WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.480
 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission

00:00:07.480 --> 00:00:12.280
 work session for Wednesday, May 5, seeing that we have a quorum, I will call the meeting

00:00:12.280 --> 00:00:14.840
 to order at 5.05.

00:00:14.840 --> 00:00:20.200
 The first item of our agenda is citizen comment on the consent agenda items.

00:00:20.200 --> 00:00:29.260
 We actually have two, and so I just want to for the record note that agenda item 3AFP21-009B,

00:00:29.260 --> 00:00:30.880
 there is one against.

00:00:30.880 --> 00:00:41.480
 And for item 3BPP21-0002B, there is one against these comments were also emailed to the commissioners

00:00:41.480 --> 00:00:46.000
 and are going to be included in the meeting record.

00:00:46.000 --> 00:00:50.720
 With that, we can hop into the work session reports for this afternoon.

00:00:50.720 --> 00:00:56.280
 And I believe we just have the one over the city's extra territorial jurisdiction.

00:00:56.280 --> 00:01:10.400
 And Richard Canone is going to present, I do believe.

00:01:10.400 --> 00:01:26.040
 Richard, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

00:01:26.040 --> 00:01:49.960
 And you are muted, Richard.

00:01:49.960 --> 00:01:57.760
 Nope, still.

00:01:57.760 --> 00:02:06.600
 Richard, you're still muted, someone in the back, unmute him.

00:02:06.600 --> 00:02:12.640
 I think it's actually on the Zoom, the actual dashboard.

00:02:12.640 --> 00:02:13.640
 There we go.

00:02:13.640 --> 00:02:16.640
 I think I'm there, okay.

00:02:16.640 --> 00:02:17.640
 You made it.

00:02:17.640 --> 00:02:21.160
 Sorry, I don't know what's going on with this tonight.

00:02:21.160 --> 00:02:22.160
 Quite a bit of slides here.

00:02:22.160 --> 00:02:25.680
 Some of this stuff I'm going to kind of breeze over pretty quickly.

00:02:25.680 --> 00:02:31.320
 This was a presentation that was done obviously January 26th with City Council.

00:02:31.320 --> 00:02:36.440
 They had provided some direction for staff kind of working through some of the issues

00:02:36.440 --> 00:02:43.160
 that we have mostly with our interlocal agreement, but just as just also how we deal with our

00:02:43.160 --> 00:02:51.520
 ETJ, how we have requested times to swap areas of our ETJ with adjacent municipalities.

00:02:51.520 --> 00:02:55.640
 And so this really was kind of that bringing it all together, getting some policy direction

00:02:55.640 --> 00:03:03.720
 from council, and we'll be bringing a right now we're anticipating bringing back sort

00:03:03.720 --> 00:03:10.240
 of the findings and kind of the draft agreement on I think it's May 25th is what we're looking

00:03:10.240 --> 00:03:11.800
 at now.

00:03:11.800 --> 00:03:16.880
 For me, again, just kind of the overview of what this presentation will entail.

00:03:16.880 --> 00:03:22.560
 Regulatory framework, the regulatory documents, some of this stuff I think almost all of you

00:03:22.560 --> 00:03:27.040
 are familiar with it at this point, so I probably won't spend any time with that.

00:03:27.040 --> 00:03:31.640
 Development application types, purpose of ETJ, the authority, kind of the legislative

00:03:31.640 --> 00:03:36.320
 history interlocal, legislative changes at the state, and then some of our current challenges,

00:03:36.320 --> 00:03:40.800
 and then that policy direction that we were requesting from council.

00:03:40.800 --> 00:03:46.340
 And so first again, this is sort of that regulatory framework that we have, obviously City of Denton

00:03:46.340 --> 00:03:51.720
 Comprehensive Plan Development Code, also Code of Ordinances, there's the Lake Ray Roberts

00:03:51.720 --> 00:03:58.360
 zoning that we deal with in certain parts of the ETJ, we have an existing interlocal

00:03:58.360 --> 00:04:02.440
 agreement with Denton County, and then the variety of local government code sections

00:04:02.440 --> 00:04:05.960
 as well as the Texas Agricultural Code.

00:04:05.960 --> 00:04:11.440
 Again, our regulatory documents, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, I think most

00:04:11.440 --> 00:04:14.880
 everyone kind of understands it, kind of that comprehensive plan, I kind of look at it as

00:04:14.880 --> 00:04:17.520
 the base, and then everything kind of grows from there.

00:04:17.520 --> 00:04:21.200
 The DDC needs to be consistent with, and then we have our subdivision regulations again,

00:04:21.200 --> 00:04:28.040
 which are part of that DDC, and then obviously the building codes follow suit.

00:04:28.040 --> 00:04:34.040
 Some of the major development application types that we look at, again, for platting

00:04:34.040 --> 00:04:42.040
 variances site plan, kind of what's in the city, what's in the ETJ, so really it just

00:04:42.040 --> 00:04:45.880
 has to do with platting, and that authority is granted obviously to Planning and Zoning

00:04:45.880 --> 00:04:47.460
 Commission.

00:04:47.460 --> 00:04:54.240
 And this is kind of that non-typical, or I'm sorry, the typical non-ETJ process, preliminary

00:04:54.240 --> 00:04:59.480
 plat engineering plans for those public improvements, final plat construction agreements, which

00:04:59.480 --> 00:05:03.560
 what we refer to as a three-way agreement, and then there's the construction inspection

00:05:03.560 --> 00:05:10.280
 of those public improvements and then the ultimate acceptance of those dedications.

00:05:10.280 --> 00:05:14.840
 And then the ETJ process is a little bit different, obviously we don't have annexation, future

00:05:14.840 --> 00:05:20.240
 land use zoning, platting, it really just goes straight to platting.

00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:27.920
 And so going back again, looking at the purpose of the ETJ, it really was established to really

00:05:27.920 --> 00:05:32.680
 promote and protect the kind of the health safety welfare of the city, again, this was

00:05:32.680 --> 00:05:36.320
 created some time ago and it really looked at ways that the municipality could start

00:05:36.320 --> 00:05:41.960
 to plan for growth adjacent to it, obviously the rules have changed quite a bit in what

00:05:41.960 --> 00:05:49.760
 and how we can annex, but really the ETJ is established by Chapter 42 of the Local Government

00:05:49.760 --> 00:05:59.320
 Code, and if you're between 50 and 99,999 inhabitants, your ETJ is set at three and

00:05:59.320 --> 00:06:04.360
 a half miles, if you're greater, at 100 or greater, it's set at five miles, and so our

00:06:04.360 --> 00:06:10.240
 existing ILA, obviously we have the Division 1, Division 2, when that ILA was created,

00:06:10.240 --> 00:06:16.800
 we were right at about almost getting close to that 100,000 mark, and really our ETJ Division

00:06:16.800 --> 00:06:22.200
 1 is that three and a half mile mark, and so anything from three and a half to five

00:06:22.200 --> 00:06:24.300
 is essentially our Division 2.

00:06:24.300 --> 00:06:30.200
 For the most part, what our ETJ Division 1 follows is our CCN, or Certificate of Convenience

00:06:30.200 --> 00:06:36.560
 of Necessity, which establishes where we sell water and have wastewater services, so that's

00:06:36.560 --> 00:06:42.760
 kind of how we've established at least the existing ETJ Division 1, and then does the

00:06:42.760 --> 00:06:44.080
 ETJ expand?

00:06:44.080 --> 00:06:53.260
 Yes, so as areas annex, that ETJ obviously expands out, probably a good representation

00:06:53.260 --> 00:07:01.560
 of that as we grew to the north and kind of snaked up the stream, that in turn then extended

00:07:01.560 --> 00:07:06.320
 our ETJ all the way into, believe it or not, it goes into Cook County, and then can it

00:07:06.320 --> 00:07:07.320
 be reduced?

00:07:07.320 --> 00:07:15.180
 Absolutely, it's happened before, and so at times we will trade ETJs with adjacent municipalities,

00:07:15.180 --> 00:07:19.720
 but this just gives that broad view of kind of that three and a half to five mile and

00:07:19.720 --> 00:07:28.520
 just how wide our net casts, and then authority to regulate in the ETJ, platting and subdivision,

00:07:28.520 --> 00:07:33.420
 it prohibits us from essentially those zoning type of standards, but there is the ability

00:07:33.420 --> 00:07:41.400
 to do development agreements that authorizes certain items that we can enforce.

00:07:41.400 --> 00:07:46.840
 The most common that we have are non-annexation agreements, follow that 212.172 development

00:07:46.840 --> 00:07:54.200
 agreement requirements, and again, just kind of touched on this already, that legislative

00:07:54.200 --> 00:08:00.340
 history, '93 is when that Division 1, Division 2 was established, there were some amendments

00:08:00.340 --> 00:08:05.280
 that were done in '94, two different amendments, and really what those were related to is our

00:08:05.280 --> 00:08:14.400
 CCN extended, so it just followed suit with that, and then in 2003 there were some changes

00:08:14.400 --> 00:08:23.160
 that we had that essentially put in place that interlocal agreement, and then in 2017

00:08:23.160 --> 00:08:28.920
 we had a peripheral annexation or a peripheral development annexation component to our DDC,

00:08:28.920 --> 00:08:35.100
 and what that meant was if we were extending water and sewer to you, you were required

00:08:35.100 --> 00:08:37.220
 to annex into the city.

00:08:37.220 --> 00:08:42.480
 There's been changes since the annexation laws that we no longer can do that, and so

00:08:42.480 --> 00:08:47.400
 again, kind of the summary of that interlocal cooperation agreement, this just gives you

00:08:47.400 --> 00:09:00.840
 the idea of the city limits in green, Division 1 in blue, and Division 2 in purple.

00:09:00.840 --> 00:09:06.920
 And again, some of the responsibilities, obviously we do all of the subdivision review and permitting

00:09:06.920 --> 00:09:14.300
 related to that subdivision within the county, there's a standard in there that if the county

00:09:14.300 --> 00:09:19.240
 standard is more stringent, that applies, this has been much debated as far as what's

00:09:19.240 --> 00:09:26.520
 more stringent, they believe that their county rural road standard is more stringent than

00:09:26.520 --> 00:09:32.840
 curb gutter with storm water, and so we've gone back and forth about what that actually

00:09:32.840 --> 00:09:39.240
 means, there's no guidance, and in addition to that, the county does not want to maintain

00:09:39.240 --> 00:09:46.760
 curb and gutter concrete roads, and so they've given an indication that while the ILA says

00:09:46.760 --> 00:09:51.240
 that they will maintain roads, they take the position that it was only those roads that

00:09:51.240 --> 00:09:57.800
 existed when the ILA was executed 18 years ago, and so those are the disagreements as

00:09:57.800 --> 00:10:06.680
 to really what prompted the need for updating that ILA, again, it does allow us to issue

00:10:06.680 --> 00:10:11.520
 floodplain and culvert permits, 9 out of 10 culvert permits, unless they are abutting

00:10:11.520 --> 00:10:18.960
 a city street, we actually defer to Denton County to handle culvert permits for driveways

00:10:18.960 --> 00:10:27.320
 adjacent to a county roadway, and again, some of those annexation changes, some of the action,

00:10:27.320 --> 00:10:33.760
 but it really did, you know, essentially took all of our ability to require annexation for

00:10:33.760 --> 00:10:37.780
 extending water and sewer, and so what we've, you know, kind of what we've seen, what's

00:10:37.780 --> 00:10:42.400
 been the effect of that, obviously we've seen a proliferation of MUDs, our municipal utility

00:10:42.400 --> 00:10:49.400
 districts within our ETJs, both 1 and 2, as you're aware, we've had some single family

00:10:49.400 --> 00:10:56.720
 subdivision within the ETJ, council did pass the ordinance last night unanimously prohibiting

00:10:56.720 --> 00:11:04.720
 going back to prohibiting preliminary plots in the ETJ, the inability for us to collect

00:11:04.720 --> 00:11:10.440
 roadway impact fees as they will continue to use our roadway network, regional network,

00:11:10.440 --> 00:11:15.200
 but also potential increases in calls for police, fire, EMS, as those 911 calls come

00:11:15.200 --> 00:11:24.280
 in, there is some deferral of costs that the county has for fire and EMS calls, obviously

00:11:24.280 --> 00:11:29.360
 it does not cover the full cost of service, we have to respond to those calls within those

00:11:29.360 --> 00:11:32.880
 areas and nothing either for police.

00:11:32.880 --> 00:11:34.360
 >> Chair?

00:11:34.360 --> 00:11:36.520
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:11:36.520 --> 00:11:45.960
 >> Thank you, Chair, Richard, what happens for the overlapping ETJs, I assume the closest

00:11:45.960 --> 00:11:48.680
 municipality wins?

00:11:48.680 --> 00:11:52.680
 >> There's some provisions in the local government code.

00:11:52.680 --> 00:11:59.640
 I don't recall off the top of my head, I know we don't have any of those, our sort of districts

00:11:59.640 --> 00:12:05.520
 were pretty, when we established way back when, we were obviously the much larger city

00:12:05.520 --> 00:12:11.400
 than even Krumsanger, even though they're still relatively small, they were even smaller

00:12:11.400 --> 00:12:18.800
 back then, so they really haven't grown out as much as we have, so that's why when you

00:12:18.800 --> 00:12:32.120
 see our boundary, it extends pretty far out, the reason it does not extend that far to

00:12:32.120 --> 00:12:37.640
 the south, obviously at Ponder and some of the other communities, I think Dish and others

00:12:37.640 --> 00:12:45.920
 are on the west side of 35, and then for the most part, this is built between Argyle, I

00:12:45.920 --> 00:12:59.560
 can't think of the master plan community, Lantana and obviously Flower Mound and Copper

00:12:59.560 --> 00:13:01.200
 Canyon.

00:13:01.200 --> 00:13:08.080
 >> So the ETJs are static, ours is growing with our border, but as we grow in or around

00:13:08.080 --> 00:13:15.440
 or as other municipalities grow in, get bigger, what happens to the definitions of ETJs?

00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:24.920
 >> They extend and expand, so if there's not an already ETJ established, ours would continue

00:13:24.920 --> 00:13:32.160
 to grow, that's what's happened to the north, where we've now grown into Cook County, but

00:13:32.160 --> 00:13:40.760
 you'll see on a later slide that I have where that area up around the lake, it gets a little,

00:13:40.760 --> 00:13:48.680
 there's a multitude of ETJs that kind of intersect each other, not necessarily overlapping, but

00:13:48.680 --> 00:13:55.920
 you have Pilot Point, Aubrey, Denton and Sanger to some extent, kind of all converge in those

00:13:55.920 --> 00:13:56.920
 areas.

00:13:56.920 --> 00:13:59.920
 >> Okay, thank you.

00:13:59.920 --> 00:14:05.960
 >> And then obviously everyone's aware of kind of some of these legislative game changers,

00:14:05.960 --> 00:14:13.240
 where we are with the 30-day shot clock and what that's done to us and kind of where it's

00:14:13.240 --> 00:14:15.760
 put us.

00:14:15.760 --> 00:14:21.520
 Obviously tree preservation was another item that we discussed, it was something that we

00:14:21.520 --> 00:14:28.980
 will come back to eventually, but there is a court case in San Antonio where they were

00:14:28.980 --> 00:14:37.920
 challenged for enforcing tree preservation in their ETJ, it was upheld, however, we have

00:14:37.920 --> 00:14:47.680
 not done a code amendment to enforce our tree code within our ETJ.

00:14:47.680 --> 00:14:54.520
 And I think, again, this is really one of the items that prompted that code change,

00:14:54.520 --> 00:14:59.640
 the Stuart Ridge Subdivision, this was the one that the county contended that they would

00:14:59.640 --> 00:15:06.520
 not most likely not accept the dedication of those roads.

00:15:06.520 --> 00:15:12.680
 And so we're continuing to work with the applicant or developer now on this property, as far

00:15:12.680 --> 00:15:17.640
 as how they're moving forward, again, they have an approved final plat for phase one,

00:15:17.640 --> 00:15:23.320
 they have an approved preliminary plat, so they are essentially vested, they are going

00:15:23.320 --> 00:15:28.840
 to build to our standard, but again, who actually owns those roads at the end of the day, they're

00:15:28.840 --> 00:15:34.080
 dedicated to the public, we will inspect them, but we will not accept those roads, that will

00:15:34.080 --> 00:15:41.180
 be up to the Commissioner's Court, they take formal action on any dedications, and so whether

00:15:41.180 --> 00:15:47.040
 or not they decide to vote to accept those is entirely up to the Commissioner's Court.

00:15:47.040 --> 00:15:52.380
 And so we're, again, continuing to work with this applicant to make sure that we're not

00:15:52.380 --> 00:15:57.760
 stuck with a situation where, whether they're now still the owner of those roads, the HOA,

00:15:57.760 --> 00:16:02.720
 quite honestly, at this point, it's kind of still up in the air, but there's not much

00:16:02.720 --> 00:16:04.400
 we can do about it at this point.

00:16:04.400 --> 00:16:05.400
 Commissioner Beck.

00:16:05.400 --> 00:16:06.400
 Thank you, Chair.

00:16:06.400 --> 00:16:13.720
 Richard, so in that case, I mean, if worst case scenario, the HOA would own the roads

00:16:13.720 --> 00:16:19.240
 and be required to maintain them?

00:16:19.240 --> 00:16:23.480
 That's probably something I would want to have legal weigh in on, I don't know if it

00:16:23.480 --> 00:16:28.680
 would be the HOA, I don't know if it would be the original landowner, I think there's

00:16:28.680 --> 00:16:37.240
 a much bigger discussion with probably our in-house council, real estate attorneys and

00:16:37.240 --> 00:16:42.040
 the like, but I'm not aware, I'm not sure what would happen at that point.

00:16:42.040 --> 00:16:46.280
 And that's a fine answer at this point, I don't want to have legal look up anything,

00:16:46.280 --> 00:16:50.440
 thank you.

00:16:50.440 --> 00:16:53.660
 And so again, so here, you know, some of those some of those challenges that we have with

00:16:53.660 --> 00:16:59.720
 our current ILA, again, looking at as it as we look at Platts and the ETJ, those roadway

00:16:59.720 --> 00:17:06.000
 standards, that difference of what's the stricter, the bar ditch versus curb and gutter, again,

00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:09.640
 issuing culvert permits, we don't believe that should be the city's responsibility really

00:17:09.640 --> 00:17:15.400
 should be the county, it's their roadway network, and drainage network for that for the most

00:17:15.400 --> 00:17:20.360
 part, the maintenance of the roads, obviously the dedication of new roads, I think I've

00:17:20.360 --> 00:17:23.160
 hit on that.

00:17:23.160 --> 00:17:28.160
 And then other items we need we need to continue to work through with this new ILA is the transfer

00:17:28.160 --> 00:17:33.440
 of those maintenance bonds for those new roads, location of our water and sewer lines, the

00:17:33.440 --> 00:17:37.480
 county does not want those water and sewer lines within any roads that would essentially

00:17:37.480 --> 00:17:39.460
 be dedicated to them.

00:17:39.460 --> 00:17:46.200
 And so it's making sure that we have adequate easements to to lay those lay our water and

00:17:46.200 --> 00:17:49.080
 in sewer lines.

00:17:49.080 --> 00:17:54.520
 There are currently lot size requirements in the Lake Ray Roberts planning area that

00:17:54.520 --> 00:17:55.800
 they've established.

00:17:55.800 --> 00:18:01.360
 There has been an instance where we approved a plat it was a minor plat that did not meet

00:18:01.360 --> 00:18:06.720
 the minimum lot size for that for that area.

00:18:06.720 --> 00:18:11.480
 But again, it's not addressed in our ILA and so we can enforce as you saw from the local

00:18:11.480 --> 00:18:16.920
 government code, we can enforce lot layouts or lot size.

00:18:16.920 --> 00:18:20.560
 And so this was something then that they had to go to the Commissioner's Court and seek

00:18:20.560 --> 00:18:25.360
 a variance and so these are just items we want to avoid, there's no reason that someone

00:18:25.360 --> 00:18:27.760
 should have to do that.

00:18:27.760 --> 00:18:31.960
 But again, we're not able to enforce it because it's not part of our part of that interlocal

00:18:31.960 --> 00:18:38.160
 agreement and again, making sure that the non annexation agreements, there's just one

00:18:38.160 --> 00:18:41.240
 more place that everybody's aware of.

00:18:41.240 --> 00:18:48.600
 There are standards that for those those properties can remain in the ETJ but there any development

00:18:48.600 --> 00:18:52.880
 that they would do, i.e. building a home, they're limited in what they could do.

00:18:52.880 --> 00:18:58.800
 But building permits are issued by the city as part of those agreements, as well as following

00:18:58.800 --> 00:19:04.440
 the city's development standards.

00:19:04.440 --> 00:19:09.900
 Some of the other challenges that we that we face, again, not necessarily has to do

00:19:09.900 --> 00:19:17.040
 with amendments to the ILA but something that we're going to want to revisit upon completion

00:19:17.040 --> 00:19:19.440
 of the comp plan update.

00:19:19.440 --> 00:19:24.380
 And I think I think we've talked about this as part of the 2019 DDC update is really some

00:19:24.380 --> 00:19:30.400
 of these split parcels that we have, and as a result of strip annexations.

00:19:30.400 --> 00:19:34.720
 This is one where you know obviously it's an industrial use.

00:19:34.720 --> 00:19:39.840
 At one point in time, we annex you know the first whatever it is 500 feet off the right

00:19:39.840 --> 00:19:40.840
 away.

00:19:40.840 --> 00:19:46.440
 Obviously since then 380 has has grown so that that that distance that that is now in

00:19:46.440 --> 00:19:48.920
 the city has shrunk.

00:19:48.920 --> 00:19:55.040
 But we've now the front of their property is is zoned residential.

00:19:55.040 --> 00:19:59.840
 And so, depending, you know, essentially what they need to do or can do it's all nonconforming

00:19:59.840 --> 00:20:04.040
 and and it also would affect what they can can and can't do on the back of the property

00:20:04.040 --> 00:20:08.880
 because they are accessing it through through a zone or residential portion.

00:20:08.880 --> 00:20:12.800
 That is, I think our one or our to the majority of these.

00:20:12.800 --> 00:20:16.240
 And so this is something that what we are going to need to take a look at as part of

00:20:16.240 --> 00:20:19.200
 that comp plan update.

00:20:19.200 --> 00:20:24.480
 Should we change the most of these have a rural if I'm not mistaken a rural future land

00:20:24.480 --> 00:20:29.040
 use again as a holding pattern so again taking that hard look what should these really be

00:20:29.040 --> 00:20:36.520
 land used, and then zoning them zoning them accordingly.

00:20:36.520 --> 00:20:42.160
 One of the other issues that we continue to face is requests that we have from adjacent

00:20:42.160 --> 00:20:48.120
 municipalities for essentially exchanging areas of E.T.J.

00:20:48.120 --> 00:20:53.160
 We've had a number, at least when I first started here, we're saying or was was asking

00:20:53.160 --> 00:20:59.640
 and crumb, we're asking for kind of swaps of E.T.J. areas, and there's there's been

00:20:59.640 --> 00:21:05.080
 no formal policy or guidance that that we received ever from from council.

00:21:05.080 --> 00:21:09.500
 I think in the past, at one point in time it was sort of a one for one so if we're going

00:21:09.500 --> 00:21:14.760
 to give you an acre, you give us an acre, but there was no real guidance even even beyond

00:21:14.760 --> 00:21:15.760
 that.

00:21:15.760 --> 00:21:20.360
 And so really our intent was if we're going to do this, we should probably have some guidance

00:21:20.360 --> 00:21:26.360
 from council at least some policy direction about how we how we do this.

00:21:26.360 --> 00:21:29.920
 Should it just be acre for acre or should we look at other other alternatives and I'll

00:21:29.920 --> 00:21:36.760
 get into that, but we have a current current one pending from pilot point that has asked

00:21:36.760 --> 00:21:44.240
 for some exchange of our E.T.J. division two, which is adjacent to their E.T.J. division

00:21:44.240 --> 00:21:45.240
 one.

00:21:45.240 --> 00:21:50.680
 So this just kind of gives you that idea of this is our division one here.

00:21:50.680 --> 00:21:54.120
 Actually our municipal boundary, this is our water treatment plant.

00:21:54.120 --> 00:21:56.480
 All of this is our division two.

00:21:56.480 --> 00:22:03.280
 And then you have city of pilot point pilot point E.T.J. and then I believe this is Aubrey

00:22:03.280 --> 00:22:07.460
 E.T.J.

00:22:07.460 --> 00:22:11.800
 And so getting back to that, you know, that request from pilot point, what they were looking

00:22:11.800 --> 00:22:24.680
 to to really do is take on take over a lease agreement for for the Ildebo and I'm sorry

00:22:24.680 --> 00:22:28.320
 for the Lake Ray Roberts Jordan unit.

00:22:28.320 --> 00:22:34.640
 They're looking to take over a concessionaires agreement.

00:22:34.640 --> 00:22:38.840
 There's been some other developments as we've learned that we are actually the the lease

00:22:38.840 --> 00:22:40.680
 holder of this land.

00:22:40.680 --> 00:22:44.760
 So I think it'll be a much different conversation when we bring this back when we bring this

00:22:44.760 --> 00:22:46.840
 back to council.

00:22:46.840 --> 00:22:52.960
 But what they were really kind of asking because there's no land that they would have to swap.

00:22:52.960 --> 00:22:55.340
 There's nothing that we would need to take.

00:22:55.340 --> 00:22:59.880
 And so the idea that they instead of a land swap, what they were looking to do it in exchange

00:22:59.880 --> 00:23:09.480
 of was some type of revenue share or sales tax swap or even looking at I think there

00:23:09.480 --> 00:23:12.920
 was a hotel at that marina.

00:23:12.920 --> 00:23:19.280
 We had some concerns with with receiving some proceeds from hot tax in that area, just given

00:23:19.280 --> 00:23:24.880
 where we have to spend it and the limitations up there, but at least entertaining a variety

00:23:24.880 --> 00:23:30.000
 of rather than just a land swap, whether it be a component of sales tax revenue share

00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:34.400
 from other streams or even a component of property tax.

00:23:34.400 --> 00:23:39.360
 And so those were all options that that at least as we develop that policy, at least

00:23:39.360 --> 00:23:43.440
 items that that we can look at prior to bringing it to council.

00:23:43.440 --> 00:23:49.200
 So we're just not kind of shooting from the hip and have some clear guidance and what

00:23:49.200 --> 00:23:51.380
 council is comfortable with.

00:23:51.380 --> 00:23:55.340
 And so that was really the you know, one of the first questions that we had with respect

00:23:55.340 --> 00:23:59.680
 to policy direction is, should we even the first was, should we even continue to regulate

00:23:59.680 --> 00:24:06.320
 plats and in in Division one or just completely give all of that to to the county.

00:24:06.320 --> 00:24:11.200
 And so the direction was, you know, to continue, continue to regulate a plot within within

00:24:11.200 --> 00:24:16.920
 Division one and kind of that second one, second policy direction that we requested

00:24:16.920 --> 00:24:21.960
 had to do with what should be that standard when we met with the county, what we really

00:24:21.960 --> 00:24:28.400
 looked at was adopting their rural standard in the E.T.J. to, you know, sort of kind of

00:24:28.400 --> 00:24:34.400
 that first step, I think, as I indicated, was removing the ability to do those preliminary

00:24:34.400 --> 00:24:35.400
 plats.

00:24:35.400 --> 00:24:39.840
 But if you are going to develop in the county or in the E.T.J. and if you if the county

00:24:39.840 --> 00:24:47.200
 is going to accept those roads, which most likely we would want, then they should be

00:24:47.200 --> 00:24:49.040
 built to their standard.

00:24:49.040 --> 00:24:54.080
 And really what this would do is if somebody wanted them to build a subdivision with curb

00:24:54.080 --> 00:25:00.160
 and gutter, sort of a traditional subdivision in order to take advantage or use the city

00:25:00.160 --> 00:25:03.280
 standard, they would be required to annex into the city.

00:25:03.280 --> 00:25:07.960
 And then at that point, they would go through that that process from one of the previous

00:25:07.960 --> 00:25:13.840
 slides where obviously go through annexation, voluntary annexation, and then there would

00:25:13.840 --> 00:25:18.880
 need to be most likely a land use plan map amendment rezoning so they would follow that

00:25:18.880 --> 00:25:26.280
 public hearing process and then ultimately get to get to platting if those are approved.

00:25:26.280 --> 00:25:28.600
 And so that was the direction that we got from from council.

00:25:28.600 --> 00:25:32.900
 And so that's what we're currently working working through to just have that standard

00:25:32.900 --> 00:25:37.080
 identified within the I.L.A.

00:25:37.080 --> 00:25:38.080
 Mayor Beck.

00:25:38.080 --> 00:25:39.640
 Thank you, Chair.

00:25:39.640 --> 00:25:48.520
 Richard, is is there any rule about that parcel like that that wanted to annex in has to be

00:25:48.520 --> 00:25:51.280
 continuous with our traditional border?

00:25:51.280 --> 00:25:52.280
 Correct.

00:25:52.280 --> 00:25:56.240
 There would need to be continuity unless there would need to have the border would need to

00:25:56.240 --> 00:25:58.200
 be contiguous.

00:25:58.200 --> 00:26:03.680
 So we would have to annex a connected piece up to a property that was separated.

00:26:03.680 --> 00:26:04.680
 Correct.

00:26:04.680 --> 00:26:06.840
 OK, thank you.

00:26:06.840 --> 00:26:12.720
 They would have to petition, I should say.

00:26:12.720 --> 00:26:14.720
 And then again, this was sort of an easier one.

00:26:14.720 --> 00:26:18.880
 But again, wanted to make sure that that direction was clear and making sure that within within

00:26:18.880 --> 00:26:24.120
 the I.L.A., we include those standards from the Lake Ray Roberts planning area again.

00:26:24.120 --> 00:26:29.560
 We don't want to get into a situation where we're approving plats that go against the zoning

00:26:29.560 --> 00:26:33.400
 standards that are established and then forcing someone to have to go to the commissioner's

00:26:33.400 --> 00:26:38.000
 court for a for a subdivision variance or a lot variance, because now they can't get

00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:45.040
 a building permit because it doesn't meet the the minimum lot size.

00:26:45.040 --> 00:26:50.600
 And then again, the permitting of of of culverts in the E.T.J., again, this is something if

00:26:50.600 --> 00:26:53.880
 we're going to go with a rural standard, we believe this is something that the county

00:26:53.880 --> 00:26:56.040
 they're they're doing it now.

00:26:56.040 --> 00:27:03.920
 It doesn't make sense for us to to do culvert permit driveway permits for for ranches or

00:27:03.920 --> 00:27:08.480
 whatever it may be.

00:27:08.480 --> 00:27:12.480
 Should the city enforce tree preservation mitigation in the E.T.J.?

00:27:12.480 --> 00:27:19.200
 This is something that that they requested we come back on at a later date.

00:27:19.200 --> 00:27:25.760
 Our recommendation really was to not to not enforce tree preservation and mitigation within

00:27:25.760 --> 00:27:26.760
 the E.T.J.

00:27:26.760 --> 00:27:30.680
 Again, that San Antonio case, I don't think is binding, and Matt can probably speak to

00:27:30.680 --> 00:27:35.080
 this better than I could, you know, statewide.

00:27:35.080 --> 00:27:40.440
 But again, most of you know, as as you probably are aware, most of the lands within the E.T.J.

00:27:40.440 --> 00:27:46.760
 are large, kind of these larger ranches and farms that are, you know, would meet the definition

00:27:46.760 --> 00:27:49.760
 of agricultural operation to some extent.

00:27:49.760 --> 00:27:55.440
 And so whether or not they would even would even be subject to it, even if we were subject

00:27:55.440 --> 00:27:58.520
 to the standards, might be slim to none.

00:27:58.520 --> 00:28:05.040
 Additionally, most of those treat areas are are within floodplain or FEMA.

00:28:05.040 --> 00:28:11.120
 And so they're not necessarily developing or removing those those trees anyways.

00:28:11.120 --> 00:28:15.720
 And really just looking at the enforcement of that.

00:28:15.720 --> 00:28:20.400
 This is not something that we would go through, you know, a code enforcement hearing, we would

00:28:20.400 --> 00:28:28.560
 have to enforce that or if their lack of doing and cutting down all the trees and not complying,

00:28:28.560 --> 00:28:32.560
 the enforcement of that would have to actually be through district court.

00:28:32.560 --> 00:28:39.200
 And just given what that could potentially do to challenges to our tree code, we just

00:28:39.200 --> 00:28:46.560
 looked at it as not really not really worth the what we would get in in return, the risk

00:28:46.560 --> 00:28:47.560
 associated with that.

00:28:47.560 --> 00:28:53.200
 And again, there was no there was no direction from from council.

00:28:53.200 --> 00:28:57.720
 So it was something that they wanted to to look at further.

00:28:57.720 --> 00:29:03.920
 Again, that exchange for ETJ, the direction at that point was in our recommendation was

00:29:03.920 --> 00:29:09.720
 to bring back a policy that really looked at kind of let everything kind of all options

00:29:09.720 --> 00:29:14.400
 on the table, not just land area exchange, but looking at that revenue share, direct

00:29:14.400 --> 00:29:20.200
 payment or, you know, a variety of other options to kind of think outside the box, in some

00:29:20.200 --> 00:29:25.160
 instances where it might be advantageous to to do that, but at least we have some guidance

00:29:25.160 --> 00:29:31.680
 as far as the policy that that direction where council council what council is comfortable

00:29:31.680 --> 00:29:34.360
 with.

00:29:34.360 --> 00:29:41.320
 And then really, again, looking at that, that release of that ETJ, it's a pilot point.

00:29:41.320 --> 00:29:47.720
 Quite honestly, I don't think there was a full consensus that that they were ready to

00:29:47.720 --> 00:29:53.640
 say yes, but the direction was to bring back the item, at least for consideration to see

00:29:53.640 --> 00:30:00.320
 what what it what it looked like, and what that sales tax revenue could even generate.

00:30:00.320 --> 00:30:04.920
 But again, I think we're in a we'll be having a different conversation when when this does

00:30:04.920 --> 00:30:12.360
 go back on the 25th. And part of the other is looking at, you know,

00:30:12.360 --> 00:30:17.360
 looking at depending what we ultimately do with with pilot point, but looking at this

00:30:17.360 --> 00:30:24.080
 area of, of division two, that's just on the other side of our water treatment plant, and

00:30:24.080 --> 00:30:28.200
 really looking at should should as part of this amendment to the ILA, should we just

00:30:28.200 --> 00:30:36.920
 bring that area into into our division one, our recommendation was yes, if we have if

00:30:36.920 --> 00:30:41.040
 our bound if our municipal boundary already goes up the stream.

00:30:41.040 --> 00:30:45.440
 If the west side of the stream is division one, why not make the east side division to

00:30:45.440 --> 00:30:53.480
 that way, again, it could provide for additional opportunities for annexation, as well as plotting

00:30:53.480 --> 00:30:58.800
 authority through through the through that green belt, our trail system. And then again,

00:30:58.800 --> 00:31:03.080
 looking at potentially what the Army Corps wants to do, whether or not we have a state

00:31:03.080 --> 00:31:07.920
 park within our, you know, within our city limits, we're pretty darn close with the with

00:31:07.920 --> 00:31:13.640
 the treatment plant. But again, just looking for future future opportunities.

00:31:13.640 --> 00:31:18.480
 Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Chair. Richard, I got a quick question.

00:31:18.480 --> 00:31:25.080
 If we are going to annex the part of Aldabra State Park, and the Trail Corridor, why not

00:31:25.080 --> 00:31:29.440
 just keep that other part, the Jordan unit, because it's going to butt up, it's going

00:31:29.440 --> 00:31:36.040
 to butt up to it eventually you can do it as well. Because I lived right there in PowerPoint

00:31:36.040 --> 00:31:40.640
 for years, and I don't think there's gonna be much sales tax from that area that that

00:31:40.640 --> 00:31:45.000
 place has changed hands so many times up there and it's nothing really.

00:31:45.000 --> 00:31:50.760
 Yeah, and we later learned, actually, after the meeting there, believe it or not, the

00:31:50.760 --> 00:31:56.720
 while the land is all owned by Army Corps, and it's a state park, the state park is a

00:31:56.720 --> 00:32:02.720
 sublease from the city of Dent and the city of Dallas. So we are actually the first lease

00:32:02.720 --> 00:32:09.040
 holder of that land around the lake. And that had to do with really, since that's our drinking

00:32:09.040 --> 00:32:15.320
 water. And so that was one of those agreements that were just buried somewhere that we later

00:32:15.320 --> 00:32:20.440
 found out after the work session. And so I think that's something, you know, when we

00:32:20.440 --> 00:32:26.040
 come back on the 25th Making Council where that even if we were to grant that area to

00:32:26.040 --> 00:32:31.400
 pilot point, anything that they do, the way the agreements are structured, would still

00:32:31.400 --> 00:32:38.040
 require sign off from the city, because we're the first lease holder of that land. And so

00:32:38.040 --> 00:32:47.880
 they would almost essentially be a sublease of the state park. And so it's sort of a multitude

00:32:47.880 --> 00:32:54.960
 of layers, but even more so, you know, looking at both us in first position, but equal in

00:32:54.960 --> 00:33:02.140
 first position is the city of Dallas, because they're also pulling water for their drinking

00:33:02.140 --> 00:33:07.360
 water from that lake. And so part of that, I think the broader policy question is do

00:33:07.360 --> 00:33:14.960
 we want or should we have greater authority over platting of what goes on around our boundary

00:33:14.960 --> 00:33:20.280
 of the lake where we pull our drinking water? That's something that council will have to

00:33:20.280 --> 00:33:28.320
 weigh in on. And again, so this was kind of the timeline, and kind of when we were looking

00:33:28.320 --> 00:33:33.640
 to bring it back. So kind of on track, but again, we're looking to bring that item back.

00:33:33.640 --> 00:33:37.520
 I think what kind of through a wrench in it is learning that this agreement was out there.

00:33:37.520 --> 00:33:42.320
 So we've been, again, having additional meetings with both the Army Corps, Texas Parks and

00:33:42.320 --> 00:33:48.120
 Wildlife, among others. And so that's kind of where we're at is looking at bringing that

00:33:48.120 --> 00:33:58.400
 policy, we set draft policy back. I suspect what's going to happen given the just brevity

00:33:58.400 --> 00:34:03.560
 of this, we'll probably split this into two work sessions again. So I suspect on the 25th,

00:34:03.560 --> 00:34:10.320
 the main focus will be that ETJ swap with pilot point and the policy associated with

00:34:10.320 --> 00:34:15.600
 that moving forward. And then how and what our ETJ boundary should be division one, division

00:34:15.600 --> 00:34:22.280
 two, and then coming back within a week or two later with the with the ILA draft agreement.

00:34:22.280 --> 00:34:27.320
 And so as those move forward, we'll make sure that I'll make sure that PNZ is updated. But

00:34:27.320 --> 00:34:34.320
 that was essentially the the presentation that was presented back in January to City

00:34:34.320 --> 00:34:40.200
 Council. Great. Thank you, Richard. Any questions for

00:34:40.200 --> 00:34:49.860
 Richard? It was a lot. It was but helpful. Appreciate it. I do not see any questions.

00:34:49.860 --> 00:34:55.440
 Move on to the other parts of our agenda item. This one let the record show that Mr. Anderson

00:34:55.440 --> 00:35:05.320
 has joined us this evening. Welcome, Mr. Anderson. The next item on our agenda would be the consideration

00:35:05.320 --> 00:35:10.260
 for the minutes. Is there any discussion around the minutes this evening that we can make

00:35:10.260 --> 00:35:20.920
 note of now? Okay, then we move into our consent agenda. We have two items. FP 21 dash 009b,

00:35:20.920 --> 00:35:26.120
 which is Karina Maldonado. She actually has both this evening. So any questions for her?

00:35:26.120 --> 00:35:35.840
 Do you want to bring those up? Looking around, I don't see any questions.

00:35:35.840 --> 00:35:42.440
 Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. So earlier, when you started

00:35:42.440 --> 00:35:47.600
 the meeting, you said we had citizen comments on each of these. Is that correct?

00:35:47.600 --> 00:35:53.800
 We did. For context, we had one citizen oppose every item on the agenda this evening, and

00:35:53.800 --> 00:35:59.800
 the two of the items of the five opposed were the consent agenda items.

00:35:59.800 --> 00:36:06.320
 Okay. And so no details other than that, right? I think the note was sent to us. She opposes

00:36:06.320 --> 00:36:11.300
 I believe she was mentioning multifamily development. Understood. So that was the one we got five

00:36:11.300 --> 00:36:19.100
 from the same person. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Correct. All right. Well, I don't see

00:36:19.100 --> 00:36:24.240
 any questions for the consent, so we'll just hop into individual items. Starting with 4A

00:36:24.240 --> 00:36:34.200
 PP 21 dash 0005. This is Sean Jacobson's item. And so I'll invite him to present this item.

00:36:34.200 --> 00:36:44.660
 Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. I'm pulling up my presentation now in just

00:36:44.660 --> 00:37:11.080
 a moment. Okay. Go ahead and share that. All right. So this item is PP 21 0005, request

00:37:11.080 --> 00:37:17.380
 for a preliminary plat, and staff is recommending denial of this request, as it does not meet

00:37:17.380 --> 00:37:23.840
 the established requirements as outlined in Exhibit 2. The applicant has requested an

00:37:23.840 --> 00:37:32.220
 extension to date certain of May 19th, 2021. I'll be happy to answer any questions that

00:37:32.220 --> 00:37:37.420
 you have on this item. Great. Thanks, Sean. Any questions for Sean

00:37:37.420 --> 00:37:49.440
 on this item? Okay. I don't see any. Next item is 4B PP 21 dash 0006. This is Julie

00:37:49.440 --> 00:38:10.080
 Wyatt's item. I'll invite Julie for presentation. Good evening. Just a minute to pull up my

00:38:10.080 --> 00:38:21.980
 presentation. All right. Here we go. So this is a preliminary

00:38:21.980 --> 00:38:29.280
 plat for a new unit within Robeson Ranch. They are still working through a few things

00:38:29.280 --> 00:38:35.520
 in order to meet the criteria for approval. And so the staff recommends denial of the

00:38:35.520 --> 00:38:39.660
 request. They have requested an extension to the May 19th Planning and Zoning Commission

00:38:39.660 --> 00:38:45.780
 to wrap those items up, and staff has no objection to that extension, and I'll be happy to answer

00:38:45.780 --> 00:38:50.740
 any questions. Any questions for Julie?

00:38:50.740 --> 00:38:56.580
 Christian or Beck? Thank you, Chair. Julie, as I understood the

00:38:56.580 --> 00:39:02.960
 plat, it looks like it's completely within the golf course.

00:39:02.960 --> 00:39:09.360
 We can't, Christian. Go ahead, Christian Beck.

00:39:09.360 --> 00:39:16.720
 It's completely within the golf course region. This development is completely inside the

00:39:16.720 --> 00:39:22.820
 -- I'm just confirming that. The residential lots actually kind of surround

00:39:22.820 --> 00:39:28.340
 one of the golf course holes. So you're correct. It is sort of hugged up against that golf

00:39:28.340 --> 00:39:32.000
 course lot. Okay. Thank you. That's all the clarity I

00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:35.240
 could give you. Sure.

00:39:35.240 --> 00:39:39.720
 Any other questions? Commissioner Anderson, you had your hand up.

00:39:39.720 --> 00:39:45.540
 I don't know if you're just testing tech or if you had a question.

00:39:45.540 --> 00:39:51.320
 Do you have any questions on this item, Commissioner Anderson?

00:39:51.320 --> 00:39:54.280
 He's having technical difficulties. That's what it looks like.

00:39:54.280 --> 00:39:59.280
 All right. Well, no worries. We'll hear it again in public session if you had any questions.

00:39:59.280 --> 00:40:04.640
 Commissioner Cole? Yeah, I'm zooming in on this location map,

00:40:04.640 --> 00:40:14.280
 on the site location map. And that might be my family's property right

00:40:14.280 --> 00:40:21.120
 next to this. So I don't -- I'm not 100% sure.

00:40:21.120 --> 00:40:29.120
 But I think there's a good possibility. I don't know if I should vote on this.

00:40:29.120 --> 00:40:38.280
 Because I see that lake. Yeah, I think it is.

00:40:38.280 --> 00:40:47.480
 Commissioner Cole, would it be possible to verify before meeting?

00:40:47.480 --> 00:40:49.680
 Northeast corner? Right?

00:40:49.680 --> 00:40:54.280
 Yeah, it looks like the northeast corner. It is, yes, sir.

00:40:54.280 --> 00:41:03.000
 Yeah, because that lake, that big lake up there is owned by us and is split between

00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:06.920
 Hillwood and us. We're on one side, they're on the other.

00:41:06.920 --> 00:41:16.320
 Yeah, I feel pretty uncomfortable with this. So I think I need to punch out on the vote.

00:41:16.320 --> 00:41:20.640
 Okay. I don't know if you'd be right.

00:41:20.640 --> 00:41:27.160
 I mean, I'd like a legal opinion on that. Mack, you have any insight to his recusal?

00:41:27.160 --> 00:41:30.560
 Yeah, I mean, obviously, if you're within 200 feet, you absolutely have to recuse.

00:41:30.560 --> 00:41:33.880
 If it's in doubt, I would recommend go ahead and recuse as well and abstain.

00:41:33.880 --> 00:41:37.560
 So to not participate in any deliberation as well as not vote.

00:41:37.560 --> 00:41:41.440
 So yeah, if you can figure out exactly where it is, you could know for sure.

00:41:41.440 --> 00:41:44.080
 But if there's doubt in your mind, I would recommend not.

00:41:44.080 --> 00:41:53.880
 I'm pretty sure it touches in that corner. I'm not for sure, but I'm better safe than

00:41:53.880 --> 00:41:59.080
 sorry. So I think I need to punch out.

00:41:59.080 --> 00:42:05.840
 Mack, when we did this in person, the individual actually physically recused himself on Zoom.

00:42:05.840 --> 00:42:10.720
 Is it just a matter of muting themselves or do they need to actually be put in the lobby

00:42:10.720 --> 00:42:11.720
 during the discussion?

00:42:11.720 --> 00:42:17.360
 No, I think what we've done over the past year is mute yourself and stop your video.

00:42:17.360 --> 00:42:18.360
 OK, great.

00:42:18.360 --> 00:42:23.800
 Commissioner Cole, we'll just take care of that in the public normal regular session.

00:42:23.800 --> 00:42:25.760
 We'll notify that then.

00:42:25.760 --> 00:42:33.640
 I just, you know, I zoomed in real heavy on that and I've noticed where that that lake

00:42:33.640 --> 00:42:40.000
 and that I, you know, I should realize that before, but I did not.

00:42:40.000 --> 00:42:45.080
 No worries. We'll continue on discussion without you right now, because your pernetta.

00:42:45.080 --> 00:42:50.480
 I just had a question on how we handle the recusal and recusal with the zoom.

00:42:50.480 --> 00:42:56.120
 And I guess the other thing is today, we're only having a vote on they requested an extension,

00:42:56.120 --> 00:42:57.120
 right?

00:42:57.120 --> 00:43:00.320
 So today we're just voting on whether or not to have an extension.

00:43:00.320 --> 00:43:01.320
 Correct.

00:43:01.320 --> 00:43:02.320
 OK, all right.

00:43:02.320 --> 00:43:03.320
 Thank you.

00:43:03.320 --> 00:43:04.320
 Yeah.

00:43:04.320 --> 00:43:08.640
 Any other questions for Julie on this item?

00:43:08.640 --> 00:43:11.120
 OK, great.

00:43:11.120 --> 00:43:13.240
 Just to confirm, I believe it is.

00:43:13.240 --> 00:43:15.320
 I believe Commissioner Cole is correct.

00:43:15.320 --> 00:43:25.080
 Looking at the looking at our map, it is, I believe, in the SF2 or SLF2, Cole property.

00:43:25.080 --> 00:43:29.480
 So it is that I believe it is within that ownership structure.

00:43:29.480 --> 00:43:30.480
 OK, great.

00:43:30.480 --> 00:43:37.840
 Well, I appreciate him speaking up and I agree with legal better safe than sorry.

00:43:37.840 --> 00:43:45.840
 Let's move on to the next item for CPP21-0004A and this also is Julie Wyatt's item.

00:43:45.840 --> 00:43:52.120
 All right, let me share my screen.

00:43:52.120 --> 00:43:56.480
 So this one you've seen before, this is for a preliminary plat off of Ganser Road.

00:43:56.480 --> 00:43:59.360
 It's in our ETJ.

00:43:59.360 --> 00:44:02.120
 They still have some items to work through.

00:44:02.120 --> 00:44:04.440
 And so staff does recommend denial.

00:44:04.440 --> 00:44:09.680
 They have already had one extension granted.

00:44:09.680 --> 00:44:14.200
 You did hear from the applicant today regarding some concerns with comments, and so I just

00:44:14.200 --> 00:44:19.480
 kind of wanted to briefly just talk through those and summarize those so you'll understand

00:44:19.480 --> 00:44:25.080
 what those comments are related to to staff's review.

00:44:25.080 --> 00:44:27.400
 I kind of look at them in a few buckets.

00:44:27.400 --> 00:44:34.400
 One would be there is a road in our mobility plan that crosses the subject property on

00:44:34.400 --> 00:44:36.200
 the north side.

00:44:36.200 --> 00:44:42.400
 So that needs to be reflected in the plan per the requirements for that mobility plan.

00:44:42.400 --> 00:44:47.640
 There's also a correction related to easement widths for offsite easements.

00:44:47.640 --> 00:44:53.160
 They do need to make some updates to their TIA in order to accommodate some revisions

00:44:53.160 --> 00:44:56.920
 to the plan since the TIA was first submitted.

00:44:56.920 --> 00:45:00.320
 And then they have some standard notes and formatting comments.

00:45:00.320 --> 00:45:05.680
 We will have -- we do have engineering on the line if they're the subject matter experts

00:45:05.680 --> 00:45:12.000
 regarding those items, and we'll be happy to let them answer any questions.

00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:16.760
 And they'll also be on the line during the regular session.

00:45:16.760 --> 00:45:22.880
 So staff does recommend denial due to those reasons, and I will be happy to answer any

00:45:22.880 --> 00:45:25.920
 questions or have engineering do so.

00:45:25.920 --> 00:45:27.640
 Great.

00:45:27.640 --> 00:45:28.640
 Thank you, Julie.

00:45:28.640 --> 00:45:34.720
 The understanding the applicant has given us notice that they are not in agreement with

00:45:34.720 --> 00:45:36.000
 this decision by staff.

00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:37.000
 Is that correct?

00:45:37.000 --> 00:45:38.000
 Correct.

00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:41.920
 I do believe they'll be calling in this evening to discuss those comments.

00:45:41.920 --> 00:45:42.920
 Okay.

00:45:42.920 --> 00:45:43.920
 Great.

00:45:43.920 --> 00:45:50.320
 Is there any questions for Julie on this?

00:45:50.320 --> 00:45:54.520
 And just for the edification of myself and the rest of the commission, if it proves helpful,

00:45:54.520 --> 00:45:59.720
 I'm not sure, Julie, can you just verify?

00:45:59.720 --> 00:46:07.440
 It's not often that we have a plat being debated on the approval process.

00:46:07.440 --> 00:46:14.080
 And so this evening, if they are presenting different evidence or objections to save us

00:46:14.080 --> 00:46:19.380
 from a banter back and forth, Julie, you'll present -- they can present their letter or

00:46:19.380 --> 00:46:25.360
 their findings, and then you have a rebuttal for them, or can you tell us kind of how that

00:46:25.360 --> 00:46:28.360
 flow is going to happen this evening?

00:46:28.360 --> 00:46:32.880
 I don't know if Richard wants to take that up.

00:46:32.880 --> 00:46:37.600
 I believe that is the -- that's sort of the framework for the discussion.

00:46:37.600 --> 00:46:44.160
 Yeah, but what we thought we would kind of set this up or at least a way to manage the

00:46:44.160 --> 00:46:49.800
 conversation treated very much like we do with our Zoning Board of Adjustment if there's

00:46:49.800 --> 00:46:56.200
 an appeal of a staff decision or a similar request where it's typically presentation

00:46:56.200 --> 00:47:02.920
 by staff and then presentation by the applicant.

00:47:02.920 --> 00:47:06.440
 So that way, at least we have the facts out there.

00:47:06.440 --> 00:47:12.120
 And then obviously the rebuttal, rebuttal by staff, rebuttal by the applicant.

00:47:12.120 --> 00:47:17.000
 And then if there's any questions by any -- by the commission, and then obviously the decision

00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:18.000
 by the commission.

00:47:18.000 --> 00:47:20.000
 I think I got it right.

00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:24.760
 Hopefully I didn't miss the order up.

00:47:24.760 --> 00:47:28.000
 And this, you said, has been brought before us, Julie.

00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:32.440
 Is there not a 30-day extension opportunity here?

00:47:32.440 --> 00:47:33.440
 Not at this time.

00:47:33.440 --> 00:47:40.040
 There was a 30-day extension granted on April 7th, and so there's only a one-time 30-day

00:47:40.040 --> 00:47:45.720
 extension that can be granted under the state regulations.

00:47:45.720 --> 00:47:50.280
 And has the applicant been briefed about the implications of a denial and how they bring

00:47:50.280 --> 00:47:53.240
 the project back to the staff?

00:47:53.240 --> 00:47:54.440
 I can verify that.

00:47:54.440 --> 00:48:00.600
 We have talked with them about that this would be a denial, but I can certainly verify that

00:48:00.600 --> 00:48:05.480
 they understand what they would have to do in order to bring it back.

00:48:05.480 --> 00:48:06.480
 Okay.

00:48:06.480 --> 00:48:10.880
 I think that might help the conversation if they just understand the implications of the

00:48:10.880 --> 00:48:11.880
 decision.

00:48:11.880 --> 00:48:12.880
 Sure.

00:48:12.880 --> 00:48:13.880
 Commissioner Beck.

00:48:13.880 --> 00:48:15.880
 Thank you, Chair.

00:48:15.880 --> 00:48:31.400
 Richard, given the passing of the preliminary plat in ETJ Tuesday, this -- if this type

00:48:31.400 --> 00:48:36.600
 of development had happened, it would still be allowed because it's a single development

00:48:36.600 --> 00:48:37.600
 all at once.

00:48:37.600 --> 00:48:43.000
 I mean, I'm connecting them together because this is an example of a preliminary plat in

00:48:43.000 --> 00:48:45.440
 the ETJ.

00:48:45.440 --> 00:48:50.000
 And this is the only one -- I think this is the only one that's kind of still pending,

00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:51.000
 if you will.

00:48:51.000 --> 00:48:55.460
 So it will continue as is.

00:48:55.460 --> 00:49:01.780
 So it's treated like any other preliminary plat that we would -- I mean, I understand

00:49:01.780 --> 00:49:04.760
 this one is vested.

00:49:04.760 --> 00:49:10.680
 And so the ordinance essentially is effective in 10 days or nine days.

00:49:10.680 --> 00:49:16.760
 And so once that ordinance becomes effective, then that code is changed.

00:49:16.760 --> 00:49:21.560
 That law is essentially amended in our DDC.

00:49:21.560 --> 00:49:29.400
 We don't have any -- given our submittal schedule, we did not receive any new preliminary

00:49:29.400 --> 00:49:34.120
 plats that were submitted yesterday.

00:49:34.120 --> 00:49:41.840
 So the likelihood of us having one come in is essentially slim to none because we just

00:49:41.840 --> 00:49:47.840
 don't have that submittal schedule established where they're able to submit another preliminary

00:49:47.840 --> 00:49:54.220
 plat in the ETJ prior to that 10-day period before the ordinance is effective.

00:49:54.220 --> 00:49:58.720
 >> But that 10-day -- if they get denied, that 10-day would not impact them because

00:49:58.720 --> 00:50:00.920
 this is a prior action, correct?

00:50:00.920 --> 00:50:01.920
 >> Correct.

00:50:01.920 --> 00:50:05.000
 It was submitted prior to the effective date of the ordinance.

00:50:05.000 --> 00:50:06.000
 >> All right.

00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:07.000
 Thank you.

00:50:07.000 --> 00:50:09.840
 >> Any other questions for Julie?

00:50:09.840 --> 00:50:10.840
 All right.

00:50:10.840 --> 00:50:16.160
 Seeing none, we'll move on to the final item for individual consideration, which is item

00:50:16.160 --> 00:50:23.800
 D, PZ21-064, consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding creating a small

00:50:23.800 --> 00:50:30.000
 area plan for the area near Interstate 35 North and Highway 77.

00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:34.480
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:50:34.480 --> 00:50:37.040
 Let me pull up a presentation.

00:50:37.040 --> 00:50:49.160
 It should be a quick presentation.

00:50:49.160 --> 00:50:52.560
 Hopefully you all can see the presentation on the screen.

00:50:52.560 --> 00:50:53.560
 >> Yes.

00:50:53.560 --> 00:50:54.560
 >> Great.

00:50:54.560 --> 00:50:58.320
 As mentioned in the introduction, this is a discussion regarding a small area plan for

00:50:58.320 --> 00:51:01.080
 an area north of town.

00:51:01.080 --> 00:51:02.480
 Just quick background.

00:51:02.480 --> 00:51:08.000
 This was heard just two weeks ago on April 21st, where we discussed the comprehensive

00:51:08.000 --> 00:51:11.160
 plan as well as the small area plan.

00:51:11.160 --> 00:51:15.120
 But just to go back a little bit further, January 20th, there was a request for a work

00:51:15.120 --> 00:51:18.000
 session to discuss small area plan.

00:51:18.000 --> 00:51:24.160
 At that time, there was several discussions over PD and zoning cases in that area, and

00:51:24.160 --> 00:51:28.400
 so the Planning, Zoning Commission felt that a small area plan was appropriate for this

00:51:28.400 --> 00:51:32.760
 area, again, around I-35 North and Highway 77.

00:51:32.760 --> 00:51:35.640
 We had the presentation on April 21st.

00:51:35.640 --> 00:51:40.600
 During that presentation, during that day, there was a request from the Planning, Zoning

00:51:40.600 --> 00:51:47.520
 Commission to bring back an item for consideration for a recommendation for this area to be considered

00:51:47.520 --> 00:51:49.320
 as a small area plan.

00:51:49.320 --> 00:51:51.840
 I'm going to skip this slide.

00:51:51.840 --> 00:51:57.200
 This is the subject area that we're talking about, again, I-35 North and Highway 77, the

00:51:57.200 --> 00:52:02.600
 general area that's shown on these multiple exhibits.

00:52:02.600 --> 00:52:06.280
 We've seen these exhibits before.

00:52:06.280 --> 00:52:12.440
 As far as next steps, if the Planning, Zoning Commission recommends for this small area plan

00:52:12.440 --> 00:52:17.000
 to be created, we will take this to City Council as a work session item.

00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:22.000
 In fact, that June 21 date, we initially had that date, but I think it's going to be moved

00:52:22.000 --> 00:52:23.240
 up earlier.

00:52:23.240 --> 00:52:26.600
 We're thinking of a May 18th work session for City Council.

00:52:26.600 --> 00:52:31.920
 So in a couple of weeks, again, if this Planning, Zoning Commission recommends that it be created,

00:52:31.920 --> 00:52:37.120
 we will bring this to the City Council, again, May 18th.

00:52:37.120 --> 00:52:40.960
 Following that, there will be a couple of other items, next steps that we would need

00:52:40.960 --> 00:52:45.720
 to do to get the small area plan underway.

00:52:45.720 --> 00:52:49.400
 One of them, of course, is to establish that boundary.

00:52:49.400 --> 00:52:55.560
 So that will be part of that effort after we get direction from City Council.

00:52:55.560 --> 00:53:01.480
 With that, the options for the Planning, Zoning Commission is to obviously recommend that

00:53:01.480 --> 00:53:07.160
 the creation of the small area plan be done, not recommend, or just continue to design.

00:53:07.160 --> 00:53:10.120
 That concludes my presentation.

00:53:10.120 --> 00:53:11.720
 There you go.

00:53:11.720 --> 00:53:14.800
 Yeah, and this is just kind of a basic question.

00:53:14.800 --> 00:53:19.080
 I know when we had the discussion about this a couple of weeks ago, we talked about the

00:53:19.080 --> 00:53:24.960
 previous plans that we've had, and generally, those plans were put into place by citizens

00:53:24.960 --> 00:53:29.160
 with a vision of something that they wanted to maintain or something that they wanted

00:53:29.160 --> 00:53:30.840
 to achieve.

00:53:30.840 --> 00:53:34.920
 This area is kind of a bit of a tabula rasa, right?

00:53:34.920 --> 00:53:37.720
 There's nothing predetermined.

00:53:37.720 --> 00:53:44.080
 So when we are voting for this, are we simply voting to create something exploratory that

00:53:44.080 --> 00:53:52.960
 doesn't have a predetermined idea of what we should be, or is that in the purview?

00:53:52.960 --> 00:53:56.640
 Or are we just simply saying, "Hey, this is something that we should bring people together

00:53:56.640 --> 00:54:03.640
 for," and then whatever the outcome is that they determine is something that we'll go

00:54:03.640 --> 00:54:04.640
 for?

00:54:04.640 --> 00:54:10.560
 I'm just trying to figure out what message we're sending right now, or if it's simply

00:54:10.560 --> 00:54:12.840
 that we're just going to look at this.

00:54:12.840 --> 00:54:17.640
 That is my understanding regarding the area.

00:54:17.640 --> 00:54:21.720
 We actually have a large area, understood, and there are numerous projects that affect

00:54:21.720 --> 00:54:22.720
 this area.

00:54:22.720 --> 00:54:29.640
 So I think the consideration or the discussion last time we met was to explore that opportunity

00:54:29.640 --> 00:54:31.320
 for a smaller area plan.

00:54:31.320 --> 00:54:36.680
 We obviously need to, again, identify a boundary, and then once we do that, further look at

00:54:36.680 --> 00:54:41.520
 the area as far as land use, zoning, and all the other things that come along with that

00:54:41.520 --> 00:54:44.680
 as part of a smaller area plan effort.

00:54:44.680 --> 00:54:45.680
 Okay.

00:54:45.680 --> 00:54:53.480
 And once again, we're just saying, "Hey, generally speaking, we think we should look

00:54:53.480 --> 00:54:59.840
 into this," and then whatever comes of it is a separate issue altogether.

00:54:59.840 --> 00:55:07.960
 We don't have a predetermined desire to impose any type of future for this right now.

00:55:07.960 --> 00:55:12.400
 Yeah, I think the exercise will happen once we start that work, and of course, the Planning

00:55:12.400 --> 00:55:17.560
 Zoning Commission and other stakeholders would be involved in that process.

00:55:17.560 --> 00:55:18.560
 Okay.

00:55:18.560 --> 00:55:19.560
 Thank you very much.

00:55:19.560 --> 00:55:20.560
 All right.

00:55:20.560 --> 00:55:21.560
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:55:21.560 --> 00:55:22.560
 Thank you, Chair.

00:55:22.560 --> 00:55:28.800
 Yeah, so just on that a little bit, really the only thing that we are doing is voting

00:55:28.800 --> 00:55:30.520
 to move this to city council.

00:55:30.520 --> 00:55:34.400
 In the end, it will be their decision whether a small area plan is created.

00:55:34.400 --> 00:55:35.400
 Is that correct?

00:55:35.400 --> 00:55:36.400
 That is correct.

00:55:36.400 --> 00:55:42.520
 It's a recommendation for that area to become a small area plan or have a small area plan.

00:55:42.520 --> 00:55:43.520
 Right.

00:55:43.520 --> 00:55:44.520
 Right.

00:55:44.520 --> 00:55:45.520
 Okay.

00:55:45.520 --> 00:55:46.520
 Thank you.

00:55:46.520 --> 00:55:47.520
 Commissioner Beck.

00:55:47.520 --> 00:55:49.040
 Thank you, Chair.

00:55:49.040 --> 00:56:01.040
 So playing on both those questions, the concepts for it, let's say the council votes yes, that

00:56:01.040 --> 00:56:07.560
 they want to do it, the concepts for the small area plan, the design concepts, the goals

00:56:07.560 --> 00:56:10.160
 will come from whom?

00:56:10.160 --> 00:56:16.800
 From public outreach, from the stakeholders, property owners, individuals that have interest

00:56:16.800 --> 00:56:18.120
 in that area.

00:56:18.120 --> 00:56:19.120
 Okay.

00:56:19.120 --> 00:56:21.680
 Thank you.

00:56:21.680 --> 00:56:27.440
 Any other questions for Ron on this item of moving the SAP forward?

00:56:27.440 --> 00:56:31.280
 Commissioner Beck.

00:56:31.280 --> 00:56:33.440
 Actually I hadn't muted yet.

00:56:33.440 --> 00:56:42.120
 So sort of indirect, I've had citizens approach me about different regions and possibly developing

00:56:42.120 --> 00:56:47.800
 a small area plan, but there was a question, some of these people that approached me were

00:56:47.800 --> 00:56:51.360
 not actually Denton citizens, they were ETJ citizens.

00:56:51.360 --> 00:56:56.520
 And so how does that impact requests for a small area plan?

00:56:56.520 --> 00:57:01.600
 I assume that they would have to have a citizen partner.

00:57:01.600 --> 00:57:03.040
 I would definitely agree with that.

00:57:03.040 --> 00:57:07.360
 Obviously we would act on input from a citizen.

00:57:07.360 --> 00:57:11.400
 Now, depending on the area, I'm not sure the areas that you're referring to, obviously

00:57:11.400 --> 00:57:17.080
 there may be more than other individuals that are interested in that area plan.

00:57:17.080 --> 00:57:23.920
 So certainly partnering with them or sharing the same sentiments with staff, we can certainly

00:57:23.920 --> 00:57:27.160
 consider them at that time.

00:57:27.160 --> 00:57:37.420
 But staff would be unable to respond to ETJ citizens.

00:57:37.420 --> 00:57:43.400
 They would have to respond to Denton's proper citizens, proper that sounds weird, but within

00:57:43.400 --> 00:57:46.280
 the city boundary of Denton.

00:57:46.280 --> 00:57:50.760
 There wouldn't be much that we would be able, there wouldn't be much teeth or authority

00:57:50.760 --> 00:57:58.120
 for that plan, given the limitations of what we can enforce in the ETJ, assuming it's even

00:57:58.120 --> 00:58:02.460
 our ETJ Division 1 versus Division 2.

00:58:02.460 --> 00:58:06.820
 If that was something they did approach us with, obviously if it's in our Division 1,

00:58:06.820 --> 00:58:10.840
 we would want to be part of it, but I would probably think that planning exercise would

00:58:10.840 --> 00:58:17.620
 probably be better to be handled through Denton County, taking the lead, whether or not they

00:58:17.620 --> 00:58:22.760
 create a special district like they did with Lake Ray Roberts planning area, but it would

00:58:22.760 --> 00:58:26.820
 definitely be something that I would think we would want to be, at least my recommendation

00:58:26.820 --> 00:58:33.060
 would be, we would be part of it because it is within our ETJ, it's right next to us.

00:58:33.060 --> 00:58:39.040
 But again, with our limited authority of what we can and can't do, it would just be enforcing

00:58:39.040 --> 00:58:44.320
 subdivision regulations and again, we can't do anything with respect to use, lot size,

00:58:44.320 --> 00:58:45.320
 anything like that.

00:58:45.320 --> 00:58:52.480
 So, I'll be less coy so it is more clear, and that is, these are hardly field ETJ residents,

00:58:52.480 --> 00:58:58.640
 so therefore the actual property that they would be wanting to explore would be Carter

00:58:58.640 --> 00:59:02.560
 to the north, which is in our boundary.

00:59:02.560 --> 00:59:13.700
 So the question is more of a, can an ETJ citizen, an ETJ citizen would have to have a citizen

00:59:13.700 --> 00:59:23.480
 partner in order to initiate that, you know, even if it was for Denton property?

00:59:23.480 --> 00:59:28.200
 I think it could come from a multitude of, you know, whether P&Z wanted to do that, or

00:59:28.200 --> 00:59:35.800
 I think if that request came in, I don't know that, I'd have to look at the comp plan of

00:59:35.800 --> 00:59:41.320
 how it would it, what it says specifically, but I don't know that there's limitations.

00:59:41.320 --> 00:59:43.520
 I just can't recall off the top of my head.

00:59:43.520 --> 00:59:47.000
 And I don't want to rabbit hole us, because that's not this direct item too much.

00:59:47.000 --> 00:59:48.600
 So I'll just stop there.

00:59:48.600 --> 00:59:49.960
 Commissioner Pernetta.

00:59:49.960 --> 00:59:57.440
 And this is, and not to rabbit hole too much, but this, you know, that question that Commissioner

00:59:57.440 --> 01:00:02.240
 Beck was raising, you know, that area out in your Hartley field is surrounded, you know,

01:00:02.240 --> 01:00:06.360
 like we have little pockets that are Denton, little pockets that are not, generally, and

01:00:06.360 --> 01:00:12.340
 this is just a general question, not as specific to this for smaller area plans.

01:00:12.340 --> 01:00:13.960
 What authority do we have?

01:00:13.960 --> 01:00:23.520
 If we have an area that surrounds or is adjacent to ETJ in a way, can we include ETJ in a small

01:00:23.520 --> 01:00:25.160
 area plan?

01:00:25.160 --> 01:00:29.480
 If we have Denton surrounding, Denton below, Denton, you know, those types of things, or

01:00:29.480 --> 01:00:39.640
 can we only address what is specifically in Denton proper right now?

01:00:39.640 --> 01:00:45.800
 Quite honestly, I think we can put whatever we want in our, you know, in, it's our plan.

01:00:45.800 --> 01:00:52.200
 That's really part of the premise or origination of the ETJ was to, for cities to plan growth

01:00:52.200 --> 01:00:54.400
 on their edge.

01:00:54.400 --> 01:00:59.920
 So whether there's other policies that guide future annexation, you know, how we extend

01:00:59.920 --> 01:01:06.640
 water, wastewater, capital projects, all of that could be included.

01:01:06.640 --> 01:01:13.280
 I think what makes it even more unique for us is if you look at that Northern, you know,

01:01:13.280 --> 01:01:19.760
 north of 380 or north of the loop, really, our boundaries zigzag in and out.

01:01:19.760 --> 01:01:26.040
 So to not include, you know, we almost have to include ETJ in that planning, in addition

01:01:26.040 --> 01:01:30.680
 to, you know, even Denton County, what their plans are, given the, you know, just some

01:01:30.680 --> 01:01:35.280
 of the environmental sensitive areas, not necessarily calling them ESA, but they're,

01:01:35.280 --> 01:01:38.560
 they're, you know, you have the green belt, there's a lot of streams.

01:01:38.560 --> 01:01:46.280
 There's just a lot of different, you know, elevation changes out there that, again, kind

01:01:46.280 --> 01:01:50.360
 of zigzag between whether you're in the city or you're in our ETJ.

01:01:50.360 --> 01:01:56.960
 So depending where that plan, you know, if it extends to other areas, I think you almost

01:01:56.960 --> 01:02:02.320
 have to include the ETJ as part of that, as part of that, again, from a limited aspect,

01:02:02.320 --> 01:02:05.520
 but definitely part of that, part of that plan.

01:02:05.520 --> 01:02:10.600
 And just to quickly add to Richard's comment or response, you know, the future land use

01:02:10.600 --> 01:02:15.720
 plan map, you know, extends outside the city limits, the mobility plan extends outside

01:02:15.720 --> 01:02:18.280
 the city limits, and it's similar in situation.

01:02:18.280 --> 01:02:22.200
 This is a smaller your plan, again, as Richard mentions, the planning now, when it comes

01:02:22.200 --> 01:02:28.840
 to overlay districts, which would be the next step, if that is the case, that only must

01:02:28.840 --> 01:02:33.080
 be within the city limits, of course, because that's under, you know, zoning regulations

01:02:33.080 --> 01:02:35.280
 or development review requirements.

01:02:35.280 --> 01:02:38.240
 So that, unfortunately, would just be within the city of them.

01:02:38.240 --> 01:02:41.240
 Thank you guys so much.

01:02:41.240 --> 01:02:42.240
 That's all I had.

01:02:42.240 --> 01:02:43.240
 I'll pull this out of that rabbit hole.

01:02:43.240 --> 01:02:47.960
 I've got nothing else on this particular item.

01:02:47.960 --> 01:02:51.040
 Any other questions for Ron on this item?

01:02:51.040 --> 01:02:53.480
 Okay, great.

01:02:53.480 --> 01:02:56.640
 That concludes the agenda for our work session.

01:02:56.640 --> 01:03:04.680
 We will take a short break and reconvene back here at 630, which is at about 22 minutes.

01:03:04.680 --> 01:03:06.680
 And we'll see everyone there.

01:03:06.680 --> 01:03:09.040
 Thank you.

01:03:09.040 --> 01:03:14.920
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular

01:03:14.920 --> 01:03:19.360
 meeting for Wednesday, May 5th, 2021.

01:03:19.360 --> 01:03:24.160
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 631.

01:03:24.160 --> 01:03:28.160
 The first item of business this evening is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S.

01:03:28.160 --> 01:03:29.940
 and Texas flag.

01:03:29.940 --> 01:03:35.400
 Other commissioners are more than welcome to join me by unmuting their mics.

01:03:35.400 --> 01:03:40.920
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

01:03:40.920 --> 01:03:49.580
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:03:49.580 --> 01:03:51.360
 Honor the Texas flag.

01:03:51.360 --> 01:03:58.440
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one indivisible.

01:03:58.440 --> 01:04:04.680
 The next item of business is to consider our consent agenda.

01:04:04.680 --> 01:04:11.880
 Commissioner Beck.

01:04:11.880 --> 01:04:12.880
 You're muted there.

01:04:12.880 --> 01:04:22.520
 I think that was a motion.

01:04:22.520 --> 01:04:25.320
 We'll give him one more second.

01:04:25.320 --> 01:04:26.320
 Still nothing.

01:04:26.320 --> 01:04:27.320
 Commissioner Beck.

01:04:27.320 --> 01:04:28.320
 Commissioner Smith.

01:04:28.320 --> 01:04:29.320
 Make an motion to approve.

01:04:29.320 --> 01:04:30.320
 Perfect.

01:04:30.320 --> 01:04:31.320
 We have a first.

01:04:31.320 --> 01:04:32.320
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:04:32.320 --> 01:04:37.320
 Yes, Chair, if I might.

01:04:37.320 --> 01:04:41.200
 We did skip over the approval of the minutes.

01:04:41.200 --> 01:04:46.280
 So I don't know if we want to handle this item and then go back or what?

01:04:46.280 --> 01:04:47.280
 Yeah.

01:04:47.280 --> 01:04:48.280
 Thank you for reminding me.

01:04:48.280 --> 01:04:50.200
 It seems like every time you do that, I appreciate it.

01:04:50.200 --> 01:04:56.140
 We'll consider the motion on the floor for the consent agenda item three and we'll head

01:04:56.140 --> 01:04:57.800
 back to the minutes.

01:04:57.800 --> 01:04:59.440
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:04:59.440 --> 01:05:00.680
 I will second.

01:05:00.680 --> 01:05:01.680
 Thank you.

01:05:01.680 --> 01:05:03.960
 We have a first and second for approval of the consent agenda.

01:05:03.960 --> 01:05:11.840
 Any discussion?

01:05:11.840 --> 01:05:12.840
 Commissioner Beck.

01:05:12.840 --> 01:05:13.840
 Can you hear me now?

01:05:13.840 --> 01:05:14.840
 We can.

01:05:14.840 --> 01:05:15.840
 Perfect.

01:05:15.840 --> 01:05:16.840
 Yay.

01:05:16.840 --> 01:05:17.840
 Fixed it.

01:05:17.840 --> 01:05:18.840
 I assume that was your discussion point or did you?

01:05:18.840 --> 01:05:19.840
 That was my discussion point.

01:05:19.840 --> 01:05:20.840
 All right.

01:05:20.840 --> 01:05:25.320
 Seeing no other discussion, we'll go ahead and call a vote via roll call, starting with

01:05:25.320 --> 01:05:26.320
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:05:26.320 --> 01:05:27.320
 Aye.

01:05:27.320 --> 01:05:28.320
 Commissioner Beck.

01:05:28.320 --> 01:05:29.320
 Aye.

01:05:29.320 --> 01:05:30.320
 Commissioner Cole.

01:05:30.320 --> 01:05:31.320
 Aye.

01:05:31.320 --> 01:05:32.320
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:05:32.320 --> 01:05:33.320
 Aye.

01:05:33.320 --> 01:05:34.320
 Commissioner Smith.

01:05:34.320 --> 01:05:35.320
 Aye.

01:05:35.320 --> 01:05:36.320
 Commissioner Pronetta.

01:05:36.320 --> 01:05:37.320
 Aye.

01:05:37.320 --> 01:05:39.360
 Chair is also an aye.

01:05:39.360 --> 01:05:41.040
 Motion carries seven zero.

01:05:41.040 --> 01:05:46.600
 Heading back up one item is our minutes and the chair will entertain a motion on the April

01:05:46.600 --> 01:05:48.600
 21st, 2021 minutes.

01:05:48.600 --> 01:05:49.600
 Commissioner Smith.

01:05:49.600 --> 01:05:51.040
 Make a motion to approve.

01:05:51.040 --> 01:05:53.360
 We have a first for approval.

01:05:53.360 --> 01:05:54.360
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:05:54.360 --> 01:05:55.360
 Second the motion.

01:05:55.360 --> 01:05:58.360
 We have a first and a second.

01:05:58.360 --> 01:06:01.400
 Any discussion on this item?

01:06:01.400 --> 01:06:03.280
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:06:03.280 --> 01:06:04.280
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:06:04.280 --> 01:06:05.280
 Aye.

01:06:05.280 --> 01:06:06.280
 Commissioner Beck.

01:06:06.280 --> 01:06:07.280
 Aye.

01:06:07.280 --> 01:06:08.280
 Commissioner Cole.

01:06:08.280 --> 01:06:09.280
 Aye.

01:06:09.280 --> 01:06:10.280
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:06:10.280 --> 01:06:11.280
 Aye.

01:06:11.280 --> 01:06:12.280
 Commissioner Smith.

01:06:12.280 --> 01:06:13.280
 Aye.

01:06:13.280 --> 01:06:14.280
 Commissioner Pronetta.

01:06:14.280 --> 01:06:15.280
 Aye.

01:06:15.280 --> 01:06:16.680
 Chair is also an aye.

01:06:16.680 --> 01:06:18.800
 Motion carries seven zero.

01:06:18.800 --> 01:06:28.720
 That moves us to our items for individual considerations, starting with 4A PP21-0005.

01:06:28.720 --> 01:06:33.480
 And I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.

01:06:33.480 --> 01:06:37.840
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission, Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner.

01:06:37.840 --> 01:06:42.280
 I am pulling up my presentation now.

01:06:42.280 --> 01:06:54.640
 Okay, hopefully you should now see that.

01:06:54.640 --> 01:07:01.920
 All right, so this is a request by Priya Acharya of Weir and Associates on behalf of the property

01:07:01.920 --> 01:07:05.840
 owner for a preliminary plot of the Yolo First Edition.

01:07:05.840 --> 01:07:12.960
 The approximately 6.838 acre property is generally located on the west side of Teasley Lane, approximately

01:07:12.960 --> 01:07:18.000
 692 feet north of the intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek Road in the City of

01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:19.000
 Den.

01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:21.240
 Staff recommends denial of this request.

01:07:21.240 --> 01:07:29.800
 However, the applicant has requested an extension to the May 19th, 2021 agenda, and staff has

01:07:29.800 --> 01:07:33.260
 no objection to this request.

01:07:33.260 --> 01:07:34.260
 That is my presentation.

01:07:34.260 --> 01:07:37.400
 I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.

01:07:37.400 --> 01:07:39.200
 Thank you very much, Sean.

01:07:39.200 --> 01:07:41.640
 Any questions for staff on this?

01:07:41.640 --> 01:07:47.880
 Okay, seeing none, I just wanted to let the commission know and any viewers know that

01:07:47.880 --> 01:07:51.800
 for this item, there was one person that filled out an online white virtual card.

01:07:51.800 --> 01:07:54.360
 There was zero in support and one in opposition.

01:07:54.360 --> 01:07:59.440
 These cards were emailed to all the commissioners and will be included in the meeting record.

01:07:59.440 --> 01:08:01.560
 Commissioner Smith.

01:08:01.560 --> 01:08:06.640
 Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of May 19th, 2021.

01:08:06.640 --> 01:08:11.400
 Okay, we have a first for the 30 day extension to the May 19th meeting.

01:08:11.400 --> 01:08:12.400
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:08:12.400 --> 01:08:13.400
 I second the motion.

01:08:13.400 --> 01:08:17.280
 We have a first and a second for this item.

01:08:17.280 --> 01:08:20.640
 Is there any discussion?

01:08:20.640 --> 01:08:22.800
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote and be a roll call.

01:08:22.800 --> 01:08:23.800
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:08:23.800 --> 01:08:24.800
 Aye.

01:08:24.800 --> 01:08:25.800
 Commissioner Beck.

01:08:25.800 --> 01:08:26.800
 Aye.

01:08:26.800 --> 01:08:27.800
 Commissioner Cole.

01:08:27.800 --> 01:08:28.800
 Aye.

01:08:28.800 --> 01:08:29.800
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:08:29.800 --> 01:08:30.800
 Aye.

01:08:30.800 --> 01:08:31.800
 Commissioner Smith.

01:08:31.800 --> 01:08:32.800
 Aye.

01:08:32.800 --> 01:08:33.800
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:08:33.800 --> 01:08:34.800
 Aye.

01:08:34.800 --> 01:08:36.560
 Chair is also an aye.

01:08:36.560 --> 01:08:39.440
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:08:39.440 --> 01:08:44.760
 The next item of business is item 4B, PP21-0006.

01:08:44.760 --> 01:08:49.640
 This item is Julie Wyatt's and I will let everyone know that Commissioner Cole is recusing

01:08:49.640 --> 01:08:55.680
 himself from this item so he has left the meeting temporarily for that.

01:08:55.680 --> 01:08:58.280
 With that, Julie, whenever you're ready, it is your floor.

01:08:58.280 --> 01:08:59.280
 All right.

01:08:59.280 --> 01:09:06.760
 Let me pull up my presentation.

01:09:06.760 --> 01:09:09.680
 So this item is PP21-0006.

01:09:09.680 --> 01:09:15.360
 It is a preliminary plat within the Robeson Ranch plan development.

01:09:15.360 --> 01:09:19.440
 They still have a few outstanding items that they need to work through before staff can

01:09:19.440 --> 01:09:21.920
 recommend approval of this request.

01:09:21.920 --> 01:09:25.760
 So they have requested an extension to the May 19th Planning and Zoning Commission to

01:09:25.760 --> 01:09:27.920
 give them time to work through those.

01:09:27.920 --> 01:09:33.640
 Staff has no objection to that extension and I will be happy to answer any questions.

01:09:33.640 --> 01:09:34.640
 Great.

01:09:34.640 --> 01:09:35.640
 Thank you, Julie.

01:09:35.640 --> 01:09:40.000
 Any questions for Julie or staff?

01:09:40.000 --> 01:09:41.400
 Okay.

01:09:41.400 --> 01:09:44.640
 Just like the other item, I just want to let everyone know that for this item, there was

01:09:44.640 --> 01:09:47.720
 one person that filled out an online virtual white card.

01:09:47.720 --> 01:09:51.960
 That person was in opposition and this comment was emailed to all the commissioners and will

01:09:51.960 --> 01:09:57.080
 be included in the meeting record.

01:09:57.080 --> 01:09:58.080
 Commissioner Smith.

01:09:58.080 --> 01:10:02.800
 I make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of May 19th of 2021.

01:10:02.800 --> 01:10:03.800
 Great.

01:10:03.800 --> 01:10:04.800
 Thank you.

01:10:04.800 --> 01:10:07.140
 I second the motion.

01:10:07.140 --> 01:10:13.240
 We have a first and a second to extend this 30 days to a date certain of May 19th, 2021.

01:10:13.240 --> 01:10:14.240
 Any discussion?

01:10:14.240 --> 01:10:19.920
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Ellis.

01:10:19.920 --> 01:10:20.920
 Aye.

01:10:20.920 --> 01:10:21.920
 Commissioner Beck.

01:10:21.920 --> 01:10:22.920
 Aye.

01:10:22.920 --> 01:10:23.920
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:10:23.920 --> 01:10:24.920
 Aye.

01:10:24.920 --> 01:10:25.920
 Commissioner Smith.

01:10:25.920 --> 01:10:26.920
 Aye.

01:10:26.920 --> 01:10:27.920
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:10:27.920 --> 01:10:28.920
 Aye.

01:10:28.920 --> 01:10:31.320
 Chair is also an aye.

01:10:31.320 --> 01:10:34.320
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:10:34.320 --> 01:10:38.040
 Moving on to the next item, I invite Commissioner Cole back to join us and then we'll move to

01:10:38.040 --> 01:10:43.400
 item 4C, PP21-0004A.

01:10:43.400 --> 01:10:45.600
 This is also Julie Wyatt's item.

01:10:45.600 --> 01:10:51.000
 You have the floor.

01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:53.240
 Okay.

01:10:53.240 --> 01:10:56.600
 This is PP21-0004A.

01:10:56.600 --> 01:11:01.120
 It's a preliminary plat within the ETJ of the city.

01:11:01.120 --> 01:11:04.000
 They still have some outstanding items that they need to work through.

01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:07.360
 And so staff recommends denial of this request.

01:11:07.360 --> 01:11:10.280
 Just want to mention, we talked about them briefly in the work session.

01:11:10.280 --> 01:11:13.640
 We do have engineering staff on the line.

01:11:13.640 --> 01:11:19.960
 And I do believe the applicant would like to, will be speaking in response to those comments

01:11:19.960 --> 01:11:21.720
 of those outstanding items.

01:11:21.720 --> 01:11:24.980
 But just to sort of summarize what those are, they are in your backup.

01:11:24.980 --> 01:11:31.080
 But there is, there's a road that is shown on the mobility plan that needs to be reflected

01:11:31.080 --> 01:11:32.080
 in this plat.

01:11:32.080 --> 01:11:34.400
 That is one comment that needs to be addressed.

01:11:34.400 --> 01:11:39.120
 There's some easement widths that need to be addressed for some off-site easements.

01:11:39.120 --> 01:11:40.120
 They're showing 20 feet.

01:11:40.120 --> 01:11:42.720
 I believe 25 feet is required.

01:11:42.720 --> 01:11:48.280
 There's a TIA that was submitted for the project in 2019 due to some project changes and some

01:11:48.280 --> 01:11:50.480
 review of that TIA.

01:11:50.480 --> 01:11:55.080
 It does need to be a revision to the TIA to ensure that there's adequate turn lanes and

01:11:55.080 --> 01:11:57.760
 phasing of the project.

01:11:57.760 --> 01:12:03.160
 And then finally, we've just got some standard notes and some formatting issues that need

01:12:03.160 --> 01:12:07.120
 to be corrected prior to staff being able to recommend approval.

01:12:07.120 --> 01:12:12.720
 There was a question in the work session regarding if the applicant was aware of those processes

01:12:12.720 --> 01:12:14.760
 for after denial.

01:12:14.760 --> 01:12:19.440
 I did send an email in the interim between our discussion in the work session and the

01:12:19.440 --> 01:12:20.440
 meeting.

01:12:20.440 --> 01:12:21.440
 I haven't heard back from them.

01:12:21.440 --> 01:12:28.720
 But just to kind of summarize that, if the plat is denied tonight, then they would need

01:12:28.720 --> 01:12:29.720
 to resubmit.

01:12:29.720 --> 01:12:34.400
 They can resubmit under this existing preliminary plat number.

01:12:34.400 --> 01:12:35.800
 Additional fees would be required.

01:12:35.800 --> 01:12:42.040
 50% of that original fee amount would be required for that resubmittal.

01:12:42.040 --> 01:12:48.320
 And then staff would review that preliminary plat, and it would go on to a Planning and

01:12:48.320 --> 01:12:53.400
 Zoning Commission agenda 15 days after that resubmittal.

01:12:53.400 --> 01:12:57.920
 So I will pull down the presentation and be happy to answer any questions.

01:12:57.920 --> 01:13:01.160
 Julie, do you know what the fee amount was?

01:13:01.160 --> 01:13:05.880
 If they come back, it's 50% of the original fee amount, if I understood that correctly.

01:13:05.880 --> 01:13:07.600
 Do we have a dollar amount on that?

01:13:07.600 --> 01:13:09.540
 I'm going to look that up right now, sir.

01:13:09.540 --> 01:13:10.540
 Great.

01:13:10.540 --> 01:13:25.440
 Thank you.

01:13:25.440 --> 01:13:36.880
 So that fee for the preliminary plat was $7,568 for the review.

01:13:36.880 --> 01:13:37.880
 Thank you so much, Julie.

01:13:37.880 --> 01:13:38.880
 Sure.

01:13:38.880 --> 01:13:42.760
 I'm sure the applicant is here prior to getting to them.

01:13:42.760 --> 01:13:46.120
 Is there any questions for Julie in the interim?

01:13:46.120 --> 01:13:47.120
 Okay.

01:13:47.120 --> 01:13:48.600
 Perfect.

01:13:48.600 --> 01:13:53.640
 And if the applicant is here, can we get them unmuted and then have them state their

01:13:53.640 --> 01:14:04.880
 name and address for the record?

01:14:04.880 --> 01:14:07.200
 My name is Aaron Ketchum with Hologun Communities.

01:14:07.200 --> 01:14:09.800
 I'm Director of Development.

01:14:09.800 --> 01:14:19.120
 And what did you, also the address, 14114 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, Texas.

01:14:19.120 --> 01:14:20.120
 Great.

01:14:20.120 --> 01:14:25.560
 I appreciate you being here tonight and you certainly have, I believe, I don't have the

01:14:25.560 --> 01:14:26.560
 cheat sheet in front of me.

01:14:26.560 --> 01:14:29.920
 I think you have four minutes to discuss your project.

01:14:29.920 --> 01:14:30.920
 Okay.

01:14:30.920 --> 01:14:34.680
 I tried to start my video.

01:14:34.680 --> 01:14:37.600
 I guess that's on your end.

01:14:37.600 --> 01:14:39.240
 I apologize.

01:14:39.240 --> 01:14:42.760
 That's my technical difficulty there.

01:14:42.760 --> 01:14:43.880
 Appreciate your time, commissioners.

01:14:43.880 --> 01:14:52.760
 I do have on the call with me my project manager, Chris Fairley, as well as our engineer, Brian

01:14:52.760 --> 01:14:56.320
 Dench with Land Design for any questions.

01:14:56.320 --> 01:15:08.160
 I did watch briefly the work session discussion and we are aware of the ramifications of a

01:15:08.160 --> 01:15:09.160
 denial tonight.

01:15:09.160 --> 01:15:16.760
 However, I do ask that the commission consider some context.

01:15:16.760 --> 01:15:20.400
 Just for the record, we've owned this property for two years and have been in discussions

01:15:20.400 --> 01:15:26.000
 with both the city and the county for a better part of a year regarding this project, namely

01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:33.840
 off-site sanitary and water extensions that ultimately tie into 77 at the TA list station.

01:15:33.840 --> 01:15:42.800
 There's been quite a bit of work on this and we are before you tonight feeling as though

01:15:42.800 --> 01:15:47.800
 we don't have much else of a choice than to present a preliminary plat application that

01:15:47.800 --> 01:15:55.840
 we feel satisfies all the city listed preliminary platting requirements subject to some engineering

01:15:55.840 --> 01:16:02.520
 comments that we just feel are either premature or that are going to be addressed at the CEP

01:16:02.520 --> 01:16:07.040
 civil engineering plan approval timeline, as well as the final plat or are just not

01:16:07.040 --> 01:16:09.200
 applicable outright.

01:16:09.200 --> 01:16:18.960
 I'm happy to go not met by each comment by staff to address each one of them.

01:16:18.960 --> 01:16:27.360
 We have reasons for each that have been discussed several times with staff on various, this

01:16:27.360 --> 01:16:32.740
 is the fourth submittal of this preliminary plat at this point.

01:16:32.740 --> 01:16:40.720
 But for, again, quick context, what we are seeking is a one lot preliminary plat whereby

01:16:40.720 --> 01:16:47.880
 all on-site improvements are private with connections to public right away and ultimate

01:16:47.880 --> 01:16:53.520
 wet utilities that we would be extending on behalf of the city approximately two to three

01:16:53.520 --> 01:16:57.720
 miles to open up this area.

01:16:57.720 --> 01:17:02.920
 What we do is develop manufactured housing developments where we own the entirety of

01:17:02.920 --> 01:17:09.900
 the development and we lease land to homeowners who are fee simple owners of the actual homes.

01:17:09.900 --> 01:17:15.400
 So between their mortgage payment and our land lease payment is their effective housing

01:17:15.400 --> 01:17:16.400
 cost.

01:17:16.400 --> 01:17:24.800
 As you guys are well aware, I'm sure everyone is, there is high demand for affordable housing.

01:17:24.800 --> 01:17:33.680
 This is a niche that we think is a great option for potential homeowners.

01:17:33.680 --> 01:17:40.840
 But where we stand today is having our preliminary plat held up by matters not that we're trying

01:17:40.840 --> 01:17:49.040
 to circumvent or comments, but rather address at the appropriate stage of the design approval

01:17:49.040 --> 01:17:50.880
 process.

01:17:50.880 --> 01:17:59.280
 Any reference to a TIA, which we have already begun the process of, we were told originally

01:17:59.280 --> 01:18:02.480
 that that would have been addressed and should be addressed at the civil engineering plan

01:18:02.480 --> 01:18:04.560
 approval process.

01:18:04.560 --> 01:18:10.160
 Any discussions regarding phasing was as a result of us asking the question, does it

01:18:10.160 --> 01:18:17.840
 really make sense to improve 1500 feet of Gans or road while the county has bar ditch

01:18:17.840 --> 01:18:22.800
 and asphalt for the remainder of the 13,000 feet of bark?

01:18:22.800 --> 01:18:27.360
 So staff says we don't, the city doesn't do escrow agreements, but we do have some life

01:18:27.360 --> 01:18:31.320
 safety and constructability concerns of being requested.

01:18:31.320 --> 01:18:36.000
 So there's some technicalities on the engineering side that has bled over unnecessarily in our

01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:42.280
 opinion to a preliminary plat discussion, especially when we are platting in the preliminary

01:18:42.280 --> 01:18:51.280
 plat, the full required city right away widths in anticipation of all of that.

01:18:51.280 --> 01:18:59.760
 So I'm happy to discuss again, comment by comment, every one of these objections and

01:18:59.760 --> 01:19:06.200
 just kind of a request that there be some consideration given to a group that's been

01:19:06.200 --> 01:19:12.200
 trying to get this advanced for the better part of a year, knowing full well we were

01:19:12.200 --> 01:19:19.680
 not trying to, we have and continue to seek to work things out with staff and addressing

01:19:19.680 --> 01:19:20.680
 all comments.

01:19:20.680 --> 01:19:24.920
 The last thing we want to do is seek approval over noted objections.

01:19:24.920 --> 01:19:33.160
 But in our case, in our case, that that has become a circular discussion and yeah, we

01:19:33.160 --> 01:19:39.260
 feel like we're a little, you know, we are caught, you know, watching the work session,

01:19:39.260 --> 01:19:46.160
 we are caught a little bit clearly between the county and the city ETJ conundrums and

01:19:46.160 --> 01:19:52.660
 the challenges even in the ILA discussion that you had during the work session.

01:19:52.660 --> 01:19:59.800
 So I know I'm running out of time, I'm trying to be sensitive to that, I would love to go

01:19:59.800 --> 01:20:09.160
 through each one of these noted recommendations of denial or noting that we've not met something.

01:20:09.160 --> 01:20:13.960
 But there is a reason for each one of these, you guys do, I do ask that you be made aware

01:20:13.960 --> 01:20:14.960
 of that.

01:20:14.960 --> 01:20:22.680
 We did submit for to hopefully be included in your packet, our latest response letter

01:20:22.680 --> 01:20:26.520
 which would have been the third submittal, which noted some of the things that I would

01:20:26.520 --> 01:20:31.460
 speak to as to reasons why they aren't included on the preliminary plaque, or we're asking

01:20:31.460 --> 01:20:39.360
 to be deferred to the civil engineering approval timeframe for so I'm not sure if that was

01:20:39.360 --> 01:20:46.920
 provided or not, but I'm happy to answer any specific questions, and or defer to my colleagues

01:20:46.920 --> 01:20:56.600
 or any one of these recommendations or notations of a requirement not being met, and, and hopefully

01:20:56.600 --> 01:21:04.320
 provide if if needed any more context as to why we are seeking an approval of a of a one

01:21:04.320 --> 01:21:11.640
 lot preliminary plaque that we feel meets the city requirements.

01:21:11.640 --> 01:21:14.400
 I certainly appreciate that context.

01:21:14.400 --> 01:21:18.560
 Is there any questions with questions to begin?

01:21:18.560 --> 01:21:22.880
 All right, Christian Alice.

01:21:22.880 --> 01:21:24.360
 Thank you, Chair.

01:21:24.360 --> 01:21:31.400
 Um, hi, Mr. Ketchum, I guess my first question to you would be, did you go over with staff

01:21:31.400 --> 01:21:33.320
 line by line.

01:21:33.320 --> 01:21:40.800
 This doesn't seem the right platform to be discussing line by line.

01:21:40.800 --> 01:21:47.040
 So yes, staff's recommendation so I guess I'm a little bit confused.

01:21:47.040 --> 01:21:49.880
 As as to to that statement by you.

01:21:49.880 --> 01:22:00.800
 So yes, the simple answer to your question is yes, really on the last two rounds of submittals.

01:22:00.800 --> 01:22:07.440
 We have tried to address all of these items, and the items that are before you I think

01:22:07.440 --> 01:22:15.360
 are a little redundant from looking at the staff analysis report there's upwards of 17

01:22:15.360 --> 01:22:21.200
 noted not met but they really kind of cross reference each other I think Julie added accurately

01:22:21.200 --> 01:22:31.440
 kind of encapsulated the the buckets of general areas where the comments kind of center around

01:22:31.440 --> 01:22:37.620
 one being the traffic impact need drainage, things like that.

01:22:37.620 --> 01:22:45.000
 But to answer your question, yes, we, we have discussed every one of these, if not over

01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:51.960
 a team meeting or call via submittals and then just sat comment turnarounds, the last

01:22:51.960 --> 01:22:55.920
 of which we only got last night until around six.

01:22:55.920 --> 01:23:03.740
 But, but again, these are all items that we have kind of not gotten any resolution on

01:23:03.740 --> 01:23:09.880
 for differences of opinion or just inconsistencies of what we've been told today.

01:23:09.880 --> 01:23:14.280
 So is that just because you just don't like what staff is telling you.

01:23:14.280 --> 01:23:19.760
 I mean, the staff analysis that that is being done on your project is the staff analysis

01:23:19.760 --> 01:23:25.720
 that is done on everything that comes before them and us, and until everything's met.

01:23:25.720 --> 01:23:29.480
 They can't recommend a platform for approval.

01:23:29.480 --> 01:23:32.440
 So that's a good that's a good question.

01:23:32.440 --> 01:23:36.440
 So let's just take examples, if you would, if you may, if I may.

01:23:36.440 --> 01:23:43.400
 The traffic impact analysis requirement or recommendation for denial was a was originally

01:23:43.400 --> 01:23:52.120
 presented to us from staff as a TIA will need to be re updated and resubmitted for review

01:23:52.120 --> 01:23:53.120
 and approval.

01:23:53.120 --> 01:23:58.760
 But that can occur at the civil engineering plan and final plat stages.

01:23:58.760 --> 01:24:03.940
 That was what we were told during the course of our submittals.

01:24:03.940 --> 01:24:11.800
 We have asked the question, can what can we discuss the design parameters of cancer road,

01:24:11.800 --> 01:24:18.600
 as well as the timing of when those improvements would need to be made, because we have questions,

01:24:18.600 --> 01:24:24.600
 not so much of the required city requirements, but of the buildability and life safety issue

01:24:24.600 --> 01:24:31.120
 concerns that we have of having city, you know, paved perimeter street on the along

01:24:31.120 --> 01:24:38.800
 Ganzer on our frontage, connecting 1500 feet apart, connecting back to Ganzer road as an

01:24:38.800 --> 01:24:45.480
 asphalt bar ditch profile, which is county standards.

01:24:45.480 --> 01:24:53.600
 So we were so in that discussion, staff then made a made a decision that we disagree with

01:24:53.600 --> 01:24:59.640
 that says no, now you need to submit a TIA for the preliminary plat because of phasing.

01:24:59.640 --> 01:25:04.680
 Well, we have not decided whether or not we would like to phase it.

01:25:04.680 --> 01:25:12.640
 But what we intend to do is plat our lot with anticipation of building it.

01:25:12.640 --> 01:25:21.300
 But if there is, but here again, we are stuck in between this county and city uncertainty

01:25:21.300 --> 01:25:27.000
 limbo as to what it is we're supposed to be doing.

01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:30.840
 Like Ganzer, there was a disagreement, there was only resolution like last week as to actually

01:25:30.840 --> 01:25:36.280
 what right away width we were supposed to be using on our plat for Ganzer.

01:25:36.280 --> 01:25:43.200
 We've been waiting quite some, you know, where we asked the question and there's this discussion

01:25:43.200 --> 01:25:52.760
 that has happened outside of our, you know, purview that we're just kind of held up.

01:25:52.760 --> 01:25:53.760
 But what did we do?

01:25:53.760 --> 01:26:02.760
 We went ahead and assumed, in this case, the full city Ganzer right away width and on the

01:26:02.760 --> 01:26:03.980
 plat.

01:26:03.980 --> 01:26:08.360
 So yes, we have discussed these things.

01:26:08.360 --> 01:26:12.840
 We don't feel like a TIA is necessary at this point.

01:26:12.840 --> 01:26:18.520
 We feel like the plat accounts for kind of like worst case scenario on the right of ways

01:26:18.520 --> 01:26:26.820
 for both Barthold and Ganzer and we'd like to ask for action to be taken on the plat.

01:26:26.820 --> 01:26:32.960
 Another one is the, Julie referenced that we did not incorporate the 2015 mobility plan

01:26:32.960 --> 01:26:40.680
 arterial that's supposed to bisect our property, which what you may not know, you may know,

01:26:40.680 --> 01:26:45.840
 is that on the proposed 2020 mobility plan, that has been removed.

01:26:45.840 --> 01:26:51.480
 And so that is why we are asking that it not be reflected on our preliminary plat.

01:26:51.480 --> 01:27:00.060
 Now we understand staff cannot recommend approval if that 2020 mobility plan hasn't been adopted,

01:27:00.060 --> 01:27:07.960
 but we know that that is not on the 2020 mobility plan and we can't continue just to be held

01:27:07.960 --> 01:27:13.920
 just at bay, you know, hostage, not to take this, you know, but that may be not the right

01:27:13.920 --> 01:27:16.200
 term, but we were kind of held in limbo.

01:27:16.200 --> 01:27:17.200
 Yeah.

01:27:17.200 --> 01:27:22.200
 So, Mr. Ketchum, I mean, I would say to me, in my opinion, more discussion is still needing

01:27:22.200 --> 01:27:24.120
 to be had between you and staff.

01:27:24.120 --> 01:27:30.720
 And yes, it is complicated between when a piece of land like this is in the ETJ, but

01:27:30.720 --> 01:27:34.440
 I mean, you knew the land was in the ETJ and there would be proposed challenges.

01:27:34.440 --> 01:27:41.440
 So I don't think you're being made out, being put on hold on purpose.

01:27:41.440 --> 01:27:47.560
 I think that there is just more to be discussed and vetted before staff can give approval

01:27:47.560 --> 01:27:49.440
 on this.

01:27:49.440 --> 01:27:53.640
 And I'm not going to continue on the platform because my fellow commissioners may want to

01:27:53.640 --> 01:27:54.640
 say something.

01:27:54.640 --> 01:27:55.640
 Okay.

01:27:55.640 --> 01:27:56.640
 Thank you.

01:27:56.640 --> 01:27:58.560
 I was actually going to ask Richard to say something.

01:27:58.560 --> 01:28:00.480
 Yeah, actually, sure.

01:28:00.480 --> 01:28:05.280
 If I may, I like to have I know Erica Moronic is on the phone.

01:28:05.280 --> 01:28:08.680
 She's our she's over our project facilitation group.

01:28:08.680 --> 01:28:14.360
 This is one of her projects, and they're really the ones managing sort of that interdisciplinary

01:28:14.360 --> 01:28:17.960
 review, even though Julie's right right there and the planners are.

01:28:17.960 --> 01:28:23.040
 But I think Erica's added added in a much more greater depth, and I'd like her to just

01:28:23.040 --> 01:28:32.880
 provide a little more context if that's okay.

01:28:32.880 --> 01:28:43.840
 Hopefully we can unmute her.

01:28:43.840 --> 01:28:45.440
 Good evening, chair commissioners.

01:28:45.440 --> 01:28:46.560
 My name is Erica Moronic.

01:28:46.560 --> 01:28:51.320
 I'm a project facilitator with the Department of Development Services, and I've been working

01:28:51.320 --> 01:28:57.400
 with Mr. Kachin and Mr. Fairley from Hologun communities on this project in the city of

01:28:57.400 --> 01:28:59.920
 Denton Division one ETJ.

01:28:59.920 --> 01:29:07.480
 A couple things that Mr. Kachin mentioned included in our reasons, our findings of fact

01:29:07.480 --> 01:29:11.760
 for why we recommended denial of this preliminary class this evening.

01:29:11.760 --> 01:29:17.260
 One and probably the major one is the lack of the inclusion of the East West collector

01:29:17.260 --> 01:29:20.920
 that is on the 2015 mobility plan.

01:29:20.920 --> 01:29:25.960
 That plan is what is in effect at this time has been adopted by city council at the time

01:29:25.960 --> 01:29:30.580
 of their pre application meeting that was held last summer in 2020.

01:29:30.580 --> 01:29:36.240
 They were provided with the proposed 2020 mobility plan, and at that time they are correct.

01:29:36.240 --> 01:29:38.520
 It was not shown to exist.

01:29:38.520 --> 01:29:43.380
 However, that document has not moved forward for council consideration, and it has been

01:29:43.380 --> 01:29:48.040
 held up for whatever reason, I believe that engineering staff may be waiting until we

01:29:48.040 --> 01:29:54.000
 move forward with adopted updates to our current comprehensive and the Denton plan.

01:29:54.000 --> 01:30:00.440
 So at this time we cannot approve a document that is not consistent with an adopted thoroughfare

01:30:00.440 --> 01:30:01.440
 plan.

01:30:01.440 --> 01:30:06.060
 So that is one reason that information has been provided to their group.

01:30:06.060 --> 01:30:10.480
 In regards to offsite utility layout, we have been working with them.

01:30:10.480 --> 01:30:15.000
 We've had several meetings with our water and wastewater utility staff and have provided

01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:20.680
 direction as to how that should occur that design decision is up to their design team

01:30:20.680 --> 01:30:21.920
 that they hire.

01:30:21.920 --> 01:30:26.880
 However, we have provided feedback on the minimum easement width and per our water and

01:30:26.880 --> 01:30:31.600
 wastewater criteria manual when you have both water and sewer lines within the same public

01:30:31.600 --> 01:30:35.820
 utility easement, they need to be a minimum 25 width.

01:30:35.820 --> 01:30:42.120
 There may be under certain circumstances, some flexibility within the easement width,

01:30:42.120 --> 01:30:47.080
 but those need to be determined on a case by case basis.

01:30:47.080 --> 01:30:52.200
 In regards to the traffic impact analysis, that is something that we can defer until

01:30:52.200 --> 01:30:55.840
 civil engineering plan approval, definitely before final flat approval.

01:30:55.840 --> 01:31:01.700
 However, the one that has been dormant for some time since 2019 included a completely

01:31:01.700 --> 01:31:05.720
 different layout and it's not consistent with the current plan before you.

01:31:05.720 --> 01:31:11.280
 So we have concerns about that and how that would include any additional improvements

01:31:11.280 --> 01:31:16.040
 that may be required along Ganser, the extension of Barthold road and the future collector

01:31:16.040 --> 01:31:17.760
 through the property.

01:31:17.760 --> 01:31:25.860
 Mr. Kachan has mentioned that we have had multiple meetings, Microsoft team meetings,

01:31:25.860 --> 01:31:27.280
 where we've provided feedback.

01:31:27.280 --> 01:31:32.680
 There has been some time in coordination because this is in the EPJ and we do have to reach

01:31:32.680 --> 01:31:36.600
 out to development services for Denton County to get their feedback.

01:31:36.600 --> 01:31:41.840
 So the ultimate right away with for Ganser, he provided as an example, yes, we met with

01:31:41.840 --> 01:31:46.720
 Stephen Bell Knapp, who's the assistant director of development services for Denton County

01:31:46.720 --> 01:31:48.360
 to provide that feedback.

01:31:48.360 --> 01:31:53.720
 We also had to meet with the county in order to determine the best utility location for

01:31:53.720 --> 01:31:58.120
 this private development, whether that was to be within the right of way or outside of

01:31:58.120 --> 01:32:03.240
 the right of way, under the pavement or immediately backing up to the pavement.

01:32:03.240 --> 01:32:09.040
 So these conversations have been had, feedback has been provided and in some instances, their

01:32:09.040 --> 01:32:12.960
 revisions have incorporated that feedback and then others they have not.

01:32:12.960 --> 01:32:16.600
 And I think you can see before you that they have not incorporated all of the feedback

01:32:16.600 --> 01:32:22.740
 and therefore that informs our recommendation to your commission for recommended recommendation

01:32:22.740 --> 01:32:24.640
 of the miles of time.

01:32:24.640 --> 01:32:27.680
 I'm available for any questions.

01:32:27.680 --> 01:32:31.680
 Commissioner Beck.

01:32:31.680 --> 01:32:39.440
 Thank you, Chair, Erica or Julie, are any of the the items of contention within staff's

01:32:39.440 --> 01:32:49.200
 flexibility parameters or are they all outside flexibility?

01:32:49.200 --> 01:32:56.560
 I can speak to the mobility plan issue that the code requires a comprehensive plan amendment

01:32:56.560 --> 01:32:59.560
 in order to make modifications to the mobility plan.

01:32:59.560 --> 01:33:05.440
 So for that east-west collector, that would require a comprehensive plan amendment.

01:33:05.440 --> 01:33:10.920
 I would probably defer to Erica for the other comments since she has a little more expertise

01:33:10.920 --> 01:33:11.920
 in those.

01:33:11.920 --> 01:33:16.880
 I'm sorry, can you repeat the question, please?

01:33:16.880 --> 01:33:23.920
 The question, yes, the question was, are any of the items that are in discrepancy between

01:33:23.920 --> 01:33:31.220
 the applicant and staff, are any of those within the flexibility parameters for those

01:33:31.220 --> 01:33:40.640
 types of items or are they outside the range of flexibility?

01:33:40.640 --> 01:33:50.560
 The items that I mentioned were connections to the city public utility system.

01:33:50.560 --> 01:33:54.920
 We do have some flexibility there, the timing of the traffic impact analysis race the middle,

01:33:54.920 --> 01:34:01.200
 we do have some flexibility there, but not accounting for or planning for a future change

01:34:01.200 --> 01:34:06.840
 that hasn't been adopted by council as far as the east-west connector is not possible

01:34:06.840 --> 01:34:08.080
 at a staff level.

01:34:08.080 --> 01:34:15.120
 Additionally, I believe I'm outstanding discrepancies between phasing, we've asked for some phasing

01:34:15.120 --> 01:34:16.120
 information.

01:34:16.120 --> 01:34:20.520
 I don't believe they provided that they haven't determined that yet, which is their prerogative

01:34:20.520 --> 01:34:25.760
 however, it makes it difficult, especially with preliminary plots, because once it's

01:34:25.760 --> 01:34:29.960
 approved, if there's changes, my understanding is that would have to come back to you for

01:34:29.960 --> 01:34:32.480
 future consideration.

01:34:32.480 --> 01:34:39.320
 So essentially even, and I assume staff is generally willing to be flexible as governed

01:34:39.320 --> 01:34:46.980
 by the DDC, but even if you wanted to be flexible, these are outside what your flexibility parameters

01:34:46.980 --> 01:34:47.980
 will allow.

01:34:47.980 --> 01:34:49.480
 Is that what I'm hearing?

01:34:49.480 --> 01:34:50.960
 Yes, sir.

01:34:50.960 --> 01:34:53.080
 Okay, thank you.

01:34:53.080 --> 01:35:01.480
 Is there any other questions for Julie, Erica, applicant?

01:35:01.480 --> 01:35:07.000
 Okay, I did not see any other questions.

01:35:07.000 --> 01:35:10.040
 I wanted to make note that for this item, there were three people that filled out the

01:35:10.040 --> 01:35:11.680
 online virtual white card.

01:35:11.680 --> 01:35:13.880
 All three were in opposition.

01:35:13.880 --> 01:35:18.520
 These comments were emailed to all the commissioners and will be included in the meeting record,

01:35:18.520 --> 01:35:23.200
 but without any other discussion, I'll certainly listen to any motions.

01:35:23.200 --> 01:35:24.200
 Commissioner Smith.

01:35:24.200 --> 01:35:27.840
 Can I make a motion to deny the project?

01:35:27.840 --> 01:35:34.880
 I think that applicant, Mr. Ketchum, I think that your arguments are compelling and I do

01:35:34.880 --> 01:35:41.600
 feel for you on this project, but I do think that it is prudent that this application is

01:35:41.600 --> 01:35:47.240
 denied just for the fact of the pieces that are missing and because of the shot clock,

01:35:47.240 --> 01:35:52.800
 it just kind of seems like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's probably

01:35:52.800 --> 01:35:58.480
 best for this to be cleaned up, more discussions to be had, as Commissioner Ellis mentioned,

01:35:58.480 --> 01:36:03.160
 and then to come back and be presented back to this body with plenty of ample time for

01:36:03.160 --> 01:36:07.880
 additions and changes where needed.

01:36:07.880 --> 01:36:12.600
 We have a motion to deny.

01:36:12.600 --> 01:36:13.600
 Commissioner Cole.

01:36:13.600 --> 01:36:14.600
 I'll second.

01:36:14.600 --> 01:36:21.220
 We have a first and a second to deny this item.

01:36:21.220 --> 01:36:25.980
 Any discussion from the commissioners?

01:36:25.980 --> 01:36:28.640
 Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call.

01:36:28.640 --> 01:36:33.240
 Chair, I just want to clarify that the reasons for the denial are the reasons in the staff

01:36:33.240 --> 01:36:34.680
 report provided by staff.

01:36:34.680 --> 01:36:35.680
 Is that correct?

01:36:35.680 --> 01:36:36.680
 That is correct.

01:36:36.680 --> 01:36:37.680
 Thank you.

01:36:37.680 --> 01:36:38.680
 I appreciate that.

01:36:38.680 --> 01:36:46.960
 And real quick before I call roll call, I would echo Commissioner Smith's sentiments.

01:36:46.960 --> 01:36:52.440
 This is a really fun denial and there are some complications that we're trying to work

01:36:52.440 --> 01:36:59.400
 out with ETJ and ILA, but there's also just items that need to be cleaned up and hopefully

01:36:59.400 --> 01:37:05.280
 you can bring it back quickly and staff can work with you to get a project that we can

01:37:05.280 --> 01:37:09.520
 approve unanimously, so I look forward to seeing it back in front of us.

01:37:09.520 --> 01:37:13.800
 With that, Commissioner Ellis, we'll start with you.

01:37:13.800 --> 01:37:14.800
 Aye.

01:37:14.800 --> 01:37:16.120
 Commissioner Beck.

01:37:16.120 --> 01:37:17.120
 Aye.

01:37:17.120 --> 01:37:18.120
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:37:18.120 --> 01:37:19.120
 Aye.

01:37:19.120 --> 01:37:20.120
 Commissioner Smith.

01:37:20.120 --> 01:37:21.120
 Aye.

01:37:21.120 --> 01:37:22.120
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:37:22.120 --> 01:37:23.120
 Aye.

01:37:23.120 --> 01:37:24.120
 Commissioner Cole.

01:37:24.120 --> 01:37:25.120
 Aye.

01:37:25.120 --> 01:37:30.040
 Chair, it's also an aye.

01:37:30.040 --> 01:37:37.920
 Next item of business is item 4D, PZ21-064 and Ron McGuida is going to present on this

01:37:37.920 --> 01:37:41.440
 regarding small area plan.

01:37:41.440 --> 01:37:46.960
 Thank you, Chair.

01:37:46.960 --> 01:38:03.360
 Give me a few minutes to load my presentation.

01:38:03.360 --> 01:38:04.360
 Good evening.

01:38:04.360 --> 01:38:08.720
 Ron McGuida, Principal Planner with Development Services, City of Den, brought forward for

01:38:08.720 --> 01:38:15.580
 your consideration this evening is a request for the creation of a small area plan located

01:38:15.580 --> 01:38:22.920
 in the north part of town in the area of I-35 and Highway 77.

01:38:22.920 --> 01:38:30.020
 By way of background, on January 20, 2021, there was a request for a small area plan

01:38:30.020 --> 01:38:34.320
 work session to discuss potential small area plan.

01:38:34.320 --> 01:38:38.080
 The area again is I-35 and Highway 77.

01:38:38.080 --> 01:38:42.800
 At the time, the Planning Zoning Commission felt that a small area plan was appropriate

01:38:42.800 --> 01:38:50.160
 for this area due to the activity in terms of zoning applications and PD specifically.

01:38:50.160 --> 01:38:56.640
 So on August -- I'm sorry, April 21, the Planning Zoning Commission received a presentation

01:38:56.640 --> 01:39:04.080
 on regards to the comprehensive plan as well as small area planning and small area plans.

01:39:04.080 --> 01:39:09.720
 As a result of that presentation, the Planning Zoning Commission requested that an item be

01:39:09.720 --> 01:39:19.560
 brought back for the P&Z to consider a recommendation to create the small area plan for the area

01:39:19.560 --> 01:39:26.320
 that is shown generally in these exhibits, again, along I-35 and Highway 77.

01:39:26.320 --> 01:39:28.880
 An exact boundary has not yet been identified.

01:39:28.880 --> 01:39:36.440
 However, during the small area plan exercise, that will be determined at that time.

01:39:36.440 --> 01:39:44.200
 Six steps, if, again, this were to be recommended for creation, we will take this to City Council.

01:39:44.200 --> 01:39:50.000
 The date specific, we've identified one already, and it will be May 18th.

01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:54.920
 Later this month, in a couple weeks, again, if it was a recommendation, we will take this

01:39:54.920 --> 01:39:56.240
 to City Council.

01:39:56.240 --> 01:40:01.160
 City Council will give us direction, and we will continue our work towards the small area

01:40:01.160 --> 01:40:07.400
 plan, again, if that is the direction that we receive from City Council.

01:40:07.400 --> 01:40:12.160
 The option for the Planning Zoning Commission this evening is, as you see here, recommend

01:40:12.160 --> 01:40:16.520
 this small area plan, do not recommend, or continue this item.

01:40:16.520 --> 01:40:17.900
 That concludes my presentation.

01:40:17.900 --> 01:40:20.320
 I will stand for any questions.

01:40:20.320 --> 01:40:21.320
 Great.

01:40:21.320 --> 01:40:23.320
 Commissioner Beck.

01:40:23.320 --> 01:40:26.600
 Thank you, Chair.

01:40:26.600 --> 01:40:31.840
 So I think it's probably clear, and I shouldn't speak for anyone, that it sounds like there's

01:40:31.840 --> 01:40:41.080
 a lot of interest in this, but I will ask, what governs the limitations in the scope?

01:40:41.080 --> 01:40:49.000
 We're talking about developing this for the 288 I-35 region, and I know you specifically

01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:56.800
 said that the boundaries would be determined, but how far west, east, north can we go within

01:40:56.800 --> 01:41:04.000
 our jurisdiction before it's not a small area plan, but it's a medium area plan?

01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:05.000
 Does that make sense?

01:41:05.000 --> 01:41:10.400
 That does make sense, and for those that are aware, I'll just use the way of an example,

01:41:10.400 --> 01:41:12.500
 the Oak Gateway area plan.

01:41:12.500 --> 01:41:17.860
 We knew it was going to be of an area adjacent to the university, but through the exercise

01:41:17.860 --> 01:41:23.200
 with the stakeholders, even with the steering committee, that area grew to a little bit

01:41:23.200 --> 01:41:28.640
 larger than what you would consider a small area plan, but it was needed in order to identify

01:41:28.640 --> 01:41:33.320
 and address the concerns that we heard through the exercise, again, through meeting with

01:41:33.320 --> 01:41:37.040
 stakeholders, with citizens and residents.

01:41:37.040 --> 01:41:41.800
 We heard that it wasn't just the north side of the university, it was also on the west,

01:41:41.800 --> 01:41:43.280
 as well as the south side of the university.

01:41:43.280 --> 01:41:49.720
 So that area boundary grew, and again, we won't really know until we fully vet through

01:41:49.720 --> 01:41:50.720
 the exercise.

01:41:50.720 --> 01:41:55.640
 Again, we're going to target the area on the northeast corner of that intersection, but

01:41:55.640 --> 01:41:58.260
 it can certainly grow to the south.

01:41:58.260 --> 01:42:03.880
 We will obviously know more once we continue or work with and go through the public outreach

01:42:03.880 --> 01:42:04.880
 effort.

01:42:04.880 --> 01:42:05.880
 That makes sense.

01:42:05.880 --> 01:42:08.320
 Thank you.

01:42:08.320 --> 01:42:13.760
 Any other questions for Ron?

01:42:13.760 --> 01:42:14.760
 All right.

01:42:14.760 --> 01:42:15.760
 Fantastic.

01:42:15.760 --> 01:42:16.760
 Commissioner Smith.

01:42:16.760 --> 01:42:22.920
 Make a motion to approve a recommendation to create a small area plan.

01:42:22.920 --> 01:42:24.520
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:42:24.520 --> 01:42:25.520
 Second the motion.

01:42:25.520 --> 01:42:26.520
 Great.

01:42:26.520 --> 01:42:29.280
 We have a first and a second to provide a recommendation to city council to pursue a

01:42:29.280 --> 01:42:32.920
 small area plan at 35 and 77.

01:42:32.920 --> 01:42:34.720
 Any discussion on this item?

01:42:34.720 --> 01:42:35.720
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:42:35.720 --> 01:42:36.720
 Thanks, Chair.

01:42:36.720 --> 01:42:40.240
 It's been a couple minutes since I kind of wanted this on the agenda.

01:42:40.240 --> 01:42:43.320
 So I just want to say it's a great opportunity.

01:42:43.320 --> 01:42:49.240
 A lot of times we create small area plans after something undesirable has moved into

01:42:49.240 --> 01:42:50.240
 an area.

01:42:50.240 --> 01:42:55.920
 And this is an opportunity for us as a city to create something so that we can plan what

01:42:55.920 --> 01:42:56.920
 we want.

01:42:56.920 --> 01:43:03.600
 We've already heard things that we know we don't want, at least at this moment in that

01:43:03.600 --> 01:43:04.600
 area.

01:43:04.600 --> 01:43:06.960
 So I think it's a great thing.

01:43:06.960 --> 01:43:07.960
 Great.

01:43:07.960 --> 01:43:09.800
 Any other discussion on this?

01:43:09.800 --> 01:43:10.800
 Commissioner Smith.

01:43:10.800 --> 01:43:16.520
 Sorry for stealing your thunder, Commissioner Ellis.

01:43:16.520 --> 01:43:17.520
 Any other discussion?

01:43:17.520 --> 01:43:18.520
 All right.

01:43:18.520 --> 01:43:24.240
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call starting with Commissioner Ellis.

01:43:24.240 --> 01:43:25.240
 Aye.

01:43:25.240 --> 01:43:26.240
 Commissioner Beck.

01:43:26.240 --> 01:43:27.240
 Aye.

01:43:27.240 --> 01:43:28.240
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:43:28.240 --> 01:43:29.240
 Aye.

01:43:29.240 --> 01:43:30.240
 Commissioner Smith.

01:43:30.240 --> 01:43:31.240
 Aye.

01:43:31.240 --> 01:43:32.240
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:43:32.240 --> 01:43:33.240
 Aye.

01:43:33.240 --> 01:43:34.680
 Commissioner Cole.

01:43:34.680 --> 01:43:35.680
 Aye.

01:43:35.680 --> 01:43:38.480
 Chair is also an aye.

01:43:38.480 --> 01:43:40.900
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:43:40.900 --> 01:43:44.520
 That brings us to the Planning and Zoning Commission matrix.

01:43:44.520 --> 01:43:50.400
 I will turn the floor over to Richard for any updates and then to the virtual dais for

01:43:50.400 --> 01:43:51.400
 discussion.

01:43:51.400 --> 01:43:53.000
 Thank you, Chair.

01:43:53.000 --> 01:43:56.240
 Just quickly, nothing to add on the matrix.

01:43:56.240 --> 01:44:00.380
 We will be getting some of those items as I've indicated scheduled.

01:44:00.380 --> 01:44:07.160
 Just a quick update, last night City Council approved an extension of an SUP of one year

01:44:07.160 --> 01:44:09.000
 for Forest Crossing.

01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:11.640
 That was an individual consideration item.

01:44:11.640 --> 01:44:15.440
 So because that was already an ordinance passed, it did not have to come back to PNC.

01:44:15.440 --> 01:44:21.160
 It was just an extension of that approval.

01:44:21.160 --> 01:44:25.160
 And then the other items that were approved were the Geesling Road industrial.

01:44:25.160 --> 01:44:28.600
 If you recall, that was Geesling and 380.

01:44:28.600 --> 01:44:34.160
 They did approve that as well as the Alt ESA for the Exeter-Martino project.

01:44:34.160 --> 01:44:41.080
 And then in addition, the legacy multifamily SUP was approved as well as I indicated earlier,

01:44:41.080 --> 01:44:45.320
 the ordinance eliminating the ability to do a preliminary planning ETJ.

01:44:45.320 --> 01:44:49.960
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:44:49.960 --> 01:44:50.960
 Commissioner Smith.

01:44:50.960 --> 01:45:00.200
 Just to, one, has the City discussed a timeline yet on us returning back to doing commission

01:45:00.200 --> 01:45:02.280
 or council meetings back in person?

01:45:02.280 --> 01:45:03.280
 Not that I'm pushing for them.

01:45:03.280 --> 01:45:07.320
 I think I think many of the commissioners like doing this from their homes via Zoom,

01:45:07.320 --> 01:45:12.240
 but just didn't know if it's even been up to discussion yet, if it's even been tossed

01:45:12.240 --> 01:45:14.440
 around by the City yet.

01:45:14.440 --> 01:45:15.440
 It is.

01:45:15.440 --> 01:45:18.680
 I think that's something Council's looking at.

01:45:18.680 --> 01:45:21.840
 Just a little update.

01:45:21.840 --> 01:45:27.960
 I think it's just monitoring how everyone's responding.

01:45:27.960 --> 01:45:33.800
 Starting June 1st, we'll be going – staff will start coming into the office, and so

01:45:33.800 --> 01:45:41.160
 we're looking at at least two days a week to start working in the office, two to even

01:45:41.160 --> 01:45:42.160
 three days a week.

01:45:42.160 --> 01:45:47.520
 Some of us are already here intermittently, so I think it's just monitoring that, making

01:45:47.520 --> 01:45:54.160
 sure that cases – hopefully there's not new cases as a result, monitoring that.

01:45:54.160 --> 01:45:59.440
 But I think the goal ultimately is to get back to meeting in person, as well as having

01:45:59.440 --> 01:46:04.240
 fully staffed offices.

01:46:04.240 --> 01:46:09.760
 Second item, I did send you a contact information for Jessica Robinson.

01:46:09.760 --> 01:46:16.800
 She is with Discover Denton, but they are – they notified me just through a random

01:46:16.800 --> 01:46:22.400
 chance meeting that Discover Denton is in the process of working with a third-party

01:46:22.400 --> 01:46:28.200
 marketing firm to build a marketing brand for what Denton is and how they're marketing

01:46:28.200 --> 01:46:29.200
 it.

01:46:29.200 --> 01:46:33.680
 And so they're almost to the stakeholder phase of getting garnering feedback from what

01:46:33.680 --> 01:46:36.360
 that consulting group has presented.

01:46:36.360 --> 01:46:41.400
 And I know they're going to bring it to Council, and I invited her to be introduced to you

01:46:41.400 --> 01:46:45.960
 to be able to bring it to PNZ and present it to us for feedback and stakeholder feedback.

01:46:45.960 --> 01:46:50.880
 So just wanted to put that on the matrix and see if we can possibly get that for a work

01:46:50.880 --> 01:46:55.480
 session item at some point in time, whenever that presentation is done.

01:46:55.480 --> 01:46:57.200
 Do that.

01:46:57.200 --> 01:47:00.360
 Commissioner Pernetta?

01:47:00.360 --> 01:47:05.000
 Yeah, to the question about when we're going back to in-person meetings, you know, one

01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:09.080
 of the things that I've noticed, and I think probably all of us have noticed, is that the

01:47:09.080 --> 01:47:14.800
 number of people appearing to speak on individual items is down, right?

01:47:14.800 --> 01:47:18.280
 Usually we used to see, you know, maybe it doesn't or whatever show up for particular

01:47:18.280 --> 01:47:19.280
 things.

01:47:19.280 --> 01:47:21.800
 Now they're not.

01:47:21.800 --> 01:47:24.480
 Even though Zoom is technically, you know, more accessible to people, they don't have

01:47:24.480 --> 01:47:28.920
 to show up at a certain time and wait all night to speak on something.

01:47:28.920 --> 01:47:35.760
 Has staff, you know, not just for PNZ, but across the board for any committees or commissions

01:47:35.760 --> 01:47:42.960
 that take public input, have we been monitoring feedback from the public on whether they find

01:47:42.960 --> 01:47:49.200
 the Zooms, you know, generally speaking, beneficial if people feel like they've been underrepresented

01:47:49.200 --> 01:47:51.160
 in this type of thing?

01:47:51.160 --> 01:47:56.760
 Is there anything that staff or the city is kind of doing to try and figure out if we

01:47:56.760 --> 01:48:03.640
 have a hybrid going forward, that kind of thing, to ensure that we have maximum engagement?

01:48:03.640 --> 01:48:05.480
 I'm not 100% sure.

01:48:05.480 --> 01:48:12.120
 I'll find out through our public information officer just how they're sort of tracking

01:48:12.120 --> 01:48:16.520
 out if they've developed metrics for it.

01:48:16.520 --> 01:48:22.080
 I will say at least our comp plan, you know, the comp plan and workshops that we had, had,

01:48:22.080 --> 01:48:24.360
 you know, tremendous turnout.

01:48:24.360 --> 01:48:30.080
 I don't know that we would have got that if we even had a facility that big to hold that

01:48:30.080 --> 01:48:31.200
 many people.

01:48:31.200 --> 01:48:36.400
 So I think it's sort of a little bit of both, you know, in some instances, I think even

01:48:36.400 --> 01:48:39.920
 some of our community meetings that we've had, you know, developer, the meetings that

01:48:39.920 --> 01:48:45.920
 they hold, it almost appears that we've had some, a better turnout in some instances,

01:48:45.920 --> 01:48:50.560
 but just because it's, you don't have to find a sitter, you can do it, you know, you can

01:48:50.560 --> 01:48:52.360
 do it from home.

01:48:52.360 --> 01:49:00.040
 But I'll find out and report back if they've been able to measure that and see what feedback

01:49:00.040 --> 01:49:01.040
 they've got.

01:49:01.040 --> 01:49:07.480
 I'm just not sure 100%.

01:49:07.480 --> 01:49:13.040
 The only thing I have to add to this evening is a congratulations to Commissioner Brian

01:49:13.040 --> 01:49:14.040
 Beck.

01:49:14.040 --> 01:49:20.480
 He will be, I imagine leaving us shortly, I think this is your last meeting, if I understand

01:49:20.480 --> 01:49:21.480
 the calendar.

01:49:21.480 --> 01:49:24.400
 I just want to say thank you for your service.

01:49:24.400 --> 01:49:29.280
 It's not we all know that that it's a sacrifice to read over everything and you're going into

01:49:29.280 --> 01:49:32.000
 even more of it going forward.

01:49:32.000 --> 01:49:36.700
 And I've said many times that I'm not in favor of a homogenized commission.

01:49:36.700 --> 01:49:39.340
 So I appreciate your counter perspective.

01:49:39.340 --> 01:49:44.960
 And to me, we disagree on some things, but you've always brought in my opinion, a thoughtful

01:49:44.960 --> 01:49:49.320
 discussion to the table and I sincerely appreciate it and wish you the best at council.

01:49:49.320 --> 01:49:50.320
 Congratulations Brian.

01:49:50.320 --> 01:49:51.320
 Thank you.

01:49:51.320 --> 01:49:52.320
 I appreciate that.

01:49:52.320 --> 01:49:53.320
 Congratulations.

01:49:53.320 --> 01:49:54.320
 Thank you, Margie.

01:49:54.320 --> 01:49:55.320
 Thanks.

01:49:55.320 --> 01:50:00.740
 Without any other discussion, looking around the big board here, we will close this meeting

01:50:00.740 --> 01:50:03.460
 tonight at 718.

01:50:03.460 --> 01:50:07.640
 We'll see you in two weeks.