking at our latest version of our concept plan right now. I want to point out a couple of things. In our last submission, we located the crushing operation entirely on the parcel that is HI zoning today. The crushing operation is highlighted in green on the concept plan and is contained entirely within the HI zoning designation. The pinkish purple area that surrounds that, which is the property that is considered for rezoning today, would essentially be the operating yard for truck maneuvering and parking and the operation itself would be entirely contained on HI. We did have discussions with the city about the possibility of not rezoning this property from LI to HI and only requesting the SUP on HI on the parcel that's already HI today and we also had discussions with the city about creating a PD on this whole site in order to ensure that we didn't establish a pattern of HI encroachment towards I-35W. I also want to point out here that the crusher itself, which is highlighted in green on the concept plan, is 1,267 feet from the right of way. Julie, slide 60, also in an effort to work with the city on trying to get a specific use permit that was supportable, conducted extensive decibel testing at both the landfill site while it was still in operation, the concrete crusher that was out there, and then the new site on I-35W. If you look on the left side of your screen, we took decibel testing at multiple places around the crushing plant and the two closest sites at 190 feet and 285 feet, ranged in decibel levels from 65 to 67.3. On the right-hand side, we did decibel testing at the I-35 site today in its current condition with no crushing operation and the frontage road, the two sites along the frontage road tested at 67.6 to 70.3 decibels. Bottom line is the highway's noise is louder than the equipment would be. Slide seven, please, Julie. We also commissioned 3D renderings to scale to try to demonstrate what it would actually look from the I-35 corridor. This first one is a bird's-eye view, so this is not if you were actually driving along on 35W, but this is to provide some perspective here. The stockpiles would be the highest point, the tallest point on the project, and they would be kept at 45 feet tall. This also gives you the perspective of the distance from the right-of-way in terms of what you would see. Then last slide, Julie, please, this is the actual view from 35W where you could see some rock piles in the distance, but the primary visual impact here would be mostly trees and a screening fence. With that, I would like to introduce Trey Brown with Big City Crush Concrete to speak and provide a little more perspective on their relationship with the city and their intention going forward. Trey, if you'll hit star six, you'll unmute yourself. And just to check in, we're at 11 minutes, and so there's nine more minutes on the clock for this presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Thanks for your attention to our case. I'm Trey Brown, an owner of Big City Crush Concrete, 11143 Goodnight Lane, Dallas 75229. Big City Crush Concrete is a family-owned and operated recycling company. We only recycle concrete. Why is a concrete recycling business necessary? Because concrete is generated in Denton by public works projects, infrastructure improvement projects, private revitalization. Concrete is removed every day in the city. Where does it go? It must go to a landfill to be dumped and buried at a substantial fee. It's often illegally dumped, creating future environmental issues. Or it can be delivered to an easily accessible municipal recycling facility for processing. Contractor cities and the public are encouraged to properly dispose at the nearby recycling facility at no cost, and therefore all illegal dumping is eliminated. Restated, disposal is free. What we do is make big rocks into small rocks. The process is highly regulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. This is the agency that established the criteria and provides the enforcement for our health and welfare. They will only consider compliant operators such as us to be located appropriately and safely at sites such as this. We meet 100% of the state's criteria relating to setback distances, air modeling, emissions, and taking into consideration the adjacent businesses and topographical items, this site is qualified and appropriate. Why then this site and why now? We operated at the outstanding city recycling facility for the benefit of the city of our own of Denton from 2010 to 2019. Denton had a flagship operation, but the city's focus changed and most recycling operations ceased. Denton hired the best consultants to examine what the future might look like and devise a plan. Blue Ridge consultants told your city management that concrete recycling would be solved in the public sector. Big City attempted a lease with the city at the landfill, but that lost traction. Denton is a demanding city. We are a compliant operator. The city has set high standards and with this site plan, we will achieve these standards. Remember, we operated for the city in the city at the landfill with access being off of the unimproved Mayfield road entrance to the landfill and no one knew we were there for over eight years. We listened to what your consultant said and we were already moving forward. We found two tracks, including the razor tracks. These offered an oversized facility with a portion already zoned HI. The adjacent businesses include two concrete batch plants, manufacturing, industrial warehousing and transportation related manufacturing. Please note the land for operations is already zoned HI. We're only asking to grant access to the service road. Access is directly off 535 service road so that no neighborhoods or other city streets are utilized. The tracks are hidden behind existing warehouses and take advantage of the falling elevation down to our other neighbors, which are floodplain, agriculture and pasture grazing of cattle. Most importantly, the site meets the stringent TCEQ standards with no affected residences, churches or schools within range of this site. This location offers the city and all of its current and future projects to recycle the pavements generated in the city by the city and for the city right here in the city. You ask what happens to the rock? It goes right back into our city for new roads and projects at a hugely reduced cost. We assist in promoting infrastructure improvements. This site caters to Denton's needs, we are not here to satisfy Lewisville or Fort Worth or Dallas. They already have concrete recycling facilities owned and operated by big city crushed concrete. The waste material concrete is converted and used right back in your neighborhoods at a local facility, not like aluminum, plastic or glass, which are simply handled locally and processed abroad. This saves big dollars. Not a single extra mile of transport cost or emissions is generated. In fact, every time the facility would be used would reduce mileage and emissions in your city. If you support this application, you support reduced truck traffic, you support cleaner air, you support reduced congestion, you support lower cost infrastructure improvements. You support your public works department, your street and water departments, you support your local budgets and getting more bang for your buck. Your support for this application supports the ideas of your highly paid and knowledgeable city consultants who said the right operator will locate in your city to recycle concrete that the city generates to be reused within your city at a substantial environmental and budgetary savings. And all this is accomplished at zero cost to your city and at zero added impact to your city. This must occur and the site is appropriate. Your city has already set the bar high with all the site requirements and the owners of big city crushed concrete are committed to making a flagship site for benefit of the city and its taxpayers. Support for this request is supporting for this support for recycling in your community and his support for the guidelines set forth for your city based upon the criteria described by blue ridge consultants all the way back in 2018. Three years later, the city has no recycling program. We must move forward and approval of this recycling plan would constitute that. Thank you. I'm available for questions. Appreciate that. Mr. Brown and Mrs. Bissett, is there any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Smith. I got a lot, so I'll get him out of here. First before I go to the applicant, I did have a question that came up from Julie during that. Julie, was there any, did we have any, I doubt it, but was this project or anything like that discussed with street maintenance or any of those departments about maybe the need for this type of site to be near or be in Denton, is that discussed at all with as many road improvements that we have coming up? It's been reviewed by engineering, but I have not discussed it with our CIP group to see what their needs will be upcoming for this type of material. That works. Thank you. Mr. Brown or Mrs. Bissett, either one of you guys can answer these, but are there other services like this already in town somewhere? Or were you guys the only business in town that was doing this type of recycling? This is Trey Brown. There are no authorized legal facilities in the city of Denton. The facility up the Mayfield landfill was the only one. So if there is no competition in town to be able to do this, I'm assuming that the most lucrative piece of having a site in Denton would be the contracts that we gain with the government agencies that are in Denton, right? So University of North Texas, TWA, State, and then obviously things to be done with the city of Denton. Would it be foreseen that business will be lost since there is no other competition in town if this site was not approved, would competition, would you lose contracts because you're not locally sourced or locally located? We currently do not maintain any contracts with the city of Denton. That was only under a public bid criteria when we operate at the landfill and the city used the finished product. The dilemma here is that accessibility is a key for efficiency relating to municipal projects, as well as all private projects. And we were contacted indeed by a street department saying, where is our alternative? And we suggested our nearest facility, which is Louisville, and a street department indicated that was just cost prohibitive to transport at that distance. That is why the proximity to the most major arterial roadway through Denton is appropriate. The other item that Ms. Wyatt had indicated was the fact that moving west is more appropriate. The dilemma there is that that moves, that option moves more traffic up and down major east-west arterial roadways, instead of putting it directly on the most major arterial roadway, which the city doesn't have to maintain, and the most appropriate for dump trucks and 18 wheelers. So, I guess, once again, back to that original question, then, if our CIP department said, you know, that's cost prohibitive, and maybe this is more of a Julie question, or any from the city staff, where would we take this concrete then? We know we're ripping up roads, where, maybe just from a legislative standpoint, enlighten me, where does that concrete go then, if we don't have a service like this in town? The only thing I would add is most of that work is done through a contractor, so whatever contract obligations are included, that's where they would dispose it. I don't know that, and again, I'm not involved in those contracts, but I don't know that we stipulate where it must go, or how far, or limitations on where they can take what's removed. But it could possibly make it to where they, an increase on bids to have to, if we are tearing out roads, to say, well, as a contractor, yes, I'm putting in for bulk bidder because the closest concrete crushing site where we can dispose of this is back to our own plants or somewhere else that it could possibly increase the cost of the contracts that we have moving forward for CIP projects. And that I'm not, I couldn't say yes, yes or no. If it's okay, Trey Brown, if I might comment, the situation is that we're not building or constructing a facility for benefit of any individual projects that are current or future. It's kind of like field of dreams. We actually have to have the confidence to establish a facility based on the criteria we've experienced for 32 years and have it and introduce the opportunity. The proper opportunities will drive the candidacy of this being the proper disposal facility, as well as the proper avenue to reintroduce the aggregate back in the marketplace at the most efficient cost. The reduced transport, times, congestions, mean reduced costs to your community. Yeah, of course. And that's actually not the direction I'm heading there, Mr. Brown. I'm more just looking at it from, you know, is having a, I know there's a recommendation for denial on this, but is there possibly a cost to the city that that's not being seen here that with no guarantee or promise whatsoever that any private entity would automatically get a contract to a, to, you know, to do some sort of business just because they located it then. But more of if, if we know we have a need, we have waste that needs to be disposed of, is that increasing costs because there isn't a facility closer that the contractor or whoever it is tearing up the concrete has to move into the maybe you answered the noise question for me. So thank you. And this might be an Amy or Mr. Brown question, the 45 feet that you said that that capped on the piles, where does that come from? Is that an industry standard? Is that something that OSHA recommends? Is that, is that something that would be requested in the SUP? Where does that 45 feet number come from? Go ahead and try, yeah, I mean, yeah, that is the TCEQ generated standard based on environmental modeling all across the state. And that is the traditional height that is prescribed. There are provisions to go higher as facilities may be necessary. We would never request anything here in regards to exceeding the existing standards. 45 feet is what we would be. So I'm guessing the TCEQ, they are the ones who check that and that's just, or is that just a recommendation? The city of Denton does not have its own environmental program to monitor air. So it is all authorized through Austin and TCEQ and all administration and inspections are provided by TCEQ Region 4 right here in Fort Worth. Julie, if there was, if this site was to be approved and there, so there would be, it would be forced to have an SUP on this, correct? Correct, yes. Is it, is it something in the SUP where the pile height can be capped or we can codify it in there, the pile heights capped? Yes. In their SUP, I believe their pile height is 60 feet, but I may be misquoting here, but it, that can be limited with the SUP. Thank you. How much public dumping is done now at other, other sites through BCC? Trey Brown. It's a vast array and it absolutely includes everything from the family with the Volkswagen station wagon and, or a Volvo station wagon, a five gallon bucket of mortar from around their flower garden to, to church parking lots being revitalized to text out roadways. We receive one of the, whatever's recyclable and available to us. And then the, the city directed you to look elsewhere. Obviously after the lease fell through with the, with the landfill. Was there any discussion in this, I don't know when, when 97 land company and this were, were involved with you guys on this property, if it wasn't until the zoning, but had any discussion happen with the city in regards to this location? Then regarding this specific location immediately upon the closure of the recycling, the majority of the recycling operations at the city landfill, we had already approached the city through previous solid waste management about leasing space at Mayfield. And then there was a big shakeup and that it was determined that Blue Ridge's advice to go to a private opportunity would be the most appropriate. Okay. Site specific, not questioned. We use the criteria for 32 years of operation and 10 other facilities to find accessibility, reduce visibility and similar type neighbors. Okay. And the last question, and then I'll, I swear I'll really push forward by the commissioners. The, the, on the site location, as you guys did in your presentation, you had the piles and most of the operations happening in the back of the property, the far Western edge. Would it be where the parking lot is currently existing in that property? But would you guys demolish that that parking lot and put it there? This is Amy. This is so originally we had proposed for the crushing operation to be where the parking is today. But after multiple conversations with the city, we thought that it might be more appropriate to place it entirely within the area that's already zoned heavy industry. So we moved it a little bit further North, which is outside of the parking lot area today. Okay. So the parking lot areas stay there in existence, probably not utilized as it is now, but stay in existence. It would become a vehicle maneuvering area. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Commissioner Beck. Thank you. Could someone on staff remind me, I haven't looked at the regulations in a while on this kind of thing. If for, for the, for this parcel that's currently mixed heavy industrial and light industrial would, if the concrete plant could, could the, could the crushing plant be put on the heavy industrial section and then the use the, the associated use be allowed within light industrial for the non crushing operations or, or really these have to be treated in concert as one use. You are correct. The latter. Yes, sir. The latter. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, Mr. Brown and Ms. Bissett, thank you for, for being here. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. I have a question just for clarification on my end. The use that, this went out of focus, the use that they're proposing here is high impact manufacturing. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Cause as I look through this, I certainly get wrapped up in the use, but we're not actually voting on any uses today. We're voting on if we want it being HI or LI and surprisingly I was looking through sub chapter five of the code and LI and HI are very, very much alike. In fact, from what I can tell, the only additional permitted use with HI is medium manufacturing and RV park at least from what I can see, those are permitted uses. And then there's adult entertainment, high impact manufacturing, slaughterhouse, wind energy conversion systems and commercial incinerators that we would be opened up to potentially through an SUP process of the HI. And so I'm trying to think through and, and, and balance out if, if go into an HI and open this up to those, those items are the appropriate move for the city to make commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair yet to your point, I was looking and thinking the same thing that they are very similar. However, heavy industrial would certainly open up different parameters that these operations could, could function. Am I correct in that Richard and Julie? So they might be a similar use, but they could be intensified if it's heavy industrial, correct? Larger higher scale operation, correct? That's correct. There are some limitations given the proximity to the airport. So there are some height limitations that they would have as far as building wise. But it definitely could open up to much more intense uses. Right. Okay. Thank you. Slaughterhouse being one. Correct. Well, the public hearing is closed. Chair is happy to entertain, put in motion on a floor and, and us converse about that and getting to a vote. Anyone want to take a leap? Christian or back? Yeah, I'll take that leap, thank you, Chair. I don't, I don't think this, I don't think the, I think the fact that you're seeing hesitancy out of the board is, is the commission rather is, is not, is because we really are thinking about these issues and the appropriate use and, and what it opens us up to given the future land use. So I'm actually going to concur with staff on this one, I think that sort of the, the flavor of the region, the, the, the, the opposition of the, the neighbors, it's, it's not that we don't need this use in Denton. It's not that this isn't an appropriate use for Denton, it's, is this specific location, the right location to rezone to have the industrial and for this use in this location, not, not that is this use for Denton and appropriate use. I think it's just clear because we had it in the landfill. So my motion is for denial for the reasons specified by staff. We have a first for denial, Commissioner Ellis. Yeah, and I will second that and just add that I certainly agree with, with staff's interpretation of this. I do appreciate the applicant presentation and, and, and enlightening us to their reasons. However, you know, re zones got to take very seriously. And when you look at, at what we would be doing to this location in, in splitting this like that's it's just, it is just not, not appropriate. Alright, discussion, we're going to go first to Commissioner Smith. Thank you, chair. This is a tough one for me to vote on, but I think that I heard my answers in the, my, my long list of questions for the applicant, but it just doesn't seem like this is the right place. I agree, I think that from a planning and zoning commission, our job is to look at the code and interpret the code and vote on the code and the, it looks pretty clear that the, the code doesn't agree with this zoning, even if the uses be moved backwards into it and to the detriment of some of the people surrounding them already currently in that property looks like the city can, in my estimation, probably go through and you know, they can operate without this use there in the city now, it might increase the cost for current bids or future bids, but I think it's not a, not a use that we're dying to have and have to get in right here right now. I think it's also just to be said that having to go with a majority vote at council on approval or denial down here, in my opinion, obviously doesn't make a big difference in what happens at the council level for, you know, a majority or a super majority vote or not obviously would make a big difference if it was an approval, but with it having to be super majority, it doesn't matter so much. And if the applicant who does have a very compelling argument that this was done out of a direct or a directive given from city council, I think it's, I think it's time for city council to answer up to it, but at a planning and zoning commission, our job is to interpret the code and determine what's best as the code is written. So therefore I do agree with Commissioner Beck and Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Any other discussion? I'll weigh in here and I'll give a spoiler. I'm not going to support a denial on this with all due respect to staff's work. Call me convinced by Ms. Bissett and Mr. Brown, but the leading question, Amy asked, was, if not here, then where? And it seems like if it's not here, it's going to go on to potentially smaller streets that we support as a city rather than a text dot highway, one of the biggest in the nations. And so, and also looking at what we open our, our door to, if we go to heavy industrial, it's either media manufacturing or an RV park, anything else besides those two items would come back to us for an SUP. And so I don't think it, in my opinion, obviously opens us up to this monster, especially since we have some height restrictions built into airspace. So I think we're in a kind of unique situation. And so for the benefits that a project like this would bring to our city without really asking our city for a lot in terms of upkeep and potentially keeping cost on what needs to be endless road projects in our town, I'm convinced that this rezoning would be appropriate for that, considering it backs up to HI anyways, I know it kind of donuts out that one parcel of land, which they're obviously against, but I certainly respect and appreciate the work staff put into this, and I appreciate Commissioner Beck and Commissioner Smith both saying this is not the right location, but we need it in town. But like Amy, if I looked at a map of Denton, I don't know where else I would put a spot where dump trucks would be going in and out continually. And so the arguments laid out today were enough to convince me that I'd be in support of taking this to council with approval. Any other discussion on this item? We'll go to Commissioner Anderson and back to Commissioner Ellis. Well, I'll just kind of put in my two cents. I don't personally, I don't think I could help. I could support this because for one, if we do open it up, they could start producing concrete and I did some reading on concrete and stuff, but it produces large amounts of dust and sand and it has a high particles. The particles could scar your lungs causing disabling irreversible lung disease and it's called, what is it called here, it's called silicosis and concrete dust has one of the concrete industry has one of the highest deaths due to silicosis. We have a college campus with just on the southeast of that and we have a prominent predominantly southern wind that comes from the south, southeast, southwest, that wind could be blowing that stuff over to the campus and I mean, who knows what the potential side effects are not one year down the road, but years down the road after all this dust and stuff is affecting the students. So for that reason, I don't think I could support this being that close to a campus and that too close to a athletic facility. So thanks. Thanks, Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I was just going to add to your point. And, you know, we don't have to find a use or land for every use that is in our code. So I don't agree that we have to agree this to this because where else are we going to put it? It will be the collapse of that light industrial use there. That is what's going to happen. If we rezone this to heavy industrial, the rest of the requests will come and we already have neighbors here who are functioning light industrial, we've already heard from them in their opinion, their tenants will leave if this is allowed to be developed here. Appreciate that, Commissioner Ellis. Any other discussion on this item? Okay, let's take a vote via roll call. Just a reminder, the motion on the table is for a denial. So a motion and the affirmative is to support the denial. We'll start it with Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair, as a nay, motion carries 6-1. That brings us to our next item of business. That is item 4D, S20-0008. This item is to be presented by Karina Maldonado and I will open the public hearing. Karina, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. Good evening. Let me just pull up the presentation now. Good evening, Karina Maldonado, Assistant Planner. The request today is for S20-0008 for legacy multifamily. The request is for specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings on approximately 16.106 acres within the R7 zoning district. Just a quick background, the site was, I have on here rezoned, but it was actually an initial zoning back in 2012 after this property was annexed into the city. The initial zoning for this property and the adjacent property was for community mixed use and then neighborhood residential mixed use 12, which then transitioned to the R7 zoning district in 2019. So the site plan on here, it proposes six three-story buildings. Those are these buildings shown in red with a total of 264 dwelling units. That consists of one, two and three bedroom units. There is one clarification on the presentation from the staff report. That is that the parking proposed is 519 parking spaces. That does include covered and uncovered parking. It's a little difficult to see here, but it's better on the landscape plan and I'll point that out later. It does also include a reduction in parking for proximity to transit. There's a bus stop on the east side of this property, just across the street from Ryan High School. In addition to that, there are proposed 28 bicycle spaces, which goes hand in hand with the internal bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the site. That is shown in green and as you can see, it does provide connection to the sidewalks on the south side of McKinney Street, which would be six feet. One thing to mention about this site is that East McKinney Street is currently under construction for the street widening project. It includes expansion of the roadway from a two lane to a four lane with a continuous turn lane. It also includes the inclusion of a 12 foot mixed use path, a six foot sidewalk again on the south side, as well as improvements to water, wastewater and storm water improvements. You can see also on the site, two driveways. The westernmost driveway is that full access that allows both in and out turn movements from both directions, as well as the eastern access, which is an exit only. That's just to allow for a safe exiting on the property while still allowing that main traffic flow to come in through the west side. I did want to mention based on the work session discussion, the location of the FEMA flood plain and riparian buffer that are existing on the site. They are located on the southern two acres of the property. The development impact area of this site actually follows those boundaries of the flood plain. However, while the development is proposing to stay out of it, they are also moving that line backwards. While the development impact area follows the flood plain, that's mostly because of tree preservation. They're actually limiting development to where this fence line would be shown. Related to that, going to their landscape plan, this proposed development is actually proposing an increase in landscape area and tree canopy for the R7 zoning district. They're proposing 41% landscaped area within the development impact area. That doesn't include the flood plain in ESA, which they are not touching, as well as 40% canopy, which also includes the preserved trees or the canopy from the preserved trees. Part of that also includes street trees along East McKinney to help provide that shading along those sidewalks and then connect the public and private roads. There's also right-of-way screening for that parking that is near the southern exit. It's actually above and beyond what they need to do as right-of-way screening is, or I apologize, the parking is behind the building line, but they are proposing large shade trees to screen that further from East McKinney Street. To the north side of the site, or actually, I should say the west side of the site, they're proposing a six-foot masonry wall. That is to buffer the multifamily use from the Texas Department of Public Safety building that is currently under construction that is in line with the landscape criteria for buffers between adjacent uses. It will stop at the end of the use, which is just before the floodplain. In addition to that, they're proposing a perimeter fence, and that is just an additional measure to provide security to the multifamily use while also ensuring that there is no disturbance of that floodplain area by residents. I already mentioned they're exceeding minimum tree preservation. There's a vast area of open space within that fenced area as well that exceeds the 8% minimum. Within that, there are courtyard spaces, picnic areas, grilling areas, as well as an enclosed dog park for the residents. I won't spend too much time on the elevations, but I just did want to show you the conceptual elevations. They are maintaining a residential height, just under 40 feet, and they are proposing a earth-toned concept with these light greens, tans, and brooms. These are the buildings that would be fronting on East McKinney Street, and these would be the buildings towards the rear of the property. The surrounding development, as I mentioned, there is the Texas Department of Public Safety facility that is currently under construction on the west side. There is residential that's existing to the north. However, that's existing residential, that's larger lot, that is really the result of subdivision by deed. A lot of these properties, the actual home is located more than 500 feet from the right of way. It's not within an established subdivision, so the character is not uniform, but it still maintains that low residential component around the area. To the south is the floodplain, which is just city-owned property. As was mentioned on work session, this is actually part of the Beacon Creek area, and the city does own park space to the west of this. There is a church just across the street from this property that does own an undeveloped parcel that would have to be developed under R2 standards. And then the undeveloped property to the east is also R7, as well as MN, and that, again, would have to develop under those MN standards. So there are some general approval criteria, as well as specific SUP criteria. You saw this quite lengthy. I won't go through all of them, but I'll just touch on some key points. Of course, talking about Denton Plan 2030, this is our comprehensive plan. Looking at the future land use designation, we see that it's designated as community mixed use, which does promote that mix of commercial and moderate to high density residential. So the proposed use is compatible with that future land use designation, as well as consistent with what is called our corridor focus area. So that is another goal within our future land use that just ensures that development within the corridors of East McKinney Street between Loop 288 and Mayhill, that they're developed within certain urban design criteria. As you can see, by the proposed plan, it does encourage the use of multimodal transportation with that bike-ped component and then proximity to transit. They are proposing parking reductions and increased landscaping, as well as that orientation to the right-of-way, as well as using elements from Table 4.1 urban design principles. And really, those design principles have already been incorporated to the multifamily site design standards, the R7 district, and various parts of our code. So they are meeting that intent. They are also minimizing at first environmental impacts to the site. As I mentioned, there is floodplain, undeveloped floodplain in Riparian. If you look at the graphic on this, kind of the little eastern part of my slide, these are the boundaries that are existing today. They could propose to revise those boundaries, however, they've chosen to stay out of that area completely. This is an approximately two-acre area. There is heavy canopy, and that area outside the floodplain is what they are preserving to meet their minimum tree preservation requirements. And then as we spoke about in work session, they did complete their downstream assessment to ensure that any flow of drainage, if not detained, would not impact severely the floodplain. I'll briefly touch on the surrounding area. I know a lot of this is repetitious. The R7 district, along with that future land use, does support that compatibility of, or that transition, I should say, from single-family residential neighborhoods to higher-intensity mixed use. So as you can see, again, just by the zoning and by the existing uses that, while it's a higher density, the area to the east, it does transition down from higher density down to lower density, R4, R3, it does provide that buffer between the more commercialized area within the SC zoning district. Again, I won't touch on this, I have already covered these points, but the last thing I did want to mention is that residential scale. So the R7 district is one of our residential zoning districts, which means it does maintain that maximum height of 40 feet. So that is a height that a homeowner in R2 would be restricted to, as well as in R3 or R4. So the R7 district does also maintain that 40-foot maximum, as well as a 10-foot setback. The development is proposing between a 10-to-20-foot setback from the right-of-way while also providing that landscaping to make sure that it's not too or vastly different from the surrounding area. Last, just building coverage, the maximum 65%, they are only proposing 19%. So a TIA was conducted for this development. There is only an increase of 1,400 trips, roughly, within a 24-hour period. However, as I mentioned earlier, the expansion of East McKinney Street does take into consideration increased trips, not only from this development, but future development within the undeveloped areas on East McKinney Street. So again, expanding from a two-lane to a four-lane with a continuous center turn lane, as well as those mixed-use path and sidewalk, also, again, next to transit, so it is providing that multimodal component. The recommendation I want to point out from the TIA did indicate that a right-turn D-cell lane would be required for this site due to the increased traffic. So they have provided that on their site plan, as well as making sure that that secondary access is actually for exit only to just reduce any conflicts on that roadway. They do have access to water and wastewater via the improvements on East McKinney Street. They are within one-fourth mile of open space. It has not been developed yet. I believe, when speaking with parks, that is still about three to five years out tentatively. However, they are providing some on-site facilities that would help residents with that active and passive recreation, as well as exceeding that 8% dedicated land area for that. We did reach out to DISD about the increase or the heavy increase in students based on this development. They did indicate that while there is increased capacity that they would be able to accommodate it and they don't see any concerns with the development. We did reach out to those within 200 and 500 feet of the site and did not receive any responses as of today. There were no neighborhood meetings held. However, the applicant did reach out individually to some of these property owners. I forgot to mention during work session that they have applied for a housing tax credit with the city to provide affordable housing. However, I believe they're still within that process and has not been approved yet by the city, but that is a separate but applicable issue that has come up with this project. You might have heard of it already or have been reached out to, so I just want to make sure that I pointed that out. With that, staff is just proposing approval with some conditions. These are mostly administrative, so the attached site plan and landscape plan would be the approving exhibits if it were to be approved with the allowance that there would be some administrative allowances to edit maybe some species or one or two trees here and there as it develops during the development review process. I won't go into it. It's pretty standard language for most of our items. Then second would be the incorporation of those specific design elements in this site, which would include the unit number, the amenities provided, open space, the total parking. I see the error here, but that should be 519, and then design elements. With that, I can take any questions. The applicant is on the line, but I believe does not have a presentation. Thank you, Karina. It looks like we do have a question. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to preface all my statements with this is a great general concept with great everything except for building five. I actually really love everything about the R7 densities, the deceleration lane, the multifamily, the affordable housing. I mean, this is over and over and over. There's so many elements of this that are really great. My question for staff concerns, and I know that you all are not Gary Packin, but I realize that you also do know a lot of the parks and trail development criteria. I know that in the long-term mobility plan that includes the trails that run through what will eventually become Pebble Brook and then potentially there along the creek, extending into this city public facility property that abuts. Can you refresh my memory as to the size and scope of side paths and easements in flood pain that are allowed for trails? Because the creek is right there up against the property and so how much, there's not a lot of space in there if we wanted to extend a trail. I guess we could do it on the south side, but can you just refresh my memory on the amount of easement you need? Yeah, sure. Obviously, I'm not parks and I don't know the day-to-day to how they operate on this, but we have had a couple of conversations for a different development that kind of, the answers kind of carry over to this one as well. In order for a trail to be put in, I believe at a very minimum, at sometimes all they need is for a mowed area. I don't believe it's very large. I want to say between eight to 10 feet or maybe a slightly larger, but I would say no more than 15 feet and that would be similar to those multi-use paths. Again, I would need to confirm that with Gary and his team. However, just to start a trail within that area, I believe at a very minimum, they would need some sort of trailhead as well as a mowed access within there. As far as when that would come into play for this development, I'm not sure I have that information, but easements, it's city property, so we typically don't see easements over a city-owned property. In that case, the parks owns Pebblebrook open space and they do own the property just south of this in order to claim that floodplain area, in order to preserve that area of Pecan Creek. So, easements I don't believe are needed. The width, I'll have to confirm that. I don't believe it's too much. I'd have to go back and confirm the distance, but I believe there's at least 200 feet between the property line and the creek, which again is two acres south of the actual buildings. So, I know there's a significant buffer, I don't know the exact distance. I'm not sure if I fully answered your question, so feel free to loop me back around. Well, okay, so I only have one, again, it's unfair to ask you because you're not Gary, but do you happen to know for an improved trail what the size requirements are? Because you were describing an unimproved trail. Yeah, unimproved, I don't have the standards for that, I'm not sure if Richard can jump in on that. I want to say for multi-path or multi-use trail improved, I think it was around 20 feet. So, all right, well, I'll end, and for this section, was saying that, like I said at the beginning, I love every element about this. I really think this is a good development in a good location, and the engineers, Kimley Horne, are doing everything right except for that parking lot in building five. And I just wish that they, so I actually, it brings to mind one extra question for you, and that is, given that the site plan will be the operating guidelines by which you can adjust slightly as you describe in your recommendations, what are the limits of that slight adjustment? Can the building footprint be moved any at all? The footprint, excuse me, could be moved slightly as long as the square footage of the total footprint isn't changed. So the building coverage area is unchanged. So they can make some slight adjustments as long as it's not significant. And then related to parking, again, it's not a significant change, anything less than 5%. And I believe that that's listed in the conditions. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Karina, and just to confirm there's no public comment, correct? No. I will go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it to the commission for motion and then discussion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Just to clarify, Commissioner Smith, are you including the staff's conditions under your recommendation? I am. Okay, and Commissioner Cole, you're okay with that? Yes. Okay. And then discussion, we can start with Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, do we need to mention that the parking spaces as we saw there in the recommendations needs to be adjusted? We can certainly make a note, it needs to be 519, not 523, correct? Yes. Okay. And the bicycle was the same or did that change as well? No, that is the same. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Any discussion on this item? Commissioner Bec? You just, yeah. Yeah, I muted myself. Sorry about that. Well, you closed the public hearing, so I was actually going to ask the engineer's question, but... You can certainly ask your question, there's not having any public comment. Okay. So, are the engineers on the line or the property owner representatives on the line? Yes, we do have the development team, so the developer and his consultants are available for questions. Yes sir. This is Jack Treger. I'm with the development, legacy development, and we also have Jared Ernie, who's with Kimley Horn, and they are the engineers on the project. And we also have the architects as well. Mark Guest represents Hodges Associates, and we have our landscape architect Amanda Lim on the line. So, I guess my question to you, Mr. Treger, or your team, or whoever wants to answer is, given the flexibility that the staff described, would you be willing to work to the length of that flexibility to move your footprint eastward and, well, really just predominantly eastward as much as that flexibility would allow, or is that something you couldn't entertain? I know that there's 30 feet between the two buildings, I'm not sure how much we could move those buildings. One thing I did want to point out to you is that it's situated the way that it is, but I think the architect's probably a better person to talk about this. Mark, do you want to address it? Yes, this is Mark Guest, I'm with Hodges Architecture, the architect, and one of the reasons why we located building four and building five where they are is, for one, is to line up the open space with the resort style pool across the parking area. In fact, we have also additionally created an enhanced and widened pathway between the two across that parking area. But the biggest reason is to the east, which is planned south, there's a rather large open space that contains the dog park. There are a number of very viable trees that we chose to save in that location, which is also part of what Marina very effectively described was how we are staying way above the tree preservation numbers. And as Jack mentioned, we are trying to maintain the 30 feet between the two buildings, which allows us for maximum area and openings in the building for not only windows, but balconies. The other thing that we wanted to stress is that we are staying about 200 feet away from the floodplain line with the building, and that one of the issues that Mr. Beck brought up were the accessory structures that line that drive in the parking area. Those are carports, so they are not full structures in the vein of a detached garage or storage units or any of that nature. So it is just basically covered parking for the cars. And then we did a very good job at describing the fact that we were trying to maintain as much open space along the floodplains as we could and still get the numbers in if we needed. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Trager. One more quick question for staff, if I may, Chair? The floor is still yours. Thank you. They've actually requested a parking reduction, so the actual parking required, I believe, is a little bit higher, around 5, I'll get the number, but it's a smidge higher. So they've requested a 10% reduction and then are meeting that. So they've reduced the minimum parking. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Chair. Any other discussion? We have a first and a second on the floor for approval with conditions noting the parking space correction. Any other discussion? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Back to that. Karina, on the slide that you just had a bit ago, you had 519 spaces and 28 bike spaces, and so the bike is different than the recommendation in writing, so we probably just need to figure out because we've got 32 on there. So the number should be 519 vehicular parking spaces and 20 bicycle spaces. I apologize. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for catching that, Commissioner Ellis. With that, I'll go ahead and call for a vote via roll call, starting with Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. For all the reasons that it's a great development, I'm going to be forgiving on the fact that I think that we're going to flood, and again, I'll just put a pin in it. This is going to be a flood issue. It's going to have downstream issues, but it is an otherwise really good development, so I'm going to -- I'm very torn, but I'll -- yes. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations. That brings us to the last item for the agenda this evening, which is the plan and zoning project matrix. I'll turn it over to Richard for any updates and then to Dias for discussion. Absolutely no updates on the matrix, other than we will have that work session at the next meeting to talk about small area plans, as well as we had a boot camp item on variances and nonconformity, so that will be an action-packed meeting in two weeks. The only other items that I'll want to update the commission on is some of the council actions that they took last night. One, they did approve the razor ranch overlay, the standards related to that last amendment that we had some time ago. There was a delay in going to council. We wanted to make sure that there was a separate park agreement while not necessarily associated with it. We wanted to make sure those were in concert together when they went to council, so that's why there was such a long period in between. The only other item relative to the commission is the DCRC ordinance was adopted as well as the appointments. If you recall, we had discussed that here, the appointments for P&Z, being the chair, vice-chair, and Commissioner Smith. There is an initial term that goes to, I believe it's August, and then there's the first term start after that. Other than that, those were the only items that council took action on. Great. Any items to add to the matrix or discussion? The only thing I have real fast is, do we know if there's any momentum on getting this shot clock bill fought against at the state level? Is there anything going on with that? I have not heard anything. There were some grumblings that I heard some of the builders' groups were looking at making some recommended changes, but I have yet to see that. There was one bill related to, I think out there, related to changes to 212, but it really had nothing to do with the shot clock. Great. Christopher? So, to that end, and that's a good point because I believe they're in session for what, another four months, three months? Would it be in any way advantageous to have staff present something to council that they could possibly pitch to someone at state level to do something about that? I'll double check to see if that was part of, we had a sort of our own legislative agenda that was brought forward. I will check to make sure, I just don't recall off the top of my head, but I can have that. I could forward that to the members just so they're aware of what that is or what that was. And if not, that's certainly something we could bring up. Excellent. Yeah, because I highly doubt we're the only growing town that has a problem or has run into problems with that as it's written right now. So cool. Thank you. Yeah. Across the state. Great. Any other items for the matrix? All right. Oh, Christopher Beck? Not for the matrix, but I wanted to congratulate Commissioner Ellis for maintaining our gender diversity on this commission. So getting re-appointed to the commission and that's excellent, congratulations Commissioner Ellis. Thank you very much, Commissioner Beck, I appreciate it. All right. With that, I'll go ahead and close the meeting at 8.14. Thank you everyone for a great meeting. We'll see you next time. Thanks. Bye, y'all.