Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning meeting for
Wednesday, June 9th.
This is our work session and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.08 p.m.
Let the record show that Chair Rosell is absent tonight.
Before we get into the agenda, I just wanted to welcome Commissioner Pruitt.
It's his first meeting.
So welcome to the board and thank you for serving.
Our first agenda item is citizen comment on consent agenda items.
We don't have anyone on the phone, however, we have had the following public comment using
our online form for item FP210011A, we have had four comments against this item.
On FP21-010A, we have had one person comment against this item.
That moves us to the next agenda item, which is clarification of items on our agenda.
The first one being minutes, does anyone have anything with the minutes?
Seeing none, I will move us along to consent.
Any questions on consent?
Okay.
Also seeing none, that will move us to items for individual consideration.
That is PP210009A, Hayley, that is you.
This is item PP210009.
This is a preliminary plat for a single lot that is intended for an industrial development.
As you can see on the screen, it is located on the west side of I-35, north of Berthold
road.
At this time, staff is changing our recommendation to approval.
Since the agenda was posted, the applicant has addressed all outstanding comments.
Those were primarily related to their associated engineering plans with some driveway dimensions,
electric easement and things like that, that needed to be updated on the plat.
They have made those changes and staff is now recommending approval of this item.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
And I know that that new plat and whatnot was emailed to everyone as well.
Yes.
Okay.
Anyone?
Any questions?
Okay.
Seeing none.
Thanks, Hayley.
Nope.
You're going again with the next one, PP2114.
All right, this is a final plat for the Eagle Cove edition.
This is a single family subdivision that may look familiar to some of you all as it recently
had an alternative ESA plan approved.
This plat, again, same as the last one, they were able to resolve their outstanding comments.
In this case, it related to their HOA documents and again, a couple of electric easements
on the plat.
They resolved those items and so staff is now recommending approval and that revised
plat was also sent to you all earlier this week.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Anyone have any questions for Hayley on this one?
No, I do not see any Hayley.
Thank you.
And then I know the next one you've updated us on as well and that the applicant's withdrawing.
Correct.
We submitted a request that was forwarded to you all to withdraw that item from consideration
tonight.
They'll be resubmitting that at a later date when they're able to address those comments.
Okay, so Mac, I guess my question for you, how do we handle that as far as tonight's
agenda goes?
You can just basically skip it.
You don't need to take any action on it.
It'll just, it's removed by action of not taking-
Of the applicant?
Yeah.
Okay.
So do I mention, I can mention it though that the applicant has withdrawn and then we'll
just move on.
Yep.
Okay.
Perfect.
Okay.
So that brings us to FP21-0013B, which is Sean.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
Let me just share my screen here.
All right.
So this is a request for a final plat of a property in the ETJ off Hilltop Road, approximately
20.7 acres.
And staff is recommending denial because they have not met, they have not met the standards
as laid out in-
[inaudible]
So you can live your life, and call-
I'm sorry, is there a question?
Hello?
This is Brad Book with Not Near Property Development, we're on the Hilltop.
We were just asking to have an extension to re-submit for the plat because trying to meet
some of the responses from the engineering, and we were waiting on a survey and the surveyor
couldn't get it done because of the weather, held them up a couple weeks.
Now we have it.
We just got it today, in fact, to complete.
This plat has already received an extension and therefore there's not an opportunity for
an additional extension at this time.
Yes, sir, you have not been recognized to speak at the meeting at this moment.
If you could please get with staff on your comments, they can further direct you.
How do I get it with staff on this call?
Well, it would not be on this call, we are on a public meeting, so if you could please
mute yourself.
Thank you, Sean, go ahead.
That is actually the conclusion of my comments on this plat, but I will stand for any questions
you may have.
Just to clarify, they've already had an extension on this.
They cannot have another one.
They can address the comments and re-submit and then it will come before us again.
Yes, ma'am.
Does anyone have any questions?
Okay, Sean, if you could reach out to that caller and just go ahead and address concerns
and then let him know.
He may not understand exactly what next steps are, I'm not sure.
We'll certainly do that.
All right.
Thank you.
Actually, you have the next one, Sean, coming up, PP21-0007B.
Yes, ma'am.
This is a proposed preliminary plat of the Vintage Village Edition and staff is now recommending
approval as they have addressed the outstanding comments we had and that plat was shared with
you prior to the meeting.
So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Yeah, and I think everybody that literally just came to us right before the meeting started,
so I don't know if you've seen it in your email, but it is there.
Does anyone have any questions?
Okay.
I don't see any, Sean.
Thank you.
Okay, who's got our next one?
Mark Laird has the next one, which is PP21-0008A.
Good evening.
My name is Mark Laird.
I'm the planner with the Development and Service Department.
For your reference or review this evening, I have for you the preliminary plat of SP
Ditten 1 Edition Phase 2.
This property is slated for warehouse distribution center use and staff recommends this property
plat for approval and I stand for any questions.
And Mark, I think this was another one that was updated post-agenda posting, right?
That we got emailed to us.
Yes.
Yes, you are correct.
Does anyone have any questions for Mark?
I do not see any, but stand by because you're on deck for the next one, PP21-0010.
Yes, you're correct.
This is the preliminary plat for Windsor Oak Phase 2 Edition.
This is a residential development that's being proposed off Ferris, Silverdome and Cooper
Creek Road.
Staff is recommending denying, denial of this development as it does not meet the criteria
that's in Exhibit 2 of the staff analysis and I stand for any questions.
And then on this one, the applicant has requested an extension, correct?
I think that was...
Yes, you're correct.
Does anybody have any questions for Mark on this one?
Okay, I do not see anything, Mark, thank you.
That will bring us to our public hearing portion.
Item A, staff is requesting to be postponed to a date certain of the 23rd.
Mac, are we opening that public hearing or are we just postponing the item?
Yes, if you could open it and then postpone to open it.
Okay, and that would be the same for the next, correct?
Correct.
Okay, yeah, so public hearing A and B both are being postponed to June 23rd.
So that will bring us to PD-20-009B and that is Hayley again.
Yes, let me get that pulled up.
All right, good evening.
This is PD-20-0009 for the Parkside addition.
The request before you this evening is a rezoning from Rural Residential to Plan Development
District.
The property is outlined in yellow on the map here.
It is just over 62 acres located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road and south of Creekdale
Drive.
Some of you may recall this property was annexed in 2018.
Following that, it was assigned that RD5X placeholder.
That's what transitioned to RR.
There was a previous request for Neighborhood Residential 4 zoning on this property as well
as the adjacent properties to the northwest.
That request was denied in 2018 as a result of concerns related to traffic on Hickory
Creek Road.
So this is an entirely new request unrelated to that one, if anyone remembers that previous
case.
This is just a look at what the zoning map would look like.
Currently, again, it has that RR zoning that transitioned from the placeholder following
its annexation and it would be reflected as PD if this was approved.
Wanted to start by walking you through the development plan.
This is, of course, a requested single-family subdivision.
The plan and the PD standards reflect a maximum of 156 single-family lots.
They intend to develop this as one phase.
There are a few areas such as this detention pond on the northern end and this area here
on the far eastern side at the south side that would be HOA common areas.
The area in yellow on your map is what is needed for right-of-way dedication for the
Hickory Creek roadway expansion.
That is an ongoing capital improvement project.
And then the area outlined in red is what is proposed as park dedication and that is
approximately 23 acres of land.
It does include a mixture of flood plain as well as some land out of the flood plain.
So this blue line here delineates where those flood plain limits are.
So this would be just open space flood plain and this other area could be developed for
park improvements.
The PD standards that were in your backup are kind of summarized here on the screen.
My apologies.
So they are proposing this as a cluster subdivision.
If that's a term that you're unfamiliar with, I wanted to provide a definition of what that
is.
So the DDC allows for cluster subdivisions in instances where some or all of the lots
are smaller than the area and width dimensions that would typically be seen, but that allows
for flexibility by increasing density in those places to offset that with permanent protection
of common open spaces.
The code allows for several options of how that open space could be maintained.
It could be dedicated to like a third-party entity that's a land trust that would hold
it or it could be dedicated to the city as park and that's what's proposed in this instance.
For a cluster subdivision, there is a minimum requirement of 30% of the total area to be
open space.
So you can see the breakdown on the screen of what they've proposed and they would be
at 37% total park dedication with that 23 acres, so they do meet that requirement.
Again, just showing you a summary of their development standards.
What they're proposing is actually consistent with the R6 district, but rather than then
go straight R6 and obtain more lots, they're proposing to offset that increased density
that might otherwise be out of character for this area by providing that 30% open space
or 37% in this case.
So they're not proposing any deviations from the standard R6 in terms of lot dimensions
or square footage.
They would follow all of those standards.
The difference in this case is again, that open space dedication that we would not normally
see with a standard single family development in R6.
As is outlined in your backup, we do have our standard criteria for approval that apply
to all applications.
I won't go through all of these in detail, but we will touch on many of these as we go
through the PD specific criteria.
So just outline on your screen here, some of these that do not apply, for example, they've
not proposed phasing with this development, there were no prior approvals that they needed
to comply with, and then we'll look at these other items in a little more detail in terms
of the comprehensive plan and provision of services to the site.
So these six criteria will walk through in a little more detail that are specific to
a PD application.
The first criterion is consistency with our comprehensive plan.
So this area, as you can see, is designated for low residential.
That is that designation for that one to four dwelling units per acre single family development.
When you look at the density, since they are proposing this as a cluster with that significant
amount of open space, they do come in at a gross density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre.
So they are consistent with that designation.
The second criterion is compliance with our development code.
Again, yes.
Commissioner Smith has a question.
Yes, of course.
Thank you, Chair.
Haley, on that, on the, that's the gross density, and I never liked on these cluster zonings
like cluster developments like this, but especially when you've got something like a floodplain
where they couldn't build there anyways, you remove that open space at 23 acres, that leaves
the density at probably closer to like five, almost six.
They would be at, so I did that calculation in case anyone asked, they would be at 4.4
units per acre.
All right.
If you, if you took out the 23 acres, but bearing in mind that about five acres of that
23 is actually developable, developable land outside of the floodplain that's above and
beyond parkland dedication.
That's fine.
All right.
Awesome.
My questions at the end.
Thank you.
Okay.
All right.
So the second criterion again is compliance with the DDC.
As you could see in their development standards, they are proposing to develop everything consistent
with the R6 district.
So that is not only these dimensional standards that we see here, but in terms of uses, they're
proposing again, as we saw, single family and park, they are proposing to allow all
of those accessory uses that would be permitted in R6.
So they are not proposing any significant deviations from the DDC, but the PD is a requirement
if you want to follow that cluster subdivision procedure.
So that's what led them down this path.
The third criterion is whether they would provide greater building design amenities
and connectivity.
So again, as I mentioned, the building design would follow the DDC standards.
So it'd be consistent with the type of product that we see in this area for other single
family developments.
They are proposing that 23 acres of park and open space.
So just wanted to look at that in a little more detail.
As I alluded to earlier, they are going above and beyond their parkland dedication with
what's outside of the floodplain.
They would be required just over one acre of dedication for 156 units.
And then in addition to that, they're setting aside that 18.7 acres that meets that 30%
requirement for a cluster subdivision that would be permanently set aside as open space
and floodplain conservation area.
In terms of connectivity, they are helping the connectivity of this area, which has been
kind of piecemealed over time as parcels have annexed and developed.
So they would be extending Creekdale on the north side that you can see here.
And then they do have, of course, this pathway through where residents would now have a new
option to get from Creekdale down to Hickory Creek, where they would have their primary
entrance at this location.
And then they are proposing an additional connection point to the east that would eventually
align if the adjacent property develops with a street that was stubbed out with the neighboring
subdivision.
So they are improving the street connectivity.
Similarly, they are planning to work with our Parks Department for some initial trail
improvements through this park that would have points of connectivity proposed where
the streets would abut this at these two locations, as well as down here to provide some additional
pedestrian connectivity and amenities to the area.
The fourth criterion is applicable to residential uses and looks at whether there would be compatible
types of buildings, uses, and whether it would be consistent with the character of the area.
Again, this PD is proposing to limit those principal uses to single-family detached,
so that is consistent with what we have in this area, as there are several other single-family
developments in the immediate vicinity of this.
Their lots would have a minimum of 6,000 square feet.
That is consistent with other subdivisions when I examine kind of this larger area to
see what lot sizes were in the area.
They range anywhere from Thistle Hills with much larger lots in the first phase that were
a little over 10,000 square feet, to many of the more recent subdivisions such as Ryan
Meadows that were at that 6,000 square foot mark.
So they are consistent with the area, and again, they would follow our DDC requirements
for building design, so we would have similar styles and types of homes that we see throughout
the rest of the city under those standards.
Criterion five is applicable for non-residential uses, whether they are appropriate in terms
of their location and how they've been planned.
This PD is proposing that park use that would be non-residential.
They've been coordinating with the Parks Department throughout their review process to ensure
that this is a desirable location for a neighborhood park, and again, as we looked at earlier,
they are proposing to meet, not only meet, but also exceed both the open space requirements
for a cluster subdivision, but also parkland dedication.
And then the sixth criterion has several components that we'll walk through to discuss their provision
of public facilities that would support the development.
First, we look at schools, and we did reach out to Denton ISD to confirm the attendance
boundaries and student generation, so you can see that here on the screen, and Denton
ISD indicated that all three of these schools have capacity to serve these additional students
that would be expected to come from the subdivision.
Looking at both fire and law enforcement, our fire department, of course, looked at
their requests, as they do with all of these, and confirmed that they are within the standard
eight-minute response time boundary.
The nearest fire station that would respond to this location would be Fire Station 6 located
on Teasley Lane, and as this is consistent with, again, the character and uses of the
area, they're not expected to generate any significant increase in crime or nuisance
that our police department would be concerned about.
Looking at water and wastewater utilities, you can see on the map here where those facilities
are, so there has been both water and sewer extended to the frontage of this property
that can be extended throughout the site and loops to provide those services to these homes.
And then looking at streets, the expected trip generation for this site, you can see
on the screen, is just over 1,400 daily trips for this number of homes.
They will be required to make perimeter street improvements on Creekdale that we looked at
earlier, so that would be that westward extension of Creekdale from its current terminus.
And then again, we do have the Hickory Creek alignment, which if you've looked at our mobility
plan, was originally intended to curve through this property.
If you recall, as I referenced back in 2018, there was an accident on Hickory Creek Road
that really generated concern about that alignment, and as part of a capital improvement project,
city staff is looking at realigning Hickory Creek Road, and that's what is generally reflected
here in orange on the map.
Hickory Creek Road will take off and bridge over the floodplain through this location to
straighten out that roadway and realign it.
This I believe is phase three of that project.
It is very near or at completion of the design phase from what I've heard, and that would
look at this cross section here where Hickory Creek would be widened to a four-lane divided
section with ultimate right-of-way width to allow for six lanes if we need to expand that
in the future.
The applicant did coordinate with our engineering department to look at how they fit into that
CIP plan, so there is a median cut and left turn lane as part of the Hickory Creek plan
already that would provide access to this site, and they did a study that indicated
that they will merit a right turn lane as well, so they'll be working with city staff
as well as the adjacent property owner to coordinate and see how feasible that right
turn lane is and the timing of that in conjunction with this capital improvement project.
And then finally, the final criteria that we look at is associated with parks.
This property is actually within the 10-minute walk to a park goal with the nearby Cross
Timbers Park, however, some of these other subdivisions don't currently meet that goal,
so this additional neighborhood park in this location would not only provide closer access
to a park amenity for these future residents, but also other developments in this area that
are outside of that 10-minute goal, so that is an advantage of this development that we
would see.
Neighborhood outreach was conducted with this request.
I've received no responses to those notifications to date.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting back in April via Zoom that they can certainly
provide more details on, but from watching the recording of that that they provided to
me, they did have one council member in attendance as well as a neighbor, but there were no other
neighbors that attended that neighborhood meeting.
And finally, staff is recommending approval of this request as we found it to be consistent
with all of our criteria for approval.
Their next step after the P&Z meeting would be a City Council meeting next week on June
15th.
And with that, I will stop sharing and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Smith.
Hey Vice-Chair, Haley, can you go back over what the 2018 projected project was when they
presented it or just rough, rough on that?
Sure.
So they had proposed a zoning of neighborhood residential four, and if you remember under
the the 2002 code, there were not minimum lot sizes, so that was just on a density basis.
They could have had up to four units per acre.
That rezoning was actually for a larger site that was, I believe, 92 acres in total.
So it was a significantly higher number of units than what we see with this case.
And that rezoning, as I mentioned, was denied at council.
That applicant came back afterwards and started to propose something a lower density, but
then ultimately withdrew that request because of the unknowns associated with Hickory Creek
Road at that time.
The right of way is over that detention pond, is that correct?
So there is an existing pond, it's actually an environmentally sensitive area.
The 4.6 acres that is needed for the Hickory Creek Road alignment is not just for the roadway
itself but for drainage improvements associated with that roadway as well as that bridge and
some of the infrastructure for that.
So that pond would be removed.
Our code does require, it does allow for that removal since it is a mobility plan needed
roadway.
However, any remaining land that's not affected by that would be expected to be restored in
coordination with our environmental services department to try to restore some of those
ESA functions.
So that ESA analysis is done at the mobility side of things, not at this development side?
There was an ESA field assessment completed for this project that looked at all of those
pieces and confirmed that there is floodplain and I believe water-related habitat around
that pond.
I might have just missed that piece.
Next thing, there's a PD and I think it's the reserve at Creekside that's up there on
Ryan because this location is surrounded by, it's got an R4 on the west end across Hickory
Creek or Country Club, across the railroad there's R2.
There's a PD up there along Ryan Road, I'm thinking it looks like it's R4 but I can't
tell just knowing how many acres it is, the GIS map will tell us how many units are in
there so can we see that before public?
Sure, I do have some data so the Creekside development is a little unique, it actually
before annexing into the city that landowner entered into a pre-annexation development
agreement that established they would ultimately put on the property.
That subdivision is 137 units, it's about 47 acres, I think the density is right at
just under three units per acre because there was a significant area of ESA that was set
aside as well as some tree preservation that was required as part of that pre-annexation
development agreement.
Okay, understood, thank you.
Anyone else have a question for Haley?
Haley, did anything come out of the neighborhood meeting?
I mean obviously there was only one person there but was there any comment?
So I believe if I remember correctly the neighbor that attended is actually the person who is
selling this property that's retaining some of their land, the mayor was also in attendance
so there was a pretty good discussion with the mayor regarding the project itself and
the mobility changes that are occurring in the area but no concerns from the neighbors
that I heard.
Okay, okay good, thank you.
Anyone else?
I don't see any, thank you Haley.
Thank you.
Let's see, I think that was our, that is our last agenda item.
So with that I will close our work session at 537, we will meet back here for our public
meeting at 630.
Thank you all.
Hello and welcome to the City of Denton's planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday,
June 9th, 2021.
With a quorum present I will call us to order at 633 p.m.
First item on the agenda is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
Fellow commissioners feel free to unmute yourself if you would like to participate.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, one state, under God, indivisible.
Next item on our agenda is to consider approval of the planning and zoning minutes for May
19th.
I will entertain a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
Motion on the floor to approve.
Commissioner Anderson.
Second the motion.
So motion and a second to approve the minutes.
Any discussion?
All right, we'll take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
And Chair, is also an aye.
That motion carries 5-0.
Commissioner Anderson, did you have a question?
Thanks, Chair.
Should Commissioner Pruitt abstain since he wasn't at the last meeting?
I do believe in the past we have been told that even commissioners who were not at the
meeting for the minutes can approve, can vote on the minutes.
Is that correct, Mac?
That is exactly right.
Yes.
Okay.
Awesome.
Okay.
Welcome, Harry.
Thank you.
I did view the meeting, so.
Okay, we will move on to our consent agenda.
Chair can entertain discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
I make a motion to approve.
We have a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Commissioner Anderson.
Second the motion.
We have a first and a second for the consent agenda discussion.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Yeah, just a comment.
I just wanted to thank staff and the applicants on both of these for making provisions for
connectivity, sort of in the spirit of our 2019 code, even though the previous code that
they were under doesn't actually require it.
It seems like they went above and beyond having to cross some utility easements and get some
turnaround easements in order to accomplish that, so I appreciate that.
Thank you for your comments.
That's awesome.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for the approval of the consent agenda.
Any further discussion?
Okay.
We'll take a vote.
There will be a roll call.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
And the chair is also an aye.
That motion carries five zero.
That will take us to our items for individual consideration.
Item number A is PP21-009A, and I will invite Haley Zygarski to present that item.
Get that pulled up here.
Sorry, jumped a little ahead there.
All right, so this is a preliminary plat for the I-35 cold storage project that is intended
for an industrial development.
The project is located on the west side of I-35, north of Barthold Road, as you can see
on the map here.
Since the agenda posting, the applicant was able to resolve all of their outstanding comments,
so at this time, staff is recommending approval as it meets the established requirements,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Haley.
Are there any questions for Haley on this item?
I do not see any, Haley.
Thank you.
I will make mention that for this item, we had two people make comments using our online
form.
There were zero in support, two against.
All of these comment forms were emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to
be recorded.
Chair can entertain a motion at this time.
Commissioner Cole?
Motion to approve.
Okay, we have a motion on the floor to approve this item.
Commissioner Smith?
I do.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Okay, we'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
And the chair is also an aye.
That item passes 5-0.
That will move us to 4B, FP21-0014.
That is also Haley's item.
All right, good evening.
This is a final plan for the Eagle Cove edition.
This is a single-family residential development.
It is located on the south side of Dutchess, as you can see here on the map.
As with our last item, since the posting of the agenda, the applicant was able to resolve
all of their outstanding comments and staff is recommending approval as it now meets the
established requirements.
And I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you again, Haley.
Does anyone have any questions for Haley?
I do not see any.
I will mention that for this item, we had one person make comment using our online form.
There was zero in support, one against, and this comment was emailed to all the commissioners
and our city secretary to be recorded.
Commissioner Anderson?
I make a motion to approve.
Okay, we have a motion on the floor to approve.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay, first and a second to approve, FP 210014.
Any discussion?
Okay, with that, I will call for a vote, be a roll call.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
And the chair is also an aye.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will move us to 4C, FP 20027B.
The applicant is withdrawing this request at this time, so there will be no action on
this item tonight.
And we will move to 4D, FP 210013B, and invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
If you'll give me just a moment, I'll go ahead and start my presentation here.
Sorry, one moment.
So, this is a request for a final plat of the Hilltop Road estates addition.
This is approximately 20.7-acre property just off the west side of Hilltop Road in the extraterritorial
jurisdiction, and staff is recommending denial of this request because it does not meet the
established requirement as outlined in the staff analysis in Exhibit 2.
And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
I have a question.
This is Brad Book, not in your property development, doing the development at Hilltop estate subdivision.
We submitted, and the denial is solely on the engineering.
This is not the platform for this discussion, nor have you been recognized to speak at this
meeting at this time.
Please get with staff.
Thank you.
And please mute yourselves.
Thank you.
Are there any questions from the commissioners for Sean?
Are there any further questions for Sean?
Okay, I do not see any.
Mr. Book, if you do want to take four minutes of public comment at this time, you may.
Yes, we submitted this, and the issue is we, the landowner to the north of our property
where all of our property drains to, he signed a letter where he wants all the water we can
give him because he was building a bass pond.
And that was submitted for playing, for the plat, for the engineering.
And then they came back and said, "Well, they want a downstream evaluation."
And we were saying, "Well, they said he accepted all the water, so the downstream evaluation
would be, you know, he's accepting the water."
Okay.
Well, they denied it because of that, which is one item.
We're trying to get it approved, such as that one item.
And we went ahead and we ordered surveys for the topography of that bass pond to serve as
our retention pond, which the landowner, Mr. Riley, said he was fine with because he wants
all the water, and that took some time over, you know, the rains and everything, for them
to get out there.
We just got that and ready to resubmit, and our engineer won't take but a couple of days
to resubmit, but I don't know why we even have to do that since he's accepting all the
water, and that would be in his hands, not ours, and it's additional cost and expense,
and having to pay for this resubmittal of the plat is my, I'm understanding, it would
take two weeks for us to have it resubmitted to you all as we meet these comments because
of this downstream evaluation showing that the pond is adequate and that it's a outlet
for the spines going down to, I believe, the Freshy Creek.
But this extra expense in town, I don't know why it couldn't be approved with just that
one comment, with an exception, Sean did tell me that the chairman of that committee is
adamant about not approving anything subject to the engineering of that part, so that is
my comment on this project.
Thank you, Mr. Book.
Does anyone have any questions?
And I do appreciate your comments, you know, there are criteria to meet for approval.
Once that is met, it can be resubmitted, and it will come to us within a 15-day period
once it is resubmitted.
What about the fee for that?
Well, there is a fee for that, yes, and that is something that you can talk with staff
about, now or later.
No, I would have to be away from the public hearing, but I'll make sure Sean gets with
you on that.
Okay.
Thank you.
Is there any further discussion, commissioners, do you have any questions after that comment
for Sean?
Okay, I do not see any, yes, I do.
Commissioner Anderson.
Thank you, Chair.
Is there a way, Sean, would you accept maybe a recommendation of pushing this back a couple
of weeks, like, instead of just totally denying it right now, is that something we could entertain?
Well, as you know, we can only approve one extension of a plat, the state only permits
one extension, and they have already requested and received that extension.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah, we're up against that House bill, that's playing a role here.
Okay, no, that's perfectly fine, thank you.
Thank you, Sean.
If you could get with Mr. Book, if he's still on the line, I appreciate it when you can.
Thank you.
Is there further discussion?
If not, we can entertain a motion.
Commissioner Smith.
I'm Mr. Book, I'm super sorry to hear about this, but as Vice Chair Ellis said, this chalk
loss got us handcuffed here, that we'd love to be able to extend you back, but not much
we can do based off the state legislator, so I will make a motion to deny.
Some motion on the floor to deny.
Commissioner Cole.
I'll second.
Okay, we have a first and a second to deny.
Further discussion?
Seeing none, we will take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
And the Chair is also an aye, so that motion carries 5-0.
Next item is 4EPP21-0007B, also Sean Jacobson's item.
Go ahead and pull that up.
This proposal is a request for a preliminary plat, the Vintage Village addition, 51.808
acre property just off Vintage Boulevard, and as the applicant has made the necessary
changes, staff is changing the recommendation to approval of this request as it now meets
the established requirements.
With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioners, are there any questions for Sean?
I do not see any.
Thank you, Sean.
I will mention that for this item, we had one person make comment using the online form.
Zero in support, one against.
This one comment has been emailed to the commissioners and to the city secretary to be recorded.
With that, I will entertain a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
There's a motion on the floor to approve this item.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
It's a first and a second to approve PP210007B.
With that, I will take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Chair, there's also an aye.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will move us to 4F, PP210008A.
That is Mark Laird's.
Good evening.
My name is Mark Laird.
I'm a planner with the development service department.
For your review consideration this evening, I have for you the Plenary Plot of S.P.
Ditten 1, Addition Phase 2.
This property is located along the west line of Western Boulevard and north of Airport
Road.
After the posting of this agenda, the applicant has addressed all the comments listed within
Exhibit 2 of the staff analysis, and staff is recommending the approval of this Plenary
Plot.
I stand for any questions that you may have.
Any questions for Mark on this item?
I do not see any, Mark.
Thank you.
Chair, we'll entertain a discussion or a motion.
Okay, well, the Chair will make a motion to approve this item.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
Okay, there's a motion on the floor to approve PP21008.
Any discussion?
Take a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
That motion carries 5-0.
Next item is 4G PP210010.
That is also Mark Laird's item.
Good evening again.
For your view and consideration, I have the Plenary Plot for Windsor Oaks, Phase 2 edition.
This property is generally located along Ferris Road, Silverdome Road, and Cooper Creek Road.
This property is slated for a residential development, and staff is recommending a -- recommended
now.
However, the applicant has made a request for a 30-day extension, and staff is in support
of that request.
And I stand for any questions.
Any questions for Mark on this item?
I do not see any, Mark.
Thank you very much.
I will mention that 35 people commented using our online form.
There were three in support of this item, 32 against.
All of these comments were emailed to the commissioners and to the city secretary to
be recorded.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to postpone the date certain of June 23rd.
There's a motion on the floor to approve the applicant's request for an extension.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We have a first and a second for that extension request.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Chair, there's also an aye.
That motion carries 5-0.
That will move us to our public hearing items for tonight, 5AZ21-0007.
I will go ahead and open the public hearing for this item and make mention that staff
has requested that this item be postponed to a date certain of June 23rd.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to postpone this item until date certain of June 23rd.
There's a motion on the floor to postpone per staff request.
Commissioner Anderson.
Second.
The motion.
There's a first and a second on the floor to postpone to a date certain of June 23rd.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Aye.
Chair, there's also an aye.
That motion carries 5-0.
Public hearing has remained open.
Public hearing item 5B, PD21-0001A.
I will open the public hearing for this item.
Staff has requested that this item be postponed to a date certain of June 23rd.
Before that, I will make mention that for this item, we had 36 people make comments
using our online form.
There was one in support and 35 against.
All of these comments were emailed to commissioners and to the city secretary to be recorded.
And the public hearing will remain open.
Commissioner Smith.
Big option to postpone to date certain of June 23rd.
Commissioner Anderson.
Well, I had a comment as well.
After reading all these concerns, it really -- the concerns are valid.
I have driven that road multiple times.
And those are just two-lane narrow roads, and we're going to add all these houses to
an already congested area that these roads really can't handle.
I know the traffic analysis says that they probably can.
I don't believe it.
I've driven it.
I mean, I've driven those roads multiple times.
And I mean, I do hear the concerns.
My concern is, are we just kicking a can down the road?
And it's kind of a catch-22.
We approve it.
We're going to make people unhappy that already live there.
And the second part is we're going to make a developer unhappy.
That's okay.
We've done that before.
But the thing is, once these people move in, they're going to be unhappy with the traffic
that they're going to have to sit in because the city has failed to build up infrastructure.
So anyway, I just want to put that out there first, and then I'll vote.
And I appreciate the kind -- we at the moment don't have a presentation and haven't heard
this item.
We've opened the public hearing, though staff has requested that we postpone it to the 23rd
of June.
I do have a motion on the floor for that postponement.
Commissioner Cole?
You're muted.
I'll make a motion to second that, but I still have the same concerns as Commissioner Anderson
about this.
You know, it seems to me we're putting all these houses in these areas where the infrastructure
is not even close to being capable of handling it.
And it's a safety concern.
I mean, Hickory Creek is the same example, but, you know, when do y'all figure this is
-- staff figures the roads are going to be ready for this?
I mean, that's a simple question.
Just their best guess, and I'll be happy and go away.
And I think without having a presentation from staff, I mean, we can't really engage
staff in questions on this item.
We'll wait until June 2nd.
I second.
All right, we've got a first and a second on the floor to postpone this item to June
23rd.
Any discussion on the postponement?
Okay.
Seeing none, I will call for a vote, be a roll call.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Chair, there's also an aye.
That item will be postponed to June 23rd.
The public hearing has remained open.
That moves us to 5CPD 20009B.
I will call Haley up for presentation and open the public hearing.
Right.
Good evening.
Let me get this shared.
Jump back to the beginning here.
All right.
So this is the Parkside Plan Development PD 20009.
The request before you this evening is to rezone the subject property outlined in yellow
on this map from Rural Residential District to Plan Development District.
The property is a total of 62.39 acres.
As you can see, it is located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road and is south of
the Creekdale Drive extension.
The subject property was annexed fairly recently in 2018.
It was part of a larger annexation that also included this area here.
I believe I had said at work session that was 92 acres.
There was actually a total of 86 acres for all of this.
All of that property then received the placeholder designation of RD5X.
And that's because an initial zoning was not assigned during that interim period that
then transitioned to the RR District with the adoption of the 2019 DDC.
You may recall there was a past request for rezoning on this property to a neighborhood
residential 4 district that was denied due to traffic concerns on Hickory Creek Road.
So this just in the event that you remember that I wanted to point out that this request
is not related to that.
It is a different different group than who requested the rezoning in the past.
This is just a snapshot of what our current zoning map looks like in this area.
So you can see the subject property with the RR designation.
All of the areas shown in white on this map are still in the city's ETJ.
And then this is what that zoning map would look like with the plan development if this
were approved.
We'll start by looking at the development plan for this proposed PD.
Again, it is a total of 69 acres.
You can see here the residential portion of the development is contained within the north
side of the property.
The PD reflects a maximum of 156 residential lots that you can see here.
There are some areas that would be HOA maintained common areas such as this detention here.
And then some of these areas on the perimeter of the site such as on the north end and here
on the south eastern part of the site.
The area outlined in yellow on this map is approximately 4.6 acres that has been identified
as a need, a right of way need for the Hickory Creek Road CIP project.
This area would not just be for the future roadway, but would also be for drainage infrastructure
and bridge infrastructure for that project, which we'll look at a little bit later how
that road will be realigned.
And then the 23 acres here outlined in red is what is proposed as park dedication.
So this particular PD has been proposed as a cluster subdivision, which is an option
our code allows in our subdivision standards for areas where they may be looking for smaller
lots than what would normally be proposed, but they propose to cluster those in one part
of the site as a trade off for significant open space conservation and preservation on
another part of the site.
The open space that is set aside, the code does require to be permanently protected either
it gives several options.
You could put that in a land trust for preservation or you could dedicate that land to the city
as a parkland and that is what is proposed in this case.
For a cluster subdivision, you do have to meet a minimum 30% total open space.
So for this development, they're at 37% open space with that total 23 acres.
That is broken down with a total of 18 acres being floodplain environmentally sensitive
area and then a total of five acres that are outside of the floodplain and are not part
of the ESA.
As we talked about at the work session, I did want to point out that that 4.6 acres
for right-of-way is an environmentally sensitive area that is part of the floodplain and is
part of a water related habitat.
The city's environmentally sensitive area code does allow for mobility plan roadways
as an exception to those ESA requirements, so they wouldn't have to go through that alternative
ESA process, but the code does dictate that after the roadway improvements are made to
the greatest extent possible, that work be done in conjunction with our environmental
services department to restore whatever is left of that land to try to encourage the
regrowth and reestablishment of those ESAs.
Then looking at the plan development standards, the important thing here is to note that they're
not proposing to take advantage of the minimums that are allowed for cluster subdivision.
They could propose lots as small as 2,500 square feet, what the applicant has proposed
is to make their development consistent with the R6 standards.
So those lots would have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet, they would have to meet
the minimum 50 by 80 lot dimensions, as well as the minimum setbacks that are established
for R6.
They would follow all the same requirements for height and building coverage on those
lots.
The significant difference here is that knowing that R6 is not necessarily consistent with
the zoning in this area, they're proposing this cluster option because they are proposing
to dedicate this 37% of their land area as parkland, which is above and beyond the minimum
requirements.
And we'll look at that a little more closely.
So moving into the criteria for approval, we do have 13 general criteria that apply
to all applications that you all are probably familiar with from our plat applications and
everything else.
I won't go into these in detail, but we will talk about several of them.
As we look at the six PD specific criteria.
So going through those one by one, the first is consistency with our comprehensive plan.
So of course, the main component to look at there is our future land use map.
This area, as you can see, all of the yellow area is designated for low density residential.
The comp plan calls for that as single family homes at one to four dwelling units per acre.
This proposed PD does have a gross density of 2.6.
Again with that large area of open space, as we talked about at work session, if you
were to net that out, they would be at over at approximately 4.4 units per acre.
However, it's also important to look at the character of the area and in the spirit of
low density residential development, again, they do have that open space area, but they're
also consistent with the development pattern in terms of the types of homes and the size
of lots that we find in this part of the city.
The second criterion is compliance with the development code.
So as you have in your backup, their PD standards and their development plan are proposed to
be consistent with the R6 district in every way they all of the deviations that they're
proposing are shown on that plan and outlined in those development standards.
So there are no other significant deviations.
As you're familiar with, they would, of course, be required to comply with landscaping tree
preservation and all of those other standards in the DDC that are not called out as specific
deviations as part of the PD.
The third criterion is that whether the proposal would provide for greater building design
amenities and connectivity than what we would get with their DDC standards.
In terms of building design, they're proposing to be consistent with the single family design
standards in our code.
The enhancements that they are proposing are related to open space and amenities.
So in terms of open space, again, we're looking at this 23 acres that would be parkland dedication.
To break that down a little bit further, 18.7 acres is what the 30% requirement would be
as a cluster subdivision.
And then 1.09 acres is what would be required as parkland dedication.
So when you total all of that up, they're providing a greater acreage than what would
be strictly required by either of those components if they were to stand alone.
In terms of connectivity, they would be improving the connectivity of this area.
They would be extending Creekdale along their northern perimeter here.
They do have connectivity through that would then connect here at their primary entrance
off of Hickory Creek Road.
And then they are providing this future stub out on the east side of the property.
And if this map were zoomed out a little, you would see, I believe it's River Pass that
runs north to south there and the adjacent subdivision just to the east has a street
stub that would roughly align with this to provide a future connection point when and
if this property develops further.
And the developer has further worked with our parks department and has indicated that
they intend to work with them moving forward to provide some trails through this area,
which are generally kind of conceptually shown on those plans in your backup.
And they're proposing that those trails would connect at all of their street connection
points, which I indicated here as red stars, so that there would be greater pedestrian
connectivity through this area that could then play into our parks department's master
trail plan as they hopefully extend trails throughout the city's floodplain corridors
and utility corridors.
Criterion four is specific to residential uses and that looks at whether they are compatible
in terms of the types of buildings and uses proposed as well as consistent with the character
of the area.
This PD would limit primary residential uses to single-family, which is shown on their
plans and which is consistent with the pattern of development we see in this area.
As I indicated at the work session, their minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet is generally
consistent with other subdivisions in the area.
We do have some larger lot subdivisions such as Thistle Hills, but many of the newer subdivisions,
I believe Ryan Meadows and Ryan Ranch, do have lot sizes with an average of 6,000 square
feet consistent with this.
So they're not out of character for what we see in this part of Denton between Ryan Road
and Hickory Creek.
And again, their building design would follow our DDC standards and so would therefore be
consistent with what we see in the larger area.
Criterion five is specific to non-residential uses within a PD and looks at whether they
are appropriate in terms of their location and the planning and the area.
So in this case, we do have the 23 acres of parkland that's proposed.
As I mentioned, the developer has been coordinating with our parks department throughout this
review process to make sure that the land area that they're proposing is desirable for
a neighborhood park suitable for that neighborhood park.
They do have that five acres of land outside of the flood plain that would be available
for future park amenities if any structures were desired to be placed there.
And again, they do meet and exceed the requirements for both the cluster subdivision open space
preservation as well as park dedication requirements.
Criterion six is the provision of public facilities.
So we'll go through these one by one with respect to schools.
You can see the expected student generation and those attendance boundaries that ISD did
confirm this information and indicated that all of these schools have adequate capacity
to serve that expected student generation.
With respect to fire, our fire department analyzed this and determined that they are
within the desired eight minute or less response time boundary.
That response would be from fire station six, which is indicated here on the map with the
red F.
And so they do meet that requirement in terms of law enforcement because of the consistency
with what we have in this area already.
There was not an identified risk for increased nuisance or crime rates that would be significant
above what we already see in the area.
In terms of utilities, this map shows our water lines in blue and sewer lines in red.
So you can see that those utilities were stubbed to this development with the development to
the north.
So they will be able to tie into that and provide those loops and connections through
the subdivision to serve the homes.
And then we'll look at streets a little more closely.
So they do have an expected trip generation of approximately 1,400 daily trips based on
156 homes.
So some of the improvements that will be made to serve this would be those perimeter street
improvements on Creekdale that would extend this roadway from its current terminus here
at the corner of the property across their frontage.
We do have, as you can see here on our mobility plan, this red dashed line indicates what
was at the time in 2015 thought to be the future alignment for Hickory Creek Road as
a primary arterial.
Through CIP planning with city council, it was determined that that road needed to be
to realigned out of this plan and instead will be going generally in the location of
this orange dashed line.
So straight across the floodplain.
So as I mentioned, that 4.6 acres is needed for drainage improvements and bridge improvements
that would occur here as that bridge takes off and goes over the floodplain to realign
here with Brush Creek Road further to the west.
So that is an ongoing CIP project.
It's actually phase three of the Hickory Creek development or the Hickory Creek project.
They are, I believe, beyond the 90% completion point with those plans.
So it is a very firm set of plans.
You can see here at the bottom of the screen that proposed cross section for what Hickory
Creek would be expanded to.
It would be a four lane divided section with turn lanes accommodated and the right of way
is sufficient to accommodate the expansion to six lanes in the future.
Specific to this project, they did a turn lane analysis and determined that a right
turn lane would be needed into this development or would be merited.
That would require coordination with this adjacent property owner as well as the CIP
project.
The city's plans already included a left turn lane and median opening into this development.
So that coordination with the right turn lane is what will be required in the future that
will be further looked at with their with their civil engineering plans if this development
moves forward.
And then finally, with respect to parks, it's important to note that this development does
meet the Parks Department's goal of a 10 minute walk to a park.
We do have Cross Timbers Park, which is shaded in green on this map, and they would meet
that goal, although just barely.
But the provision of this future neighborhood park on the western side of this property
would enhance other developments access to parks as some of these area neighborhoods
that are already here are outside of that response time boundaries.
So this would increase general accessibility to parks within this area.
Public outreach was provided as as we normally do the end of the newspaper website and mailings.
The property also had signs posted as is required.
We've received no written responses to date.
The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting in April via zoom.
They had one neighbor attend as well as one council member, but there that neighbor I
believe was the the landowner that is selling the property who is retaining for other properties
in the area.
There was no discussion with with other neighbors and residents in the area at that time.
And finally, Seth is recommending approval of this request as it complies with our criteria
for approval, both general and specific to a PD.
And the next step for this project after PNC would be a public hearing, which is scheduled
for June 15 at City Council.
And I will stop sharing now and happy to answer any questions.
And the applicant is also on the line and has a brief presentation.
Thank you, Haley.
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair Haley.
What's the timeline on the Hickory Creek Road expansions?
Let me see.
I do have that information.
I believe they are planned, I think, for start in twenty twenty two, it would be approximately
two years.
But let me get to that file and confirm that for you.
I believe there was a slight delay because there was some federal funding that became
available that required some additional text review of the plans.
But let me confirm what that latest date is.
Yes, the plan, I believe, is to go to construction in twenty twenty two and then they're estimating
a two year completion for this phase.
So the development developers here for this project, they're going to start immediately.
Well, of course, they would have the standard process to go through, which we could estimate
several months probably to get through planning and civil engineering.
But yes, my understanding is they would be seeking to start construction soon after that.
But they're on the line and could better speak to what their timing would be.
Because this is a worry, again, just like the other.
The roads can't at present can't take it.
And what did you say the housing density is going to be?
So you gave to Commissioner Smith that answer and I forgot what it was.
Yes.
So gross density for this development is roughly two and a half units per acre.
If you netted out the twenty three acres of open space, the remaining acreage would have
a density of about four point four units per acre.
Four point four per acre and it.
Commissioner Smith, thank you, Mr. To Commissioner Cole's point, I was going to ask about the
time on angry, angry, but Haley, just kind of give us a rough idea from my just my time
on the commission from a zoning change, what this is to actual full completion and build
out and people moving in.
You're talking about three years usually for them for for a lot of two and a half.
It's kind of like a earliest couple, you know, I go through engineering, plotting and then
actual construction and the sailing point, selling point, everything else.
So it's it's not it's probably not going to be done and completed next year.
No, it would you know, the plotting process alone, of course, now with the shot clock
is somewhat expedited, but typically we see that as a several month process to get through
preliminary plotting, civil engineering, design, all of the associated drainage studies and
then and then to get to final plant where they they could get that notice to proceed
on their public improvements.
And then, of course, construction, not sure exactly what that timeline would be in terms
of them putting in the utilities and roadways, but I would say probably that two, two and
a half year estimate that you gave is probably fairly accurate, but I believe the applicant
could could certainly provide you more details on what their intended timing is for everything.
Understood.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Haley?
Sorry, I'll still take before I had one more.
I'm sorry.
The Haley, it's one hundred and seventy five units, correct.
One fifty six.
I think.
Mr. Prude, I think you had your hand up.
I did.
Just real quick, I guess on your criterion three, if you could go back to that slide.
Sure.
On those items that are requested to be over and above the DDC requirements.
I think it was a yeah.
Just for my understanding on the yeah on the connectivity pieces of this, which which portions
of these connectivity benefits would not be required by the standard DDC?
So the the roadway connections would be fairly standard.
The trail components would definitely be above and beyond.
Certainly with a single family subdivision, we would just have the standard sidewalks
along the streets.
They are providing those connections to the future park trail.
Their conceptual plans indicated some some rough alignments of trails that they've talked
about with our parks department.
Those are not set in stone yet, but that trail connection would definitely be above and beyond
the standard that we would see with the DDC.
OK, so those trail connections are are essentially voluntary within the standard DDC unless it's
extending an existing trail feature from the border.
So we did.
The code would require connection to any any trails that are established in the area.
But typical process, if someone were going to dedicate parkland, they would dedicate
that.
They could potentially develop that park, but it's it's very rare that we see that the
developer do that park development themselves.
Razor Ranch is one recent example that comes to mind where the developer actually did complete
the park themselves.
But normally, that is not something that's required.
It's a fee that's paid at building permit to allow our parks department to do that work
in the future.
OK, thank you.
Any other questions for Haley at this time?
Haley, I've got one it has to do with the parcel of land that's to the east of this
site.
Right.
Do you know anything about that?
It looks like there's a maybe just a single family residence there, maybe some ag land.
Because you mentioned like a stub out maybe, you know, meeting see, this might be the best
map I have.
Of course, it's going to make me jump back through here.
Yes.
So when when this development occurred further east, they stubbed out River Chase Road right
here.
And that that is what their intended stub out to the east would ultimately connect to would
be this this crossing here.
This parcel is developed, I believe there is a residential dwelling.
There is also a gas well on that property.
But this is currently in the ETJ, so I'm not aware of any plans for development at that
time on this property.
But that that would be the ultimate goal that that we would have connection between these
two points at some time in the future.
OK, thank you.
OK, don't see any further questions for Haley.
So I could invite the applicant if you would like to present at this time.
Yes, ma'am, can you hear me?
We can hear you if you will state your name and address, you will have 10 minutes for
your presentation.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you very much.
My name is Jerry Silo.
I'm with JBI Partners 2121 Midway Road in Carrollton, Texas.
We do represent the applicant on this request, the applicant being First Texas Homes for
this rezoning request.
Haley, do you have our presentation?
Yes, I do.
OK, if you can just pass the title slide, go to the second slide.
This is just a quick aerial of showing where the property is located in relation to the
surrounding areas.
We're on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, just just south of Creekdale Drive and a little
farther south of Ryan Road.
Obviously, Haley goes through a very detailed presentation.
In my opinion, there's no reason for me to reiterate most of what Haley says.
So I'm going to try to focus on a few different things in my portion of the presentation.
So Haley, if you could go to the next slide, please.
This should be a slide of the concept plan.
And I would like to start off saying that the design of the plan, the design of the
standards has been a very collaborative process between our team and the city's team, be it
planning department, parks department, engineering department.
Obviously, there have been a lot of players involved because of the expansion of Hickory
Creek Road, the railroad crossing and the impact of being able to raise the road across
the railroad, working with the parks department on the floodplain and the upland properties
for park development, working with transportation department, with accessing for primarily Hickory
Creek and all the implications of the new road construction out there.
So we've been working very closely with everybody.
This has not been a quick process.
We have taken a number of months to work through this.
And the one thing that we obviously recognize from day one is that we have a tremendous
attribute on the property, and that is the 18 acres of floodplain.
As you can see on our concept plan, our primary entrance is going to be from Hickory Creek
Road.
And so we have proposed it's approximately a thousand feet from Hickory Creek Road before
you get to our first lot.
So that's going to be our entrance drive into the neighborhood.
And that's really going to create that sense of arrival.
You're going to have nothing but the park on the west side of you.
There's a couple of ponds out there immediately, the one will be eliminated, but the northern
pond will stay in place.
And this will ultimately be city parkland.
So we thought that was a great way to set our neighborhood apart from a lot of other
neighborhoods to show that we are sensitive to the environmental nature of what is going
on out here.
And the city code allows for that with the cluster development type scenario, where obviously
if something is environmentally sensitive, it's in everybody's benefit, be it the developers,
be it the cities, and ultimately the homeowners that live out here, to preserve it if we can.
And what the city allows for is, for lack of a better term, the city allows for a carrot
to be given to the development community, to give incentives to sort of try to make
everybody realize that there is benefit to those environmentally sensitive areas.
And those 18 acres of floodplain, is that in this area?
I know there were some questions raised during the briefing session, and it's a little misunderstanding
that the floodplain can't be redeveloped and reclaimed because the vast majority of floodplain
can be reclaimed and redeveloped.
It's a little tough in some instances.
With this specific piece of property, it's quite a bit easier because basically the railroad
creates a dam, so we are not impacting our neighbors on the other side of the floodplain,
on the western side of the floodplain.
So we have a lot more flexibility to reclaim some of this 18 acres.
We have chosen not to do that though, because of what we see as the benefit for it.
Additionally, as Haley mentioned, we are proposing to dedicate an additional five acres of land.
It's all upland, it's all out of the floodplain.
And the drawing you'll see is the lighter green area for city park that things can be
accomplished on it.
We are required to dedicate, with the 156 homes, we're required to dedicate basically
an acre of land for parkland or pay a fee in lieu.
Most likely the city would not, the parks department would not want that acre of land
out of this neighborhood in and of itself.
So we would probably end up paying the fee in lieu for that.
So there are five acres of land out there that we consciously decided not to develop.
We have the ability to do that, but we chose not to because we see a better benefit to
the neighborhood overall by having the parkland and having the environmentally sensitive land
out there and really focusing on that.
With regards to some of the connectivity questions from the commissioner, once we created this
23 acre park, obviously people to the north of us that didn't have access to it, would
never have thought of having access to it, now do.
We prefer that as pedestrian or bicycle access, maybe electric scooters, our preference will
not be cars.
Obviously they had the ability to drive through there to get to the park.
So what we did propose was working with the city, a hike and bike trail along our northern
limits adjacent to Creekdale so that there is an ability for our neighbors to the north
and to the east to come along Creekdale, come through the neighborhood.
And then what we've done, you see so many times over the years that a benefit like the
ponds, like the open spaces, that developers back these lots to those so that you can have
premiums for those lots that are back into this.
As you see here, we've really opened up the entire neighborhood, whether it's the front
entrance or whether it's access from the north to the parkland.
So that is a benefit to 156 homes plus our neighbors versus the 10 or 15 that we would
have backing up to it otherwise, because we think that's more important for 156 people
or 156 homeowners versus 10 homeowners.
So the connectivity to those open spaces, in our opinion, is just as important as automobile
connectivity to arterial roads or even the hike and bike trails.
Next slide, please.
These are just a few photos of the homes that are anticipated to be developed in this neighborhood.
As I said, First Texas is the home builder.
This is very typical of what they plan on developing in this neighborhood.
As was mentioned, the homes aren't going to be started construction for a couple of years.
So some of the architecture is going to change.
The footprints, the floor plans, are probably going to stay very similar to what they are.
So these are not going to be identical to what's going to be out there.
And that's just because of the nature of the architecture changing over time.
Next slide, please.
This is just a zoomed in slide showing the public land that will be out there after,
assuming we get our zone in and assuming the neighborhood is developed.
So as we know, there's 18 acres of environmentally sensitive flood plain, which is the non-colored
area shown on the drawing.
There's the five acres of upland parkland, which we are dedicating as part of our development.
And then there's the 4.6 acres of right of way for the expansion of Hickory Creek.
Technically, legally, we don't have to dedicate that 4.6 acres.
We're required to dedicate half the right of way needed for the street.
So it will ultimately be a six lane divided street, so we're required to dedicate 70 feet
of right of way, 65 feet of right of way for Hickory Creek and everything else.
In a lot of instances, the developer would make the city buy that property.
The city would have to buy it, go out there and get an appraisal or go through condemnation.
We have, as I said, this has been very collaborative.
We have offered that up as dedication when we plot the property, that 4.6 acres will
be dedicated to the city for right of way.
Next slide, please.
These are a couple of photos of the existing pond, the northern pond that will remain.
So as you can see, I mean, to be very honest, these photos have not been touched up at all.
We were out there when a northern blue through sort of blew out everything in the sky, so
you got that crystal blue sky.
The water is very clean, both ponds, the water is very pristine.
The goal is to really focus on these areas as an amenity to the community.
Next slide, please.
We have been working with the Parks Department.
What our client is hoping to be able to do is to, as part of the development of the subdivision,
to actually at least get started on providing some amenities in the park for those new homeowners
so that they have a little park there or we have the ability to do hike and bike trails
around the pond.
What we're looking at now is potentially reconfiguring that pond a little bit.
As you can see on the left, it's more of a north-south, we're proposing to put some
aeration in there and make it much more of an amenity versus just a feature.
That is going through, we are working with the Parks Department on that.
Nothing's been firmed up by anybody yet, nothing's been locked down, but that is the direction
we are, our client is moving, is that we will instigate the development of the park as part
of the development of the neighborhood and then as time goes on and the Parks Department
gets a little better feel for what they want to do with the other upland property, go out
there and try to work with some hike and bikes and some other types of facilities within
the park area itself.
Next slide, please.
This is just an image of what we anticipate our entry feature is going to be along Hickory
Creek Road.
You know, Hickory Creek is going to be a six-lane divider road, ultimately, so we're really
trying to create a statement as you come into the neighborhood.
So the sign that we're proposing is right now, it's 24 feet high, that's Cortan Steel,
so it'll be a very nice looking sign, very much creating a statement, a true, you are
arriving into someplace special versus just a street off an arterial that you turned down.
And we really hope that the emphasis with the park as your main drive and your main
approach into the neighborhood really makes that statement.
Next slide, please.
In closing here, as Haley mentioned, we did have a neighborhood meeting, a Zoom meeting
on April 7th.
Our neighbor to the east was the neighbor that did attend, the current property owner
also attended, and the mayor attended that meeting.
We had a very nice conversation with the mayor.
He had a lot of questions that a mayor would typically have, and it was great because we
actually had the ability to actually have a conversation and discuss real issues with
him.
Just so the commission knows, we did get contacted by one of the residents within the 200-foot
notice for the neighborhood meeting, but as far as we could tell, she did not attend the
meeting.
I reached out to her about a week later in mid-April, sent her an email again to see
if she, for some reason, she may not have been able to make it, so I offered up to answer
any questions or whatever, did not get a reply from her.
So I'm assuming that what she saw or what she thought she wanted to hear was not a concern
for her.
With regards to the timing of the neighborhood, the timing of Hickory Creek, right now from
what our discussions have been with the engineering department, the public works department in
Denton, it is anticipated that Hickory Creek Road construction will be completed by January
1, 2024.
Assuming we get the commission recommendation for approval, get the council approval, go
through all our subdivision requirements, our engineering plans, construction, we anticipate
acceptance of the subdivision by the engineering department, by the city, by January 1, 2023.
So that's ballpark a year before construction is completed for Hickory Creek.
Construction will already be underway, but it's a year.
Assuming that schedule works, assuming it stops raining and eventually things dry out,
if we are approved and if the subdivision is accepted on January 1, you're probably
talking another four to six months before any house that got started on January 2 would
be ready for somebody to move into.
So you're talking maybe six months of people living in the neighborhood before Hickory
Creek is anticipated to be open.
And Hickory Creek will initially be built as a four lane road.
So that's approximately 25,000 cars a day can be handled on that road.
In the interim, while that's going on, our exit into and out of the neighborhood is going
to be at North End along Creekdale, then we'll go to the East to River Pass and then come
back down to Hickory Creek, excuse me.
At that point, I think I'm going to stop and ask if the commission has any questions of
me.
Thank you, Mr. Silo.
Any questions for Mr. Silo?
I do not see any.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Thank you, ma'am.
This is a public hearing.
I don't know.
Okay, we do not have anyone on the line.
So at this time, I will close the public hearing and open up for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Anderson?
I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve.
I'm glad to hear that they are going to go ahead and start, they're not gonna have the
houses done before the roads are completed.
I mean, six months, I think that's doable instead of two years down the road and you
have about, you know, 1000 cars up and down the road and anyway, no, I'll make a motion
to approve.
There's a motion on the floor to approve Commissioner Cole?
I'll second.
Okay, we have a motion on the floor for approval of this item.
Is there a discussion?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Vice Chair.
I guess, you know, with this one, it's a challenge because it's kind of on the periphery of our
city and on the one hand, the future land use map designates it as low density residential,
so there's clearly a plan for this type of development.
I really appreciate the developer, you know, working well with staff to craft the type
of place that they see as beneficial to the surrounding neighborhoods and, you know, along
with that effort, you know, the ability to sort of connect all of these piecemeal places
together in the long run, I think is very important.
You know, I think, well, I guess question for staff.
I did very much appreciate that the developer included a fiscal impact analysis in their
backup.
I hope we see more of that, but just for staff, is that average per capita spending on sort
of current government expenditures, is that the industry best practice for assessing sort
of future costs to the city in Greenfield development?
So I don't know that I have an exact answer to that, not being part of our economic development
team myself.
I do know that Jessica Rogers, our director of economic development, reviewed this, and
although it's not exactly what the goal is ultimately for those fiscal impact analyses
that we're working towards with our model that you all have heard referenced before,
they did find it to be an acceptable study with acceptable findings that seem valid based
on the data provided.
So unfortunately, that's the most detailed response I can provide, but I'm not sure if
Jerry might have any additional information on how that analysis was completed that would
help.
Well, basically, what goes on is there's obviously a cost to the city to provide services.
Usually it's soft services, usually it's police and fire emergency access.
Because hard services, streets, water, sewer lines, things of that nature, the development
community builds when they build the neighborhoods typically.
So there is a soft cost long term, on a yearly basis, and a number of cities require a fiscal
impact analysis.
We just recently worked on a community in Fate, which is far east, east of Rockwall,
and they require one as well, and it's a pure analysis.
Is it worth it for new development to take place, or is the city just digging a deeper
hole in terms of expenditures?
Well, ballpark, depends on the city, but ballpark, there's a threshold of anywhere from $250
to $300,000 for the price of a house that the ad valorem tax is generated by that type
of a house, typically will pay for itself in terms of paying for its fair share of soft
services that the city provides them.
And that also is library, that's parks and rec, all that kind of, anything soft services
really is what it's focused on.
They typically, the analysis typically go one or two levels of sales in there.
So if you're looking at me and I buy a chainsaw at Lowe's, they typically, they will count
that sales tax and they will count usually the employee that hired there, a certain percentage
of their sales tax within the model.
I mean, you can go down three, four, five, 12 levels and really grind this thing through,
and you're just wasting time at some point.
So usually it's a secondary level of analysis in terms of the payback into the community
because those employees, they go to restaurants, they buy things just like homeowner does, whether
they live in Denton or not.
So there is a positive benefit for that type of revenue as well.
Hopefully that answers what you're looking for.
Yeah.
Thank you.
You know, I think I have a lot of questions on that and I'll look forward to the efforts
that we're doing as a city to sort of better our practices along that line.
But I do appreciate the developer for making that effort.
You know, I guess one thing that concerns me sometimes with the PDE applications is
how structured they are to exactly what we're going to build on day one.
I guess when we passed the 2019 code, did our overlay districts and other non-standard
districts, did those convert to sort of standard zoning designations or were those preserved
with their original overlay conditions?
How did that work?
Sure.
So anything, well, the 2002 code did not have PDs as a tool within it.
It had master plan communities, but you had to meet a certain size threshold.
I believe it was 150 contiguous acres or 300 acres non-contiguous.
But it also had a tool called the Neighborhood Mixed Use Protection Overlay.
And so that's where we ended up with several zoning cases over the last few years that
did have, you know, like unit counts or use restrictions or things of that nature.
Those all transitioned with our 2019 code adoption to what shows on our map as a PD-
whatever based district.
So if it was an R6 with overlay conditions under the old code, it transferred to PD-R6
under the new code.
And the code has language in subchapter one that specifies that those overlay conditions
still control over the pieces that were specified by those conditions.
So use, number of units, things of that nature.
Anything else transitioned to whatever that new district is under the 2019 code.
Okay.
Thank you.
That definitely helps.
I guess, you know, I looked back over the last couple of years, it looks like we had
about ballpark 20 zoning changes in PD applications each year for the last couple of years.
And you know, the city as a whole has, you know, DCAD data looks like it was over 40,000
parcels within the city.
So you know, I hesitate to want to strictly restrict what can happen on these lots for
the next 50 or 100 years when, you know, we don't really- it seems like we don't have
the capacity to do hundreds and hundreds of zoning changes as areas evolve.
I recognize we're talking about a long time in the future.
So for me, it's really sort of how does the permanence of the zoning restrictions match
with the surrounding area, right?
I think you mentioned that there's some R4 to the north and in some other areas not too
far from there that have a little bit more allowances for land rights of the owners.
So, you know, those are the things I'm thinking through.
Thank you, Commissioner Prout.
We do have a motion on the floor for approval of this item.
Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Anderson?
I'll make a second.
You have the motion on the floor and we do have a second.
If there is no further discussion, we will take a vote on that motion.
And I will just thank staff's thoroughness and the applicant's thoroughness for the collaboration
efforts and for our detailed backup on this project.
It was very well presented.
So thank you.
With that, I will call for a vote.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Chair, there's also an aye.
That motion carries 5-0.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Silo, I appreciate it very much.
Congratulations.
That takes us to our matrix.
I will turn it over to Haley to see if she's got any updates for us.
All right.
No updates on the matrix itself.
And actually since our last meeting on, I think it was May 19th, there hasn't been any
cases that have gone before council, so no updates there.
The last zoning case that you'll heard on the 19th will be going next week with this
case.
So we'll have some updates after that.
But I did want to provide just one quick update with respect to that fiscal impact analysis
that we've talked about that will be coming up hopefully this summer as a work session
item before both PNZ and council.
So I spoke with Charlie Rosendahl, who's been kind of overseeing that project for us, and
he indicated that they're currently targeting an April completion date of that model.
They're still working through all the data input and things of that nature.
So before they get to a final point, they want to bring that before both boards walk
through kind of the assumptions and how it's been built and how it will function and get
any feedback from PNZ and council before wrapping up that project so that we can begin to use
that moving forward.
Great.
Thank you.
Is there anything to be added to the matrix?
Anyone?
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you.
By sure.
Haley, I asked I asked Richard to put on the matrix for a presentation from Discover Denton
to come and talk about their marketing plan.
I don't see it on there.
I didn't check last last meeting, but now I don't see it on there.
So with Richard stepping out to his new position in Denver, I'm going to email you the contact
information for the person who would do that presentation, and I would like to see that
on the matrix.
Okay, perfect.
Yeah, we can work that in.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Smith.
Commissioner Pruitt, did you have your hand raised as well?
Yeah, just a question for clarification.
You said target of April.
I'm sorry, August.
Okay.
It's been a long day.
I probably didn't say April, but that would be August.
Thank you.
Well done, Commissioner Pruitt.
Haley, I would just like to, I don't know if this is a matrix item or something for
further discussion, but with regard to the online comment form, if there is a way that
we can compartmentalize the way those come out to tag what project they're commenting
on in the subject, when we get them, I mean, staff does a great job dividing them up, but
it would be great to have them in the subject title, if that's even possible.
I don't know even who that should be for, but I'm throwing that out there now in hopes
that you can either, we can further discuss or get it to the right body.
Sure.
Yeah.
I'll look into that and see who handles that process and what we can do about it.
Thank you.
Just housekeeping, I'm getting two of every comment of the same person.
I don't know if anybody else is, but when I get the comments on a case, I'm getting
two from one person.
It's possible that it's on two different agenda items.
Oh, gotcha.
Okay.
That's most likely what it is.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Sure.
Is there anything else for the matrix or concluding items?
I will just say welcome once again, commissioner Pruitt.
Good job getting through your first meeting.
Welcome aboard.
It's good to have you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Nothing else on the agenda.
So I will close adjourn us at 7 50 PM.
Thank you everybody.
See you next time.
Thank you.
Yes.