Aug 04, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2021-08-04 4:00 PM

>> Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the plan zoning commission work session for August 4th, 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll start the meeting at 4.05. Let the record show that currently Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Anderson are not present. The first item for the work session will be the work session report, receive a report and hold the discussion and give direction regarding the comp plan and other plan updates and code. Before you get started, for those new commissioners that haven't used the screen, the screen is working this evening. There's a switch to your left to switch to the presentation and then instead of raising your hand there's a button that says request to speak. Your name will show up in the order in which you request and if you do not want to speak you hit that button again and it will remove you from the queue to speak but I'll use that to call on the commissioners for any questions you might have. >> Thank you, Chair, members of the commission, Ron Magidow, principal planner with development services. Go ahead and share my screen here and hopefully you all can see this. I don't see it on the monitor or above so I'm hoping that it's available to the public. I want to thank the opportunity to present today, wanted to provide the planning zoning commission an update where we are in regards to the comprehensive plan update. We did the same presentation for city council just yesterday, got some input from them and looking for input from you all as well. Really the objective for this afternoon is to just kind of share with you where we are in the process, where we are in the schedule. There we go. Public engagement so far and what we plan on doing coming up in the next coming months. We are also going to share some of the highlights on the inputs that we receive from the community. Very high level, just sort of understanding what we've heard so far. Discuss other plan updates. We've got a lot going on in the city, we want to make sure that we share that with you all and also make sure that you understand that it's a comprehensive effort between all plans that's being worked on as we speak. There was a request by the city council to talk about and provide information on form based codes. So we felt that it was important to share that with the commission as well as that might be an option for certain projects in the future but for now we're just providing you a general description, understanding what a form based code is so that you have that available. With that I'm going to turn it over to our consultant who is calling in. Hopefully he is available and can take over the presentation. I'll stand here and advance the slide if need be. Do we know if Ed Boyk is on the call? Hello, yeah, Ed Boyk is here with Matrix Design Group. Awesome, thanks Ed. You can go ahead and get started. Oh, okay. So I assume you've been through the first couple slides, I apologize, I didn't hear anything with being in the waiting room. Yes, we're on slide three. Okay, thank you for that, I appreciate that. Again, members of the commission, my name is Ed Boyk, I'm with Matrix Design Group and as Ron had just previously indicated, this is an effort to provide an update of where we are so far in the comprehensive plan update process. So on slide three, I wanted to talk briefly, we've been through phase one, which is the initiation of project, we've been through phase two, which was a lot of the data gathering and we're deep into phase three currently, which is the area where we've done most of our public outreach, we did some special topic threats on a couple IDA, particular topics that were of interest to the city of Benton and we have yet one more public engagement plan for mid September, September 16th actually and that'll be an in-person open house and a virtual open house that will be run concurrently. A virtual open house is really neat, it'll be an ongoing 24 hours a day available replication of what's available in the in-person open house and that'll be held in like a 3D environment on the project website, it's pretty nifty and should help increase participation at that critical point of the public engagement process. Then moving on to early fall, we'll be moving into our phase four, which is production of some of the draft concepts and strategies, implementation for the comprehensive plan and then by late fall, we'll be providing updates with a draft of the plan and then either in the late fall or early winter timeframe adoption of the final comprehensive plan update for the city of Benton, next slide. So what we've heard so far, next slide again, and through our public engagement process, we've had two public meetings that have had nearly 200 community members attend, all of these meetings were virtual, really good turnout for a virtual public meeting process and between those meetings, it generated close to 1500 unique comments through those public engagements. Additionally, we had a project website up for the comprehensive plan update and on that we've had over 100 responses on an interactive Issues and Opportunities Map, we call the ID Places Map, it's somewhere where people can geo-locate exactly their comments. Along with that, we've had online questionnaires, which have generated quite a bit of responses, nearly 200 responses there and we're still doing soliciting ongoing information for the vision statement since the vision statement is really a critical component of the comprehensive plan process to make sure that all the comments we receive and the strategies that are proposed from this are aligned properly with the vision for the city of Benton. And just as a reminder again, September 16th is what we're planning on for the in-person open house and the virtual open house, next slide. So going through the data a little bit more specifically, what we've done is we've tried to capture the essence of the comments so far that we've heard from the public through all this engagement and we've organized them into a couple different topic areas which are similar to or identical to what the charrette had indicated. The big takeaways is that the community has told everyone that it's important that the development be the right type of development at the right place and at the right time. And that scheme leads through all the other comments we've received and really wants to make sure that the development that Benton did supports that vision, have the quality and resiliency for the community to be one, something that's added value through the long term. Part of that was also preservation of those open and rural areas, taking advantage of the heritage that's associated with those rural areas around the periphery of Benton and the ETJ. And then also to provide more diverse housing options so that the housing is supporting not only workforces but also executives and other entry-level housing, quality multifamily development and townhomes for all families and household types. All this leads into the investment of infrastructure which the community has indicated there is a preference that be reinvested into infill supporting activities. So trying to find ways to take and implement infrastructure in areas of support where economic development can occur, jobs as well as to provide the infrastructure in areas that continue to enhance them without having development fall into far-flung areas or areas that are disconnected from the majority of the community in the ETJ. With that, with any infrastructure program, especially through streets, you can beautify. And so there's an intent for the community to, if you're going to make the investment into infrastructure, that it be beautiful, be something that enhances and creates and strengthens the identity of Benton. That can be accomplished through complete streets which can be done in a number of different ways. But the overall intent of a complete street is that it's one that serves multiple purposes, multiple modes of transportation and not just one singular solution that is vehicle traffic. And next slide, please. On this next slide, you can see, excuse me, an example of a complete street that shows wide sidewalks, lots of shade, landscaping, neck downs or pinch points at the intersection to a shortened pedestrian crossing, well-defined bike lanes and so on, narrower street lanes and parking. This does not indicate what all complete streets should be, but it just illustrates a lot of the elements that go into that, so when an infrastructure investment, particularly for street infrastructure, moves forward, a lot of these different elements can be put in there. And that can include transit-related infrastructure enhancements as well to make a street complete and functional for the context in which it's located. Next slide, please. So what we've heard for economic development, and much of this was comments that were solicited to recognize the efforts that have been put into place with the recently adopted economic development strategic plan, we were looking, the community told us that they believe in that plan, they find a lot of the conclusions in it important and something that should be replicated or at least confirmed in the comprehensive plan update as well. That goes along with increasing our job opportunities, the collaboration with the anchor institutions, that being the universities, the health economy, to make sure that there's a development that supports that, the establishment of programs that are partnered with those anchor institutions such as incubators or research parks, or aligning economic development activities to recruit and establish and support businesses which align with, say, university training programs. There's also comments from the public about a want to support small and local businesses, and that could be enhanced through assistance programs, process improvements for the development process, as well as supporting that well-designed infrastructure that would enhance the support for those small businesses. And these are all comments we've received from the community through the engagement process. Continuing to downtown, it was to expand those downtown opportunities, recognizing that the downtown is that cultural and community heart for the city of Denton, it's the heart for entertainment, events, and arts, it's got a very unique flavor with the local businesses, and all that should be retained and enhanced upon, and some of the ways you can enhance upon that, is by doing, again, to refer back to the previous slide, the right development at the right place at the right time is to introduce new development and redevelopment carefully to support the context and character of the downtown square, but also to not impact negatively that. So that means that if taller buildings are needed, say, to support a transit opportunity around the A train station, making sure that whatever approach is taken is cognizant of that and recognizes that there needs to be some compatibility and transition measures put into place to support the core, as well as the expanded area of the downtown community. Next slide. Some of the comments have created a need to introduce some new concepts for land use designation. The city and the community strongly supports its agricultural heritage, the rural heritage, the ranching, and by introducing a new land use, a new land use category onto the future land use map, it can help to reaffirm those policies which support the preservation of those areas as rural active areas, agritourism, open spaces, and those uses that are compatible with the support of agricultural culture in the rural and the ETGA areas of the community. Also referring back to that right development, there is a potential for a new concept, land use category called master plan community. Now that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. There's often home builders that will say a master plan community means that our subdivision is a master plan community because we have homes and parks in it, but really if this is approached as a future land use designation on the conflict of plan future land use map, the intent is for it to be defined as being complete, multi-use development, meaning developments where they are complete neighborhood packages that have a sense of place, a sense of belonging, respectful of the context of where they're located, and really someplace where people can live, work, learn, and play all in one place, something that becomes an asset and connected with the existing portions of Denton and not just an island onto their own. On this slide, I have a picture of the Verado master plan community, which is a renowned award winning master plan community in the Phoenix metro area. I introduced this not to say that this is the exact solution for Denton, but what it does is it captures those concepts of being complete. It has a downtown area that supports local businesses. It's very, very walkable. It's got parks and trails and revolving between the different portions of the master plan community, and it supports housing for multi-family through executive housing. So it addresses the entire palette of housing opportunities, living arrangements, and takes advantage of the context it's located in so that it's integrated with nature, integrated parks, but it also has an employment opportunity, commercial opportunities as well. So it's really a place that checks all the boxes for the community, and it's well integrated as well as a complete neighborhood with that community it's located in. Next slide, please. Additional concepts of refining the land uses is to find ways to preserve the integrity of the future land use map, but also allowing for measured or appropriate flexibility where the policy is supported. Some of the concepts could be introducing neighborhood scale commercial or office opportunities at appropriate intersections within those residential designated areas on the land use map. It could be, say, arterial and arterial intersections, collector and arterial intersections, and the important factor here is that if it is a perfect approach as a solution, there needs to be strong policies that dictate how that should be applied, where it should be applied, and what the envisioned results of that would be. The advantage here is that it allows for staff to exercise professional discretion as well as the commission and the community to determine what zoning changes are appropriate, provided they comply with those policies without having to go back and change those future land use maps. Parks and open space, the community, again, is strongly supporting that. So there would be potential changes to the future land use map to expand where parks and open space is illustrated to protect or ensure the open space is planned to be protected in the future around lakes, streams, watercourses, wildlife connection, and recreation connections throughout the community. Lastly, there has always been a lot of conversation, and then the public comments reaffirmed this about what it meant to have business innovation, and the business innovation land use, I think rightly so, is a very broad land use category. It defines a lot of different possibilities, but it's always looking to push the envelope or to be bleeding edge in terms of how that's executed, and that can be executed in a lot of different ways, whether it's through research parks and incubators and small business areas, office parks, retail could be an incorporated component, but it also could include, in the right context, warehousing or light industrial or other forward-looking industries that are being innovative in their area. In order to determine what the flavor of those different business innovation areas should be, it really is important that small area plans be part of that so that you can drill down, look at the context, look at the assets, look at the infrastructure opportunities in those areas to develop precise plans that see the business innovation vision move forward for the areas located. So it's really about capitalizing those assets, understanding what they are, and then tailoring standards through that planning effort that support those solutions. Next slide, please. And because it could be a lot of different things, the business innovation could be solutions like this, where you have office parks or campuses that support multiple functions, but always looking towards innovative practices for the community. And so we have a couple local examples illustrated here for what some of the innovation areas could look like. Next slide, please. And I'll turn it over to Ron at this point to speak to the other plan updates. Great. Thanks, Ed. So wanted to, like I said earlier in my introduction, wanted to share some of the other plans that we're working on. We, the city, obviously the comprehensive plan is a big effort, but we're also working on a mobility plan, and I think you all may have heard some of that in past applications or past presentations. We started that process about a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago. We are scheduled to have that in line with the comprehensive plan update. So we want to make sure that what efforts that we're proposing and what we're recommending, as well as the mobility plan, we're consistent with each other, and we want to make sure we overlay our layers so that when we show our future land use designation, it also reflects the mobility plan as well, and vice versa. So it works both ways. With that, similarly, the parks recreation and trails master plan is also being worked on by our parks department, and that is scheduled for December 21 as well, again, in line with what our schedule is for the comprehensive plan. So we're working with these departments to make sure that we're all working together. Other works that are being done or plans that are being done, our solid waste department is working on a comprehensive solid waste management strategy. That is, again, scheduled for December 21. So a lot is coming to an end or to a finish that is later this year. And again, we want to make sure whatever we're proposing, we're all talking together, which we are. So we have a technical committee that we meet once a month, and obviously with the conference plan, we're going to continue to meet more and more to make sure we have the recommendations correct. I wanted to add the drainage storm master plan. This is a little bit more behind in our schedule, but it's an important plan. We don't have a drainage master plan, if you believe that, if you can believe that. So we're putting that together. There is a work session scheduled with council next month, actually October, sorry, October. And hopefully with that kickoff or with some direction from council, this effort can start later this year and it's looking to be completed mid to late next year, 2022. So that is, again, another plan that we want to make sure we include in our discussions as we move forward. Anyways, that was just to share with you what we're doing with some of the other plans. I think this is an opportunity right now before we get to form base codes to kind of stop and ask questions or you guys can ask questions related to the comprehensive plan update or anything related to what was presented a few minutes ago. Great. Thanks, Ron. Anyone have any questions for on a first person or I assume for Ed, if you saw him right? Yes. With matrix. I don't see any questions. Okay. Great. I'm going to turn it back to Ed and he's going to briefly talk about form base code. And again, as an introduction, this was something that the council wanted to hear more about and we felt that it was important to share this presentation as well to the planning zoning commission. So, Ed, if you can go ahead and start with the next slide. All right. Well, thank you, Ron. So the next slide is showing a couple of things, describing what form base codes are. So what I want to do is I want to introduce what form base codes are, just to kind of explain that, and then also discuss what they are not in brief and then we'll move on and kind of dive a little bit deeper into this through the slides and then finally I'll provide a real example of implementation performance codes that I have a personal experience with. So what they are, form base codes really are land development regulations. They're no different than any other land development regulation, whether it be subdivision or zoning, but they do have a different focus. They focus on the building form, how the site functions in terms of layout, and to a degree the appearance of that structure as well. They're much, much less focused on use and it's pure sense a form base code wouldn't even refer to use because it would rely upon the design of the building to dictate the uses that would go within that structure. Form base codes are very useful though because they do support and actually really thrive when there is a complementary public realm implementation associated with it. That means a public investment into the street and sidewalks that surround those properties to affect a result that meets the vision of what the form base code is to be. So if the form base code is intending to produce a walkable environment, then the form base code really pushes the community to tailor their public investment and the sidewalks and the streets to support that. What they're not, they're not design guidelines. They can have design elements and oftentimes there will be substantial design related standards included, but by their basis of what a form base code is, it's not a design guideline, it's not about making buildings necessarily look pretty, it's about making the buildings be functional and reusable and adaptable without having to conform with a suburban style or use based development standard. They are not historic preservation codes, although they are very effective when implemented properly at being codes that help ensure character integrity, especially when it comes to preserving a certain form in an area. And they really are not a solution for everything. They have their place, they're a tool in the toolbox, but they are not in many cases, just like traditional zoning standards are not, something that can be applied everywhere and can work great without being careful about how it's done from that point. So to that, there are certain advantages and disadvantages to form base code. I think one of the strongest advantages to it is that out of the box, it readily implements the urban vision. So if there's a strongly defined vision for an area, the form base code can really define the end result and ensure that the development that goes in the first time is what the vision is. But that can create some complications as well, because it can be a bit inflexible. And that inflexibility, if the community is not educated about the intent or it doesn't have complete buy-in to the vision, can create some disadvantages compared to traditional standards in terms of instigating development in an area. But some of the other advantages are it can really integrate seamlessly into the existing development and the standards can reflect the existing character of an area. It's perfect for that. Those structures that are developed to be adaptable and reusable, because there's less of a focus on those site elements that contribute to a building, such as like parking, landscaping, and things like that. So it's really focused on making sure the building is usable and putting new uses into there is oftentimes much easier than it is with a layered use standard. It reinforces that street-site relationship, placemaking, as I noted before, seeing the vision be put into place, that again creates a predictable end result through the built environment and if done in certain ways, it can reduce the regulatory burden and streamline process because it makes the standards very clear and doesn't allow for a lot of negotiation with how that's achieved, which can also be that disadvantage because of the inflexibility. So some of the other ways that it becomes a disadvantage, again, there's the education piece, and I want to stress this pretty strongly, is in many experiences, form-based codes unfamiliar and it requires a significant level of education to staff in the city to understand how to use it properly. It requires a lot of education to the development community, so they understand the advantages of using that as a solution, as well as the financing community to help them understand the value of really changing how development is implemented in the community and that it can be profitable and it can be something that increases value tremendously if done right. One of the other pieces that's a disadvantage is that because form-based code tends not to address compatibility in the traditional use-based way, there may be some conflicts, there may be some incompatible uses that get introduced, and that may result in some traditional regulations being integrated into that to help combat those incompatibilities or unforeseen circumstances that create undue impact on the use of property. Next slide. So, Alex, I'm going to speak from a personal experience as a public sector planner with a community in Illinois, Peoria, Illinois. It's a Rust Belt City that's largely been constructed, a big portion of it was built in Peoria in 1950, so it's got a very strong urban grid form, very walkable area, but it had for years been subject to standards that were use-based, and it did have a deteriorating effect on many of the areas, so the city endeavored to repair that and then to create standards that supported the vision for the community, and that was done through a couple-step process, and I think that this is the approach that most communities should look at to making sure their foreign-based codes are successful and that they are beneficial to the community and achieve the vision that's wanted. First is by establishing a very strong, strongly defined area plan, and that means a very well thought-out, well-vetted, community-owned plan for a vision for an area, a neighborhood or a city, it just depends on the scale of how you want to approach it, that knows what the end result needs to be, has clear implementation guidelines, and also has done a good assessment of the existing built environment to explain how that vision should be established, and what I mean by that is it should know what kind of buildings are in that area, and when I say what kind, I mean are the buildings built to the street line on sidewalks, or are they set back, are they multiple-story, are they single-story, are the homes garage-forward homes with the garage in front, or are they alley-loaded, or is the intent in the future to have that form be preserved or changed, so that plan is critical to setting the table for how the code is put in place. The regulating plan for a form-based code is really the land use, there's a zoning map. It tells you where different form-based standards would be implemented, and those standards could include how far back you set a building back, or if you're required to build the building on the sidewalk edge, it tells you how much of the building should be located along the front property line, or whether plazas or recesses should be built into the structure to create public spaces off the sidewalk. Ultimately, that regulating plan is going to reinforce that relationship between the street and the buildings that are constructed on-site, and the example that I have on the screen has a large map in the upper right-hand corner. The orange is a zoning district, I guess you could call it, it's a form-based standard area, where it says that any buildings or parcels that front onto this orange area have a certain set of standards they must adhere to in order to construct the building on that site, and it might be related to a minimum of two-story, 100% of the building built on the sidewalk edge, a percentage of windows or storefront, if storefront is intended to be a solution in that area. But as you turn the corners and as you head down the five streets into the neighborhood, the character change, and that character change was identified, again, through the plan and that assessment of the existing built environment, and the recognition that leaves for Peoria's implementation was that they wanted to transition from an intense or typical or more of a traditional main street approach with two- to six-story buildings, I think, in this area, to lighter intensity structures so they weren't as tall, or structures that had a completely different street approach so that they were more likely to support multifamily structures. So again, the form was dictating how the buildings were likely to be used, but it wasn't establishing an actual use for those areas. So in this area, you saw there's purple and blue and yellow, and those different standards were applicable to the different sides of the parcel. The one parcel might have three different standards applicable to it, and it just really depends on which colors fronting it and which street character was intended to be developed. So the gray areas that are on that map surrounding that are not subject to form-based code, but they were subject to a hybrid code, meaning a code that was still at its root a use-based standard, but it carried forward some of the standards from form-based code to make sure that the new structures that were built in those areas were consistent with the character in those areas. There was an intention by the community to preserve the integrity of those areas. So it might have had standards that were related to where the garage is located on a new single-family home that was infilled in that area. It would have comments about a maximum number of stories. The roof pitch, whether it was a 4 to 12 or 6 to 12 or 8 to 12 pitch, depending on the context of the area, and through those standards, that was a little bit easier for the property owners in that area to use those standards versus full, rigid compliance with the form-based code. So again, why it was approached this way was to really reinforce a vision and solution in the corridors that truly mattered, the placemaking in those corridors, and then ensure that the remaining areas around that was more supported through a lesser touch, but still one that was supportive of the form-based solution in the court. How you achieve that, through clear standards, consistent use, using diagrams to support the code, and then by all of that, you can hopefully produce a simplified and streamlined process. Some of these form-based areas do delve a little bit more into design because there was an interest in the community to have some design concepts be incorporated into the form concept, as well as standards on how you deal with transitions, whether landscaping is involved in walls to shield certain functional parts of those sites from other areas. So there is a blend that typically occurs, but your vision through that planning process is key to determining how that code gets implemented and to what degree it gets implemented. I don't have anything else to add about form-based codes, so I'd be happy to take any questions, and I really thank you for the time to speak to you today about the comprehensive plan update, where we're at. I invite you to keep attuned for the open house that's coming in September, and I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have about either topic that we discussed today. Great. That really concludes our presentation. If you have any questions on form-based code or the comprehensive plan update, as Ed mentioned, we are gearing up for an open house scheduled for September 16th. It will be at the new development services building. We hope to have that starting at six, between six and eight, involving a lot of the different departments. The mobility plan, the parks master plan, all the plans will also be available for input at that time. Again, we want to make sure that we get input from everybody. As we approach that, there'll be more promotions and information out, but wanted to give you all some idea of where we are, where we're going to be going, and hopefully what we will be bringing to you all for adoption at the end of the year. Appreciate the time. Thanks, Ron. Any questions for Ron? My only question is the form-based codes, is that something that's being embedded into the compliance? Is that something being just brainstormed through? It was a request, potentially maybe a discussion for a location. It's an option. As an example, you know, form-based code is something that we considered for the downtown, you know, years ago, but really wasn't implemented at that time. Again, you can see that one example that Ed showed. You can almost imagine that being Hickory Street, you know, as a potential application form-based code. It'd be high-level. You know, it'd be something that we would talk in the comprehensive plan if that was something that we want to pursue, but nothing yet has been formalized. Gotcha. Thanks. Any other questions? Thanks, Ron. Great. Thank you. That moves us to a walkthrough of the agenda this evening. The first thing is the consideration of the minutes from July 14th. There was a circulation of an edit, but is there any – hopefully everyone got to that email regarding the change to the minutes. Is there any other questions or comments for July 14th minutes? Okay. Next item of business is the consent agenda. Is there any questions for FR21-0006A for Ron? Great. Now we move to our individual consideration items. This is 4A, FP21-0005B, and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening. Let me make sure – good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. This is on the individual consideration portion of your agenda tonight; however, they did address all of staff's comments, so we are recommending approval of this, of this proposed final plan. It is for the Gray Wolf edition. It is to facilitate a four-plex development within the City of Denton, just north of Windsor, and it meets all of our standards within the Denton Development Code, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Julie. Any questions for Julie on this item? I don't see any. We can move to FP21-0020. This is also Julie. This is also a four-plex development. It is located adjacent to Loop 288, just west of Loop 288. You may – this may look familiar. There was a preliminary plat approved recently for this proposal. They does have some more comments that they need to address regarding standards within the Denton Development Code, and so staff does recommend denial of the request. However, they have requested an extension, and we have no opposition to the extension to the August 18th meeting. Any questions for Julie? I don't see any. Next item is 4C, PP21-0012A, and this is Haley's item. All right, good evening. This is a preliminary plat for the Urban Logistics Edition. You all may recognize this from a recent zoning change on the same property. The intent is to develop this with three lots, the largest of which would house some speculative warehouse-type buildings. At this time, staff is recommending denial of the plat, as it does not meet our established requirements outlined in your backup. This plat has previously received an extension, so we are recommending denial at this time. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Haley? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to item 4D, FP21-0019, and this is also Haley's. All right, this is a final plat for a single lot located on the west side of I-35, north of Barthold, as you can see on the map. Since the agenda posting, the applicant has resolved all of the outstanding comments. A revised plat was circulated to you all just before this meeting, in addition to the one that was sent earlier today, because they did notice they needed to update the ownership on the plat. This is the latest change that was made on this version that we see on the screen, and we are now recommending approval. Great. Any questions for Haley on this item? All right. Seeing none, I'll move to the last item for individual consideration, item 4E, FP19-0023. Invite Mark Laird for a presentation. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm an associate planner with the development service department. For your review and consideration this evening, I have the final plat of CDI-24 East Edition. This lot is a mixed-use neighborhood lot. It is 5.7 acres and is generally located on the east line of FM-2499. Staff recommends approval, and I stand for any questions. Any questions for Mark on this item? I don't see any. Thank you very much. That moves us to our public hearing items for this evening, starting with 5AZ21-0009, and I'll invite Cameron Robertson for presentation. Okay. Sorry. Okay, good evening, everyone. My name is Cameron Robertson. I'm the historic preservation officer for the city of Denton. I'm presenting Z21-009, which is a residential zoning. So the request is for a rezoning of 2.990 acres from residential rural district to a residential one district. The subject property is currently vacant and based off historic aerials, it has not previously been developed. It is generally located on the east side of South Bonnie Bray Street, approximately 830 feet north of Allred Road. It is surrounded by RR, residential two, the ETJ, and city-owned public facilities districts to the west. So just running through some of the maps, our maps over time, so pre-2019 zoning map, you can see it highlighted in the black square right there. It was part of the 2010 annexation to the city. So at that time, I was given the placeholder of RD5X. Then in the current zoning map, it transitioned to RR, which also had that five acreage requirement, and proposed zoning map, you see it as an R1. So we have our general approval criteria for all applications. I'm going to be focusing on point three and eight, and then we have our zoning criteria for approval, which I'll be focusing on one, six, and seven. So the Denton Plan 2030, this site is designated rural area. This is intended for development of one unit per five acres with farms and ranches as the predominant use, along with rural residential and commercial developments such as feed stores. The R1, however, is consistent with our future land use map, as it does permit a very low density housing type at a scale and character that's typically found in the area. And according to looking at point A of Denton Plan 2030, it does state that development may include single family homes on large lots, as well as farms and ranches. So the R1 is consistent with surrounding zoning and development pattern. The existing land use pattern along South Bonnie Bray is primarily residential, and it does include residential farming and ranching uses. This development pattern is expected and encouraged on the city's periphery. This rezoning would allow for the development of a single family detached dwelling. It would be required to maintain that primarily rural scenic character that it currently exists, and have development at a low profile residence on a large lot. There is no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the east, except along South Bonnie Bray Street, and the development would be required to conform with current site design standards, including screening and landscaping. So in terms of public facilities and services available, there would be one driveway connection to South Bonnie Bray Street for the proposed future single family detached dwelling. It is within the attendance zones of Borman Elementary School, McMath Middle School, and Denton High School, and it would generate approximately one student. The subject property is located approximately 3.9 miles from South Lakes Park. This does not meet the parks department goal of 10 minute walk to a park, however, west of the subject property across South Bonnie Bray, the property is owned by the city of Denton, and it is intended to be developed as a future regional park. Public water service is available to the site. As you can see on this map, it does show a 24 inch water line that is available to be connected to. However, the wastewater service is not available, so they would have to do a septic tank. The closest fire station is approximately 1.4 miles from Denton City Fire Station 7. So talking about the error in establishing the current zoning, so this was not an error in the assignment of the current zoning district. As I said previously, a transition from the placeholder designation of RD5X assigned to it during the annexation in 2010, and this RD5X designation required the same five acre minimum lot size as the current RR district that we have today. So to meet those current standards of the development code, the property must be rezoned to a district with a smaller minimum lot size to allow the property to be platted for single family use. Therefore, the existing RR district is no longer appropriate. We did have public outreach on, we did a newspaper ad on July 18th. The property was posted on July 14th. We did have mail notices for 200 feet public notices of four were sent out and 500 feet courtesy notices were mailed to five people. We did have one person in opposition. As you can see from the map, that is about 22.34% located within the 200 foot buffer area. And this is the property of 4681 South Bonnie Bray, and the owner is Kyle Whelan. As you can see, we also had no one in favor and no one neutral. That does recommend approval of the request of rezoning as it does comply with our criteria in sections 2.4.5E and 2.72D of the Denton Development Code. And I'm open for any questions. Thanks, Karen. We do have one right now. Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Chair Cameron. Thanks for the presentation. With regard to that letter from the neighbor that emailed to all of us, did you speak to that person at all? Yes, I did. Were you able to clear anything, or I'm just wondering how that conversation went? Because I don't know if they quite understood what was happening here. It was more a discussion of what was to come in the future. I know he is worried because if it were to be rezoned, there is a potential based off that minimum that it could be split, however, that has not been a discussion with me and the applicant. You know, that is something to look forward to in the future. This is just rezoning itself. So that was mainly his discussion of the easements, what if it were to be split into multiple lots, however, as I stated, you know, for them to meet just to build that single family home, they have to switch to that R1 just to meet our current minimum lot size. Right. And some of those concerns we're not really dealing with when we're dealing with the issue before us. Right. Okay. Okay. Thanks. So an involuntary annex to the city just annexes in 2010 or is this a voluntary annex? Do you know? I'm not positive, Haley. I believe this and several of the surrounding properties were part of kind of the city's annexation plan that was going through at the time. So like we have the non-annexation agreement areas today, those were some of those kind of donut holes within the city that were pursued. They were given the option to either annex at that time or enter into a non-annexation agreement. So this property owner and those others entered into the city at that time through voluntary annexation. There are still some holdouts in that area that have the non-annexation agreements, though, but it was part of a larger plan to clear up the donut holes within the city. Gotcha. My question related to that is just kind of understanding, we don't typically get a lot of these type of rezonings where it's a property owner rezoning, I assume either for them to build or for them to sell to someone who could build. I'm curious, this person, if they didn't necessarily want to annex the charge, do you know what their total fees are that they've paid to bring this in front of us tonight to get this changed? So because it was a non-compliant, I believe it was under $1,000 in terms of, I'm not sure of the exact price. I know that it is much cheaper than an actual full rezoning, but because of the non-compliance, I believe it's under a $1,000 fee. Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Do you have any, or are you just not cleared? We're good. I think that's it. Okay. Thanks, Cameron. The next item, 5B, PD 21-002A, is being postponed. We'll take no action on it this evening. It'll move to a date uncertain, be reposted, and come back to us. And then the final item for our public hearing is item 5C, S21-0004, and I'll invite Haley for presentation, and just I want to let the record show that Commissioner Smith has joined us. Welcome. All right. Good evening. This is a specific use permit request for Millennium Crest Multifamily. The request before you this evening is specific to the height of the building that would be developed on the site, so they are requesting a maximum building height of 60 feet. The multifamily use that is proposed is on a site that is a total of 7.6 acres. They are intending to develop the multifamily on the western 6.2 acres of the property, leaving the remaining 1.4 on the eastern side for future commercial development. The property is zone mixed-use neighborhood, as you can see on the lower map in this location. The multifamily use is permitted by right within the mixed-use neighborhood district. However, that district requires for any use, not just multifamily, that if the building height would be over 40 feet, that they would require or they would obtain an SUP. They could go up to 65 feet within the MN district, but anything between 41 and 65 would need the SUP. So to look at that a little more closely and specific to this site, again, they are requesting that increase the difference of 20 feet from 40 to 60. For the type of building that they are proposing with a flat roof, this diagram shows how building height is measured. So it is measured from the average finished grade that is taken kind of at the midpoint of each section of the building to the actual roof of the building, excluding any parapets that might extend over that for screening of mechanical equipment or just architectural detailing. In this case, the finished grade is pretty important to the request. You can see here on the screen just a screenshot of the topography of the site. There are two high points kind of at the northwest and at the northeastern part of the site, and it slopes down pretty severely. There is about 30 feet of grade change across the entire site. So looking a little more closely at what they are proposing, this is the northern side of the building. The highest point of it would be this portion here where the leasing office is located. The structure itself, according to their architectural plans, has a height of about 54 feet, 8 inches from the foundation to the rooftop. However, because that height measurement like we just looked at is taken at average grade, from the average, from the midpoint of the grading at that site from what they are expecting, it would actually be measured at 58 feet in total building height. They are requesting that maximum of 60 because of the significant topography on the site that they will have to contend with, and they have not at this point done their final grading plans because they are still in the entitlement phase. So they wanted to allow for a little bit of flexibility there in case the grading is not quite what they expect to allow them up to 60 feet. This is a look at the south side of the proposed building. This would be the side facing towards the single-family residences to the south. On this side of the building, the average height on their plans is indicated at 48 feet, 7 inches. There are some parapets on this side that would go up to 54 feet, 7 inches, but again, we exclude those for our measurement of building height. These are some of the conceptual renderings that were included in your backup, so you can see here the proposed building looking towards that leasing office, which again is the highest point of the building. It is located on the north side, furthest away from those residences, and then you can see here just some renderings of what this would look like, kind of an aerial perspective looking from the south where that neighborhood is located towards the building. We will not go through all of the criteria for approval. Those are outlined in your backup. We will look more specifically at these criteria that are specific to a specific use permit. Starting with our comprehensive plan, so you can see here on the map this area is designated as regional mixed use. That is kind of a mixed use, but predominantly commercial or higher intensity residential designation that's applied along our major corridors, so much of the property along I-35 has this designation. It's intended for kind of the highest level of intensity of development within the city without it being industrial. So those hospital campuses, large scale retail, moderate to high density residential are all typical uses we would see in these areas. Just to point out for this specific case, again, the use is not what we are considering, but that is a use that would be consistent with this designation. And similarly, multi-story buildings, especially for residential, are typical along I-35 and are consistent with the description of the regional mixed use area. And additionally, as we'll look at in a little more detail, by requesting the additional height, they are creating a more compact building footprint that allows for greater buffering and tree preservation on site. So looking a little more closely at their site design and in terms of its compatibility with the surrounding area, as I mentioned, that 60-foot building height is really not out of line with what we see along I-35 throughout the city with some of our taller buildings, looking at the hospitals, the mall, developments at Razor Ranch for similar comparisons. But with their site, they are concentrating the building development in this area. They've moved it as far from the southern residential as you really could on the site and still accommodate fire lanes. You see here in the light green, the significant tree preservation and buffer areas that they're proposing. We'll look at those a little more closely in a moment. But they've concentrated that on the west side of the site where they adjoin an elderly housing use and on the south side where they have a single-family residential. Some of the other features, just to point out while we're looking at their site plan, the dark green areas that I've highlighted are those areas of new landscaping that they would be adding to the building. They did decrease the buffer width here on the north side where they abut commercial so that they could again concentrate on buffering as much as possible in the south and west. And then the area shaded in blue, this is that future commercial lot, but I did want to point out that they've looked at the tree preservation for that area to make sure that with the detention needed for both lots, they could still accommodate required tree preservation there and fit that future retail building. So again, just looking at some different features related to compatibility, they did a site visibility study. So you can see some of the results of that here on the screen. Just looking at line of sight from some of those residential lots, what would the building look like from their perspective. Based on the heights of the trees and the maturity of those trees, it's expected that there would be significant screening of the building from that adjacent neighborhood. And then I did use one of our mapping resources at the city to look at more recent imagery of what those trees actually look like. So you can see here some images from January of this year. Even in the winter, there was still significant tree canopy on site. So it appears to be a mix, pretty good mix of trees, very mature with significant canopy that would be maintained along that south and west property line. In terms of minimizing impact on future development in the area, you can see based on the, you can see the screenshot here for our maps that there is very little left undeveloped in this area with, aside from this parcel, the only undeveloped land is really those out parcels left in front of buckies. It's not expected that this multifamily development would have any significant impact on those. The increase in building height would not affect those properties in any way. They have a similar PD zoning that's rooted in MR and MN districts, so they would have similar requirements. And then finally, the site plan and landscape plan for this development indicate they can meet all of our DDC requirements. So even though they're just requesting building height adjustment here, we did look at the full plans to make sure that they could meet all of our other site design requirements. One of the additional criteria is mitigating any negative impacts that they could have. So I first wanted to point out just a base requirement in our code. In subchapter seven, we have protections built in for height transition areas adjacent to single family. So because this site is a mixed use neighborhood abutting a residential three zoning district, this did come into play. And the code requires that any portion of their building that would be located within 50 feet of that R3 zoning could only have the maximum height of the R3 zoning. So if they had proposed any building within this first 50 feet of the site, it would have been limited to 40 feet in height. As you move further out from that, anything between 50 feet and 100 feet can have an additional 15 feet of height, so they could have gone up to 15 feet or 55 feet. And you can see here the diagram from the code that shows that stair stepping that this results in. And then anything beyond 100 feet can go up to that maximum height permitted in that base district. Again, in this case, there is that SUP requirement that applies. But it is important to note that they are outside of that 100 foot boundary all the way across with their building. So this standard didn't come into play, but it is something that the code contemplated to build in that protection. Looking in more detail at their site design now, first wanted to point out what I referenced earlier in terms of a compact building design. So typically with multifamily, we see large parking lots surrounding the building. They have, again, made everything on this site very compact due to the nature of the site and the topography, as well as the desire to buffer those adjacent uses. Parking is concentrated in a wrapped parking garage in the middle of the building. They have a total of 383 parking spaces. Only 12 of those for the multifamily are actually going to be on the surface. Those would be in this orange area here adjacent to the leasing office. The building is proposed at four stories. And then some of the other things to point out, whereas we typically see detention ponds on the periphery of a development, again, with that split in the topography, they needed two detention areas to deal with the site drainage. So for this western part of the site, they've made that as an amenity feature within their courtyard. There's a detention pond that has some decks overlooking it to make it a resident amenity. And then they also have incorporated underground detention under the fire lane to handle the rest of that drainage and get it to the outfall that was stubbed to the site. And then on the eastern part of the site, they would have that surface detention pond. But again, they have looked at the tree preservation for the entire property and confirmed that they can accommodate that detention pond and still meet tree preservation on that future lot. And then as I mentioned earlier, they are proposing substantially larger buffers than what would be required by code. Our code would require when you have multifamily but in single family, you have a minimum 10-foot wide buffer. They are proposing an area that is on average 65 feet in depth on the south side of the property. And then similarly, a 10-foot buffer would have been required on the western boundary of the site. They are proposing an area that's a minimum of 83 feet deep on that area. The western portion, they are proposing to amenitize with a dog park for the residents. And then they are incorporating, as you can see here on the map, a kind of curvilinear trail feature with butterfly gardens and benches throughout a portion of the southern buffer to again have an amenity for the residents built into this area. Hey, Haley, can I interrupt you real fast? Sure. The apartment itself is 100 feet from the southern border, but you said the buffer width on the south is 65 feet. Is that 65 feet, I assume, just to concrete, like where they're going to have a road there? Correct. This is a 26-foot fire lane required because of the building height being over 30 feet. They need that additional width of fire lane. So it's 65 feet of buffer area, 26-foot fire lane, and then there is a sidewalk and some additional landscaping here against the building, totals 100. And I assume the height that you talked about in the last slide is applicable to the west. I think it's an elderly facility to the west. There's not any issue on the height setback on that end either, correct? That is an MN zoning district, so that standard only applies to our residential districts. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. And then I also just wanted to point out that they are, again, meeting and exceeding our minimum landscape and tree canopy requirements for the site. And additionally, along these property boundaries, where they about those more sensitive uses, they are proposing fencing. They propose ornamental metal fencing here adjacent to the elderly housing use. And then on the southern side, they're proposing eight-foot wooden fences consistent with what the residents already have in place at that location. And then our final criteria relates to the provision of public facilities and adequate transportation. So looking first at the roadway network, this site is rather unique. It has one point of access to I-35. It is kind of nestled behind this existing commercial development. Their daily trips would normally meet our requirements for traffic impact analysis. But because this site only has access to I-35 and TextDOT, when they recently widened with the improvements of the frontage roads and the improvements at the intersection with Brinker, they actually built all of the improvements that would be required for this site. So there's nothing additional that this developer would require. You can see here the newly built right-hand turn light in the TextDOT installed, as well as here the intersection that they've created at their driveway to allow for right-in, right-out turning movements only. Water and wastewater services are available to the site. You can see here that water lines are stubbed to the north at two ends. They do have sewer lines stubbed from the Buggies property, as well as the south side. There is adequate capacity for both of those to serve this location. And they are within an eight-minute or less response time boundary from two of our fire stations, numbers eight and six. Public outreach was conducted. As you can see on the screen here, we sent 37 notices to properties within 200 feet. And 814 courtesy notices were sent because they did touch the limits of a couple of apartment complexes across I-35. We've received 11 responses to date. Many of those were sent to you all just this afternoon that came in after the agenda posting on Friday. Total, they're at 9.79% opposition at this time. The applicant did hold two neighborhood meetings, one in March, one in July, and they provided summaries of those that was in your backup. And finally, staff is recommending approval with a few conditions. These probably look familiar to many of you. They're the standard conditions we apply with our SUPs to ensure that the site plan, the landscape plan, and the elevations that we've looked at are all tied to that ordinance. So I won't read these in depth, but the first condition, again, just relates to those plans that we've looked at being attached as part of the ordinance. It does allow for minor alterations on the landscape plan. For example, if some of the plant species become unavailable or there's difficulties, we could make some minor adjustments to that at the staff level. And then finally, we are reserving the right for any amendments to the SUP to come back to P&Z and council, with the exception of, again, some minor modifications that we typically build into our SUPs to allow them up to 5% deviation from those numerical standards. You will see a couple things highlighted on the screen in red. I did have some typographical errors in the information that went out to you, so my apologies for that. I wanted to clarify that this square footage is the total building area, not the footprint of the building as I had originally indicated. And I did have an error in my calculation for building coverage, so that is corrected here as well. And then the final condition is just simply that our zoning map will be updated to reflect this SUP as is required by the DDC. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Haley, thank you. I think there's going to be significant EESA issues here. Has any of that been discussed? So the area that is shown on our map as the red hatching, as was shown in your backup, that is actually not an EESA. This site, and I don't believe I have that map here, but we can see it just kind of on the aerials, there was at one time a much larger stand of trees that covered a significant part of this area. Prior to our EESA code being adopted, many of the subdivision to the south, the development to the west came in and removed portions of that tree canopy, and the result was an area less than 10 acres, so it did not meet the minimum standard for upland habitat that was adopted in 2002. So today they are subject only to our standard tree preservation requirements. Okay. I see. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Haley, just to get confirmation, the lowest point of the building itself, as it's currently drawn, even with the grading, is still 47 feet, give or take? Correct. So even no matter what, even the lowest point, it still falls underneath the use table as an SUP no matter what. Correct. There are pieces in there that talk about the highest point, this grading, and so on and so forth. Well, even the lowest point, it's still an SUP, right? Correct. And yeah, that's actually it. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Haley? Commissioner Pruitt? Yeah, just a question. Did you happen to look at where the average grade point was in height compared to the grade at the property line to the south? I do not have that specific number, but I can certainly find that out before the regular meeting. I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Any other questions? The only question I have is, does there need to be two points of access for fire, or what's the requirement there? Correct. So they do require two points of access. They will have, of course, their driveway here that they'll share with this future retail lot. You can see here on the west side, their intended second point of access would be to the fire lane, and I don't know if you can see it on the aerial. The abutting property is a fire lane that comes right up to the property line. They've had some preliminary discussions with the owner of that elderly housing, and they've indicated they would be amenable to a shared access point there. It would be gated for emergency access only, though. Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying. I do not see any other questions. Thanks to you for the presentation. That concludes our work session for this evening. I'll close the meeting at 514, we'll reconvene here at 630. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for August 4th, 2021. Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 631. Please let the record show that Commissioner Anderson is not with us this evening. The first item of business is to stand and provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In honor of the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one, indivisible. The next item of business is a consideration for our minutes from July 14th, 2021. Commissioner Smith? We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a second for approval. Is there any discussion on the item? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board if possible this evening. Can we do it on the board or by hand tonight? Commissioner Ellis, can you hit second? Okay. I think we're ready for a vote. Here we go. Motion carries 6-0. I see Scott down here. Mr. Chair, by the way, could you please come down here and join me? I'm Scott Downer, Director of Development Services for the City of Denton, and I'm here this evening to recognize our Chair, Mr. Andrew Rosell. Sadly, this will be Mr. Rosell's last and final meeting. He may be smiling about that. As far as city staff, we are not. So he's been an excellent civil servant. He has done the city well. We're very grateful to have him for the six years. Thank you for allowing us to borrow him. We're hoping in the next year or two that we'll get to borrow him some more. So just kind of paving the road or maybe grading the road, not paving it quite yet. So with that being said, I'd like to provide you with certificate of appreciation for six years serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Additionally, we have a coin, which is awesome sauce by the City of Denton. So with that, thank you very much. I don't know if you'd like to say anything. Thank you. I wasn't anticipating a speech or anything. It's been a pleasure and an honor to serve. I think that my service has given me a lot of insight to the city and the underworkings of how hard our city staff works to make Denton an awesome city. I'm glad to have been a piece of that as much as I could have been helpful over the last six years. I think the only thing I would say is a charge to the other commissioners to continue coming to the meetings prepared and offering good insight to help city and the staff plan and zone well. Thanks Scott. Thank you. Appreciate you. Thank you. Sorry about that. I didn't know that was happening. The next item of business this evening to progress forward will be our consent agenda item. There's only one item 3A. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. I think they're at the door or Ron has one there for you. Motion carries 6-0. As a way of updating the agenda, there is an item that will not be heard tonight. So if anyone is here for item 5B, PD21-002A, that has been postponed. So there's not any action on that item tonight if you are tuning in or here for that item. I just want to let you be aware of that. The next item of business is item 4A, FP21-0005B. And I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. And this is a final plat for the Gray Wolf edition. You may remember the preliminary plat that came before you. It has -- they have addressed all of staff's comments and so we do recommend approval of this plat. It is for a four-plex development on the north side of Windsor Road within the city. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie? I don't see any. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 4B, FP21-0020. This is also Julie Wyatt's item. Okay. This is for -- this is a final plat for another four-plex development. This one is on the west side of Loop 288. At this time, they have a few more comments that they need to address regarding the requirements for the development code, and so staff does recommend denial of the request. However, they have requested an extension, and staff has no objection to that extension to the August 18th meeting, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thanks, Julie. Any questions? I do not see any. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of August 18th. We have a first for the granting of an extension -- 30-day extension to a date certain of August 18th. Alice. Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Next item is item 4C, PP21-0012A, and I'll invite Hailey for presentation. This is preliminary plat 2112. This is for three lots located on the south side of the I-35E service road. This is the urban logistics edition. You may recall from a recent rezoning that the intent is to develop the largest of those three lots with speculative warehouse-type buildings. At this time, there are still several outstanding items on this plat that have not been addressed. They have already had their one-time extension, so staff is recommending denial, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Thanks, Hailey. I don't see any questions for you. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to deny. We have a first for denial. Commissioner, approve it. Second. We have a first and a second for denial. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Just a reminder, a vote in the affirmative is to deny. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 4DFP21-0019, and I'll invite Hailey back. All right, Julie's getting this one pulled up as well. This is a final plat for the I-35 cold storage edition. The property is located, as you can see, on the map north of Barthold Road on the west side of I-35. Since the posting of the agenda, the applicant has resolved all of the outstanding comments, so at this time, staff is able to update our recommendation to approval. And I'm happy to answer any questions. I do not see any questions. Thank you. Chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Ellis. I move approval. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The last item for individual consideration is item 4EFP19-0023, and I'll invite Mark Laird for presentation. Good evening. My name is Mark Laird. I'm an Associate Planner of the Development Service Department. This is the final plat for CD2499 East Edition. It's a 5.77-acre track located along FM2499. Staff recommends approval. I stand for any questions. Mark, is it possible to pull up the plat for just everyone to see? It's active. Thank you. Any questions for Mark on this item? I don't see any. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. I make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business moves us to our public hearings. Again, item 5BPD21-002A is being postponed. There will be no action on that this evening. We'll begin with item 5AZ21-0009. I'll open the public hearing and invite Cameron Robertson for presentation. Good evening. My name is Cameron Robertson. I'm the historic preservation officer for the City of Denton. I will be discussing Z21-009, which is a residential zoning. So the request is for a rezoning of 2.99 acres from residential rural district to a residential one district. The subject property is currently vacant. Based off historic aerials, it is assumed that the property has not been previously developed. It is generally located on the east side of South Bonnie Bray Street, approximately 830 feet north of Allred Road. It is surrounded by RR, residential 2, the ETJ, and city-owned public facilities districts. So as you can see on this map, pre-2019 zoning map. It shows the lot as RD5X. This was a placeholder when it was annexed for the city in 2010. The current zoning map shows it as RR, and the proposed zoning map shows it as R1. So we have our general approval criteria for all applications. For this presentation, I'll be focusing on points 3 and 8, and then we have our zoning criteria for approval, and I'll be focusing on 1, 6, and 7. So our Denton Plan 2030, the site is designated rural areas. So this is intended for development of one unit per five acres with farms and ranches as a predominant use, along with rural residential and commercial development. The R1 is consistent with our future land use, as it permits a very low-density housing type at a scale and character that is typically found in this area. Point A of Denton Plan 2030 states that development may include single-family homes on large lots as well as farms and ranches. So the R1 is consistent with the surrounding zoning and development pattern. The existing land use pattern along South Bonnie Bray is primarily residential. You do have residential, farming, and ranching uses, and the development pattern is expected and encouraged on the city's periphery. This rezoning would allow for the development of a single-family detached dwelling. They would be required to maintain the primarily rural scenic character found in the area with a low-profile residence on a large lot. There is no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the east, except along South Bonnie Bray Street, and the development would require conformance with current site design standards, including screening and landscaping. In terms of public facilities and services, there would be one driveway connection to South Bonnie Bray Street for the proposed future single-family detached dwelling. The attendance zones are Boorman Elementary School, McMath Middle School, and Denton High School. This would generate approximately one student. The subject property is located approximately 3.9 miles from South Lakes Park, so therefore it does not meet the park department's goal of 10-minute walk to a park. However, west of the subject property, the property is owned by the city of Denton and is intended to future development as a future regional park. Public water service is available to the site. As you can see from the map shown on the screen, we do have a 24-inch water line available to them. However, wastewater service is not available. The subject property can be served by on-site septic. Also, the nearest fire station is approximately 1.4 miles away. Discussing the error in establishing the current zoning district, there was not an error in this assignment. As it transitioned during that annexation in 2010, we put in that placeholder of an RD5X, which required the same 5-acre minimum lot size as the current RR district that it zoned. However, to meet the current standards of our development code and to allow them to get plotted for a single-family detached dwelling in the future, they would have to have a smaller minimum lot size requirement. Therefore, the existing RR district is no longer appropriate. We did do public outreach. We had a newspaper ad on July 18th. We had a property posting on July 14th. We did have mail notices within the 200-foot boundary, which was sent to four people, and we had five sent within the 500-foot boundary for courtesy notices. We did have a neighbor in opposition located at 4681 South Body Bray, and the name of this neighbor is Kyle Whelan. His property is located within the 200-foot buffer area, and it occupies approximately 22.34%. We did not have any in favor, and we had no one as neutral. Staff does recommend approval of the request to rezoning, as it does comply with our criteria in the DDC in sections 2.4.5E as well as 2.7.2D. I'm able to take any questions. Thanks, Cameron. Any questions at this time? I don't see any. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. I have one card for this item. Kyle Whelan. Whelan. I don't know what to do. You can come forward. You have four minutes to speak. If you'd like to give us your perspective, you can just state your name and address for the record. My name is Kyle Whelan. My address is 4681 South Body Bray, and it was up there in red, and I was watching what was going on. There's been a lot of changes out there, and I've lived out there 17 years. I looked at your aerial map of the area. There's actually a huge building out there that's about 30 by 30 that they laid the concrete for at 3 o'clock in the morning, because the lights and the sound woke me up, and y'all don't even know it's there. My fear is that if it's not going to stay like it's supposed to be, single houses, and be the rural area it's supposed to, because I do also saw in the paperwork that you sent me, I own 20% more, actually I own 33% more, to be precise, of what his lot is, and so I have a right to protest. I'm all about keeping it rural, just because there's bunnies, there's all kinds of wildlife, and there's goats next door, and just things like that. I just don't see changing to let it have more than one house on that lot, because there's been way too many people breaking the rules out there, and it needs to stop. That's why I oppose it, just because I'm used to living out rural, as it goes, and I just wanted to come forward and have my chance to say what I wanted to say. Absolutely. We appreciate you being here. You have a great day. Thank you very much. Cameron, can I just ask, on the R1 zoning, given the size of the lot, what is the number of units that can be put on that lot? Technically, the lot could be split into two lots, however, if they were to do septic and well together, that would require a total of two acres, so the lot wouldn't be able to be split. However, they connected to the water line across the street and just did septic on site, that only requires one acre, so then it would be able to be split into two lots. Do you have any insight on the property owner's plans to replat or anything? I do not. The property owner is here if you do have questions for them. Great. I'm sure they'd be happy to answer that for you. Awesome. Just so people tuning in on TV, we've got to mic you up. To clarify, the huge building is not on my property that he was speaking of. Can you just say your name and address? Peter Reese, Zero Body Bray. As of now, we have no plans to build anything besides one house. We did have a plat that was filed prior to zoning to find out you can't file a plat until you have the zoning done, so as of now, there's only plans to build one single family home. We didn't create a new track. This is an existing track, so we're not doing anything besides trying to comply with the new city requirements for zoning. Understood. I appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Smith? Thank you, Chair. Mr. Reese, correct? Yes. There's not a 30 by 30 concrete pad out there? Not on my property. No. Just didn't know. I think he's speaking of a property to the north of us. Not my property, no. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Ellis? Thank you, Chair. You know what? This is for Cameron. Oh, perfect. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Heather, so just to clarify, by changing this from RR to R1, it doesn't invite any new uses? Correct. Yes. Different than what is already there? Correct. It would just be single family residential. And they would be allowed to build since RR doesn't really apply since they're less than five acres? Correct. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Great. Thank you. This is a public item. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing just to confirm real fast. Stuart, there's no one wishing to speak on the phone. Is there? Correct. There are no callers for this item. Perfect. Thanks, Stuart. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero. Again, there's no action on item B this evening, which moves us to our last public hearing item 5C-S21-0004. We now invite Haley Zygurski for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening. This is item S21-4, Millennium Crest Multifamily. The request before you this evening is a specific use permit associated only with an increase in building height to a maximum of 60 feet. We will look a little more closely at what that height would look like in a moment. Some background on the site. It is outlined in yellow on the aerial map on your screen here, so you can see it is located just off of the South I-35E ramp. The site is a total of 7.6 acres. The proposal before you this evening includes on their site plan a multifamily development located on 6.2 acres on the western portion of the site, with 1.4 acres roughly located on the eastern side that would be reserved for future commercial, and we'll look at that site plan a little more closely in a moment. This property is zone mixed use neighborhood, or MN. Within that district, the multifamily use is permitted by right, so as I mentioned, the SUP, although we would typically see it associated with use, is not in this instance. The MN district requires a specific use permit for buildings that go over 40 feet in height. The district allows up to 65 feet in total height, but anything between 41 and 65 requires that SUP, and in this case, as I mentioned, they are requesting a maximum of 60. Just to give you a little more background on how building height is measured in the CDC, this diagram is from subchapter 9 in our definitions, which defines that building height is measured as the vertical distance above finished grade to the highest point of a flat roof. That does exclude parapets, and as you can see in the diagram, that finished grade is typically measured at the midpoint of each wall on sites where we have significant grade changes. This screenshot here just shows the topography as is best estimated on our GIS system. There is roughly about 30 feet of grade change when you look at the entire site. It goes from a low point here on the south side that is about 654 feet in elevation with points that go up to roughly 680 feet in elevation on the north sides. Looking at their building plans that were provided in your backup, this is the northern elevation of the building where the highest point would occur. That is here at the leasing office, which you can see I have circled in red on the screen. The structure height of the building as indicated on their plans is roughly 54 feet 8 inches. That would be from foundation to rooftop. Again, it excludes parapets that are on the building, but there are actually not any shown on this portion of the building. When you take into account the grade changes on the site, looking at it from average grade, they would be at about 58 feet in height. The applicant has requested, as I said, a maximum of 60 feet because they are requesting a little bit of flexibility be given because of that significant topography changes. They have not done final grading plans for the site yet. That would come with their civil engineering, so they expect that they might need a little bit of wiggle room, but not more than a couple of feet. So again, that is the reason for the maximum height of 60 rather than a specific number. This is just a look at the south side of the building, which is not quite as tall as what we saw there with the leasing office. The plans reflect height around 48 feet 7 inches on the south side of the building when you measure to the rooftop. This is just a look at the renderings that were provided by the applicant. This perspective here is looking when you are internal to the site at that leasing office portion that we just saw. This is their rendering looking from the south side where we have a single family subdivision to the south looking at the site, and again just another perspective from inside the site. All of the general criteria were outlined in your backup. I will not go through those all here. I will, however, go through these six criteria specific to SUPs so that we can see some more detail about the site. Starting with our comprehensive plan, this property is located in the regional mixed use land use area. That is what is shown in pink on the map. If you were to zoom out and look at the entire city, you would see that this is a designation applied along major corridors throughout the city. So along I-35, we see a large amount of this land use designation. It is where we would expect to find higher intensity commercial and residential type uses, so things such as our hospital campuses, large shopping areas such as the mall and Razor Ranch, as well as moderate to high density residential are all expected uses within this area. So again, as I mentioned, the multifamily use is permitted by right in this district. It is also an expected use within this future land use designation, and multi-story residential development is something that we do see pretty frequently along our I-35 corridor. It is also consistent with the description for this land use designation and the comprehensive plan. The requested building height does allow for a more compact building footprint that achieves greater buffering on site, so that is also consistent with the goals of our comprehensive plan to be sensitive to the natural environment. Looking at compatibility with the surrounding area, this is a screenshot of their landscape plan for the proposed project, so some things I wanted to point out, key features of the site. The building is here in the center of the site. The dark green shading areas are areas where they are proposing new landscaping along their northern site as a buffer to the commercial use, and then around the perimeter of the building. They do have, as I mentioned again, pretty significant topography, so the drainage goes a couple of different directions on site, so just looking at those. What you see here in this courtyard is a retention pond that they propose to amenitize with some decks to make that a feature for the residents to enjoy. There's underground detention within the fire lane that that drains to, and then here on that future retail lot, there is an above ground detention pond proposed, and then tree preservation is proposed in these areas, shaded light green and blue on this screen, with the colors differentiating the multifamily lot versus the proposed retail. As I mentioned, they are proposing a significant buffer here that we'll look at in a little more detail in just a moment. Again, with reference to compatibility with the surrounding area, one of the key concerns that was heard from the neighbors, of course, was the visual impacts. The applicant did do some line of site studies from the surrounding neighborhood to show what this could be expected to look like, so those are shown here on the screen, looking from the rear yards of some of those adjacent homes, showing that with the height of those existing trees, it is expected there would be significant screening. Just to provide you some additional details, I did pull the most recent imagery I could find of the site, so you could see that tree canopy in a little more detail. Trees were taken in winter, so there is some foliage missing, of course, but you can see it's still a pretty significant canopy on the site. One of our other criteria is whether it would minimize impact on future development in the area and whether it would comply with the DDC. So again, if we look at the aerial, the only undeveloped parcels in this area are those out parcels at Bucky's. It's not expected that this proposed use or height increase would have any impact on the development of those properties, as they have a similar zoning. And then the applicant did provide full site plan and landscape plan with this proposal to show that they can meet the development code requirements for site design, landscaping, tree preservation, and those sorts of things. With respect to mitigating negative impacts, which is another of our criteria for approval, I wanted to take a moment just to discuss one of the standards in our DDC that applies to this site and any development within the City of Denton where we have uses of budding single-family zoning. So the properties to the south are zoned Residential 3, because this is a non-residential district. It's our mixed-use district. They do have to comply with this section that requires a stepping back of building height for compatibility purposes. So within the first 50 feet of a site adjacent to a residential, as you can see on this diagram, the building height is restricted to the maximum height within the single-family district. In that case, if they had any portions of their building within that 50-foot zone, they'd be restricted to 40 feet. As you move further interior to the site, portions of the building between 50 feet and 100 feet can have an additional 15 feet of height, so that would have put them at 55. And then anything beyond 100 is allowed to go up to the maximum height for the zoning of the subject property. In this case, that is at 65 feet, but again, the heights above 40 require an SUP, so we have that additional level of scrutiny on top of this protection. Just to show you here, the red line on the screen is a 100-foot setback from their south property line. They have no portions of their building beyond that. So that is the reason that their entire building is proposed above that 55-foot limit. Looking at their site design in a little more detail, some things I wanted to point out to you all. This is a four-story building proposed with 234 units, as opposed to how we sometimes see multifamily in a sprawling more garden apartment style. This is a more compact footprint proposed. The majority of their parking, all but 12 spaces needed for the multifamily, are proposed in a wrapped parking garage that would be located in the central portion of the building. Again, as I mentioned earlier, they've done some things that we typically don't see with multifamily to achieve that more compact design by putting the retention within their courtyard, having underground detention under their fire lane. So just some more unique features we typically don't see with this type of product that help give this a more compact footprint that have assisted with the ability to meet minimum tree preservation and buffer to their neighbors. So looking at those green areas that I mentioned earlier where they have tree preservation on the south and west sides. On the southern side, this buffer averages about 65 feet deep. They are proposing within the first 20 feet or so of that, kind of a meandering trail. They're proposing butterfly gardens and benches with some educational signage related to the butterfly gardens along there as a residential amenity. On the west side, they're proposing what is on average about 83 feet deep with a tree preservation there. They are proposing a dog park within that, so some of the understory and brush would be cleared from that area to allow for that dog park. And then along the perimeter of the site, they are proposing fencing. Their plans reflect ornamental metal fencing on the western perimeter and wooden fencing at eight feet in height on the southern perimeter. And they are, as I mentioned, meeting and exceeding the minimum landscape and tree canopy requirements for the city. The final criteria is provision of public facilities. So related to transportation, we would typically see a TIA for a development like this. That was not required in this case because there are no perimeter street improvements that could be required of them. Their only access point is off of IA 35, and when TxDOT most recently widened and improved the frontage roads in this area, they installed a right-turn deceleration lane into this driveway that would be required for this site, as well as installed the driveway improvements to make sure that this is a right-in, right-out only turning maneuvers at this location. With respect to water and wastewater utilities, those are available stubbed to multiple points around the site. There is adequate capacity to serve this development. And the site is located within the eight-minute or less response time boundary for two of our fire stations, fire stations eight and six, which are shown eight here on the north side of the screen and six here on the south side. Public outreach was conducted in accordance with state law and the Denton Development Code. You've received 11 responses as of the beginning of our work session today. Some of those came in after the agenda posting and were emailed directly to you all this afternoon. So far, we are at 9.79% opposition to the project. The applicant did hold two neighborhood meetings, one in March, one in July. Those were both virtual, and they provided summaries of those that are in your backup. And the applicant is also here if you have any questions regarding the outcomes of those meetings. And finally, staff is recommending approval with several conditions. These are conditions typical of any specific use permit in the City of Denton as we tie the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations that are shown to you all to that ordinance to ensure future compliance. So the first criteria, again, relates to those plans becoming a part of their ordinance, then being tied to that with the ability for some minor alterations, minor meaning things like individual plant locations shown on that landscape plan could be adjusted if something comes up during civil engineering plan review that would cause a need for, you know, relocating or changing the species of a tree, for example. Criterion two is, again, related to very limited administrative approval being authorized. Anything beyond that would require the SUP to come back before the P&Z in council. Those limited administrative approvals are outlined in criteria three. Again, there were a couple of typographical errors in my staff report. I've corrected those here on the screen, and those have been updated in the draft ordinance that would go to council. So this is just enumerating those standards that are shown on their proposed plan, again, so that they would be held to the specific design. So that includes the building, total building area of 208,000 square feet, the number of units at 234, the 383 parking spaces reflected on their plan, the building coverage, which is approximately 29.1 percent, and again, that maximum building height of 60 feet. And then the final condition is simply to have our zoning map updated to reflect that there is a specific use permit approved on this property as required by the DDC. And with that, I am happy to stand for any questions, and the applicant also has a presentation. Great. Thank you, Haley. Screen switching back. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Haley, any rough idea what the landscape area would be reduced back to? Would it be all the way back to minimum, you think, if it was kept at 40 foot and built by right with the same amount of units or the max amount of units based off of lot coverage? I would expect it would be less. I have not seen an analysis of what this site would look like developed at 40 feet. I don't know that they could achieve anywhere near the same number of units or achieve the parking required for those units. It would definitely impact the landscaping piece as well, correct? Yes. I would say probably tree canopy would be reduced to the minimum, and similarly, landscaping area would have to be reduced to accommodate that design. Okay. Thank you. Last question on that. Can you put back up the rendering of the building itself and talking about the setbacks and the buffers there, and the one before, sorry, yeah, right there, perfect. The landscaping pieces there, the green section that's right there inside the white, and then all of the tree canopy on the outside there, that's all that's counting as landscaping, and then other landscaping that is counting as tree canopy as well of what is trees, correct? Correct. So there's two different requirements at play, three technically. So landscape area is essentially anything onsite that is like mulched grass cover, natural coverage essentially that would allow water infiltration. We also have a requirement for overall tree canopy area that is separate from our tree preservation requirement. Preserved trees can count towards the overall site canopy, but that site canopy includes new plantings plus preservation, and they're meeting all of those. More than anything else is just seeing that image and seeing the green and basically the orientation of that towards the neighborhood and how much of the landscaping is focused on the outside of the property and that all of the building is faced on that north side that's up against the commercial property north of it. So okay, got it. That's all I was trying to clarify. Thank you. Any other questions for Haley? Commissioner Pruitt? Yeah, maybe I missed it, but did you happen to be able to see what the grade difference was between the southern property and the southern edge of the proposed building footprint? So I did look at that, and I am not an engineer, so I will let the applicant speak to this in case I misinterpreted their plan. The lowest point of the grade on the southern property line appears to be about 654 feet. Looking at their proposed grading plan at this point, I believe there's an average of 660 to 665 at the building on the southern side. Thank you. Thank you, Haley. I don't see any other questions, so I think at this time I'd like to invite the applicant down for their presentation. And if you could just state your name and address for the record. Good evening, Chairman Rozelle, as well as all the commissioners. My name is William Tsau. I'm the president of the clinical facility engineering, who is the developer -- sorry, thank you. And I really appreciate this opportunity to present our development plan to you this evening. And we thank you for your time today, as well as the city staff have spent numerous hours with us, as well as our neighborhood community has talked to us about here. And I want to emphasize the only thing we approach this project is we try to bring the urban living type of product to the -- introduced to the city of Denton. Secondly, is about we fully understanding the city of Denton, the priority is preserve the nature resource in there. That's why we come up with this very limited footprint of the real estate development concept here. And I'm leaving the technical presentation to my consulting team. Thank you. Again, my name is William Tsau. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, William. Hi. My name is Randy Rivera, I'm a land planner with McAdams. We're located at 111 Hillside Drive in Louisville, Texas. It's a pleasure to be here before you tonight. Been working on this site for six months, so it's nice to be able to present this to you and we are looking forward to your feedback. William Tsau and his team Pinnacle had the opportunity to develop the property down the road, the Millennium Place property in Corinth. And when he saw this site was available, he immediately contacted us, him and his partners own it now. And what can we do with it? Looking at the property, Haley did a great job, her presentation, so I'm not going to repeat some of the stuff that she said, but I will say that the seven acres, I mean, look at these trees and we spent several months in that six month period identifying the trees and there are over 1,300 trees that we shot in on the property. Most of them are elms and oaks and things like that and very good heights, a lot of mature stuff and stuff that's not even, that's right at the six inch mark that we shot in. So we were able to identify where all these trees were located, which helped us create a more detailed landscape plan to work around those existing trees in the buffer. The site is, you know, it is an infill site, it has limited access, limited visibility, it's not necessarily conducive for retail because of that, those limitations. Infill sites are challenging, we all know that, and this one presents even more challenges with the terrain change that Haley talked about and the significant tree stand as well as the adjacency considerations that we have to analyze as we go through the design. It is the MN district, it does allow for high density housing in there, so we are compliant with the 2030 plan, Haley talked about the mixed use neighborhood, allows for this type of use, higher intensity uses and it asks for the transition from existing residential to the more intense commercial areas of the city. So we feel like the zoning is appropriate and the max 65 feet, but the SUP, you know, looking at the property here, the SUP is triggered because we're exceeding that 40 feet as Haley did a great job explaining. I want to say that the property geometry is about 300 feet deep and a little over 1,000 to 1,100 feet wide. And so when we were putting this puzzle together, this was a pretty tight puzzle, it's how do we get that building up to the north as much as possible and have at least 100 feet that separates us from the neighborhood to provide -- we were sensitive to their concerns and wanting to minimize that impact, we knew that was very, very important. It is a change that we're proposing and so we wanted to be very sensitive to what those concerns might be, so tucking that building up to the north as much as possible. So that's why we're here before you today with this request. You know, as part of this effort, we were -- our client was very eager to get out there right away and get the property cleaned up. There's been some dumping on there, some trash, some encampments and people kind of hanging out that really shouldn't be. So we employed -- didn't freedom cleaning to get out there and clean up the site. And that has been a good effort and we're happy to do that because we know it was desperately needed after all these years. So I'm going to stop share. I do have a video I want to play of the proposal. I think I know where it is. I do. Okay. All right, Millennium Crest will feature 230 for urban residential living units centered around first class amenities to create the ideal quality of life in order to attract young professionals, the medical personnel that are employed in the nearby medical facilities, divorcees wanting to stay close to families or single adults that desire a highly amenitized living option within a city that they love. It will include a future retail site for neighborhood services that help support the area with surface parking and a retention pond in the southeast corner. The building placement of the site has been strategic throughout the design process in an effort to minimize impact to the south to provide for ample buffering and separation and tree preservation along those sensitive perimeter property lines. Butterfly. There's a view from the neighborhood as we're flying in, sort of get to the ground level. And then here is the buffer zone that we talked about that's 65 feet wide from the single family to the fire lane and then over to the building. The building is actually a little bit over 100 feet, it's 106 feet from that south property line. And here's a view from the neighborhood of what it would look like in the street. So butterfly gardens and bark mulch paths are nestled within the trees to allow residents to encounter nature and connect with the outdoors. And just see how beautiful that setting is to be able to partake in that as a resident. The reflection pond in the open courtyard provides for a tranquil setting for residents to relax, enjoy, and unwind. And that's nestled in that courtyard. It provides for an overlook area of the retention pond that's also a reflection pond amenity. Different types of experiences that residents can enjoy as they're getting out of their units and coming out to the outdoors to connect with nature. And here is a rain garden with different types of plants and stuff to take advantage of the natural setting that we're trying to accomplish. There's a dog park that's located in the far west end of the property. It provides good shade for all members of the family to enjoy the outdoors on the property. There is an enclosed courtyard that has an amenity pool and it will provide a place for residents to respite, to lounge, and to swim, soak up the sun, and enjoy good company under the shade structures, gazebos, and enjoy entertaining their friends and being out in the pool. So Millennium Crest has been strategically designed to attract a type of resident seeking a high quality living option within the city while being sensitive to the adjacent uses and preserving as many of the trees as possible to provide optimal visual buffering to the existing neighborhood and be a complimentary living option for the city of Denton. And so looking at the site features, you know, with underground detention, let me talk about access first, sorry. So we do have the 50-foot access easement that's along our eastern property line. This will be improved to provide us to access to the southbound frontage road. We are extending it to our east line. It does not necessarily connect to the Buckees property. That's for a future adjacent developer to make that connection, not us. Then the access comes into our site. As we go along the north side of the building, there is an emergency access planned over here at the Brookdale site. We have received a preliminary approval from the owners of the property. There are conditions to that that we're going to be working through as we go through platting, the platting process and the civil design. Then the fire lane loops around the building to provide for adequate coverage as required. In order for the detention to work on the property, like Haley mentioned, this underground detention was placed under the fire lane. It is more expensive, structured parking is more expensive. All these things were put onto this plan to provide for that compact layout to the property to reduce the footprint, minimize the impact. We didn't want to put the detention pond in the buffers because it would require taking out trees. And one of the earlier neighborhood meetings, we had a dog park on this south buffer. We have placed that over on this west line to remove it away from the neighbors. And I know I have a little bit more time left, or actually I'm done. And so here's just showing kind of that access point that's going to have to be extended up from the buckies in the future at some point, but there will be future connectivity there. And the cross-section is showing the 65-foot natural zone. So the natural zone is intended to preserve the understory canopy, almost like a conservation type easement. We don't want to impact that habitat that's there. It is -- we're planning for it to be enclosed with a 6-foot ornamental metal fence so that way we can see through it. We don't want to enclose it with anything that you can't see through. And it will be maintained probably twice a year to get in there and clean up as needed. But we would like that habitat to stay intact because it creates a great visual buffer with that understory in place. And then the 25-foot transition zone is where we're going to manicure that area a little bit more, put in the butterfly garden, the bark mulch path and things like that for the residents to be able to enjoy, and then that transitions to the fire lane and to the building. These steps that go down to the south property line, this is roughly anywhere between four to seven feet, and then this one over here is about, you know, two to four, depending on where it is on the site. But those are kind of those steps that we're taking in the grading. And then we were very proactive at the outset with the neighborhood outreach. We knew we needed to have -- to be available, accessible, transparent. And we feel like we have done that talking to all the neighbors, having several meetings and being -- giving them our contact information and having even phone calls after the meetings with individual property owners. Some of the things that we talked about in those meetings, we felt like the positions were generally neutral at that time. It really interested in asking questions, understanding what that impact was going to be, and it was about the trees, the drainage, and then, you know, how we're going to provide access to the property and the visibility. And I think -- I'm hoping that that video and the renderings that we have previously provided in neighborhood meetings help illustrate what that visual impact will look like to the neighborhood and the depth of that building being as far away as possible. You know, that's the -- we have done everything in our ability to minimize that input and provide the smallest footprint while making this still a feasible, successful development and provide for quality housing for young professionals to come to the City of Denton to live here. So that will conclude my portion of the presentation. William and I will be happy to stand for questions. >> Great. I think we have one. Mr. Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. I will have a question for you, ma'am. >> Yes. >> But, Haley, can I ask you a quick question as first here? You can actually leave that exact slide up for me here. I forgot to ask this during work session, Haley, but as the applicant had mentioned, that easement, they don't feel like it is their responsibility to connect that into Buc-E's. And then looking at the site location map that -- I remember when we approved for that extension of that road there in front of Buc-E's to go right there, it's a very small plot of land in between there. Who owns that? And if it's not their responsibility and it's not Buc-E's responsibility and that small piece of land that looks like the majority of that is more than likely what looks like floodplain leading to that detention pond there or some sort of drainage there that no one's ever going to develop it, then we have two unpurposable stub outs that will never connect because no one takes responsibility for them. Haley, are you going to shed light on there? >> Sure. So this -- what Randy put up on the screen shows the plot for the Buc-E's property that is now parcel created by Buc-E's. I believe they still own the property, the ownership entity for Buc-E's. This portion of the drive was not completed at this time because this is a riparian buffer. They will have to go through the alternative ESA plan process to accomplish that driveway because of the impacts they would have on that riparian buffer. But it's my understanding they are leaving that until such time as they have someone interested in developing what is shown as lot two on their plat and at that point they would have to come in for that plan approval to make that driveway connection. >> Just for historicity, they applied for that alt ESA and they were denied by this body. >> I don't think I was at that meeting, but okay, now I understand. Got it. Understood. Okay. Understood. Thank you. A couple questions, ma'am. One, nothing in staff's presentation or your presentation yet, have we seen anything that addresses any noise or light pollution mitigation you guys will take as the engineers for this project? Anything you could pardon the pun, shed light on for that? I guess I got one left. Thanks. Appreciate it. >> Yes. So we fully intend to comply with the city requirements on noise at the property line, light at the property line, if there's dark skies that we could do that here as well. We know security is important at this site. It's very important. And so we do want it to be done in a way that provides appropriate amount of security while not creating light pollution for the neighbors, but we want to comply with all the codes for those two requirements at this time. Nothing specific, but trying to balance between the two of those. And then in your opinion, how does building it with this SUP to this height versus building it as you could right now by right and therefore taking up more landscape, smaller buffer, how does building it underneath this SUP benefit the neighborhood, which it abuts against? >> So my opinion of that is we could do this development, stretch the building out east, west, south, and be within the 40-foot height. We wouldn't have the retail building. That would go away, and we would probably have the building be 10 to 20 feet from the southern property line because we would need a significant amount of building square footage in order to stay at that 234-unit count. >> Okay. So just to paraphrase, basically that by getting this SUP, that this benefits the neighborhood by being able to have the further setback away from the neighborhood, not encroaching upon them and their integrity. Otherwise what you could do right now by right by that zoning is actually more than likely more impeding upon their current status as a neighborhood than it would be with the SUP. >> That's correct. We feel like the SUP request protects the neighbors more than without it. >> Okay. Understood. Thank you. >> Is there any other questions for the applicant? Christian McDade. >> Thank you, Chair, if you could go back to your last -- like the major questions, the -- >> The neighborhood? >> No. You had a -- about the major questions and about your -- the type of tenants, you know, I mean that -- >> Oh. >> That page there. Hold on. Let me go back to my screen. >> Did I -- I don't know if I had a slide that specifically spoke to the type of tenants that we were trying -- >> Well, yeah, you had major questions. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I think your last slide was -- >> I'm so sorry. Yes, sir. Right there. >> Okay. I'm just curious. You know, the major questions and take away, the type of tenants or any unit, I mean, I'm just curious what type of feedback you got on that type of question there. >> Yeah, that was -- the concern was is this going to be student housing? And our client has done lots of student housing in south central Texas in the College Station area. And in this market, this area, this location, it is not student housing. It's not going to have leases that are subleased to students. It's not leased out by bedroom. It's not like that at all. It's one person on the lease for one unit. And the attraction of the site was because of its proximity to all the employers in the area, specifically the medical ones. And he's -- the intent is to attract those professionals to live here. Because, frankly, you're going to have to be a professional to be able to afford living here. >> All right. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Yeah. You can come down. >> Thank you. >> Hi. Thank you for Randy's information. I have a little bit more information about our marketing study. In here, this particular site, we have study about 25 -- oh, sorry. Chairman -- sorry, I'm really nervous. I tried to let you know the -- we need to share with you about the potential rent range. We are looking at a proposal about -- about starting about $1,150 for the efficiency all the way to $2,000 to the two-bedroom. So this is not a -- >> Haley, do we have a -- do we have the sky camera working these days? >> Can we turn on the camera and you -- can you put that handout right on that felt board? And if it works, we all can see what you're talking about. Perfect. Thank you. >> Oh, okay. Good. Okay. Great. Wow. High-tech. This is the rent we are looking at here. And also, I'd like to share with Ms. McRae. The other component is about our market study, you know, this is -- this is what we find out is we are targeted at almost like a 25 percent -- almost like 25 percent is medical field professional. And that would be the people who are accountable for -- can rent on this type of range in there. And we do bring -- in order to limit the footprint of this development, we are actually putting a lot of capital to build an underground retainage parking garage. And we believe, you know, we want to be a very sensitive neighbor, and we are not coming here to try to say this is a product. We are still listening, and every input is valuable to us, because we want to be a sensitive neighbor, corporate citizen here. In terms of the -- regarding about our previous experience in there is this is the product city of Denton, haven't seen a lot. There's one called Razor Range in the northern part of the -- and that one is very, very in the high -- very high demand in there. So we are thinking about this in this aspect. Also, because Denton's development in the future, the I-35 phase two is coming. It just been led last week from the state. So all this, you know, is a point to the bright future for the city of Denton. So we are looking forward to introduce this more urban, more modern type of product, and without -- with the minimal impact to the neighborhood in there, that's our goal. And that's what I can -- hopefully I answer some questions again. Thank you, Chairman, and the commissioners. >> I have actually a question for you. You mentioned that you -- or someone mentioned that you have a property in Corinth or -- >> Correct. >> And it's called Millennium as well. Did you actually develop that property? >> That's correct. Yes, I did. >> When did you develop it? >> We started in 2016 on the planning, and we actually break ground on the 2017 September, and we complete on 2019 on March. >> And do you still hold that property? >> Yes, we still. >> And is your -- >> We are not a builder. We just -- we are the long-term operator. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> You haven't sold it? >> No. >> That's not the intention? >> No, no. >> Okay. The other question I had was -- you mentioned that there was campers there that you had to clear out. Is there any plans or what's the plans for continuing to help ensure that that property remains empty in the barrier, the buffer area? >> Yes. We did -- we did research, and we also consulting with one of the city attendant officer. He helping us to reach out all the different type of the security camera, different type of the onus is we can enforce in that aspect, and also we realize, you know, the best management is you have a very good, you know, occupied real estate in there, because nobody can be there 24 hours in there, but if we have a quality development in there, we obligate to our customer and as well as to the neighborhood, we will make -- definitely maintaining it in the high level. And it's similar to a vacant house. It always inviting a lot of different uncertainty in there, but we are hoping we can provide a good quality product and send it to distance, and not only that, we during our visit through one of the neighborhood homeowners thinking about there's a lot of water in the northern side of property as well as the south side of property. And those have become news and water because of lack of maintenance in there. And those are all, you know, development plan, we will make it correct. And that's all the component we try to think, you know, is how do we make it is a high quality product to the city of Denton in there. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I don't see any other questions at this time, but we might have more later. With that, this is a public hearing, can we clear the commission board of speakers? I don't think we have any speakers outstanding. Right? Commissioner Dade, you don't need to speak, right? You're good. I think you're good. Thank you. I do have several cards of individuals wishing to speak and some that do not, and so I was just going to go through these just as they're presented to me in no specific order. The first one is -- and forgive me up front if I mispronounce any names, but I think it's Lorne Thomas, and then the next person will be Ralph Benford. But Lorne, if you want to come up here, just say your name and address for the record, you'll be given four minutes. >> I'm Lorne Thomas. I'm at 2404 Natchez Trace. So if you look at the diagram, I'm the one on the farthest east corner, directly across from the -- I don't know if it's a pond or a parking lot or what that's going to be. It's by the retail portion of the property. So that would be my concern because I'd like to see that portion of land, that 7 1/2 acres develop, but I don't know what they're going to do with the portion that's right across from mine. I mean, I think it would be better than what's there now, but it's looking like I'm only going to have like an 8-foot board-on-board fence separating me from whatever because I lose the 6-foot metal fence stops at my neighbor's house there and doesn't go further. So that would be one of my questions. And then I lose all my trees that are going to be behind my property. So given that, I'm not so much in favor of that, but -- so that would be -- I don't know if there's clarification on that, if that's actually a parking lot or a pond. If it is a pond, does it have a fountain, is it going to be moving water, or am I going to have mosquitoes because it's just a stagnant pond, you know, so that's all I have. >> I don't want to speak on behalf of the applicant, but I believe it's a retention pond with some sort of circulating water. Yeah, the water will be moving. >> And also questions on not knowing what's going on on that east border where that proposed 50-foot easement and access is. It doesn't -- I'm not getting a clear understanding of what that connection there and what's going to be there. Nothing will happen with that now, but just so you're aware, if you're obviously aware you look out of your backyard, that 50-foot easement that's coming straight down and then turning to like a 30-degree to your right, that is -- was brought before P&Z to connect to the interior road of Buc-E's. So Buc-E's would have an entrance from where the old Luby's was. They have not gotten approval to connect their roadway, so until there's some sort of development on that plot of land directly to the east of that access easement, there would be no precipice for that road to be completed, but that would be -- the future of that would be Buc-E's road would be extended up north behind your house. >> Okay. Yeah, well, whatever happens there is going to affect me, and so my primary concerns are just the -- a secure barrier being between -- me between that development there. >> Understood. I appreciate you being here. Next is Ralph Benford, followed by Jerry Drake. If you could just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak. >> Ralph Benford, 2416 Natchez Trace. Can you hear me okay? >> Okay. We can hear you. >> I was prepared to tell you how much impact this would have on us, but now I am probably more confused than when I came in here as far as the layout of this, the driveways, the parking areas, the ins and outs as far as -- right now there's only one way into that area. That's there by the Goodwill area. Maybe it's already been mentioned, is there going to be another entrance and exits by the nursing home? >> Only for fire and emergency vehicles. >> Okay. And as far as the layout of the building, I'm still confused about how much area that's going to take up. Seven acres encompasses a pretty long area. Surely the building is not going to be as long as that green belt of trees is, but perhaps we can get a little more specifics as we go along. My wife and I have lived on Natchez Trace for almost 15 years. It's a quiet, safe, friendly neighborhood. This is going to impact it to where it won't be the same neighborhood that we've had. I know that all of you have heard all of the objections and the stories, property value, noise, pollution, all of that, but the fact is that something of this magnitude is going to have a huge impact on the neighborhood. And it's not just the people on Natchez Trace, it's going to affect all of the ones all around the area. The ones over on Shenandoah and Shiloh and Stone Mountain, they may not think it's going to affect them. Certainly didn't show up to protest, but it will. Something of this size and this magnitude will certainly have an impact on everyone. Before I came up, the group that I'm with had mentioned the possible electricity problem that might occur with 235 or 40 units in an apartment complex. As you know, the power grid has been iffy at best. And we've been lucky so far that we haven't had any outages or anything. But my point is, that may have some impact on the electricity available to all of us. I don't know that that would be a major consideration or not. But it would be nice to have more specifics as far as the layout. I think I saw something about a 65-foot setback as far as the trees that are going to be preserved, something like that, as I recall seeing. There was an awful lot of information to absorb that she went through. But there's just a lot of questions and a lot of variables, but the bottom line is this is going to have a huge impact on everyone that lives in that area. And I only hope that each of you have not made a decision as to what you're going to do. I hope that our voices and our opinions might mean something and count for something. That's all we can ask, and with that, thank you for my time. I appreciate you being here. I have a question for staff, but what I'd like to do is hold that. If anyone has questions for staff or the applicant, can we just jot those down and we'll ask those at the end because I have some questions that he prompted. But for the sake of trying to get through these, if we could save questions now for participants, that would be helpful. Do you have a question for him? Okay, great. Next is Jerry Drake, followed by Dan Lyons. Welcome back, stranger. Hey, it's good to be back. Good seeing all of you again. It is shared, and you can just click through with the arrows. Very good. Jerry Drake, 2504 Shiloh Road in Denton, Texas. Thank you for having this hearing tonight. And thank you to Millennium for trying as hard as they did to make some accommodations for us. I'm a nerd. Those of you who've worked with me before know that. I'm either a law or engineering, and I look at details. So I'm looking at the criteria here. There are three criteria that I think are impacted out of six. Is it compatible with the surrounding areas proposed? Does it meet all other code standards? And does it mitigate the impacts associated with access, traffic, and emergency service? One of our concerns, or at least one of my concerns, is that the natural buffer, which they fence out and away from, it just concentrates all the adverse impacts of wildlife, of campers, all of those nasty things that are just shoved towards our neighborhood all the more. And there's no proposal that I see for lighting cameras or patrols in the area, and that's a concern. Haley addressed number two a little bit here, that the development's uphill. The increased height exacerbates the difference. While this is the diagram in the code, this is what it really is. And then this is just from the staff report. I didn't understand the comparison to roofs. People want privacy in their yards and their pools, not on their roofs. Our roofs don't care about how high it is. As far as code issues, here are a couple here, fire code. Buildings higher than 30 feet shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Now, as you can see on the plan, there's two structures that are being planned, but there's only one point of access. But if you approve this, if you recommend approval on it, you're going to tie your hands, even if they come back later for that other building. They go say, "Well, you know, you saw that on the plan, yeah, I mean, you saw that on the plan, and yet you approved it. Why did you do that if you didn't want us to do it?" DDC 8.3(c)(1) must provide two points of vehicle access unless infeasible. Well, is it really infeasible here or is it just that it's more expensive? Is it that they couldn't buy the easements that they needed from the adjacent properties? I heard a few moments ago that the preliminary approval with Brookdale, well, where's the access easement that guarantees that, that creates a right? And why aren't we waiting for that before we look at whether or not to give an SUP? And leave you for planning is not the answer. As far as access and traffic are concerned, let's see, did I, yeah, I addressed all that. Applicant proposed only one access point that remains open all the time. The perimeter paving is only 24 to 26 feet wide. Natchez trace is 50 feet wide, okay? Our cul-de-sacs are 50 feet wide. The pavement width is 31 feet, it's wider than this. And you know, if that's, if it's necessary, then we have two points of access, not just one. We're a single family community of houses and if that kind of, if that level of detail is necessary for us, then for our safety, why isn't it for them? The aerial trucks, here's a diagram here of a 24 to 26 inch street. You can see with their outriggers, they're 18 feet apart. As far as the code, and this is really the key diagram here, you've got that Brookdale's parking lot is locked behind a barricade. It's not a fire access route. According to the fire code, you've got to have two separate and approved fire access roads regardless of whether they're sprinkled. And maybe the minimum's not enough for a shared two-way traffic. You know, maybe that would be okay if it were one-way. If it were limited to one-way, that might be okay, but this is two-way. And you know, as far as what are you going to do about people who are fleeing an emergency and they encounter fire apparatus head-on? You got a dangerous bottleneck here, how much time are you going to need to evacuate more than 383 panicked cars that are trying to leave this situation in case of an emergency? You have discretion in an SUP. This is your role. I understand the staff has to bring forward a proposal, they've got to shave it as close as they possibly can. We're fine, I'm fine with that, that's their job, but it's also your role to apply common sense and you have the discretion, that's what the SUP is about. An SUP is like when your kid says, "Hey, I've done my chores, I've cleaned my room, I've done my homework, can I go to the circus?" And you as a parent, you know that the kid's leaving something out and you say, "Well, I need to sit down and look at the details." It's just like when they gave those neighborhood meetings, being a nerd, they didn't give the site plan to me at that time, they showed pretty pictures. Pretty pictures don't impress me. Just going along with this, I point out about Razor Ranch, when that was approved, there were pretty pictures there too, showed Abercrombie and Fitch, a museum, amphitheater, a performance venue and a mall with premium department stores, but what we got was Walmart, Sam's, WinCo and a bunch of fast food and that's kind of what we see when we look at pretty pictures. Pretty pictures don't form promises that can be enforced and so with that, I thank you very much. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Great. Thank you, Mr. Drake. Any questions? I have actually a couple for you, sir. You had several points about fire access. Yes. There is two points of access. Your concern, it seems like we need to codify the easement first for that to meet your expectations, my understanding that correctly. If you're talking about this second access point here, Brookdale's, well, that's locked for one thing and it's how is Brookdale's parking lot a fire access easement? Has that been approved as a fire access easement? Your concern is making sure that's approved to meet the second easement, correct? If that's approved, that would satisfy the concern there for you? Well, that concern perhaps, but the thing is, I think even more concerning to me is the fact that 24 feet in width and 26 feet in width is the absolute bare minimum for fire access roads. As you can see in the definition up here from the fire code, a fire lane is not necessarily intended for both vehicular traffic other than fire apparatus. And you may need a street around there too. This is too narrow for a street. This counts as an alley according to our criteria manual at 24 feet. This 26 feet is the bare minimum needed for aerial apparatus to get a ladder out there without riggers and be able to get to the top floor in the event of a fire. Right, but you agree that it meets the minimum for fire lane? Oh, no, I don't think it does because I don't think that that was legitimately two points of access. The width of a fire lane, it does meet the minimum requirement. The 24 feet is the minimum requirement assuming that you have appropriate access for your vehicles to get in and out. It's not intended to be a vehicle access point. That's put right out there in the definition of fire lane. I understand. I was just trying to focus on the one point you're making about the width being a concern, but it meets code. The minimum access for aerial apparatus is 26 feet. The minimum fire access width for otherwise is 24 feet. That's what the fire code says. Okay, perfect. The other question I had is, is this the same developer that developed in Razor Ranch? No. Okay. Do you? Okay. I don't know if it's a fair assessment to judge another developer on this project. I don't know if anyone would want that in our industries. I didn't mean to suggest that. All I wanted to say was that what we've seen and what we saw in our neighborhood meetings was a bunch of pretty pictures. Pretty pictures are what sold Razor Ranch. That didn't get us what was promised. My point here is not to compare them to Razor Ranch development per se, but just to say that I'm not satisfied by pretty pictures. That's not enforceable. Did you see the Millennium projects, pretty pictures and Corinth, and then their build out and they compare the two? I've driven past the Millennium and Corinth. Okay. How does it compare to the pictures they presented at their approval? It looks very, very similar, but it's not nearly as constrained in its site, and they've got public streets that go around it. Okay. Great. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Dan Lyons, followed by Ken Gold. Hello, my name is Dan Lyons. I live at 2516 Shiloh Road. I'm in that Southridge neighborhood, which we'll be staring directly at that apartment complex that you all are planning to build. A lot of things have been spoken over here. We've been talking a lot about this 40 foot buffer with trees that we're going to have. If you realize how large 40 foot is, that's about the size of this room right over here. That's not that large of a buffer. The fly-through rendering that we saw was rather disingenuous. It didn't show what the properties beyond the first row of properties is going to see. Every day we leave for work, every day we come home from work, we're going to see that apartment complex. It's going to change the entire character of our neighborhood. It's going to decrease property values. The only good thing about it is it'll give us valid arguments to go back to the appraisal district to argue the valuation of our properties. You need to consider what people who are already living in Den, you have to consider how they feel about these type of things. I mean, I'm quite sure that you all wouldn't want something like this by your homes. I just respectfully request that you basically deny this proposal. You have zoning regulations for a reason. I don't know if that reason had changed, right? You have zoning regulations for a purpose. That's all I have to say. Well, I appreciate it, Mr. Lyons. Thanks for being here. Any questions? Next is Ken Gold, followed by Russell Black. If you could just state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes. All right. Can I get the Skycam to work, please, ma'am? My name is Ken Gold. I live at 2512 Natchez Trace. My back fence is that eight-foot wooden fence they're supposed to be providing. I already built it for them. This is from in your backup, this is exhibit eight, the conceptual elevation. I just put the one piece of it. This is me standing in my backyard. This is the apartment house. You can see, obviously, I can see it except for this little thin buffer of trees, which might block some of it, but not so much in the winter. That's the main point I want to say there. This is also from the backup. This is exhibit six, the proposed site plan. Again, you've talked about this access over here. Part of the reason this is not going to connect with Bucky's anytime soon is because you've got an ESA down here and the riparian areas right there. What this all used to be is a great big cross timbers upland habitat, which in your backup, this is the black and white picture. This was at one time, all of this area here was all cross timbers. We've whittled it down, but I consider that just because this area is only 7.6 acres and they're claiming it can't be designated as cross timbers upland habitat because it's less than 10, if you include this part, which was originally part of it, and this part over here that's Bucky's in the ESA, this is all one big habitat. I think you need to consider carefully whether or not this project is worthwhile enough to disrupt this habitat. The main problem, though, right before you is that it's too tall. I'm really not interested in looking out and seeing them. I'm looking at them looking back at me. I'll try to go as fast as I can here. I've got probably more than four minutes' worth. The target demographic, as I said, is professional business people. Maybe that'll hold, maybe not, but you can't hold them to it. The fire code comments that were made earlier, I think the minimum of the two access points without a shared access easement, there's nothing to keep that second access in the existing agreement. There's been nothing I've seen in writing of any kind of agreement with Brookdale. I think that's a key criteria that you need to have before you approve anything. And then the Bucky side, I think you need to make sure that does not connect. A transportation impact analysis, they're going to be dumping a lot of people onto that interstate and it's going to all end up at breaker, and that's a nightmare at certain times of the day. I've already estimated 1,274 weekday trips added to that area, and 79 to 100 a.m. and p.m. peak time vehicle trips. I think you're required or you should be doing an impact analysis if it's over a thousand vehicles. I haven't seen that one was done. I would like to know what really the numbers are or if these are just numbers that the developer has come up with. I think the developer must demonstrate that he will minimally impact the surrounding area rather than just say he's going to. I think the proposed increase in height will cause additional negative impacts on the neighborhood, and a significant amount of buffering is not 65 feet of trees left. That's not a significant amount of buffering when you have seven and a half acres of trees to start with. Again, back on the cross timbers upland habitat, that's a unique forest type, heavily treed. The existing tree canopy is quite impressive. In the spring, the city staff recommended a full tree survey. I have not seen any evidence that that was done. It was not in the backup provided to you today. There are a lot of heritage and quality trees there. All trees over six inches in diameter are supposed to be protected. In the southeast is a retention pond to catch all the storm drain off, drain runoff that's going to be generated by all the concrete. It's going to go somewhere. It's going into that pond. And the reason that pond is on that southeast side is because that's where the ESA is, on Buckeye's northwest side. That's all one related community of trees and wildlife. I think it has significant ecological value that the special permit needed for this is not justified by just another apartment house in Denton. There's a critical linkage between that piece of property and that ESA for wildlife. It's a wildlife corridor, it enables movement, provides shelter and cover for the animals, and provides food and proper amounts to sustain that wildlife. If that's bulldozed and concrete's put in there, those animals are going to come into my neighborhood. They got no place else to go. If you look at the map, there's no more connectivity on that side of town. On that side of Lilliam Miller or that side of 35, that's all been basically cut into pieces and now they're all confined right there. You're fixing to run them somewhere. They're going somewhere. They're coming into my neighborhood, at least at first. I never really saw any copies of what's called the viewshed analysis by the city. All I've seen was that conceptual elevation. I assume that was the developers. I don't know if there is an official city viewshed analysis of what is actually going to be seen from the backyards or from the apartment house back into the backyards, but it's going to affect property values. It's going to affect the neighborhood adversely. There's no way to deny it. It's going to affect that whole piece of the world because that environment there that the cross timbers upland habitat protects right now just by neglect is going to change fundamentally and that's going to adversely affect not just the environment but my house. Thank you. Mr. Gold, I have a couple of questions for you. I appreciate your insight. You seem well informed and certainly appreciate that. You said the 65 foot buffer was not wide enough. As discussed earlier, Commissioner Smith brought it up to the applicant. If we deny the SUP, the right to build will remove potentially that buffer from 65 feet down to 20 feet. Is that preferred over the 65 foot if given the height comes down? That's not really a choice. There is no proposal for a three story or larger plant. That's just a speculative possibility. I'm not sure it makes economic sense for them to do it that way. I don't know that there is any way that they would do it. I've not seen any plans or any proposals. So that's not really a dichotomy here. I don't know what would happen. I would have to see. Fair. You would rather run that risk than support this project though, correct? It's got the zoning for a lot of things to go in there. But for some reason, they have not happened. So my risk tolerance is pretty high on that. Perfect. And then you're a former fireman, correct? Yes. Do you have any issue with the fire lane width or the ability for apparatus to service that building? As Mr. Drake was saying, that's the minimum. When you operate at the minimum, you're likely to have a little problem on down the road. I would like to see it wider because you're going to have cars going alongside the apparatus with its outriggers and the ladder up as people continue to evacuate. Yeah, wider is better. Yes, that is the bare absolute minimum. It's technically legal. Yeah. A trust code provides the firefighters enough ability to work and I think there's some confident ones in Denton. That being said, in your experience on apartment fires, a lot of cars leaving the apartment when the fire is on or they walk out of the building? Well, initially, they walk to their car. They walk to the car and then drive out of the structured parking garage? If they can. Sometimes we trap them with hose, they can't leave, but they will if they can. Make sure they can't leave in a car. Well, I mean, they can walk out. Yeah. But yeah, sometimes when we lay a lot of hose, it cuts off big sections of the parking lot. I'm just trying to visualize in the moment of a structure fire, multi-family with a structured garage, engines show up, you got ladders, what the actual traffic flow in that moment is. I've never seen it, so I don't know the actual... It varies, of course, and depends on what time of day. If they're all going to work, the traffic will be much lower trying to go against the incoming fire apparatus. At night, it's going to be a lot more, everybody's at home and if they want to go, they're going to try to get out. Understood. I appreciate your perspective. Christopher Pruitt? Yeah, just real quick. You mentioned that you hadn't seen a tree survey on this plan. Right. I could be wrong on this, but I believe exhibit seven, the proposed landscape plan and tree preservation plan, includes a survey at the tail end. There's a list of tag trees. Is that on the backup that was provided with the agenda? Yeah, and you can find that on the website as well. Okay. I just didn't find it. Sure. I just didn't see it. Okay. I'll look for it now. Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't see any other questions. Thank you. Next is Russell Black and then Eric Robertson. Do you need to state your name and address? You have four minutes. Sure. My name's Russell Black. I live at 2304 Shenandoah Trail. I'm right there just south of Natchez Trace. I'm obviously concerned about any development that's happening around my subdivision, but no, I'm not right there with some of the homeowners that have spoken before. One of the speakers, the owner representative said something to the effect of if we don't build it to 60 feet, then we're going to be forced to build at 40 feet and then cut out the walking trail and the buffer between the Southridge community and the apartment complex. Is that, are those our only two choices? Let them build a 60 foot structure or a 40 foot eyesore. Has the number of units already been approved? I just recently got pulled into this. I had no real idea that this was happening. It sounds like it's already been sold. They own the property and they can build what? Within a number of units or within, I mean, have they gotten an approved design? No, not at all. So they can't just say, okay, well, then we're just going to cut into that space. They could propose that, but we can say no, right? It depends. There is by right ability to build. So they have, there are several use cases in that zoning in which it wouldn't come back to P&Z. It would not come to council. They could just go file a plat and build. That's an alternative to the discussion we're having tonight. The discussion we're having tonight is specifically for them to raise the height of the structure that they're proposing to build. And then this body is recommending either an approval or a denial to city council. For the increase in height. That's correct. The width of that buffer though is up to their discretion within what, 20 feet? Is that what it sounded like? If we say no, then they can come back and not have to come back here to get approval for what width of buffer and what level of care for the people behind them. Obviously they want to do what's right for them and somewhat for us, but they're more concerned about themselves. If they are already approved to build a structure and only put in a 20 foot buffer between us and my neighbors, then yeah, I'll take the 60 feet, but you're giving me no choice. It's not a legitimate choice, but that's what I don't understand. Is that really what it is? So there's no way this commission would know the alternative to Mr. Gold's point. If this is denied, there's not a plan B that they've filed with the city that this is what they're doing. But they don't have to file if it's within a certain width, right? And what is that width? Do we know what that width is? So Haley, can you just clarify? It's that buffer that I care about. Just the setback? Sure, the minimum buffer width required by code between multifamily and single family is 10 feet. 10 feet. Correct. They would have some angled building if they come to 10 feet, though, because of the setback, is that correct? Correct. If they brought the building within 50 feet of the single family zoning, they would have a maximum height of 40 feet for that first 50 feet into their property. And then above that, they could go beyond 40 with an S&P. So they potentially could bring 40 feet to 10 feet of the property line. Correct. Yup. That's what we don't know if they would do or not. I mean, they could still do that now, right? Correct. I mean, I don't want to give them any ideas, but ... That is a possibility, and I think that's the root of this discussion. The law has given me no real ability to say no against this, because other than the points that Mr. Drake has brought up, the idea of saying, "Okay, well, we're going to say no to them and have a 40-foot-high building that's going to encroach and be very visible from the backyards," and no privacy, and you've got the pools there. If you put yourself in those people's position, and given the law, given the constraints that they have right now, there really is no real choice, I think. Thanks for clarifying for me. I didn't understand all of the nuances, and I'm not happy with any of it, but ... Understood. I appreciate you being here. The next individual to speak is Eric Robertson, and I need you to state your name and address for the record. You have four minutes. Good evening, everyone. My name's Eric Robertson. I'm at 2501 Shiloh Road. Just one of the first points, I know much has already been said, but I just wanted to stress that I think this special use permit is actually incompatible with the surrounding area. We've talked about the elderly care, the nursing home that's right behind us. There is no other multi-story dwelling building nearest, and so that in and of itself is incompatible with the current area where we're at. Secondly on that, they talked about renting to professionals, things like that. And there's nothing in their agreement or by law or anything that binds them to that. They could get four college kids running out of two-bedroom, and you'd have a frat party up on the top floor, right outside your backyard. Secondly on that, I wanted to say that they did mention intention on using the fire, addressing the fire access ... What do you call it? I'm sorry. Just a moment. ... access points for fire, and they mentioned using the Bucky's parking lot, but I don't know if you guys know that we have a lot of elderly retired people in nursing home at the Brookdale facility right behind us, and if you use that as an access point for any kind of an egress, people are going to get hurt, and that's somebody's mother or grandmother. Somebody there is going to get hurt when you start dumping 400 of your closest friends in their backyard, and they have a difficult time walking. Those residents routinely go around the Brookdale facility to get their exercise, and now you're going to put that at risk with 400 people doing a possible egress. I work for a major airline. Every time we have an egress, somebody gets hurt. Just know that. The other thing we talked about were homeless camps. I'm concerned about them doing their due diligence, keeping that clean. I think enough's been said about that. The noise, we had an issue with Bucky's coming in. Bucky's stressed that they would take care of the noise, mitigate it. I can tell you after the fact, we hear a lot more noise, twice as much noise as we ever did before. It's to the point where I'm in my patio and I can't even have a conversation because of the noise, and now you're going to add something on this side of the property, which is going to further that. Having people, 234 families, and having them being able to look into your backyard, and then having that area where they can just congregate right outside the boundary area, it's going to further increase the noise. Furthermore, I've lived in the area for 22 years since 1999, bought it. It's been a great place to raise four kids. It's been quiet. It's been a very great neighborhood. You're going to change the property value of our neighborhood by doing this. Furthermore, if I wanted to go see animals, I would go to the zoo. Now we're bringing the zoo to us with the form of a dog park on the side of Brookdale. I'm quite sure the elderly residents don't want a dog park right in their backyard. I'm going to just say enough about that. That's all I have. I appreciate your consideration. I appreciate you being here. I don't see any questions. Thank you. Stuart, do we still have individuals waiting on the phone to speak? Yes, sir, I can send them in now. Good evening. You're with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak. Good evening. You're with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you could just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak. Hi. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm trying to mute this here. I'm sorry. This is Jeffrey Roman. I'm also here with my wife, Kristen. We live at 2420 Natchez Trace. We're one of the properties that's right up behind this new development. I told the gentleman on the phone I was going to be rather quick because a lot of really good points have been made here. I don't see any point going back over every one of them. One thing that I would like to point out is that the gentleman, the developer here had mentioned and showed some income levels. And just to echo what I heard just a few minutes ago, $12 an hour part-time, 32 hours a week, turns out to just shy of $20,000. And one of the lower thresholds that they had on there was $50,000. So I don't see it very hard to get someone right out of high school or a part-time college age couple of kids that are going to be able to get into one of these units. And I don't see any way that they're going to be able to stereotype exactly who rents and who doesn't rent. So while it sounded good that it's going to be professionals and medical personnel that are living here, there's going to be no way for them to stereotype that. The other thing that one of the renderings I don't think showed is that there are a number of two-story houses that are along the fence line. And every rendering that we saw only showed one-story houses. And when you start getting into a 60-foot building and now we've got a second story that looks out, which happens to be my kids' bedrooms and their playroom upstairs, it poses an even more of a noise and visual pollution to where we live. I'm also just going to say that we've lived in this neighborhood for about seven years now. The lady that lived next to us lived here. She built her house here and it said that there have been numerous ideas planned here in the past and that none of them ever worked. So I'm just questioning, those of you that are going to end up voting on this tonight, I realize that this looks different and while the renderings look very, very nice on this, I'm questioning as to why is it that maybe dozens of people have come before this particular company and never been able to make it work and now all of a sudden we've got something, they seem to have this magical, it's going to make this plan and this piece of property work. I'd also like to add in here that, you know, if we lived over close into the razor ranch area, you know, where there's a bunch of apartments that are going up right now, it would be one thing. There aren't really houses that are being built right next to that, but the people that have bought and live in this neighborhood, bought in here thinking that, I mean, this is a huge green space behind our property. There's not going to be anything that's ever developed here. Property values are going to be good and they've been very good, again, in the last couple of years. By putting something here, if this was one of you, the six of you that are voting, if this was your property that was backing up to this and someone was to tell you there was a four-story apartment complex going up, you would hope that those that are voting on your behalf would vote no, just for the simple fact of the noise pollution, the visual pollution, the possible crime that may come with an apartment complex and then just also the decreased property values. While I know the decreased property values don't affect the income that this particular developer's going to have, I just ask you to take that into consideration. And then another point that I just want to echo is there really aren't any multifamily housing units that are in the Southridge area. I realize we're not in the old part of Southridge because Southridge is a rather historic area in Denton and to wedge basically the only four-story building in this tiny little plot of land right here, while the law and the code and everything may say that it's okay. Just because the law says it's correct and the code says it's correct doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. So I would just ask you to take that in consideration when you vote this evening. And that's all I have. I appreciate that, Mr. Roman. Thank you for calling. Thank you. Stuart, can you send the next one through? Good evening. You're with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you could just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak. And that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Roman. Thank you for calling. You can begin already. Hello? Hello, you're with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak. Thank you. My name is Ann Berry. I'm at 2500 Natchez Trace. My property backs directly to the proposed development. There have been a lot of very excellent points made. And I don't want to take up any more of your evening reiterating those. One in particular that I don't feel has been really addressed enough is the fact that this heavy tree canopy is largely, if not 100%, made up of deciduous trees. So while all the beautiful renderings that show what I believe is somewhat inaccurate viewpoint of what the visual is going to be from these residents in the apartment into our backyard and into our homes. I have a two story home with two stories of uncovered windows. And then also my view into their apartments. Five months of the year, we are not full of leaves back there. I know there's a tremendous difference to the noise pollution in my backyard just from the existing retail and highway during the time of year that I have leaves versus when I don't. These buffer out a lot of that noise. So if this proposal were to move forward with this special use permit that literally doesn't guarantee us anything except that this building is going to be 20 feet taller than what it's currently zoned for, that's going to dramatically decrease our quality of life. I believe our safety will be at risk because we don't know what type of residents will be moving there. I also believe that there's a huge safety concern for the residents of this development. There's no safe turn onto the I-35 access road from there for the -- there were 371 parking spaces listed. So if there's 371 cars pulling out onto this access road, which is already much more high volume than it was before because the on-ramp to I-35 is now pushed beyond the brink or buckies stoplight. So that forces a much higher volume of traffic through there. And this is an incredibly unsafe way for the residents of this new community to come and go from this new residents. >> Thank you very much for calling in. Stuart, can we pass the next one through? >> Yes, I will pass him through right now. >> Good evening, you're with the planning and zoning commission. If you could state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes to speak. >> Nathan, can you hear me? >> We can. >> Okay. Awesome. Well, there are six points the planning and zoning commission shall consider to approve the permit that the developers are requesting. I want to point out to you that this proposal is directly opposed to at least two of the six. The first one mentions that the proposal has to be compatible with the surrounding area. And this proposal is not compatible with our surrounding area, with our backyard. Particularly related to the height, my understanding it's going to be around the 60 foot building. And I just want to point out that there actually is a retaining wall in our backyard about four to five foot high, and the property is located on a hill in relation to our backyard. So to me, you know, 60 foot turns into 65, 66, 67, you know, really quick. And so it will really be -- really be concerned with privacy for our children. We have three little boys. And I know the developer is really felling that the 40 foot of -- of tree line proposed in there is going to block -- block that, but, you know, the trees are not -- the trees in our backyard are not redwoods, they're just not a rainforest back there. You know, they're not -- they're not -- you know, they're not really tall enough to block it, and even if they were, in the winter, you know, all the leaves are gone. So I'm very concerned about the privacy in our backyard, and there will likely be people in the department complex looking straight down if it was that high. The second one that I believe -- the second point that I believe that this is opposed to is related to impacts associated with access, traffic, emergency services, utilities, parking revenues, areas, noise, glare, and odor. You know, I was going to mention that this -- this is backing up right there to 35, right there -- 35 Service Road, and that intersection at Brinker at rush hour and at 8 o'clock in the morning, I drive it every day, drive my kids off, it's backed up quite a bit. Even I've seen it backed up so far as to it backing up all the way onto the freeway. That exit on the freeway right there to exit to go to the Buc-Eats. So is there any way the committee here could consider, you know, what would -- or traffic study, what would that do to that intersection traffic-wise, and would that affect the freeway, the entrance to the freeway -- or sorry, the exit from the freeway there, exiting to get off to Buc-Eats? And also, too, in our neighborhood, that -- to go to Dallas, you know, I think a lot of -- a lot of people work down there in Dallas and further south, and we have to wait at that Brinker light. So there would be way more traffic there and a lot -- a lot of congestion. Okay. Another point I was going to mention is, you know, the developer, again, is really selling that they're really going to really promote this to millennial and, you know, a more -- more mature group, and I appreciate the developer's aspiration and them trying to do that. However, I work at -- I work at UNT, and I'm quite familiar with all the apartment complexes in the surrounding area. I'm pretty sure I've been to all of them at least once or twice, and I just -- I'm not so sure that you're really going to be able to risk it, you know, college students not living there. To me, that doesn't seem that doable. You know, you have -- you had mentioned -- I think they mentioned their rent was $11.50 for one bedroom, if I remember right. You know, one bedroom close to UNT, I think, is $1,900 right now, maybe a little more. So it's very likely that college students will predominantly occupy this complex. And with college students, comes the noise, comes the party -- partying, and this would be a safety concern for my three children who play a lot in the backyard with the noise and partying. You know, you know, just drug -- drug use, alcohol, all the things that take place. And as many of you know, unfortunately, there have even been student -- apartment complexes in the past few years, I think those in this meeting are aware of that. And we're concerned for the safety of our children with that kind of atmosphere kind of in our backyard. Also too, I know this is small, but anyway, smoke, you know, there's a lot of wind blowing and, you know, I think a lot of the people will probably be smoking cigarettes or making, you know, doing different kinds of things. So we're also concerned of that blowing into our -- into our house. Yeah, that's pretty much all I have. Thank you for your time. >> Well, I certainly appreciate you taking time and waiting on hold so patiently to provide us your perspective. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Stuart, is there any other callers? >> That was our final caller. >> Perfect. We did have a couple additional cards that didn't wish to speak, but I want to read them to the record. Misty Gold is opposed, Maureen Froshauer is opposed, Terry Froshauer is opposed, Bernice Benford is opposed. We also had nine comments emailed to all the commissioners the past couple of days and all nine were opposed as well. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. At this time, we're going to turn it over to Dias to hopefully follow up on some questions for staff and the applicant. >> Thank you, Chair. Mr. Rivera, may I ask you a couple of questions real quick? And Mr. Zao. Zao, correct? Right. I have a question for you as well. The fencing around the property, there's fencing completely enclosing the entire property, is that correct? >> Correct. >> So the concerns about the possible transient population of those experiencing homelessness, setting up camp in that buffer area, it will be a fully enclosed and sealed property itself, so there's not walkways going through the property, there's no open areas unless they were to swim through the detention pond or something like that? >> So the fencing, you know, there's fencing along the south line, and that is an eight-foot fence there that we're proposing. And then along the west line is a, I believe that is a six-foot metal fence there. So those two boundaries will be fenced. We actually are not proposing a fence along the north. There is a grade change on that north fire lane behind the retail. That makes it a little bit difficult to get down to our fire lane over here, especially in this area where it's a low spot, but there is, there's, I believe there's no fencing there. There might be a chain link on their side. I'd have to look at our survey. >> It still would separate, if there was concerns about there possibly being a transient population, it would still separate the neighborhood from, if there was population there, but the population is already back there as it is, and there's, yeah, okay, understood. Thank you for that one. I think that answers my question on that. The Brookdale agreement, with the fire lane, emergency access only there, you speak to, is there an official agreement with Brookdale on that in paper somewhere? >> So they have a fire lane on their site plan that goes around their building. And it's funny that some of it is built on this property, actually encroached onto this property with a portion of their fire lane. We have correspondence and calls with them that we've documented that say that the Brookdale and their attorneys are okay with access provided with these conditions. And some of those conditions are some monetary things that William and his team would have to provide for in order to get the easement. >> City staff, can I ask you a question about that? And no offense, Mr. Rivera, but conversations, verbal agreements, written correspondence don't sound like a contract to me. Do we have to have any improvement for that, for this to be able to truly stand as an emergency access piece of that is, can you kind of shed light on what would really need to be constituted as a contract, be able to say that that can be counted in the ideal of the fire code, that that is an emergency access only, and the right of way to go through another property, owner's property, to get access to that property? >> Sure. At this point in time, what's attached to this SUP would be a conceptual plan that reflects the intent to have that second point of access. The fire marshal did review that plan. They agreed that it meets the minimums of the fire code. So what we would typically expect is when some sort of offsite easement or cross-access agreement is necessary that is provided to staff, fully executed and documented, the filed recorded copies. >> Before preliminary plot. Okay. Got you. Awesome. Awesome. So there is a checkpoint in which that contract would have to be in place for it before it can move forward. The constructing is even done. >> Sure. >> Understood. Mr. Zal, I'll ask you your question, I'll come back to you, Mr. Rivera. The Millennial Crest in Corinth, I know I've seen that property driving down 35, very close to the NCTC campus down there. Any guess at how many North Central Texas college students are in your facility there? Any idea whatsoever? >> Yes. I can tell you it's zero. >> Zero? >> Zero. And to answer one of the callers or the audience question, we actually have a lot of UNT professor faculties, including the county sheriff, they're leaving our project. The reason for that is they like to be quiet, they're enclosed community, and as you know, the currently a lot of people working from home. So the comfortable living unit is very important to the faculty or professionals. We do have, I can share with anybody, we have quite a few UNT faculty drive all the way to Corinth and stay in our property in there. >> Okay. Last question, I think it goes to both of you guys. And this is probably the crux of really, I think, everyone's concerns and what was talked about and pointed to chair and to us as a commission, if in the event that this SUP is not approved, do you still see this property as a viable project that you can still produce the product that you want, Mr. Zao, and underneath the stipulations that engineering can provide within the by right requirements of that zoning? Do you still see that as has been asked by us as a commission that well, there is no plan B out there, do you see there if this is not approved that okay, well, we'll pull out our plan B that we haven't filed the city because there's not a reason to file the city, but you can see that there's still be a product that would still be marketable, that's still be profitable, that could still be done engineering wise, that you would end up building by right with no approval or agreement from their input from the neighborhood surrounding it. >> Let me answer in this question, even today with all the commissioners and the chairman, if we do have your support, our job is not completed. We were recording every day, every input we received tonight, we will continue communication because we still need to go through the council for the final approval. >> Sure. >> And so we are not to be done in there. And answer your question, with the current zoning requirement in this piece of land and with the canopy coverage ratio requirement and the tree preservation requirement in there, this piece of property will be vacant for the foreseeable future. The reason for that is this kind of urban living is providing a compact footprint. If we can do it by right, we won't come through this difficult road to come here asking for everybody. Because we are also aware of no matter what we do, we still need to go through the neighborhood. We need to have their understanding of communication, continue with them in there, and those component has to be there. If you ask me about the current right, based on a right to build it, then we will be, you know, kill all the trees on the site to do it. And in order to comply with the filing, comply with the coverage ratio, it's going to be extremely difficult. And luckily, because we are in an economic booming situation, I think the construction material is going up. At the same time, the market can support a little bit better economic condition. That's why making our product is possible today. Thank you. I hope I answered your question. >> And I'd like to expand on that, because if you look at the Millennium Place Apartments in Corinth, that's six acres, I think there's 228 units, it's four stories, it's surface parked, okay, on six acres. Our area of disturbance of impact is reduced down to about four or so acres here because we're doing the structured garage with the four story. If we looked at it from going down to three stories, we wouldn't be able to do the structured garage, and our footprint would greatly expand, you know, up probably an acre and a half more or so. And I'm just comparing that to our experience at the Millennium One, because it's a very similar kind of compare, they're both four stories, one's structured part, one's surface part, but the footprint of impact is greater on the Corinth piece than this one. I think the retail would go, for sure, would have to go. >> But from an engineering standpoint, and from basically what it sounded like from Mr. Zallen, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm paraphrasing this back, that if it wasn't approved, that yes, there could be a project that would come out. >> There could be a project, it would be a different type of product, it wouldn't have as high quality amenities to it. Because we're offering those internal corridors, directly access into the structured garage for residents, and that would not be possible if we were to lower the building height and stretch it out. >> Obviously not the same quality of product, but there would be a product? >> There could be a product, yes, yes. >> Okay. That's all the questions I have for you, Chair. >> Chairman, may I say, I think I want to present two, from the developer's standpoint of view. Number one, in terms of noisy-wise, I think everybody be aware of if you go through a major highway, there's always a sound barrier. And this building would be a sound barrier for our neighborhood, that's number one. Number two, our new residents on this project, their recreation area is enclosed within the building two, as you can see in the courtyard swimming pool area. So those, quote-unquote, the residents create a new noise, that's not likely. Third, within the building design code, our building cannot exceed the resident. The building code requires our design is a 52 dB for the noise level. So we specifically calculated from the highway, and so for the residents in our south neighborhood here, likely this building will become a sound barrier for the residents in the south. That's a few things I'd like to input in here. Thank you. >> Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Is there anyone? Yes, ma'am. Evita, state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes. >> My name is Lee Lyons, I live at 2516 Shiloh Road. A couple of things that I would like every person in this room to think about, and it just hit me as I sat here. The residents of that nursing home and assisted living, their families have chosen that place for them for the best quality of care that they could get for them, and now we're going to put an emergency access lane with sirens, lights, and all these things going off at all hours of the night. And the other thing, this is the only thing else that I will say, is it is very clear to me as I sit here that no one in the neighborhood is in support of this. You have no one that's written to you, as I understand, as you said that. Everyone is in opposition to this. This is not what we want for our neighborhood, and I'm really excited that so many of our neighbors came out and spent their time and those that called in, because this is obviously very important to us, because this is where we live. We are the property taxpayers that are here. Thank you. That's all I'll say. I have a quick question. In your opinion, do you believe that an apartment would have more emergency calls than an elderly care facility? I believe with 232 multifamily units, that is a likely possibility. I don't know. I don't work in the health care field, so I can't answer that from a professional standpoint, but I think it's a concern, particularly late at night, more of police type calls for late night parties, things that happen, I think that's a higher risk in an apartment community. I agree. They would go in the front for police, and my grandmother's a good Sam, and I know she's awakened all the time for emergency calls at that elderly facility. I just think it's something to think about. I agree. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Do you just state your name and address for the record? Hi. I'm Leah Robertson, 2501 Shiloh Road. I live right below the T on the map there, and we've been there 22 years, 21, 22 years. Anyways, my concern is just the light coming through. When Buc-E's came in, we were told they were going to prevent light disrupting us as much as possible, but the way our neighborhood is sloped, we still see Buc-E's. It's just the nature of the business. You've got to have the lights for the safety of Buc-E's, and so we get all that light pollution, and right there, for their safety, you've got to have lights out there, and when the trees don't have leaves in the wintertime, you're going to have all that light coming in our back windows, and that's a concern, because it's just the noise. We get so much noise from ... When they cleared Buc-E's, our noise level went up. It's twice as loud. We sleep with a noise maker, so I can't imagine what that's going to do for us. It's just not going to be good. I hate that, because we're a real sought after neighborhood. People love our neighborhood, because it's always been tucked away, and it makes it desirable. It's going to lose that, so thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, with that, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm going to kick off questions real fast, but I've been taking as many notes as possible. Some of the outstanding questions that I'd like to hopefully clear up for some of the individuals who ask. Haley, you might have this first answer of what triggers a traffic study, if there was one done, or if there will be one done. Sure, so there are standard thresholds in the code for when a TIA is required. However, there's also discretionary approval by the city engineer under certain circumstances. In this instance, it was our city engineer's determination that because TxDOT has made all of the improvements that could have possibly been requested of this applicant, that there was no need for a TIA. There's already plans for future improvements by TxDOT and the city at the Brinker Road intersection, so there was nothing additional that that study would help us learn about what needs to be done in this area. When it comes to traffic settings for multifamily, are those traffic studies based on units or parking spots? It is based on the number of units. Okay, thank you. The only other note that I had, and I'll make sure other commissioners have a chance, is Mr. Benford said he was confused about building dimensions. Can someone just jot down the square footprint and length and width of the building for Mr. Benford? Sure, and just for the record, I believe the footprint is just over 75,000 square feet, an actual footprint on the ground. Gotcha. Thank you very much. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Haley, just to piggyback on that question with regard to a TIA, is road impact the only reason that we would want a TIA done? Is there no other knowledge gained that the city would want to gain? Sure. So a TIA is typically done for the purpose of learning what sorts of perimeter street improvements may be required, what sort of intersection improvements may be needed in an area to offset the impacts of a particular development. Right, and in this case, there are none because all the improvements... And in this case, there were not identified that we could possibly need them to analyze. Sure. My question is, is there not anything else that we're going for as a city? Is that literally the only reason we do a TIA? Correct. That is typically all we look for in a TIA. Interesting. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? If not, Chair will entertain a motion. No takers. Commissioner Smith. Well, Mr. Binford, you've got to get your answer to your question. Have we... You don't have to come up here. I'm sorry. I'm just using you as an example, Mr. Binford. Sorry for the walk down. Okay. Yes, we've made up our minds, and I think it's important to note that no, as commission, it's impossible to make up our minds until we hear public comment. And I think that there is a great outpouring of public comment that I think has brought up some really important pieces that are, I think, vital for us to consider. But I think the piece that was the most vital point to consider was the question that I asked of the applicant, that could a product be put here if this was not approved? It sounded like for Mr. Zao, and the applicant, you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like for Mr. Zao said that because of construction cost that it probably wouldn't be feasible. And then Mrs. Rivera said that it could be, there could be a project, not that there more than likely would be a project. And so unless there is some correction that can be made from the applicant on that piece, I'm going to make a motion to deny. A lot of that was even after a well-written speech that I had down here about my reason why I was going to make a motion to approve. But it's become clearly evident that if we voted to deny this, if the applicant had a backup plan to build by right, that it would be worse for the neighborhood. And therefore, we would need to approve this because it would protect you and your neighborhood. But it doesn't seem like if we deny this that necessarily there would be a project that would be coming to fruition. Now being this is the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council could hear this differently but the applicant can still approve this. But from where I stand on the commission, I don't see how we would be protecting the neighborhood by any means and that there would be maybe a project by right that would come in and be built to make a change to the neighborhood. And if there is, then that is the risk that can be run and the product that can be built. So that is my motion. We have a first for denial, Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I will second and I will say a few words if I could, please. Absolutely. Thank you, everyone, for coming out and sharing your concerns. The development looks lovely. It really, really does. I appreciate the presentation by the applicant. I appreciate the detailed information from staff. But I'm going to stick with the request before us, and that's the height increase. And for me, the height is incompatible with the area. And I think we have the SUP tool in place here over 40 feet for area protection. I question this lot being considered I-35 corridor. It's recessed. It's almost hidden away. It really is more part of the residential feel off Lillian Miller, where it's located. I understand multifamily can be built here by right. I don't know if it will be feasible or not without the height increase. But at least it would probably be less units. I think we should use the one tool we have here in our development code in this regard. I think it's a good tool to have. There's been some questionable developments in this area, in my opinion. And it has negatively impacted property owners there. I consider this request, this height increase request, would be another negative impact. And that is why I will second to deny. Thank you, Mr. Ellis. We have a first and a second to deny discussion. Commissioner Pruitt. Yeah. You know, this is one of those where there's things on both sides, right? I really think the applicant has gone over and above to try to figure out how to develop this site in a way that is most sensitive to the neighborhood, as well as conforms to our code, to our treaty requirements, all the things that this body and council has tried to put in place over the last two or three years and done so. You know, I ran some numbers, and with the grade differential, this project with the 60-foot SUP would be roughly a 34 to 35-degree angle from a rear property line, right? Whereas a project without an SUP built at 50 feet back would be about a 50-degree upward angle, and one at 20 feet back that's shorter would be a 63-degree angle, okay? So I guess the reason to calculate those numbers is just to point out that while a closer building would be shorter, it would actually appear higher in the horizon, okay? So would it develop, I don't know. But I also know that when we have a shortage of housing in the city and we have a developer who wants to develop homes, making that harder makes housing more expensive over the rest of the city. So that's an effect. So you know, I don't think I'm going to be supporting the denial. It seems like anything that is likely to happen in the future would be worse for the neighborhood to me. I'm going to make a superseding motion over Commissioner Smith, but before that, to see if we can table this item, I'm not going to be here when it comes back. So I get the opportunity to speak my mind and my thoughts on this item, but if the motion to table passes, I will not actually have an actionable vote on this, which might please some of you. So to Commissioner Smith's point, he had a lot of similar points that I did. Mr. Benford asked if we would listen and if we wouldn't make up our mind prematurely. And I think I can honestly tell you the last six years I've tried to do that with every single item. Sometimes I came in with bias and my mind was changed, but often my intent was to come in here and consider a lot of components to a project. I think we as a commission have the responsibility to look at the project on its own merits from our own perspective, our own neighborhood bias. We have an obligation to listen to staff's recommendations, reports, their expertise on the project, and we have an obligation to listen to the citizens on every project. And so I think all those are valuable and perhaps none weightier than the other. But with that, as I took notes and listened to each of you and also examined the project myself, there's a lot of things that I considered on this. Some of that is brought up about traffic and cars, about 371 or whatever number was going to be put on I-35. When in reality, I don't want to be dogmatic about this, but I don't know any apartment in the City of Denton that parks full capacity on parking. I've actually brought up a change in parking requirements for apartments to reduce the requirements. In all reality, in looking at some studies, it looks like most apartments park one-to-one on units. So it's a little over 200 cars going on to one of the biggest interstates in our nation. And so as I think through that, it doesn't give me a lot of hesitation or heartburn to put 200 cars dumping right onto a freeway. Brinker would have to be addressed, sure, but I don't think that's the developer's necessary problem if we can't get a light work on a text-out road. I also consider many of you all brought up property value. And I looked at, and Keller Williams put this out and says, "The average cost of a single-family residential home was actually highest in communities with apartments in comparison to neighborhoods with only single-family homes. In addition, the study also noted in respect to earnings, among neighborhoods, higher household earnings were associated with a higher share of apartment buildings." So I don't have the evidence to suggest, especially in this condition in the real estate market, that this is going to negatively impact any of the property values. And when you all started bringing that up, I thought, oh, they're going to bring up it's going to increase their property taxes, but conversely, you were fearful of it diminishing property taxes. I don't think that to be the case, but time will tell. Another item was not in my backyard, which I totally get. I think it's the reason you're here. It's your backyard. But I can also tell you that the closest road to my house, one of the closest roads to my house is Ryan Road. And I voted to approve the first multi-family development, I believe, in South District 4, but especially on Ryan Road, I voted for that, although it's one of the major streets that I travel on multiple times a day. So I'm trying my best, even when it is not literally in my backyard like some, but very close to my home, to understand the economics and what the city needs. To that point, I'm not sure if any of you all have looked at the housing market or the apartment market in Denton, but a product at this price point simply doesn't exist. It's hard to buy a home right now at this price point, nearly impossible, and people at this price point are moving to Frisco, Plano, Allen, because they have the discretionary income to spend this, but they can't afford a home in Denton, but they don't want to go into the apartment quality that we currently have. This product, both in quality, price point, access, simply does not exist in our city. And I understand that we've had 30, 35 members of the community speaking out against it. What I haven't heard is the 237 people that potentially can move to our city with high discretionary income that could support our city. I don't know how they feel about this project. And so that's one of the other things I needed to consider in thinking about this. There's also obviously the issue about the height, and I don't know what would happen to the project if it doesn't go through. I don't know if there's a plan B or not. It seemed like there was a difference of opinions on your own team about that. You might want to square that one away. But at the same time, in thinking about the need for the product and the alternative, we heard some individuals worry about the campers on the site. Well, as I think through that, who's monitoring any of the campers right now? They had looked like a ton of cleanup from people that are currently right there, so it seems like any project that could go through might actually mitigate some of the safety issues that might be prevailing today worse than any project going in there. There's other items to consider, like sound, how this aligns to the future land use map of our city. There's a lot of things in this. But the way I see it, in my perspective, this development is sorely needed for the town, and I'm so sorry that it happens to be in the backyard. But again, given all of the components, the things that I have to contemplate, my personal opinion would be in support of this project. I appreciate you listening to my soliloquy. Again, I don't have a vote in this because I'm motioning to table this to a date certain of September 22nd. >> Commissioner Smith. >> I'll second. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Can I ask why? >> This was a request of the applicant so they could potentially have more conversations and come back with a different plan. >> With the promise to have further discussion in the neighborhood? Or because there was a deny vote? >> Can I have a comment on that? >> Yep. So it seems like they wanted to bring back maybe options. And Mr. Rivera, can you maybe provide context of the request? >> Thank you, Chairman. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, thank you. As I mentioned earlier, our work is not completed. We continue to want to be a sensitive neighbor. And again, it's not like we're talking about our product is definitely the best product. But we want to be a good product. We want to be a good neighbor. If we cannot do this project in this high density, I think it will be significantly impact the amenity we can offer to attracting the labor force, as Chairman just mentioned, to stay in the city of Denton. Another thing about the traffic situation. I personally am sitting on the regional transportation council member. I'm representing the city of Dallas. There is highway 35, phase two expansion from 635 all the way to Denton. >> Mr. Town, I appreciate the input on the traffic. Really just want to know the context for the request for the table and not necessarily on the outstanding points of this evening. >> Yeah, we'd like to have a continued opportunity to discuss with the neighborhood in there. And we went through two times the homeowner association. And with receiving the notice yesterday and today, we feel like we didn't do a good job in that aspect in there. So, we'd like to have a further opportunity to communicate with our neighbors and see what we can providing a solution about their concerns in there. >> So, if we are to pass a table, you are going to host another neighborhood meeting. Do I understand that correctly? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. >> To Mr. Smith. >> More than anything else, I wanted to open up for you guys to be able to expand upon what items you think you heard tonight that you could address in that neighborhood meeting that might make a difference to those that are here in the room. Maybe even warrant the need for a table. >> Yeah, I think first of all, I want to say we as a developer, what we have promised Haiti to do, we only have three or 5% deviation. We cannot deviate from that part of it. Secondly, about the trees, the visual issue, we can provide insert more trees in the void area. That's what we can do. But as far as there are so many component, for instance, the fence, that's what we proposed. Those still need to go through the neighborhood, ask them their blessing about this. Because that's what I try to say, our work is not completed. We still need to continually have a communication with them. And that's our intention, this work has to be completed. So I'm not in any way saying today we're just gonna walk away or anything like that, it's not. And this is a continued work with the neighborhood in there. As I said in the very beginning, I was instructing our team in there is let's address whatever our neighbors concerned. I am a homeowner too. And I understanding the sentimental component of this stuff in there. So we're gonna do as much as we can to mitigate the situation. Secondly, if they allow us, we can go into improving the window setting, everything like that, to mitigating their concern. And truly, we are doing from our scientific way, we can visualize the potential we cannot projecting when the winter time which trees. And we have a tree survey showing certain trees are evergreen, certain trees are not a good tree. So those are component we can insert or planting the new trees in the void area or even the homeowner allows within planning in their backyard if they allow us to do that. Those are the component we it's in our consideration. But it's again, that's what I mentioned, it's a conversation, continued conversation with our neighborhood to continue to talk about this in there. >> And furthermore with continued outreach to the neighbors, which is important, like William saying for fencing and landscaping and other impacts. While I believe it's feasible to fit 234 units on this property. I wanna analyze that plan B, like what that would really look like. But William and I have to have a discussion, would that even work? We took out the retail, if we took out some amenities. Does this even work for him and his partners on the property? So I wanted to take some time to really drill down into that. >> Yeah, and I think that's the reason why I would support a table, even though I was the one that made the motion for denial on this. Is that the risk that I run in making a motion to deny and it possibly passing on this commission and the council agreeing with us on that denial. Is that you could step back and you could create a plan B and it could come to it. Because that motion to deny came from my understanding and my expectation from what I heard from you. That a plan B wasn't exactly, didn't sound like totally feasible. And so therefore, it remained vacant. Well, the risk I run then is that you do find it being feasible. You do develop it. And I just screwed over an entire neighborhood. And so I support the table on this because if you present something that is a plan B, that is feasible, that the investor would go through with, if we deny it. Then I understand where the protection comes in on this. But until I know if that's feasible or not, and it seems like right now it's not. >> Right, we need to be looking at further, so I appreciate that input. >> Okay, I understand. Thank you. >> Commissioner Smith, would you be open to a friendly amendment to table to a date indefinite? >> Yes, I would be. >> Okay, Commissioner Smith, I mean, Commissioner Pruitt, sorry. >> Thank you, Chair. You know, I have a hard time delaying things when it comes to projects that could provide housing. I understand that there's perhaps a fear that this would not pass and that then it would delay things even further to go back to the drawing board. I'll just say that we've seen projects come before this body before. And in the process of trying to find more of a amenable solution to the local community, the project has been made worse. So I think I support the project as is. If it comes back, providing fewer housing units and lots of concessions that may impact a few dozen nearby homeowners but will not help future residents of Denton, I would have a harder time supporting that. >> So we have a first and a second to the table indefinitely. Is there any other discussions? Okay, since this is a superseding motion, we'll go ahead and vote for the table to a date indefinite first. That motion carries for two. This will be reposted and re-noticed and be brought back before the Plan and Zoning Commission at another date. I appreciate everyone staying up late and being out here tonight and providing your perspective. With that, we'll move to our last item of the agenda, which is the Plan and Zoning Commission matrix. >> Haley, will you take the floor with any updates? >> Absolutely, so we do have a few updates from City Council last night just to pass along to you all. You may remember the single lot rezoning on Robertson Street that came before you all recently. That was actually remanded back to this body by a council. They're interested in a mixed use neighborhood zoning on that property. So we will be re-noticing that case and bringing it back to you all in the coming weeks. The Denton Commerce Center Zoning and Comp Plan Amendment were both approved. And the prominence rezoning that we recently saw from Shawn Jacobson was also approved by council at last night's meeting. And just to update you, we do have an annexation that has begun just south of Denton Commerce Center. So I expect in the near future you all will see a zoning for the Harris Ranch property as well. But those are all our council updates at this time. >> Fantastic, thanks Haley. Commissioner Pruitt. >> Yeah, just a question. I think there's something on our matrix that's been there for a while, looking at green belt corridors or something of that nature. >> Commissioner Pruitt, just one second. >> I'm sorry. >> If we could have the room cleared for discussions. Mr. Tao, can we take the conversations out of chambers? Can you just move the conversation out of chambers? There's this little, it's okay, it's just hard to hear. I apologize, Commissioner Pruitt, I could not hear you. >> Thank you, Chair. I believe there's an already existing item about green belt corridors on our matrix. I think there's also been discussion in the past about the upland habitat 10 acre limit and where that came from. I'm wondering whether it might make sense to combine those into something to more holistically look at those types of issues. We're seeing more and more requests of these parcels that had a large portion of what used to be a much larger potentially ESA area that's no longer an ESA. I would just appreciate understanding what the rationale is for the current requirements or the current processes in those places to be able to evaluate these projects better. >> Sure, so just a couple of pieces to that. I believe, I don't know the date exactly. In a couple of months though, we had planned to do one of our root camps around sustainability type items. If that's okay, we can put those discussions at that date. There is also a one minute pitch, I believe, on an upcoming council agenda for August 10th related to ESA. So we should keep an eye on that as well and see what happens there. And that may be a discussion that we can bring to this body as well, if council gets any movement on updates related to the ESA code. >> Yeah, that would be great. I think that's appropriate to keep it in that boot camp. Thank you. >> All right, perfect. >> Commissioner McDade. >> Mic on. You mentioned the property on Robertson was coming back before the P&Z. Do you know the reason why? You may have said it, but I couldn't hear you. >> Sure, so the council, I would say a handful of members of council were interested in that property having a mixed use zoning instead of strictly residential. So they voted, I believe it was a four two or five two vote to send that back to P&Z for you all to consider mixed use neighborhood zoning instead of residential six. So. >> All right, thank you. >> Anyone else? Well, my final moment's here, guys. I have to thank Haley for giving me the opportunity to go out on a superseding split vote motion. I couldn't have planned it better. Thank you for that. In all seriousness, it's been fun. I've enjoyed my time. I wish you all the best. Vice Chair Ellis, have fun. Don't be too hard on people. But and to the new commissioners, thank you for your sacrifice that you already have committed and however long you commit to it, we appreciate it as a city. Now that I'm just a normal citizen, I really appreciate your service. Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Cole as well. Thank you, staff. You all are awesome. Best of luck to you. Commissioner Ellis. >> Can I just say thank you? It has been a sincere pleasure literally serving with you all these years. So thanks for your service. Thanks for your leadership. You've done quite well and you've made this board better, so thank you much. >> Appreciate that. All right, seeing no other items to discuss, I'll close the meeting at 916. Thank you.