WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.760
 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission

00:00:06.760 --> 00:00:09.760
 work session for Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.

00:00:09.760 --> 00:00:15.560
 Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 4.02.

00:00:15.560 --> 00:00:20.480
 The first item on the agenda this evening is to receive a work session report and hold

00:00:20.480 --> 00:00:24.160
 the discussion and give staff input regarding phase two of the Americans with Disabilities

00:00:24.160 --> 00:00:26.280
 Act ADA transition plan.

00:00:26.280 --> 00:00:32.860
 And I'll invite Stuart Birdseye to present.

00:00:32.860 --> 00:00:39.920
 Good afternoon, Chair and Planning and Zoning Commissioners.

00:00:39.920 --> 00:00:42.740
 I am Stuart Birdseye, the Assistant to the City Manager.

00:00:42.740 --> 00:00:47.400
 With me is Karen Zieman, a coordinator with our Parks and Recreation Department.

00:00:47.400 --> 00:00:53.080
 I'm going to share my screen really quick, and we will talk to you about phase two of

00:00:53.080 --> 00:01:02.160
 the ADA transition plan.

00:01:02.160 --> 00:01:05.520
 And what we hope to do is just briefly give you some background on what we're doing just

00:01:05.520 --> 00:01:11.400
 so that you're aware of kind of some planning efforts and some long-range things that we're

00:01:11.400 --> 00:01:13.400
 undertaking here.

00:01:13.400 --> 00:01:19.280
 What we're doing is phase two of the ADA transition plan is reviewing all city buildings, including

00:01:19.280 --> 00:01:23.360
 City Hall, where we are now, and associated park properties.

00:01:23.360 --> 00:01:25.680
 This includes playgrounds and trails.

00:01:25.680 --> 00:01:32.160
 You may be aware that in September of 2018, we did phase one, which was kind of the sidewalk

00:01:32.160 --> 00:01:33.160
 infrastructure.

00:01:33.160 --> 00:01:39.160
 So all of your sidewalks, corridors, curbs, ramps, pedestrian on the streets.

00:01:39.160 --> 00:01:42.700
 And so that was a little bit different scope.

00:01:42.700 --> 00:01:47.720
 But what we're doing today right now, what we're going through is we have a consultant

00:01:47.720 --> 00:01:53.840
 that is talking about our park properties in particular in our facilities.

00:01:53.840 --> 00:01:58.240
 Karen's going to take you through a couple of slides here, and then I'll get to talk

00:01:58.240 --> 00:02:01.320
 to you a little bit more about trails.

00:02:01.320 --> 00:02:02.320
 Good afternoon.

00:02:02.320 --> 00:02:14.600
 Phase two analysis is done by evaluation with a subcontractor of our Kimley-Horn Consultant

00:02:14.600 --> 00:02:16.600
 Group, Accessology.

00:02:16.600 --> 00:02:26.280
 They have began evaluating all facilities, which is including parking, accessible entrances,

00:02:26.280 --> 00:02:31.800
 and all interiors that employees or public would use.

00:02:31.800 --> 00:02:35.080
 It also includes the parks, which is building interior elements.

00:02:35.080 --> 00:02:42.080
 Again, parking, sidewalk trails, accessibility to those areas, and also all amenities.

00:02:42.080 --> 00:02:48.560
 That includes restrooms and concession stands, and playgrounds as well.

00:02:48.560 --> 00:02:52.960
 In the facility evaluations, all city facilities are evaluated.

00:02:52.960 --> 00:02:59.640
 It includes all the city halls, the fire stations, administrative offices, rec centers, outdoor

00:02:59.640 --> 00:03:02.240
 recreation sites.

00:03:02.240 --> 00:03:09.180
 And as you see, that includes athletic fields, restrooms, concessions, even bleachers.

00:03:09.180 --> 00:03:16.320
 So players, teens, public can have accessible amenities as well.

00:03:16.320 --> 00:03:22.160
 The city buildings at landfill, at EcoWorks, water distribution plants, development services,

00:03:22.160 --> 00:03:27.440
 and of course the police and service center, everything is evaluated to make sure that

00:03:27.440 --> 00:03:32.560
 it is compliant with the current standards.

00:03:32.560 --> 00:03:38.280
 When they go inside, they look for primary items, which are restrooms.

00:03:38.280 --> 00:03:42.920
 Of course the stalls, any showers that may be in their counter heights for customer service

00:03:42.920 --> 00:03:51.280
 desks, even down to the types of doorknobs or door entrances and see if they can be used

00:03:51.280 --> 00:03:52.280
 or not.

00:03:52.280 --> 00:03:56.200
 Stuart's going to talk about the trails for a minute.

00:03:56.200 --> 00:03:57.200
 Perfect.

00:03:57.200 --> 00:04:02.800
 So I've been out with a contractor evaluating the trails, and basically just to give you

00:04:02.800 --> 00:04:11.240
 an idea, the contractor is walking every inch of every building to look at all these ADA

00:04:11.240 --> 00:04:12.240
 accessibility items.

00:04:12.240 --> 00:04:18.400
 They're also walking every foot of every trail in every park, which can be pretty intense,

00:04:18.400 --> 00:04:21.440
 but she always has a good disposition about her.

00:04:21.440 --> 00:04:25.880
 It's all the paved surfaces, including the larger parks like North Lake, South Lakes,

00:04:25.880 --> 00:04:26.880
 Quaker Town.

00:04:26.880 --> 00:04:29.640
 It's also the neighborhood parks.

00:04:29.640 --> 00:04:35.640
 And what they're looking for is everything from gaps in the sidewalk where a chair may

00:04:35.640 --> 00:04:42.640
 trip up or somebody may trip on that to making sure that benches are the right distance away,

00:04:42.640 --> 00:04:46.440
 that they have proper clearance, that picnic tables have proper clearance, things like

00:04:46.440 --> 00:04:48.240
 that.

00:04:48.240 --> 00:04:53.600
 Some of these items are larger items that would take significant resources to fix.

00:04:53.600 --> 00:04:58.640
 Some of them are smaller items, like the gravel has washed onto the sidewalk.

00:04:58.640 --> 00:05:02.040
 You just need to kind of fix that back.

00:05:02.040 --> 00:05:04.680
 Kara mentioned bleachers.

00:05:04.680 --> 00:05:09.080
 We were out at one of the baseball fields, and the bleacher was there.

00:05:09.080 --> 00:05:14.120
 And so she was telling me that if you had a cane, there would be nothing to stop you

00:05:14.120 --> 00:05:17.600
 from running smack into the top of the bleachers.

00:05:17.600 --> 00:05:22.880
 And so I started in my mind engineering a plan to do this, and she was like, "No, no,

00:05:22.880 --> 00:05:23.880
 no.

00:05:23.880 --> 00:05:27.680
 It's sometimes just as simple as moving a trash can underneath the bleachers so that

00:05:27.680 --> 00:05:28.920
 they would run into something."

00:05:28.920 --> 00:05:36.560
 And so what they'll do at the end of their kind of analysis is put together a report

00:05:36.560 --> 00:05:43.340
 with high priority items, kind of lower priority items, and with associated costs.

00:05:43.340 --> 00:05:46.360
 They're also looking at all of our natural trails.

00:05:46.360 --> 00:05:51.400
 They're walking Clear Creek, Cooper Creek, the Wildflower Trail, up at North Lakes, our

00:05:51.400 --> 00:05:58.800
 South Lakes, and then all of our bike and multi-purpose trails as well.

00:05:58.800 --> 00:06:01.200
 All right.

00:06:01.200 --> 00:06:09.320
 So we are wrapping up that phase two evaluation, so our next step is putting it out to everyone

00:06:09.320 --> 00:06:11.480
 what we've been working on.

00:06:11.480 --> 00:06:18.000
 We have an ADA page on Discuss Denton, so we can receive public input from surveys that

00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:24.520
 we've compiled and that our consultants have compiled as well, and an interactive map on

00:06:24.520 --> 00:06:26.520
 the ADA page.

00:06:26.520 --> 00:06:30.880
 On that interactive map, you can literally pinpoint a location that you think we need

00:06:30.880 --> 00:06:36.000
 to look at, or you can go into the survey and it's asking, "Where have you seen that

00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:37.760
 we need improvement?"

00:06:37.760 --> 00:06:45.880
 There's various other questions that we put on Discuss Denton, such as an inclusive playground,

00:06:45.880 --> 00:06:51.880
 because that is in our plan for the future, so we want the public input on that.

00:06:51.880 --> 00:06:56.600
 Committee presentations, we've already presented once to the Committee on Persons with Disabilities.

00:06:56.600 --> 00:06:57.880
 That was on March 18th.

00:06:57.880 --> 00:07:00.240
 We're presenting to you guys today.

00:07:00.240 --> 00:07:06.000
 We do the Parks, Beautification and Recreation Board July 12th, and they will get this presentation

00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:08.920
 that you're receiving.

00:07:08.920 --> 00:07:16.000
 Then we will work with our consultant and update the transition plan, go through, we'll

00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:21.960
 get a draft from them, as Stuart mentioned, with the reports, and we will review it.

00:07:21.960 --> 00:07:27.960
 Once we get that final draft, we will re-present to the Parks Board and Committee on Persons

00:07:27.960 --> 00:07:34.040
 with Disability, and then hopefully go to City Council for their adoption of our transition

00:07:34.040 --> 00:07:37.920
 plan in October.

00:07:37.920 --> 00:07:43.960
 Do you have any questions?

00:07:43.960 --> 00:07:49.000
 Any questions for Stuart or Karen?

00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:53.080
 The only question I have is, well, two questions.

00:07:53.080 --> 00:07:54.520
 One, where's the funding?

00:07:54.520 --> 00:07:58.040
 What's the funding source for any repairs that need to be done that Kimley-Horn sees?

00:07:58.040 --> 00:08:05.000
 And two, what's the broadcast mechanisms you have to promote disgustdent.com?

00:08:05.000 --> 00:08:08.020
 Is that on social or is it from the city page?

00:08:08.020 --> 00:08:10.520
 Yeah, that's a great question.

00:08:10.520 --> 00:08:14.960
 I'll take the second one first, and then I'll rely on Gary to come down here and answer

00:08:14.960 --> 00:08:18.480
 the first question while I'm vamping here.

00:08:18.480 --> 00:08:25.440
 Disgustdent has been, it's an effort that's put forth by our Public Affairs Department,

00:08:25.440 --> 00:08:30.880
 and so they've promoted that on social media, on the website, through newsletters.

00:08:30.880 --> 00:08:37.000
 As an update, it talks about it, and specifically for the ADA transition plan, as they put out

00:08:37.000 --> 00:08:44.480
 newer communications, they kind of did a soft launch with it earlier, I think in May is

00:08:44.480 --> 00:08:51.480
 when they launched it, and they had very specific projects, including the Pet Mayor, which I

00:08:51.480 --> 00:08:55.240
 don't know if you know we have a new Pet Mayor, but we do.

00:08:55.240 --> 00:08:59.120
 That was one of them, just to kind of generate that interest, and now they're going to start

00:08:59.120 --> 00:09:02.560
 putting projects like the transition plan on there.

00:09:02.560 --> 00:09:10.480
 It really gives an open forum for people to provide their ideas, provide their input into

00:09:10.480 --> 00:09:15.000
 it instead of having to only attend public meetings.

00:09:15.000 --> 00:09:19.600
 We will have those as well for this project, for others, but it gives them kind of that

00:09:19.600 --> 00:09:24.440
 virtual thing, so if you always go to Avondale Park and you're like, "Man, this has always

00:09:24.440 --> 00:09:29.240
 driven me crazy," you'll be able to put that on the map for us to take a look at.

00:09:29.240 --> 00:09:34.600
 As far as funding, Gary, if you want to come down, I'm not exactly certain on that.

00:09:34.600 --> 00:09:38.200
 Good afternoon, Gary Pack and Director of Parks and Recreation.

00:09:38.200 --> 00:09:44.040
 Funding for the study was split between, it was a general fund appropriation being split

00:09:44.040 --> 00:09:46.320
 between us and facilities.

00:09:46.320 --> 00:09:49.600
 Facilities management is handling all the interior buildings that they maintain and

00:09:49.600 --> 00:09:54.520
 then all the park assets we're working on, so it's really a dual project with both of

00:09:54.520 --> 00:09:55.520
 those components.

00:09:55.520 --> 00:10:01.320
 Then from a long-term priority replacement or repair type of situation, right now we

00:10:01.320 --> 00:10:08.240
 just have a placeholder in our CIP budget, CMP budget for $50,000 just as a placeholder

00:10:08.240 --> 00:10:11.960
 until we get those priorities and then we can literally cut and paste those in.

00:10:11.960 --> 00:10:18.360
 We may need $200,000 one year, $100,000 next year, maybe $50,000 the third year, so until

00:10:18.360 --> 00:10:22.840
 we get the plan we won't know what the priorities are and how we're going to address them based

00:10:22.840 --> 00:10:25.040
 off of the immediate needs.

00:10:25.040 --> 00:10:26.040
 Gotcha.

00:10:26.040 --> 00:10:27.040
 That's helpful.

00:10:27.040 --> 00:10:30.160
 Any other questions for Stuart or Karen?

00:10:30.160 --> 00:10:31.160
 Gary?

00:10:31.160 --> 00:10:32.160
 All right.

00:10:32.160 --> 00:10:33.160
 Seeing none, I appreciate it.

00:10:33.160 --> 00:10:34.160
 Thank you very much.

00:10:34.160 --> 00:10:35.160
 Thank you.

00:10:35.160 --> 00:10:40.640
 Before we hop into our agenda, just by way of maybe housekeeping, especially for the new

00:10:40.640 --> 00:10:43.160
 commissioners and those who weren't here earlier.

00:10:43.160 --> 00:10:48.960
 I don't know if Christa Ellis was here, tonight we're doing a hybrid of Zoom and in person.

00:10:48.960 --> 00:10:54.440
 We do not have the interface to vote on our screen or request to speak on our screen.

00:10:54.440 --> 00:10:57.920
 So I'll have the task of going back and forth to see hands for speaking.

00:10:57.920 --> 00:11:01.760
 If I don't see you, just try to get my attention and I'll certainly make sure you have the

00:11:01.760 --> 00:11:06.240
 floor and then when we vote we'll do it by roll call like we have been doing.

00:11:06.240 --> 00:11:12.160
 And then in general, when there's a presenter for the work session, historically it's been

00:11:12.160 --> 00:11:13.880
 okay to interrupt while they present.

00:11:13.880 --> 00:11:17.360
 So just get my attention and we can stop the presentation midline.

00:11:17.360 --> 00:11:21.480
 But for the public hearing, the regular meetings, we typically let them finish out the presentation,

00:11:21.480 --> 00:11:24.800
 hold all questions to the end and then we stack the questions at the end just for the

00:11:24.800 --> 00:11:27.480
 sake of kind of the flow of presentations.

00:11:27.480 --> 00:11:29.480
 Any questions about that?

00:11:29.480 --> 00:11:30.480
 Awesome.

00:11:30.480 --> 00:11:31.480
 Let's dive into our agenda.

00:11:31.480 --> 00:11:36.400
 The first thing up is consideration of the minutes from June 9th.

00:11:36.400 --> 00:11:42.680
 Is there any edits to the meeting minutes from June 9th?

00:11:42.680 --> 00:11:44.240
 Seeing none, we'll go to the consent agenda.

00:11:44.240 --> 00:11:46.920
 We have three this evening.

00:11:46.920 --> 00:11:49.760
 Is there any questions that we need to bring up?

00:11:49.760 --> 00:11:50.760
 Staff answer.

00:11:50.760 --> 00:11:56.160
 3A, 3B, 3C, all final plat and two preliminary plots.

00:11:56.160 --> 00:11:58.520
 Any questions on those items?

00:11:58.520 --> 00:12:01.600
 All right.

00:12:01.600 --> 00:12:04.920
 We'll just go into the individual consideration items then.

00:12:04.920 --> 00:12:08.400
 First up is 4A, PP21-0010.

00:12:08.400 --> 00:12:10.900
 This is Mark Laird's presentation.

00:12:10.900 --> 00:12:15.760
 Is he on Zoom?

00:12:15.760 --> 00:12:18.480
 Mark is actually out this week on vacation so Julie is going to pull it up and then I

00:12:18.480 --> 00:12:20.480
 can cover any questions you all have.

00:12:20.480 --> 00:12:21.480
 Awesome.

00:12:21.480 --> 00:12:48.600
 All right.

00:12:48.600 --> 00:12:53.360
 This is a preliminary plat for what's known as Windsor Oaks Phase 2.

00:12:53.360 --> 00:12:56.960
 It's 152 residential lots, four HOA lots.

00:12:56.960 --> 00:13:02.080
 It's currently zoned R4 so they are platting in conformance with the zoning.

00:13:02.080 --> 00:13:05.480
 Since their last meeting when they had the extension request, they have not been able

00:13:05.480 --> 00:13:09.240
 to address the staff comments that were lingering at that point.

00:13:09.240 --> 00:13:13.800
 It was a lot of cleanups items, some engineering related items with intersection spacing, curve

00:13:13.800 --> 00:13:15.720
 radii, things of that nature.

00:13:15.720 --> 00:13:19.120
 So at this time, staff is recommending denial.

00:13:19.120 --> 00:13:23.160
 So as you've seen with other projects, once the plat is denied, they can resubmit whenever

00:13:23.160 --> 00:13:26.200
 they have those comments addressed and then we would bring it back within 15 days under

00:13:26.200 --> 00:13:28.120
 the shot clock legislation.

00:13:28.120 --> 00:13:31.280
 I'm happy to answer any questions you all might have.

00:13:31.280 --> 00:13:32.840
 Any questions for Haley?

00:13:32.840 --> 00:13:35.240
 Commissioner Pruitt?

00:13:35.240 --> 00:13:38.920
 Yeah, just one.

00:13:38.920 --> 00:13:45.440
 I understand the recommendations, that's fine for tonight, but in general, I think it would

00:13:45.440 --> 00:13:50.640
 help me to understand on some of the general approval criteria, like specifically the criteria

00:13:50.640 --> 00:13:53.080
 11 for the adequate road systems.

00:13:53.080 --> 00:13:59.500
 Just sort of an example at some point about what would be something that would be inadequate

00:13:59.500 --> 00:14:07.720
 and therefore cause for denial, hypothetically, because it's something that's hard to conceptualize.

00:14:07.720 --> 00:14:10.900
 So sometimes that would be things like if they were proposing to not provide a roadway

00:14:10.900 --> 00:14:15.680
 from the mobility plan or in this case, there's some much smaller scale items like then needing

00:14:15.680 --> 00:14:20.040
 to dimension spacing between intersections to make sure it meets our criteria manual.

00:14:20.040 --> 00:14:24.720
 Any of those sorts of things could fall under that general criteria.

00:14:24.720 --> 00:14:27.520
 Just a couple of examples that come to mind would be those sorts of things.

00:14:27.520 --> 00:14:33.680
 So it's limited to roadways within the bounds of the plat or the land area?

00:14:33.680 --> 00:14:38.120
 Yes, for something that has zoning in place and can develop by right, it would be limited

00:14:38.120 --> 00:14:41.120
 to what's within their control within the property that they're planning.

00:14:41.120 --> 00:14:44.120
 Okay, thank you.

00:14:44.120 --> 00:14:46.400
 Any other questions for Haley?

00:14:46.400 --> 00:14:47.720
 Okay.

00:14:47.720 --> 00:14:52.800
 Next item is item 4B, PP 21-0011.

00:14:52.800 --> 00:14:55.320
 And Karina is here.

00:14:55.320 --> 00:14:58.240
 I'm here.

00:14:58.240 --> 00:14:59.480
 Good evening.

00:14:59.480 --> 00:15:05.320
 So the request today for preliminary plat for Habitat Village, this is an eight acre property

00:15:05.320 --> 00:15:10.640
 proposing 35 residential lots and one HOA lot for detention.

00:15:10.640 --> 00:15:13.720
 It's located between Hill Street and Duncan Street.

00:15:13.720 --> 00:15:17.840
 They are proposing to dedicate two rights of way within the development.

00:15:17.840 --> 00:15:22.240
 We are requesting denial of this request as it does not meet the established requirements

00:15:22.240 --> 00:15:23.240
 of the DDC.

00:15:23.240 --> 00:15:28.760
 However, the applicant has requested extension to a date certain of July 14th and we have

00:15:28.760 --> 00:15:30.480
 no opposition to this request.

00:15:30.480 --> 00:15:33.000
 I can take any questions.

00:15:33.000 --> 00:15:37.160
 Any questions for Karina?

00:15:37.160 --> 00:15:38.160
 I don't see any.

00:15:38.160 --> 00:15:39.160
 Thanks, Karina.

00:15:39.160 --> 00:15:44.720
 Next item is 4C, FR 21-00006.

00:15:44.720 --> 00:15:46.480
 This is Ron's item.

00:15:46.480 --> 00:15:51.160
 Ron is also out so I can give you the rundown on this one.

00:15:51.160 --> 00:15:54.200
 So this is a final replant.

00:15:54.200 --> 00:15:57.720
 This is phase four of the Eagle Creek addition.

00:15:57.720 --> 00:16:01.640
 So some of you may be familiar, as Ron has on the screen there with the map, it is a

00:16:01.640 --> 00:16:05.960
 multi-phase development that includes a total of 770 lots.

00:16:05.960 --> 00:16:10.600
 This particular phase is 216 residential lots.

00:16:10.600 --> 00:16:14.080
 They do have a couple of outstanding items related to their HOA documents needing to

00:16:14.080 --> 00:16:18.440
 be approved and some gas well notifications that are required since a portion of the lots

00:16:18.440 --> 00:16:21.520
 are within 1,000 feet of a gas well site.

00:16:21.520 --> 00:16:23.980
 They've requested an extension at this time.

00:16:23.980 --> 00:16:27.200
 Staff is recommending denial, but we do not have any opposition to that request that would

00:16:27.200 --> 00:16:30.880
 be to a date certain of July 14th.

00:16:30.880 --> 00:16:32.480
 Need to answer any questions.

00:16:32.480 --> 00:16:34.600
 Any questions for Haley on this item?

00:16:34.600 --> 00:16:35.600
 All right.

00:16:35.600 --> 00:16:45.440
 Seeing none, we will move to the final item for individual consideration, 4D-ZC-P1-21-12.

00:16:45.440 --> 00:16:51.960
 And this is Karina again.

00:16:51.960 --> 00:16:55.980
 All right.

00:16:55.980 --> 00:17:01.480
 So the request today is for a zoning compliance plan for Razor Medical Office building phase

00:17:01.480 --> 00:17:03.280
 two.

00:17:03.280 --> 00:17:07.280
 So the request again is for consideration of approval of a site plan for a medical office

00:17:07.280 --> 00:17:08.480
 development.

00:17:08.480 --> 00:17:14.320
 It's located on approximately 3.784 acres just north of Scripture, so in the northeast corner

00:17:14.320 --> 00:17:15.320
 of I-35 in Scripture.

00:17:15.320 --> 00:17:17.960
 Hey, Karina, if I ask, do we have a slide for this?

00:17:17.960 --> 00:17:18.960
 Sorry.

00:17:18.960 --> 00:17:19.960
 Oh, okay.

00:17:19.960 --> 00:17:32.920
 I am sorry, it's not, it's sharing on here.

00:17:32.920 --> 00:17:40.560
 It's telling me I'm sharing, but it says I'm not sharing the correct one, I apologize.

00:17:40.560 --> 00:17:44.200
 There you go.

00:17:44.200 --> 00:17:45.200
 Thank you.

00:17:45.200 --> 00:17:46.200
 Okay.

00:17:46.200 --> 00:17:47.200
 Sorry about that, y'all.

00:17:47.200 --> 00:17:50.720
 So this is a consideration for a site plan for a medical office building.

00:17:50.720 --> 00:17:56.560
 The property is located on the northeast corner of I-35 in Scripture.

00:17:56.560 --> 00:18:03.000
 This has come to a planning and zoning previously, so the site looks slightly bit smaller than

00:18:03.000 --> 00:18:07.640
 it was shown last time, and this is due to a recent textile acquisition along I-35 frontage

00:18:07.640 --> 00:18:08.640
 road.

00:18:08.640 --> 00:18:16.280
 So the zoning for this property is, oh, it's located in the Razor Ranch Overlay District,

00:18:16.280 --> 00:18:21.960
 the South Mixed Use District, and is located with a base zoning of the RCC District that

00:18:21.960 --> 00:18:26.280
 is based on the 2002 DDC, and I'll just step back for a second.

00:18:26.280 --> 00:18:30.880
 The reason why you're seeing the site plan is because the Razor Ranch Overlay District

00:18:30.880 --> 00:18:34.480
 is a little bit different than everywhere else in the city.

00:18:34.480 --> 00:18:38.640
 It does require planning and zoning approval of their site plan, so this is why this item

00:18:38.640 --> 00:18:40.980
 is coming before you today.

00:18:40.980 --> 00:18:45.400
 So again, the medical office use is what is permitted, or is what is proposed and what

00:18:45.400 --> 00:18:48.360
 is permitted in this area.

00:18:48.360 --> 00:18:55.000
 So like I mentioned, PNZ does look at these site plans for approval.

00:18:55.000 --> 00:18:59.960
 So the site plan that is provided, as well as the landscape plan and four-sided building

00:18:59.960 --> 00:19:08.000
 elevations, do meet the criteria for approval based on Ordinance 2011-225, and I'll go over

00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:11.560
 the site plan in just the next slide.

00:19:11.560 --> 00:19:15.880
 So the criteria for approval for this item is that the site plan substantially complies

00:19:15.880 --> 00:19:19.640
 with the concept and schematic plan approved by City Council for the Razor Ranch Overlay

00:19:19.640 --> 00:19:24.560
 District, that it provides compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not

00:19:24.560 --> 00:19:29.800
 adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods and properties, that the site plan provides adequate

00:19:29.800 --> 00:19:34.540
 and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and that it also complies with all other sections

00:19:34.540 --> 00:19:37.040
 of the overlay district.

00:19:37.040 --> 00:19:42.440
 And so the site plan, shown on the screen, you'll see that I've marked up a few areas.

00:19:42.440 --> 00:19:47.280
 This site plan is actually demonstrating the previous phase, phase one.

00:19:47.280 --> 00:19:51.560
 So that is the area that is shown, outlined in orange.

00:19:51.560 --> 00:19:56.320
 This was approved by PNZ for an existing two-story medical office building.

00:19:56.320 --> 00:20:05.220
 This is located on lot R. This is for 22,000 square feet, 110 parking spaces were approved,

00:20:05.220 --> 00:20:10.280
 as well as some open space area, it was a patio area with some plantings.

00:20:10.280 --> 00:20:15.700
 Phase two is proposing to overlap a portion of phase one, so you can see that overlap

00:20:15.700 --> 00:20:19.560
 in the blue area here.

00:20:19.560 --> 00:20:24.880
 So phase two is what we're looking at today, as well as amending phase one for the area

00:20:24.880 --> 00:20:25.880
 of overlap.

00:20:25.880 --> 00:20:32.360
 So the proposed development is for an additional 15,000 square feet of medical office on the

00:20:32.360 --> 00:20:33.720
 northern lot two.

00:20:33.720 --> 00:20:37.080
 They're proposing 84 parking spaces for the development.

00:20:37.080 --> 00:20:44.480
 They do have two driveway access points along the northern panhandle drive, as well as cross-access

00:20:44.480 --> 00:20:49.720
 through the southern portion of the site to exit off onto Scripture.

00:20:49.720 --> 00:20:56.520
 Overall, they're providing 61% lot coverage, which is within the bounds of the RCCD district,

00:20:56.520 --> 00:20:59.680
 which allows for 90% lot coverage.

00:20:59.680 --> 00:21:04.200
 And I do want to point out that since this is based on the 2002 DDC, that would be different

00:21:04.200 --> 00:21:09.540
 than what we look at for a site plan under the 2019 DDC, which looks at building coverage

00:21:09.540 --> 00:21:12.920
 versus lot coverage.

00:21:12.920 --> 00:21:18.580
 Also on this site plan, I'm showing the outline for a future phase three.

00:21:18.580 --> 00:21:22.720
 That is not going to be considered with today's site plan, but it is shown to indicate that

00:21:22.720 --> 00:21:27.240
 they will or they do intend to develop further on this site.

00:21:27.240 --> 00:21:35.640
 So a separate site plan and separate PNZ consideration of that would need to come forward.

00:21:35.640 --> 00:21:38.760
 The landscape plan for the site is shown here as well.

00:21:38.760 --> 00:21:44.000
 It does meet the street tree requirements along panhandle.

00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:50.060
 The street trees required along I-35 are proposed in alternative locations.

00:21:50.060 --> 00:21:54.440
 They are shown also within panhandle, so they've proposed alternative locations.

00:21:54.440 --> 00:22:00.480
 Due to easements, so as you can see on the site plan, this site is heavily encumbered

00:22:00.480 --> 00:22:07.840
 by easements all over the property, so they are limited on where they could plant trees.

00:22:07.840 --> 00:22:11.760
 Most of our easements don't allow the planting of tree material, but they do allow planting

00:22:11.760 --> 00:22:14.320
 of ornamental grasses and shrubs.

00:22:14.320 --> 00:22:19.440
 So as you can see, a lot of these plantings are located outside the orange areas.

00:22:19.440 --> 00:22:22.520
 They do also meet parking lot landscaping requirements.

00:22:22.520 --> 00:22:26.940
 There are a few areas where they did request alternative locations, but they do meet the

00:22:26.940 --> 00:22:31.320
 number of required plantings for this site.

00:22:31.320 --> 00:22:35.400
 The big thing that I wanted to highlight for you is what we mentioned in the previous slide

00:22:35.400 --> 00:22:38.400
 is that there is an area of overlap.

00:22:38.400 --> 00:22:43.200
 Phase one did approve an open space area that had several plantings.

00:22:43.200 --> 00:22:46.140
 That area is located here in red.

00:22:46.140 --> 00:22:52.080
 In this phase two, they're requesting to remove that open space that was approved and replace

00:22:52.080 --> 00:22:56.000
 it with part of the building that they're proposing.

00:22:56.000 --> 00:23:02.240
 So staff has requested that they include those plantings that are being removed along on

00:23:02.240 --> 00:23:03.240
 the north side.

00:23:03.240 --> 00:23:10.280
 So these trees that are marked in green with a white outline, those are the proposed alternative

00:23:10.280 --> 00:23:15.280
 planting locations to offset the removal of those plantings.

00:23:15.280 --> 00:23:20.520
 Overall, they are still meeting the requirements for this area for minimum landscaping and

00:23:20.520 --> 00:23:21.760
 tree canopy.

00:23:21.760 --> 00:23:24.340
 They are exceeding those minimum requirements.

00:23:24.340 --> 00:23:33.340
 They're providing or proposing 30% landscape area, 39.6% tree canopy, 37.8% open space

00:23:33.340 --> 00:23:35.360
 overall across the entire site.

00:23:35.360 --> 00:23:40.200
 So that's including phase one and phase two.

00:23:40.200 --> 00:23:43.800
 These are just the proposed conceptual elevations for the site.

00:23:43.800 --> 00:23:47.920
 The razor wrench overlay district, when they do come in for site plan, we do ensure that

00:23:47.920 --> 00:23:50.600
 they provide four-sided elevations.

00:23:50.600 --> 00:23:56.780
 So this is all four sides of the proposed building.

00:23:56.780 --> 00:24:00.520
 Staff is recommending approval of the request as it meets the requirements for the razor

00:24:00.520 --> 00:24:01.840
 wrench overlay district.

00:24:01.840 --> 00:24:04.520
 However, we are recommending two conditions.

00:24:04.520 --> 00:24:09.640
 First, that the plant materials approved for phase two and the amended phase one shall

00:24:09.640 --> 00:24:15.360
 not be removed in a future phase unless they can be successfully replanted using equivalent

00:24:15.360 --> 00:24:21.080
 or similar plant material as permitted by the flexibility provided to the city manager

00:24:21.080 --> 00:24:22.920
 or their designee.

00:24:22.920 --> 00:24:27.320
 The second condition being that the minimum open space requirements must be maintained

00:24:27.320 --> 00:24:33.280
 for all approved and future phases of the land included within lot one R and two block

00:24:33.280 --> 00:24:36.280
 four of the razor wrench south edition.

00:24:36.280 --> 00:24:37.960
 And with that, I can take any questions.

00:24:37.960 --> 00:24:38.960
 Thanks, Corina.

00:24:38.960 --> 00:24:41.960
 Any questions for Corina?

00:24:41.960 --> 00:24:46.800
 Corina, have the conditions been discussed with the applicant?

00:24:46.800 --> 00:24:48.400
 Are they agreeable to those two conditions?

00:24:48.400 --> 00:24:49.600
 They have.

00:24:49.600 --> 00:24:53.120
 And we discussed with them the reasoning for putting those conditions.

00:24:53.120 --> 00:24:57.560
 So typically with a site plan or any plan that's proposing phasing, you won't get an

00:24:57.560 --> 00:25:00.040
 overlap of those phases.

00:25:00.040 --> 00:25:04.440
 Since phase two did show an overlap of phase one and phase three showed an overlap of phase

00:25:04.440 --> 00:25:09.260
 two, this is a reason why staff felt it was necessary to make sure that any plantings

00:25:09.260 --> 00:25:11.880
 proposed would not be negatively affected.

00:25:11.880 --> 00:25:18.400
 And they were not opposed to the conditions proposed.

00:25:18.400 --> 00:25:19.400
 Any questions?

00:25:19.400 --> 00:25:20.400
 Great.

00:25:20.400 --> 00:25:23.880
 Thanks, Corina.

00:25:23.880 --> 00:25:29.480
 Next item for business is there are public hearing items starting with five A. Five A

00:25:29.480 --> 00:25:34.360
 is being requested to postpone to a date certain of July 14th during regular hearing.

00:25:34.360 --> 00:25:40.720
 I will ask for a -- I'll open the meeting and then ask for a motion to postpone to a

00:25:40.720 --> 00:25:43.600
 date certain during regular meeting.

00:25:43.600 --> 00:25:49.360
 Next is 5B PD21-0003.

00:25:49.360 --> 00:25:52.120
 And I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.

00:25:52.120 --> 00:25:54.120
 I heard it's brief, Sean.

00:25:54.120 --> 00:25:55.120
 Yes, sir.

00:25:55.120 --> 00:25:56.760
 Good evening, chair and members of the commission.

00:25:56.760 --> 00:26:00.040
 If you'll give me a moment, I'll pull up my presentation here.

00:26:00.040 --> 00:26:01.040
 One second.

00:26:01.040 --> 00:26:08.560
 Make sure that y'all will be able to see it.

00:26:08.560 --> 00:26:11.120
 Okay.

00:26:11.120 --> 00:26:27.840
 So I'm going to share -- there we go.

00:26:27.840 --> 00:26:33.320
 And start sharing.

00:26:33.320 --> 00:26:34.320
 There we are.

00:26:34.320 --> 00:26:35.320
 All right.

00:26:35.320 --> 00:26:36.320
 Again, good evening.

00:26:36.320 --> 00:26:37.320
 Sean Jacobson, assistant planner.

00:26:37.320 --> 00:26:49.840
 This is a rezoning from an R3 district to a PD district with an R7 base zoning on 17.805

00:26:49.840 --> 00:26:50.840
 acres.

00:26:50.840 --> 00:26:55.160
 This is just off north Bonnie Bray street on the south side of westward street.

00:26:55.160 --> 00:27:00.680
 As you can see, view of the site from the east and from the north.

00:27:00.680 --> 00:27:07.600
 Currently as you can see, this is zoned R3, that PD with the base R7.

00:27:07.600 --> 00:27:11.320
 This PD is proposing a -- it's bringing forward a new use.

00:27:11.320 --> 00:27:13.200
 The applicants proposed this.

00:27:13.200 --> 00:27:17.960
 It's more than five units on one lot, similar to our definition of multifamily.

00:27:17.960 --> 00:27:20.320
 But there are no more than two units in one building.

00:27:20.320 --> 00:27:24.280
 And the design is similar to a single family or a duplex style, which didn't match any

00:27:24.280 --> 00:27:26.600
 definition in the DDC currently.

00:27:26.600 --> 00:27:30.600
 We did some research on this type of development and found that in many cities this is developed

00:27:30.600 --> 00:27:35.840
 as a PD and we felt that was a good direction to go because it enabled staff and the applicant

00:27:35.840 --> 00:27:40.480
 to work together to tailor design standards that fit this use rather than trying to shove

00:27:40.480 --> 00:27:45.240
 it into a single family or a multifamily box.

00:27:45.240 --> 00:27:50.800
 So in line with that, the applicant has proposed for this specific PD, the use attached and

00:27:50.800 --> 00:27:52.960
 attached multifamily dwelling.

00:27:52.960 --> 00:27:56.200
 And this wouldn't be something that would apply to every future use of this type, just

00:27:56.200 --> 00:27:57.200
 this PD.

00:27:57.200 --> 00:28:01.520
 As you can see there, that's the definition, more than three but not more than 195 dwelling

00:28:01.520 --> 00:28:03.160
 units on a lot.

00:28:03.160 --> 00:28:06.240
 Maximum height of two stories, not to exceed 30 feet.

00:28:06.240 --> 00:28:08.680
 Maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.

00:28:08.680 --> 00:28:11.840
 No more than 80 units will be in attached buildings.

00:28:11.840 --> 00:28:14.720
 No more than two units can be contained in one building.

00:28:14.720 --> 00:28:21.920
 And then standards allowing for similar accessory uses like an amenity center.

00:28:21.920 --> 00:28:27.960
 Along with this, some additional or modified standards were developed because, again, the

00:28:27.960 --> 00:28:32.120
 single family or multifamily standards weren't necessarily fully appropriate.

00:28:32.120 --> 00:28:36.700
 So all of the units will actually meet the single family standards for facade architecture

00:28:36.700 --> 00:28:41.800
 and the applicant is actually proposing to provide four rather than three elements of

00:28:41.800 --> 00:28:44.400
 architecture along the front facades.

00:28:44.400 --> 00:28:49.240
 The building differentiation will be similar to single family rather than the multifamily

00:28:49.240 --> 00:28:54.200
 standard so it will be based on ensuring that along the main drive you have a variation

00:28:54.200 --> 00:28:58.960
 in the types of buildings as well as within clusters, you have a certain number of unique

00:28:58.960 --> 00:29:05.160
 units within each cluster and that in front of, so across from or next to any unit, you'll

00:29:05.160 --> 00:29:06.720
 have a different style of unit.

00:29:06.720 --> 00:29:09.600
 So if you're walking out and looking at your front door, you're seeing a unit that looks

00:29:09.600 --> 00:29:11.560
 different than yours.

00:29:11.560 --> 00:29:16.200
 This would be meeting or exceeding the standard for buffers adjacent to single family though

00:29:16.200 --> 00:29:20.480
 as if it was multifamily, it's being buffered in that way and it would be meeting both the

00:29:20.480 --> 00:29:26.480
 multifamily minimum open space and landscape minimums and also providing the single family

00:29:26.480 --> 00:29:30.000
 standard 20% landscape in individual backyards.

00:29:30.000 --> 00:29:37.200
 As you can see, this is the overall development plan here, the 195 units of attached and detached

00:29:37.200 --> 00:29:41.880
 multifamily and you can also see outlined in green, it's a little over half an acre

00:29:41.880 --> 00:29:46.360
 public walking green that would be provided to the neighborhood outside the fence of this

00:29:46.360 --> 00:29:47.360
 facility.

00:29:47.360 --> 00:29:51.880
 That would be partly right of way but also partly just lot area that would be provided

00:29:51.880 --> 00:29:56.400
 to the neighborhood for a walking area.

00:29:56.400 --> 00:30:01.400
 Briefly this just compares the PD standards versus the base R7.

00:30:01.400 --> 00:30:06.160
 It would comply with DDC standards except were specifically laid out in the PD development

00:30:06.160 --> 00:30:07.440
 standards.

00:30:07.440 --> 00:30:12.000
 This PD would exceed tree canopy and landscape standards.

00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:18.000
 It goes below what would be the permitted height and lot coverage in an R7 based district.

00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:23.560
 Buffers are generally the same except for that increased west side buffer next to the

00:30:23.560 --> 00:30:25.680
 neighborhood on that side.

00:30:25.680 --> 00:30:31.600
 So as you know, we have our general approval criteria as well as our specific PD criteria

00:30:31.600 --> 00:30:32.600
 for approval.

00:30:32.600 --> 00:30:38.160
 We're going to begin by looking at the comprehensive plan and the future land use map.

00:30:38.160 --> 00:30:42.120
 The future land use here is moderate density residential which is 4 to 12 dwelling units

00:30:42.120 --> 00:30:43.120
 per acre.

00:30:43.120 --> 00:30:50.280
 This PD would be at 11.55 dwelling units per acre so aligning with moderate density residential.

00:30:50.280 --> 00:30:52.900
 It also furthers some key comprehensive plan goals.

00:30:52.900 --> 00:30:59.240
 It's providing that infill housing within central areas of Denton along a key corridor

00:30:59.240 --> 00:31:03.720
 but in a scale and design that's more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than potentially

00:31:03.720 --> 00:31:07.880
 a traditional multi-family that would be three or four stories large buildings.

00:31:07.880 --> 00:31:11.920
 The design is instead similar to a single or family or duplex.

00:31:11.920 --> 00:31:16.080
 It contributes to providing that diversity of housing styles for the diverse needs of

00:31:16.080 --> 00:31:22.160
 residents of Denton and it places housing near within walking distance of a park, retail

00:31:22.160 --> 00:31:27.640
 areas and enhances walkability with that pedestrian pathway through the community walking green.

00:31:27.640 --> 00:31:31.520
 We also want to look at minimizing adverse impacts on the zoning properties.

00:31:31.520 --> 00:31:33.480
 We'll touch on this more later.

00:31:33.480 --> 00:31:36.840
 Neighborhood was concerned about traffic cutting through to Windsor, cutting through their

00:31:36.840 --> 00:31:41.720
 neighborhood to Windsor 288 so the developer is proposing to gate off and provide just

00:31:41.720 --> 00:31:47.640
 an emergency access out onto westward and there was also a concern about what the view

00:31:47.640 --> 00:31:52.080
 would be across westward for the residents living along that, what would they be looking

00:31:52.080 --> 00:31:53.080
 at.

00:31:53.080 --> 00:31:57.840
 And so the developer promotes that community walking green as well as a wood fence with

00:31:57.840 --> 00:32:04.000
 masonry columns along there and a height limitation of one story within for any units on their

00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:06.760
 site within 65 feet of westward.

00:32:06.760 --> 00:32:10.600
 On Crestview there were neighbors concerned about having their view blocked looking to

00:32:10.600 --> 00:32:15.800
 the west and so the developer proposed an expanded 15 foot buffer as well as a height

00:32:15.800 --> 00:32:19.880
 limitation of only one story within 100 feet of that lot line with the neighbors living

00:32:19.880 --> 00:32:20.880
 on Crestview.

00:32:20.880 --> 00:32:24.640
 The neighbors were also concerned about the pool and so hours were set for that.

00:32:24.640 --> 00:32:29.400
 As you can see here, this would be the view for those neighbors living on westward, primarily

00:32:29.400 --> 00:32:34.920
 seeing street trees, fences, bushes.

00:32:34.920 --> 00:32:40.440
 In terms of complying with the DDC again, complies except where specifically laid out

00:32:40.440 --> 00:32:46.960
 differently and in general were exceeding in areas like landscape and tree canopy.

00:32:46.960 --> 00:32:53.000
 In terms of providing greater building design, these would be the different housing designs

00:32:53.000 --> 00:32:54.000
 that would be proposed.

00:32:54.000 --> 00:32:59.320
 As I mentioned, you would be meeting that single family standard for front facade architecture

00:32:59.320 --> 00:33:06.080
 and would actually have four as opposed to the DDC standard, three various architectural

00:33:06.080 --> 00:33:10.760
 elements to distinguish them.

00:33:10.760 --> 00:33:14.760
 We also want to look at the amenities that are provided, so looking at site landscaping.

00:33:14.760 --> 00:33:21.440
 As I noted, this would be 19% landscape area above what would be required in an R7 base,

00:33:21.440 --> 00:33:28.520
 22% tree canopy above the base requirement and overall you would have 284 large canopy

00:33:28.520 --> 00:33:33.200
 trees, which I did some math on this, the most trees you could get if they developed

00:33:33.200 --> 00:33:38.200
 now as an R3 development would be 248.

00:33:38.200 --> 00:33:42.600
 This includes trees that they have just provided voluntarily as well as ones that we require

00:33:42.600 --> 00:33:44.880
 as buffers or street trees.

00:33:44.880 --> 00:33:50.720
 In addition, developers providing an additional 10 feet of buffer area along Bonnie Bray and

00:33:50.720 --> 00:33:56.320
 within that providing a cluster of three ornamental trees every 70 feet to additionally buffer

00:33:56.320 --> 00:34:01.200
 those residents from the high speed roadway and that is in addition to the two elements

00:34:01.200 --> 00:34:04.160
 they are already required to provide.

00:34:04.160 --> 00:34:11.640
 As I mentioned, each yard would have that 20% rear landscape area as well as one ornamental

00:34:11.640 --> 00:34:17.680
 tree per house in addition to the trees that are required for overall tree canopy.

00:34:17.680 --> 00:34:23.080
 Each one would front on either a green space or a shared courtyard.

00:34:23.080 --> 00:34:24.600
 These are some examples.

00:34:24.600 --> 00:34:30.480
 The open space would be provided in 20 amenitized courtyards and there are five different designs

00:34:30.480 --> 00:34:35.080
 that are provided and minimums are set for the number of trees, plantings and outdoor

00:34:35.080 --> 00:34:36.520
 furniture in each of those.

00:34:36.520 --> 00:34:41.560
 There is some flexibility to modify those designs with the approval of staff, but minimums

00:34:41.560 --> 00:34:44.920
 would need to be met.

00:34:44.920 --> 00:34:49.240
 In terms of other amenity areas, the detention pond, they've actually provided a trail around

00:34:49.240 --> 00:34:54.640
 that with a butterfly garden and they proposed 27 additional canopy trees above what would

00:34:54.640 --> 00:34:59.120
 be required that are spread through the pool and the two detention pond areas.

00:34:59.120 --> 00:35:04.880
 In terms of connectivity, there were concerns, again as I mentioned, for neighborhood and

00:35:04.880 --> 00:35:09.440
 staff about the impact of traffic out onto westward and above so that is gated.

00:35:09.440 --> 00:35:14.560
 The compromise was that instead the developers providing a connecting path through their

00:35:14.560 --> 00:35:21.800
 property from westward to Bonnie Bray within pedestrian access easements and so right now

00:35:21.800 --> 00:35:24.040
 there is no pedestrian connectivity through there.

00:35:24.040 --> 00:35:28.840
 What would be provided would be a pathway that runs through landscaped areas and provides

00:35:28.840 --> 00:35:31.040
 increased pedestrian mobility in that area.

00:35:31.040 --> 00:35:36.840
 Here is an example, as you can see above, that public walking green that would be landscaped

00:35:36.840 --> 00:35:41.760
 30 percent of the area with native or adapted shrubs, ornamental grasses, and ground cover.

00:35:41.760 --> 00:35:46.000
 Street trees would be designed to provide shade and benches would be provided.

00:35:46.000 --> 00:35:47.800
 Just a view along that.

00:35:47.800 --> 00:35:53.000
 Again, we mostly discussed this, but in terms of being compatible with the area, this is

00:35:53.000 --> 00:35:57.680
 housing that's provided in a form that is of a similar design to the single family house

00:35:57.680 --> 00:36:02.600
 in the neighborhood as opposed to a traditional multi-family use, meeting those single family

00:36:02.600 --> 00:36:10.140
 design standards with height limits and buffers for potential visual or sound impacts.

00:36:10.140 --> 00:36:16.520
 In terms of public facilities, school generation, I ran these numbers by Denton ISD and they

00:36:16.520 --> 00:36:20.200
 were not concerned about their ability to handle the students generated, water and waste

00:36:20.200 --> 00:36:27.680
 water is available, streets, TIA was done, and along with signal adjustments there was

00:36:27.680 --> 00:36:31.520
 the requirement there would be a hooded left turn and Bonnie Bray is going to be widened

00:36:31.520 --> 00:36:37.880
 and expanded and so the developer will coordinate with our streets department and have a conditional

00:36:37.880 --> 00:36:43.240
 of approval that they will design and cover the cost of either a change to our current

00:36:43.240 --> 00:36:49.120
 CIP project or of constructing and designing that themselves to ensure that left turn is

00:36:49.120 --> 00:36:50.640
 provided.

00:36:50.640 --> 00:36:57.040
 Parks up and around the corner is North Lakes Parks within a 10 minute walk and in terms

00:36:57.040 --> 00:37:01.920
 of a fiscal impact analysis it's estimated that over 10 years from when the property

00:37:01.920 --> 00:37:09.800
 value destabilizes that it will provide a net positive impact to the city's finances.

00:37:09.800 --> 00:37:15.000
 Did our public outreach and received one response from the property owner in favor, two neighborhood

00:37:15.000 --> 00:37:19.560
 meetings were conducted, you have the notes and those and as we've discussed many of those

00:37:19.560 --> 00:37:22.840
 concerns were addressed by design changes.

00:37:22.840 --> 00:37:29.040
 So with that staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions below which relate

00:37:29.040 --> 00:37:35.100
 to providing that hooded left turn and covering the cost of designing and installing that.

00:37:35.100 --> 00:37:40.760
 So with that, I'll stand for any questions you may have.

00:37:40.760 --> 00:37:41.760
 Commissioner Smith.

00:37:41.760 --> 00:37:43.960
 Thank you, Chair.

00:37:43.960 --> 00:37:48.260
 Sean, PDs have to be tied to a base zoning and just kind of looking at this, the base

00:37:48.260 --> 00:37:51.240
 zoning because it would be 12 units per acre would be what, MN?

00:37:51.240 --> 00:37:53.360
 The base zoning would actually be R7.

00:37:53.360 --> 00:37:54.360
 R7?

00:37:54.360 --> 00:37:55.360
 Yes, sir.

00:37:55.360 --> 00:37:56.360
 Okay.

00:37:56.360 --> 00:38:02.120
 And then that, if you could pull up the map, the site location map, the, it's not built

00:38:02.120 --> 00:38:07.360
 so it's not on the actual geographic images but just south of there I believe that's the

00:38:07.360 --> 00:38:16.940
 garden home project we approved not that long ago, maybe about six months, a year ago.

00:38:16.940 --> 00:38:19.240
 Just south of there you see that Aurora Lane.

00:38:19.240 --> 00:38:20.240
 Yes.

00:38:20.240 --> 00:38:21.240
 So that's the garden home project, right?

00:38:21.240 --> 00:38:22.240
 Yes, sir.

00:38:22.240 --> 00:38:23.240
 Okay.

00:38:23.240 --> 00:38:24.240
 What was the zoning on that again?

00:38:24.240 --> 00:38:25.240
 Was that a PD?

00:38:25.240 --> 00:38:27.580
 The zoning, I believe that's actually the razor ranch overlay.

00:38:27.580 --> 00:38:28.580
 It's RO.

00:38:28.580 --> 00:38:29.580
 Okay.

00:38:29.580 --> 00:38:30.580
 The zoning, yes.

00:38:30.580 --> 00:38:31.580
 It is?

00:38:31.580 --> 00:38:35.400
 That's correct and that property within the razor ranch overlay has a split zoning.

00:38:35.400 --> 00:38:40.480
 It's actually zoned under the old code neighborhood residential three on the north side but neighborhood

00:38:40.480 --> 00:38:44.400
 residential mixed use on the south side so it allowed for that mix of townhomes on the

00:38:44.400 --> 00:38:46.360
 south and single family on the north side.

00:38:46.360 --> 00:38:47.360
 Got it.

00:38:47.360 --> 00:38:48.360
 Understood.

00:38:48.360 --> 00:38:49.360
 Okay.

00:38:49.360 --> 00:38:50.360
 Okay.

00:38:50.360 --> 00:38:51.360
 Okay.

00:38:51.360 --> 00:38:52.360
 Any other questions for Sean?

00:38:52.360 --> 00:38:53.360
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:38:53.360 --> 00:38:54.360
 Thank you, Chair.

00:38:54.360 --> 00:39:04.600
 Just real quick to satisfy how I think I understand this, this can be plotted as one lot?

00:39:04.600 --> 00:39:05.600
 Yes, ma'am.

00:39:05.600 --> 00:39:06.600
 Okay.

00:39:06.600 --> 00:39:09.160
 One owner renting out all the units.

00:39:09.160 --> 00:39:10.160
 Yes, ma'am.

00:39:10.160 --> 00:39:11.160
 I understand that correctly.

00:39:11.160 --> 00:39:12.160
 Okay.

00:39:12.160 --> 00:39:13.160
 Yes, ma'am.

00:39:13.160 --> 00:39:14.160
 Thank you.

00:39:14.160 --> 00:39:20.400
 Any other questions?

00:39:20.400 --> 00:39:21.400
 Okay.

00:39:21.400 --> 00:39:22.840
 Thanks, Sean.

00:39:22.840 --> 00:39:31.080
 Next item of business is item 5C PD 21-0001C and this is Julie Wyatt's item.

00:39:31.080 --> 00:39:34.360
 Good evening, Julie.

00:39:34.360 --> 00:39:36.440
 Good evening.

00:39:36.440 --> 00:39:49.200
 Let me share my screen.

00:39:49.200 --> 00:39:50.200
 Okay.

00:39:50.200 --> 00:39:51.200
 Good evening.

00:39:51.200 --> 00:39:59.200
 I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting PD 21-0001C Kingsway.

00:39:59.200 --> 00:40:04.160
 So before we get into the specific request, I know Sean just talked about a PD and I know

00:40:04.160 --> 00:40:07.440
 we've seen a lot of these come forward, so I just wanted to give a little brief introduction

00:40:07.440 --> 00:40:08.440
 into PDs.

00:40:08.440 --> 00:40:12.280
 They're kind of a new thing within the, or a new old thing within the City of Denton.

00:40:12.280 --> 00:40:21.200
 So if you recall, the City of Denton permitted PDs under the 1969 and 1991 development codes.

00:40:21.200 --> 00:40:27.680
 We removed PDs out of the zoning toolbox in the 2002 Denton development code, but we retained

00:40:27.680 --> 00:40:31.840
 15 of those, I call them legacy PDs, where those sort of move forward.

00:40:31.840 --> 00:40:35.760
 So you've seen some of those legacy PDs.

00:40:35.760 --> 00:40:42.320
 In 2019, we reintroduced PDs as a tool within the City.

00:40:42.320 --> 00:40:47.000
 And it's really, there are two sections I just want to point out within the 2019 Denton

00:40:47.000 --> 00:40:51.600
 development code as to that purpose of the PDs and why we do them.

00:40:51.600 --> 00:40:57.080
 So subchapter 2 talks about that it is to achieve greater flexibility than it, than

00:40:57.080 --> 00:41:03.600
 allowed by the strict application of the DDC to encourage some unique or innovative land

00:41:03.600 --> 00:41:10.000
 uses while providing greater benefit to the City and ensure that provision of adequate

00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:11.480
 public infrastructure.

00:41:11.480 --> 00:41:17.160
 And then subchapter 3 talks about it, where it's to accommodate a substantial either residential,

00:41:17.160 --> 00:41:21.200
 commercial, or kind of industrial development.

00:41:21.200 --> 00:41:29.240
 It could combine different uses in sort of a comprehensive and thought-out development,

00:41:29.240 --> 00:41:35.360
 and then can allow that flexibility where they could maybe ask for some deviations from

00:41:35.360 --> 00:41:41.800
 the minimum standards of the code, but maybe offer some other elements within that development

00:41:41.800 --> 00:41:49.000
 to sort of meet the intent of why we have those development regulations than would otherwise

00:41:49.000 --> 00:41:51.360
 be allowed under those base zoning districts.

00:41:51.360 --> 00:41:56.640
 Now, within our PDs, the way we do them in the City of Denton, we do require base zoning

00:41:56.640 --> 00:41:57.640
 districts.

00:41:57.640 --> 00:42:02.840
 So all of these PDs are based upon a zoning district that is currently within the DDC,

00:42:02.840 --> 00:42:05.960
 but then they add those additional elements.

00:42:05.960 --> 00:42:11.840
 PDs as a process to establish a PD, it goes through the regular zoning process, so that's

00:42:11.840 --> 00:42:15.720
 why you're seeing this tonight.

00:42:15.720 --> 00:42:18.960
 And they do have to develop as they are proposing.

00:42:18.960 --> 00:42:25.360
 So a development map and development standards are tied to those PDs, and they have to -- they

00:42:25.360 --> 00:42:27.640
 have to develop in that way that is approved.

00:42:27.640 --> 00:42:29.800
 So that development map, it has to develop.

00:42:29.800 --> 00:42:32.600
 It gives that certainty of the development.

00:42:32.600 --> 00:42:35.760
 But there are provisions where they can make amendments.

00:42:35.760 --> 00:42:39.320
 The DDC allows for a major amendment and a minor amendment.

00:42:39.320 --> 00:42:44.840
 A major amendment would be something like changing the land use, adding more than 10%

00:42:44.840 --> 00:42:50.400
 dwelling units, or some other action that would potentially create a negative impact

00:42:50.400 --> 00:42:52.440
 with the adjacent property owners.

00:42:52.440 --> 00:42:57.840
 And those require just a public hearing zoning action like what you're seeing tonight.

00:42:57.840 --> 00:43:03.040
 A minor amendment would be something that would be a little less impactful, but it does

00:43:03.040 --> 00:43:04.880
 require notification.

00:43:04.880 --> 00:43:08.580
 So this is new to the 2019 Denton Development Code.

00:43:08.580 --> 00:43:14.920
 Under the old codes, you could just -- there could be administrative approvals for minor

00:43:14.920 --> 00:43:20.480
 amendments, and they would just be administrative and there was no public notification.

00:43:20.480 --> 00:43:25.440
 The 2019 Denton Development Code improves upon that, and it does require notification

00:43:25.440 --> 00:43:29.880
 for property owners within 200 feet of that requested change.

00:43:29.880 --> 00:43:33.420
 So those neighbors would be notified of any changes.

00:43:33.420 --> 00:43:37.780
 And then if there are -- if there is opposition to that that cannot be resolved, then it goes

00:43:37.780 --> 00:43:38.780
 to public hearing.

00:43:38.780 --> 00:43:40.200
 So it becomes a major amendment.

00:43:40.200 --> 00:43:44.160
 So that really is kind of a new thing that we didn't have under old -- the old codes

00:43:44.160 --> 00:43:46.920
 that is under the 2019 DDC.

00:43:46.920 --> 00:43:50.360
 So I just kind of wanted to bring that in and that process with those planned developments.

00:43:50.360 --> 00:43:55.120
 We'll probably talk more about those as we -- as we see more of them, but I just wanted

00:43:55.120 --> 00:43:57.120
 to provide that background.

00:43:57.120 --> 00:43:59.040
 So now we'll get to the request.

00:43:59.040 --> 00:44:05.560
 So the proposal is to rezone about 100 acres from R4 and R7 districts to a PD.

00:44:05.560 --> 00:44:11.240
 The property is located north -- on the northeast side of Loop 288 near Kings Row.

00:44:11.240 --> 00:44:14.000
 And just to let you know, it is sort of split.

00:44:14.000 --> 00:44:22.120
 There's 95 acres in the larger portion and then 5 acres in the smaller portion.

00:44:22.120 --> 00:44:29.280
 So the existing conditions on the site, the site, as I mentioned, is located on Loop 288.

00:44:29.280 --> 00:44:34.760
 The north boundary is in the city's -- or the property to the north of the subject property

00:44:34.760 --> 00:44:38.400
 is in the ETJ, so it is outside of the municipal boundary.

00:44:38.400 --> 00:44:43.640
 And then to the east of the property are some established neighborhoods, some single-family

00:44:43.640 --> 00:44:45.060
 neighborhoods.

00:44:45.060 --> 00:44:48.120
 There are easements that do impact the property.

00:44:48.120 --> 00:44:52.960
 There are four of them that run north-south and span the site.

00:44:52.960 --> 00:44:57.600
 And then one thing that we were made aware of during the review of this project is there

00:44:57.600 --> 00:45:01.880
 was a potential abandoned or unknown cemetery on the site.

00:45:01.880 --> 00:45:08.040
 On May 10th, there was a field examination, so ground-penetrating radar, and they did

00:45:08.040 --> 00:45:12.680
 not detect any field abnormalities.

00:45:12.680 --> 00:45:19.520
 And then the Texas Historical Commission has been involved with this, and they are working

00:45:19.520 --> 00:45:20.520
 on the report.

00:45:20.520 --> 00:45:26.280
 They will refer to the site as an unverified cemetery that is unlikely to contain remains.

00:45:26.280 --> 00:45:32.120
 So -- and that is generally in the area shown there in that red circle.

00:45:32.120 --> 00:45:35.200
 And just some surrounding roadways, you have Loop 288.

00:45:35.200 --> 00:45:36.880
 That is a TxDOT road.

00:45:36.880 --> 00:45:41.280
 As you know, there aren't any frontage roads on Loop 288 in this location yet.

00:45:41.280 --> 00:45:49.040
 TxDOT does intend to construct those in the future, and that will connect FM 428 and Kings

00:45:49.040 --> 00:45:50.400
 Row.

00:45:50.400 --> 00:45:57.560
 Airwood Parkway is a collector road that is -- it is currently constructed to the south

00:45:57.560 --> 00:46:02.520
 of the subject property, and it is -- per the mobility plan, it will have to extend

00:46:02.520 --> 00:46:05.840
 to the north as a collector.

00:46:05.840 --> 00:46:07.120
 And then there's Kings Row.

00:46:07.120 --> 00:46:09.360
 That is a two-lane undefided roadway.

00:46:09.360 --> 00:46:14.480
 There's a small sidewalk portion on the north side of the property, or on the north side

00:46:14.480 --> 00:46:17.600
 of Kings Row.

00:46:17.600 --> 00:46:24.320
 The current zoning on the property is R4 and R7, so it is a mix of those two zoning districts.

00:46:24.320 --> 00:46:30.440
 Single-family dwellings are permitted to be developed on the site.

00:46:30.440 --> 00:46:35.360
 In the R4 district, it could be developed with those single-family uses, a minimum lot

00:46:35.360 --> 00:46:41.480
 area of 7,000 square feet in the R4, and then 4,000 square feet in that R7 district.

00:46:41.480 --> 00:46:44.100
 So that's the current zoning on the property.

00:46:44.100 --> 00:46:47.760
 Minimum lot width is 50 feet, and depth is 80 feet.

00:46:47.760 --> 00:46:53.000
 Under the Denton Development Code, our minimum standards, we don't have any requirements

00:46:53.000 --> 00:46:59.720
 for minimum open space within single-family neighborhoods in the DDC, so no open space

00:46:59.720 --> 00:47:01.760
 would be required.

00:47:01.760 --> 00:47:06.440
 They are proposing, as I said, that PD, and a mix of lot sizes.

00:47:06.440 --> 00:47:12.680
 The R4A would be 7,800 square feet, maximum width -- or minimum width of 60 feet.

00:47:12.680 --> 00:47:19.920
 They are proposing deeper lots, 130 feet, 120 feet, and 110 feet.

00:47:19.920 --> 00:47:29.020
 They are -- the other two lot sizes would be that R4B, which would be 6,000 square feet,

00:47:29.020 --> 00:47:33.200
 and then R4C, which would be 4,400 square feet.

00:47:33.200 --> 00:47:37.000
 And as I mentioned, all of those would have those deeper depths.

00:47:37.000 --> 00:47:41.800
 And I did want to point out that they are proposing 21.8 acres of open space within

00:47:41.800 --> 00:47:42.800
 the development.

00:47:42.800 --> 00:47:49.680
 Now, that does include those existing easements, and that is 5.5 acres approximately of those

00:47:49.680 --> 00:47:52.240
 four easements that span the property.

00:47:52.240 --> 00:47:58.840
 And then about 3.3 acres of that would be ponds and tree preservation.

00:47:58.840 --> 00:48:00.120
 Here's your zoning plan.

00:48:00.120 --> 00:48:02.680
 This is just sort of a broad look at the proposal.

00:48:02.680 --> 00:48:04.560
 You've got your three lot sizes.

00:48:04.560 --> 00:48:10.220
 The 7,800, the larger lots, are proposed for that eastern and southern portion of the larger

00:48:10.220 --> 00:48:17.700
 tract to provide a transition area for those lots.

00:48:17.700 --> 00:48:22.240
 Then you get to the 6,600 square foot lots, and then finally transitioning to those smaller

00:48:22.240 --> 00:48:29.240
 lot sizes as you get closer to loop 288 in both the northern and southern portions.

00:48:29.240 --> 00:48:35.280
 As I mentioned, they also have the open spaces shown in the southern portion and extending

00:48:35.280 --> 00:48:40.540
 to the north, some open spaces on the north side of the tract, and then interspersed throughout

00:48:40.540 --> 00:48:41.920
 the development.

00:48:41.920 --> 00:48:43.240
 And then right-of-way dedication.

00:48:43.240 --> 00:48:48.120
 They would have to extend Deerwood as a collector and then those neighborhood streets.

00:48:48.120 --> 00:48:54.840
 Also, they would be required to dedicate right-of-way for those loop 288 frontage roads.

00:48:54.840 --> 00:48:59.320
 The criteria for approval for all developments is in subchapter two of the Denton Development

00:48:59.320 --> 00:49:00.320
 Code.

00:49:00.320 --> 00:49:01.320
 We have the general criteria.

00:49:01.320 --> 00:49:05.920
 I won't go over all of these, just a summary.

00:49:05.920 --> 00:49:10.720
 The project is consistent with the DDC and plan requirements except for those that are

00:49:10.720 --> 00:49:12.920
 described in the PD standards.

00:49:12.920 --> 00:49:15.680
 There aren't any prior approvals for the project.

00:49:15.680 --> 00:49:22.280
 It's not anticipated to generate significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts.

00:49:22.280 --> 00:49:29.720
 And there are proposed conditions to anticipate and address traffic concerns.

00:49:29.720 --> 00:49:33.200
 The specific criteria for approval are also in subchapter two, and we'll go over those

00:49:33.200 --> 00:49:34.200
 a little more closely.

00:49:34.200 --> 00:49:39.080
 So first, I want to talk about the comprehensive plan.

00:49:39.080 --> 00:49:43.600
 The subject property has a future land use designation of low residential.

00:49:43.600 --> 00:49:48.120
 I just want to talk for a minute about the comprehensive plan in this area and just the

00:49:48.120 --> 00:49:50.440
 comprehensive plan more generally.

00:49:50.440 --> 00:49:55.480
 So I've kind of zoomed out on the comp plan in this general area to sort of talk about

00:49:55.480 --> 00:49:57.360
 how those pieces fit together.

00:49:57.360 --> 00:50:01.720
 So the subject site has a low residential future land use designation.

00:50:01.720 --> 00:50:08.320
 But what you also see in the area is community mixed use and you see that -- oh, sorry.

00:50:08.320 --> 00:50:13.360
 You see that at the intersection, so at FM 428 and Loop 288.

00:50:13.360 --> 00:50:18.760
 You also see it south of the subject property, kind of near Windsor and Loop 288.

00:50:18.760 --> 00:50:24.520
 And then that low residential sort of transitions to more moderate residential as you get closer

00:50:24.520 --> 00:50:26.200
 to university.

00:50:26.200 --> 00:50:31.500
 And it also transitions to rural as you move further out to the northeast of the property.

00:50:31.500 --> 00:50:37.760
 So all of those parts sort of fit together and really speak to one tenant that the comprehensive

00:50:37.760 --> 00:50:41.240
 plan had was that was to kind of grow contiguously.

00:50:41.240 --> 00:50:46.640
 And so that's what these future land use designations really talk about.

00:50:46.640 --> 00:50:52.080
 So with that said, low residential is intended for one to four dwelling units per acre.

00:50:52.080 --> 00:50:57.160
 Developments, as I mentioned, should be contiguous with existing development areas and organized

00:50:57.160 --> 00:51:02.240
 to promote walkability and access to open spaces within neighborhoods.

00:51:02.240 --> 00:51:06.840
 And then also to encourage a variety of housing styles and prices within neighborhoods to

00:51:06.840 --> 00:51:10.640
 make more dynamic places.

00:51:10.640 --> 00:51:15.560
 So we'll talk about how that -- the proposal fits within the comprehensive plan.

00:51:15.560 --> 00:51:20.800
 So overall, they are proposing a gross density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent

00:51:20.800 --> 00:51:23.840
 with that one to four dwelling units per acre.

00:51:23.840 --> 00:51:29.460
 It is adjacent to Loop 288 and contiguous to that existing development as it's growing

00:51:29.460 --> 00:51:31.520
 out from Loop 288.

00:51:31.520 --> 00:51:34.960
 And I just want to take a moment to talk about development in this area.

00:51:34.960 --> 00:51:36.440
 I know y'all are familiar with it.

00:51:36.440 --> 00:51:38.880
 You've seen a lot of these projects come forward.

00:51:38.880 --> 00:51:44.460
 But south of Loop 288 and those areas in orange, those are multifamily developments that have

00:51:44.460 --> 00:51:47.720
 -- are either under development or have been approved.

00:51:47.720 --> 00:51:50.600
 So they would be moving forward soon.

00:51:50.600 --> 00:51:57.800
 The area in red, that's a commercial development that is under review now and certain pieces

00:51:57.800 --> 00:52:01.600
 of it, I think, are under construction.

00:52:01.600 --> 00:52:07.040
 You see Stark Farms and Stewart Ridge, those residential developments as you move north

00:52:07.040 --> 00:52:09.800
 of the Denton ISD property.

00:52:09.800 --> 00:52:13.600
 Agave Ranch is a project you are all familiar with.

00:52:13.600 --> 00:52:17.800
 That's another project moving forward, residential project on FM 428.

00:52:17.800 --> 00:52:23.000
 And then a plot that you saw tonight where residential development in that area.

00:52:23.000 --> 00:52:28.200
 So that staged growth is sort of happening in this area, that it's moving out toward

00:52:28.200 --> 00:52:30.640
 the northeast.

00:52:30.640 --> 00:52:38.220
 Walkability, the proposal does include some trails within those existing easements.

00:52:38.220 --> 00:52:43.080
 Those are going to connect to proposed sidewalks within the development.

00:52:43.080 --> 00:52:47.940
 And they would establish that trail network within those easements that could be continued

00:52:47.940 --> 00:52:52.200
 as the areas to the north continue to develop.

00:52:52.200 --> 00:52:56.120
 So it really starts that trail system in this area.

00:52:56.120 --> 00:53:00.700
 And then those sidewalks will connect to that existing sidewalk facility to provide that

00:53:00.700 --> 00:53:06.760
 uninterrupted pedestrian pathway to that elementary school nearby.

00:53:06.760 --> 00:53:09.640
 And then as I mentioned, there are the three lot sizes within the development.

00:53:09.640 --> 00:53:13.760
 So it does provide that variety.

00:53:13.760 --> 00:53:16.440
 The criteria number two complies with the DDC.

00:53:16.440 --> 00:53:23.680
 It does comply with the DDC except for those areas where they expressly list within their

00:53:23.680 --> 00:53:25.280
 development standards document.

00:53:25.280 --> 00:53:30.160
 And we're going to talk about the architectural standards a little more closely in just a

00:53:30.160 --> 00:53:31.160
 minute.

00:53:31.160 --> 00:53:39.800
 And we did talk about those variety of lot sizes and as they compare to that R4 district.

00:53:39.800 --> 00:53:43.120
 Criterion three provides greater building design, amenities, and connectivity.

00:53:43.120 --> 00:53:46.960
 I want to break this down into three parts.

00:53:46.960 --> 00:53:49.400
 First I want to talk about greater building design.

00:53:49.400 --> 00:53:52.360
 So they are proposing some smaller lots within this development.

00:53:52.360 --> 00:53:58.840
 And so we wanted to make sure that that building design was adequate to enter a lively and

00:53:58.840 --> 00:54:00.720
 interesting place.

00:54:00.720 --> 00:54:06.880
 So they are proposing to comply with all architectural elements within subchapter seven of the Denton

00:54:06.880 --> 00:54:08.360
 Development Code.

00:54:08.360 --> 00:54:14.280
 And that includes things like architectural posts or covered front porches or other elements

00:54:14.280 --> 00:54:17.520
 that all subdivisions in the city have to follow.

00:54:17.520 --> 00:54:22.720
 And in addition to that, they're proposing some additional elements to make those, to

00:54:22.720 --> 00:54:28.640
 add to those single-family dwellings that they would have to do in addition to.

00:54:28.640 --> 00:54:31.840
 And so they would have to pick three from this list.

00:54:31.840 --> 00:54:40.800
 That could include a gabled roof dormer, carriage lights, a faux wood garage door, a minimum

00:54:40.800 --> 00:54:45.760
 size of a covered front porch, transom windows, enhanced driveway pavements.

00:54:45.760 --> 00:54:52.800
 So those additional elements that would be required above and beyond those minimum standards.

00:54:52.800 --> 00:54:56.040
 And then the next one I want to talk about is amenities.

00:54:56.040 --> 00:55:00.520
 So as I mentioned, single-family neighborhoods within the city of Denton, developed under

00:55:00.520 --> 00:55:04.480
 base zoning, are not required to provide minimum open space.

00:55:04.480 --> 00:55:07.880
 They are proposing that 21.8 acres.

00:55:07.880 --> 00:55:13.080
 And that does include a screening area near Loop 288, that tree preservation that I mentioned,

00:55:13.080 --> 00:55:15.440
 and also those existing easements.

00:55:15.440 --> 00:55:20.760
 Just for reference, their park dedication for 380 single-family dwelling units would

00:55:20.760 --> 00:55:22.640
 be 2.66 acres.

00:55:22.640 --> 00:55:27.140
 So that's what just a standard development would be required to either dedicate that

00:55:27.140 --> 00:55:30.960
 land or payment in lieu.

00:55:30.960 --> 00:55:37.320
 As part of that 21 acres, they are proposing a 5.31 acre open space gateway just at the

00:55:37.320 --> 00:55:41.240
 intersection of Grant Parkway in Deerwood.

00:55:41.240 --> 00:55:48.760
 And that would include a trail system, a wet pond with a fountain, a spray fountain in

00:55:48.760 --> 00:55:57.080
 the center of it, a playground equipment, a pavilion, seating areas, and tree plantings.

00:55:57.080 --> 00:56:02.800
 And in addition to that wet pond, there's another detention area that would also have

00:56:02.800 --> 00:56:09.720
 a wet pond with that spray feature so that they're turning those required infrastructure

00:56:09.720 --> 00:56:16.520
 necessities or facilities for drainage into neighborhood amenities.

00:56:16.520 --> 00:56:23.640
 They are proposing that tree buffer along Loop 288 as shown in this north exhibit along

00:56:23.640 --> 00:56:29.260
 with a masonry wall, a six-foot masonry wall in that location just to provide that separation

00:56:29.260 --> 00:56:31.640
 for those future residents.

00:56:31.640 --> 00:56:38.560
 And then based upon all of the open space, 124 lots or about 32 percent of the development

00:56:38.560 --> 00:56:42.120
 would be adjacent to open space areas.

00:56:42.120 --> 00:56:45.380
 And then finally, I want to talk about connectivity.

00:56:45.380 --> 00:56:48.240
 So I know I've talked about the easements.

00:56:48.240 --> 00:56:54.920
 We did talk with the developer and worked with them to oversize the area to capture

00:56:54.920 --> 00:57:00.480
 those easements and kind of some oversized HOA lots to allow tree plantings and landscaping

00:57:00.480 --> 00:57:02.160
 along that edge.

00:57:02.160 --> 00:57:07.720
 Also to, in those two easements, get those trails in there to provide those off-street

00:57:07.720 --> 00:57:13.860
 trail systems and that links that open space.

00:57:13.860 --> 00:57:18.120
 And as I mentioned, that does connect to the existing sidewalks as well as those future

00:57:18.120 --> 00:57:20.760
 neighborhood sidewalks, if approved.

00:57:20.760 --> 00:57:29.880
 And then Deerwood is designed in a way to have a 10-foot bike-ped path along that west

00:57:29.880 --> 00:57:35.080
 side of the road and then an 8-foot sidewalk with street trees along the east side.

00:57:35.080 --> 00:57:40.080
 Street trees couldn't be planted along that west side due to that electric easement, but

00:57:40.080 --> 00:57:46.080
 they do have the street trees on the east side.

00:57:46.080 --> 00:57:51.120
 Compatible criterion four is compatible buildings uses that are consistent with the character

00:57:51.120 --> 00:57:52.120
 of the area.

00:57:52.120 --> 00:57:58.720
 So the PD would allow residential uses, which are consistent with the adjacent properties.

00:57:58.720 --> 00:58:03.160
 It also would be consistent with the existing zoning because R4 is already on the property,

00:58:03.160 --> 00:58:07.160
 so it would really just be consistent with those current regulations.

00:58:07.160 --> 00:58:12.680
 And the proposal, while it would, while it has densities greater than the adjacent neighborhood,

00:58:12.680 --> 00:58:16.560
 as I mentioned, it does transition those lots so that the larger lots are adjacent to those

00:58:16.560 --> 00:58:21.040
 existing neighborhoods.

00:58:21.040 --> 00:58:26.920
 The development is expected to generate about 92 elementary students, 48 middle school students,

00:58:26.920 --> 00:58:29.040
 and 60 high school students.

00:58:29.040 --> 00:58:35.920
 Hodge Elementary is anticipated to meet capacity in the 2022-23 school year.

00:58:35.920 --> 00:58:40.600
 Strickland has sufficient capacity, and then Ryan High School will be nearing capacity

00:58:40.600 --> 00:58:44.520
 the year after Hodge Elementary.

00:58:44.520 --> 00:58:48.840
 The subdivision is within the eight-minute or less response time for fire.

00:58:48.840 --> 00:58:52.720
 There's a fire station along Sherman Drive.

00:58:52.720 --> 00:58:58.640
 Just note that there is a condition, our staff is recommending a condition, that they continue

00:58:58.640 --> 00:59:05.080
 working with TxDOT to secure that secondary emergency access and a minimum to provide

00:59:05.080 --> 00:59:09.580
 that remoteness for the fire department in case of an emergency.

00:59:09.580 --> 00:59:13.800
 And the use is consistent with the surrounding area, not expected to generate a significant

00:59:13.800 --> 00:59:16.600
 increase in crime or nuisances.

00:59:16.600 --> 00:59:20.360
 There is water and wastewater near the site, and they would be expected to extend it throughout

00:59:20.360 --> 00:59:21.360
 the site.

00:59:21.360 --> 00:59:23.360
 There have been no capacity issues identified.

00:59:23.360 --> 00:59:29.080
 And then finally, I just want to talk about transportation, and I'll try to be brief.

00:59:29.080 --> 00:59:34.360
 The proposal is estimated to generate about 3,500 daily trips.

00:59:34.360 --> 00:59:41.040
 That's 275 morning peak, 234 afternoon peak, and that's during the time that that Hodge

00:59:41.040 --> 00:59:46.000
 Elementary would be getting out, and then 366 evening peak.

00:59:46.000 --> 00:59:51.160
 They also estimated that site-generated trips to the school would be 41 morning vehicles

00:59:51.160 --> 00:59:53.880
 and then 35 afternoon vehicles.

00:59:53.880 --> 00:59:58.840
 We've heard a lot of concern about traffic in the area, particularly at the intersection

00:59:58.840 --> 01:00:01.200
 of Loop 288 and Kings Row.

01:00:01.200 --> 01:00:07.600
 So they did provide a traffic impact analysis that our engineering group has reviewed and

01:00:07.600 --> 01:00:12.080
 approved, and they're here tonight to talk about it if we have further questions.

01:00:12.080 --> 01:00:21.000
 But just to give you a brief outline, so intersections are graded on a scale from A to F, and it's

01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:25.240
 depending on how long a car has to wait at that intersection.

01:00:25.240 --> 01:00:32.360
 So anything above 80 seconds that a car would have to wait gets that grade of F, and then

01:00:32.360 --> 01:00:37.280
 it's sort of, you know, I think under 10 seconds, excuse me, is an A, and then there's that

01:00:37.280 --> 01:00:39.960
 gradation in between.

01:00:39.960 --> 01:00:48.200
 So under current conditions, that intersection at Kings Row and Loop 288 operates in the

01:00:48.200 --> 01:00:55.160
 morning at a level of service of E. So there's about a 79-second wait in the morning.

01:00:55.160 --> 01:01:03.400
 It's a level of C at that Hodge Elementary getting out afternoon, and then a level of

01:01:03.400 --> 01:01:06.440
 D in the evening.

01:01:06.440 --> 01:01:13.080
 The intersection at Kings Row and Deerwood operates at a level of service of B in the

01:01:13.080 --> 01:01:20.880
 morning, a level of service of B in the mid-afternoon, and a level of service of A in the evening.

01:01:20.880 --> 01:01:24.320
 So that is current conditions.

01:01:24.320 --> 01:01:30.680
 As part of their TIA, they looked at the 2029 conditions, which would take into account

01:01:30.680 --> 01:01:36.000
 growth in the area, as well as this development.

01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:42.180
 And that would cause this intersection at Kings Row and Loop 288 to drop to a level

01:01:42.180 --> 01:01:49.040
 of service of F, which would increase that delay by -- it's over 250 seconds.

01:01:49.040 --> 01:01:53.400
 And then it's an F in the mid-afternoon and F in the evening.

01:01:53.400 --> 01:01:58.500
 And then this intersection would also be impacted going to a level of service of D in the morning,

01:01:58.500 --> 01:02:01.680
 and then the afternoon would be a level of service of B.

01:02:01.680 --> 01:02:06.280
 So as part of that review and as part of the discussions with the applicant, our engineering

01:02:06.280 --> 01:02:14.120
 group has looked at interventions that would improve functioning of this area.

01:02:14.120 --> 01:02:22.760
 And the proposal is to graft a pavement section onto Kings Row in this general area 300 feet

01:02:22.760 --> 01:02:28.960
 long, 11 feet wide, to allow a bypass lane so those cars that just want to go straight

01:02:28.960 --> 01:02:32.920
 on Kings Row toward the east can go ahead and move freely.

01:02:32.920 --> 01:02:37.760
 And that would allow for a left turn pocket to turn to the north.

01:02:37.760 --> 01:02:47.960
 And then additionally to include a right turn lane at Kings Row and Loop 288 so that it

01:02:47.960 --> 01:02:50.560
 would be dedicated, it would be right turn only.

01:02:50.560 --> 01:02:55.320
 That would allow a sufficient capacity to get cars across that highway.

01:02:55.320 --> 01:02:57.680
 >> Julie, can I interrupt real fast?

01:02:57.680 --> 01:03:00.960
 Before we get too far into this, I have two questions.

01:03:00.960 --> 01:03:05.680
 Can you go back two slides?

01:03:05.680 --> 01:03:14.400
 The trip generation here at Kings Row and Loop 288, on the A.M. it says 79 seconds.

01:03:14.400 --> 01:03:18.040
 And on the left, is that current conditions?

01:03:18.040 --> 01:03:22.760
 There's 275 morning peak trips, or that's current?

01:03:22.760 --> 01:03:26.140
 >> That would be from the development only, sorry, I wasn't very clear on that.

01:03:26.140 --> 01:03:33.640
 So the estimated trip generation, that's 275 morning peak trips generated by the proposal.

01:03:33.640 --> 01:03:39.240
 >> I guess I don't know the logistics of it, but I would think that 275 additional trips

01:03:39.240 --> 01:03:45.200
 and 234 additional trips would make the A.M. and that first P.M. closer.

01:03:45.200 --> 01:03:53.000
 But the first P.M. of C, that 25 seconds is nearly, what is that, a third of the 80 seconds?

01:03:53.000 --> 01:03:55.880
 But it's nearly the same amount of added trips.

01:03:55.880 --> 01:03:57.600
 I don't know how that math works out.

01:03:57.600 --> 01:04:01.240
 >> I'm going to call engineering up to answer that.

01:04:01.240 --> 01:04:02.240
 >> We can wait on that.

01:04:02.240 --> 01:04:03.240
 There might be other questions.

01:04:03.240 --> 01:04:06.320
 But I'm just curious on how that math works out.

01:04:06.320 --> 01:04:13.680
 And then if you go forward one more slide, I don't know, I'm sorry, I wanted to see this

01:04:13.680 --> 01:04:15.280
 for 250 seconds.

01:04:15.280 --> 01:04:17.520
 This is in 2029, correct?

01:04:17.520 --> 01:04:18.520
 >> Yes.

01:04:18.520 --> 01:04:22.600
 >> And that's assuming probably a full build out of this proposed development.

01:04:22.600 --> 01:04:26.800
 Is it taking in consideration any other developments over the next eight years?

01:04:26.800 --> 01:04:33.080
 And is it taking in consideration TxDOT's plan for adding service roads?

01:04:33.080 --> 01:04:38.080
 >> I'm not sure about the service roads, and engineering may correct me, but I believe

01:04:38.080 --> 01:04:41.360
 they are taking into account a 3% growth rate.

01:04:41.360 --> 01:04:48.320
 They also included the background traffic for the proposed plat that you saw tonight.

01:04:48.320 --> 01:04:54.960
 So those projects that are kind of in that pipeline, that 2029 conditions included those

01:04:54.960 --> 01:05:03.380
 as well as a proposed 3% growth rate for traffic.

01:05:03.380 --> 01:05:10.840
 >> Yeah, I just -- for clarity, I don't -- this seems as though it's communicating, here's

01:05:10.840 --> 01:05:16.040
 just how bad it gets if this development goes in, but it's not speaking to any of the mobility

01:05:16.040 --> 01:05:21.680
 plans that the city's doing, and it's not taking into consideration the amount of homes

01:05:21.680 --> 01:05:26.080
 that would go in as a right to build, right?

01:05:26.080 --> 01:05:31.760
 So if we didn't do the PD and someone just built on an R4, that's going to have nearly

01:05:31.760 --> 01:05:35.400
 the same impact of this, right?

01:05:35.400 --> 01:05:36.400
 I don't know the difference.

01:05:36.400 --> 01:05:42.120
 I imagine it's 40 homes, probably, from a straight R4 to the PD.

01:05:42.120 --> 01:05:46.800
 So even if we didn't approve this, this highlights that this intersection needs to be improved

01:05:46.800 --> 01:05:51.360
 regardless of this project being approved, because the way it's zoned in this general

01:05:51.360 --> 01:05:59.160
 area is naturally going to cause a pinch here apart from this project's incremental increase

01:05:59.160 --> 01:06:00.880
 in density.

01:06:00.880 --> 01:06:01.880
 >> That is correct.

01:06:01.880 --> 01:06:02.880
 >> Okay.

01:06:02.880 --> 01:06:06.640
 >> But it doesn't really split out what could be developed by right.

01:06:06.640 --> 01:06:11.920
 It really is just looking at the total trips that would be generated by this particular

01:06:11.920 --> 01:06:12.920
 project, but you're correct.

01:06:12.920 --> 01:06:20.160
 If it were developed under the R4, there would be trips -- there would be impacts associated

01:06:20.160 --> 01:06:21.160
 with that.

01:06:21.160 --> 01:06:24.740
 >> And you mentioned earlier that TxDOT does have plans for service roads that connect Kings

01:06:24.740 --> 01:06:26.280
 Row up to 428.

01:06:26.280 --> 01:06:27.280
 >> Correct.

01:06:27.280 --> 01:06:30.560
 We don't -- there's not a design for that, and we don't have timing for it.

01:06:30.560 --> 01:06:31.560
 >> Okay.

01:06:31.560 --> 01:06:35.640
 Is there a reason we chose 2029 on these projections?

01:06:35.640 --> 01:06:39.840
 >> That would be something that I would have engineering discuss why they kind of chose

01:06:39.840 --> 01:06:40.960
 that date.

01:06:40.960 --> 01:06:43.120
 >> We might be able to lump engineering questions later.

01:06:43.120 --> 01:06:44.120
 >> Yeah.

01:06:44.120 --> 01:06:45.120
 >> Okay.

01:06:45.120 --> 01:06:46.120
 Sorry.

01:06:46.120 --> 01:06:47.120
 >> No.

01:06:47.120 --> 01:06:48.120
 Those are great questions.

01:06:48.120 --> 01:06:56.640
 So we have the conditions associated with those transportation improvements on Kings

01:06:56.640 --> 01:07:03.400
 Row, and these enhancements would result in a level of service of D or better, which is

01:07:03.400 --> 01:07:11.640
 what our transportation criteria manual has as a recommendation of level of service.

01:07:11.640 --> 01:07:16.560
 There aren't any city main -- >> Commissioner Ellis.

01:07:16.560 --> 01:07:21.360
 >> My microphone's being -- >> It's a longer press on these new mics.

01:07:21.360 --> 01:07:22.360
 >> Yeah.

01:07:22.360 --> 01:07:23.360
 I guess so.

01:07:23.360 --> 01:07:24.360
 Thank you.

01:07:24.360 --> 01:07:25.360
 Okay.

01:07:25.360 --> 01:07:26.360
 So back to that.

01:07:26.360 --> 01:07:37.520
 How do we think level service D is good, since it's over the 50% if we're doing ABCD, it's

01:07:37.520 --> 01:07:40.520
 towards the bad side, A, B, C, D, E, F, right?

01:07:40.520 --> 01:07:42.680
 We're saying D is acceptable.

01:07:42.680 --> 01:07:46.960
 I don't think D is sufficient or acceptable to the city, but I'm just wondering where

01:07:46.960 --> 01:07:48.440
 did we pull that from?

01:07:48.440 --> 01:07:52.320
 I know you said it's in the criteria manual, but where does that come from?

01:07:52.320 --> 01:07:57.080
 Someone might have a better answer in terms of engineering principles, but I can kind

01:07:57.080 --> 01:08:01.120
 of talk about it in terms of from a planning perspective.

01:08:01.120 --> 01:08:08.320
 So yes, it does bake in some sort of delay in these intersections, but what we don't

01:08:08.320 --> 01:08:13.660
 want to do from a planning perspective would be to design roads to accommodate the worst

01:08:13.660 --> 01:08:21.880
 traffic situation possible, because those would create oversized roads and intersections

01:08:21.880 --> 01:08:26.880
 in these, so they wouldn't have that necessarily neighborhood, that smaller scale.

01:08:26.880 --> 01:08:31.680
 So we wouldn't from a planning perspective necessarily want all A intersections, because

01:08:31.680 --> 01:08:39.240
 we do want them to be scaled appropriately for not just peak times.

01:08:39.240 --> 01:08:45.000
 And remember, those level of service are really talking about those peak times, so when people

01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:49.440
 are going to work or when people are coming home, those are really when we see those major

01:08:49.440 --> 01:08:50.440
 traffic impacts.

01:08:50.440 --> 01:08:54.360
 We don't want to necessarily design those intersections for just a couple of hours during

01:08:54.360 --> 01:08:55.920
 the 24 hour day.

01:08:55.920 --> 01:08:59.160
 Yeah, and I understand that.

01:08:59.160 --> 01:09:08.480
 I think where there's a disconnect to me is when we have an area that's already developed,

01:09:08.480 --> 01:09:12.080
 growing, why we're not changing our mindset there.

01:09:12.080 --> 01:09:15.680
 This intersection is already a problem today with nothing else.

01:09:15.680 --> 01:09:17.040
 It's a problem.

01:09:17.040 --> 01:09:22.680
 And so to view it like that, I just view it differently.

01:09:22.680 --> 01:09:25.160
 We already know it's a problem now.

01:09:25.160 --> 01:09:27.280
 We already know it's growing out there.

01:09:27.280 --> 01:09:35.720
 So to me, doing this, okay, that's something, but we're settling on D or better.

01:09:35.720 --> 01:09:41.080
 I mean, it's going to be D. It's not going to be better than D, even doing this, in my

01:09:41.080 --> 01:09:45.580
 opinion, because of, again, the problems we already have now.

01:09:45.580 --> 01:09:50.280
 So I'm throwing that out there because I think we need to look at that a little bit differently.

01:09:50.280 --> 01:09:55.680
 I understand that's the criteria manual, but if this was rural right now and this is one

01:09:55.680 --> 01:09:59.320
 development we're thinking of, I understand that.

01:09:59.320 --> 01:10:06.120
 I don't understand that way of thinking and presenting when we're dealing with this specific

01:10:06.120 --> 01:10:08.760
 type of situation.

01:10:08.760 --> 01:10:11.960
 And Julie, just for clarification, a D is a 40 second wait?

01:10:11.960 --> 01:10:14.760
 I'm going to have to look that up.

01:10:14.760 --> 01:10:15.760
 Okay.

01:10:15.760 --> 01:10:30.760
 I think we got some help.

01:10:30.760 --> 01:10:33.520
 55 seconds.

01:10:33.520 --> 01:10:34.520
 Okay.

01:10:34.520 --> 01:10:35.520
 Great.

01:10:35.520 --> 01:10:38.520
 Thank you.

01:10:38.520 --> 01:10:41.680
 Thanks.

01:10:41.680 --> 01:10:45.440
 So there aren't any city maintained parks within walking distance to this site.

01:10:45.440 --> 01:10:47.520
 So that's why that open space was really important.

01:10:47.520 --> 01:10:51.560
 And that was something that we talked to the applicant a lot.

01:10:51.560 --> 01:10:57.760
 They coordinated with parks to kind of talk about what kind of things would be optimal.

01:10:57.760 --> 01:11:05.000
 And that's how they arrived at that 3500 square foot playground equipment, the pavilion, and

01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:08.960
 then those additional trails.

01:11:08.960 --> 01:11:12.480
 So public outreach was sent out.

01:11:12.480 --> 01:11:17.440
 Thus far, we have received 74 letters in opposition.

01:11:17.440 --> 01:11:24.460
 31 of those are within 200 feet of the subject site and 6 in favor.

01:11:24.460 --> 01:11:33.720
 There is a map on your screen, hot off the presses, that kind of shows those, where those

01:11:33.720 --> 01:11:38.520
 opposition letters are in kind of in proximity to the subject property.

01:11:38.520 --> 01:11:46.080
 They did have three virtual neighborhood meetings in March and then also in May.

01:11:46.080 --> 01:11:51.000
 And some of those topics that were talked about were the traffic situation, drainage

01:11:51.000 --> 01:11:56.120
 elements, and just concerns about additional growth within the area.

01:11:56.120 --> 01:12:04.960
 That, Julie, on the previous screen, or is it -- I'm sorry, this one.

01:12:04.960 --> 01:12:05.960
 Is that shaded area?

01:12:05.960 --> 01:12:06.960
 Am I seeing that right?

01:12:06.960 --> 01:12:10.480
 Is that part of this ETJ on the northeast?

01:12:10.480 --> 01:12:11.480
 That is correct, yes.

01:12:11.480 --> 01:12:13.720
 But we still noted their opposition.

01:12:13.720 --> 01:12:18.180
 That doesn't count towards the 20% -- we're just doing that for reference of where comments

01:12:18.180 --> 01:12:19.180
 came from.

01:12:19.180 --> 01:12:20.180
 Absolutely, yes.

01:12:20.180 --> 01:12:21.180
 Okay.

01:12:21.180 --> 01:12:26.200
 And then I don't see any green on this, so I take it the 6 in favor were external from

01:12:26.200 --> 01:12:27.200
 this map?

01:12:27.200 --> 01:12:32.320
 I believe they're the property owner and then they're kind of outside that map, so.

01:12:32.320 --> 01:12:33.320
 Okay.

01:12:33.320 --> 01:12:34.320
 Thank you.

01:12:34.320 --> 01:12:36.320
 Oh, Commissioner Ellis.

01:12:36.320 --> 01:12:37.320
 Thank you, Chair.

01:12:37.320 --> 01:12:39.760
 I guess while we're still on this map, what do we know about that property that's kind

01:12:39.760 --> 01:12:41.200
 of in the center?

01:12:41.200 --> 01:12:43.360
 Is that just an estate property?

01:12:43.360 --> 01:12:46.480
 Yeah, that is -- that's not part of this request.

01:12:46.480 --> 01:12:54.120
 It is a historic farm within the area, so they have provided in their plan stub outs

01:12:54.120 --> 01:12:55.120
 to that.

01:12:55.120 --> 01:13:02.080
 So if and when it ever did develop, it would be able to be taken into the project and kind

01:13:02.080 --> 01:13:06.600
 of folded in with residential development.

01:13:06.600 --> 01:13:10.520
 It does have a zoning of R4, so it could develop with residential uses.

01:13:10.520 --> 01:13:11.520
 Okay.

01:13:11.520 --> 01:13:12.520
 Thanks.

01:13:12.520 --> 01:13:18.320
 So staff does recommend approval of the request as it meets the criteria for approval.

01:13:18.320 --> 01:13:21.600
 We do have those two conditions.

01:13:21.600 --> 01:13:26.200
 One related to those improvements along Kings Row, and then the other is that secondary

01:13:26.200 --> 01:13:31.880
 fire access with those later phases to ensure that there is adequate fire access.

01:13:31.880 --> 01:13:37.960
 They -- if this moves forward tonight, then the next step would be City Council on July

01:13:37.960 --> 01:13:39.680
 the 20th.

01:13:39.680 --> 01:13:41.840
 And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:13:41.840 --> 01:13:47.680
 The applicant is here to answer any questions and has a presentation for the regular session.

01:13:47.680 --> 01:13:51.600
 Julie, have they agreed to the conditions -- have we talked about the conditions with

01:13:51.600 --> 01:13:52.600
 the applicant?

01:13:52.600 --> 01:13:53.600
 Yes.

01:13:53.600 --> 01:13:56.360
 And then -- I just lost it.

01:13:56.360 --> 01:13:58.680
 I'll go to Commissioner Smith.

01:13:58.680 --> 01:13:59.680
 Thank you, Chair.

01:13:59.680 --> 01:14:01.760
 Julie, a couple questions.

01:14:01.760 --> 01:14:08.380
 The -- the continuous park space, you said there's 2.66 acres for park dedication.

01:14:08.380 --> 01:14:13.440
 How -- what's the largest tract that's dedicated to parks that's continuous, that's all one?

01:14:13.440 --> 01:14:14.560
 Do you know?

01:14:14.560 --> 01:14:15.560
 In their proposal?

01:14:15.560 --> 01:14:16.560
 Yeah.

01:14:16.560 --> 01:14:20.440
 As I saw on the map, 2.66 in total.

01:14:20.440 --> 01:14:21.440
 How big are those parks?

01:14:21.440 --> 01:14:23.680
 I saw it kind of spread out throughout the entire plan.

01:14:23.680 --> 01:14:30.680
 Well, the -- so the 2.66 would be, if it were developed just as a base zoning, the -- the

01:14:30.680 --> 01:14:35.320
 typical development within the city of Denton has to develop -- has to dedicate a certain

01:14:35.320 --> 01:14:38.680
 amount of parkland, and it's based upon the number of dwelling units.

01:14:38.680 --> 01:14:45.120
 So if it developed, they -- they would have to dedicate 2.66 acres or do a payment in

01:14:45.120 --> 01:14:51.280
 lieu, so pay the parks a certain rate based upon that acreage.

01:14:51.280 --> 01:15:00.960
 As they're proposing, they -- they are proposing common open spaces maintained by the HOA that

01:15:00.960 --> 01:15:07.600
 the -- that south tract would be about five acres, and then there are additional acreage

01:15:07.600 --> 01:15:11.200
 throughout the site, smaller in size.

01:15:11.200 --> 01:15:17.240
 I believe that there's a -- a -- a treat area that's about 1.7 acres, and then other smaller

01:15:17.240 --> 01:15:19.900
 parcels taken into account.

01:15:19.900 --> 01:15:21.280
 So that's not 2.66.

01:15:21.280 --> 01:15:23.080
 They have more acres they're dedicating?

01:15:23.080 --> 01:15:24.080
 They're proposing 21.8 acres.

01:15:24.080 --> 01:15:25.080
 That's right.

01:15:25.080 --> 01:15:26.080
 Okay.

01:15:26.080 --> 01:15:27.080
 Yes, sir.

01:15:27.080 --> 01:15:28.080
 And the five -- five is the larger space.

01:15:28.080 --> 01:15:29.080
 Yes, sir.

01:15:29.080 --> 01:15:30.080
 Perfect.

01:15:30.080 --> 01:15:31.080
 All right.

01:15:31.080 --> 01:15:32.080
 Sorry.

01:15:32.080 --> 01:15:33.080
 I saw the 2.66, and I saw the 21.

01:15:33.080 --> 01:15:34.080
 I was confused on that piece here.

01:15:34.080 --> 01:15:39.240
 The primary criteria for needing to do the PD in the first place, it seems like it's square

01:15:39.240 --> 01:15:43.160
 footage of the lots was kind of the biggest deviation we're making away from R4.

01:15:43.160 --> 01:15:47.000
 My right -- yeah, my right, and that assumption there, that it was primarily -- that was the

01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:48.000
 biggest piece of it.

01:15:48.000 --> 01:15:49.000
 Yes, sir.

01:15:49.000 --> 01:15:51.720
 So it was done -- and that's probably more of an applicant question, but I'm assuming

01:15:51.720 --> 01:15:58.400
 that was done more for price diversity, or is it just a marketability?

01:15:58.400 --> 01:16:02.860
 From a planning perspective, it does get that variety of lot sizes, so it does have that

01:16:02.860 --> 01:16:08.400
 sort of -- it's -- it's not kind of -- it's not all the same throughout the development.

01:16:08.400 --> 01:16:13.200
 From the -- the applicant's perspective, I might let them answer that as to maybe their

01:16:13.200 --> 01:16:14.200
 -- their rationale.

01:16:14.200 --> 01:16:15.200
 Okay.

01:16:15.200 --> 01:16:17.600
 Can you give the -- do you know what the average square footage of the lots when you take it

01:16:17.600 --> 01:16:24.580
 as like 176, we're at 40 -- 46, 4800 square feet, can you get that number where it's like

01:16:24.580 --> 01:16:26.920
 average across the board, it'd be X amount of square feet?

01:16:26.920 --> 01:16:27.920
 I can do that for you.

01:16:27.920 --> 01:16:30.420
 Or you can give me the numbers, and I'll do it for myself, one of those two.

01:16:30.420 --> 01:16:34.160
 I can't do that in my head, so I'll have to -- I'll have to be confident.

01:16:34.160 --> 01:16:35.160
 Neither can I, Julie.

01:16:35.160 --> 01:16:36.160
 I'm smart, but I'm that smart.

01:16:36.160 --> 01:16:37.760
 And more on the not-that-smart, but yeah.

01:16:37.760 --> 01:16:39.760
 I'll be ready at the regular session with that number.

01:16:39.760 --> 01:16:40.760
 Is that --

01:16:40.760 --> 01:16:41.760
 Perfect.

01:16:41.760 --> 01:16:42.760
 That works.

01:16:42.760 --> 01:16:43.760
 Thanks, Julie.

01:16:43.760 --> 01:16:44.760
 Any other questions?

01:16:44.760 --> 01:16:54.160
 Yeah, can you explain how common and what the rationale is for treating the smaller

01:16:54.160 --> 01:17:00.400
 parcel separate under the same PDE with the same regulations?

01:17:00.400 --> 01:17:09.280
 Let me make sure I understand.

01:17:09.280 --> 01:17:13.360
 The rationale for just having that R4 as a base zoning district, but then --

01:17:13.360 --> 01:17:20.960
 From a planning perspective, right, are PDEs common where the land areas are non-contiguous

01:17:20.960 --> 01:17:23.600
 with different access points?

01:17:23.600 --> 01:17:30.600
 Why, from a city planning perspective, would we want to have those two areas zoned with

01:17:30.600 --> 01:17:32.480
 the same restrictions?

01:17:32.480 --> 01:17:36.440
 I see what you're saying, the smaller -- the smaller parcel to the south.

01:17:36.440 --> 01:17:43.040
 You know, that had an R7 zoning designation, and so it made sense to sort of kind of get

01:17:43.040 --> 01:17:51.820
 it -- get the entire area under sort of that same consistent development regulation.

01:17:51.820 --> 01:17:56.880
 So that's kind of that remainder piece in that little area, that five-acre parcel just

01:17:56.880 --> 01:18:02.680
 at the intersection of Loop 288 and Deer and Kings Road.

01:18:02.680 --> 01:18:07.320
 So we just get it under -- you know, planning didn't have any heartburn about that non-contiguous

01:18:07.320 --> 01:18:08.320
 area.

01:18:08.320 --> 01:18:12.040
 It really just ensures that this entire area develops in a more consistent manner.

01:18:12.040 --> 01:18:13.040
 Okay.

01:18:13.040 --> 01:18:16.720
 And one more.

01:18:16.720 --> 01:18:21.840
 Can you remind us again what the -- on the narrower 40-foot wide lots, what's the garage

01:18:21.840 --> 01:18:24.800
 front door allowance on those?

01:18:24.800 --> 01:18:29.240
 They have proposed an increased garage door allowance, and I'll have to look that up.

01:18:29.240 --> 01:18:35.600
 I don't have it with me, but it would be large -- under current regulations, the garage door

01:18:35.600 --> 01:18:41.400
 can only take up 40% of that frontage for the home.

01:18:41.400 --> 01:18:45.920
 As they're proposing, it would take up a larger bit of that frontage because the homes wouldn't

01:18:45.920 --> 01:18:46.920
 be as wide.

01:18:46.920 --> 01:18:50.840
 I'll have to look that up and let you know what that is, but I can find that out for

01:18:50.840 --> 01:18:51.840
 you.

01:18:51.840 --> 01:18:52.840
 Thank you.

01:18:52.840 --> 01:18:55.440
 Any other questions for Julie?

01:18:55.440 --> 01:18:56.440
 Commissioner Smith?

01:18:56.440 --> 01:18:57.440
 Thank you, Chair.

01:18:57.440 --> 01:19:04.280
 Julie, on that, the -- it is unusual for us to see a non-connected parcel whenever you're

01:19:04.280 --> 01:19:09.720
 looking at entire HOA-dedicated and maintained property.

01:19:09.720 --> 01:19:14.480
 And it seems like there's going to be a -- that southern parcel then is essentially -- won't

01:19:14.480 --> 01:19:17.960
 have any connectivity to the HOA services that are going to be up in the main section

01:19:17.960 --> 01:19:18.960
 of the area.

01:19:18.960 --> 01:19:22.080
 So really more of a question for probably the applicant in public, but how unusual is

01:19:22.080 --> 01:19:23.680
 that for us to see that in planning?

01:19:23.680 --> 01:19:28.520
 I mean, I've never seen it in whatever four years of being on P&Z.

01:19:28.520 --> 01:19:32.600
 The planning department didn't have any -- we didn't have any issues in development services

01:19:32.600 --> 01:19:35.720
 about, well, it's HOA, it's a small little lot down there.

01:19:35.720 --> 01:19:42.320
 Yeah, we didn't have any concerns in terms of those development regulations.

01:19:42.320 --> 01:19:46.440
 The applicant can probably speak to how that HOA would function.

01:19:46.440 --> 01:19:51.000
 They will have to provide -- you're right, it doesn't provide that direct connectivity.

01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:56.520
 But it would -- they would have to build those sidewalks, those northern piece of the sidewalks

01:19:56.520 --> 01:20:00.320
 along Kings Road, which would connect to that existing sidewalk facility.

01:20:00.320 --> 01:20:06.680
 So there would be pedestrian connectivity for that parcel and then, you know, there

01:20:06.680 --> 01:20:08.960
 would be that driving connectivity as well.

01:20:08.960 --> 01:20:12.640
 Yeah, I'd hate for that little parcel to become the little stepbrother of the HOA.

01:20:12.640 --> 01:20:14.600
 So that would be good.

01:20:14.600 --> 01:20:15.600
 Thanks.

01:20:15.600 --> 01:20:18.960
 I remember my first question and then I have a second one.

01:20:18.960 --> 01:20:24.720
 And Tana, with the non-contiguous piece, that can almost be built by right on the R7.

01:20:24.720 --> 01:20:29.920
 I think there's a lot minimum on a couple of the R4Cs on the width.

01:20:29.920 --> 01:20:33.660
 But more or less, if we didn't approve that or we were to separate it out, they could

01:20:33.660 --> 01:20:35.960
 nearly build that anyways.

01:20:35.960 --> 01:20:39.560
 That's probably why you didn't have our heartburn, I imagine, is that it almost aligns to the

01:20:39.560 --> 01:20:42.480
 R7 district there anyways.

01:20:42.480 --> 01:20:48.120
 The proposed lot sizes, yes, they are -- as far as the overall size of those lots, it

01:20:48.120 --> 01:20:52.600
 is consistent with R7 because R7 allows that 4,000 square foot lots.

01:20:52.600 --> 01:20:55.560
 Where the difference is, is the width of the lots.

01:20:55.560 --> 01:21:00.760
 They are proposing deeper lots but narrower, whereas that R7 under the base zoning has

01:21:00.760 --> 01:21:04.120
 the bit wider lots with the less depth.

01:21:04.120 --> 01:21:05.120
 Gotcha.

01:21:05.120 --> 01:21:11.680
 And then the question I had earlier is, is King Road -- Kings Road a city road?

01:21:11.680 --> 01:21:12.840
 It is, yes, sir.

01:21:12.840 --> 01:21:19.000
 But if they were to -- the requirement to do a right turn on to Lute 28 would have to

01:21:19.000 --> 01:21:20.560
 have text-out approval?

01:21:20.560 --> 01:21:23.600
 Yes, they would have to go through the text-out approval process.

01:21:23.600 --> 01:21:24.600
 Okay.

01:21:24.600 --> 01:21:28.600
 So that's not for the increase of the 300 feet on Kings Road?

01:21:28.600 --> 01:21:32.840
 No, it would just be reviewed by city staff, yes, sir.

01:21:32.840 --> 01:21:33.840
 Okay.

01:21:33.840 --> 01:21:34.840
 Great.

01:21:34.840 --> 01:21:35.840
 That's all I have.

01:21:35.840 --> 01:21:36.840
 Commissioner Pruitt.

01:21:36.840 --> 01:21:37.840
 Sorry.

01:21:37.840 --> 01:21:40.480
 Just while we're on the road question, I wasn't clear.

01:21:40.480 --> 01:21:48.080
 The recommended roadway improvements along Kings Road, when it says that those raise it

01:21:48.080 --> 01:21:56.920
 to a level service E, is that in the 2029 projection, is that nearer term when everything

01:21:56.920 --> 01:21:57.920
 is built out?

01:21:57.920 --> 01:21:58.920
 How does that work out?

01:21:58.920 --> 01:22:05.800
 And as well, is it 2029 with just this development or 2029 with this and the other things in

01:22:05.800 --> 01:22:06.800
 process?

01:22:06.800 --> 01:22:10.200
 I believe that is the 2029.

01:22:10.200 --> 01:22:17.160
 Engineering may want to confirm or deny -- excuse me, but it's the 2029 with those background

01:22:17.160 --> 01:22:19.560
 conditions and the proposed development.

01:22:19.560 --> 01:22:20.560
 Okay.

01:22:20.560 --> 01:22:23.560
 Thank you.

01:22:23.560 --> 01:22:29.840
 With that, maybe it's best use of time if I could ask engineering some of these road

01:22:29.840 --> 01:22:30.840
 questions.

01:22:30.840 --> 01:22:31.840
 Sure.

01:22:31.840 --> 01:22:41.000
 It might help us going into the regular meeting.

01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:45.880
 There might be other questions for you, but can we start with just the understanding of

01:22:45.880 --> 01:22:52.520
 what assumptions are made in that 2029 projection of the level of services?

01:22:52.520 --> 01:22:58.880
 The site includes this development, also includes the Windsor Phase II and Phase III, and any

01:22:58.880 --> 01:23:02.480
 other vacant plants that's in the vicinity.

01:23:02.480 --> 01:23:07.520
 So they're considered a 3% growth rate to include future growth.

01:23:07.520 --> 01:23:12.840
 Can you help me understand the rationale as we are trying to limit the variables of the

01:23:12.840 --> 01:23:22.140
 discussion to this plat, why all conditions for the future are either included or not

01:23:22.140 --> 01:23:23.140
 included?

01:23:23.140 --> 01:23:28.440
 Because it seems like to me, as my conscious thinks through, it would be helpful to know

01:23:28.440 --> 01:23:34.840
 here's the impact of this development on what's going on, or if that's not the most helpful

01:23:34.840 --> 01:23:40.160
 way for traffic to think about it, is to think about here's the impact of this development,

01:23:40.160 --> 01:23:45.960
 the Windsor Phase, but also taking the conditions of increased mobility plan, text dot.

01:23:45.960 --> 01:23:52.040
 But it seems as though we chose to maybe do worst case scenario of like here, if everything

01:23:52.040 --> 01:23:57.000
 was ever built out and no upgrades to the roads were ever done, here's the situation.

01:23:57.000 --> 01:24:00.280
 In my understanding that what was presented tonight is the worst case scenario.

01:24:00.280 --> 01:24:01.280
 That's right.

01:24:01.280 --> 01:24:02.280
 Okay.

01:24:02.280 --> 01:24:08.520
 And Kingsrow is the only link to the subdivision and to the other residences, so we want to

01:24:08.520 --> 01:24:13.680
 see the worst case and the city does not have any CAB project for Kingsrow.

01:24:13.680 --> 01:24:19.400
 So is there anything that's been done, it's the impact mitigation from the developments.

01:24:19.400 --> 01:24:22.920
 The collector that runs north and south, Deerwood, I think it's Deerwood.

01:24:22.920 --> 01:24:23.920
 Yes.

01:24:23.920 --> 01:24:29.400
 In the next eight years of mobility, does that connect up to Agave, or what's the anticipation

01:24:29.400 --> 01:24:32.360
 for that road over the next eight years?

01:24:32.360 --> 01:24:38.240
 This development will build this new connection from Grand Parkway all the way to the ETJ,

01:24:38.240 --> 01:24:43.640
 and if any other development comes up to the north, they will eventually connect to Hartlefield

01:24:43.640 --> 01:24:44.640
 to the north.

01:24:44.640 --> 01:24:48.600
 So it connects to Hartlefield, which then could dump into 428?

01:24:48.600 --> 01:24:49.600
 Yes.

01:24:49.600 --> 01:24:55.280
 So long term, maybe past 2029, there would be multiple entrances into this development.

01:24:55.280 --> 01:24:56.760
 It wouldn't just be off Kingsrow.

01:24:56.760 --> 01:25:00.480
 You could come in from the north into the development.

01:25:00.480 --> 01:25:01.480
 That's right.

01:25:01.480 --> 01:25:02.480
 Okay.

01:25:02.480 --> 01:25:03.480
 That's all the questions I had.

01:25:03.480 --> 01:25:05.480
 Does anyone else have questions for engineer traffic?

01:25:05.480 --> 01:25:08.120
 I want to monopolize them.

01:25:08.120 --> 01:25:09.240
 Christopher, thank you.

01:25:09.240 --> 01:25:14.360
 I'm just curious now that you're up here, when we see those level of service gradations

01:25:14.360 --> 01:25:23.400
 for an intersection, is that, I guess the question would be, is the apparent delay from

01:25:23.400 --> 01:25:27.000
 all entrances of that intersection always the same, or is that an average of all of

01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:28.000
 them?

01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:29.160
 How does that work out?

01:25:29.160 --> 01:25:30.880
 It's for specific movements.

01:25:30.880 --> 01:25:36.200
 If the intersection is signalized, then it's one level of letter of grade, which is A to

01:25:36.200 --> 01:25:41.880
 F, and if it's unsignalized intersections, then we will grade it by the movement.

01:25:41.880 --> 01:25:42.880
 Okay.

01:25:42.880 --> 01:25:48.600
 So I guess what I'm asking is, for instance, in this case, the Loop 288 traffic flow, north

01:25:48.600 --> 01:25:53.440
 and south, and then you have Kingsrow traffic flow, east and west, and you have turns and

01:25:53.440 --> 01:25:54.800
 everything else as well.

01:25:54.800 --> 01:26:03.280
 But is that intersection delay the same for people on Loop 288 as it is for Kingsrow,

01:26:03.280 --> 01:26:04.280
 or is that different?

01:26:04.280 --> 01:26:10.180
 And if it's different, how does that determine what letter grade is assigned?

01:26:10.180 --> 01:26:11.960
 You can interpret it both ways.

01:26:11.960 --> 01:26:16.320
 One letter grade for the whole intersection, how it operates, and by movement as well.

01:26:16.320 --> 01:26:18.920
 I think what's projected is by movement.

01:26:18.920 --> 01:26:24.880
 So currently, its level of service is E during the morning, and I think if I remember correctly,

01:26:24.880 --> 01:26:29.720
 it's Cs and Ds in the evenings, PM peak hours.

01:26:29.720 --> 01:26:33.840
 And the rest of the peak hours could be Cs or better.

01:26:33.840 --> 01:26:34.840
 Sure.

01:26:34.840 --> 01:26:42.060
 So it's sort of a worst entrance point to that intersection is that level of service

01:26:42.060 --> 01:26:43.760
 letter grade.

01:26:43.760 --> 01:26:47.800
 Because it's a signalized intersection, and we cannot hold the main thoroughfare, which

01:26:47.800 --> 01:26:49.880
 is Loop 288, for longer.

01:26:49.880 --> 01:26:53.720
 So the delays will be passed on to the cross streets, which is Kingsrow in this case.

01:26:53.720 --> 01:26:54.720
 Okay.

01:26:54.720 --> 01:26:58.240
 So the amount of delay that you would expect on the main thoroughfare would be less than

01:26:58.240 --> 01:27:04.720
 the amount on the Kingsrow, and the Kingsrow delay is really the one that's more representative

01:27:04.720 --> 01:27:06.520
 of that level of service letter grade.

01:27:06.520 --> 01:27:07.520
 Okay.

01:27:07.520 --> 01:27:08.520
 Thank you.

01:27:08.520 --> 01:27:14.440
 Last question I have is understanding the mechanisms of petitioning to TxDOT for road

01:27:14.440 --> 01:27:15.440
 improvements.

01:27:15.440 --> 01:27:22.360
 Is that done in a future forecast methodology, or does TxDOT require the data to be processed

01:27:22.360 --> 01:27:29.000
 and see any backups before, and this is just your interaction with TxDOT, because I'm thinking

01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:38.240
 about if a development goes in by riot or PD, and it does just overwhelm that intersection,

01:27:38.240 --> 01:27:43.360
 is there any way to forecast that, or does TxDOT require data to start actually helping

01:27:43.360 --> 01:27:45.760
 our city out with their roads?

01:27:45.760 --> 01:27:52.960
 TxDOT does their own modelings, and they would consider a regional-level forecast.

01:27:52.960 --> 01:28:01.680
 We consider more city-level, development-by-development level, and this impact is not considering

01:28:01.680 --> 01:28:03.920
 the future TxDOT frontage roads.

01:28:03.920 --> 01:28:09.120
 When TxDOT builds those frontage roads, or widen to 288, those conditions will dramatically

01:28:09.120 --> 01:28:11.120
 improve.

01:28:11.120 --> 01:28:12.120
 I agree with that.

01:28:12.120 --> 01:28:17.440
 What I'm more curious is, would the city look at an incoming project and go to TxDOT and

01:28:17.440 --> 01:28:20.320
 say, "We have 380 units.

01:28:20.320 --> 01:28:21.440
 This is our TIA study.

01:28:21.440 --> 01:28:28.480
 We need help," or is it the case that we have to put the lines on the road, count the cars,

01:28:28.480 --> 01:28:29.800
 and then petition TxDOT?

01:28:29.800 --> 01:28:31.320
 How does TxDOT operate?

01:28:31.320 --> 01:28:35.560
 Will they accept forecasts and models when we approve developments for their improvements?

01:28:35.560 --> 01:28:36.560
 Yes.

01:28:36.560 --> 01:28:41.560
 We have ongoing discussions with TxDOT on a month-to-month basis, and we brought up these

01:28:41.560 --> 01:28:47.800
 issues with them and made them aware of those delays and those intersections.

01:28:47.800 --> 01:28:52.640
 They have their own plan to widen it.

01:28:52.640 --> 01:28:57.840
 In fact, we are meeting with them tomorrow, I believe, so we are planning to bring up

01:28:57.840 --> 01:28:58.840
 those issues.

01:28:58.840 --> 01:29:04.360
 There is change in TxDOT as well right now, and they are more open to permit those access

01:29:04.360 --> 01:29:10.760
 connections which were not available before under a different engineering rule.

01:29:10.760 --> 01:29:16.200
 Do you have any indication of a timeline of actual construction?

01:29:16.200 --> 01:29:18.800
 Not at this time, but it has legs.

01:29:18.800 --> 01:29:24.840
 Before it was all lines, but they have plans going forward which they specifically told

01:29:24.840 --> 01:29:28.920
 us not to disclose since it's not officially public yet.

01:29:28.920 --> 01:29:29.920
 Understood.

01:29:29.920 --> 01:29:36.320
 I just imagine a start farm, agave ranch, whatever is happening at Windsor, this potential

01:29:36.320 --> 01:29:42.800
 project, the King's Road to 428 connection seems to be bolstered.

01:29:42.800 --> 01:29:46.800
 I know that the 428 is trying to get a signal.

01:29:46.800 --> 01:29:51.080
 There's a lot of things happening, and I'm glad to hear that the conversation with TxDOT

01:29:51.080 --> 01:29:54.760
 is happening because 428 is only getting more congested.

01:29:54.760 --> 01:29:55.760
 Yes.

01:29:55.760 --> 01:29:56.760
 I appreciate that insight.

01:29:56.760 --> 01:29:57.760
 Any other questions?

01:29:57.760 --> 01:29:58.760
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:29:58.760 --> 01:29:59.940
 Thank you, Chair.

01:29:59.940 --> 01:30:04.880
 With regard to Ferris Road, especially as it pertains to this development, because you

01:30:04.880 --> 01:30:09.520
 certainly can come from Hartley Field down Ferris and dead ends into King's Row, what

01:30:09.520 --> 01:30:11.400
 is the future plan of Ferris?

01:30:11.400 --> 01:30:17.600
 There's another development that's Windsor Oaks Phase 2 and Phase 3.

01:30:17.600 --> 01:30:23.800
 Even that development, it is under review with our traffic impact studies, and we have

01:30:23.800 --> 01:30:28.840
 asked them to widen the Ferris Road as well.

01:30:28.840 --> 01:30:30.920
 Right now we don't have a future plan for Ferris?

01:30:30.920 --> 01:30:32.880
 It's not in our mobility plan.

01:30:32.880 --> 01:30:33.880
 It's not?

01:30:33.880 --> 01:30:35.920
 It's a developer-driven improvement.

01:30:35.920 --> 01:30:36.920
 Okay.

01:30:36.920 --> 01:30:37.920
 Thank you.

01:30:37.920 --> 01:30:39.840
 And is Ferris Road a city road?

01:30:39.840 --> 01:30:41.840
 Do we have jurisdiction over that?

01:30:41.840 --> 01:30:42.840
 That's right.

01:30:42.840 --> 01:30:46.360
 To Silverdome, it's a city road.

01:30:46.360 --> 01:30:47.360
 Okay.

01:30:47.360 --> 01:30:49.560
 Past that, it's a county?

01:30:49.560 --> 01:30:50.560
 That's correct.

01:30:50.560 --> 01:30:51.560
 Okay.

01:30:51.560 --> 01:30:52.560
 Right.

01:30:52.560 --> 01:30:55.000
 It's not all a city road.

01:30:55.000 --> 01:30:56.000
 Gotcha.

01:30:56.000 --> 01:30:57.000
 I appreciate that.

01:30:57.000 --> 01:30:58.000
 Any other questions?

01:30:58.000 --> 01:30:59.000
 Yep.

01:30:59.000 --> 01:31:00.000
 Commissioner Pruitt.

01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:07.600
 Actually, this may be more of a planning question to Julie.

01:31:07.600 --> 01:31:13.160
 When you showed the future land use map and you pointed out that, you know, around those

01:31:13.160 --> 01:31:21.320
 nodes of cross-street intersections, that's kind of where some more intense uses were

01:31:21.320 --> 01:31:22.320
 envisioned.

01:31:22.320 --> 01:31:30.560
 I'm trying to remember, can you remind me what the state of Windsor is on the mobility

01:31:30.560 --> 01:31:35.500
 plan, if that is planned to cross Loop 288 in the future or not?

01:31:35.500 --> 01:31:42.720
 And I'm trying to understand whether the Windsor plan has changed and if it has, whether that

01:31:42.720 --> 01:31:48.800
 impacts what we envision in the future land use of that area.

01:31:48.800 --> 01:31:51.720
 This might be a joint engineering and planning question.

01:31:51.720 --> 01:31:54.280
 I'm not sure about the plans for Windsor.

01:31:54.280 --> 01:32:00.440
 I know we are looking at updating our mobility plan now, so Becky and Chandra might be able

01:32:00.440 --> 01:32:01.840
 to answer that.

01:32:01.840 --> 01:32:07.880
 But if there were changes to that roadway and maybe its connectivity, then it could

01:32:07.880 --> 01:32:12.840
 potentially change the future land use and kind of the vision for the area and what kind

01:32:12.840 --> 01:32:15.160
 of development we would anticipate.

01:32:15.160 --> 01:32:23.040
 So I think they go hand in hand, and y'all might want to.

01:32:23.040 --> 01:32:27.000
 Windsor currently on the mobility plan for the existing mobility plan and the proposed

01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:28.840
 shows it both as a collector.

01:32:28.840 --> 01:32:32.280
 There are some improvements that are going to be made to Windsor, but they're further

01:32:32.280 --> 01:32:37.280
 to the west of this area at the intersection of 35 and Windsor, and those are improvements

01:32:37.280 --> 01:32:41.840
 that are going to be made as part of the TxDOT 35 widening with an overpass in that area.

01:32:41.840 --> 01:32:48.000
 Okay, so there's no plans to have Windsor cross to the east of Loop 288.

01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:50.200
 I am not aware of any plans at this time.

01:32:50.200 --> 01:32:54.000
 Okay, thank you.

01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:55.680
 Any other questions for staff?

01:32:55.680 --> 01:32:58.840
 Okay, I'm seeing none.

01:32:58.840 --> 01:32:59.840
 Thanks Julian.

01:32:59.840 --> 01:33:00.840
 Everyone?

01:33:00.840 --> 01:33:04.080
 The next item of business is our final one for the work session.

01:33:04.080 --> 01:33:19.720
 This item 5DZ21-0005 is Cameron's project.

01:33:19.720 --> 01:33:49.520
 We're calling

01:33:49.520 --> 01:34:16.000
 Cameron back up.

01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:17.000
 You'll have to forgive us.

01:34:17.000 --> 01:34:19.920
 The revised format is really messing with staff.

01:34:19.920 --> 01:34:20.920
 No worries.

01:34:20.920 --> 01:34:29.440
 And you'll see she called the person that also messed up pulling her presentation, so

01:34:29.440 --> 01:34:36.640
 we might need to have Julie come help us, because it does a little wonky thing here.

01:34:36.640 --> 01:34:47.760
 Hey Julie, can you exit minimize video?

01:34:47.760 --> 01:34:52.920
 Okay, there we go.

01:34:52.920 --> 01:34:53.920
 I got you.

01:34:53.920 --> 01:34:54.920
 Right there.

01:34:54.920 --> 01:34:55.920
 We did it.

01:34:55.920 --> 01:34:56.920
 We did it.

01:34:56.920 --> 01:34:57.920
 Teamwork.

01:34:57.920 --> 01:34:58.920
 Yay.

01:34:58.920 --> 01:34:59.920
 Thanks Julie.

01:34:59.920 --> 01:35:00.920
 Okay.

01:35:00.920 --> 01:35:03.920
 So let me start.

01:35:03.920 --> 01:35:04.920
 Okay.

01:35:04.920 --> 01:35:07.760
 So good evening chair and commissioners.

01:35:07.760 --> 01:35:12.120
 I'm going to be presenting on Z21-005.

01:35:12.120 --> 01:35:18.120
 So this is a rezoning for .326 acres from mixed use neighborhood and residential four

01:35:18.120 --> 01:35:20.840
 districts to an R6 district.

01:35:20.840 --> 01:35:25.800
 So this is located at southeast of the intersection of Skinner and Robertson Street.

01:35:25.800 --> 01:35:28.760
 So this subject property is currently vacant.

01:35:28.760 --> 01:35:32.520
 Based off historic aerials, it appears that it has been vacant since 1984.

01:35:32.520 --> 01:35:40.800
 It is approximately .1 acres of MN district and .23 acres of R4 district and it is surrounded

01:35:40.800 --> 01:35:45.160
 by MN, R4, R3 and PF districts.

01:35:45.160 --> 01:35:50.360
 So this is just kind of a quick overview of the zoning of the area over time.

01:35:50.360 --> 01:35:55.560
 So they, like I said, they are proposing a zoning of R6, which would allow for single

01:35:55.560 --> 01:36:00.520
 family all the way to fourplexes on the property.

01:36:00.520 --> 01:36:03.280
 So this is just the general approval criteria.

01:36:03.280 --> 01:36:08.880
 I'm just going to be covering specifically what's bolded, so .3 and 8.

01:36:08.880 --> 01:36:13.480
 And then the zoning criteria for approval, I'll be covering once again just the bolded,

01:36:13.480 --> 01:36:17.560
 which is 1, 5 and 6.

01:36:17.560 --> 01:36:22.940
 So first, the site is designated low residential for the Denton Plan 2030.

01:36:22.940 --> 01:36:28.280
 So this is intended for new development up to four dwelling units per acre and it's organized

01:36:28.280 --> 01:36:33.440
 to promote walkability, access to parks, open space and recreation amenities.

01:36:33.440 --> 01:36:37.760
 So the R6 is consistent with the future land use.

01:36:37.760 --> 01:36:43.200
 It permits a variety of lower intensity housing types available to the community at scale

01:36:43.200 --> 01:36:48.080
 and form typically found in the residential area and it's also within walking distance

01:36:48.080 --> 01:36:54.000
 of parks and school facilities such as the Fredmore Park as well as Fredmore High School.

01:36:54.000 --> 01:36:58.200
 Also as you can see from the map, it does serve as a transition between the low residential

01:36:58.200 --> 01:37:03.720
 area to the south as well as the downtown compatibility area that's just to the north.

01:37:03.720 --> 01:37:08.800
 And it does meet our overall goal to promote compact development pattern through infill

01:37:08.800 --> 01:37:11.000
 development.

01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:16.040
 So R6 is consistent with the surrounding zoning and development pattern.

01:37:16.040 --> 01:37:18.560
 It doesn't introduce any new uses.

01:37:18.560 --> 01:37:23.080
 Currently along Robertson Street, there are a mix of residential, a restaurant and religious

01:37:23.080 --> 01:37:25.360
 assembly uses.

01:37:25.360 --> 01:37:29.680
 And as I stated previously, the infill development would provide a variety of housing options

01:37:29.680 --> 01:37:33.960
 that are complementary in scale and character as well as serve as that transition once again

01:37:33.960 --> 01:37:38.040
 between the single family as well as the downtown area.

01:37:38.040 --> 01:37:43.220
 And currently as you see highlighted in blue, there are three duplexes and two fourplexes

01:37:43.220 --> 01:37:48.840
 currently located within 650 feet of this subject property that would be potentially

01:37:48.840 --> 01:37:56.000
 rezoned so that wouldn't be introducing any type of scale or character of residential

01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:58.680
 properties that are already in place.

01:37:58.680 --> 01:38:03.240
 So there is no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the south except along

01:38:03.240 --> 01:38:08.720
 Robertson Street and development would require conformance with current site design standards

01:38:08.720 --> 01:38:11.440
 including screening and landscaping.

01:38:11.440 --> 01:38:16.840
 So just touching on some of the public facilities and services available to the property, it

01:38:16.840 --> 01:38:21.360
 would generate 30 vehicle trips per day with two total morning peak hour trips and four

01:38:21.360 --> 01:38:22.880
 evening.

01:38:22.880 --> 01:38:30.000
 The schools, it would only generate one elementary student and it is located within 0.4 miles

01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:31.880
 from Fredmore Park.

01:38:31.880 --> 01:38:36.800
 So this meets the goal of parks department goal of 10 minute walk to a park.

01:38:36.800 --> 01:38:42.600
 It is currently serviced by public water and wastewater services are available.

01:38:42.600 --> 01:38:47.440
 And then the nearest fire station is within 0.6 miles or that eight minute or less response

01:38:47.440 --> 01:38:49.960
 time boundary.

01:38:49.960 --> 01:38:57.800
 So there was one neighbor or property owner in favor at 521 Robertson Street, there was

01:38:57.800 --> 01:39:04.560
 none in opposition and staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning.

01:39:04.560 --> 01:39:05.560
 Commissioner Smith.

01:39:05.560 --> 01:39:06.560
 Thank you Chair.

01:39:06.560 --> 01:39:10.560
 Karen, so it's gonna be one duplex, correct?

01:39:10.560 --> 01:39:16.440
 It would be, well yeah, so their conceptual plan right now would be a fourplex currently,

01:39:16.440 --> 01:39:23.840
 so it would be four units total which meets with 0.36 acres and got it, got it, got it,

01:39:23.840 --> 01:39:24.840
 got it.

01:39:24.840 --> 01:39:28.160
 Okay, that's all the questions I have for staff, but I do maybe want to throw out there

01:39:28.160 --> 01:39:31.480
 just for, is the applicant gonna be here tonight in person?

01:39:31.480 --> 01:39:34.280
 The applicant should be actually on the phone.

01:39:34.280 --> 01:39:44.320
 Okay, can we, I mean just for, this seems pretty simple, can we possibly move D to being

01:39:44.320 --> 01:39:47.400
 above B and C just to get them on the phones, I have to sit there and wait.

01:39:47.400 --> 01:39:52.000
 Yeah we can make, we can change the agenda.

01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:55.240
 Any other questions for staff, Commissioner Pruitt?

01:39:55.240 --> 01:40:00.240
 Yeah just, I noticed in the backup that part of the reason why there's no vehicular access

01:40:00.240 --> 01:40:04.400
 to Y Street on the south is because that's actually a dart easement, or?

01:40:04.400 --> 01:40:05.400
 Yes, that is correct.

01:40:05.400 --> 01:40:06.400
 Is that right?

01:40:06.400 --> 01:40:07.400
 Or not easement, but right-of-way?

01:40:07.400 --> 01:40:08.400
 Yes.

01:40:08.400 --> 01:40:13.640
 I'm guessing that is sort of an old historical right-of-way that used to be a turnaround

01:40:13.640 --> 01:40:22.520
 train between what's now the A train and what's the freight train that goes through downtown.

01:40:22.520 --> 01:40:31.080
 I guess I'm wondering, you know, it would be interesting to see what happened in this

01:40:31.080 --> 01:40:38.280
 area and what additional possibilities were opened up if that wasn't there, so that we

01:40:38.280 --> 01:40:40.000
 had some more options, right?

01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:43.880
 I don't think it necessarily impacts this particular development, but there's a lot

01:40:43.880 --> 01:40:50.800
 of other possibilities in the area, so just a comment.

01:40:50.800 --> 01:40:53.920
 Any other questions for staff?

01:40:53.920 --> 01:40:59.840
 Okay, seeing none, that concludes our working agenda for this work session.

01:40:59.840 --> 01:41:13.240
 I will close the meeting at 5.43, we'll reconvene here at 6.30, thank you.

01:41:13.240 --> 01:41:17.520
 Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting

01:41:17.520 --> 01:41:21.560
 for Wednesday, June 23rd, 2020.

01:41:21.560 --> 01:41:26.520
 Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call this meeting to order at 6.31 and please let the

01:41:26.520 --> 01:41:30.800
 record show that Commissioner Anderson is not present this evening.

01:41:30.800 --> 01:41:35.400
 The first item of business is to stand and provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S.

01:41:35.400 --> 01:41:39.720
 and Texas flag.

01:41:39.720 --> 01:41:47.880
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

01:41:47.880 --> 01:41:56.120
 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:41:56.120 --> 01:42:14.160
 The next item of business is to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes

01:42:14.160 --> 01:42:19.200
 from June 9th, Commissioner Smith?

01:42:19.200 --> 01:42:21.080
 We have a first for approval, Commissioner Ellis?

01:42:21.080 --> 01:42:22.080
 Second.

01:42:22.080 --> 01:42:24.080
 We have a first and a second.

01:42:24.080 --> 01:42:28.680
 Since our screens are still not live for votes, we'll do votes by roll call this evening,

01:42:28.680 --> 01:42:30.720
 starting with Commissioner Pruitt?

01:42:30.720 --> 01:42:31.720
 Aye.

01:42:31.720 --> 01:42:32.720
 Commissioner Smith?

01:42:32.720 --> 01:42:33.720
 Aye.

01:42:33.720 --> 01:42:34.720
 Commissioner McDade?

01:42:34.720 --> 01:42:35.720
 Aye.

01:42:35.720 --> 01:42:36.720
 Chairs, an aye.

01:42:36.720 --> 01:42:37.720
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:42:37.720 --> 01:42:38.720
 Aye.

01:42:38.720 --> 01:42:39.720
 Commissioner Cole?

01:42:39.720 --> 01:42:40.720
 Aye.

01:42:40.720 --> 01:42:42.520
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:42:42.520 --> 01:42:45.240
 Next item of business is our Consent Agenda.

01:42:45.240 --> 01:42:47.320
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:42:47.320 --> 01:42:49.800
 I move approval.

01:42:49.800 --> 01:42:52.400
 We have a first for approval, Commissioner Cole?

01:42:52.400 --> 01:42:53.400
 Second.

01:42:53.400 --> 01:42:55.120
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:42:55.120 --> 01:42:56.120
 Any discussion?

01:42:56.120 --> 01:43:01.360
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote to be a roll call, Commissioner Pruitt?

01:43:01.360 --> 01:43:02.360
 Aye.

01:43:02.360 --> 01:43:03.360
 Commissioner Smith?

01:43:03.360 --> 01:43:04.360
 Aye.

01:43:04.360 --> 01:43:05.360
 Commissioner McDade?

01:43:05.360 --> 01:43:06.360
 Aye.

01:43:06.360 --> 01:43:07.360
 Chairs, an aye.

01:43:07.360 --> 01:43:08.360
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:43:08.360 --> 01:43:09.360
 Aye.

01:43:09.360 --> 01:43:10.360
 Commissioner Cole?

01:43:10.360 --> 01:43:11.360
 Aye.

01:43:11.360 --> 01:43:12.360
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:43:12.360 --> 01:43:19.480
 Next item of business is our Items for Individual Consideration, starting with Item 4A, PP20-0010A,

01:43:19.480 --> 01:43:46.640
 and I will invite Haley, are you going to provide the overview?

01:43:46.640 --> 01:43:47.640
 Good evening.

01:43:47.640 --> 01:43:51.360
 This is a preliminary plat for the Windsor-Oaks Phase 2 addition.

01:43:51.360 --> 01:43:55.520
 This is a single-family residential subdivision being developed in accordance with the R-4

01:43:55.520 --> 01:43:56.520
 District.

01:43:56.520 --> 01:44:02.120
 At the last meeting, they did receive a request and receive an extension for this preliminary

01:44:02.120 --> 01:44:03.120
 plat.

01:44:03.120 --> 01:44:08.480
 Since that time, the applicant has been unable to fulfill all the requirements that were

01:44:08.480 --> 01:44:11.900
 outlined in their recommendation for denial initially, so staff continues to recommend

01:44:11.900 --> 01:44:13.840
 denial of this request.

01:44:13.840 --> 01:44:17.880
 At this time, those reasons are outlined in your backup and I am happy to answer any questions.

01:44:17.880 --> 01:44:22.240
 Is there any questions for staff?

01:44:22.240 --> 01:44:27.240
 And this evening, since we are on Zoom and there are comment calls and individuals calling

01:44:27.240 --> 01:44:31.060
 in through Zoom, I'll ask Stuart Birdseye to help me out with identifying individuals

01:44:31.060 --> 01:44:34.080
 who have filled out a comment card and read those in for the record.

01:44:34.080 --> 01:44:35.760
 Stuart, is there any for this item?

01:44:35.760 --> 01:44:37.560
 Thank you, Chair.

01:44:37.560 --> 01:44:42.520
 For this item, we had 27 people make comments using our online form.

01:44:42.520 --> 01:44:45.440
 All 27 of them were against this item.

01:44:45.440 --> 01:44:49.960
 These comment forms were emailed to the commissioners and will be included in the record.

01:44:49.960 --> 01:44:50.960
 Thank you.

01:44:50.960 --> 01:44:52.920
 Thanks, Stuart.

01:44:52.920 --> 01:44:55.240
 Is there any discussion on this item?

01:44:55.240 --> 01:44:56.240
 Commissioner Smith?

01:44:56.240 --> 01:44:57.240
 Make a motion to deny.

01:44:57.240 --> 01:44:58.240
 Okay.

01:44:58.240 --> 01:44:59.240
 We have a first for denial.

01:44:59.240 --> 01:45:00.240
 Commissioner Cole?

01:45:00.240 --> 01:45:01.240
 Second.

01:45:01.240 --> 01:45:02.760
 We have a first and a second for denial.

01:45:02.760 --> 01:45:03.760
 Any discussion?

01:45:03.760 --> 01:45:08.680
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote to be a roll call.

01:45:08.680 --> 01:45:12.840
 Just for clarification, a vote of yes is to affirm the deny.

01:45:12.840 --> 01:45:17.360
 Sometimes it can get confusing on the negative, but we'll start with Commissioner Pruitt.

01:45:17.360 --> 01:45:18.360
 Commissioner Smith?

01:45:18.360 --> 01:45:19.360
 Aye.

01:45:19.360 --> 01:45:20.360
 Commissioner McDade?

01:45:20.360 --> 01:45:21.360
 Aye.

01:45:21.360 --> 01:45:22.360
 Chair is an aye.

01:45:22.360 --> 01:45:23.360
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:45:23.360 --> 01:45:24.360
 Aye.

01:45:24.360 --> 01:45:25.360
 Commissioner Cole?

01:45:25.360 --> 01:45:26.360
 Aye.

01:45:26.360 --> 01:45:27.360
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:45:27.360 --> 01:45:32.520
 Next item of business is item 4B, PP21-0011.

01:45:32.520 --> 01:45:35.880
 And I'll invite Carina Maldonado for presentation.

01:45:35.880 --> 01:45:43.120
 The item before you today is for a preliminary plaque for the Habitat Village.

01:45:43.120 --> 01:45:46.200
 This is PP21-0011.

01:45:46.200 --> 01:45:52.160
 This is for an 8-acre site between Hill Street and Duncan Street.

01:45:52.160 --> 01:45:58.960
 They are proposing 35 residential units with one HOA common lot for detention.

01:45:58.960 --> 01:46:03.120
 Staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not meet the established requirements

01:46:03.120 --> 01:46:04.920
 as outlined in your backup.

01:46:04.920 --> 01:46:10.320
 However, the applicant has requested a one-time 30-day extension to a date certain of July

01:46:10.320 --> 01:46:14.080
 14, 2021, and staff does not have opposition to this request.

01:46:14.080 --> 01:46:16.400
 I'd like to take any questions.

01:46:16.400 --> 01:46:19.480
 Any questions for this item?

01:46:19.480 --> 01:46:21.880
 Great.

01:46:21.880 --> 01:46:28.240
 And I will ask Stuart if there's any comments for this item.

01:46:28.240 --> 01:46:29.240
 No chair.

01:46:29.240 --> 01:46:31.200
 There are no comments for this item.

01:46:31.200 --> 01:46:32.200
 Perfect.

01:46:32.200 --> 01:46:33.200
 Commissioner Smith?

01:46:33.200 --> 01:46:37.520
 I make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of July 14, 2021.

01:46:37.520 --> 01:46:39.720
 We have a first.

01:46:39.720 --> 01:46:40.720
 Commissioner Cole?

01:46:40.720 --> 01:46:41.720
 Second.

01:46:41.720 --> 01:46:46.920
 We have a first and a second to deny this to a date certain of July 14, which is the

01:46:46.920 --> 01:46:47.920
 30-day extension.

01:46:47.920 --> 01:46:50.920
 Any discussion?

01:46:50.920 --> 01:46:51.920
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote.

01:46:51.920 --> 01:46:52.920
 Be a roll call.

01:46:52.920 --> 01:46:53.920
 Commissioner approval?

01:46:53.920 --> 01:46:54.920
 Aye.

01:46:54.920 --> 01:46:55.920
 Commissioner Smith?

01:46:55.920 --> 01:46:56.920
 Aye.

01:46:56.920 --> 01:46:57.920
 Commissioner McDade?

01:46:57.920 --> 01:46:58.920
 Aye.

01:46:58.920 --> 01:46:59.920
 Chair is an aye.

01:46:59.920 --> 01:47:00.920
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:47:00.920 --> 01:47:01.920
 Aye.

01:47:01.920 --> 01:47:02.920
 Commissioner Cole?

01:47:02.920 --> 01:47:03.920
 Aye.

01:47:03.920 --> 01:47:13.760
 Next item of business is item 4CFR21-0006 and Haley will provide an overview.

01:47:13.760 --> 01:47:17.040
 All right.

01:47:17.040 --> 01:47:21.800
 This is a final replant for a phase of the Eagle Creek addition.

01:47:21.800 --> 01:47:26.040
 The overall subdivision is what you see in the inset map there with the various colors

01:47:26.040 --> 01:47:27.800
 showing the phases.

01:47:27.800 --> 01:47:31.280
 Phase four contains 216 residential lots.

01:47:31.280 --> 01:47:34.960
 At this time, staff is recommending denial due to some deficiencies related to their

01:47:34.960 --> 01:47:39.680
 homeowners association documents and gas well notifications required with the plat.

01:47:39.680 --> 01:47:45.160
 However, the applicant has requested an extension and staff has no opposition to that request.

01:47:45.160 --> 01:47:46.360
 Happy to answer any questions.

01:47:46.360 --> 01:47:47.360
 Thanks, Haley.

01:47:47.360 --> 01:47:48.360
 Any questions for staff?

01:47:48.360 --> 01:47:49.360
 Okay.

01:47:49.360 --> 01:47:52.360
 And there's no comments on this item.

01:47:52.360 --> 01:47:56.720
 Is there any discussion?

01:47:56.720 --> 01:47:59.080
 Chair will entertain a motion if there is one.

01:47:59.080 --> 01:48:00.080
 Commissioner Smith?

01:48:00.080 --> 01:48:01.080
 Aye.

01:48:01.080 --> 01:48:04.800
 Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain to July 14th, 2021.

01:48:04.800 --> 01:48:06.400
 We have a first.

01:48:06.400 --> 01:48:07.400
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:48:07.400 --> 01:48:08.400
 Second.

01:48:08.400 --> 01:48:13.960
 We have a first and a second to deny this item and provide a 30 day extension to date

01:48:13.960 --> 01:48:16.480
 certain of July 14th, 2021.

01:48:16.480 --> 01:48:19.160
 We'll vote via roll call.

01:48:19.160 --> 01:48:20.160
 Commissioner Pruitt?

01:48:20.160 --> 01:48:21.160
 Aye.

01:48:21.160 --> 01:48:22.160
 Commissioner Smith?

01:48:22.160 --> 01:48:23.160
 Aye.

01:48:23.160 --> 01:48:24.160
 Commissioner McDade?

01:48:24.160 --> 01:48:25.160
 Aye.

01:48:25.160 --> 01:48:26.160
 Chair is an aye.

01:48:26.160 --> 01:48:27.160
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:48:27.160 --> 01:48:28.160
 Aye.

01:48:28.160 --> 01:48:29.160
 Commissioner Cole?

01:48:29.160 --> 01:48:30.160
 Aye.

01:48:30.160 --> 01:48:44.920
 Next item of business is item 4D, ZCP 21-0012 and I'll invite Karina back for presentation.

01:48:44.920 --> 01:48:45.920
 All right.

01:48:45.920 --> 01:48:46.920
 Good evening.

01:48:46.920 --> 01:48:53.720
 The request today is for a zoning compliance plan, ZCP 21-0012, for the Razor Medical Office

01:48:53.720 --> 01:48:56.040
 Building phase two.

01:48:56.040 --> 01:49:01.700
 So the request today is to consider approval of a site plan for medical office development

01:49:01.700 --> 01:49:11.080
 on an approximately 3.784 acre site located on the northeast corner of I-35 and Scripture.

01:49:11.080 --> 01:49:15.720
 This request is coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission as it's located in the

01:49:15.720 --> 01:49:17.760
 Razor Ranch Overlay District.

01:49:17.760 --> 01:49:23.200
 So it's treated a little bit different than our normal zoning compliance plan process,

01:49:23.200 --> 01:49:25.480
 which is administratively approved.

01:49:25.480 --> 01:49:29.460
 The ordinance indicates that it does have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission

01:49:29.460 --> 01:49:31.400
 for approval.

01:49:31.400 --> 01:49:34.200
 So that's why this item is here today.

01:49:34.200 --> 01:49:37.680
 The site recently had a recent textile acquisition.

01:49:37.680 --> 01:49:42.240
 So it was previously a little bit larger, about four acres.

01:49:42.240 --> 01:49:50.040
 So that textile acquisition for the frontage road expansion did reduce the site.

01:49:50.040 --> 01:49:55.640
 So as I mentioned before, the subject site is located in the Razor Ranch Overlay District

01:49:55.640 --> 01:49:58.560
 within the South Mixed Use District sub-area.

01:49:58.560 --> 01:50:04.480
 It does have a base zoning of RCCD, that is the Regional Center Commercial Downtown.

01:50:04.480 --> 01:50:10.720
 That base zoning is based on the 2002 DDC, which all the Razor Ranch Overlay District

01:50:10.720 --> 01:50:17.480
 does defer back to when the deviations in the ordinance don't speak to it.

01:50:17.480 --> 01:50:23.760
 So the proposed use for this site is medical office, and it is permitted in this area.

01:50:23.760 --> 01:50:28.960
 So as I mentioned, the Razor Ranch site plans do need P&Z approval.

01:50:28.960 --> 01:50:34.160
 It is subject to Ordinance 2011-225.

01:50:34.160 --> 01:50:40.040
 Within that ordinance, this site needs to comply with Exhibit C-2A and Exhibit D-2A

01:50:40.040 --> 01:50:43.840
 that was adopted specifically for this site.

01:50:43.840 --> 01:50:48.320
 The elements in the site plan that are being brought forth today include the site plan,

01:50:48.320 --> 01:50:53.560
 a landscape plan, as well as four-sided building elevations.

01:50:53.560 --> 01:50:58.360
 The criteria for approval for this site is shown below.

01:50:58.360 --> 01:51:02.440
 There are four criteria, the first being that the site plan substantially complies with

01:51:02.440 --> 01:51:05.760
 the concept and schematic plan approved by City Council.

01:51:05.760 --> 01:51:10.580
 That the site plan complies or provides compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that

01:51:10.580 --> 01:51:16.280
 would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties, third, that the site plan provides

01:51:16.280 --> 01:51:20.900
 for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and last, that the plan complies

01:51:20.900 --> 01:51:25.200
 with all other sections of the overlay district.

01:51:25.200 --> 01:51:28.040
 So first I'll show the site plan for this area.

01:51:28.040 --> 01:51:32.320
 It does look a little bit strange because it does show several phases, so I wanted to

01:51:32.320 --> 01:51:36.240
 go over these phases just briefly with you.

01:51:36.240 --> 01:51:42.800
 So as you can see on the southern part of the site, PNC previously approved phase one

01:51:42.800 --> 01:51:45.040
 for medical office use.

01:51:45.040 --> 01:51:50.640
 That approved plan consists of a two-story medical office building on what is shown as

01:51:50.640 --> 01:51:55.080
 Lot 1R, it's 22,000 square feet.

01:51:55.080 --> 01:52:00.300
 Approved with that site plan was 110 parking spaces, as well as a patio area that included

01:52:00.300 --> 01:52:02.280
 some open space.

01:52:02.280 --> 01:52:09.120
 The phase two proposes to amend a portion of phase one, and that overlap is shown here

01:52:09.120 --> 01:52:16.160
 in this blue box, as well as propose an additional 15,000 square feet of medical office on Lot

01:52:16.160 --> 01:52:22.500
 2, and that is shown here in this red outline portion on the northern portion of the site.

01:52:22.500 --> 01:52:28.680
 So in addition to the medical office use of 15,000 square feet, along with that is 84

01:52:28.680 --> 01:52:30.240
 parking spaces.

01:52:30.240 --> 01:52:36.760
 The site does have two driveways on the north side, showing access to Panhandle Drive, as

01:52:36.760 --> 01:52:44.040
 well as cross access to the southern lot that provides a driveway on the south side at Scripture.

01:52:44.040 --> 01:52:49.600
 Overall, the proposed development shows 61% lot coverage.

01:52:49.600 --> 01:52:55.160
 That is significantly less than what is required within this zoning district of RCCD, which

01:52:55.160 --> 01:52:56.160
 is 90%.

01:52:56.160 --> 01:53:03.600
 And I do want to point out that lot coverage is based on the 2002 DDC, whereas all future

01:53:03.600 --> 01:53:09.960
 or existing and current site plans that are approved administratively go through the 2019

01:53:09.960 --> 01:53:16.440
 code, and that is looked at for building coverage rather than lot coverage.

01:53:16.440 --> 01:53:21.860
 So also shown on the site plan is a future site, future phase three.

01:53:21.860 --> 01:53:24.760
 So that is not being included with the site plan today.

01:53:24.760 --> 01:53:30.520
 However, it is shown on here to show that the applicant intends to submit a future site

01:53:30.520 --> 01:53:34.680
 plan for that area.

01:53:34.680 --> 01:53:37.400
 The landscape plan is provided on the screen.

01:53:37.400 --> 01:53:42.080
 It does show that it meets street tree requirements that are required for this site.

01:53:42.080 --> 01:53:45.160
 They are shown along Panhandle.

01:53:45.160 --> 01:53:52.140
 The applicant has requested alternative street tree locations due to the utility easements

01:53:52.140 --> 01:53:58.240
 that are shown encumbering the site, and those can be seen in the boxed areas in orange.

01:53:58.240 --> 01:54:04.700
 So these are a combination of drainage easements, public utility easements, several underground

01:54:04.700 --> 01:54:08.320
 electric lines that would prevent them from planting street trees.

01:54:08.320 --> 01:54:11.840
 However, they can plant shrubs in these areas.

01:54:11.840 --> 01:54:17.340
 Additionally, they do meet the parking lot landscape requirements for the site.

01:54:17.340 --> 01:54:22.200
 They are also proposing alternative locations for some of the parking lot landscaping due

01:54:22.200 --> 01:54:30.000
 to the limitations or encumbrances that I previously mentioned.

01:54:30.000 --> 01:54:35.040
 As was mentioned, they did overlap between phase one and phase two.

01:54:35.040 --> 01:54:42.640
 That area shown in red was previously designated as patio or open space that showed about seven

01:54:42.640 --> 01:54:45.160
 tree plantings within the area.

01:54:45.160 --> 01:54:52.880
 Since this was approved by P&Z, we have requested that they replant these plantings in a different

01:54:52.880 --> 01:54:54.680
 area of the site.

01:54:54.680 --> 01:55:00.440
 So those are shown with these green dots with a white outline to demonstrate that they are

01:55:00.440 --> 01:55:05.120
 maintaining the plantings but showing them in an alternative location to ensure that

01:55:05.120 --> 01:55:09.440
 everything approved is being replaced.

01:55:09.440 --> 01:55:13.720
 And lastly, they meet the overall landscape area for this site.

01:55:13.720 --> 01:55:22.200
 They're providing 30% landscaped area, 39.6% tree canopy, and 37.8% open space.

01:55:22.200 --> 01:55:27.520
 And this is calculated between both phase one and phase two.

01:55:27.520 --> 01:55:29.160
 These are the proposed elevations.

01:55:29.160 --> 01:55:33.360
 So as I mentioned, within the Razor Ranch Overlay District, they're required to provide

01:55:33.360 --> 01:55:35.640
 four-sided elevations.

01:55:35.640 --> 01:55:41.880
 So this would be all four sides of the proposed building.

01:55:41.880 --> 01:55:45.920
 So staff is recommending approval of this request as it does meet the established requirements

01:55:45.920 --> 01:55:47.640
 of the Razor Ranch Overlay District.

01:55:47.640 --> 01:55:51.320
 However, we are recommending two conditions.

01:55:51.320 --> 01:55:55.520
 First that the plant materials approved for phase two and the amended phase one shall

01:55:55.520 --> 01:56:01.440
 not be removed in any future phase unless they can be successfully replanted using equivalent

01:56:01.440 --> 01:56:07.960
 or similar plant material as permitted by the flexibility provided to the city manager

01:56:07.960 --> 01:56:09.620
 or their designee.

01:56:09.620 --> 01:56:15.440
 And second that the minimum open space requirements must be maintained for all approved and future

01:56:15.440 --> 01:56:21.120
 phases of the land included within lots one, R, and two, block four of the Razor Ranch

01:56:21.120 --> 01:56:22.120
 South addition.

01:56:22.120 --> 01:56:24.360
 And with that, I can answer any questions.

01:56:24.360 --> 01:56:26.640
 Thanks for the presentation.

01:56:26.640 --> 01:56:28.920
 Karina, any questions for staff?

01:56:28.920 --> 01:56:33.600
 I don't see any.

01:56:33.600 --> 01:56:35.600
 Thank you.

01:56:35.600 --> 01:56:40.280
 Chair, we'll entertain a motion or further discussion on the item.

01:56:40.280 --> 01:56:41.960
 Commissioner Smith?

01:56:41.960 --> 01:56:46.640
 Make a motion to approve with staff recommendations and conditions that are out set in the presentation.

01:56:46.640 --> 01:56:47.640
 We have a first.

01:56:47.640 --> 01:56:48.640
 Commissioner Cole?

01:56:48.640 --> 01:56:49.640
 Second.

01:56:49.640 --> 01:56:53.120
 We have a first and a second for approval with the conditions listed by staff.

01:56:53.120 --> 01:56:54.120
 Any discussion?

01:56:54.120 --> 01:56:58.480
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:56:58.480 --> 01:56:59.480
 Commissioner Pruitt?

01:56:59.480 --> 01:57:00.480
 Aye.

01:57:00.480 --> 01:57:01.480
 Commissioner Smith?

01:57:01.480 --> 01:57:02.480
 Aye.

01:57:02.480 --> 01:57:03.480
 Commissioner McDade?

01:57:03.480 --> 01:57:04.480
 Aye.

01:57:04.480 --> 01:57:05.480
 Commissioner Schultz?

01:57:05.480 --> 01:57:06.480
 Aye.

01:57:06.480 --> 01:57:07.480
 Commissioner Cole?

01:57:07.480 --> 01:57:08.480
 Aye.

01:57:08.480 --> 01:57:09.800
 Motion carries six, zero.

01:57:09.800 --> 01:57:12.680
 That moves us to our public hearing segment for this evening.

01:57:12.680 --> 01:57:16.760
 And I just want to do a point of clarification real briefly.

01:57:16.760 --> 01:57:19.060
 We are making one adjustment to the agenda.

01:57:19.060 --> 01:57:24.280
 We are moving item D as in delta up one space.

01:57:24.280 --> 01:57:32.400
 So tonight we'll go A, B, D, and then finish with C for those of y'all needing to see those

01:57:32.400 --> 01:57:33.400
 items.

01:57:33.400 --> 01:57:39.800
 So the first item will be 5A, Z21-0007B.

01:57:39.800 --> 01:57:45.000
 I'm going to open the public hearing and ask for a motion to carry this postpone to a date

01:57:45.000 --> 01:57:46.560
 certain of July 14th.

01:57:46.560 --> 01:57:47.560
 Commissioner Smith?

01:57:47.560 --> 01:57:49.600
 Make a motion to postpone to date certain of July 14th.

01:57:49.600 --> 01:57:51.800
 We have a first.

01:57:51.800 --> 01:57:52.800
 Commissioner Pruitt?

01:57:52.800 --> 01:57:53.800
 Second.

01:57:53.800 --> 01:57:54.800
 We have a first and a second.

01:57:54.800 --> 01:57:57.600
 I'll call a vote via roll call.

01:57:57.600 --> 01:57:58.600
 Commissioner Pruitt?

01:57:58.600 --> 01:57:59.600
 Aye.

01:57:59.600 --> 01:58:00.600
 Commissioner Smith?

01:58:00.600 --> 01:58:01.600
 Aye.

01:58:01.600 --> 01:58:02.600
 Commissioner McDade?

01:58:02.600 --> 01:58:03.600
 Aye.

01:58:03.600 --> 01:58:04.600
 Commissioner Pruitt?

01:58:04.600 --> 01:58:05.600
 Aye.

01:58:05.600 --> 01:58:06.600
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:58:06.600 --> 01:58:10.040
 This item will be brought back to this commission on July 14th.

01:58:10.040 --> 01:58:19.000
 The next item is 5B, PD 21-0003 and I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the

01:58:19.000 --> 01:58:20.000
 public hearing.

01:58:20.000 --> 01:58:23.240
 Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.

01:58:23.240 --> 01:58:29.960
 I'll pull up my presentation here and we'll get rolling.

01:58:29.960 --> 01:58:33.320
 Okay.

01:58:33.320 --> 01:58:35.520
 So my name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner.

01:58:35.520 --> 01:58:41.820
 Tonight I'm presenting PD 21-0003, the PERCH development.

01:58:41.820 --> 01:58:47.920
 This is a request for rezoning from the R3 district to a PD district with an R7 base

01:58:47.920 --> 01:58:50.680
 zoning on 17.805 acres.

01:58:50.680 --> 01:58:54.880
 It's located on the west side of North Bonnie Bray Street south of Westward Street.

01:58:54.880 --> 01:58:59.120
 As you can see, there's a view of the property there.

01:58:59.120 --> 01:59:02.340
 The applicant has brought to us a new use.

01:59:02.340 --> 01:59:06.040
 It's different than anything we've had before in Denton.

01:59:06.040 --> 01:59:12.520
 It involves more than five units on one lot, similar to multifamily, so all units would

01:59:12.520 --> 01:59:15.600
 be continued to be owned at least by the owner of that one lot.

01:59:15.600 --> 01:59:20.680
 At the same time, there's no more than two units in any one building and the buildings

01:59:20.680 --> 01:59:23.920
 are in a single family in duplex style.

01:59:23.920 --> 01:59:28.920
 Because this didn't match any use definition, the DDC, we did some research, saw some other

01:59:28.920 --> 01:59:33.040
 cities that have similar uses and they generally use a PD process.

01:59:33.040 --> 01:59:37.800
 We felt this made sense to tailor the standards to fit that use and therefore that use is

01:59:37.800 --> 01:59:40.500
 being brought as a PD tonight.

01:59:40.500 --> 01:59:45.760
 As a part of that, the applicant has presented a definition for this new use.

01:59:45.760 --> 01:59:52.080
 It would apply only to this PD, not across the board, but that definition includes that

01:59:52.080 --> 01:59:56.400
 it would be more than three but not more than 195 dwelling units, provides for a maximum

01:59:56.400 --> 02:00:02.680
 height, provides that there should be no more than two units per building, allows accessory

02:00:02.680 --> 02:00:05.200
 uses.

02:00:05.200 --> 02:00:10.540
 The applicant has also proposed standards that specifically apply to this use where

02:00:10.540 --> 02:00:14.880
 either the multifamily or the single family standards didn't necessarily make sense.

02:00:14.880 --> 02:00:19.680
 For instance, with facade architecture requiring that it meet the single family standards and

02:00:19.680 --> 02:00:24.200
 actually going somewhat above and beyond that, providing for differentiation standards to

02:00:24.200 --> 02:00:29.840
 ensure a variety of designs along the main drive and we're clustered together.

02:00:29.840 --> 02:00:36.040
 But the site is also, we'll be meeting the multifamily, the higher buffer standards adjacent

02:00:36.040 --> 02:00:41.320
 to the surrounding single family and institutional and it's also meeting both the multifamily

02:00:41.320 --> 02:00:47.120
 open space and landscape minimums as well as providing the minimum 20% rear yard for

02:00:47.120 --> 02:00:49.800
 each unit similar to a single family home.

02:00:49.800 --> 02:00:53.640
 As you can see here, this is the development plan proposed.

02:00:53.640 --> 02:00:56.480
 All of those colors represent large canopy trees.

02:00:56.480 --> 02:01:02.360
 The area in the green box is a public walking green proposed outside of the boundaries of

02:01:02.360 --> 02:01:03.680
 this development for the neighborhood.

02:01:03.680 --> 02:01:06.160
 We'll discuss that more later.

02:01:06.160 --> 02:01:11.760
 You can see just generally a summary of the dimensional standards showing that the site

02:01:11.760 --> 02:01:16.240
 generally meets or exceeds the R7 based district standards.

02:01:16.240 --> 02:01:22.680
 Of course, we review versus our general approval criteria and our PD criteria for approval.

02:01:22.680 --> 02:01:27.240
 We'll start with general criteria three, criteria one for the PD which is the comprehensive

02:01:27.240 --> 02:01:28.240
 plan.

02:01:28.240 --> 02:01:33.720
 This is a moderate residential future land use and that calls for a development that

02:01:33.720 --> 02:01:35.760
 is between four and 12 dwelling units per acre.

02:01:35.760 --> 02:01:40.560
 This would meet that at 11.55 dwelling units per acre.

02:01:40.560 --> 02:01:45.440
 As noted below, it also meets other comprehensive plan goals by providing infill housing in

02:01:45.440 --> 02:01:51.280
 kind of that central area of Denton within the loop but next to a high speed or at least

02:01:51.280 --> 02:01:54.360
 a larger more arterial highway.

02:01:54.360 --> 02:01:59.080
 It also helps contribute to providing more diverse housing styles that meet the diverse

02:01:59.080 --> 02:02:02.600
 needs of residents but at the same time, all of this in a scale and design that's more

02:02:02.600 --> 02:02:05.840
 compatible to the surrounding neighborhood than would be a traditional multifamily that

02:02:05.840 --> 02:02:10.120
 you might see with that kind of density typically and it does also provide that housing near

02:02:10.120 --> 02:02:13.120
 parks and retail.

02:02:13.120 --> 02:02:17.960
 Looking briefly at general criteria and minimizing the adverse impacts, so addressing some of

02:02:17.960 --> 02:02:25.000
 the concerns that neighbors had, providing for a gated emergency only access on the westward

02:02:25.000 --> 02:02:31.280
 in order to avoid cut through traffic through there, providing that common walking green

02:02:31.280 --> 02:02:35.600
 with a wooden masonry fence where the neighbors had expressed interest in continuing to be

02:02:35.600 --> 02:02:38.560
 able to walk for neighbors on crest view.

02:02:38.560 --> 02:02:42.440
 They had expressed concerns about having their view blocked and so the developer proposed

02:02:42.440 --> 02:02:48.680
 an additional, a buffer area that exceeds the required 10 as well as limiting heights

02:02:48.680 --> 02:02:53.440
 adjacent to those properties and within 100 feet of that lot line with the homes on crest

02:02:53.440 --> 02:02:54.440
 view.

02:02:54.440 --> 02:02:58.560
 As you can see here, here's an example of what that view, a rendering of what that view

02:02:58.560 --> 02:03:04.080
 across westward would look like, so seeing that fence, trees, shrubbery and not two story

02:03:04.080 --> 02:03:05.080
 buildings.

02:03:05.080 --> 02:03:12.560
 Again, complies with the DDC except with the PD standard specifically, call for otherwise.

02:03:12.560 --> 02:03:15.920
 We also look at ensuring that this is providing greater building design than we would get

02:03:15.920 --> 02:03:16.920
 otherwise.

02:03:16.920 --> 02:03:20.400
 As I noted, this is meeting the single family standards and actually adding a requirement

02:03:20.400 --> 02:03:29.540
 for an additional architectural element for all designs and as far as site landscaping,

02:03:29.540 --> 02:03:35.600
 this provides an additional 19% landscape area above what's required, 22% tree canopy

02:03:35.600 --> 02:03:42.760
 and 284 large canopy trees which exceeds by 36 the number of trees that could be provided

02:03:42.760 --> 02:03:49.160
 under kind of a maximum development under the current R3 zoning district and it also

02:03:49.160 --> 02:03:56.000
 provides a larger buffer along Bonnie Bray with buffer ornamental trees beyond the normal

02:03:56.000 --> 02:03:57.680
 two buffers that would be required.

02:03:57.680 --> 02:04:03.680
 In terms of the unit landscaping, as you mentioned, provides that 20% rear yard landscaping and

02:04:03.680 --> 02:04:11.160
 one ornamental tree per house as well as foundation plantings for all units.

02:04:11.160 --> 02:04:15.320
 The applicant is providing much of the open space in the form of courtyards, 20 of them

02:04:15.320 --> 02:04:22.840
 amenitized and each one has, is one of five unique designs, you can see here, which provides

02:04:22.840 --> 02:04:26.720
 some flexibility but we also set minimums with the applicant for what needs to be provided

02:04:26.720 --> 02:04:29.320
 within each one.

02:04:29.320 --> 02:04:34.480
 In terms of other amenity areas, the applicant proposed an additional 27 canopy trees to

02:04:34.480 --> 02:04:38.080
 spread through these three amenity areas and has provided a walking trail around the detention

02:04:38.080 --> 02:04:41.360
 pond with butterfly gardens.

02:04:41.360 --> 02:04:46.560
 Looking at improving connectivity, as mentioned, not having vehicle connectivity because of

02:04:46.560 --> 02:04:50.440
 concerns about cut through traffic but providing improved pedestrian mobility where there's

02:04:50.440 --> 02:04:55.480
 currently none allowing pedestrians to come from westward to Bonnie Bray along a landscaped

02:04:55.480 --> 02:04:56.800
 pathway.

02:04:56.800 --> 02:05:00.640
 As you can see here, there's an example of that public walking green, which includes

02:05:00.640 --> 02:05:08.000
 30% landscaping with native or adapted shrubs and benches for pedestrians.

02:05:08.000 --> 02:05:11.040
 Another example there.

02:05:11.040 --> 02:05:15.000
 Looking at criteria four, that these buildings would be compatible with the area.

02:05:15.000 --> 02:05:21.640
 So the PD is designed to prohibit that traditional three or four story multifamily instead providing

02:05:21.640 --> 02:05:25.680
 that density in housing that's designed in a way that's more compatible with the single

02:05:25.680 --> 02:05:32.400
 family houses in the area and providing those height limitations and other mitigation buffering

02:05:32.400 --> 02:05:36.140
 where closest to the surrounding neighbors.

02:05:36.140 --> 02:05:41.920
 School generation, Denton ISD expressed that students, they could handle that.

02:05:41.920 --> 02:05:43.960
 Water waste water is available.

02:05:43.960 --> 02:05:51.920
 The trip generation per the TIA with some mitigation via signal adjustments and a hooded

02:05:51.920 --> 02:05:56.240
 left turn should not expect it to have significant impact on the traffic in the area and we do

02:05:56.240 --> 02:06:01.240
 have a condition of approval relating to the applicant being responsible to design and

02:06:01.240 --> 02:06:03.960
 construct the hooded left turn at this location.

02:06:03.960 --> 02:06:10.160
 It is within 10 minutes walking distance of North Lakes Park and it is estimated to have

02:06:10.160 --> 02:06:15.180
 a net positive fiscal impact over 10 years from property value stabilization.

02:06:15.180 --> 02:06:20.280
 We did public outreach and received one response in favor.

02:06:20.280 --> 02:06:24.920
 So with that, staff does recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions below

02:06:24.920 --> 02:06:31.640
 which relate to requiring that hooded left turn to be designed and paid for by the applicant.

02:06:31.640 --> 02:06:36.980
 So with that, if you have any questions, happy to answer them and I do also have a presentation

02:06:36.980 --> 02:06:37.980
 from the applicant.

02:06:37.980 --> 02:06:38.980
 Great.

02:06:38.980 --> 02:06:40.440
 Thank you, Sean.

02:06:40.440 --> 02:06:41.440
 Thank you, Chairman.

02:06:41.440 --> 02:06:45.480
 Sean, what's the closest pedestrian crossing to North Lakes over there?

02:06:45.480 --> 02:06:50.400
 So that would be at Windsor and the path, the 10 minute path I worked at accounted for

02:06:50.400 --> 02:06:51.400
 crossing at that.

02:06:51.400 --> 02:06:52.400
 Okay.

02:06:52.400 --> 02:06:53.400
 Gotcha.

02:06:53.400 --> 02:06:54.400
 There's a stop sign.

02:06:54.400 --> 02:06:55.400
 It works.

02:06:55.400 --> 02:06:56.400
 Appreciate it.

02:06:56.400 --> 02:06:57.400
 Thank you.

02:06:57.400 --> 02:06:58.400
 Any other questions for Sean?

02:06:58.400 --> 02:06:59.400
 Okay.

02:06:59.400 --> 02:07:00.400
 This is a public hearing.

02:07:00.400 --> 02:07:02.840
 Anyone wishing to speak can do so.

02:07:02.840 --> 02:07:08.080
 We'd ask to fill out a card or those watching virtually can call in.

02:07:08.080 --> 02:07:11.200
 We will begin with cards first.

02:07:11.200 --> 02:07:18.480
 The first one I have here is Rob Baldwin and if you just state your name and address for

02:07:18.480 --> 02:07:19.480
 the record.

02:07:19.480 --> 02:07:20.480
 And are you the applicant?

02:07:20.480 --> 02:07:21.480
 Yes, sir.

02:07:21.480 --> 02:07:22.480
 Okay.

02:07:22.480 --> 02:07:23.720
 So you're provided 10 minutes to present to us.

02:07:23.720 --> 02:07:24.720
 Okay.

02:07:24.720 --> 02:07:25.720
 I'm sorry.

02:07:25.720 --> 02:07:26.720
 One moment.

02:07:26.720 --> 02:07:27.720
 It's okay.

02:07:27.720 --> 02:07:32.920
 I'm going to tag team.

02:07:32.920 --> 02:07:36.600
 My client's on the line and I'm here to kind of run the projector.

02:07:36.600 --> 02:07:37.600
 Sounds great.

02:07:37.600 --> 02:07:38.600
 One moment.

02:07:38.600 --> 02:07:42.080
 First time I've done a hybrid like this, so bear with me.

02:07:42.080 --> 02:07:43.080
 Same for me.

02:07:43.080 --> 02:07:44.080
 Okay.

02:07:44.080 --> 02:07:45.080
 Just getting there.

02:07:45.080 --> 02:07:46.080
 Presentation pulled up here.

02:07:46.080 --> 02:07:47.080
 Okay.

02:07:47.080 --> 02:07:48.080
 Can you hear me, Rob and Sean?

02:07:48.080 --> 02:07:49.080
 Yes, sir.

02:07:49.080 --> 02:07:50.080
 Yes, we can hear you.

02:07:50.080 --> 02:07:51.080
 There we go.

02:07:51.080 --> 02:07:52.080
 We're just loading the presentation.

02:07:52.080 --> 02:07:53.080
 Okay.

02:07:53.080 --> 02:07:54.080
 Thank you.

02:07:54.080 --> 02:08:08.640
 Okay. and share screen.

02:08:08.640 --> 02:08:17.520
 There we are.

02:08:17.520 --> 02:08:25.720
 Okay.

02:08:25.720 --> 02:08:27.640
 Good evening, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

02:08:27.640 --> 02:08:28.640
 My name is Rob Baldwin.

02:08:28.640 --> 02:08:34.680
 I'm opposite 3904 Elm Street, Suite B in Dallas, and I'm here representing Good and West Development

02:08:34.680 --> 02:08:35.680
 in this request.

02:08:35.680 --> 02:08:38.600
 I want to, first of all, thank you all for being here.

02:08:38.600 --> 02:08:42.600
 It's the first time I've been out in public in a long time and it's good to be back in

02:08:42.600 --> 02:08:43.600
 their home again.

02:08:43.600 --> 02:08:47.920
 And secondly, I'd like to thank city staff, they've been very great to work with.

02:08:47.920 --> 02:08:53.960
 Mr. Jacobson's gone beyond the call of duty to help us craft this PD that meets the city's

02:08:53.960 --> 02:09:01.320
 requirements and also addresses neighborhood concerns, so I'd like to thank him.

02:09:01.320 --> 02:09:05.360
 I think he did an exceptional job of briefing this.

02:09:05.360 --> 02:09:11.960
 I have David West on the line, who is the West in Good and West, and he'd like to have

02:09:11.960 --> 02:09:15.560
 a brief presentation and then I'm here to answer any questions and David will be here

02:09:15.560 --> 02:09:16.560
 as well.

02:09:16.560 --> 02:09:19.640
 So if I can, David, are you on the line?

02:09:19.640 --> 02:09:21.160
 Yes, I am.

02:09:21.160 --> 02:09:22.160
 Thank you, Rob.

02:09:22.160 --> 02:09:23.160
 Can you hear me?

02:09:23.160 --> 02:09:26.600
 I'll just tell me when to move the slides, please.

02:09:26.600 --> 02:09:27.600
 Okay.

02:09:27.600 --> 02:09:28.880
 Good evening, everybody.

02:09:28.880 --> 02:09:29.880
 Thank you for having us.

02:09:29.880 --> 02:09:31.200
 My name is David West.

02:09:31.200 --> 02:09:34.120
 I'm a partner with Good and West Residential, as Rob said.

02:09:34.120 --> 02:09:37.200
 My business partner, Elizabeth Good, is also on the line.

02:09:37.200 --> 02:09:41.800
 I'll start out by saying that, reiterating what Rob just said, we've been working to

02:09:41.800 --> 02:09:46.040
 the past several months with Sean and his team in the planning department.

02:09:46.040 --> 02:09:47.200
 He's been excellent to work with.

02:09:47.200 --> 02:09:52.080
 I think we've been able to craft a plan that is far better today than when we first started,

02:09:52.080 --> 02:09:54.120
 so I wanted to thank him for that.

02:09:54.120 --> 02:09:58.840
 Forgive me if some of this presentation is duplicative of what Sean has already presented,

02:09:58.840 --> 02:10:01.480
 but I'd like to highlight a few of his points.

02:10:01.480 --> 02:10:06.400
 Rob, if you could go to the first slide, the next slide.

02:10:06.400 --> 02:10:11.440
 So as Sean said, you know, this falls within the moderate density residential category of

02:10:11.440 --> 02:10:17.000
 the Denton 2030 future land use plan, not to exceed 12 units to the acre.

02:10:17.000 --> 02:10:22.280
 Our proposed development is at a density of 11.55 units to the acre.

02:10:22.280 --> 02:10:26.840
 We feel this project will help fill Denton's need for housing of all types, offering a

02:10:26.840 --> 02:10:31.640
 high quality choice for renters that may not want to live in traditional apartments and

02:10:31.640 --> 02:10:35.640
 that value private yards and communal open space.

02:10:35.640 --> 02:10:40.640
 We've capped our height to 30 feet, no more than two stories, which is lower than the

02:10:40.640 --> 02:10:42.720
 existing R3 zoning.

02:10:42.720 --> 02:10:48.360
 This will have far less impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and a typical three to four

02:10:48.360 --> 02:10:51.040
 story apartment building would.

02:10:51.040 --> 02:10:55.040
 In listening to the neighborhood in our various neighborhood meetings, we've also committed

02:10:55.040 --> 02:11:01.280
 to only single story buildings within 100 feet of our Western property line and 65 feet

02:11:01.280 --> 02:11:04.120
 from our Northern Westwood Street property line.

02:11:04.120 --> 02:11:08.880
 So the visual impact of our development will be much more in line with single family homes

02:11:08.880 --> 02:11:12.200
 than a typical multifamily apartment building.

02:11:12.200 --> 02:11:16.800
 And the perimeter trees and the internal landscaping that exceeds the DDC requirements will add

02:11:16.800 --> 02:11:19.760
 a significant buffer to the surrounding properties.

02:11:19.760 --> 02:11:23.800
 It'll also create visual appeal for the public and for our future residents.

02:11:23.800 --> 02:11:26.440
 Rob, if you could go to the next slide.

02:11:26.440 --> 02:11:30.960
 So I'd like to talk a little bit more about our neighborhood engagement.

02:11:30.960 --> 02:11:35.440
 The development team, we've interacted on four occasions with the surrounding neighbors,

02:11:35.440 --> 02:11:40.720
 once with the head of the Neighborhood Association to our Northwest, introducing ourselves and

02:11:40.720 --> 02:11:44.600
 the project, twice in a more formal setting with the neighborhood at large in an open

02:11:44.600 --> 02:11:49.600
 forum, and once with the church and the school of Immaculate Conception immediately to our

02:11:49.600 --> 02:11:51.360
 North.

02:11:51.360 --> 02:11:55.720
 We've received emailed letters of support from the church and the school to our North.

02:11:55.720 --> 02:11:57.280
 They're excited about our project.

02:11:57.280 --> 02:12:00.320
 They think it'll be a great addition to the neighborhood.

02:12:00.320 --> 02:12:04.420
 We also have another letter of support from a resident whose home borders our property

02:12:04.420 --> 02:12:05.960
 to the West.

02:12:05.960 --> 02:12:10.040
 And I believe that Sean has received additional outreach from another resident, either this

02:12:10.040 --> 02:12:14.120
 morning or yesterday, who's in support of our project and would be happy to provide

02:12:14.120 --> 02:12:17.880
 all that documentation to the commission.

02:12:17.880 --> 02:12:21.800
 So throughout this engagement, some of the changes we've made over time, we've reduced

02:12:21.800 --> 02:12:22.800
 our density.

02:12:22.800 --> 02:12:25.600
 Initially, we were at 200 units, we've reduced it to 195 units.

02:12:25.600 --> 02:12:31.080
 As I've already stated, we've committed to only single story units within 100 feet of

02:12:31.080 --> 02:12:36.200
 the Western property line and 65 feet of the Northern property line.

02:12:36.200 --> 02:12:41.560
 One of the main pain points to the neighbors was vehicular ingress and egress in and out

02:12:41.560 --> 02:12:42.560
 of our site.

02:12:42.560 --> 02:12:49.040
 And so we've committed to a vehicular gate that will be closed and locked at all times.

02:12:49.040 --> 02:12:56.080
 We will install a Knox box that will be accessible only to emergency services in the fire department.

02:12:56.080 --> 02:13:00.680
 Our only point of ingress and egress will be out onto Bonny Barre.

02:13:00.680 --> 02:13:07.440
 We've restricted the pool hours from 9am to 9pm to mitigate some concerns around noise.

02:13:07.440 --> 02:13:15.640
 And as Sean touched on, we've designed a community green, which is a strip of our property that's

02:13:15.640 --> 02:13:18.400
 outside of our fence line up on Westwood Drive.

02:13:18.400 --> 02:13:23.560
 This is an area where we understand some residents in the neighborhood currently use to walk

02:13:23.560 --> 02:13:24.560
 their dogs.

02:13:24.560 --> 02:13:27.440
 And so we felt like this would be a nice gesture to the neighborhood.

02:13:27.440 --> 02:13:32.720
 And if you could go to the next slide, Rob.

02:13:32.720 --> 02:13:37.560
 I know Sean's already shown some of these visuals in his presentation, but just to reiterate,

02:13:37.560 --> 02:13:44.640
 this is a 25 foot wide strip of property and it runs about 900 linear feet fronting Westwood

02:13:44.640 --> 02:13:45.640
 Street.

02:13:45.640 --> 02:13:52.760
 We're going to plant 29 trees, install a meandering sidewalk that is flanked by turf and ground

02:13:52.760 --> 02:13:53.760
 cover.

02:13:53.760 --> 02:13:58.560
 We're going to build an eight foot wooden privacy fence with masonry columns and we're

02:13:58.560 --> 02:14:02.400
 going to plant shrubbery and vines in front of that fence.

02:14:02.400 --> 02:14:07.600
 And the plan long term is for this to grow and to become an attractive green screen wall

02:14:07.600 --> 02:14:12.120
 that is visually appealing to the neighbors, but also functional for them to use.

02:14:12.120 --> 02:14:17.680
 We're going to install benches, doggy poop stations and just try and create a strip of

02:14:17.680 --> 02:14:22.240
 land that is pleasurable for the neighborhood.

02:14:22.240 --> 02:14:30.920
 If you go to the next slide, Rob, you've already seen our site plan, but some of the design

02:14:30.920 --> 02:14:35.040
 constraints we've had on this site is the fact that it's very long and very narrow.

02:14:35.040 --> 02:14:42.120
 And so we've designed our units in a cluster format, which everyone's front door opens

02:14:42.120 --> 02:14:46.840
 up onto a landscaped courtyard area and at the bottom of the slide are some examples

02:14:46.840 --> 02:14:47.840
 of that.

02:14:47.840 --> 02:14:52.080
 Sean also showed examples of these designs in his presentation.

02:14:52.080 --> 02:14:57.720
 So this is not only for visual appeal, but it really gives a sense of entry to our residents.

02:14:57.720 --> 02:15:06.320
 We have 389 parking spaces and 38 bicycle spaces, which exceeds the DDC's requirements.

02:15:06.320 --> 02:15:10.880
 We're exceeding the DDC's 8% open space requirements.

02:15:10.880 --> 02:15:17.560
 We've committed to planting a minimum of 284 trees, which far exceeds the DDC's requirements.

02:15:17.560 --> 02:15:25.340
 And you can see the whole perimeter of our site has trees every 30 feet on center.

02:15:25.340 --> 02:15:31.400
 We are meeting all of the DDC's landscape buffer requirements and on our western property

02:15:31.400 --> 02:15:34.080
 line, we are exceeding the DDC's requirements.

02:15:34.080 --> 02:15:40.960
 And if you could go to the last slide, Rob, these are just some visual representations

02:15:40.960 --> 02:15:46.220
 of how these open courtyards are going to look and feel.

02:15:46.220 --> 02:15:51.040
 Please note that we're in the early schematic design phase still, so we felt it was important

02:15:51.040 --> 02:15:58.000
 to be able to show how this will look and feel and with that being said, I will stop

02:15:58.000 --> 02:16:01.000
 presenting and happy to step back and answer any questions.

02:16:01.000 --> 02:16:02.000
 Thank you for your time.

02:16:02.000 --> 02:16:03.000
 Thank you very much.

02:16:03.000 --> 02:16:04.000
 We're here for questions.

02:16:04.000 --> 02:16:05.000
 Commissioner Smith.

02:16:05.000 --> 02:16:06.000
 Thank you, Chair.

02:16:06.000 --> 02:16:14.280
 One question, this might be for Sean as well, but being that it's a PD, the site plan will

02:16:14.280 --> 02:16:20.040
 be codified into the zoning change, if it's approved.

02:16:20.040 --> 02:16:24.880
 Really the egress out of the complex, I guess you want to call it that way, is it because

02:16:24.880 --> 02:16:28.960
 of the hooded left turn lane, it's going to be right turn only onto Bonnie Bray alone.

02:16:28.960 --> 02:16:34.680
 Did the traffic impact analysis take anything into account on how that would add to the

02:16:34.680 --> 02:16:37.880
 Bonnie Bray signalized cross section?

02:16:37.880 --> 02:16:43.980
 Yes, it did, and specifically that was where the timing changes at a mitigation were recommended.

02:16:43.980 --> 02:16:52.840
 So it would continue to function at a level of service D, but with the timing change mitigations,

02:16:52.840 --> 02:16:57.320
 that would then improve that impact above what it would otherwise be and bring it to

02:16:57.320 --> 02:16:59.640
 where our engineers could support.

02:16:59.640 --> 02:17:06.680
 Was there a thought given to on peak hours how congested that left turn hooded lane would

02:17:06.680 --> 02:17:11.280
 get and how long that really truly should be?

02:17:11.280 --> 02:17:14.440
 It's great to have the left turn lane that protects the left turn lane to keep people

02:17:14.440 --> 02:17:19.480
 out of traffic, stop trying to take a left turn into the facility, into the complex,

02:17:19.480 --> 02:17:26.080
 but if it's backing back out to where people in the left lane outside of the hooded lane

02:17:26.080 --> 02:17:29.280
 are getting backed up because people are waiting trying to get into the left turn lane.

02:17:29.280 --> 02:17:32.560
 Was any of that thought about or considered or those kinds of things?

02:17:32.560 --> 02:17:38.040
 Yes, the TIA did take into account the time that would essentially the traffic and the

02:17:38.040 --> 02:17:41.640
 function of that intersection as well with the hooded left turn and determined that it

02:17:41.640 --> 02:17:46.000
 would work at an acceptable rate and I think actually at above a level of service D.

02:17:46.000 --> 02:17:47.000
 Okay.

02:17:47.000 --> 02:17:48.000
 Got it.

02:17:48.000 --> 02:17:49.000
 All right.

02:17:49.000 --> 02:17:50.000
 Thank you.

02:17:50.000 --> 02:17:51.400
 Any other questions right now?

02:17:51.400 --> 02:17:53.920
 We still have individuals wanting to make public comment.

02:17:53.920 --> 02:17:55.920
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:17:55.920 --> 02:17:57.320
 Thank you, Chair.

02:17:57.320 --> 02:18:05.140
 Question if you heard from the property owner to the south developing the garden homes.

02:18:05.140 --> 02:18:07.400
 We did not get a response from that property owner.

02:18:07.400 --> 02:18:09.600
 They didn't come to the meeting either?

02:18:09.600 --> 02:18:13.920
 And I've sent two letters to them as well and gotten a response.

02:18:13.920 --> 02:18:14.920
 Okay.

02:18:14.920 --> 02:18:15.920
 Thank you.

02:18:15.920 --> 02:18:16.920
 Any other questions?

02:18:16.920 --> 02:18:17.920
 Great.

02:18:17.920 --> 02:18:18.920
 Thank you for being here.

02:18:18.920 --> 02:18:22.480
 If we have any more questions, we'll call you back.

02:18:22.480 --> 02:18:25.720
 The other card that I have in front of me is Michael Denny.

02:18:25.720 --> 02:18:30.600
 Mr. Denny, if you could just, that mic, yep, is preferred.

02:18:30.600 --> 02:18:35.320
 If you just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.

02:18:35.320 --> 02:18:37.200
 Michael Denny, 2200 Overlook Lane.

02:18:37.200 --> 02:18:41.920
 We're at the corner of Westwood and Overlook, so we're directly across the street from this

02:18:41.920 --> 02:18:42.920
 development.

02:18:42.920 --> 02:18:46.280
 We're not comfortable with rental units coming in.

02:18:46.280 --> 02:18:52.360
 They'll be surrounded by three communities of family-owned homes.

02:18:52.360 --> 02:18:58.800
 But in our meetings with the developers, we're quite happy with the proposals for changes

02:18:58.800 --> 02:19:04.160
 they've made in their plans, particularly the linear park along Westwood.

02:19:04.160 --> 02:19:12.040
 It's a community area for our community of about 120 homes, so we appreciate that.

02:19:12.040 --> 02:19:20.920
 I have not heard tonight about restrictions on single-pupil-type gate by the emergency

02:19:20.920 --> 02:19:25.440
 entrance at the end of Lookout Lane into this new neighborhood.

02:19:25.440 --> 02:19:31.840
 I'm very satisfied that it'll be a Knox Box only entry for vehicles, but we're worried

02:19:31.840 --> 02:19:34.480
 about the personnel gate there.

02:19:34.480 --> 02:19:39.280
 People would be tempted, in the new neighborhood, would be tempted to park along Westwood, which

02:19:39.280 --> 02:19:41.600
 would be a problem.

02:19:41.600 --> 02:19:47.040
 It's a lot of traffic along that street, and that could cause difficulties.

02:19:47.040 --> 02:19:51.480
 We're very grateful that they've reduced the height of the buildings along there to

02:19:51.480 --> 02:19:57.360
 one stories, 'cause it would be like an alley if it were two-story buildings there, but

02:19:57.360 --> 02:20:00.360
 the park, the fence, and so forth.

02:20:00.360 --> 02:20:06.400
 If those things stay as part of the plan through to the end, 32 Construction will be very happy

02:20:06.400 --> 02:20:07.400
 about that.

02:20:07.400 --> 02:20:08.400
 Thank you.

02:20:08.400 --> 02:20:09.400
 Thank you.

02:20:09.400 --> 02:20:10.400
 Thanks for being here.

02:20:10.400 --> 02:20:14.880
 I don't have any other cards, but I believe we do have one caller.

02:20:14.880 --> 02:20:17.400
 Stuart, is there someone on the line?

02:20:17.400 --> 02:20:18.600
 Yes, thank you, Chair.

02:20:18.600 --> 02:20:23.960
 I wanted to also let you know that for this item, we did have one person make comments

02:20:23.960 --> 02:20:25.080
 using the online form.

02:20:25.080 --> 02:20:27.240
 They were in support of the item.

02:20:27.240 --> 02:20:33.280
 This comment form was emailed to all the commissioners, and it will be included in the record.

02:20:33.280 --> 02:20:37.600
 We do have one caller, and I'm asking staff to send them into the meeting now.

02:20:37.600 --> 02:20:38.600
 Thank you.

02:20:38.600 --> 02:20:56.880
 You should hear a beep whenever they are there.

02:20:56.880 --> 02:20:57.880
 Good evening.

02:20:57.880 --> 02:20:59.200
 You are connected with the Plan and Zoning Commission.

02:20:59.200 --> 02:21:04.960
 If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.

02:21:04.960 --> 02:21:05.960
 Good evening.

02:21:05.960 --> 02:21:06.960
 My name is Drew Christ.

02:21:06.960 --> 02:21:10.760
 I am a homeowner at 2208 Carriage Hill.

02:21:10.760 --> 02:21:14.200
 Commission, thank you so much for allowing me to speak tonight.

02:21:14.200 --> 02:21:18.960
 I, as a homeowner in the neighborhood, are in full support of this development.

02:21:18.960 --> 02:21:25.960
 I think staff and the developer have done a phenomenal job at increasing pedestrian

02:21:25.960 --> 02:21:30.160
 connectivity for the neighborhood.

02:21:30.160 --> 02:21:38.240
 This particular part of town has suffered from a continual disregard from prior developers

02:21:38.240 --> 02:21:41.760
 to consider future development and connectivity.

02:21:41.760 --> 02:21:47.520
 As a parent with a 5-year-old and a 3-year-old who are currently learning how to ride a bike,

02:21:47.520 --> 02:21:55.520
 I cannot take them on to Windsor or Bonnevray at 40 miles an hour, which we all know is

02:21:55.520 --> 02:21:56.520
 45.

02:21:56.520 --> 02:21:59.560
 We've all done it on accident.

02:21:59.560 --> 02:22:01.240
 It's simply too dangerous.

02:22:01.240 --> 02:22:09.560
 I am so grateful to the developer for going above and beyond by providing a public amenity

02:22:09.560 --> 02:22:15.460
 for residents of not only their own community, but the surrounding homeowners and home renters

02:22:15.460 --> 02:22:21.640
 who exist, not only to the north of this development, but also to the west.

02:22:21.640 --> 02:22:27.600
 I am very, I think this is perfect timing, a report came out from Trees of America yesterday

02:22:27.600 --> 02:22:34.440
 that labeled our census block that this development will be in as one of the lowest tree canopy

02:22:34.440 --> 02:22:40.760
 density census blocks in the city of Denton, and to see a developer going above and beyond

02:22:40.760 --> 02:22:44.840
 and planting such a significant number of native trees.

02:22:44.840 --> 02:22:48.920
 It's really encouraging, and so I strongly am in support, and again, thank you so much

02:22:48.920 --> 02:22:50.920
 for the opportunity to speak.

02:22:50.920 --> 02:22:55.400
 I am completely with my comments.

02:22:55.400 --> 02:22:56.400
 Thank you so much for calling in.

02:22:56.400 --> 02:22:57.400
 Do we have any questions for the caller?

02:22:57.400 --> 02:23:03.840
 We don't have any questions, but I appreciate your time to call in this evening.

02:23:03.840 --> 02:23:05.160
 Krister Smith.

02:23:05.160 --> 02:23:08.160
 One more question, thank you, Chair.

02:23:08.160 --> 02:23:11.920
 Sean, is the roads that are within there, is it going to be treated, because it is kind

02:23:11.920 --> 02:23:17.760
 of a mix between multifamily and the facade or everything else, so I just want to remind

02:23:17.760 --> 02:23:21.280
 you, the roads and everything else inside of there will be treated like private property

02:23:21.280 --> 02:23:25.160
 would be in an apartment where they are maintained by the owner.

02:23:25.160 --> 02:23:26.160
 Correct?

02:23:26.160 --> 02:23:27.160
 That is correct.

02:23:27.160 --> 02:23:28.160
 Okay.

02:23:28.160 --> 02:23:29.160
 I just wanted to confirm that.

02:23:29.160 --> 02:23:30.160
 Thank you.

02:23:30.160 --> 02:23:37.680
 Seeing we have no other comments, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time,

02:23:37.680 --> 02:23:41.160
 and if there's any discussion, more questions or motion, Krister Smith?

02:23:41.160 --> 02:23:46.440
 I'm going to make a motion to approve of staff recommendations and conditions.

02:23:46.440 --> 02:23:51.200
 Seeing that this zoning is currently R3 and the flume says it should be four units to

02:23:51.200 --> 02:23:55.360
 12 units per acre, it only even makes sense to put this into something that's actually

02:23:55.360 --> 02:23:56.360
 compliant.

02:23:56.360 --> 02:24:00.520
 It does sound like from those that commented from the neighborhood have said that the developer

02:24:00.520 --> 02:24:06.440
 has been very generous with making concessions and being able to accommodate for those that

02:24:06.440 --> 02:24:10.880
 exist there, so that being said, my motion stands.

02:24:10.880 --> 02:24:11.880
 We have a first.

02:24:11.880 --> 02:24:12.880
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:24:12.880 --> 02:24:17.640
 I will second and also say thank you for a detailed presentation, well done, and thank

02:24:17.640 --> 02:24:21.760
 you for the collaboration with the community.

02:24:21.760 --> 02:24:24.840
 We have a first and a second for approval with staff conditions.

02:24:24.840 --> 02:24:25.840
 Any discussion?

02:24:25.840 --> 02:24:35.520
 Before we take a vote via roll call, I just want to note, just for the record, if Westward

02:24:35.520 --> 02:24:40.160
 does not allow parking on the street, if it's possible to get a no parking sign reminder,

02:24:40.160 --> 02:24:44.880
 maybe to mitigate some of the parking concerns, it seems like the property is over-parked

02:24:44.880 --> 02:24:50.240
 as it is, so I don't foresee that being an issue, but if there is a way to maybe eliminate

02:24:50.240 --> 02:24:56.040
 some concern of the city to put up a no parking sign to keep that avenue free of parking,

02:24:56.040 --> 02:24:59.800
 that might be a nice consideration to the neighborhood.

02:24:59.800 --> 02:25:01.320
 That's my only comment.

02:25:01.320 --> 02:25:03.880
 With that, I will call a vote via roll call.

02:25:03.880 --> 02:25:04.880
 Commissioner Pruitt?

02:25:04.880 --> 02:25:05.880
 Aye.

02:25:05.880 --> 02:25:06.880
 Commissioner Smith?

02:25:06.880 --> 02:25:07.880
 Aye.

02:25:07.880 --> 02:25:08.880
 Commissioner McDade?

02:25:08.880 --> 02:25:09.880
 Aye.

02:25:09.880 --> 02:25:10.880
 Commissioner Cole?

02:25:10.880 --> 02:25:11.880
 Aye.

02:25:11.880 --> 02:25:15.600
 Motion carries 6-0, congratulations.

02:25:15.600 --> 02:25:24.800
 The next item we'll hear tonight is the last item, it's 5DZ21-0005, and I will call Cameron

02:25:24.800 --> 02:25:28.320
 Robertson for presentation.

02:25:28.320 --> 02:25:36.600
 Okay, thank you Chair and Commissioners.

02:25:36.600 --> 02:25:42.200
 So I am presenting on Z21-005 for rezoning.

02:25:42.200 --> 02:25:48.000
 So this is a rezoning of 0.326 acres from mixed use neighborhood and residential four

02:25:48.000 --> 02:25:51.120
 districts to a residential six district.

02:25:51.120 --> 02:25:54.980
 This is located southeast of Skinner Street and Robertson Street.

02:25:54.980 --> 02:26:00.160
 So the property is currently vacant, it is approximately 0.1 acres of MN district and

02:26:00.160 --> 02:26:03.480
 0.23 acres of R4 district.

02:26:03.480 --> 02:26:09.600
 Based off historic areals, it is assumed that the property has been vacant since about 1984.

02:26:09.600 --> 02:26:15.280
 It is surrounded by MN, R4, R3, and public facilities districts.

02:26:15.280 --> 02:26:20.520
 So this just kind of shows you the zoning over time.

02:26:20.520 --> 02:26:26.380
 As I stated, this is proposed rezoning to R6, which would allow for single family homes

02:26:26.380 --> 02:26:30.480
 as well as up to four plexes.

02:26:30.480 --> 02:26:34.040
 So these are the general criteria for all applications.

02:26:34.040 --> 02:26:38.320
 The ones that I'm going to cover tonight are the ones specifically highlighted in bold,

02:26:38.320 --> 02:26:43.520
 which is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable plans, as well as

02:26:43.520 --> 02:26:47.240
 minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property.

02:26:47.240 --> 02:26:52.560
 Also the rezoning has to meet zoning criteria for approval.

02:26:52.560 --> 02:26:57.460
 So once again, I'm going to be just highlighting the three that are bolded here on the screen.

02:26:57.460 --> 02:27:03.780
 So first, the site is designated low residential, according to the Denton Plan 2030.

02:27:03.780 --> 02:27:08.040
 This is intended for new development up to four dwelling units per acre.

02:27:08.040 --> 02:27:14.000
 It is organized for remote walkability, access to parks, open space, and recreation amenities.

02:27:14.000 --> 02:27:19.800
 The R6 is consistent with the future land use, as it permits a variety of lower intensity

02:27:19.800 --> 02:27:24.200
 housing types available to the community at a scale and form typically found already in

02:27:24.200 --> 02:27:28.560
 the neighborhood, as well as within walking distance of parks and school facilities such

02:27:28.560 --> 02:27:31.960
 as the Fredmore Park and Fredmore High School.

02:27:31.960 --> 02:27:36.040
 As you can see also on the map, it serves as a transition area between the low residential

02:27:36.040 --> 02:27:41.180
 area to the south, as well as the downtown compatibility area just to the north.

02:27:41.180 --> 02:27:45.480
 It also serves the overall goal to promote a compact development pattern through infill

02:27:45.480 --> 02:27:47.800
 development.

02:27:47.800 --> 02:27:52.220
 So R6, as I stated, is consistent with the surrounding zoning and development pattern.

02:27:52.220 --> 02:27:55.740
 So currently on Robertson Street, it is mixed uses.

02:27:55.740 --> 02:28:01.040
 We do have some residential, we have a restaurant, as well as religious assembly uses.

02:28:01.040 --> 02:28:06.580
 And as I stated, there is infill development, would provide a variety of housing options,

02:28:06.580 --> 02:28:10.300
 and it also serves as that transition area, once again, between single family neighborhoods

02:28:10.300 --> 02:28:14.520
 to the south, as well as the mixed use and downtown transition area to the north.

02:28:14.520 --> 02:28:20.660
 Currently, as you can see highlighted in blue, we do have three duplexes and two fourplexes

02:28:20.660 --> 02:28:25.540
 currently located within 650 feet or less of the subject property.

02:28:25.540 --> 02:28:29.760
 So this rezoning would fit into this area.

02:28:29.760 --> 02:28:33.760
 There is no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the south, it's just along

02:28:33.760 --> 02:28:35.560
 Robertson Street.

02:28:35.560 --> 02:28:40.080
 And the development would be required to conform with current site design standards, including

02:28:40.080 --> 02:28:43.000
 screening and landscaping.

02:28:43.000 --> 02:28:46.600
 So just to cover some of the public facilities and services that are available to serve the

02:28:46.600 --> 02:28:51.840
 property, so transportation, it would generate about 30 vehicle trips per day with two in

02:28:51.840 --> 02:28:58.440
 the morning, two total morning peak hour trips and four evening peak hour trips.

02:28:58.440 --> 02:29:01.480
 It would only generate one elementary student.

02:29:01.480 --> 02:29:07.200
 In terms of parks, there is the Fredmore Park, which is located within approximately .4 miles,

02:29:07.200 --> 02:29:12.600
 and it meets the Parks Department's goal of 10 minute walk to a park.

02:29:12.600 --> 02:29:17.120
 Park water and wastewater services are currently available to the site, and the nearest fire

02:29:17.120 --> 02:29:23.260
 station is within the eight minute or less response time boundary.

02:29:23.260 --> 02:29:24.860
 We did have our public outreach.

02:29:24.860 --> 02:29:30.880
 We did have one property owner in favor at 521 Robertson Street, highlighted in green

02:29:30.880 --> 02:29:33.420
 here on the map.

02:29:33.420 --> 02:29:38.100
 So staff does recommend approval of the requested rezoning as it complies with our criteria

02:29:38.100 --> 02:29:45.720
 in sections 2.45E as well as 2.72D of the Denton Development Code.

02:29:45.720 --> 02:29:49.920
 Thank you for the presentation.

02:29:49.920 --> 02:29:54.080
 And I think I did not formally open the public hearing, so I want to do that, open the public

02:29:54.080 --> 02:29:55.080
 hearing.

02:29:55.080 --> 02:30:00.280
 And is there any questions for Cameron on this item?

02:30:00.280 --> 02:30:01.280
 Christopher Pruitt.

02:30:01.280 --> 02:30:03.080
 Yeah, just one question.

02:30:03.080 --> 02:30:10.620
 Do you happen to know what the development fee to request this zoning change is?

02:30:10.620 --> 02:30:13.800
 I'm not sure exactly of the zoning fee.

02:30:13.800 --> 02:30:17.200
 I'm looking that up now.

02:30:17.200 --> 02:30:22.080
 I'll have that for you in just a minute.

02:30:22.080 --> 02:30:23.080
 Now we stall.

02:30:23.080 --> 02:30:29.440
 Any other questions while we're waiting to pull that up?

02:30:29.440 --> 02:30:32.240
 This is a public hearing, so anyone who's wishing to speak on this item may certainly

02:30:32.240 --> 02:30:33.240
 do so.

02:30:33.240 --> 02:30:36.120
 No one has called in at this time.

02:30:36.120 --> 02:30:39.420
 So if there's someone present that wants to speak or someone listening online that would

02:30:39.420 --> 02:30:45.360
 like to make any comments, we'd certainly provide you that time.

02:30:45.360 --> 02:30:51.800
 The zoning application fee itself was just over $8,500, and the total with their notifications

02:30:51.800 --> 02:30:52.800
 was about $9,200.

02:30:52.800 --> 02:30:53.800
 Okay.

02:30:53.800 --> 02:31:01.100
 Yeah, I'll just say that I'm excited to see this application come forward.

02:31:01.100 --> 02:31:09.000
 I will apologize to the future renters or homeowners that it's $2,000 a unit essentially

02:31:09.000 --> 02:31:14.040
 for the zoning, but I'm excited to see it come forward.

02:31:14.040 --> 02:31:20.780
 I think this is one of the most walkable, small, infilled places that we've seen in

02:31:20.780 --> 02:31:24.800
 a long time, so thank you.

02:31:24.800 --> 02:31:28.840
 Seeing that I don't have anyone on hold or here to speak, I'll close the public hearing

02:31:28.840 --> 02:31:32.320
 and turn to Commissioner Smith.

02:31:32.320 --> 02:31:33.320
 Make a motion to approve.

02:31:33.320 --> 02:31:34.880
 We have a first for approval.

02:31:34.880 --> 02:31:35.880
 Commissioner Cole?

02:31:35.880 --> 02:31:36.880
 Second.

02:31:36.880 --> 02:31:39.000
 We have a first and second for approval.

02:31:39.000 --> 02:31:41.040
 Any discussion?

02:31:41.040 --> 02:31:43.160
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

02:31:43.160 --> 02:31:44.160
 Commissioner Pruitt?

02:31:44.160 --> 02:31:45.160
 Aye.

02:31:45.160 --> 02:31:46.160
 Commissioner Smith?

02:31:46.160 --> 02:31:47.160
 Aye.

02:31:47.160 --> 02:31:48.160
 Commissioner McDade?

02:31:48.160 --> 02:31:49.160
 Aye.

02:31:49.160 --> 02:31:50.160
 Chair is an aye.

02:31:50.160 --> 02:31:51.160
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:31:51.160 --> 02:31:52.160
 Aye.

02:31:52.160 --> 02:31:53.160
 Commissioner Cole?

02:31:53.160 --> 02:31:54.160
 Aye.

02:31:54.160 --> 02:31:55.160
 Motion carries 6-0.

02:31:55.160 --> 02:31:58.840
 That brings us back to Item 5C, which will close out our agenda this evening.

02:31:58.840 --> 02:32:08.760
 That item is 5C PD 21-0001C, and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the

02:32:08.760 --> 02:32:09.760
 public hearing.

02:32:09.760 --> 02:32:10.760
 Good evening.

02:32:10.760 --> 02:32:11.760
 Let me pull up my presentation.

02:32:11.760 --> 02:32:40.200
 Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, and I am presenting PD 21-0001C, Kingsway.

02:32:40.200 --> 02:32:48.360
 Before we get into the request, I'm just going to talk briefly about PDs.

02:32:48.360 --> 02:32:54.880
 They were permitted within the City of Denton in the 1969 and 1991 codes.

02:32:54.880 --> 02:33:01.000
 They were removed from the 2002 codes with the exception of a few of those PDs in favor

02:33:01.000 --> 02:33:03.200
 of just straight zoning.

02:33:03.200 --> 02:33:09.240
 PDs were reintroduced in the 2019 code to allow that flexibility and to provide some

02:33:09.240 --> 02:33:14.360
 creative land uses and projects, particularly when they are substantial developments, when

02:33:14.360 --> 02:33:19.440
 it's a big residential project or it's a big commercial or industrial project.

02:33:19.440 --> 02:33:25.280
 We do have processes that outline PDs in subchapter 2 of the Denton Development Code.

02:33:25.280 --> 02:33:31.520
 In order to move forward with a PD or to develop a property as a PD, it does have to go through

02:33:31.520 --> 02:33:33.520
 the rezoning process.

02:33:33.520 --> 02:33:37.000
 As part of that rezoning process, they have to provide a development map, so that's a

02:33:37.000 --> 02:33:41.040
 development plan and then also development standards, so really the text and the map of

02:33:41.040 --> 02:33:48.040
 that zoning code, because it is sort of unique zoning to a specific piece of property.

02:33:48.040 --> 02:33:54.720
 Part of the benefits to PDs is you do get certainty as to what would be built, because

02:33:54.720 --> 02:34:00.360
 you can go through some of those details of the building of that project, like open space

02:34:00.360 --> 02:34:04.480
 requirements or other types of connectivity.

02:34:04.480 --> 02:34:12.480
 As part of the processes for PDs, we also have within the code processes for amending

02:34:12.480 --> 02:34:15.200
 those PDs, and there are two types of amendments.

02:34:15.200 --> 02:34:19.840
 The major amendment, which is just like a regular rezoning case, and then a minor amendment,

02:34:19.840 --> 02:34:25.240
 which could be a minor change to the project, but it does require public notification to

02:34:25.240 --> 02:34:28.160
 properties within 200 feet of that request.

02:34:28.160 --> 02:34:32.120
 And if there is opposition, then it does have to kind of go through back through that public

02:34:32.120 --> 02:34:33.120
 hearing process.

02:34:33.120 --> 02:34:37.640
 But it does provide some protections for those adjacent property owners so they can kind

02:34:37.640 --> 02:34:39.560
 of know what's going on.

02:34:39.560 --> 02:34:41.840
 So with that said, now we'll get into the specifics.

02:34:41.840 --> 02:34:48.040
 So the request before you is to rezone about 100 acres from R4 and R7 districts into a

02:34:48.040 --> 02:34:49.320
 planned development.

02:34:49.320 --> 02:34:54.160
 It is in two tracks, and they are shown on your screen outlined in yellow.

02:34:54.160 --> 02:35:01.120
 They are on the outside of Loop 288 near the Kings Row Street.

02:35:01.120 --> 02:35:06.300
 And there are existing conditions to the site, I just want to go over briefly.

02:35:06.300 --> 02:35:09.560
 There are easements that impact the subject property.

02:35:09.560 --> 02:35:15.160
 There are four of them that sort of run north-south on that site, and about the area where those

02:35:15.160 --> 02:35:17.880
 red dash lines are.

02:35:17.880 --> 02:35:24.760
 There's also, staff was made aware of a potential abandoned or unknown cemetery during the review

02:35:24.760 --> 02:35:34.240
 of the project, and in response to that, there was a field survey of the property that used

02:35:34.240 --> 02:35:36.320
 ground penetrating radar.

02:35:36.320 --> 02:35:42.120
 They did not find any anomalies during that research.

02:35:42.120 --> 02:35:47.160
 And Texas Historical Commission has been working with the applicant and the property owner,

02:35:47.160 --> 02:35:51.580
 and they have deemed that it is like they'll refer to the site as an unverified cemetery

02:35:51.580 --> 02:35:54.200
 that is unlikely to contain remains.

02:35:54.200 --> 02:36:02.320
 And that area is about located in that circled spot there, that red circle, and that is in

02:36:02.320 --> 02:36:06.320
 an open space lot within the proposal as well.

02:36:06.320 --> 02:36:10.380
 And just wanted to touch on the briefly the surrounding roadways.

02:36:10.380 --> 02:36:12.880
 It is adjacent to Loop 288, as I mentioned.

02:36:12.880 --> 02:36:15.440
 This is a text dot highway.

02:36:15.440 --> 02:36:20.920
 Text dot does have future plans for frontage roads from Kings Row to FM 428.

02:36:20.920 --> 02:36:23.880
 We don't have timing for that yet, though.

02:36:23.880 --> 02:36:29.400
 Deerwood Parkway, that is a north-south collector within the City of Denton's mobility plan,

02:36:29.400 --> 02:36:33.600
 and if this is approved and moved forward, it will, they will be required to extend Deerfield,

02:36:33.600 --> 02:36:36.680
 I'm sorry, Deerwood to the north property boundary.

02:36:36.680 --> 02:36:39.080
 And then finally, Kings Row is a collector.

02:36:39.080 --> 02:36:42.480
 It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road.

02:36:42.480 --> 02:36:48.960
 There's a small section of four-foot sidewalk on the north side of that road as well.

02:36:48.960 --> 02:36:53.280
 Just to talk, briefly compare the current zoning map versus the proposal.

02:36:53.280 --> 02:36:58.040
 So the subject site has a zoning of R4 District.

02:36:58.040 --> 02:37:06.920
 Under R4, well R4 and R7, sorry, R4 and R7 would both permit the development of single-family

02:37:06.920 --> 02:37:07.920
 homes.

02:37:07.920 --> 02:37:15.480
 R4 District requires minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet, and then R7 requires 4,000 square

02:37:15.480 --> 02:37:16.840
 foot lots.

02:37:16.840 --> 02:37:23.120
 The minimum lot width in both of those districts is 50 feet, and the depth is 80 feet.

02:37:23.120 --> 02:37:28.200
 Under the current Denton Development Code, we do not have any minimum open space requirements

02:37:28.200 --> 02:37:31.040
 for single-family developments.

02:37:31.040 --> 02:37:37.440
 They are proposing a plan development, as I mentioned, with R4 as that base zoning district.

02:37:37.440 --> 02:37:43.640
 Within that PD, they would, they're proposing to develop or to permit any of those uses

02:37:43.640 --> 02:37:49.000
 that would be permitted in R4, so they are proposing a single-family residential development.

02:37:49.000 --> 02:37:54.760
 And they are proposing a variety of lot sizes, and those range from 7,800 square feet to

02:37:54.760 --> 02:38:00.440
 6,000 square feet to 4,400 square feet.

02:38:00.440 --> 02:38:05.360
 And they also have lot widths that sort of track that same, 60 feet, then 50 feet, then

02:38:05.360 --> 02:38:06.360
 40 feet.

02:38:06.360 --> 02:38:11.560
 They are proposing lot depths that are larger than the current Denton Development Code for

02:38:11.560 --> 02:38:13.920
 each of those lot types.

02:38:13.920 --> 02:38:19.760
 And there was a question at work session about what the average lot size across the development.

02:38:19.760 --> 02:38:27.360
 I did have to use an Excel spreadsheet, but it is 5,382 square feet would be the average

02:38:27.360 --> 02:38:32.240
 lot size across all of those lot sizes.

02:38:32.240 --> 02:38:37.000
 And they are proposing 21 acres of open space.

02:38:37.000 --> 02:38:39.080
 That does include those existing easements.

02:38:39.080 --> 02:38:48.000
 That's about 5.5 acres, as well as that the ponds for drainage and tree preservation.

02:38:48.000 --> 02:38:52.360
 There was also a question about garage widths, and I have that too.

02:38:52.360 --> 02:38:54.720
 Just, we'll just touch on that briefly.

02:38:54.720 --> 02:38:59.760
 They are proposing, because these are narrower lots that they're proposing, that those, the

02:38:59.760 --> 02:39:07.800
 larger size lots would have 45 percent of that frontage for those homes would be able

02:39:07.800 --> 02:39:16.000
 to be garage, and then the narrower lot, the 40 foot wide lot would be 60 percent, is what

02:39:16.000 --> 02:39:17.160
 they're proposing.

02:39:17.160 --> 02:39:23.600
 The Denton Development Code limits the garage frontage for 40 percent of that frontage of

02:39:23.600 --> 02:39:26.600
 homes.

02:39:26.600 --> 02:39:28.880
 The zoning plan, we'll just look at that.

02:39:28.880 --> 02:39:34.560
 That is, as I mentioned, they are proposing 380 single family lots.

02:39:34.560 --> 02:39:38.760
 With the 3 lot sizes, those would transition from those larger lots on the east side of

02:39:38.760 --> 02:39:44.680
 the development and the south side of the development on the 95 acre piece, and then

02:39:44.680 --> 02:39:49.320
 transition to those smaller lots as you move toward the west, toward Loop 288.

02:39:49.320 --> 02:39:53.400
 So it goes to 7,800, then 6,000, then the 4,400.

02:39:53.400 --> 02:39:57.840
 And the little 5 acre tract to the south sort of attracts that with the 6,000 square foot

02:39:57.840 --> 02:40:04.040
 lots on the east side of that area, and then transitioning to the smaller lot sizes.

02:40:04.040 --> 02:40:10.920
 As I mentioned, it does, the zoning plan also depicts that open space and right-of-way dedication.

02:40:10.920 --> 02:40:15.760
 They are showing that right-of-way dedication that will be needed for those frontage roads

02:40:15.760 --> 02:40:22.800
 for Loop 288, as well as that extension of the Deerwood Collector and Neighborhood Streets.

02:40:22.800 --> 02:40:27.920
 The criteria for approval are, as in subchapter two of the Denton Development Code, we have

02:40:27.920 --> 02:40:30.000
 the general and the specific.

02:40:30.000 --> 02:40:35.200
 This will summarize the general, it is consistent with the DDC except for those areas where

02:40:35.200 --> 02:40:37.760
 they are requesting those deviations.

02:40:37.760 --> 02:40:40.880
 There aren't any prior approvals for this project.

02:40:40.880 --> 02:40:47.680
 We don't expect any significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts, and we are proposing conditions

02:40:47.680 --> 02:40:52.240
 that are anticipated to address any traffic concerns.

02:40:52.240 --> 02:40:56.360
 The specific criteria for approval is also in subchapter two, and we're going to go over

02:40:56.360 --> 02:40:59.060
 those a little more deeply.

02:40:59.060 --> 02:41:02.400
 So first of all, we need to talk about Denton Plan 2030, that's always the first place

02:41:02.400 --> 02:41:03.560
 we start.

02:41:03.560 --> 02:41:08.200
 The subject site has a future land use designation of low residential, which is intended for

02:41:08.200 --> 02:41:13.640
 those kind of that residential development, almost suburban style from one to four dwelling

02:41:13.640 --> 02:41:16.040
 units per acre.

02:41:16.040 --> 02:41:21.100
 Developments are intended to be contiguous with existing developed areas, and also organized

02:41:21.100 --> 02:41:25.760
 to promote walkability and that access to open spaces.

02:41:25.760 --> 02:41:30.280
 And also the Denton Plan 2030 talks about a variety of housing styles, that we want

02:41:30.280 --> 02:41:34.120
 those more dynamic places.

02:41:34.120 --> 02:41:40.080
 You can see kind of how this site fits in within the larger comprehensive plan when

02:41:40.080 --> 02:41:44.420
 you kind of zoom out and look at the plan shown on your screen.

02:41:44.420 --> 02:41:49.560
 We've got the low residential while you're closer to the loop with those nodes of activity

02:41:49.560 --> 02:41:56.720
 at those intersections with community mixed use near loop 288 at FM 428 and at Windsor.

02:41:56.720 --> 02:42:02.480
 And then you get that moderate residential as you're moving toward university.

02:42:02.480 --> 02:42:08.800
 And now let's look at how this proposal, you know, how it's analyzed against that comprehensive

02:42:08.800 --> 02:42:09.800
 plan.

02:42:09.800 --> 02:42:14.480
 So they are proposing an overall gross density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent

02:42:14.480 --> 02:42:17.520
 with the one to four dwelling units.

02:42:17.520 --> 02:42:24.680
 It is adjacent to loop 288, which is consistent, which is contiguous with that existing development.

02:42:24.680 --> 02:42:28.760
 That single-family residential neighborhood to the south, I believe it's called Harvest

02:42:28.760 --> 02:42:29.760
 Hill.

02:42:29.760 --> 02:42:34.640
 We've also had other projects that have come forward recently over the last few years with

02:42:34.640 --> 02:42:40.120
 multi-family and commercial development at the intersection of FM 428 and the loop.

02:42:40.120 --> 02:42:46.280
 And additional multi-family developments north of that with more single-family residential

02:42:46.280 --> 02:42:49.560
 development as you go outside the loop.

02:42:49.560 --> 02:42:53.720
 They're proposing in their PD to address walkability.

02:42:53.720 --> 02:43:00.440
 They're proposing some trails within those existing easements to amenitize those easements.

02:43:00.440 --> 02:43:05.360
 Those will connect to those sidewalks as well as those established sidewalk network to create

02:43:05.360 --> 02:43:09.240
 a continuous path to the elementary school for students.

02:43:09.240 --> 02:43:16.960
 And they are proposing that variety of lot sizes to sort of create that dynamic community.

02:43:16.960 --> 02:43:19.200
 Criterion two complies with the DDC.

02:43:19.200 --> 02:43:23.120
 They are complying with the DDC except for those areas in which they are requesting the

02:43:23.120 --> 02:43:24.120
 deviations.

02:43:24.120 --> 02:43:28.400
 We've talked about the lot sizes, and we'll talk about architectural standards as we move

02:43:28.400 --> 02:43:31.720
 forward.

02:43:31.720 --> 02:43:35.840
 Criterion three talks about building design, amenities, and connectivity, and that those

02:43:35.840 --> 02:43:40.840
 should be greater than what would be developed under base zoning.

02:43:40.840 --> 02:43:43.440
 And so I want to talk about these individually.

02:43:43.440 --> 02:43:45.960
 First, building design.

02:43:45.960 --> 02:43:54.800
 They are proposing to add additional architectural elements that would be in excess of what would

02:43:54.800 --> 02:43:59.320
 be permitted or required for just a base zoning development.

02:43:59.320 --> 02:44:03.800
 So if they came in and developed with R4, they would have to comply with the site design

02:44:03.800 --> 02:44:07.280
 standards for single family residential in subchapter seven.

02:44:07.280 --> 02:44:12.560
 They're proposing to comply with those elements as well as add additional elements, and then

02:44:12.560 --> 02:44:16.240
 each unit would have to have three of those additional elements, and those could be things

02:44:16.240 --> 02:44:22.920
 like the carriage lights, transom windows, decorative shutters, enhanced driveway payment,

02:44:22.920 --> 02:44:24.280
 or enhanced landscaping.

02:44:24.280 --> 02:44:30.080
 So those are those architectural enhancements that they're proposing.

02:44:30.080 --> 02:44:32.440
 The next I want to talk about is amenities.

02:44:32.440 --> 02:44:38.400
 As I mentioned, they are proposing open space, 21.8 acres of open space, and that would include

02:44:38.400 --> 02:44:44.520
 things like loop 288 screening, tree preservation, and those existing easements in addition to

02:44:44.520 --> 02:44:46.600
 just open spaces.

02:44:46.600 --> 02:44:53.360
 That includes a 5.31 acre open space gateway into the neighborhood, and that would include

02:44:53.360 --> 02:45:00.200
 a trail, a wet pond, so a pond that holds water with an aerator that will have a fountain

02:45:00.200 --> 02:45:01.960
 in the middle of it.

02:45:01.960 --> 02:45:07.240
 So a playground, a pavilion, and tree plantings.

02:45:07.240 --> 02:45:12.600
 They've used their -- or they're proposing to use those drainage areas, so those areas

02:45:12.600 --> 02:45:17.480
 where they've got to capture that runoff from those homes, and they've designed those in

02:45:17.480 --> 02:45:19.920
 a way to sort of create community amenities.

02:45:19.920 --> 02:45:26.160
 So instead of having a dry pond, they're proposing ponds that will hold water and have those

02:45:26.160 --> 02:45:29.000
 fountain features.

02:45:29.000 --> 02:45:36.800
 And then they're also proposing a treed buffer at loop 288 with a 6-foot masonry wall to

02:45:36.800 --> 02:45:44.020
 provide that screening for any future residents and that green screen.

02:45:44.020 --> 02:45:50.120
 So based upon all of this open space, 124 lots would be adjacent to open areas, and

02:45:50.120 --> 02:45:54.920
 that's about 32% of the proposed development.

02:45:54.920 --> 02:45:59.200
 And then finally, the last portion of Criterion 3 is connectivity.

02:45:59.200 --> 02:46:06.720
 So where possible, they have oversized those areas that include those existing easements

02:46:06.720 --> 02:46:11.140
 to allow for additional plantings, and they're also working with those easement holders to

02:46:11.140 --> 02:46:14.360
 have those trails within there.

02:46:14.360 --> 02:46:19.260
 Those will link to the -- to neighborhood sidewalks as well as that existing sidewalk

02:46:19.260 --> 02:46:21.600
 to provide that additional connectivity.

02:46:21.600 --> 02:46:25.400
 Those trails are also sited in a way that they'll -- they connect to the property to

02:46:25.400 --> 02:46:26.400
 the north.

02:46:26.400 --> 02:46:30.360
 So if and when that property does develop, there will be that -- sort of that beginning

02:46:30.360 --> 02:46:34.300
 of that trail system in the area.

02:46:34.300 --> 02:46:42.760
 And that trail is designed particularly in -- on Deerwood, and I show the -- that street

02:46:42.760 --> 02:46:48.640
 section here that they're proposing a 10-foot bike ped path on the west side of that, and

02:46:48.640 --> 02:46:51.200
 then an 8-foot pedestrian path on the east side.

02:46:51.200 --> 02:46:56.920
 So that way that accommodates those different modes of transportation.

02:46:56.920 --> 02:47:02.080
 Criterion 4, compatible buildings uses that are consistent with the character of the area.

02:47:02.080 --> 02:47:06.360
 They are proposing a residential development which is consistent with the adjacent residential

02:47:06.360 --> 02:47:07.360
 development.

02:47:07.360 --> 02:47:13.520
 It's also consistent with the -- with the permitted uses within R4.

02:47:13.520 --> 02:47:18.400
 Now they are proposing densities that are greater than the existing densities, and -- but

02:47:18.400 --> 02:47:24.080
 they have -- they have sited those lots in a way that transitions the larger lots into

02:47:24.080 --> 02:47:30.800
 the smaller lots as you move away from that -- those existing neighborhoods.

02:47:30.800 --> 02:47:35.440
 The development is expected to generate about 92 elementary school students, 48 middle school

02:47:35.440 --> 02:47:38.480
 students, and then 60 high school students.

02:47:38.480 --> 02:47:47.360
 Per Denton ISD, Hodge Elementary is anticipated to meet capacity in 2022-2023 school year.

02:47:47.360 --> 02:47:51.480
 Strickland Middle School has sufficient capacity, and then Ryan High School would be nearing

02:47:51.480 --> 02:47:58.800
 capacity one year after that Hodge Elementary School would potentially meet capacity.

02:47:58.800 --> 02:48:04.640
 There is a fire station within the eight-minute or less response time boundary.

02:48:04.640 --> 02:48:09.960
 There was one discussion we had with fire regarding this project, and that is that secondary

02:48:09.960 --> 02:48:16.320
 emergency access as -- what we have done is added a condition to the development that

02:48:16.320 --> 02:48:23.040
 they would have to secure a secondary emergency access to Loop 288 prior to the -- the platting

02:48:23.040 --> 02:48:29.680
 of -- of those -- those final stages or those -- of the development to ensure that there's

02:48:29.680 --> 02:48:31.800
 adequate access.

02:48:31.800 --> 02:48:36.400
 And then the use is consistent with the surrounding area, and it's not expected to generate significant

02:48:36.400 --> 02:48:39.640
 increase in crime or nuisances.

02:48:39.640 --> 02:48:42.680
 There's water and wastewater available in the area, and it would have to be extended

02:48:42.680 --> 02:48:48.360
 through the development, and there are no capacity issues that have been identified.

02:48:48.360 --> 02:48:51.400
 And then final piece I want to talk about is transportation.

02:48:51.400 --> 02:48:58.840
 So this project is estimated to generate 3,500 trips per day, and that would be 275 morning

02:48:58.840 --> 02:49:05.120
 peak, 234 mid-afternoon peak, and then 366 evening peak.

02:49:05.120 --> 02:49:10.080
 They also did an analysis of how many trips would be generated that would go to the nearby

02:49:10.080 --> 02:49:11.080
 school.

02:49:11.080 --> 02:49:16.080
 So we anticipate 41 morning vehicles and then 35 afternoon vehicles.

02:49:16.080 --> 02:49:20.080
 And now I want to direct your attention to the map on your screen, and that talks about

02:49:20.080 --> 02:49:21.660
 current roadway conditions.

02:49:21.660 --> 02:49:27.400
 So that would not include the traffic that would be generated by this development.

02:49:27.400 --> 02:49:32.880
 Currently the intersection at Deerwood and -- and Loop 288 is -- is operating at anywhere

02:49:32.880 --> 02:49:38.840
 between a level C to a level E level of service, and that is dependent on the amount of wait

02:49:38.840 --> 02:49:43.120
 times that are averaged at those intersections.

02:49:43.120 --> 02:49:48.560
 The other intersection -- another intersection was looked at was that Deerwood and Kingsrow,

02:49:48.560 --> 02:49:55.960
 and that has either a level of service A or B depending on the time of day at that intersection.

02:49:55.960 --> 02:49:58.400
 So those are current conditions.

02:49:58.400 --> 02:50:01.880
 The -- the applicant did a TIA for the development.

02:50:01.880 --> 02:50:08.000
 It's been reviewed and approved by our engineering staff, and -- and within that TIA they looked

02:50:08.000 --> 02:50:15.000
 at the 2029 conditions, and that includes growth in the area, so that background growth,

02:50:15.000 --> 02:50:21.360
 as well as the subject property, so if it developed with 380 dwelling units.

02:50:21.360 --> 02:50:26.440
 That would cause the intersection at Loop 288 and Kingsrow to become a level of service

02:50:26.440 --> 02:50:32.000
 of F, and then the intersection at Deerwood and Kingsrow would move to either a level

02:50:32.000 --> 02:50:38.880
 of service D or B depending on the time of day.

02:50:38.880 --> 02:50:45.600
 So in order to address those concerns regarding transportation, we are proposing a couple

02:50:45.600 --> 02:50:53.120
 of conditions, and these were -- these were determined through that TIA process.

02:50:53.120 --> 02:50:59.520
 The first would be to -- to add a right turn lane only that would allow cars to move from

02:50:59.520 --> 02:51:04.720
 Kingsrow to -- to go north on Loop 288.

02:51:04.720 --> 02:51:13.800
 The next intervention would be to -- to construct an additional lane on -- along Kingsrow, 300

02:51:13.800 --> 02:51:16.520
 feet long and 11 feet wide.

02:51:16.520 --> 02:51:22.120
 That would allow vehicles that are going straight on Kingsrow toward the east to move freely,

02:51:22.120 --> 02:51:28.720
 and that would allow for a left turn pocket going north on Deerwood.

02:51:28.720 --> 02:51:34.480
 And these are -- these are in the staff's recommendation regarding the project.

02:51:34.480 --> 02:51:40.360
 So these proposed enhancements would result in -- in a level of service of D or better,

02:51:40.360 --> 02:51:48.260
 and that would be those 2029 conditions, so with those additional trips.

02:51:48.260 --> 02:51:52.000
 There are no city maintained parks within walking distance to the subject property,

02:51:52.000 --> 02:51:55.980
 and that's why the -- that's why those open spaces were really important regarding this

02:51:55.980 --> 02:52:00.800
 project to make sure that there was adequate recreation area.

02:52:00.800 --> 02:52:04.640
 With a -- a development that would just go forward, so if it moved forward with just

02:52:04.640 --> 02:52:09.300
 the R4 development, there would not be any minimum open space required.

02:52:09.300 --> 02:52:16.680
 They would have to dedicate park dedication per ordinance, which would be -- which would

02:52:16.680 --> 02:52:19.280
 require 2.66 acres.

02:52:19.280 --> 02:52:27.280
 That would either be dedicated in -- in land or payment in lieu of -- of that dedication.

02:52:27.280 --> 02:52:28.960
 Public outreach was sent out.

02:52:28.960 --> 02:52:36.320
 Thus far, we have received 74 letters in opposition, and that's about 11.24 percent within the

02:52:36.320 --> 02:52:37.880
 200-foot boundary.

02:52:37.880 --> 02:52:41.720
 And then we've also received six letters in favor.

02:52:41.720 --> 02:52:45.400
 The applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings that were virtual.

02:52:45.400 --> 02:52:49.200
 The main concerns that were discussed were related to traffic.

02:52:49.200 --> 02:52:54.680
 There were drainage concerns discussed, and then also just concerns about densities in

02:52:54.680 --> 02:52:56.960
 the area.

02:52:56.960 --> 02:53:03.640
 So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval -- approval of the request

02:53:03.640 --> 02:53:05.080
 with the following conditions.

02:53:05.080 --> 02:53:08.960
 Prior to final plot approval, for any phase of the plan development, the developer must

02:53:08.960 --> 02:53:12.520
 submit civil engineering plans for public improvements in accordance with the city's

02:53:12.520 --> 02:53:14.920
 standards to serve the development.

02:53:14.920 --> 02:53:19.000
 In addition to all required internal improvements, these plans shall include the following roadway

02:53:19.000 --> 02:53:25.840
 improvements to Kings Row, that dedicated right turn lane from Kings Row onto Loop 288,

02:53:25.840 --> 02:53:32.900
 that 11 by 300-foot pavement section on that eastbound Kings Row to allow for that left-hand

02:53:32.900 --> 02:53:37.480
 turn lane, and then striping for that left-hand turn lane.

02:53:37.480 --> 02:53:43.680
 And then prior to final plot approval for phases 2B, 3A, and 3B, TxDOT must approve

02:53:43.680 --> 02:53:50.400
 a gated emergency access or full vehicular access connection to Loop 288, which meets

02:53:50.400 --> 02:53:53.680
 the minimum standards.

02:53:53.680 --> 02:53:59.120
 And if this moves forward tonight, the next step would be to go to City Council on July

02:53:59.120 --> 02:54:01.520
 20th, 2021.

02:54:01.520 --> 02:54:05.920
 And I will be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here.

02:54:05.920 --> 02:54:08.560
 So any questions for staff?

02:54:08.560 --> 02:54:13.120
 I don't see any yet, Julie.

02:54:13.120 --> 02:54:16.960
 With that, we will go ahead with public comment.

02:54:16.960 --> 02:54:21.760
 First will be the applicant, Jim Strange and Thomas Fletcher.

02:54:21.760 --> 02:54:25.240
 Combined, you will have 20 minutes.

02:54:25.240 --> 02:54:48.520
 I'll let you all split it up as you all see it.

02:54:48.520 --> 02:55:01.880
 Jim Strange, 3613 Falcon Court, Denton, Texas, 76210.

02:55:01.880 --> 02:55:03.800
 Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.

02:55:03.800 --> 02:55:07.440
 I appreciate the opportunity to present King's Way to you.

02:55:07.440 --> 02:55:12.040
 I'm Jim Strange, and my wife and I are the 100 percent owners of Marketstone Realty Partners

02:55:12.040 --> 02:55:14.000
 IV, the developer for this project.

02:55:14.000 --> 02:55:18.520
 I was born and raised here in Denton, and I've raised my own family here as well.

02:55:18.520 --> 02:55:22.240
 I'm a second-generation general contractor and developer.

02:55:22.240 --> 02:55:26.400
 I've had the opportunity to develop numerous residential subdivisions and to also build

02:55:26.400 --> 02:55:31.440
 and remodel a significant number of residential and commercial properties for families, business

02:55:31.440 --> 02:55:34.240
 owners, charitable organizations here in Denton.

02:55:34.240 --> 02:55:39.160
 In addition to serving my fellow Denton citizens by building neighborhoods, homes, businesses,

02:55:39.160 --> 02:55:43.520
 churches, et cetera, I've also publicly served six years on the building standards

02:55:43.520 --> 02:55:47.240
 board and six years on planning and zoning.

02:55:47.240 --> 02:55:53.160
 Through all of these experiences, I've learned what it takes to make for well-designed communities

02:55:53.160 --> 02:55:54.160
 and projects.

02:55:54.160 --> 02:56:00.520
 Not only that, as a fellow citizen of Denton, I care about what is built in our community.

02:56:00.520 --> 02:56:04.000
 What attracted me to the brown tracks were all the features that this property had that

02:56:04.000 --> 02:56:08.640
 are necessary for a development vision to become a reality.

02:56:08.640 --> 02:56:11.600
 Proposed density is consistent with the future land use map.

02:56:11.600 --> 02:56:14.920
 There are property size utilities to the property.

02:56:14.920 --> 02:56:17.400
 There's a collector street within the property.

02:56:17.400 --> 02:56:23.160
 We're proposing direct access to loop 288, a separate loop 288 intersection with an existing

02:56:23.160 --> 02:56:24.760
 traffic light.

02:56:24.760 --> 02:56:28.520
 Hodge Elementary and two churches are within walking distance.

02:56:28.520 --> 02:56:31.620
 There's close proximity to the natatorium.

02:56:31.620 --> 02:56:37.080
 There's no ASA on the property, and the trees are along the perimeter for preservation.

02:56:37.080 --> 02:56:43.680
 As we all know, our city is facing unprecedented residential housing needs, and this development

02:56:43.680 --> 02:56:45.920
 will help meet these needs.

02:56:45.920 --> 02:56:49.660
 When I put the brown tracks under contract, I had a choice to make.

02:56:49.660 --> 02:56:55.560
 The 100-acre property had R7 and R4 zoning and would just need to be platted.

02:56:55.560 --> 02:57:00.960
 As you know, this choice would not require any neighborhood notices, meetings, and would

02:57:00.960 --> 02:57:04.320
 just need to meet the DDC for plat approval.

02:57:04.320 --> 02:57:07.880
 All the lots would have been roughly the same size, there would have been little variability

02:57:07.880 --> 02:57:10.220
 in price point and house size.

02:57:10.220 --> 02:57:15.360
 I knew this was not the best use of the property, and I chose to invest the time, the resources,

02:57:15.360 --> 02:57:20.480
 and the effort necessary to bring something unique and diverse to Denton that is desperately

02:57:20.480 --> 02:57:21.480
 needed.

02:57:21.480 --> 02:57:29.600
 The Denton 2030 plan specifies the following, page 48, 2.14.2, revise rural residential

02:57:29.600 --> 02:57:34.840
 to explicitly allow conservation development, including density and/or lot size incentives

02:57:34.840 --> 02:57:37.160
 for open space protection.

02:57:37.160 --> 02:57:45.000
 Page 54, 2.19.2, C, a variety of housing styles, types, and prices with large newly developed

02:57:45.000 --> 02:57:47.200
 neighborhoods are encouraged.

02:57:47.200 --> 02:57:53.040
 E, new residential development should be organized to promote walkability, access to parks, open

02:57:53.040 --> 02:57:57.400
 space, recreational amenities, and school facilities.

02:57:57.400 --> 02:58:02.040
 F, compact developments that include clustered small lots with substantial retained open

02:58:02.040 --> 02:58:04.560
 space are encouraged.

02:58:04.560 --> 02:58:08.600
 A general principle stated in the 2030 plan says new developments should be built close

02:58:08.600 --> 02:58:14.440
 to existing services to minimize costly capital expansion, and as recommended with the preferred

02:58:14.440 --> 02:58:20.800
 growth concept, this property is located adjacent to the corridor of loop 288.

02:58:20.800 --> 02:58:26.820
 The affordable housing needs and market value analysis dated January 2021 states the following

02:58:26.820 --> 02:58:29.920
 in the community engagement process section.

02:58:29.920 --> 02:58:35.160
 Page 91.3, future development should work to enhance this by including unique design

02:58:35.160 --> 02:58:37.080
 and diverse housing.

02:58:37.080 --> 02:58:42.360
 Page 91.5, smaller lots and more open space in certain areas can increase the desirability

02:58:42.360 --> 02:58:47.640
 of Denton and work from the city's "hipitude reputation."

02:58:47.640 --> 02:58:51.560
 This is in contrast to the housing styles the developers want to build.

02:58:51.560 --> 02:58:55.560
 While I stand here before you saying we're going to do something different, we're presenting

02:58:55.560 --> 02:58:58.600
 something very unique for you.

02:58:58.600 --> 02:59:03.740
 Kingsway will be a unique community offering three lot sizes to provide diversity in housing

02:59:03.740 --> 02:59:05.960
 within the development itself.

02:59:05.960 --> 02:59:10.040
 There will be over 20 acres of open space for residents to enjoy.

02:59:10.040 --> 02:59:14.040
 This open space throughout development will have over a million and a half dollars of

02:59:14.040 --> 02:59:20.760
 private funds, trees, invested into trails, trees, landscaping, benches, and masonry screening

02:59:20.760 --> 02:59:23.360
 walls along loop 288.

02:59:23.360 --> 02:59:27.840
 As part of the PD, I've had a full landscape plan prepared that provides all amenities

02:59:27.840 --> 02:59:29.720
 proposed.

02:59:29.720 --> 02:59:33.680
 Within the 20 acres of open space, I also work with the Parks Department to provide

02:59:33.680 --> 02:59:38.920
 a public park, and these areas are reflected in our landscape plan.

02:59:38.920 --> 02:59:43.040
 As Julie mentioned, we had a total of three neighborhood meetings.

02:59:43.040 --> 02:59:48.040
 The two main concerns were existing traffic congestion and drainage issues.

02:59:48.040 --> 02:59:52.840
 To address these two items factually, a preliminary drainage study and a TIA have been prepared

02:59:52.840 --> 02:59:55.080
 and reviewed by city staff.

02:59:55.080 --> 03:00:01.720
 We are proposing a second subdivision public access point, which we will have in our presentation,

03:00:01.720 --> 03:00:05.600
 directly off of loop 288.

03:00:05.600 --> 03:00:10.040
 This is also currently being reviewed by city staff and tech stock.

03:00:10.040 --> 03:00:15.560
 With the proposed road improvements at King's Row, a direct access off of loop 288, two

03:00:15.560 --> 03:00:20.720
 large retention ponds, we will resolve the two main issues raised by our neighbors.

03:00:20.720 --> 03:00:26.640
 I also met one-on-one with several neighbors to learn about their specific concerns, and

03:00:26.640 --> 03:00:30.480
 I requested other one-on-one meetings that went unanswered.

03:00:30.480 --> 03:00:34.840
 I've done way more than what is required by the City of Denton neighborhood notifications

03:00:34.840 --> 03:00:37.400
 to solicit neighborhood input.

03:00:37.400 --> 03:00:43.280
 Additionally, neighbors also stated that the Denton 2030 plan was important to them.

03:00:43.280 --> 03:00:47.440
 As I outlined previously, I believe King's Way is very much within the spirit and the

03:00:47.440 --> 03:00:51.520
 principles of Denton 2030 plan.

03:00:51.520 --> 03:00:54.940
 Neighbors also expressed concerns about the size and the price points of the homes to

03:00:54.940 --> 03:00:56.960
 be built in King's Way.

03:00:56.960 --> 03:01:00.840
 The new homes in King's Way will be comparable in size, and I expect supportive in price

03:01:00.840 --> 03:01:01.920
 point.

03:01:01.920 --> 03:01:06.280
 I prepared a brief summary for my own information of all the homes in Dearwood addition from

03:01:06.280 --> 03:01:08.760
 the Denton Appraisal District website.

03:01:08.760 --> 03:01:16.160
 The homes in Dearwood range in size from 1,332 square feet to 3,698 square feet, with 75%

03:01:16.160 --> 03:01:19.760
 of the existing homes being under 2,500 square feet.

03:01:19.760 --> 03:01:23.960
 Thomas Fletcher with Kimley-Horn will provide you with more details on the King's Way development

03:01:23.960 --> 03:01:25.960
 than I've just outlined.

03:01:25.960 --> 03:01:30.340
 Based on the larger vision I presented and the details that Thomas will provide, I hope

03:01:30.340 --> 03:01:35.880
 you will support the King's Way PD and help raise the bar for residential development

03:01:35.880 --> 03:01:37.640
 in the City of Denton.

03:01:37.640 --> 03:01:42.160
 I'll stand for any questions now or I'll stand for questions once Thomas provides additional

03:01:42.160 --> 03:01:43.160
 details.

03:01:43.160 --> 03:01:44.160
 Thank you.

03:01:44.160 --> 03:01:46.320
 Mr. Smith.

03:01:46.320 --> 03:01:47.320
 Thank you, Chair.

03:01:47.320 --> 03:01:53.520
 Mr. Strange, in your opinion, if this PD wasn't approved, what would be lost when kept at

03:01:53.520 --> 03:01:58.640
 an R4 and R7 in comparison to what you've pursued to be able to provide through the

03:01:58.640 --> 03:01:59.640
 PD?

03:01:59.640 --> 03:02:02.200
 Can you kind of outline what you feel like would be lost if we kept it in the current

03:02:02.200 --> 03:02:03.200
 zoning?

03:02:03.200 --> 03:02:05.800
 The hugest would be the loss of people having the opportunity to buy homes that would be

03:02:05.800 --> 03:02:11.880
 at a lower price point over against Loop 288 versus one lot size, one price point.

03:02:11.880 --> 03:02:14.560
 You either can buy a house in here or not.

03:02:14.560 --> 03:02:16.760
 The open space is another huge thing.

03:02:16.760 --> 03:02:22.000
 We purposely increased the open space to offset for some of the smaller lots.

03:02:22.000 --> 03:02:26.720
 The real vision on this project was to try to open and meet the need that's presented

03:02:26.720 --> 03:02:28.480
 in our housing affordability.

03:02:28.480 --> 03:02:34.900
 When you get to $200,000, a lot of our service folks in the city are priced out of housing

03:02:34.900 --> 03:02:35.900
 here in Denton.

03:02:35.900 --> 03:02:40.440
 So the idea was to try to do large, actually oversized, lots in R4 against the existing

03:02:40.440 --> 03:02:42.840
 neighborhood, try to perfect the existing neighborhood.

03:02:42.840 --> 03:02:49.480
 We've done buffers, we've done deeper lots, we've put our park area trying to kind of

03:02:49.480 --> 03:02:54.680
 separate our subdivision from the existing neighborhood, and then as we've gone west,

03:02:54.680 --> 03:03:00.080
 we have started to make the lot smaller and hopefully more affordable for folks that would

03:03:00.080 --> 03:03:03.920
 necessarily drive by a new subdivision and say, "We can't afford one of those and have

03:03:03.920 --> 03:03:04.920
 to keep driving."

03:03:04.920 --> 03:03:05.920
 Gotcha.

03:03:05.920 --> 03:03:11.460
 So affordability for what it's worth and what the pricing will be will be unknown until

03:03:11.460 --> 03:03:16.440
 build actually happens, but affordability, larger park space and overall better development

03:03:16.440 --> 03:03:19.200
 than what you could buy right, go ahead and develop as of today.

03:03:19.200 --> 03:03:20.200
 Correct.

03:03:20.200 --> 03:03:24.920
 Mr. Strange, is it better to ask you or ask Mr. Fletcher questions about the separated

03:03:24.920 --> 03:03:28.120
 non-contiguous properties and HOA management of those?

03:03:28.120 --> 03:03:29.120
 Yes, ma'am.

03:03:29.120 --> 03:03:30.120
 Okay.

03:03:30.120 --> 03:03:34.960
 So I asked during work session just about how HOA fees and services work about whenever

03:03:34.960 --> 03:03:39.680
 you have a piece of the neighborhood essentially that's not connected to the main piece of

03:03:39.680 --> 03:03:43.920
 it, connectivity, being able to get folks to be able to walk up there, be able to access

03:03:43.920 --> 03:03:50.200
 the amenities up there, thoughts, ideas, why we still included that tract in the entire

03:03:50.200 --> 03:03:52.400
 neighborhood, anything you want to share on that piece?

03:03:52.400 --> 03:03:53.400
 Sure.

03:03:53.400 --> 03:03:56.760
 The original goal with that tract was to do what's called a model park.

03:03:56.760 --> 03:04:02.400
 So what our goal was was to have the opportunity to have housing right there at the intersection,

03:04:02.400 --> 03:04:06.960
 signal intersection of Kings Row and Loop 288 to provide great exposure to be able to

03:04:06.960 --> 03:04:09.000
 draw people into our neighborhood.

03:04:09.000 --> 03:04:14.140
 We're now obviously able to get a second point of ingress egress so that helps even enhance

03:04:14.140 --> 03:04:15.680
 the ability to come in.

03:04:15.680 --> 03:04:20.960
 I have developed other subdivisions that have multiple phases, have one subdivision and

03:04:20.960 --> 03:04:24.720
 they're all part of the same HOA so we have had experience with that.

03:04:24.720 --> 03:04:28.600
 I haven't had a problem with people saying, "Well, that's their part and that's their

03:04:28.600 --> 03:04:29.600
 part."

03:04:29.600 --> 03:04:30.600
 Sure.

03:04:30.600 --> 03:04:32.600
 It's a public park.

03:04:32.600 --> 03:04:36.840
 So essentially it's open to not only our subdivision, that was one of the things we worked out with

03:04:36.840 --> 03:04:37.840
 parks.

03:04:37.840 --> 03:04:38.840
 Originally it was all private.

03:04:38.840 --> 03:04:39.840
 Sure.

03:04:39.840 --> 03:04:40.840
 We worked out something with parks.

03:04:40.840 --> 03:04:41.840
 So now it is a public park.

03:04:41.840 --> 03:04:44.800
 It will be maintained by the HOA.

03:04:44.800 --> 03:04:48.960
 So not only will the five-acre parcel folks that live there, but also all the deer field

03:04:48.960 --> 03:04:52.960
 and whoever wants to drive in there will have access to the City of Denton public park.

03:04:52.960 --> 03:04:53.960
 You say I can go to that park?

03:04:53.960 --> 03:04:54.960
 Yes, sir, you can.

03:04:54.960 --> 03:04:58.680
 So it will be a model home park for a little bit.

03:04:58.680 --> 03:04:59.680
 That's correct.

03:04:59.680 --> 03:05:03.240
 That will be the last homes that are sold as other models there.

03:05:03.240 --> 03:05:04.240
 Good.

03:05:04.240 --> 03:05:05.240
 That information we didn't have, so I appreciate it.

03:05:05.240 --> 03:05:06.240
 Sure.

03:05:06.240 --> 03:05:07.240
 Thank you very much.

03:05:07.240 --> 03:05:08.240
 Yes, sir.

03:05:08.240 --> 03:05:12.160
 Good evening, Chair, commissioners.

03:05:12.160 --> 03:05:16.200
 My name is Thomas Fletcher, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas.

03:05:16.200 --> 03:05:19.920
 I appreciate the opportunity to be able to share with you tonight.

03:05:19.920 --> 03:05:23.960
 Let's see, how do I get this back to the presentation?

03:05:23.960 --> 03:05:24.960
 Good luck.

03:05:24.960 --> 03:05:27.680
 No, Julien O'Toole.

03:05:27.680 --> 03:05:31.480
 We have an expert.

03:05:31.480 --> 03:05:41.240
 All right, no, no, no, I'm very close.

03:05:41.240 --> 03:05:50.200
 It's going to be that one right there, there you go.

03:05:50.200 --> 03:05:52.040
 All right, and no, better.

03:05:52.040 --> 03:05:53.040
 Perfect.

03:05:53.040 --> 03:05:54.040
 Thank you.

03:05:54.040 --> 03:05:55.040
 I appreciate your time tonight.

03:05:55.040 --> 03:05:59.200
 I've got a quick presentation for you, and then I'll be happy to stand for questions.

03:05:59.200 --> 03:06:05.560
 Would ask for the opportunity to address any concerns presented by any of the residents

03:06:05.560 --> 03:06:12.240
 as well, tried to, knowing that we had three neighborhood meetings, tried to facilitate

03:06:12.240 --> 03:06:16.600
 or put the presentation together to kind of address a lot of those concerns that were

03:06:16.600 --> 03:06:17.600
 raised.

03:06:17.600 --> 03:06:20.400
 Julie had kind of gone over the existing zoning map.

03:06:20.400 --> 03:06:25.160
 This just kind of shows the property that we are requesting the zone change for, and

03:06:25.160 --> 03:06:30.600
 the surrounding uses, and as she had mentioned, what we're proposing is consistent and compatible

03:06:30.600 --> 03:06:32.960
 with the surrounding uses.

03:06:32.960 --> 03:06:37.480
 This shows the future land use plan, which is shown for low residential, which is one

03:06:37.480 --> 03:06:39.600
 to four dwelling units per acre.

03:06:39.600 --> 03:06:42.200
 We're proposing 3.8.

03:06:42.200 --> 03:06:45.800
 It is contiguous with the existing development.

03:06:45.800 --> 03:06:50.320
 It does, with all the open space and the trails that we're proposing, it does promote walk

03:06:50.320 --> 03:06:51.680
 ability.

03:06:51.680 --> 03:06:55.200
 It promotes access to public facilities, to Hodge Elementary.

03:06:55.200 --> 03:07:00.840
 There's two neighbor churches that are located in close proximity to the site, so there would

03:07:00.840 --> 03:07:03.660
 be ease of access to those.

03:07:03.660 --> 03:07:08.760
 It promotes access to the open space that's being provided, and then it also provides

03:07:08.760 --> 03:07:15.640
 for a variety of lot sizes, which allows for, you know, different price points for the homes.

03:07:15.640 --> 03:07:21.480
 Here is the site and just some of the surrounding developments, the existing aerial.

03:07:21.480 --> 03:07:27.280
 You can see Harvest Hill, which is an R4 subdivision just across the loop, Oak Bend Estates, which

03:07:27.280 --> 03:07:33.200
 is kind of to our northeast, which is ETJ, larger lot development, and then Deerfield,

03:07:33.200 --> 03:07:41.480
 which is surrounding us to our south and to our southeast, which is developed as an R3

03:07:41.480 --> 03:07:42.920
 development.

03:07:42.920 --> 03:07:47.960
 This is our concept plan, as was mentioned, what we tried to do when we did the layout,

03:07:47.960 --> 03:07:51.640
 we wanted to create transitional layout.

03:07:51.640 --> 03:07:56.640
 We wanted to provide the larger lots adjacent to the existing subdivisions, and then transition

03:07:56.640 --> 03:08:01.280
 to the smaller lots as we get closer to Loop 288.

03:08:01.280 --> 03:08:05.600
 What I will share with you is that our initial neighborhood meeting, our original concept

03:08:05.600 --> 03:08:12.040
 plan had 398 lots, so the PD proposal before you today is 380 lots.

03:08:12.040 --> 03:08:17.120
 So when we went through that neighborhood meeting, we started looking at additional

03:08:17.120 --> 03:08:23.120
 studies, doing the drainage study, listening to the concerns about the drainage that currently

03:08:23.120 --> 03:08:28.180
 runs off and affects the adjacent neighbors, and then also the buffering.

03:08:28.180 --> 03:08:33.080
 We revised this plan, so some of the main revisions, all the lots along our eastern

03:08:33.080 --> 03:08:40.440
 property, even though they're stated as a minimum of 7,800 square feet in the PD document,

03:08:40.440 --> 03:08:43.600
 all of those lots are 60 by 145.

03:08:43.600 --> 03:08:46.320
 The original layout was 60 by 130.

03:08:46.320 --> 03:08:53.440
 We adjusted all of those to 60 by 145, so that's about 8,700 square foot lots.

03:08:53.440 --> 03:08:58.840
 On the south side of the property, originally the layout had those lots abutting to Deerfield

03:08:58.840 --> 03:09:01.160
 on the south for the main track.

03:09:01.160 --> 03:09:05.720
 What we did is we created a buffer there, so we added a 40 foot buffer, and then we

03:09:05.720 --> 03:09:11.760
 kept those lots at 60 by 130, so those lots are 7,800 square feet, but now they have a

03:09:11.760 --> 03:09:15.280
 40 foot buffer adjacent to Deerfield.

03:09:15.280 --> 03:09:23.440
 So in saying that, there's also about 130 of the 176 lots that are 40 foot wide lots.

03:09:23.440 --> 03:09:26.280
 They actually have a depth of 120.

03:09:26.280 --> 03:09:31.600
 So when the question was asked about what the average square footage of the lot was

03:09:31.600 --> 03:09:37.720
 in the work session, and then Julie provided a response to that, her response was based

03:09:37.720 --> 03:09:43.400
 on taking the minimums and multiplying it by the number of lots, but what it doesn't

03:09:43.400 --> 03:09:47.880
 take into account is that there's a lot of the lots that are actually oversized.

03:09:47.880 --> 03:09:53.160
 The majority of the 40 foot wide lots are really 120 foot deep, not 110 foot deep.

03:09:53.160 --> 03:09:57.840
 A lot of the perimeter lots, if you look at the lots on the southern perimeter around

03:09:57.840 --> 03:10:02.080
 the out parcel, that is the farm, those lots are 130 foot deep.

03:10:02.080 --> 03:10:07.240
 So what we try and do is when we abut existing properties, we want to provide extra deep

03:10:07.240 --> 03:10:11.880
 lots because we're going to have to, we want to try and preserve trees on those fence lines.

03:10:11.880 --> 03:10:17.520
 We have to match existing grade at the property line, so we always want to build in additional

03:10:17.520 --> 03:10:24.200
 lot depth in order to do that and also provide those residents additional backyard space so

03:10:24.200 --> 03:10:28.280
 that when the properties around them develop, there's less impact to them.

03:10:28.280 --> 03:10:32.200
 So there's a lot of the lots that are actually oversized from that.

03:10:32.200 --> 03:10:34.000
 So did want to point that out.

03:10:34.000 --> 03:10:40.160
 On the five acre parcel, the current R7 zoning is a minimum of a 4,000 square foot lot.

03:10:40.160 --> 03:10:45.300
 The lots that are on the north side of the proposed street are all 130 foot deep.

03:10:45.300 --> 03:10:51.080
 So the R7 has a minimum lot depth of 80 feet, but all of those lots on the north side of

03:10:51.080 --> 03:10:58.440
 the street are 130, so there's 50 feet additional setback for those, you know, for those lots.

03:10:58.440 --> 03:11:02.160
 The lots on the south side of the street are 117 foot deep.

03:11:02.160 --> 03:11:07.880
 So I think if I did the math correctly, it's around the minimum lot is around 4,600 feet

03:11:07.880 --> 03:11:12.880
 in that five acre tract, whereas current zoning, the minimum is 4,000.

03:11:12.880 --> 03:11:20.380
 So really the only change there is we're doing, requesting a 40 foot wide lot versus the 50.

03:11:20.380 --> 03:11:25.040
 The Kingsway community, this is the rendering of the actual layout.

03:11:25.040 --> 03:11:29.280
 So what we did is, has been mentioned.

03:11:29.280 --> 03:11:33.720
 Our PD process, we've provided landscape hardscape plans.

03:11:33.720 --> 03:11:41.560
 So those plans are a part of the PD submittal and document, and we went in as we were discussing

03:11:41.560 --> 03:11:45.680
 this with parks and found the need for in the interest of the Parks Department to have

03:11:45.680 --> 03:11:49.920
 a public park with HOA maintenance, we ended up adding.

03:11:49.920 --> 03:11:54.320
 So in our neighborhood meetings, we had the pond and the open space, but we've since added

03:11:54.320 --> 03:11:57.200
 the pavilion, the playground equipment.

03:11:57.200 --> 03:12:03.320
 So there was a commitment to the Parks Department with this project that we would add the playground,

03:12:03.320 --> 03:12:07.840
 the pavilion, and some additional open space play area.

03:12:07.840 --> 03:12:13.980
 Based on some conversations with the Parks Department, knowing what open spaces in this

03:12:13.980 --> 03:12:19.200
 development they're interested in taking for parkland ownership with HOA maintenance.

03:12:19.200 --> 03:12:23.480
 There's a 1.7 acre preservation area that's to the north.

03:12:23.480 --> 03:12:27.720
 It's on this north side of the site and it's a nice, beautiful treeed area.

03:12:27.720 --> 03:12:30.260
 That would be preserved, 1.7 acres.

03:12:30.260 --> 03:12:31.760
 That would go to the park.

03:12:31.760 --> 03:12:37.040
 On the other side of the collector, it's about a 1.4 acre open space, and that's where we

03:12:37.040 --> 03:12:39.480
 have a lot of our proposed tree plantings.

03:12:39.480 --> 03:12:42.600
 So the Parks Department's interested in that as well.

03:12:42.600 --> 03:12:46.320
 And then the site to the south is 5.3 acres.

03:12:46.320 --> 03:12:51.440
 So there's, with those three together, and then they stated that they may be interested

03:12:51.440 --> 03:12:54.560
 in the regional trail along the collector.

03:12:54.560 --> 03:12:58.520
 All those areas combined are about 9.5 acres of open space.

03:12:58.520 --> 03:13:06.280
 So we've got a 2.6 acre requirement and there may be as much as 9.5 that's dedicated to

03:13:06.280 --> 03:13:08.560
 the city but maintained by the HOA.

03:13:08.560 --> 03:13:11.280
 So I think that's important to point out.

03:13:11.280 --> 03:13:16.040
 But you can see we've kind of gone through and tried to create sense of community.

03:13:16.040 --> 03:13:21.240
 When you enter the community, we want it to feel like a place of home where people want

03:13:21.240 --> 03:13:23.440
 to come and be a part of.

03:13:23.440 --> 03:13:25.680
 This is the overview of the park.

03:13:25.680 --> 03:13:28.920
 As I mentioned, it's got a fishing pond.

03:13:28.920 --> 03:13:30.920
 We've talked with parks about stocking that.

03:13:30.920 --> 03:13:36.440
 They even mentioned that they've recently stocked some of their public ponds and some

03:13:36.440 --> 03:13:41.040
 of the public parks, and it's really an inexpensive thing to do.

03:13:41.040 --> 03:13:47.440
 I think they mentioned for under $1,000, they were able to stock some ponds which will provide

03:13:47.440 --> 03:13:51.920
 amenity opportunity for citizens to be able to come out and fish.

03:13:51.920 --> 03:13:55.920
 You can see kind of in the upper portion of the illustration, there's that open space

03:13:55.920 --> 03:13:57.280
 play area.

03:13:57.280 --> 03:14:02.760
 We've got our pavilion, and then we've got our playground equipment.

03:14:02.760 --> 03:14:04.760
 Kind of gone through the open space.

03:14:04.760 --> 03:14:09.560
 Topography, there's a lot of area that runs through this track to the north.

03:14:09.560 --> 03:14:14.600
 There's the reed track to the north of us, and then our track, that's the brown track.

03:14:14.600 --> 03:14:19.240
 When Deerfield developed, there was a lot of offsite area that just kind of surface

03:14:19.240 --> 03:14:23.620
 drained through their lots, which has created significant drainage problems.

03:14:23.620 --> 03:14:27.100
 Those are longstanding, well-documented drainage problems.

03:14:27.100 --> 03:14:31.840
 We were provided emails that I think have gone back more than 10 years where there's

03:14:31.840 --> 03:14:35.860
 been correspondence with the residents in the city of Denton.

03:14:35.860 --> 03:14:41.520
 With our development, we would build infrastructure that would intercept that runoff, carry it

03:14:41.520 --> 03:14:43.320
 and convey it to our ponds.

03:14:43.320 --> 03:14:48.040
 We would detain that water and then slowly regulate that water into the downstream system

03:14:48.040 --> 03:14:56.280
 so we would be able to eliminate or minimize significantly the amount of water that's currently

03:14:56.280 --> 03:14:59.280
 running through those offsite residents.

03:14:59.280 --> 03:15:03.600
 Really one of the things I shared in the neighborhood meeting, and I'll share with you, we did a

03:15:03.600 --> 03:15:07.400
 project not long ago in the city of Denton, Old North Park.

03:15:07.400 --> 03:15:11.000
 It's just north of 380, it's on the inside of the loop.

03:15:11.000 --> 03:15:15.320
 When we did the zoning for that, a lot of the concern from the neighbors that lived

03:15:15.320 --> 03:15:23.000
 on Fox Cross Circle was that there's significant amount of runoff that essentially was from

03:15:23.000 --> 03:15:26.800
 the residential development over at Nottingham Drive.

03:15:26.800 --> 03:15:33.680
 It was surface draining through Misty Wood, releasing into the field and then just sheet-flowing

03:15:33.680 --> 03:15:35.000
 through their yards.

03:15:35.000 --> 03:15:40.000
 I went out in one of the prior to our project in one of the large rain events and it was

03:15:40.000 --> 03:15:43.400
 actually one of the homeowners that had their garage open.

03:15:43.400 --> 03:15:47.320
 They had a door from their garage to the backyard.

03:15:47.320 --> 03:15:53.080
 They had that open because in certain rain events, they actually had water coming through

03:15:53.080 --> 03:15:57.360
 the door in their garage in their backyard out the front of their garage.

03:15:57.360 --> 03:16:04.040
 What we did is we put in inlet systems in Misty Wood, we conveyed that water to a detention

03:16:04.040 --> 03:16:09.520
 pond and then we put an overflow system in where the water would go into the detention

03:16:09.520 --> 03:16:10.520
 pond.

03:16:10.520 --> 03:16:15.400
 If the detention pond ever overflowed, it would go down our internal street, therefore

03:16:15.400 --> 03:16:18.080
 bypassing those yards.

03:16:18.080 --> 03:16:22.400
 We were able to resolve that drainage problem and I feel like what we've got here is a very

03:16:22.400 --> 03:16:24.020
 similar situation.

03:16:24.020 --> 03:16:29.320
 We've got a large area that naturally drains through these lots and with a properly designed

03:16:29.320 --> 03:16:34.200
 subdivision, proper infrastructure, we can pick up that storm water, we can route it

03:16:34.200 --> 03:16:39.840
 through a detention pond and we can resolve those drainage issues for the current residents.

03:16:39.840 --> 03:16:42.440
 That was one of their main concerns so I did want to share that.

03:16:42.440 --> 03:16:44.640
 I think that's important.

03:16:44.640 --> 03:16:49.120
 Traffic impact analysis, it's been mentioned by Julie and I know there were some questions

03:16:49.120 --> 03:16:52.560
 in the work session that city staff had answered as well.

03:16:52.560 --> 03:16:59.380
 We've done a full traffic impact analysis and as part of that, you know, we've got mitigation

03:16:59.380 --> 03:17:03.000
 that we're proposing and what I'd like to do is just kind of share, we've already gone

03:17:03.000 --> 03:17:08.360
 through and what you see on your screen is the schematic layout for the improvements.

03:17:08.360 --> 03:17:15.400
 So for the westbound movement for the intersection of Kings Row and Loop 288, it was mentioned

03:17:15.400 --> 03:17:20.200
 that we would be adding that right turn lane but the reason we're adding, we're really

03:17:20.200 --> 03:17:26.080
 adding a left turn lane, we're expanding the pavement out so that there's dual left turn

03:17:26.080 --> 03:17:30.440
 lanes and a single right turn and through lane.

03:17:30.440 --> 03:17:36.640
 So you end up with three eastbound lanes and then the one, or three westbound lanes and

03:17:36.640 --> 03:17:38.480
 then the one eastbound lane.

03:17:38.480 --> 03:17:42.160
 So this shows this, we're also adding adequate storage.

03:17:42.160 --> 03:17:48.200
 So the storage of the existing leftbound lane gets extended so it gets increased plus we're

03:17:48.200 --> 03:17:54.280
 adding an additional leftbound lane and then we have the free right and through lane.

03:17:54.280 --> 03:18:00.720
 Additionally we're adding the left turn lane from eastbound Kings Row to northbound Deerwood

03:18:00.720 --> 03:18:01.720
 Parkway.

03:18:01.720 --> 03:18:07.360
 The 300 foot length is the actual storage length when you talk about transitions, there's,

03:18:07.360 --> 03:18:12.140
 you transition that over 100 feet so the actual improvement length is going to be more like

03:18:12.140 --> 03:18:17.600
 500 feet of overall paving improvement when you add the transition.

03:18:17.600 --> 03:18:23.440
 In order to do that there's an existing drainage culvert under Kings Row that has to be extended

03:18:23.440 --> 03:18:24.920
 to the south.

03:18:24.920 --> 03:18:31.360
 There are two to three overhead electric utility poles that will have to be relocated.

03:18:31.360 --> 03:18:36.300
 There's one communication box so all these improvements that are going to help improve

03:18:36.300 --> 03:18:43.240
 this regional situation, they also have ancillary items that have to be resolved as well.

03:18:43.240 --> 03:18:48.440
 So there are some utility improvements that, or revisions, adjustments that come with that

03:18:48.440 --> 03:18:50.440
 as well.

03:18:50.440 --> 03:18:54.080
 Jim mentioned we had the discussions with the city as one of the conditions.

03:18:54.080 --> 03:19:00.280
 We either have to have emergency access as part of several phases or permanent access

03:19:00.280 --> 03:19:05.920
 and the city, in our conversations with the city and then also TxDOT, basically the feedback

03:19:05.920 --> 03:19:12.800
 from TxDOT is primarily been that they're generally supportive of what the city would

03:19:12.800 --> 03:19:13.800
 support.

03:19:13.800 --> 03:19:20.520
 So in our conversations, our goal is to get an access, a full access point to Loop 288

03:19:20.520 --> 03:19:23.920
 that would be there until the frontage roads would be constructed.

03:19:23.920 --> 03:19:27.240
 So once the frontage roads are constructed that would go away.

03:19:27.240 --> 03:19:32.600
 But when we talk about the TIA and the level of service that the TIA is projecting, that

03:19:32.600 --> 03:19:39.820
 was projecting in 2029 with Windsor Oaks, phase two, phase three, with the expansion

03:19:39.820 --> 03:19:45.080
 of the mobile home community, the background traffic with growth, all of this without any

03:19:45.080 --> 03:19:46.760
 of these additional improvements.

03:19:46.760 --> 03:19:50.440
 So the TIA doesn't account for this access point.

03:19:50.440 --> 03:19:55.360
 So if this access point is added, more of your traffic is going to enter the loop at

03:19:55.360 --> 03:19:56.400
 this location.

03:19:56.400 --> 03:20:02.280
 So what we're showing here is the right turn deceleration lane and an acceleration lane.

03:20:02.280 --> 03:20:08.240
 So when you make a connection to a high speed facility like Loop 288, it's going to be important

03:20:08.240 --> 03:20:13.520
 to get the traffic onto the loop in a safe manner to where they have this acceleration

03:20:13.520 --> 03:20:17.360
 lane where they can get up to speed and then merge into traffic.

03:20:17.360 --> 03:20:21.800
 And that's very, very important with what's being shown here is that it has the right

03:20:21.800 --> 03:20:26.400
 turn deceleration lane and the acceleration lane.

03:20:26.400 --> 03:20:30.920
 One of the things that I did want to show, I showed a couple of R4 subdivisions.

03:20:30.920 --> 03:20:36.560
 One of the things I did want to point out, Harvest Hill on the aerial to the south, you

03:20:36.560 --> 03:20:42.960
 can see an area that's kind of towards the eastern portion of the site that has an existing

03:20:42.960 --> 03:20:45.560
 gas easement that runs through it.

03:20:45.560 --> 03:20:49.160
 That gas easement is actually platted into those lots.

03:20:49.160 --> 03:20:52.760
 It's not fenced around, but it's platted into those lots.

03:20:52.760 --> 03:20:58.200
 So when you talk about the open space and the easements and the working around the easements,

03:20:58.200 --> 03:21:00.080
 we've worked around the easements.

03:21:00.080 --> 03:21:05.600
 We've provided additional width greater than what the easement width is.

03:21:05.600 --> 03:21:10.080
 We've brought that into the HOA lot, so it's the HOA maintaining it, where there's not

03:21:10.080 --> 03:21:15.200
 a situation where a homeowner owns a portion of a gas easement that's located outside of

03:21:15.200 --> 03:21:17.200
 their fence line similar to this.

03:21:17.200 --> 03:21:23.480
 So we do feel like what we're proposing is superior to what we could develop under R4

03:21:23.480 --> 03:21:24.480
 conditions.

03:21:24.480 --> 03:21:27.400
 And did just want to point that out.

03:21:27.400 --> 03:21:34.220
 Just kind of a rundown, you know, we've kind of gone through why we believe the PD is beneficial.

03:21:34.220 --> 03:21:36.440
 We've also got increased architectural standards.

03:21:36.440 --> 03:21:42.040
 So in addition to what's required in the development code, we've provided a list of standards that

03:21:42.040 --> 03:21:47.840
 each builder will have to apply three in addition to each of the homes.

03:21:47.840 --> 03:21:49.600
 We've had neighborhood meetings.

03:21:49.600 --> 03:21:51.960
 We've tried to address the concerns.

03:21:51.960 --> 03:21:56.400
 We've worked really hard with our TIA, with the city, to try and address and improve the

03:21:56.400 --> 03:22:00.760
 regional transportation issues, and then also the drainage issues.

03:22:00.760 --> 03:22:05.160
 We've reduced the number of lots from the initial neighborhood meeting.

03:22:05.160 --> 03:22:10.800
 We're providing a diversity of lot sizes and price points, which is -- it's identified

03:22:10.800 --> 03:22:15.640
 in the Denton 2030 plan as being important.

03:22:15.640 --> 03:22:20.720
 We've got over five acres plus of park to be dedicated to the public, but maintained

03:22:20.720 --> 03:22:21.760
 by the HOA.

03:22:21.760 --> 03:22:27.160
 That includes the playground, the pavilion, a water fountain, the trails, landscaping,

03:22:27.160 --> 03:22:28.160
 irrigation.

03:22:28.160 --> 03:22:32.720
 We've got a second retention area adjacent to Loop 288 that's going to be developed

03:22:32.720 --> 03:22:36.640
 as an amenity, over 20% open space.

03:22:36.640 --> 03:22:41.520
 The tree plantings that are shown within the landscape plans, they're above and beyond

03:22:41.520 --> 03:22:43.800
 what's required by the Denton development code.

03:22:43.800 --> 03:22:46.660
 So there's significantly more tree plantings.

03:22:46.660 --> 03:22:52.680
 If you look at this site in today's condition, you've got about 16.7 acres of tree canopy.

03:22:52.680 --> 03:22:57.880
 With our proposed development and the city's calculation within the DDC, when it's fully

03:22:57.880 --> 03:23:01.900
 mature, it'll be 42.2 acres of tree canopy.

03:23:01.900 --> 03:23:06.560
 So we're more than doubling the tree canopy over time.

03:23:06.560 --> 03:23:11.600
 Additional -- incorporates easements into the corridors.

03:23:11.600 --> 03:23:16.600
 Really these other items we've kind of gone through and I've hit on.

03:23:16.600 --> 03:23:21.680
 Basically with that, we're excited to bring this development to the city of Denton.

03:23:21.680 --> 03:23:24.040
 I'll stand for any questions that you may have.

03:23:24.040 --> 03:23:25.800
 >> Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.

03:23:25.800 --> 03:23:30.240
 Any questions for the applicant at this time?

03:23:30.240 --> 03:23:32.000
 Commissioner Ellis.

03:23:32.000 --> 03:23:33.000
 >> Thank you, Chair.

03:23:33.000 --> 03:23:35.480
 So I don't know if it's for Mr. Fletcher or Mr. Strange.

03:23:35.480 --> 03:23:37.680
 Going back to the cemetery thing.

03:23:37.680 --> 03:23:44.240
 So staff kind of had circled it on their presentation.

03:23:44.240 --> 03:23:47.540
 And I see where there's a green space there.

03:23:47.540 --> 03:23:50.320
 Were you able to kind of pinpoint where that was?

03:23:50.320 --> 03:23:55.000
 Staff kind of circled it in a west-east kind of thing and we've got a green space going

03:23:55.000 --> 03:23:56.000
 north-south.

03:23:56.000 --> 03:23:58.960
 So curious as to how you decided that.

03:23:58.960 --> 03:24:05.140
 >> The area that was reported by the homeowner is fully in the green space that we've got.

03:24:05.140 --> 03:24:06.480
 They drew a map.

03:24:06.480 --> 03:24:08.160
 It should be in the backup.

03:24:08.160 --> 03:24:10.160
 You may have been able to review it.

03:24:10.160 --> 03:24:15.280
 So I've gotten a lot of grief that this is kind of a first for everybody.

03:24:15.280 --> 03:24:16.280
 >> Yeah.

03:24:16.280 --> 03:24:17.280
 Absolutely.

03:24:17.280 --> 03:24:18.280
 Okay.

03:24:18.280 --> 03:24:19.280
 Very good.

03:24:19.280 --> 03:24:22.720
 >> But anyway, we've taken it very seriously.

03:24:22.720 --> 03:24:25.540
 So we responded to the area they identified.

03:24:25.540 --> 03:24:27.720
 We did the ground-preventing radar.

03:24:27.720 --> 03:24:30.000
 We've had the historical commission spin out.

03:24:30.000 --> 03:24:31.960
 They reviewed the area.

03:24:31.960 --> 03:24:35.480
 Regardless of the finding, which they've pretty well determined they haven't issued their

03:24:35.480 --> 03:24:39.480
 formal determination letter yet, we'll do have an email from them saying here's their

03:24:39.480 --> 03:24:42.320
 internal discussions.

03:24:42.320 --> 03:24:46.040
 Regardless the area is not going to be in someone's backyard.

03:24:46.040 --> 03:24:50.560
 So it is going to be in a green space, an HOA lot, and it's more than likely going to

03:24:50.560 --> 03:24:55.040
 come back, as they say, a unverified cemetery, and they're going to recommend that it's not

03:24:55.040 --> 03:24:57.920
 even recognized in any kind of a deed record.

03:24:57.920 --> 03:25:05.080
 So it will essentially be a report that's been investigated and determined to not be

03:25:05.080 --> 03:25:08.080
 a cemetery, and therefore it's essentially going to go away.

03:25:08.080 --> 03:25:11.480
 And it's still going to be regardless in an HOA area.

03:25:11.480 --> 03:25:12.480
 >> Perfect.

03:25:12.480 --> 03:25:13.480
 Thank you.

03:25:13.480 --> 03:25:14.480
 >> Sure.

03:25:14.480 --> 03:25:15.480
 Any other questions?

03:25:15.480 --> 03:25:29.760
 >> I'm curious on the 40-foot wide lots, did you do any analysis or think of any other

03:25:29.760 --> 03:25:36.960
 layout options that could allow for rear vehicle access through an alley in order to take that?

03:25:36.960 --> 03:25:40.360
 So what made you choose this instead?

03:25:40.360 --> 03:25:41.440
 >> So we did.

03:25:41.440 --> 03:25:44.240
 We did look at analysis.

03:25:44.240 --> 03:25:46.080
 There's really several things that we looked at.

03:25:46.080 --> 03:25:53.640
 One, when we're trying to provide a diversity of price point, when you do a 40-foot lot

03:25:53.640 --> 03:25:59.920
 with an alley, because of the additional cost for the paving of the alley, the drainage,

03:25:59.920 --> 03:26:03.660
 you end up with substantially more drainage that's required.

03:26:03.660 --> 03:26:10.040
 What happens is your 40-foot rear entry lot, in a lot of cases where you're trying to provide

03:26:10.040 --> 03:26:16.600
 a price point for an entry-level buyer, you're actually ending up pricing them at or above

03:26:16.600 --> 03:26:19.080
 the 50-foot front entry.

03:26:19.080 --> 03:26:25.120
 So that's really the reason for that, is it just from a financial feasibility standpoint,

03:26:25.120 --> 03:26:31.200
 it doesn't provide that additional price point that we're trying to provide with this development.

03:26:31.200 --> 03:26:32.200
 >> Okay.

03:26:32.200 --> 03:26:33.200
 Thank you.

03:26:33.200 --> 03:26:34.200
 >> Thank you.

03:26:34.200 --> 03:26:35.200
 >> Thank you.

03:26:35.200 --> 03:26:36.200
 >> This is a public hearing.

03:26:36.200 --> 03:26:41.600
 If there's no other questions for the applicants at this time, we can move into public comment.

03:26:41.600 --> 03:26:43.760
 I have two cards here to speak.

03:26:43.760 --> 03:26:45.280
 Anyone else present that wishes to speak?

03:26:45.280 --> 03:26:46.280
 We certainly do so.

03:26:46.280 --> 03:26:49.240
 We would just ask that we have a card if possible.

03:26:49.240 --> 03:26:57.200
 But the two that I have right now, first I have Shawna Serrano, and then Reed Faring.

03:26:57.200 --> 03:26:59.040
 But Shawna, are you wishing to speak?

03:26:59.040 --> 03:27:00.040
 >> Yes.

03:27:00.040 --> 03:27:02.040
 >> If you could just go to that mic closest to you.

03:27:02.040 --> 03:27:05.880
 If you state your name and address, you will have four minutes to speak.

03:27:05.880 --> 03:27:06.880
 >> Okay.

03:27:06.880 --> 03:27:07.880
 My name is Shawna Serrano.

03:27:07.880 --> 03:27:12.760
 I live at 2720 Hartley Court, Denton, Texas, 76208.

03:27:12.760 --> 03:27:17.760
 I also am on the PTA board for Hodge Elementary as Vice President number two, and I've been

03:27:17.760 --> 03:27:22.400
 a volunteer at Hodge Elementary for the last four or five years, ever since my daughter

03:27:22.400 --> 03:27:24.360
 was in kindergarten.

03:27:24.360 --> 03:27:30.880
 And my concern was with the mobility issues and the traffic concerns with the pickup and

03:27:30.880 --> 03:27:35.000
 the drop off at Hodge.

03:27:35.000 --> 03:27:40.880
 And a lot of times you see where the traffic coming from, I guess, the westbound side of

03:27:40.880 --> 03:27:45.840
 the loop is backed up all the way to the loop, and it gets very scary, and there are people

03:27:45.840 --> 03:27:50.880
 on the loop, on the side, on the shoulder, as well as us when we're coming from the east

03:27:50.880 --> 03:27:53.760
 side of Kings Row.

03:27:53.760 --> 03:27:58.360
 We are off in the grassy median so that the buses and stuff can come through.

03:27:58.360 --> 03:28:01.880
 And in May, I was sitting there, I was the first car, and I've been the first car on

03:28:01.880 --> 03:28:04.320
 the other side, and I'll back up a little more.

03:28:04.320 --> 03:28:10.420
 Not all the way up, but I'll back up, because I know those buses come through.

03:28:10.420 --> 03:28:16.360
 One issue is that we need bigger or wider, Hodge, not Hodge, sorry, Kings Row needs to

03:28:16.360 --> 03:28:22.400
 be widened somehow, some way, because when you have, people start lining up for the school

03:28:22.400 --> 03:28:25.600
 at two o'clock, even though they don't let out till three.

03:28:25.600 --> 03:28:27.500
 And so we're sitting ducks there.

03:28:27.500 --> 03:28:32.040
 There's been times with, I've sat there, I have some videos I respectfully would like

03:28:32.040 --> 03:28:37.560
 to share with you guys, like email them to you that I took a video of, that basically

03:28:37.560 --> 03:28:42.160
 a car was coming down because he was waiting, but he had to go through the thruway to go

03:28:42.160 --> 03:28:47.120
 down Kings Row, and he basically played chicken with a bus, a school bus.

03:28:47.120 --> 03:28:50.720
 Now, technically, school buses should have the right of way at that time.

03:28:50.720 --> 03:28:56.000
 And he went up onto the sidewalk, and then when he had to go around, there was another

03:28:56.000 --> 03:29:00.240
 car behind the school bus he couldn't see, then he sped off around me.

03:29:00.240 --> 03:29:05.280
 That's very scary, waiting there, and there's nowhere I can go, and I'm already halfway

03:29:05.280 --> 03:29:11.140
 off the road, because those buses, some of those buses come through like 30, 40 miles

03:29:11.140 --> 03:29:12.140
 an hour.

03:29:12.140 --> 03:29:16.160
 They need to really slow it down, especially when we're dealing with an elementary school

03:29:16.160 --> 03:29:19.740
 and everybody, and we're just sitting there waiting for our kids to get out.

03:29:19.740 --> 03:29:25.240
 So those are really my concern was in the five acre track, them coming off onto Kings

03:29:25.240 --> 03:29:26.240
 Row too.

03:29:26.240 --> 03:29:32.880
 I know he presented tonight, it looks like coming in the one way in and out into the

03:29:32.880 --> 03:29:39.120
 big Kings way, that's harder for 380 homes of all that extra traffic.

03:29:39.120 --> 03:29:43.880
 So just, I know it's not 24/7, but the biggest thing is the school being there, and yes,

03:29:43.880 --> 03:29:49.400
 we are almost basically maxed out at the school with the children.

03:29:49.400 --> 03:29:58.080
 And so having one in and out, I see more in and out, and the one five acre, it's a little

03:29:58.080 --> 03:30:03.060
 harder to them coming off onto Kings Row as well.

03:30:03.060 --> 03:30:08.680
 But I did see in his presentation tonight, it looks like they're going to have like a,

03:30:08.680 --> 03:30:16.080
 what did you call it, the acceleration lane, not like at Locust off of Long Road, that

03:30:16.080 --> 03:30:20.120
 people will come out in front of you going 60 miles an hour, they're putting along trying

03:30:20.120 --> 03:30:21.280
 to get up to speed.

03:30:21.280 --> 03:30:25.760
 That's very dangerous, or people won't get over to the shoulder to make that right turn.

03:30:25.760 --> 03:30:30.920
 And then they, you know, they're slamming on their brakes and you're behind them, and

03:30:30.920 --> 03:30:36.840
 they don't have their signal on, they're going down Locust, you know, by the new housing

03:30:36.840 --> 03:30:38.140
 development that way.

03:30:38.140 --> 03:30:39.840
 So those are my main concerns.

03:30:39.840 --> 03:30:44.200
 And like I was saying, why did Kings Row, why you have the chance, I don't know who

03:30:44.200 --> 03:30:49.560
 owns that South Park property, but up to where the church is up there, have another like

03:30:49.560 --> 03:30:54.140
 at least two lanes, so that you do have a lane where people can go, but people do back

03:30:54.140 --> 03:30:56.120
 up all the way to the loop.

03:30:56.120 --> 03:31:02.720
 And sometimes we're on the loop as well, we're like maybe 10 car lengths on to the loop.

03:31:02.720 --> 03:31:07.000
 And that gets scary when people are going 60 miles an hour, 65, 70.

03:31:07.000 --> 03:31:11.600
 And what if that light, I know it's a long red light, or long, like 10 seconds to get

03:31:11.600 --> 03:31:15.760
 to red, but what if there's an accident and people just, you know, the cars get out of

03:31:15.760 --> 03:31:22.440
 control and you're sitting ducks there too, that that will alleviate some of the backup.

03:31:22.440 --> 03:31:27.800
 So those were my main concerns with this, is that the traffic widening Kings Row, so

03:31:27.800 --> 03:31:33.040
 that we would have access, not just right where the new development, the five acres

03:31:33.040 --> 03:31:39.400
 was to be, but on this side, we need, yeah, like two lanes on the right side, to be able

03:31:39.400 --> 03:31:43.480
 to have people go through, because you do have people that get upset and they go around

03:31:43.480 --> 03:31:44.600
 the school time.

03:31:44.600 --> 03:31:50.200
 They go around and they're constantly playing chicken with people coming this way.

03:31:50.200 --> 03:31:51.200
 So those are my concerns.

03:31:51.200 --> 03:31:53.520
 Well, I appreciate you being here and expressing those.

03:31:53.520 --> 03:31:54.520
 Thank you very much.

03:31:54.520 --> 03:31:57.960
 I forgot to say thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.

03:31:57.960 --> 03:32:03.680
 This is my first time doing this.

03:32:03.680 --> 03:32:09.760
 Next, we had Reed Ferring.

03:32:09.760 --> 03:32:15.760
 Hi, my name is Reed Ferring.

03:32:15.760 --> 03:32:20.400
 I live at 4572 Coyote Point.

03:32:20.400 --> 03:32:26.320
 We've been out in that part of the, that's off of Ferris Road.

03:32:26.320 --> 03:32:32.400
 We've lived out in that neighborhood for 28 or 29 years now.

03:32:32.400 --> 03:32:34.840
 I think you're familiar with some of our neighbors.

03:32:34.840 --> 03:32:43.000
 We've been taking a very serious interest in planned developments in that part of town.

03:32:43.000 --> 03:32:48.620
 I have to say I was pleased with some of the accommodations that were presented tonight

03:32:48.620 --> 03:32:56.040
 to address the traffic issues, which were deathly in the first proposals.

03:32:56.040 --> 03:33:02.560
 Without doing something serious about the Kings Row Loop 288 intersection, we're looking

03:33:02.560 --> 03:33:05.520
 at a nightmare down the road.

03:33:05.520 --> 03:33:10.960
 In my letters and my cards to you all, I've been urging that Planning and Zoning and City

03:33:10.960 --> 03:33:18.080
 Council really back off of this whole part of Denton and come up with a long-term strategy

03:33:18.080 --> 03:33:20.840
 that's going to accommodate growth in this area.

03:33:20.840 --> 03:33:23.240
 There's a lot of flat land out there.

03:33:23.240 --> 03:33:28.280
 We know the developers are going to be hungry to develop that land, but as I described it

03:33:28.280 --> 03:33:30.640
 recently, it's a big cul-de-sac.

03:33:30.640 --> 03:33:39.120
 It is bound by the railroad and Mingo, by Clear Creek, and by 428, and by the loop.

03:33:39.120 --> 03:33:43.480
 You come into that area and then you come back out, and there are many places to get

03:33:43.480 --> 03:33:45.640
 in and out.

03:33:45.640 --> 03:33:49.980
 We're filling up the plane from front to back, and we don't know how big the plane is going

03:33:49.980 --> 03:33:53.040
 to be when we're finished.

03:33:53.040 --> 03:33:56.880
 The last developers are going to be caught holding the bag in terms of how to get people

03:33:56.880 --> 03:34:05.080
 in and out of that area to Loop 288 or to Highway 380.

03:34:05.080 --> 03:34:10.560
 If we take these developments one at a time, we're looking at 150 new homes down on Silver

03:34:10.560 --> 03:34:11.760
 Dome.

03:34:11.760 --> 03:34:18.680
 The mobile home park is adding, I don't know, maybe 50 or 75 spaces right now.

03:34:18.680 --> 03:34:20.240
 It's probably only a matter of time.

03:34:20.240 --> 03:34:24.040
 There are a lot of old people out there that are going to sell their farms, and developers

03:34:24.040 --> 03:34:28.120
 are the only ones that can buy that land.

03:34:28.120 --> 03:34:35.680
 My plea to you is not so much a specific vote on this proposal, but for planning and zoning

03:34:35.680 --> 03:34:43.320
 to really back off, and not just a 2030 or a 2040 plan, but to look seriously at our

03:34:43.320 --> 03:34:50.800
 part of Denton and how it can be developed in a way that preserves the environmental

03:34:50.800 --> 03:34:53.600
 and historical qualities of that area.

03:34:53.600 --> 03:34:58.640
 Lots of Dentonites come out there to run and to ride bicycles.

03:34:58.640 --> 03:35:04.140
 It's a transition to the riparian habitats of Clear Creek and the Elm Fort.

03:35:04.140 --> 03:35:10.400
 The Clear Creek Nature Center is becoming more and more popular as an educational and recreational

03:35:10.400 --> 03:35:11.760
 facility.

03:35:11.760 --> 03:35:21.240
 I just want to urge you all to put us on your books for long-term planning, and consider

03:35:21.240 --> 03:35:27.960
 not just this development and the next development, but likely developments in the next 10 years

03:35:27.960 --> 03:35:28.960
 or so.

03:35:28.960 --> 03:35:30.600
 I think we're probably going to see a lot of that.

03:35:30.600 --> 03:35:36.800
 Many of us are suspicious that Taylor Morrison is hibernating, that they haven't backed

03:35:36.800 --> 03:35:39.960
 off of the Carter Ranch development.

03:35:39.960 --> 03:35:44.720
 Nobody's going to do that, we know, and that's going to be a big challenge for this group

03:35:44.720 --> 03:35:45.920
 as well.

03:35:45.920 --> 03:35:47.760
 Thank you very much for listening.

03:35:47.760 --> 03:35:50.000
 Thank you for being here, sir.

03:35:50.000 --> 03:35:52.800
 Any questions for citizens?

03:35:52.800 --> 03:35:53.800
 Christopher Smith.

03:35:53.800 --> 03:35:54.800
 Thank you, Chair.

03:35:54.800 --> 03:36:01.240
 I did have a question for staff after Ms. Serrano spoke, but the walkability and bikeability

03:36:01.240 --> 03:36:08.920
 to Hodge over there, was there any, never saw anything in the presentation on it, guesstimations

03:36:08.920 --> 03:36:12.600
 on that, and maybe Mr. Fletcher can add into that as well, but Julie first.

03:36:12.600 --> 03:36:17.000
 Well, that was something that staff discussed with the applicant, because we wanted to make

03:36:17.000 --> 03:36:22.960
 sure that there was that connection so that kids in this proposed development could actually

03:36:22.960 --> 03:36:28.280
 walk to school, and so it was important that it connect to that existing sidewalk and that

03:36:28.280 --> 03:36:33.760
 they have that appropriate crosswalks in those areas to ensure that those kids that could

03:36:33.760 --> 03:36:35.760
 walk would be able to do so.

03:36:35.760 --> 03:36:36.760
 Gotcha.

03:36:36.760 --> 03:36:40.400
 Mr. Fletcher, if you have anything extra to add, something stuck out of my mind when Ms.

03:36:40.400 --> 03:36:45.200
 Serrano was speaking, what's the longest, from the furthest point away on your property,

03:36:45.200 --> 03:36:47.440
 what would the walk be or bike be?

03:36:47.440 --> 03:36:49.080
 Well, I'm not sure what that would be.

03:36:49.080 --> 03:36:55.040
 I do know that there's over 9,000 linear feet of developer sidewalk within the development,

03:36:55.040 --> 03:36:57.520
 so there is a significant amount of trail.

03:36:57.520 --> 03:37:01.520
 I know in one of the neighborhood meetings it was brought up that currently the intersection

03:37:01.520 --> 03:37:08.200
 of Grant and Deerwood Parkway either doesn't have barrier-free ramps or they're substandard,

03:37:08.200 --> 03:37:10.880
 so we did as part of our proposal.

03:37:10.880 --> 03:37:17.640
 We've committed to redoing all the barrier-free ramps at that intersection, making that intersection

03:37:17.640 --> 03:37:22.640
 a stop condition so that as children from the proposed development and the existing

03:37:22.640 --> 03:37:28.840
 developments are walking to Hodge, the traffic has stop signs that indicates that they should

03:37:28.840 --> 03:37:32.360
 stop there as well along with the appropriate striping.

03:37:32.360 --> 03:37:38.680
 I will also add to her comments about the queuing.

03:37:38.680 --> 03:37:43.240
 We did as part of our TIA, our traffic engineers spent the day out there.

03:37:43.240 --> 03:37:48.560
 They looked at and observed exactly what she was speaking to.

03:37:48.560 --> 03:37:56.320
 In our TIA, we did make recommendations how the DISD could split the queuing to where

03:37:56.320 --> 03:38:05.200
 you would have a portion, whether it's K-3rd that would go from Kings Row to Deerwood to

03:38:05.200 --> 03:38:11.760
 Grant and then forth through the remainder would just continue straight on Kings Row

03:38:11.760 --> 03:38:14.800
 and then come around the backside of the school.

03:38:14.800 --> 03:38:18.000
 We did provide some recommendations for that.

03:38:18.000 --> 03:38:21.920
 I know in our discussions with the city, they were looking at that and improvements there

03:38:21.920 --> 03:38:29.720
 as well and we shared our recommendations to DISD, so I think there's probably ongoing

03:38:29.720 --> 03:38:33.360
 discussions about how the current situation can be improved.

03:38:33.360 --> 03:38:41.040
 I did want to point that out because we did try to provide some opinion on how that situation

03:38:41.040 --> 03:38:42.040
 could be remedied.

03:38:42.040 --> 03:38:54.680
 One of the comments was about the additional lane along Kings Row.

03:38:54.680 --> 03:38:59.520
 We have the five-acre parcel, but that area between Kings Row and Deerwood is not part

03:38:59.520 --> 03:39:04.360
 of our property and we voluntarily have already stepped up and offered to put in an additional

03:39:04.360 --> 03:39:07.480
 lane that is not required of us.

03:39:07.480 --> 03:39:11.120
 It's a gesture on our part to try to help improve the area that's over there.

03:39:11.120 --> 03:39:12.920
 It's an offsite improvement.

03:39:12.920 --> 03:39:17.200
 We've stepped up to say we recognize there's a problem, we don't want people to be hurt.

03:39:17.200 --> 03:39:21.320
 It's a problem before we even come out here, so we've already stepped up to do that.

03:39:21.320 --> 03:39:24.640
 We've also stepped up with the public access on Loop 28.

03:39:24.640 --> 03:39:26.960
 That was originally just going to be a secondary fire access.

03:39:26.960 --> 03:39:30.760
 It was going to have a gate on it and when we were able to work through some of those

03:39:30.760 --> 03:39:35.920
 concerns with the city and TaxDOT, we've asked now can we go ahead and do a public access

03:39:35.920 --> 03:39:40.080
 because I think it, even though it is considerably more money on our part to have to pay for

03:39:40.080 --> 03:39:45.760
 that improvement, I think it's a great improvement for not only our neighborhood but what the

03:39:45.760 --> 03:39:46.760
 gentleman spoke about.

03:39:46.760 --> 03:39:50.720
 It provides another point of ingress egress of an area that's kind of hard to get in and

03:39:50.720 --> 03:39:55.040
 out of and I think not only will, if this moves forward, Kingsway use it.

03:39:55.040 --> 03:39:59.400
 I think Deerwood and other neighbors out there will use it when there are times that Kings

03:39:59.400 --> 03:40:02.400
 Row may be backed up at school or whatever the case may be.

03:40:02.400 --> 03:40:06.880
 They just drive through the light, take the next right turn into Kingsway and come in the

03:40:06.880 --> 03:40:07.880
 back way to your place.

03:40:07.880 --> 03:40:12.040
 So I think it's a general improvement that we're willing to do because I know it makes

03:40:12.040 --> 03:40:15.520
 not only our subdivision better but it helps an area out there already and I just wanted

03:40:15.520 --> 03:40:17.120
 to clarify that.

03:40:17.120 --> 03:40:19.760
 Thank you.

03:40:19.760 --> 03:40:24.880
 I think I saw, there's Stewart, who's on the line, what do we got?

03:40:24.880 --> 03:40:28.880
 Hello Chair, I did want you to know we will send in the caller.

03:40:28.880 --> 03:40:33.360
 For this item we had 57 people make comments using our online form.

03:40:33.360 --> 03:40:35.920
 All 57 were against this item.

03:40:35.920 --> 03:40:40.900
 These comment forms were emailed to all the commissioners and will be included in the

03:40:40.900 --> 03:40:42.560
 record.

03:40:42.560 --> 03:40:46.560
 Right now we have six callers, people can still call in if they'd like but we have six

03:40:46.560 --> 03:40:51.500
 callers and we will send them in one after another as you direct us.

03:40:51.500 --> 03:40:55.160
 We will send the first one in now, whenever you hear the beep, she will be in.

03:40:55.160 --> 03:41:06.520
 Thank you, Stewart.

03:41:06.520 --> 03:41:09.060
 Good evening, you are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

03:41:09.060 --> 03:41:13.800
 If you could state your name and address, you will have four minutes to speak.

03:41:13.800 --> 03:41:14.800
 Thank you.

03:41:14.800 --> 03:41:22.640
 This is Eva Cadwallader, 3920 Fawn Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208.

03:41:22.640 --> 03:41:28.160
 I've lived here very happily for 25 years.

03:41:28.160 --> 03:41:36.560
 So I would like to read a statement I've put on file with the city, even though I know

03:41:36.560 --> 03:41:42.960
 that a few of my words may need a little bit of updating in view of what we've just been

03:41:42.960 --> 03:41:43.960
 listening to.

03:41:43.960 --> 03:41:49.760
 I've been listening to the meeting and I'm afraid of running out of time if I try to

03:41:49.760 --> 03:41:50.760
 update them as I go.

03:41:50.760 --> 03:41:54.000
 So I'm just going to read what I have and then if I have time, I'm going to say the

03:41:54.000 --> 03:41:58.320
 rest of the things I'd like to comment on.

03:41:58.320 --> 03:42:00.160
 Oh, I'm hearing an echo.

03:42:00.160 --> 03:42:01.160
 I'm sorry.

03:42:01.160 --> 03:42:02.160
 Okay.

03:42:02.160 --> 03:42:08.920
 So revealing the eight points stated in Section 3.2, purpose of the Denton Development Code

03:42:08.920 --> 03:42:16.360
 reveals that the latest Kingsway ground track PD does not comply with the majority of those

03:42:16.360 --> 03:42:21.200
 points or with the Denton Comprehensive Plan 2030.

03:42:21.200 --> 03:42:27.400
 It does not promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the city inhabitants, implement

03:42:27.400 --> 03:42:33.480
 the city's comprehensive plan, improve the citizens' quality of life, preserve and protect

03:42:33.480 --> 03:42:39.560
 the natural environment, improve the city's appearance, or improve mobility and promote

03:42:39.560 --> 03:42:40.560
 traffic safety.

03:42:40.560 --> 03:42:56.000
 Most importantly, the ground track PD directly violates Section 3.2.5 to "improve mobility

03:42:56.000 --> 03:43:05.080
 and promote traffic safety" and it would certainly not "improve the existing citizens' quality

03:43:05.080 --> 03:43:11.160
 of life" per Section 3.2.2.

03:43:11.160 --> 03:43:18.800
 Instead, it seems designed to benefit only Hindley Horne, the developer, at the clear

03:43:18.800 --> 03:43:24.600
 expense of the residents of the Deerwood, Elk Bend, and Ferris Road neighborhoods and

03:43:24.600 --> 03:43:28.600
 future residents of Kingsway.

03:43:28.600 --> 03:43:34.200
 The real purpose of this proposal, including the latest versions, and I comment on the

03:43:34.200 --> 03:43:40.400
 improvements on the latest versions later, is to justify increasing the density of the

03:43:40.400 --> 03:43:46.640
 ground track properties in order to allow for smaller lots and more houses.

03:43:46.640 --> 03:43:54.120
 None of the details in the many revisions change that substantially or really matter.

03:43:54.120 --> 03:43:57.040
 They are mainly cosmetic and superficial.

03:43:57.040 --> 03:44:03.840
 Now, that isn't entirely true anymore, but I will get back to that.

03:44:03.840 --> 03:44:11.520
 What matters most about this PD and any rezoning is the simple fact that our neighborhoods

03:44:11.520 --> 03:44:15.440
 are already very dangerously bottlenecked.

03:44:15.440 --> 03:44:21.460
 Should any emergency arise, either internal or external, to our immediate neighborhoods,

03:44:21.460 --> 03:44:23.560
 we are hopelessly trapped.

03:44:23.560 --> 03:44:29.880
 The more houses that are added, regardless of the specific PD, the worse this potentially

03:44:29.880 --> 03:44:32.680
 life-threatening situation gets.

03:44:32.680 --> 03:44:35.300
 The more houses, the more residents.

03:44:35.300 --> 03:44:37.960
 The more residents, the more traffic.

03:44:37.960 --> 03:44:40.840
 The more traffic, the more congestion.

03:44:40.840 --> 03:44:48.120
 All of that means a more danger to everyone living in Deerwood, Elk Bend, or Ferris Road,

03:44:48.120 --> 03:44:52.520
 or going to school at Hodge Elementary.

03:44:52.520 --> 03:44:57.640
 Potential approval of the proposed Windsor Oaks development would add even more traffic

03:44:57.640 --> 03:45:04.960
 on Ferris Road, Kings Road, making things worse and more impossible to get in and out

03:45:04.960 --> 03:45:06.400
 of our neighborhoods.

03:45:06.400 --> 03:45:10.280
 How many more nearby developments are yet to come?

03:45:10.280 --> 03:45:17.860
 We must now protest any kind of rezoning of the brown traffic, brown track Kingsway until

03:45:17.860 --> 03:45:20.840
 adequate access roads are built.

03:45:20.840 --> 03:45:28.040
 Therefore, until more roads and other infrastructure are built to access and serve the Kings Road

03:45:28.040 --> 03:45:36.480
 Luke 288 neighborhoods, I strongly object to rezoning from R4 and R7 to a PD or any

03:45:36.480 --> 03:45:43.440
 rezoning of the brown track property that would allow or permit any more lots or houses,

03:45:43.440 --> 03:45:45.320
 especially smaller ones.

03:45:45.320 --> 03:45:49.320
 Now, I don't know how my time is running, but I would like to comment on some of the

03:45:49.320 --> 03:45:50.800
 things that were said tonight.

03:45:50.800 --> 03:45:54.640
 The gentleman right before me, I think, had it exactly right.

03:45:54.640 --> 03:46:00.520
 He hit the point that I think is by far the most important, the fact that we are in this

03:46:00.520 --> 03:46:01.920
 bottleneck.

03:46:01.920 --> 03:46:04.680
 And I believe it is life-threatening.

03:46:04.680 --> 03:46:16.640
 And what I really would like to know about the developer's improvements recently suggested,

03:46:16.640 --> 03:46:24.280
 I'd like to know when they plan to do that, who is going to pay for it?

03:46:24.280 --> 03:46:30.480
 And I'd like to say that a lot of plans, such as I've just been listening to regarding

03:46:30.480 --> 03:46:36.520
 highways and drainage, for example, look great on paper, but it's a whole other matter when

03:46:36.520 --> 03:46:38.720
 you see them in practice.

03:46:38.720 --> 03:46:44.680
 But once they're all built and there, then you're stuck with a problem.

03:46:44.680 --> 03:46:51.080
 I'm particularly concerned about the egress, the getting out of our neighborhood in case

03:46:51.080 --> 03:46:52.080
 of emergencies.

03:46:52.080 --> 03:46:55.440
 To me, that is the single biggest problem.

03:46:55.440 --> 03:47:01.620
 And all those highways, if I understood it correctly, all those new roads they were talking

03:47:01.620 --> 03:47:08.860
 about are mainly for the going in and not the going out, but maybe I misunderstood that.

03:47:08.860 --> 03:47:15.920
 And in connection with that, the idea of working with a situation that already got a traffic,

03:47:15.920 --> 03:47:23.140
 a grade B in the traffic study, that is just, to me, appalling, shocking.

03:47:23.140 --> 03:47:26.880
 And another thing is the pool.

03:47:26.880 --> 03:47:33.480
 I understand that adding the pool seems like a good idea to help the drainage problem.

03:47:33.480 --> 03:47:41.360
 But we have a serious mosquito problem in Denton, a really big mosquito problem.

03:47:41.360 --> 03:47:43.320
 We had it right near my backyard.

03:47:43.320 --> 03:47:44.320
 Eva?

03:47:44.320 --> 03:47:45.320
 Yes?

03:47:45.320 --> 03:47:49.560
 I hate to interrupt, but I just want to be mindful of the other people on the call about

03:47:49.560 --> 03:47:51.720
 your time allocation.

03:47:51.720 --> 03:47:56.720
 If you could summarize your question, we'll certainly get a response for it.

03:47:56.720 --> 03:47:58.300
 All right.

03:47:58.300 --> 03:48:04.560
 My question is, rather than my statement, is I think that the gentleman before me had

03:48:04.560 --> 03:48:12.360
 it right, that no developments in our area should be considered until the road situation,

03:48:12.360 --> 03:48:16.120
 the cul-de-sac situation is fixed.

03:48:16.120 --> 03:48:22.200
 Once that's fixed, and I realize that might be a, that's a county matter, a tech stock

03:48:22.200 --> 03:48:25.080
 matter, but it's a larger matter.

03:48:25.080 --> 03:48:27.340
 And I think we have to think bigger.

03:48:27.340 --> 03:48:33.640
 We have to expand the circle of our thinking about this planning.

03:48:33.640 --> 03:48:37.080
 And that's what I like the planning people to do.

03:48:37.080 --> 03:48:39.120
 Thank you.

03:48:39.120 --> 03:48:40.460
 Gotcha.

03:48:40.460 --> 03:48:46.600
 So my plan this evening, Eva, is to listen to all the callers, and then we can compile

03:48:46.600 --> 03:48:51.340
 those questions for the applicant or staff to respond to.

03:48:51.340 --> 03:48:56.880
 So I've noted your question about the egresses and ingresses and some of the traffic issue,

03:48:56.880 --> 03:49:02.160
 and then I also heard some issues with mosquitoes in the retention ponds.

03:49:02.160 --> 03:49:06.420
 And then what we'll do is after the end of these calls, we'll make sure we get answers

03:49:06.420 --> 03:49:09.680
 for you either in public hearing or as a follow-up to you.

03:49:09.680 --> 03:49:14.440
 But I appreciate you calling in and providing your thoughts.

03:49:14.440 --> 03:49:16.720
 Thank you.

03:49:16.720 --> 03:49:17.720
 Have a good night.

03:49:17.720 --> 03:49:18.720
 You too.

03:49:18.720 --> 03:49:21.820
 Thank you, Chair.

03:49:21.820 --> 03:49:25.480
 We are going to send the next caller in.

03:49:25.480 --> 03:49:28.760
 Thanks, Stuart.

03:49:28.760 --> 03:49:34.040
 Good evening.

03:49:34.040 --> 03:49:35.960
 You are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

03:49:35.960 --> 03:49:40.960
 If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.

03:49:40.960 --> 03:49:47.640
 Yes, my name is Tom Silva, and I'm representing the property, Lifegate Church, at 3350 Dearwood

03:49:47.640 --> 03:49:51.760
 Parkway, 76208.

03:49:51.760 --> 03:49:55.980
 I'm the senior deacon at the church, and I called in tonight primarily because of the

03:49:55.980 --> 03:50:00.820
 fact that I've been listening to the calls and I've been watching the meeting going on.

03:50:00.820 --> 03:50:03.880
 We have some major concerns.

03:50:03.880 --> 03:50:08.160
 Although I like the fact that the development is going in, I like some of the points of

03:50:08.160 --> 03:50:12.040
 the development there, it's still one big cul-de-sac.

03:50:12.040 --> 03:50:18.160
 And if you look at the average American home, each American home in the United States has

03:50:18.160 --> 03:50:25.840
 about 1.9 vehicles, with 380 units going into that area, that's 760 cars to add to the congestion

03:50:25.840 --> 03:50:27.920
 of an already congested area.

03:50:27.920 --> 03:50:35.320
 Now, if you've not been there during the school time at Hodge Elementary, you'll notice that

03:50:35.320 --> 03:50:42.880
 although I think that I like the idea of the 11 by 300 feet pull-off on the side of King's

03:50:42.880 --> 03:50:46.960
 Row, that's only going to accommodate approximately 40 cars.

03:50:46.960 --> 03:50:53.160
 If you've ever been there during school rush hour, 40 cars is a drop in the bucket.

03:50:53.160 --> 03:50:57.480
 Unless you're going to have a police officer to direct traffic to get them on to Dearwood

03:50:57.480 --> 03:51:00.720
 Parkway over to the school, you're still going to have a mess.

03:51:00.720 --> 03:51:03.800
 And then you're going to have a bigger mess when the cars start coming out of Dearwood

03:51:03.800 --> 03:51:07.480
 Parkway since there's only one way in and one way out.

03:51:07.480 --> 03:51:11.240
 I would like to recommend to the PNZ committee that you look at some other neighborhoods

03:51:11.240 --> 03:51:13.440
 that's in a similar situation.

03:51:13.440 --> 03:51:17.240
 The east side of this development is going to be good because I like the size of the

03:51:17.240 --> 03:51:18.240
 house and property.

03:51:18.240 --> 03:51:22.960
 But when you get over the west side that's closer to 280, there's more homes over there

03:51:22.960 --> 03:51:24.760
 and more congestion.

03:51:24.760 --> 03:51:28.200
 And you'll probably be looking at about three to four cars in that neighborhood, and they'll

03:51:28.200 --> 03:51:32.080
 be parking on top of one another on that part of that development.

03:51:32.080 --> 03:51:37.020
 So that's going to add even more than the 760 cars that I'm talking about.

03:51:37.020 --> 03:51:42.380
 So the question I have is, how soon will there be an additional exit out of the new development?

03:51:42.380 --> 03:51:43.700
 That's one question.

03:51:43.700 --> 03:51:50.400
 And the other one is, I'm concerned about the traffic survey.

03:51:50.400 --> 03:51:55.800
 When it was done, was it done during the school, when the school was active, or was it done

03:51:55.800 --> 03:51:56.800
 on a holiday?

03:51:56.800 --> 03:52:02.200
 Because if it was done on a holiday, you're not even seeing the beginning of what's a

03:52:02.200 --> 03:52:03.200
 mess.

03:52:03.200 --> 03:52:06.760
 We have problems getting out of our church parking lot, and with three full-time employees

03:52:06.760 --> 03:52:10.360
 in the church, sometimes they have to wait to get out of our church parking lot to get

03:52:10.360 --> 03:52:12.760
 on a Dearwood Parkway to get out of there.

03:52:12.760 --> 03:52:16.040
 So those are our concerns, primarily.

03:52:16.040 --> 03:52:21.080
 Not that we have anything about any problems with the development of adding on to new homes

03:52:21.080 --> 03:52:22.400
 in the city of Denton.

03:52:22.400 --> 03:52:24.680
 Our problem is a traffic issue.

03:52:24.680 --> 03:52:32.160
 And I don't think adding 11 by 300 square foot side road is going to really help the

03:52:32.160 --> 03:52:33.160
 congestion.

03:52:33.160 --> 03:52:37.160
 You guys need to go over there during the school year and see what a mess that is off

03:52:37.160 --> 03:52:40.560
 288 and King's Row.

03:52:40.560 --> 03:52:46.280
 Anyway, that's the points I wanted to make, and I'd like to get that question answered

03:52:46.280 --> 03:52:50.920
 about when the survey was done and about when they're going to put an exit road out of that

03:52:50.920 --> 03:52:51.920
 neighborhood.

03:52:51.920 --> 03:52:54.240
 Yeah, I think those are valid questions.

03:52:54.240 --> 03:52:56.040
 I appreciate you calling.

03:52:56.040 --> 03:52:57.040
 Stay tuned to this meeting.

03:52:57.040 --> 03:53:01.440
 We'll make sure at the end of these callers that we have the applicant or staff address

03:53:01.440 --> 03:53:02.440
 those questions.

03:53:02.440 --> 03:53:03.440
 Okay.

03:53:03.440 --> 03:53:04.440
 Thank you very much.

03:53:04.440 --> 03:53:08.880
 But thank you for your time, and I appreciate you guys allowing me to say our piece in behalf

03:53:08.880 --> 03:53:10.400
 of Lifegate Church.

03:53:10.400 --> 03:53:11.400
 Absolutely.

03:53:11.400 --> 03:53:13.440
 I appreciate you calling.

03:53:13.440 --> 03:53:15.440
 Thank you.

03:53:15.440 --> 03:53:30.120
 Chair, we will get our third caller of the evening sent in.

03:53:30.120 --> 03:53:31.120
 Good evening.

03:53:31.120 --> 03:53:32.120
 You're connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

03:53:32.120 --> 03:53:36.480
 If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.

03:53:36.480 --> 03:53:37.480
 Hi.

03:53:37.480 --> 03:53:38.480
 Thanks, everybody.

03:53:38.480 --> 03:53:46.320
 My name is Vicki McGovern, and I live at 3110 Hartley Field Road in Denton, Texas.

03:53:46.320 --> 03:53:52.560
 If you look at the chart that Mr. Fletcher put up, and he spoke about the Reeds property

03:53:52.560 --> 03:53:59.440
 just north of the brown track, I'm just north of the Reeds property, and I live on a seven-acre

03:53:59.440 --> 03:54:05.760
 parcel up here, as if you've looked around, you'll see most of these parcels up here are

03:54:05.760 --> 03:54:10.280
 significantly larger than what's being proposed for the brown track.

03:54:10.280 --> 03:54:15.920
 So, at this time, I agree absolutely with everything that everybody else has said.

03:54:15.920 --> 03:54:16.920
 Yes, sir.

03:54:16.920 --> 03:54:17.920
 Is this Bud?

03:54:17.920 --> 03:54:18.920
 Hey, Bud.

03:54:18.920 --> 03:54:19.920
 This is Corey with the City of Denton.

03:54:19.920 --> 03:54:20.920
 How are you, sir?

03:54:20.920 --> 03:54:21.920
 You are on the line.

03:54:21.920 --> 03:54:22.920
 Very well.

03:54:22.920 --> 03:54:23.920
 Thank you very much.

03:54:23.920 --> 03:54:27.920
 I'm just going to let you know that I'm going to put you in the queue to speak in the...

03:54:27.920 --> 03:54:29.600
 Lisa, are you there?

03:54:29.600 --> 03:54:33.040
 Once the current speaker gets finished, we'll go ahead and transfer you in, and you'll start

03:54:33.040 --> 03:54:34.040
 your four minutes.

03:54:34.040 --> 03:54:37.040
 Lisa, are you connected?

03:54:37.040 --> 03:54:38.040
 Yeah.

03:54:38.040 --> 03:54:42.720
 I'll get back on before I transfer you over.

03:54:42.720 --> 03:54:43.720
 Hello?

03:54:43.720 --> 03:54:45.800
 Lisa, are you there?

03:54:45.800 --> 03:54:48.800
 This is Vicki McGovern.

03:54:48.800 --> 03:54:50.800
 Is that her?

03:54:50.800 --> 03:54:51.800
 Yes.

03:54:51.800 --> 03:54:52.800
 Sorry.

03:54:52.800 --> 03:54:53.800
 I apologize.

03:54:53.800 --> 03:54:54.800
 Wrong name.

03:54:54.800 --> 03:54:55.800
 Sorry about that.

03:54:55.800 --> 03:54:56.800
 You can continue.

03:54:56.800 --> 03:54:57.800
 We're listening.

03:54:57.800 --> 03:54:58.800
 Okay.

03:54:58.800 --> 03:54:59.800
 What happened?

03:54:59.800 --> 03:55:00.800
 Okay.

03:55:00.800 --> 03:55:01.800
 So, I'll start.

03:55:01.800 --> 03:55:08.840
 I'll pretend like you heard everything I just said, but I would respectfully ask this committee

03:55:08.840 --> 03:55:16.960
 to please deny this PD and rezoning request being made here from an R4 to R7.

03:55:16.960 --> 03:55:22.440
 The R4 fits within the current guidelines within the Denton 2030 plan like everybody's

03:55:22.440 --> 03:55:27.480
 talked about for this area, and really, there's no special enhancements that I think this

03:55:27.480 --> 03:55:33.160
 development brings to the quality of life and the citizens of this area of warranting

03:55:33.160 --> 03:55:34.960
 this zoning change.

03:55:34.960 --> 03:55:40.440
 The green space that's being spoken of for this development mostly consists of easements

03:55:40.440 --> 03:55:46.640
 and retention time, and in addition to the significant traffic issues that have already

03:55:46.640 --> 03:55:53.480
 been spoken to, and I'm one of those grandparents, actually, that picks up my three kids from

03:55:53.480 --> 03:55:59.400
 school quite often, and I sit in those situations that were described earlier, so it is pretty

03:55:59.400 --> 03:56:00.400
 crazy.

03:56:00.400 --> 03:56:06.500
 Additionally, the plan of the new development showed roadways reaching to the north, and

03:56:06.500 --> 03:56:08.840
 this is important to me.

03:56:08.840 --> 03:56:14.880
 Out of the proposed development, you saw those roadways reaching north, again, back to where

03:56:14.880 --> 03:56:20.840
 I live, and when considered what the Denton Mobility Plan could actually cut through the

03:56:20.840 --> 03:56:23.760
 back of my current seven-acre property.

03:56:23.760 --> 03:56:29.420
 This is not what I envisioned when I moved here almost three years ago.

03:56:29.420 --> 03:56:35.120
 We as a community, as many have mentioned, are being boxed in, a community of nice, larger

03:56:35.120 --> 03:56:36.820
 lot homes.

03:56:36.820 --> 03:56:41.120
 When I spoke at other P&B meetings in the past, we were told that the vision for growth

03:56:41.120 --> 03:56:47.120
 of Denton was to infill and then growth to the west by the Collins Stadium.

03:56:47.120 --> 03:56:52.440
 Now we're facing this rezoning request along with the recent Taylor Morrison request, which

03:56:52.440 --> 03:56:58.000
 was to rezone from a rural residential five, which I know has been really tabled for the

03:56:58.000 --> 03:57:02.400
 moment, but could easily come back around.

03:57:02.400 --> 03:57:08.000
 I therefore respectfully ask that you please deny this request and consider the traffic,

03:57:08.000 --> 03:57:12.480
 safety, and existing neighbors before moving ahead with this.

03:57:12.480 --> 03:57:14.480
 Thank you very much for your time.

03:57:14.480 --> 03:57:21.360
 - Vicki, thank you so much for calling in and being patient with that technical issue.

03:57:21.360 --> 03:57:25.440
 Any questions for Vicki from us?

03:57:25.440 --> 03:57:29.660
 We don't have any questions for you, Vicki, but we will certainly consider your points.

03:57:29.660 --> 03:57:31.400
 Thank you.

03:57:31.400 --> 03:57:33.720
 - Thank you.

03:57:33.720 --> 03:57:44.900
 - Chair, we are sending in the next caller now.

03:57:44.900 --> 03:57:53.200
 - Good evening.

03:57:53.200 --> 03:57:55.480
 You are connected to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

03:57:55.480 --> 03:58:00.700
 If you could state your name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak.

03:58:00.700 --> 03:58:02.880
 - Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

03:58:02.880 --> 03:58:04.680
 My name is Bud Volkin.

03:58:04.680 --> 03:58:09.360
 My wife and I have lived at 3909 Grant for 21 years.

03:58:09.360 --> 03:58:15.240
 I worked as a traffic engineer for the City of Denton for 16 years and in that capacity

03:58:15.240 --> 03:58:19.240
 in various other cities for a total of 39 years.

03:58:19.240 --> 03:58:24.640
 I rise to speak both in opposition to the approval of any rezoning of the brown track

03:58:24.640 --> 03:58:32.520
 lands from R4, and in particular, in opposition to BPD 2-0001.

03:58:32.520 --> 03:58:41.000
 The detailed amenities in PD2-0001 are clearly there primarily in an attempt to justify increasing

03:58:41.000 --> 03:58:47.560
 lot density from R4 to R7-like density, as well as to allow for smaller lot dimensions

03:58:47.560 --> 03:58:53.240
 and other deviations from what is prescribed for R4 and the DDC.

03:58:53.240 --> 03:58:56.920
 All of this comes at a considerable cost to the Scranton neighborhood.

03:58:56.920 --> 03:59:00.360
 There's nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing.

03:59:00.360 --> 03:59:08.320
 The DDC 1.2 states eight criteria, it is hard for me to grasp how any of these purposes

03:59:08.320 --> 03:59:15.920
 are achieved by changing the current R4 zoning to any PD with R7-like density.

03:59:15.920 --> 03:59:25.360
 As to the applicability of the DDC 2.7.3, the only real effect of the change from R4

03:59:25.360 --> 03:59:29.620
 to a PD is to put more houses on smaller lots.

03:59:29.620 --> 03:59:36.320
 There is no unique, flexible, or innovative land use, nor are there any greater efficient

03:59:36.320 --> 03:59:45.240
 provisions of services and utilities that are involved as DDC 2.7.3 intends.

03:59:45.240 --> 03:59:50.160
 How will these amenities benefit anyone but the developer in the sale of these houses?

03:59:50.160 --> 03:59:56.480
 I fear that this PD contains a hidden agenda, which, if approved, could cause the brown

03:59:56.480 --> 04:00:02.140
 track property to return in the future with other more intense and different uses than

04:00:02.140 --> 04:00:06.760
 are currently allowed or easily foreseen with R4 zoning.

04:00:06.760 --> 04:00:16.640
 Likewise, regarding DDC 3.6.1, this PD does not include any combinations of any uses stated.

04:00:16.640 --> 04:00:26.880
 The only purpose of PD 2-0001 is to increase lot density and thus allow for smaller lot

04:00:26.880 --> 04:00:31.120
 dimensions and other deviations from what is prescribed for R4.

04:00:31.120 --> 04:00:40.800
 As for DDC 2.4, step three, E8, based on all the protesting input received, only from me

04:00:40.800 --> 04:00:47.440
 but from many neighbors, the proposed change from R4 to a PD will unquestionably bring

04:00:47.440 --> 04:00:51.720
 about major adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.

04:00:51.720 --> 04:00:57.680
 In addition, this provision allows the result of the citizen participation process to be

04:00:57.680 --> 04:01:01.440
 appropriately considered by the P&Z Commission.

04:01:01.440 --> 04:01:08.440
 In short, rezoning the brown track from R4 to a PD would bring irreparable material harm

04:01:08.440 --> 04:01:12.960
 to the property owners of the surrounding neighborhoods and, in the long run, to the

04:01:12.960 --> 04:01:13.960
 city of Denton.

04:01:13.960 --> 04:01:15.840
 I firmly oppose it.

04:01:15.840 --> 04:01:20.960
 The Commission has and will be hearing many concerns about this proposal.

04:01:20.960 --> 04:01:26.320
 Many of these concerns are viable and of significant importance to the speakers and should be to

04:01:26.320 --> 04:01:27.600
 the city as well.

04:01:27.600 --> 04:01:33.720
 The Commission may have sympathy and/or empathy for each concern, but may also believe that

04:01:33.720 --> 04:01:36.080
 some are not within their purview.

04:01:36.080 --> 04:01:42.320
 However, everything I have spoken to relates only to the DDC and thus are fully within

04:01:42.320 --> 04:01:45.040
 the charge of the Commission's consideration.

04:01:45.040 --> 04:01:50.960
 Therefore, I respectfully request the Commission to perform the duties assigned to them by

04:01:50.960 --> 04:01:58.480
 the City Council and deny this request for a PD and the intended R7-like density use.

04:01:58.480 --> 04:02:00.360
 Thank you very much for your time.

04:02:00.360 --> 04:02:06.240
 Thank you, bud, any questions for the Commission?

04:02:06.240 --> 04:02:09.480
 We don't have any questions for you, but I appreciate you calling and providing your

04:02:09.480 --> 04:02:12.240
 thoughts and perspective on the project.

04:02:12.240 --> 04:02:19.400
 Well thank you for your time.

04:02:19.400 --> 04:02:29.840
 Our next caller is being sent into the meeting now.

04:02:29.840 --> 04:02:30.840
 Good evening.

04:02:30.840 --> 04:02:32.280
 You are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

04:02:32.280 --> 04:02:38.440
 If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.

04:02:38.440 --> 04:02:40.240
 My name is Judith Michaelwitz.

04:02:40.240 --> 04:02:49.920
 My address is 3921 Fawn Drive in Denton, Texas.

04:02:49.920 --> 04:02:52.620
 You can start whenever.

04:02:52.620 --> 04:02:53.620
 Thank you.

04:02:53.620 --> 04:02:56.080
 I heard beeping and didn't know what was going on.

04:02:56.080 --> 04:03:01.140
 Yes, thank you very much for allowing me to speak this evening.

04:03:01.140 --> 04:03:12.440
 I am opposed to the rezoning from an R4 and an R7 to the plan development.

04:03:12.440 --> 04:03:22.980
 As a resident of the area, I'm extremely concerned, most importantly, with the safety issues in

04:03:22.980 --> 04:03:30.640
 regard to the safety of our children as they walk to and from Hodge Elementary School.

04:03:30.640 --> 04:03:39.840
 And although I did see and have been watching the proposed changes that would allow some

04:03:39.840 --> 04:03:48.920
 additional alleviation of our traffic constraints along Kings Row, I don't see anything that's

04:03:48.920 --> 04:03:56.080
 going to improve the safety of our children crossing the streets as they come in walking

04:03:56.080 --> 04:04:02.620
 or on bicycles from our neighborhood and attempt to go through the standing traffic, the stop

04:04:02.620 --> 04:04:06.360
 traffic, walking between cars.

04:04:06.360 --> 04:04:12.520
 And that's a huge concern for me personally.

04:04:12.520 --> 04:04:19.720
 The safety of our children and our community is there's nothing more important.

04:04:19.720 --> 04:04:30.480
 The amount of traffic that we have at Kings Row and at Loop 288 is astronomical at times.

04:04:30.480 --> 04:04:35.560
 It's not only when the school is in session, but it is a very dangerous intersection.

04:04:35.560 --> 04:04:42.840
 We frequently have automobile accidents at that intersection because it simply has not

04:04:42.840 --> 04:04:47.640
 been designed to handle the amount of traffic that comes through there.

04:04:47.640 --> 04:04:49.440
 The number of trucks, et cetera.

04:04:49.440 --> 04:04:55.200
 I've heard the other people describing how we're sitting on Loop 288 trying to make a

04:04:55.200 --> 04:05:00.880
 right-hand turn to come into our subdivision, and you're just stuck there, which is very

04:05:00.880 --> 04:05:01.880
 true.

04:05:01.880 --> 04:05:06.600
 You're just stuck at the light trying to make a left-hand turn onto Kings Row.

04:05:06.600 --> 04:05:16.840
 Both things are extremely frustrating, yes, but they're very, very dangerous.

04:05:16.840 --> 04:05:23.760
 So the main concern that I have is, of course, with the traffic congestion.

04:05:23.760 --> 04:05:32.800
 In addition, I have huge concern with the smaller lot sizes that are being proposed

04:05:32.800 --> 04:05:41.400
 and the impact that that's going to have on the property values of our homes in our neighborhoods.

04:05:41.400 --> 04:05:53.320
 Definitely prefer leaving the zoning as is, as the residential four neighborhood designation.

04:05:53.320 --> 04:06:00.320
 We fought hard to have that designation put in place a few years ago, and we definitely

04:06:00.320 --> 04:06:15.720
 ask that you, as the commission, would please consider denying the PD proposal, and I thank

04:06:15.720 --> 04:06:16.720
 you for your time.

04:06:16.720 --> 04:06:19.640
 Thank you, Judith, for calling in.

04:06:19.640 --> 04:06:21.440
 Any questions for the caller?

04:06:21.440 --> 04:06:25.240
 Judith, there's no questions from the commission, but I appreciate you taking the time to wait

04:06:25.240 --> 04:06:30.620
 on hold and let us know your thoughts and perspective on the project.

04:06:30.620 --> 04:06:32.720
 Thank you.

04:06:32.720 --> 04:06:47.040
 Chair, we are sending the next caller in right now.

04:06:47.040 --> 04:07:03.720
 Chair, we are having trouble.

04:07:03.720 --> 04:07:08.960
 It appears that this caller dropped off the line.

04:07:08.960 --> 04:07:09.960
 Is it our last caller?

04:07:09.960 --> 04:07:11.640
 You mentioned there's six.

04:07:11.640 --> 04:07:13.880
 It is the last caller.

04:07:13.880 --> 04:07:18.880
 Okay, we can certainly turn to the dais for discussion, and, Stuart, will you just interrupt

04:07:18.880 --> 04:07:21.960
 me if you reconnect with that individual?

04:07:21.960 --> 04:07:22.960
 Absolutely.

04:07:22.960 --> 04:07:27.720
 Let me get some time before we close the public hearing.

04:07:27.720 --> 04:07:31.600
 While we wait to see if we can reconnect with that citizen, is there any questions that

04:07:31.600 --> 04:07:32.600
 we can discuss?

04:07:32.600 --> 04:07:35.600
 I'm sorry, Chair.

04:07:35.600 --> 04:07:41.200
 They are coming in now, Chair.

04:07:41.200 --> 04:07:43.520
 Perfect.

04:07:43.520 --> 04:07:44.520
 Good evening.

04:07:44.520 --> 04:07:45.600
 You are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

04:07:45.600 --> 04:07:52.160
 If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.

04:07:52.160 --> 04:07:53.160
 Good evening.

04:07:53.160 --> 04:07:54.160
 My name is R.J. Miller.

04:07:54.160 --> 04:08:00.200
 I live at 5045 Oak Bend Circle in Denton, Texas, and thank you for taking my comments

04:08:00.200 --> 04:08:01.200
 tonight.

04:08:01.200 --> 04:08:07.760
 Basically, I would first like to commend the applicant for addressing many of the early

04:08:07.760 --> 04:08:11.880
 concerns, particularly traffic and drainage.

04:08:11.880 --> 04:08:17.000
 However, I have additional concerns that really have not been addressed, particularly the

04:08:17.000 --> 04:08:21.840
 higher density section that is essentially R7.

04:08:21.840 --> 04:08:28.920
 I am concerned that while it's been stated as a goal to be able to provide entry-level

04:08:28.920 --> 04:08:39.100
 housing for new homeowners, I think that based on trends that we've seen that will most likely

04:08:39.100 --> 04:08:45.560
 wind up being owned by investors and will be rental properties, and within a very short

04:08:45.560 --> 04:08:52.560
 period of time, those properties will be significantly run down and overcrowded.

04:08:52.560 --> 04:09:00.280
 I think you can go look at the housing development over on Dixon, Cruz, and Savage as an example

04:09:00.280 --> 04:09:01.280
 of that.

04:09:01.280 --> 04:09:05.800
 I think it's similarly sized lots over there.

04:09:05.800 --> 04:09:14.440
 Now, I think I heard, and this may be, it probably is unrelated to this particular request,

04:09:14.440 --> 04:09:20.920
 but that the prediction for the intersection at that traffic light at Kings Row and 288

04:09:20.920 --> 04:09:29.280
 in 2029, I thought I saw over four-minute queue times, which is just completely unacceptable,

04:09:29.280 --> 04:09:35.920
 I believe, and that apparently is even with the improvements to Kings Row that are proposed

04:09:35.920 --> 04:09:40.480
 by this particular applicant.

04:09:40.480 --> 04:09:48.200
 And I guess my final comment would be, when we buy our homes in this area, we look at

04:09:48.200 --> 04:09:58.160
 the zoning that is published and expect that to be adhered to, and we're seeing in this

04:09:58.160 --> 04:10:05.360
 part of Denton developers wanting to come in and make significant requests for variants

04:10:05.360 --> 04:10:09.560
 from that plan to put in much higher density housing.

04:10:09.560 --> 04:10:18.120
 So in closing, I would like to say I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Committee

04:10:18.120 --> 04:10:24.600
 stick to the published zoning plan that's in place and not grant this request.

04:10:24.600 --> 04:10:28.480
 Thank you for your time.

04:10:28.480 --> 04:10:29.480
 Any questions?

04:10:29.480 --> 04:10:31.360
 Sir, I appreciate you calling in.

04:10:31.360 --> 04:10:35.280
 We don't have any questions on our end, but I appreciate you waiting on hold, getting

04:10:35.280 --> 04:10:42.240
 through the technical difficulties and expressing your opinions and thoughts on the project.

04:10:42.240 --> 04:10:54.580
 Ma'am, did you want to speak?

04:10:54.580 --> 04:11:00.760
 Do you just make your way to this first microphone closest to you?

04:11:00.760 --> 04:11:06.800
 And if you could state your name and mail-in address for the record.

04:11:06.800 --> 04:11:09.800
 Okay.

04:11:09.800 --> 04:11:10.800
 Thank you for letting me speak.

04:11:10.800 --> 04:11:14.000
 I've never done this before, so I'm a little nervous.

04:11:14.000 --> 04:11:15.000
 Deborah Mills.

04:11:15.000 --> 04:11:20.560
 I live at 3907 Whitetail Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208.

04:11:20.560 --> 04:11:26.600
 I don't directly abut to the property, but I'm about a block away.

04:11:26.600 --> 04:11:30.400
 I actually back up to Hodge Elementary.

04:11:30.400 --> 04:11:34.520
 I completely agree with the callers that have called in before.

04:11:34.520 --> 04:11:38.640
 I would ask you to respectfully decline this request.

04:11:38.640 --> 04:11:46.120
 Again, it's very difficult now for us to get out of our neighborhood in the mornings.

04:11:46.120 --> 04:11:52.360
 Even though you say this is traffic in the mornings, it's not just the school traffic,

04:11:52.360 --> 04:11:55.520
 but it's people trying to go to work and things like that.

04:11:55.520 --> 04:11:59.320
 And the people coming out of this new development, how are they going to even get out of their

04:11:59.320 --> 04:12:03.920
 neighborhood if there's only one in and out of that area, right?

04:12:03.920 --> 04:12:08.600
 They're going to be frustrated with the same issues that we have today.

04:12:08.600 --> 04:12:13.920
 The other thing that I wanted to mention, I am concerned about the higher density.

04:12:13.920 --> 04:12:14.920
 We all bought our homes.

04:12:14.920 --> 04:12:20.280
 As somebody mentioned, I've lived there for 22 years now.

04:12:20.280 --> 04:12:26.600
 With the intended use that the zoning around it would stay, you know, as promised, okay?

04:12:26.600 --> 04:12:29.880
 And so we bought our homes.

04:12:29.880 --> 04:12:34.540
 The development that we're in, luckily the developer did a very good job and was very

04:12:34.540 --> 04:12:38.240
 good at particular about what he did.

04:12:38.240 --> 04:12:44.920
 I am kind of confused a little bit, though, if the high density was for lower income or

04:12:44.920 --> 04:12:50.740
 starter families, if there's going to be an HOA with this, that's the first I've heard

04:12:50.740 --> 04:12:57.160
 of that in this proposal, and that would pretty much price them out of that house that's supposedly

04:12:57.160 --> 04:13:03.320
 in their price range, because my understanding is HOA fees can basically put people out of

04:13:03.320 --> 04:13:06.560
 their homes over a period of time.

04:13:06.560 --> 04:13:13.080
 And again, it's traffic issues, it's density, property values, all of that that everybody

04:13:13.080 --> 04:13:16.840
 has stated before, so I would ask that you respectfully decline this.

04:13:16.840 --> 04:13:17.840
 Thank you.

04:13:17.840 --> 04:13:19.920
 >> Thank you, Deborah, for being here.

04:13:19.920 --> 04:13:22.800
 You did great for your first time.

04:13:22.800 --> 04:13:26.480
 You did good for your first time.

04:13:26.480 --> 04:13:27.880
 Please do.

04:13:27.880 --> 04:13:29.560
 Anyone else wanting to speak this evening?

04:13:29.560 --> 04:13:30.560
 Okay.

04:13:30.560 --> 04:13:35.660
 With that, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing.

04:13:35.660 --> 04:13:39.940
 Before we open for a full discussion, I did want to see if we can get a couple questions

04:13:39.940 --> 04:13:45.480
 that have been addressed answered really quickly, and I don't know who's best to answer this.

04:13:45.480 --> 04:13:53.080
 My thought might be Thomas, but is there any timing on when the -- if TXOT approves your

04:13:53.080 --> 04:13:56.800
 acceleration/deceleration, is that going to be built concurrently with Phase 1, or is

04:13:56.800 --> 04:13:58.200
 that at full build out?

04:13:58.200 --> 04:14:04.840
 And then secondly, the deacon of the church was wondering when that TIA study was done.

04:14:04.840 --> 04:14:07.800
 Was it done actually during school time?

04:14:07.800 --> 04:14:09.060
 >> So I'll answer that one first.

04:14:09.060 --> 04:14:14.560
 The TIA was done during school time, and as part of the TIA, we actually -- our transportation

04:14:14.560 --> 04:14:19.280
 engineers went out there during -- essentially spent a full day out there.

04:14:19.280 --> 04:14:23.400
 So they were there when drop-off and pick-up was occurring.

04:14:23.400 --> 04:14:29.840
 So they actually even spoke with the principal of the school and some of the people.

04:14:29.840 --> 04:14:35.080
 I think one or several of them got approached asking what they were doing out there and

04:14:35.080 --> 04:14:39.520
 had to explain that they were here doing a TIA and observing the traffic pattern.

04:14:39.520 --> 04:14:43.320
 So it was done during school time.

04:14:43.320 --> 04:14:46.360
 So that is included within those counts.

04:14:46.360 --> 04:14:51.440
 On the first thing, I think we've written into the PD.

04:14:51.440 --> 04:14:57.040
 So originally, we thought that the access point to Loop 288 was going to be an emergency

04:14:57.040 --> 04:15:04.000
 access only, so the PD condition by the city states that that has to be in place prior

04:15:04.000 --> 04:15:11.400
 to the development of phase 3A, 3B, or 2B, and basically because that's the area of the

04:15:11.400 --> 04:15:19.360
 site that wouldn't currently meet the remote access requirement that's required by fire.

04:15:19.360 --> 04:15:25.480
 As the process is developed and we're showing the acceleration/deceleration lane with primary

04:15:25.480 --> 04:15:33.480
 access, we added language to the PD such that if the developer chose to develop those lots

04:15:33.480 --> 04:15:38.520
 first, then that would come in up front with the project.

04:15:38.520 --> 04:15:45.280
 So as the project is currently shown as being phased, it would be in that phase 2B time

04:15:45.280 --> 04:15:48.080
 frame that would require construction.

04:15:48.080 --> 04:15:53.720
 If the project phasing changes so that the initial phases are adjacent to the loop, then

04:15:53.720 --> 04:15:57.120
 it would certainly come in with phase 1.

04:15:57.120 --> 04:16:01.920
 Regarding the improvements to King's Row, I think that was asked timing as well.

04:16:01.920 --> 04:16:07.720
 That's a condition, the conditional city approval, that's required with phase 1.

04:16:07.720 --> 04:16:13.120
 And really what happens during the design process is that we have to do the design,

04:16:13.120 --> 04:16:17.540
 we have to get city approval, we bid the project, we go to construction.

04:16:17.540 --> 04:16:24.760
 Those improvements are accepted by the city and are being utilized prior to any homes

04:16:24.760 --> 04:16:26.040
 being constructed.

04:16:26.040 --> 04:16:33.280
 So the existing residents would see that increase in level of service, that choke point essentially

04:16:33.280 --> 04:16:38.920
 going away prior to our residents and our homes being developed and adding the traffic

04:16:38.920 --> 04:16:44.760
 to that transportation system.

04:16:44.760 --> 04:16:49.160
 And then the last question I was just asked, do you have a potential range for the HOA

04:16:49.160 --> 04:16:50.160
 fees?

04:16:50.160 --> 04:16:51.160
 Is there a targeted price point for that?

04:16:51.160 --> 04:16:52.160
 I don't.

04:16:52.160 --> 04:16:56.640
 Normally what they do is they take into account the open space, they'll get bids for mowing

04:16:56.640 --> 04:17:00.280
 and maintaining, they'll look at the amount.

04:17:00.280 --> 04:17:04.680
 You know, I live in a neighborhood that's very similar to this, it has a significant

04:17:04.680 --> 04:17:07.360
 amount of open space and trails.

04:17:07.360 --> 04:17:12.080
 We don't have a community pool, which we're not proposing here, but we do have play areas

04:17:12.080 --> 04:17:13.080
 and such.

04:17:13.080 --> 04:17:21.560
 And, you know, my HOA fee is $500 annually, so that's about a little over $40 a month.

04:17:21.560 --> 04:17:28.160
 So I don't, I've not seen a situation where the HOA dues would be such that they would

04:17:28.160 --> 04:17:32.720
 price someone out of the ability to afford a home within this subdivision.

04:17:32.720 --> 04:17:33.720
 Great.

04:17:33.720 --> 04:17:34.720
 Thank you.

04:17:34.720 --> 04:17:35.720
 Commissioner Smith.

04:17:35.720 --> 04:17:43.720
 I'm going to make a motion to approve with staff conditions and a couple of thoughts

04:17:43.720 --> 04:17:45.360
 along this as I do make this approval.

04:17:45.360 --> 04:17:51.600
 I think this is a thoughtful, carefully planned, well thought out project that is going to

04:17:51.600 --> 04:17:58.560
 convert an R4/R7 zone property to one that would be 3.8 units per acre, well within the

04:17:58.560 --> 04:18:01.480
 R4 based zone that is within there.

04:18:01.480 --> 04:18:04.920
 It's not converting an R4 to an R7.

04:18:04.920 --> 04:18:10.280
 There's some R7 like characteristics to the higher density pieces, but as we've talked

04:18:10.280 --> 04:18:13.520
 about those, those still comply by the DDC.

04:18:13.520 --> 04:18:20.680
 In addition, this could be currently developed by right by a project that without PNZ approval,

04:18:20.680 --> 04:18:26.640
 without city council approval, that's as it's been clearly shown to myself as commissioner

04:18:26.640 --> 04:18:31.600
 tonight that really wouldn't be in the best interest of the city at large nor the neighborhood

04:18:31.600 --> 04:18:32.600
 near there.

04:18:32.600 --> 04:18:38.280
 I want to commend the applicant and the engineering staff and the planning staff for going through

04:18:38.280 --> 04:18:42.160
 and creating a project that by going through a much more difficult process rather than

04:18:42.160 --> 04:18:46.920
 developing by right, you've created a project that is actually better for those that are

04:18:46.920 --> 04:18:51.400
 in the neighborhood and better for the city at large than what you could currently do

04:18:51.400 --> 04:18:54.520
 right now within the DDC and by your own right currently.

04:18:54.520 --> 04:19:01.160
 So I do want to make this known that in my humble opinion, a vote against this approval

04:19:01.160 --> 04:19:07.160
 would actually be more dangerous for the city than a vote to affirm and to approve it.

04:19:07.160 --> 04:19:09.160
 So that's my motion.

04:19:09.160 --> 04:19:12.280
 We have a first for approval with conditions.

04:19:12.280 --> 04:19:13.600
 Commissioner Ellis.

04:19:13.600 --> 04:19:17.840
 I will second that and also have a few thoughts as well.

04:19:17.840 --> 04:19:23.160
 Obviously traffic is an issue in this area to be certain right now, but in my opinion

04:19:23.160 --> 04:19:25.480
 that is on us as a city.

04:19:25.480 --> 04:19:28.160
 It's not on this developer.

04:19:28.160 --> 04:19:32.240
 I'm impressed with the consideration that you and the accommodations that you've given

04:19:32.240 --> 04:19:45.200
 after your backup material to us at those meetings.

04:19:45.200 --> 04:19:50.040
 This land, as Commissioner Smith said, is zoned right now to be developed and it can

04:19:50.040 --> 04:19:53.560
 be developed without any of these considerations.

04:19:53.560 --> 04:19:58.400
 So that being said, I will reiterate what I said at a Planning and Zoning Commission

04:19:58.400 --> 04:20:04.880
 meeting a few years ago, and that was the city has got to focus on this area for mobility

04:20:04.880 --> 04:20:08.400
 improvement now, sooner than later.

04:20:08.400 --> 04:20:09.480
 We have to.

04:20:09.480 --> 04:20:15.640
 And we also need to focus on giving significant thought to planning in this area.

04:20:15.640 --> 04:20:20.480
 This is where our city is developing right now and as a city we need to focus now on

04:20:20.480 --> 04:20:22.280
 what we want that to be.

04:20:22.280 --> 04:20:27.220
 And I said it a few years ago, and it needs to be done.

04:20:27.220 --> 04:20:29.600
 But this project was thoughtfully put together.

04:20:29.600 --> 04:20:39.920
 It's a need for our city, our residents, and I'm happy to second.

04:20:39.920 --> 04:20:43.000
 We have a first and second for approval with staff conditions.

04:20:43.000 --> 04:20:45.080
 Is there any discussion on this item?

04:20:45.080 --> 04:20:46.080
 Mr. Pruitt?

04:20:46.080 --> 04:20:47.080
 Thank you.

04:20:47.080 --> 04:20:54.500
 I actually have one question that didn't occur for staff until we heard all the comments.

04:20:54.500 --> 04:21:09.200
 When we look at that portion of King's Way, if we were to imagine that this PD wasn't

04:21:09.200 --> 04:21:19.400
 coming before us and that R7 portion of property was getting developed just by right, how would

04:21:19.400 --> 04:21:24.600
 the perimeter street improvements required by the development of that parcel compare

04:21:24.600 --> 04:21:31.560
 in number of lanes and whatnot to the proposed improvements on King's Way?

04:21:31.560 --> 04:21:34.880
 So that little five-acre section is part of the proposal.

04:21:34.880 --> 04:21:40.200
 So that right-hand turn lane onto Loop 288 is considered a perimeter street improvement.

04:21:40.200 --> 04:21:47.960
 So that could be something that would be required as a part of the platting.

04:21:47.960 --> 04:21:52.960
 Those additional improvements onto King's Row would not necessarily be a part of that

04:21:52.960 --> 04:21:53.960
 plat.

04:21:53.960 --> 04:21:58.080
 If those are off-site improvements, it wouldn't necessarily be required for that plat.

04:21:58.080 --> 04:22:01.160
 So that would be something in addition because of that PD.

04:22:01.160 --> 04:22:09.160
 Okay, so the right turn to go northbound on 288 would likely be required by right development,

04:22:09.160 --> 04:22:14.360
 but the extension of the extra lane to the right as you go eastward on King's Way would

04:22:14.360 --> 04:22:15.360
 not be?

04:22:15.360 --> 04:22:16.360
 Correct.

04:22:16.360 --> 04:22:17.360
 Okay.

04:22:17.360 --> 04:22:22.000
 Yeah, if you'll permit me just some thoughts on this.

04:22:22.000 --> 04:22:29.400
 I think, you know, when we restrict gradual change in the core of our city, that development

04:22:29.400 --> 04:22:33.240
 pressure gradually moves to the outskirts.

04:22:33.240 --> 04:22:38.340
 And in this case, it's causing a drastic change to an existing neighborhood.

04:22:38.340 --> 04:22:44.200
 So I think when that happens, we have to be very careful about the implications of that,

04:22:44.200 --> 04:22:45.200
 right?

04:22:45.200 --> 04:22:51.780
 And what it sounds like many of the comments are coming from is a perspective of fear and

04:22:51.780 --> 04:22:54.640
 uncertainty of change, right?

04:22:54.640 --> 04:23:01.720
 Ideally, I'd like to see these applications come forward with something that people see

04:23:01.720 --> 04:23:07.960
 will make their neighborhood better, not just something that will be tolerable, if you will,

04:23:07.960 --> 04:23:08.960
 right?

04:23:08.960 --> 04:23:15.920
 When all that's built is more homes, the only thing you increase is traffic, right?

04:23:15.920 --> 04:23:22.520
 So you know, I've heard a lot about walkability in the presentation both from staff and the

04:23:22.520 --> 04:23:27.000
 applicant, but the only place to walk to as near as I can tell is an elementary school

04:23:27.000 --> 04:23:31.040
 and two churches, maybe your neighbor's house, right?

04:23:31.040 --> 04:23:36.520
 So that just doesn't really clear the bar for me for what is walkable.

04:23:36.520 --> 04:23:38.280
 Certainly can't walk across 288.

04:23:38.280 --> 04:23:40.000
 There's no pedestrian crossing.

04:23:40.000 --> 04:23:44.560
 There's lots of fast cars.

04:23:44.560 --> 04:23:50.820
 You know, I think the main problem from the traffic perspective that I hear is what happens

04:23:50.820 --> 04:24:00.880
 at school drop-off and pickup, and that's a huge problem, right?

04:24:00.880 --> 04:24:07.160
 I may be in the minority on this, but I would see well-planned, thoughtful development in

04:24:07.160 --> 04:24:15.120
 this region as gradually decreasing that drop-off problem because as you provide more nearby

04:24:15.120 --> 04:24:20.360
 students and you give them safe ways to walk to school, you reduce the number of cars that

04:24:20.360 --> 04:24:24.840
 are currently driving kids across Luke 288 because they're not far enough to be picked

04:24:24.840 --> 04:24:33.600
 up by a bus, but they're geographically separated from a safe route to get to school.

04:24:33.600 --> 04:24:38.080
 You know, honestly, I'm pretty comfortable with 40-foot wide lots.

04:24:38.080 --> 04:24:46.120
 I'm sensitive and appreciative of the affordability goals and I think the track record of some

04:24:46.120 --> 04:24:48.920
 similar things in the rest of our city.

04:24:48.920 --> 04:24:59.160
 However, I'll capture this by saying my comments don't come from a desire for a particular

04:24:59.160 --> 04:25:07.520
 look of houses, but I think that neighborhoods are more successful in the long term when

04:25:07.520 --> 04:25:13.800
 they create a sense of pride in the people that live there, okay?

04:25:13.800 --> 04:25:22.880
 And as presented, it's a 40-foot wide lot with a 60% garage door width, that's an 18-foot

04:25:22.880 --> 04:25:29.880
 garage door, 20 feet once you put the columns in, and then a 10 feet of house next to it.

04:25:29.880 --> 04:25:32.700
 So that's what it's going to look like, right?

04:25:32.700 --> 04:25:36.940
 So I'm not opposed to 40-foot wide lots.

04:25:36.940 --> 04:25:43.480
 I really think we need to figure out as more of these applications come in, how do we make

04:25:43.480 --> 04:25:51.320
 a 40-foot wide lot something that people can be proud of, right?

04:25:51.320 --> 04:25:58.480
 I mean, it seems like you've got an 18-foot driveway, the city codes don't let you park

04:25:58.480 --> 04:26:05.040
 within five feet of that curb cut, so you've got 22 feet between the driveways minus five

04:26:05.040 --> 04:26:06.040
 feet on either side.

04:26:06.040 --> 04:26:12.880
 So if you have a 12-foot long car, you can park your car in the neighborhood, right?

04:26:12.880 --> 04:26:21.000
 So anyway, and then, you know, lastly, I'll just say that I'm not really sold on the wisdom

04:26:21.000 --> 04:26:28.440
 or the long-term benefit of a, I think it was quoted as a model home park to sort of

04:26:28.440 --> 04:26:33.880
 have a grand entrance to say, "Here's our homes."

04:26:33.880 --> 04:26:38.960
 I think our responsibility is to the future homeowners as well as to the rest of the neighborhood,

04:26:38.960 --> 04:26:46.760
 not to the developer to be able to have an easy way to showcase the homes.

04:26:46.760 --> 04:26:54.400
 I think that that existing parcel as it's zoned, R7, has more possibilities that could

04:26:54.400 --> 04:27:03.360
 benefit the neighborhood in the long-term more than another 12 or 14 homes, so those

04:27:03.360 --> 04:27:04.360
 are my thoughts.

04:27:04.360 --> 04:27:07.760
 I think the developer has done a great job addressing the concerns.

04:27:07.760 --> 04:27:12.720
 I understand the drainage concerns, but I really don't think, I think those would be

04:27:12.720 --> 04:27:19.160
 improved by the development instead of unimproved, so, thank you.

04:27:19.160 --> 04:27:22.400
 Thanks for your comments.

04:27:22.400 --> 04:27:23.400
 Commissioner Cole?

04:27:23.400 --> 04:27:25.400
 Thank you, Chair.

04:27:25.400 --> 04:27:32.000
 You know, I had two real large concerns coming in tonight with this case, and it was density

04:27:32.000 --> 04:27:38.560
 and mobility, and I'm real sensitive, and I think this commission is sensitive to increase

04:27:38.560 --> 04:27:45.040
 density closer you get to Clear Creek, but I think the example would be Gave Ranch.

04:27:45.040 --> 04:27:51.640
 If you remember what they came to the table with and what they came out with was a better

04:27:51.640 --> 04:27:53.400
 deal.

04:27:53.400 --> 04:27:58.280
 I think this is a good collaborative effort between staff and the applicant, so the density

04:27:58.280 --> 04:28:05.840
 issue, I think this is a better development than what you would have if he went by right,

04:28:05.840 --> 04:28:08.960
 as Commissioner Smith said.

04:28:08.960 --> 04:28:13.760
 As far as mobility, this whole city is a mobility issue.

04:28:13.760 --> 04:28:16.280
 We are all equally affected by it.

04:28:16.280 --> 04:28:20.100
 I can't get out of my neighborhood.

04:28:20.100 --> 04:28:25.880
 We have an amazing community, and we're drawing so many people here.

04:28:25.880 --> 04:28:30.280
 You cannot buy a newly built house in this city right now.

04:28:30.280 --> 04:28:39.640
 They don't exist, and I don't know what you do about this hyper growth, but as long as

04:28:39.640 --> 04:28:44.920
 we have people coming like fire ants, I don't know what you do.

04:28:44.920 --> 04:28:53.680
 You can't just say no, but, you know, I think I commend staff and the applicant.

04:28:53.680 --> 04:29:00.500
 Mr. Strange builds an excellent product, always has.

04:29:00.500 --> 04:29:08.120
 So I think we're getting a pretty good product out of this, so I congratulate staff and applicant

04:29:08.120 --> 04:29:09.120
 on working together.

04:29:09.120 --> 04:29:10.120
 Thank you.

04:29:10.120 --> 04:29:11.120
 >> Any other comments?

04:29:11.120 --> 04:29:16.320
 I can say a few things.

04:29:16.320 --> 04:29:22.760
 I think Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Ellis said it as eloquently as I could possibly

04:29:22.760 --> 04:29:33.560
 say, but my perspective is there's an R4 plot of land right there, and someone could come

04:29:33.560 --> 04:29:39.440
 in and build by right, and what we would have is the same density, it would be 4 to an acre,

04:29:39.440 --> 04:29:45.680
 we're dealing with 3.8 to an acre, and you would have the community at large would not

04:29:45.680 --> 04:29:52.080
 have any improvement to King's Row, we would not have any additional access to a neighborhood

04:29:52.080 --> 04:29:54.600
 off 288.

04:29:54.600 --> 04:29:58.680
 We would have potentially two acres of open space, but most likely they can just pay that

04:29:58.680 --> 04:30:05.960
 off and not have any open space, no city park, but in this project, we're getting 21 acres

04:30:05.960 --> 04:30:12.800
 of open space as well as a city park that is not costing the city any money.

04:30:12.800 --> 04:30:20.340
 And so when I think of two options that have been laid out tonight, the cost of making

04:30:20.340 --> 04:30:27.480
 a smaller lot on average seems to be a worthy cost in order to get a development that is

04:30:27.480 --> 04:30:32.720
 significantly better than what someone could by right build, and I would say this, too,

04:30:32.720 --> 04:30:36.900
 there are other properties north of 288 that we have seen recently, someone alluded that

04:30:36.900 --> 04:30:42.160
 one might be in hibernation, that are not local, and they would not be providing the

04:30:42.160 --> 04:30:43.160
 same consideration.

04:30:43.160 --> 04:30:47.560
 One, just to the west of this, is Dallas Investor primarily.

04:30:47.560 --> 04:30:51.920
 This is a project owned by a local, trying to build local, and it's not like the individual

04:30:51.920 --> 04:30:58.000
 is flipping it or going back down to their Dallas enclave to not deal with the remnants

04:30:58.000 --> 04:30:59.680
 of any damage put forth in the city.

04:30:59.680 --> 04:31:07.920
 And so I'm a proponent of keeping things local, promoting local, and I like having local developers

04:31:07.920 --> 04:31:10.320
 actually invest in their own town.

04:31:10.320 --> 04:31:13.160
 I think it says something about the city.

04:31:13.160 --> 04:31:17.240
 I have a lot of other notes here about housing costs and how they're only rising from now

04:31:17.240 --> 04:31:22.240
 and that I think this is the time to build for individuals trying to get in.

04:31:22.240 --> 04:31:29.960
 I would be remiss not to at least respond to Commissioner Pruitt's point about a sense

04:31:29.960 --> 04:31:33.120
 of pride.

04:31:33.120 --> 04:31:38.580
 Home ownership, by most studies, accounts for the single largest disparity in economic

04:31:38.580 --> 04:31:42.440
 generational wealth and gap and equity in this country.

04:31:42.440 --> 04:31:48.960
 And so we have individuals looking to provide a product that is impossible to get in them,

04:31:48.960 --> 04:31:53.160
 which would provide individuals of low economic status the ability to start building generational

04:31:53.160 --> 04:31:54.640
 wealth, which is only increasing.

04:31:54.640 --> 04:31:57.160
 It's the highest it's been in 50 years.

04:31:57.160 --> 04:31:58.220
 That's something to be proud of.

04:31:58.220 --> 04:32:02.480
 I think home ownership, period, is something to be proud of, but I wouldn't dare say if

04:32:02.480 --> 04:32:07.120
 you have a front-entry garage, you shouldn't be proud of that.

04:32:07.120 --> 04:32:09.200
 I disagree with that sentiment.

04:32:09.200 --> 04:32:16.800
 I think anyone who has worked hard to purchase a home should be proud of that accomplishment

04:32:16.800 --> 04:32:20.320
 and their generations beyond that should also be proud of that.

04:32:20.320 --> 04:32:25.960
 And so my hope is that upon this approval, we can have a lot more homeowners in Denton,

04:32:25.960 --> 04:32:31.400
 perhaps mitigate some of the apartment rush that's happening in our town and start actually

04:32:31.400 --> 04:32:34.680
 providing some economic equity for individuals in our community.

04:32:34.680 --> 04:32:42.660
 So with that, I support the project, if there's no other comments, we can take this to a vote.

04:32:42.660 --> 04:32:44.800
 Seeing none, Commissioner Pruitt?

04:32:44.800 --> 04:32:45.800
 Nay.

04:32:45.800 --> 04:32:48.840
 What did you say?

04:32:48.840 --> 04:32:49.840
 Nay.

04:32:49.840 --> 04:32:50.840
 Nay, okay.

04:32:50.840 --> 04:32:51.840
 Commissioner Smith?

04:32:51.840 --> 04:32:52.840
 Aye.

04:32:52.840 --> 04:32:53.840
 Commissioner McDade?

04:32:53.840 --> 04:32:54.840
 Aye.

04:32:54.840 --> 04:32:55.840
 Chairs, an aye.

04:32:55.840 --> 04:32:56.840
 Commissioner Ellis?

04:32:56.840 --> 04:32:57.840
 Aye.

04:32:57.840 --> 04:32:58.840
 Commissioner Cole?

04:32:58.840 --> 04:32:59.840
 Aye.

04:32:59.840 --> 04:33:02.840
 Motion carries 5-1.

04:33:02.840 --> 04:33:03.840
 Congratulations.

04:33:03.840 --> 04:33:04.840
 Thank you.

04:33:04.840 --> 04:33:08.640
 That moves us to our next item of business, which is our matrix.

04:33:08.640 --> 04:33:18.000
 Do you go back on some of these other developments like this, and do you go back and see what

04:33:18.000 --> 04:33:23.480
 some of those density homes over a period of time may transition to rental properties

04:33:23.480 --> 04:33:25.280
 or remaining single-family homes?

04:33:25.280 --> 04:33:27.160
 I certainly want to respect your thoughts.

04:33:27.160 --> 04:33:31.280
 You're not on mic for everyone to listen who's tuning in, but I would love for you to speak

04:33:31.280 --> 04:33:34.120
 to Julie Wyatt.

04:33:34.120 --> 04:33:35.960
 Julie, can you speak?

04:33:35.960 --> 04:33:36.960
 I think it's Deborah, correct?

04:33:36.960 --> 04:33:37.960
 Yes.

04:33:37.960 --> 04:33:39.200
 Can you speak to Deborah about her question?

04:33:39.200 --> 04:33:43.000
 I think she'd be the person to respond to that.

04:33:43.000 --> 04:33:45.720
 Thank you so much, Julie.

04:33:45.720 --> 04:33:50.600
 So like always, for the matrix, I'm going to start with Haley giving us an update, and

04:33:50.600 --> 04:33:53.640
 then we'll turn to the dais for questions or items.

04:33:53.640 --> 04:33:54.640
 Sure.

04:33:54.640 --> 04:33:58.600
 Just a couple of updates from our last meeting.

04:33:58.600 --> 04:34:03.240
 Mr. Smith had requested a workshop from Discover Denton, and I have reached out to them, and

04:34:03.240 --> 04:34:08.880
 they are available in the beginning of September, so we'll be putting that on our schedule.

04:34:08.880 --> 04:34:12.760
 And there were a few questions regarding the online comment forum.

04:34:12.760 --> 04:34:14.440
 Stuart did look into that.

04:34:14.440 --> 04:34:17.600
 We're currently not able to change the format of how those emails are sent, but they are

04:34:17.600 --> 04:34:21.440
 looking to upgrade that system, and that will integrate better with our agenda so that you

04:34:21.440 --> 04:34:24.920
 get those in a more organized fashion moving forward.

04:34:24.920 --> 04:34:29.840
 So I think other than that, just a couple of updates from Council.

04:34:29.840 --> 04:34:35.720
 The Parkside plan development off of Hickory Creek Road was approved at their meeting,

04:34:35.720 --> 04:34:41.400
 along with the commercial zoning on 380 that we had near Malone Street.

04:34:41.400 --> 04:34:46.880
 So both of those were approved, and just looking forward, we are planning to restart the bootcamp

04:34:46.880 --> 04:34:52.280
 series, if you will, in July, so you'll see some planning topics for discussion and training

04:34:52.280 --> 04:34:55.240
 coming forward to future work sessions.

04:34:55.240 --> 04:34:58.480
 I think that's the only updates I have for you all.

04:34:58.480 --> 04:34:59.680
 Great.

04:34:59.680 --> 04:35:03.360
 Any items to add to the matrix or questions?

04:35:03.360 --> 04:35:04.360
 I have one.

04:35:04.360 --> 04:35:10.120
 Commissioner Pruitt brought up a point earlier that I think is valid to discuss further about

04:35:10.120 --> 04:35:15.360
 examples of criteria of why things might get denied and to try to maybe provide some context

04:35:15.360 --> 04:35:20.680
 for new commissioners and seasoned ones of when we think through of why a criteria didn't

04:35:20.680 --> 04:35:26.240
 get denied, providing examples or context or maybe filtration of how you look at those

04:35:26.240 --> 04:35:29.600
 things would be helpful just to better understand that process.

04:35:29.600 --> 04:35:30.600
 Absolutely.

04:35:30.600 --> 04:35:34.200
 I'm sure we can work that into one of our bootcamps on platting, probably.

04:35:34.200 --> 04:35:35.200
 Commissioner Pruitt.

04:35:35.200 --> 04:35:41.520
 Yeah, I think that would help me a lot, especially as it pertains to our current legal understanding

04:35:41.520 --> 04:35:46.880
 of the plat process and the requirements there, just to get some more definition on that.

04:35:46.880 --> 04:35:49.120
 Yeah, I agree.

04:35:49.120 --> 04:35:52.720
 With no other items, I will close.

04:35:52.720 --> 04:35:54.600
 Commissioner Ellis.

04:35:54.600 --> 04:35:56.320
 Thank you.

04:35:56.320 --> 04:36:01.160
 Just really concluding, because I forgot to mention it earlier, one of our speakers right

04:36:01.160 --> 04:36:06.600
 here who's still here had a video that maybe she wanted to share if maybe Haley, you could

04:36:06.600 --> 04:36:10.720
 get with her or somebody from staff and then she can get that to you and you can disseminate

04:36:10.720 --> 04:36:12.440
 it to who needs to see it.

04:36:12.440 --> 04:36:13.440
 Absolutely.

04:36:13.440 --> 04:36:14.440
 Please.

04:36:14.440 --> 04:36:15.440
 Okay.

04:36:15.440 --> 04:36:16.440
 Thank you.

04:36:16.440 --> 04:36:17.440
 Are we good now?

04:36:17.440 --> 04:36:18.600
 Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you.

04:36:18.600 --> 04:36:20.760
 With that, I'll close the meeting at 926, thank you.