Aug 10, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2016-08-10 5:00 PM

>> Donning commission meeting, the time is 5.05 on August 10th, 2016. We do have a quorum present. The first item of business for this work session is clarification of agenda items for the regular session. So I guess we'll call it 2A? >> Correct. >> Okay, so Cindy Jackson is up to, are there any questions , I guess, about item 2A, about the ADP? >> You can present them if you don't mind. >> Cindy, would you like to make a presentation? Thank you. >> Definitely. >> Thank you. >> Okay, for the record, I am Cindy Jackson, senior planner with the planning department, and I'm here to present to you ADP 16-5. I placed, I gave each of you an updated landscape plan. This landscape plan has corrected tree canopy numbers as well as landscape area. We're here tonight to consider the approval of an alternate development plan, an ADP, for the construction of a 5,947 square foot medical clinic with parking located between the building and the street. Building orientation away from the street and an alternative front landscape buffer. The subject site is located at 4304 Mesa Drive. Here's Mesa right here, and it's a double frontage street site. We've got I-35 frontage road right behind it to the east. There are three, I'm sorry, the site is sown regional center commercial downtown, our CCD. The applicant is requesting three deviations from the Dent on Development Code tonight. The first deviation is with regards to the orientation of the building, section 351313 3A3. The primary orientation of a building shall be towards the street rather than the parking area. The applicant is requesting to orient the building to the south. The reason for this request is to ensure that it will relate to the adjacent property located to the north. This is also one of their clinics right here. There's two buildings, one here and one that extends right here. And this is an extension of their facility. They want to, what they're trying to do is create a campus like atmosphere. And these will be connected through the walkways right here . To mitigate for this, the applicant is proposing a covered walkway with brick columns to facilitate the access of staff and pedestrians towards the side entrance of the building. This is what the building would look like from Mesa Drive. And this is the south side of the building where the entrance is, and you can see right here. These columns, as you see when I show you some site pictures, also relate to the adjacent facility. So they're trying to tie it in a little bit architecturally . The second deviation is with regard to the location of the parking. Section 351313 3C1 requires all parking areas to be located behind the building or on one or both sides of the building. They are requesting to have the parking in front of the building along Mesa Drive. Again, this also relates to the existing site that's adjacent to the north. The applicant states by locating the parking between the building and the street that will aid in, again, the desired campus like environment they're trying to achieve. The last deviation is regard to the landscape buffer due to the alignment of the street with the site. What we have is a tapered landscape buffer. Section 351310C3 of the DDC requires that parking lot shall be separated from the street frontage by a 15 foot landscape area to reduce visual impacts. And that a landscape berm with a maximum of one to four sides slope on both sides shall be designed within that 15 foot landscape buffer to help screen the parking lot. They are unable to present the 15 foot rectangular and they cannot put the berm in because of the drainage of the site. The site will drain to Mesa Drive and putting a berm in would impede the drainage. As mitigation for that, they are providing a landscape buffer that is 19 feet at the south end and 10 feet wide at the north end. The area of that landscape buffer is larger than the area that you would get for regular 15 by whatever the frontage is, landscape buffer. I have the numbers here. I'm sorry, I don't have them, but I can get them for you. In addition, instead of, in lieu of the berm, they are installing a three foot high wrought iron fence with 45 shrubs along Mesa Drive. The open nature of the wrought iron will facilitate the drainage and still provided additional screening for the parking lot. They are also providing additional mitigation. The trees that they are planting all over the site will be four and a half inch caliper trees instead of the required two inch caliper trees. Initially, this will provide a larger canopy for the site. However, once the trees are fully grown, you will achieve the same canopy as if they had put in a two inch tree. They are providing 10% parking lot landscaping. 7% parking lot landscaping is required, so there are 3% above the requirement. They are providing 58% parking lot tree canopy. Only 15% parking lot tree canopy is required, and this is 43% above the parking lot tree canopy that is typically required. The street trees that they are planting along the I-35 frontage road, according to our DDC, only three trees would be required along here. However, they're doubling the number of trees to six. And here's some site photos. This is a view of the subject site from Mesa Drive looking towards the northeast. You can see right here, this is the existing health clinic that the applicant owns today. And then this is a view of the site towards Mesa Drive from the northeast. This is the existing clinic, and you can see the columns that I mentioned. They're a little hard to see behind the cars, but they're there. And this is the adjacent site, it's a vacant office building. The application meets all the criteria for approval of ADP as outlined in your staff report. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following condition, which is the proposed development shall substantially comply with the approved site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations. And that concludes my presentation. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. I was reading in there on the east side, which faces the interstate. They're talking about future plans to expand on that side, I believe, and then they'll create parking over there too. Was there something, and I think I read this in there, where that east facing wall was going to allow for another entryway, or was I reading that right? >> Well, if they are able to actually build the second phase, the front of the building will be towards I-35. We don't know if that will even be possible. This line that you see right here, this is the proposed text dot right of way for the widening of I-35. >> Okay. >> And it hasn't been finalized yet. Text dot hasn't finalized that. They haven't indicated what the schedule is for the improvement. So to be honest, we don't know if that phase will ever happen at this point. >> Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Taylor. >> Thank you, Chair. If we could stay on this view, I had a few questions regarding just how our general landscape regulations work. I think this is a really good example. In the updated landscape plan we have, it indicates that this is a 50,000 square foot parcel. And that these 23 trees and shrubs will provide 26,000 square feet of canopy. >> That's correct. >> So as an example of, in our discussions about any changes to tree ordinance, this would be a 50% canopy coverage, or 51, 52% canopy coverage, by planting these 21 large trees and two great murdles. I was curious, the 700 square feet of existing canopy, that 's all removed in this plan, is that correct? >> Pardon me? >> That's all going to be removed in this plan? >> Yeah, the existing trees are actually within the building footprint. >> Okay, and so the proposed tree code would actually require them to have kept some amount like 30%? >> Yes, they will have to comply with the existing tree code. >> Right, and so they would have had to maybe move the building or do something else if they use the new tree code . Because the new tree code would not have allowed complete removal, the future tree code, proposed tree code. Because they wouldn't have been able to remove every single tree from the lot. >> Well that, I'm not sure of. >> Correct. >> Yeah, and I know you're not. I'm just trying to, just thinking this all through because I'm sure in two weeks we're going to be talking about this again. So it's great to have a real example that we can say, here 's an example. Now, this is showing 56% parking tree canopy or something like that, 50. >> Yes. >> And I've always been confused by this calculation. And I don't know if you can explain it or if- >> I'll be honest, I've tried to figure it out myself. I've worked here eight years and I'm not familiar with how to calculate the tree canopy. I've tried to. I've had no one explain it to me several times and I'm sorry. >> Yeah, and so I'm guessing in order to get to 12,000 square feet of parking lot canopy, basically every tree within 15 or 20 feet of the parking lot just counts. Even if, like the ones 10 feet away that have a 30 foot diameter, they're only going to be throwing a quarter of their canopy onto the pavement, so to speak. That they're in the proximity of the parking lots that they count, is that correct? >> Mm-hm, that's correct. >> But then the pavement count is, like the pavement square footage, does it only include the pavement or does it also include all of those medians and stuff around? >> For a parking lot, we only include that concrete that is part of the parking lot. So it would be here and here. >> So those little islands that have the trees at the end, those would not be included in the parking lot? >> These islands are part of the parking lot trees. >> Well, the trees are, but the mulch and grass doesn't count in the pavement, is that correct? >> No, because it's not pavement, it's pervious. >> Right, okay. So like I said, it's really good to just have an example to look at. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. To move along with the 12,000 square feet of canopy that this is a high-end pavement square, is that when the trees are mature or is that? >> It's for when they're mature. >> Okay. >> I don't think they quite make it right now. Any other questions? Thank you. >> Sure. >> Next item up would be, Cindy, you may want to stay. >> I need to go. >> Next item would be 2B, consider approval for an ADP for the construction of another medical clinic this side on the other side of town. And again, it's Cindy Jackson. >> Okay, again, for the record, I'm Cindy Jackson, senior planner with the planning department. I'm presenting to you tonight. This is ADP number 16-009. There we go. This is a request for approval of an alternative development plan for the construction of a 5,200 square foot medical office with parking located between the street and the building. The subject site is located at 3201 Med Park Drive. You can see this right here. It's zoned regional center commercial neighborhood, RCCN. The applicant is requesting a deviation from section 3513, 133C1, which requires all parking areas to be located behind the building or on one or both sides. The applicant is proposing to provide this parking, which you can see right here, a lot between Med Park Drive and the front of the building to ensure the site layout of the proposed new medical office will mirror the adjacent site right here, which you can see here's the building, here's the parking, and here's the landscape buffer. This was also approved by ADP, ADP 8-16. And it is going to be a mirror, a mirror of the approved landscape plan that was approved in 2008. Will be the same, the parking locations will be the same, and the building orientation will be the same. The proposed 15 foot landscape buffer will include, as required, four large trees planted for every 40 linear feet, which you can see right here. Two foot high berm and 48 landscape shrubs that you can see along here. In addition to that requirement, they are also providing three ornamental trees in between the large trees to add further screening for the parking lot. This is exactly the same type of landscaping that was approved here. I'm going to have a picture of it later on in my presentation. The additional mitigation that the applicant is providing is an overall open space of 30, they provide 15%, I've got it backwards here, I'm sorry. Providing 34.63% open space and required is 15% open space. The open space you can see is located here and it is very much like the open space on the adjacent lot. This is all easements, they're public utility easements, drainage easements, and floodway easements located here. And in the pictures you can see here's the public utility easement, which is an overhead power line. And right here you can see the drainage way, and it curves up around the back of the property. This is the site itself right here, looking at it from Med Park. This is the approved landscape buffer for the adjacent site with the berm, the trees, and the ornamentals and shrubs. This application as presented, it meets all the requirements and the criteria for approval of an alternate development plan. Staff therefore recommends approval with the condition that the proposed development shall substantially conform to the approved site plan and landscape plan. That concludes my presentation. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Dadovitz. >> Just for clarification, the property's across the street , across Med Park. >> Did they get deviation approval because they have front parking also? >> Let me see here. Correct, did you see that? >> Yes, they did. >> Okay, so where- >> Across the street, they got an ADP for front parking and they also got a variance on the number of parking spaces. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Rossell. >> Thank you, Chair. For clarification, excuse me, and maybe some context, if someone can help me out. The zoning RCCN, does it have the same requirement that the building be facing the street as does RCCD? >> Yes. >> So there's a requirement by both of those for the building to face forward, but both of those have a requirement that parking cannot be in the front. So by code, you have to park on the side or behind the building and walk around to the front? >> Mm-hm. >> Can someone help me understand maybe from just like a architectural or what's the rationale behind that? Why not have the- >> The rationale is to prevent having walls of concrete facing the street at interest to the street character. Many times when you have an entrance facing the street, there's additional entrances around the building as well. To facilitate the people who are parking behind the building or at the sides. >> If I can. >> Okay. >> Chair. >> Sorry, Commissioner Taylor. >> Yeah, just wanted to expand on that. >> Please. >> Yeah, so this is in order to give greater character from the street and prevent either a sea of parking lots or the backs of buildings just being all of the street face. That's the idea behind street facing buildings. And I believe it was added in the 99 code revisions site. So it's been around since 1999. And you'll see a lot of places now in town where they've begun to do that. And they typically have rear entries, if you will. But they'll have a facade on the front of the building that makes it appealing to the street. And you can tell what the business is from the street. But then you pull around to the parking lot and there's walkways and entrances on the back as well. Things like medical offices will usually have one big entrance on the front that may not get used very much. And then five or six entrances on the back. A shopping center, same thing. I have an entrance on the hard corner front and then another entrance on the corner facing the parking lot behind it. Like the CVS at Avenue B and is that Oak? And so again, it's just to prevent, especially in town areas, to prevent having just a sea of parking as you drive down the street. >> Gotcha. >> Kind of bring the life to the street. >> It just adds to the whole character of the street and makes it much more walkable and more pleasant for pedestrians as well as just the appearance. >> Yeah, no, I appreciate the context of help. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around it. If I was building a building, you basically have to build two entrances per building, it sounds like. If you're a developer, you have to make this beautiful one for the street that no one's going to use. I'm not looking to change, I'm just trying to understand what we're going to look at. >> Yeah, and it does seem, I mean, I get it. There's a really fantastic book called The Geography of Now here that talks exactly about this, about you have these little islands of concrete and nothing 's really connected. So I get the intention, especially in our comprehensive plan, if we want to be building more transportation modalities than just cars, then we need to make it appealing for people who do want to walk. But considering this part of town, and considering that the people who are going to be going to this side of town probably are not in the best of health, right? So it seemed to me to make more sense rather than asking every applicant to apply for a new ADP to maybe somehow have some sort of overlay so that everything is cohesive, where you are going to have the parking lot between the street and the building. So it seems like there's still much more to be built out there, and I don't know if that's something that the rezone committee could look at. But just to kind of save some staff time and save the applicant some money too. >> I believe that's something that is being looked at, isn 't it, Manal? >> We are revisiting the, eventually we hope to have a contract signed and moving forward with the overall of the Denton Development Code. However, when it comes to the city initiated rezoning committee that we have, the purview related to development code would not be there as it would be. But it's something we can definitely look at and visit. We're already addressing and looking into the thresholds for an alternative development plan as well. And we should be presenting that eminently to the planning and zoning commission. And let's determine why variances are being requested and what variances actually need to come forward. >> Commissioner Dadovitz. >> I kind of agree with what you're saying. You're making it more business friendly. Parking it back, you have to move around. I think a good solution is what we're seeing here is adding the tremendous amount of landscaping, the buffers and the trees which are softens that hard parking parking only and entrance. But a business should be allowed to pick what's best for them and their clients and yet, but having an aesthetic view of a street view that is not concrete like we have some places here. So I think this is a good solution. It complements what's next door. We've already made changes across the road. >> And if you look at the previous case that I just described with the building oriented to the side, if you look, it's a medical clinic and if you look, let me go back to that. They have a drop off area for patients at the side here. >> I understand, yeah. But I think the landscaping solves a lot of problems and that may be something to look at in the future. I think that is an alternative. >> Did you have a question? >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Taylor. >> Thank you, Chair. Actually, to follow up on one of your comments, we obviously have large areas of town that are car centric. They are oriented toward highways. They, 98% of the people that get to those buildings get there by driving. But if we just, if we make overlays or zones that allow this or require the car centric design and parking up front, we will be permanently writing them off to never be pedestrian friendly. And in this case, this is very car oriented. It's right next to the interstate, very close to loop 288. But it's also maybe 200 or 300 yards from the train station . And there is some residential, some apartments down there that try and make that area walkable. You could live in the apartments and walk to the train station, take the train to work or whatever. And so for us to, I'm very leery of just declaring that either entire zoning categories or entire areas of town don't have to be designed for pedestrians or to be pretty or things like that. I think there is a balance here because we'll see a lot of these ADPs that's nothing more than we want the parking lot in front. And in this case, it's matching the surrounding area, but the first one in that area did it that way. And of course, if the first building went in with the building of the street and the parking lot behind, probably none of this block would have had ADPs. Everybody would have just matched the existing built structure. >> Who approved that? I'm just kidding. That's a very good point though, yeah. >> So there is the case of you have to start the transformation to building toward the street. >> I have a question about landscaping. I'm going to jump in here. I had requested this a long time ago for us to look at when they're, so they have an ADP and so they have to make certain accommodations, there's a little give and take. And one of that is, well, let's see what we can do to improve the landscape requirements and put some more green there. I'm curious why Bermuda grass is still included in the landscape requirement. When we, though we're not in a drought now, it wasn't too long ago that we were. And I had asked about reviewing some of this, looking at more zero escaping requirements, especially in cases of ADPs, so that they're using less water intensive landscaping materials. Seems like that could be a good give and take. So has there been any, is that something we can talk about now? Any progress on that? >> Absolutely, if you recall, and I do recall your question that came up at one of our meetings. And I believe the landscape ordinance currently does have a zero escaping element to it. It does have a component in there. And although it's not, in terms of ADP, what are you doing? Can you add zero escaping to that? We are looking at, as we're reviewing our tree code, as it relates to preservation and mitigation, we're also going to dive subsequently after that into our tree landscaping screening and landscaping. >> I'm glad that that's in there. I don't feel that Bermuda grass ought to be, though it's pretty, I don't think it necessarily meets our goals and our comprehensive plan of being a sustainable city. >> Sure. >> Because it's so water- >> I'd caution you were going a little bit out of the items . >> Okay, sorry. I just would like for us to address that in the future now. >> No, definitely. >> All right, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you, Cindy. >> Okay, the next item would be 3A, public hearing, rez oning from NR4 to NRMU. Mike, did you want to give a presentation on this? Is there anything that you want to, the applicant has requested that we continue this until September 14th. >> I don't have a presentation that I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> I'm sorry, did you hear the applicant has? >> They requested to continue this until September 14th, so we won't be hearing this item tonight. >> Correct, I don't have a presentation prepared, but I'm happy to answer or look into something for you for the September 14th meeting if there's something you were curious about. >> Just curious, is there a reason for the postponement? >> They're looking to see if they can make it work without the rezoning. I think that's what we're looking at, so. >> I'm sorry, make it pass? >> They're trying to- >> Without the rezoning? >> Really don't need the rezoning to make their project work. >> Commissioner Dedowitz. >> Okay, having said that, you're recommending denial. >> Right. >> Okay, can you give us the reasons? >> Well, all the reasons were outlined in the backup, but specifically, it's intrusion into a single family neighborhood that if it were anywhere else in town, you probably wouldn't see any support for that type of rez oning. That's essentially what it is. >> The reason I bring that up is because as I look at it, and I would probably agree with the denial because what we've been trying to do with some of our rezoning committees looking at what's there now and all of a sudden now we're going to pop in a different zone and then we're going to go back to this hodgepodge. Peninsula sitting in residential areas. So, but they're going to continue it. Thank you. >> Commissioner Beck. >> I'd like to address the elephant in the room thing. This if I can, maybe this isn't the right time, but a notification. I noticed a bunch of notifications went out. And again, this is something I brought up before. And I talked about this and I hope, you know, want to get an update where we're at. This is a good example of a bunch of notices going out and not a single one responding to it. So just want to cite that here. >> Actually, I actually do have some responses, but because we weren't hearing it tonight, they came in after the staff report was prepared. We typically do because of the time it takes for people to get the notices and pick them up and send them back. Sometimes they're not always ready by the time the report goes out. And that's when we bring them to the actual meeting. Because we weren't hearing it tonight, I didn't bring them with me. But there are a few. >> Okay. >> And we will be coming back with that process as well. >> Thank you. >> We have not forgotten. >> Okay. >> So I think what will happen tonight, this is my only, love when you guys throw curve balls at me when I step into chairs. >> At least we didn't change the agenda. >> That was mean last time. >> So I think what we're going to do is, well, I'll open the public, at the start of the meeting I'd like to inform anyone in the audience that we're going to continue it. But I'll open the public hearing and then someone will make a motion to continue this item. >> You'll have to do it prior to opening the public hearing . Unless you're in the public hearing and you want to continue it to another day. And then you'll- >> You would just say the item is being continued. >> Right. >> The item is being continued. And we don't need to make a motion to continue it then. >> No, not if you're in the public hearing. Do you want to republish it or are they withdrawing it or? >> We'd like to open the public hearing and postpone it. >> Okay, okay. >> Yeah. >> You can move me in during the break and just tell me what I got to say. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay, and then 3B, hold another public hearing for another rezone request from NR2 to NRMU. This was, is this the Ryan High School? Teasley, Teasley. Yes, Teasley. Yes, okay. And that one, who's doing the staff report? Please, join us. Thank you. There you are, Haley, I see you there. There's a lot of words in that one. >> Yes, there are. >> You were at the very end. Thank you, Haley. >> So for the record, Haley Zagurski, Assistant Planner. And this is case Z1610, Teasley Lane High School Edition. So the request is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning of approximately 80.49 acres from both the neighborhood residential two zoning and a neighborhood residential mixed use zoning district to community mixed use general. As well as establishing an initial zoning of approximately 1.67 acres from the rural residential RD5X designation to community mixed use general . The property is comprised of three parcels located on the east side of Teasley Lane. You can see parcel one is approximately 70 acres. That's where the existing Geyer High School is. Parcels two and three are located just south of that and are currently undeveloped. The surrounding area is comprised of quite a bit of rural residential land. There's some single family development in the area. Adjacent to the east is the Hickory Creek mobile home park and then there's an industrial park across the street. Currently it has a mix of three zonings. The largest portion being NR2. The parcel that is NRMU was rezoned from NR2 in 2008, but the development that was intended there never occurred. And then parcel three is split between NR2 and RD5X. Approximately 1.6 acres of it were annexed in 2013 and given the RD5X designation. So the Denton plan, our comp plan future land use map, shows this being a community mixed use area. So that would be encouraged predominantly commercial use with complimentary residential service and institutional uses such as high schools. The intent being to complement the existing uses that are in the area, encourage higher design standards, and accommodate connectivity. So the considerations for this case, the CMG district is consistent with that future land use designation. With the property being in close proximity to so many single family neighborhoods, those uses are supported by this high school's continuation in the area. This also promotes some walkability and bicycling in the area with all the single family uses surrounding it. And I wanted to note as well that private high schools are not permitted within the NR2 and RD5X zoning districts. But state law dictates that DISD can develop in any zoning district. So this rezoning would eliminate an existing nonconformity. The 1.67 acres that were recently annexed as RD5X do not meet the minimum five acre requirement for the RD5 zoning district. So this would eliminate that nonconformity. The school is intending to expand onto these properties and would like to replat as one lot. They can do that with the current three zoning designations , but it would create some complications because all of the general regulations for each of those zoning districts would still apply to those pieces of the property . And so providing a unified zoning designation would consolidate all of their development requirements and help them streamline that process moving forward. And in some cases it may even be necessary to allow them to comply with these regulations for them to have that unified zoning. Because otherwise any deviation would need to go before ZBA . So these are the general regulations for the four zoning districts under consideration here. You can see for RD5X they're already nonconforming with that five acre size requirement. And if you go down the list and look, you'll see that some of these requirements, such as RD5X having 15% lot coverage as a maximum, might be challenging for them to meet in the future as they seek to redevelop. So the CMG column there on the far right shows you what they would be looking to move towards. And just some views of the site. This is on the north side of the campus from Teasley Lane. Here's the south side of the campus where you can also see that corner parcel that is currently undeveloped. And here's a view from the south at the intersection of Te asley and Old Alton Road that shows the two currently undeveloped parcels. Notice was sent out on this and no responses have been received. And staff is recommending approval of this as it's supported by the future land use and the surrounding property uses support the continuation of the current use. So I'll stand for any questions. >> Just want to confirm and clarify. All these parcels, one, two, and three, are the property of DISD. And in usage will be what DISD dictates. >> Yes, they're all under common ownership. >> Okay, great, thank you. >> Okay, quick question. I can't recall if we've seen a case recently where we have, there's like three different zoning classifications that were all lumping into one public hearing. And I understand why we're doing it this way. Is that common that we do do that? >> Yes, you can do it separately or you can do it combined. The advantage of doing it in this manner is because it's a cohesive approach. It's comprehensively reviewed. It's a single ownership property. And it just makes more sense because we've already got existing facilities on that site, the majority of the site, we have three parcels that are just hanging out there with different zoning designations. So we're just bringing it all together as one. >> Just curious, thank you. >> So if it's single ownership, they can bring the law forward. Or you can do it, even if it was separate ownership, you could notify it in a way, word it in a way that would accommodate each person, each owner's request. >> Thank you. I was just kind of curious about that, so thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Haley. >> Thank you. Next item would be 3C. >> Julie. >> This is the PD down on Crawford Road, and that would be Julie Wyatt presenting this. Thank you, Julie. >> Sure. Lots of PDs tonight. All right. This request before you is a rezoning for the Ranchview Specialty Hospital. I'm Julie Wyatt. Senior Planning Department. >> [LAUGH] >> The request before you is to consider making a recommendation to city council regarding a rezoning from PD 138 to RCCN on approximately three acres . The subject property is located along I-35W, just north of Crawford Road. I'll go into the request a little bit. The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to develop the property with a specialty hospital and associated medical office out parcels. But remember, when we look at a zoning, we look at all the uses in the zoning district, not just that use that they're proposing. The current zoning of the property, and here is the subject property, sorry, it's a little. Is PD 138. It is the last part of PD 138 that was approved in 1991. That concept plan was approved in 1991. A detailed plan, it was never developed. A detailed plan was never approved for that PD. And much of the, or all of the rest of the PD, and I'll show you the concept plan in a minute, was rezoned and taken into Hunter Ranch MPC. So the adjacent zonings are the Hunter Ranch MPC across I- 35, as well as some RCR1. You have adjacent to it, to the east, Country Lakes West. That's another planned development, and although it's the same green as PD 138, it's actually a different PD. So this is the limit of what's left of PD 138. This Country Lakes West is another PD. There is a detailed plan that's approved for this Country Lakes West, and it is a single family residential plan development. This area is an open space, and it's encumbered by FEMA floodplain. To the south is RCCN, and that is the zoning district that they're requesting. This NRMU here is actually a mapping error. We checked the zoning when this was zoned for RCCN. So that NRMU is actually just a mapping error. Here's the original, just for your information, the original PD for Hunter Ranch. It was intended to be a business park, an industrial complex. It took up quite a bit of acreage. It went all the way up I-35W. The subject property is this little bit right here. I'm not sure why it was left out of the taking in most of the PD to the current Hunter Ranch MPC. I would imagine because it's kind of out down here by itself, so it's just a remnant of that. The future land use designation is low density residential. When we look at the comp plan and we look at analyzing a rezoning request, we first look at the future land use designation. And in this instance, it doesn't match with their requesting. The future land use map is kind of a 30,000 foot view of how we want the city to develop. And so when you scroll, when you go down to a parcel layer, it doesn't always make a lot of sense when you get real close to it. So in this instance, we wanted to move out a little further and you'll see that there is adjacent future land use of neighborhood mixed use near it. But when we looked at that, that doesn't really fit maybe the intent of what the area is going to be. This is adjacent to I-35W. It's on a primary arterial. And so we had to look a little further at it because it's not really meeting the future land use designation. So we looked at the specific site. We got a little closer in. And we see here's I-35. This is a freeway. Here's Crawford Road, the current mobility plan has that as the primary major arterial. Here's that residential neighborhood, Country Lakes West. And here is that flood area. So when we look at this access, this type of configuration for this access of this property, we really see that maybe low density residential is maybe not the most appropriate designation. That we really should look at other elements within the dent plan that speak to this zoning case and look at it from that 30,000 foot view to see what makes sense. So we looked at the preferred growth concept. And this map was generated during the public input portion of the comp plan update. And the residents determine where they want to see growth in the city, where they want to see the high growth. And you'll see the subject property is just right here. And this area was identified as a district that we want to see this type of development here. We want compact purposeful growth clustered around distinct locations. And this is one of those areas that was determined as one of those distinct locations. So this map is really about our metric of what we should be looking at when we're looking at this property. Particularly because it's on the corner of a freeway, which has high visibility and high access, and a major arterial, which also has the same. A public notification was sent out. We received no responses back. There weren't a lot of public notifications. There weren't a lot of letters sent out for this one. But the considerations that we looked at, we looked at first the future residential development that's coming in this area. Robeson Ranch at Build Out will have 7,500 homes. You've got the Hunter Ranch MPC. You have Country Lakes West and Country Lakes North that we 're going to be talking about later. So there's going to be a lot of residential development in this area. RCCN is a logical extension of the current RCCN. It's already there today. And by rezoning to RCCN, it'll allow a consistent development pattern for this area. The proposed RCCN doesn't conform to the future land use map, but it is consistent with the comp plan and it's consistent with the preferred growth concept. It's also appropriate for the location, given the visibility and access of I-35W. And these areas at the corner of freeways and arterials are really the places we want to see commercial development. We want to see them have that kind of access. It's probably not the most appropriate place for low density residential. So those are the considerations we looked at. So based upon that, based upon the criteria, we recommend approval of the request. It's compatible with that land use pattern that we're seeking in that area. And it's also consistent with the goals of the Dent Plan 2030. And I'll stand for any questions. >> Commissioner Taylor. >> Thank you, Chair. I just had a few questions on clarification. I've noticed that there seem to be two different indications of what is being rezoned. Some of them show just a very small parcel and some show a larger parcel. >> Yes, it is actually, let me go back, sorry. Back to trees. >> Yes. >> I believe one of the maps in the backup here, let's go to that. That makes more sense. I believe maybe a couple of maps in the backup actually did include this parcel. That is not a part of this request. It actually has the RCC zoning already in place. And just to further clarify, there is an additional little part down here that's in ETJ that they're actually going through an annexation right now. And that will come forward to you again, so that the entire development would have a consistent zoning. So I apologize for that, you're right. Those maps did have different indications. >> And earlier, before the meeting, I mentioned to you that it appears there's some grading going on and clearing going on. But I believe it is on the entire, I guess both parcels, the entire triangle of land. And I was curious if we have, if that permit is following the 1991 regulations or the current regulations. >> In my understanding and talking to our urban forester that it was reviewed under current regulations for the RCC and zoning district. It's not, clearing and grading permits can't be issued until a plat is approved. But they can do a clearing and grubbing as long as they have an approved tree preservation plan. They did go through our urban forester and submitted a tree preservation plan and he did approve it. I'm looking for it now. >> And I guess just to explain to the audience and maybe some of the newer members of the commission, it took me a long time to understand PDs. A PD, a plan development is, it's its own zoning ordinance. And they typically are about a page long. Some of them are much larger, but often they're very limited in scope. And all of the ordinances that apply are usually the ordin ances that apply when the PD was created. So in this case, this thing was created in 1991. So it follows all of our 1991 codes. And so that was my question on, there was no tree ordinance in 1991. >> Correct. >> There were no street facing building requirements in 1991, so forth and so on. And a lot of times we'll have cases where we have a PD where they want to do some landscaping. But they're trying to meet the current code and they want to put in things like trees and sidewalks and the code that the PD was enacted under doesn 't necessarily allow it or requires them to adhere to the site plan from 1996 or whatever when that car dealership was built. So they have to come before us and get an amendment to a PD just to be able to put in something that varies from. So like I said, that's where this question comes from, what ordinances are we following? >> And that's a good segue because with the rezoning they would then comply with all, any development if the zoning is approved would have to comply with all current development code requirements. >> Do you remember where Haywood said he saved that? I'm sorry, Manali. >> I was just looking at it. I'll publicly announce it, Julie, I apologize. The files are there with Julie's name on the right one. So is it under your folder? I don't know. >> Maybe. >> We can dig through that for the regular meeting should we need to apologize. >> I'm sorry, I am. >> It's okay, do you want to find it during the break and then- >> Yes, yes. We won't waste your time. >> It's been taken charge. >> All right, that's great. >> Any other questions? I'm sorry. >> You made mention that this doesn't conform with the future land use map, but it does conform with the preferred growth designation. >> It does. We often look at only the future land use map for the comp plan, but it's a rather large document that has other elements that we can look at. And in this instance, although it doesn't conform to that low density, it does conform to that preferred growth concept, which is calling for things like employment, retail, high density, residential here, which RCCN does conform with. So doesn't conform with that future land use element, but it does conform with other parts. And particularly with the access on 35W, it conforms with those elements. >> So I brought this up before in my short time here, but there's a conflict of the direction we should take. So I guess two questions would be, did the future land use map and this preferred growth concept come at the same time, or which one directed the other? >> That's a good question. This came first, and the future land use map is based upon the preferred growth concept. >> So if I understand this correctly, the preferred growth concept says that that specific area is for high density development. >> Moderate density, not as high density as maybe a DCG or a RCCD would allow, but yes. >> So moderate density, and based on that, maybe I should take that, but maybe it isn't we. We determined that the future land use should be low density. Can you help me how that happened? >> Well, but they looked at not only this, there were lots of elements they looked at to create that future land use map. So we'll go back here. You do have a lot of low density residential here. And this map isn't meant to look at to zoom in necessarily on the parcel. It's meant to kind of come back and say as a whole, how do we want this to need to develop? So the lines should be blurred. It shouldn't be this is this and this is that. >> Can I add, please? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> To your comment, if you go back to the future land use map, see how blurry it is? And that was done on purpose so that we did not have hard lines that say it's gotta be this way. It allowed us to shift and move and that was prior to you coming on board. We looked at the future land use. We wanted to give it some ability to reshape itself when we got issues like this. >> Sure, and I understand that I think that's a good idea. It's just, I can think of a half dozen times in which we're asking to rezone something that does not meet the future land use map. And so it just seems like I'm not sure how urgent we should follow the future land use map when it seems routinely that we're asking to be zoning something that's not in accordance with the future land use map. >> That's a really good question because when it doesn't follow the future land use map, we should be taking a harder look at it. There are other area, how would it develop keeping the same zoning? And so we take an even deeper look at it. It's not just a turnkey, yes, that meets it. So then development code requires that we take a deeper look at it to see if it meets additional criteria. In this case, because of that hard corner that it's on, it does meet that additional criteria for approval. >> Is there a zoning classification that would meet both in this instance? >> Low density and- >> And well, that would satisfy both the future land use map and the preferred growth concept. >> I don't believe so. >> Okay, so- >> Well, but once again, we have to go take a higher view of that future land use map. >> No, you're right, there's not one that says, okay, we want this to be a mixed use area with compact growth and low density. You're right, those two things are in conflict. >> And when we do see the conflict or the discrepancies between the future land use map, the growth projections and what's being proposed. And assuming that staff is recommending something favorably that is in conflict with these two documents, then through our comp plan amendments and revisits, it is a dynamic document. It has a lot of thought put into it, and that does warrant amendment to the comprehensive plan or the future land use map. So that is an exercise that will occur through our long range planning function. >> Gotcha, thank you. >> Just real quick to clarify the preferred growth concept. It does have land use discussions, but primarily it's to show where development is to occur, preferred growth. So those are the areas that we identified. And knowing that the master plan communities were further along, but we did identify that there would be some development in that part of the region. And as Manala already mentioned, this is a guiding document , the comprehensive plan it is. That is, the future land use map is also part of that. And so it's not a hard pass as we already discussed. And if and when we were developing the future land use plan , we not only looked at existing what's on the ground, but also future plans. The master plan communities also dictated what that area should be. Now we also have PDs, and we looked at PDs as well, and PDs informed what that area should be. And as I understand it, the PDs adjacent to this area were primarily single family residential, so that's why we went that direction. And maybe we missed that one particular corner. It's not a large site to be considered regional center, and so maybe that was one of the reasons our consultants proposed that future land use design. That's very helpful. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. The Hunter Ranch NPC, that's the first I've heard of that. Did I understand you right? This is a business district? It was in 1991. Okay, so it's gone away then. The Hunter Ranch is, and I don't have a map to take to show you all of the Hunter Ranch NPC. Was it both sides of the highway? Yes, it's both sides of the highway, it's very large. It includes a mix of uses, some moderate density residential, some commercial uses, single family uses. So it's a really large. But it's a thing of the past, though. No, this is in place now. It hasn't developed yet, but it's in place now. And again, for both sides of the freeway? Both sides, all the blue. Yeah, okay. So that's encouraging for this then, because it seems like what we want to do here would fit into that, I would think. Okay, going somewhere else. Okay. Made a comment here on page 205 in the background, "Exist ing trees and possible ESA water related habitat on site may restrict development unless the ESA is removed after a field assessment." So, do we talk about that? There are some ESAs on the site. There are water, there's water related here. There is, and I'm sorry, I don't have a map to show that, but there are, there was also a stream buffer here, and I think they're working with our water administration department to determine if those actually are environmentally sensitive areas or if they need to be removed. So right now they're working with Deborah Vieira. If there are ESAs to be shown on the site, then they would have to, you know, that could restrict what they could do on the site. Okay, so that may change the whole character of the site, then if they determine that. It could. Okay. And remove after a field assessment, that would be Deborah. Yes, sir. That would determine it. Okay, great, thank you. Other questions for staff? Okay, all right. So I've got a question for the commission real quick, or I guess for you, Julie. Sure. We do have some food to get. How long is this next presentation going to be? Should we take a break and eat while you're doing this, or is it? You can do that. It's fine. What would, what do you guys want to do? Should we do that? Yeah? Okay. We're going to take a quick five minute break and grab some food, and then we'll, do I have to call the time? Yes. Okay, I'm new to this. All right. The time is 6.03. We're going to take a five minute break, and then we can be . Thank you. Thank you, and welcome back to the Planning and Planning Commission meeting. It is 6.08. Y'all were super fast. Thank you. And we're going to hear our last item. 3B, I'm sorry, 3D. Again, Julie Wyatt. This is item PDA 16-0004. I also have the tree preservation plan for the previous item we can go over at some point, if you would like as well. Okay. All right. All right. All right. This request before you is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a detail plan included in Plan Development 174 Country Lakes North. The subject property is, first of all, the property is situated in the southwest part of Denton, and about the same place we were on the previous item. Here's John Payne Road. This is the newer subdivision in Athens. Just a little background. This is a plan development, and we don't get those a lot here. It's not. We don't have plan developments in the current Denton development code, but we did have them in the previous code, the 1991 code. And this PD was created under the 1991 code, and the concept plan was approved in 1999. And just a little background on a PD. In the 1991 code, it was a two-part process. First was the concept plan that set forth the uses, maybe the development guidelines, the connectivity throughout the site, and then the second part was the detail plan. That went a little further into the details. So the concept plan would set forth the use, and then the detail plan would come back, come thereafter. The detail plan for this PD was for the residential portion was approved in the year 2000. Now to look at that detail plan, here it is, and there are residential homes. There's also, we call them detention areas, but they're actually for drainage. They're for water to drain into, and then there's also pocket parks that were spread throughout. There were two areas that were left out of this detail plan . If you look at the yellow bottle, it says that these detail plans will be submitted at a later date. These were for the private amenity center here in red, and then a school site in blue. So today, the applicant has come forth with a detail plan for the amenity center. And just to let you know, this, the concept plan as well as detail, this detail plan, set the location and the use for this amenity center. Now we're just kind of looking at how it's going to all be put together. So let's look at the site plan. Here's just the overall site plan. We'll go into the specific elements. First, they're proposing a restroom facility, a kind of cab ana area. It will also provide a gate that will limit the access to the pool. It is a masonry structure, and it is going to be in this location, and that's the front elevation. The rest of the elevations should be in your backup. There are also some perimeter gates that are proposed. One for the pool area. It's going to be a six foot, or it's proposed to be a six foot wrought iron fence. And then also a six foot wrought iron fence for the dog park. These will help control the access to these areas. There are also some recreation elements. The pool area is proposed for right here. You've got a putting green right here, a bocce ball, and a soccer field, and then playground. And then we have the connectivity. So the site can be accessed in several ways, one being vehicles. So the parking area in this is here. There are also some bike racks, and a drop off area here. And then there are sidewalks throughout the development. They connect not only to John Payne, and I believe this is Texelma, but they also connect behind it to the street behind it. So it provides greater access for pedestrian connection. Commissioner Beck. Texelma, would you point out the Texelma? I believe that's Texelma. It's not built yet. Here's the landscape plan. They are proposing trees, about 44,000 square feet of new canopy at maturity. Not at planting, but at maturity. We also work with them to get some landscape, some tree buffer here between the proposed use and the single family development that's adjacent. They're also proposing to screen the parking area with some shrubbery and trees, and then adding just some landscape areas around the development. Notification was sent. Quite a few notices were sent. Due to the nature of a plan development, the entire plan development needed to be notified. And so there were a lot sent. And we've received, I'm afraid that this information is inaccurate. It's a little old. I gave you all, I got quite a few notices or responses right before I left for here, so I didn't update the presentation. But we did have some opposition and some in favor. Typically the opposition, from what I gathered from the neighbors, they were concerned about security for the pool, as well as HOA dues and traffic concerns. Our level of detail and review doesn't go into maybe how the HOA functions. We just know that it's going to be a private amenity center controlled by the HOA. The applicant should be here in order to answer any questions that you may have regarding that. The considerations we use to review the project are in the 1991 code, because it was approved with the 1991 code. So a detailed plan can be approved if it complies with the general concept plan. In this case it does. That it provides a compatible arrangement for the buildings and land uses. It wouldn't adversely affect the adjoining neighborhoods. That provides adequate and safe circulation for vehicular traffic. And that's in substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision, other regulations of the city. This detailed plan does conform. So staff does recommend approval regarding all conditions of approval and subsequent modifications of PD 174 shall remain valid unless they're specified otherwise with this request. That the detailed plan landscape plan as submitted shall guide the development of the site. And that the elevations and site details shall also guide the development of the cabana structure. So I'll stand for any questions. Questions for staff? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. One of the individuals who sent in a comment on it indicated they didn't feel like they needed another pool. Is there an existing pool in this development? And if so, can you? Well, there is. This is a little unique because here's the plan development , the limits of it within the city of Denton. The pool that they're referring to is actually outside of the city of Denton and in Argyle. It may be within that HOA. So their HOA sounds like it crosses the municipalities, but that pool is within the Argyle site. Okay. And the roads, again, traffic was concerned. John Payne, how wide is that? Is that just a two-way? It is, I believe it's a 50-foot right-of-way. So it is a neighborhood street. But this amenity center, he's holding up four lanes. Okay. It's only a four-way. This amenity center is intended for just this neighborhood. It is not a public one. It's not a city of Denton. And staff wanted to be careful to make sure that people could reach the development in a multimodal way. So not only cars, but also bicycles and pedestrians. So is there street parking allowed there? Like any other, I'm not sure if there are any prohibitions to parking on that street. I didn't see any when I went out to the site. Okay. But they do accommodate parking on site. But I would imagine like any other neighborhood street, there could be parking on the street as well. Thank you. So I've got a question. Sure. Just to be clear what our purview is with all of this. When this PD was approved back in the '90s, there was a stipulation that said eventually there's going to be an amenity center that was written into that contract. Correct. And that, okay. But it also required that when the amenity center was to be built, it would be brought to us. So it's not so much whether or not we're approving the amen ity center. Is it so much as we're looking at the flow of traffic and the landscaping? Is that something that we can look at? The details of the amenity. Yes, it's almost like a site plan. What it's going to look like. Yes. Correct. Thank you. Sure. Ma'am, this will be a public hearing. And we're going to go in there at about 630 so you will have an opportunity to speak at that time. Okay? No, that's fine. Hold that thought that we want to hear from you. Yeah. Any other questions for staff? Okay. All right. Thank you, Julie. Sure. So I believe, there we go. I believe that's it. So we're going to close our work session at 619. We will reopen our regular session at 630 at which time you 'll have an opportunity to speak. And thank you for joining us. Good evening and welcome to tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The time is 633 and it is August 10th, 2016. We do have a quorum present and this meeting has been duly posted. Our first item of business is the pledge to both the US and the 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. On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible. Thank you. A quick housekeeping item. If anyone is here for public hearing 3A, that's the public hearing for the rezone request from NR4 to NRMU on Hedy Street, the applicant has requested to continue that item until September 14th, so I just wanted to give you a heads up that we'll be seeing that next month. Our next item on the agenda is an item for individual consideration, item 2A. That's number ADP 16-0005 and we'll hear from Cindy Jackson . Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners, Cindy Jackson, senior planner, planning department. ADP 16-5 is a request for an alternate development plan for the construction of a 9,000, excuse me, 5,947 square foot medical clinic. The applicant is requesting to deviate from three requirements of the Denton Development Code. Specifically, they're requesting to deviate from the requirement for front orientation of the building. They are requesting to deviate from the requirement for parking at the side or the rear of the building and they're requesting to deviate from the requirement for a 15-foot landscape buffer. The applicant is present if you have any questions. Staff recommends approval. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff right now? Thank you, Cindy. And I do have a card from the applicant, Mr. Douglas, if you'd like to approach the-- no? Oh, I'm so sorry. Is that for a different item? I'm actually just the vice chair. I'm just kind of sitting in tonight, so you'll be with me. Cool. I apologize. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Please. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Rob Hudson. I'm representing Health Services of North Texas. I work with Sterling Barnett Little Architects located in Arlington. We're kind of excited about this opportunity to develop property in the Denton area with this much-needed health clinic for low-income people. I stand for questions. Are there any questions for the applicant? No. And before you sit down, if you could please state your address for the record. My home address or my business address? Business address is 1000 Ballpark Way, Arlington, Texas. It 's actually Suite 2076011. Thank you. And I see no questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And I see no cards on this item. Commissioner Taylor? Thank you, Chair. We went over this in our work session in great detail. And I have to commend, I do prefer the buildings facing the street, which is what our code requires and what this ADP is asking to change. But in changing the landscape or in changing the layout to allow parking in front of the building, you've done a tremendous job on landscape. They're adding half an acre of canopy coverage to a lot that currently has 700 square feet of canopy. The landscape for the parked area is required to be 15% coverage. You're doing like 57% or 58% coverage. So it'll be a nice shaded parking lot. You're providing a walkway around the side of the building that's covered and connects through to the other buildings in the area. So I have to say, this is a great example of what an ADP can do, where we can bend our rules a little and get a much better development. So with that, I move approval. Commissioner Rossell? I second the motion. Is there any discussion on this? Well, then I'm going to say something. I think Health Services of North Texas is doing a fantastic job in the community. Affordable health care is a huge need, and I'm in full support of this. I think it's a good plan, and I'm glad that you're going to be able to serve even more patients in the future. So I'm in support. So with that, let's vote on the board. Motion passes 5 to 0. So the next item of business is item 2B, an item for individual consideration. This is ADP 16-0009. And again, Ms. Jackson? Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. This is a request also for an alternate development plan for the construction of a 5200 square foot medical office with parking located between the building and the street, located at 321 Med Park Drive. The applicant has met all the requirements with regard to criteria for approval, and staff recommends approval. And I 'm not sure if the applicant is here. He is here. The applicant is here if you have any questions. Thanks. Are there questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Would you like to speak, sir? State your name and address for the record, please. Good evening, commission. Matt Moore, Clay more Engineering, 1903 Central Drive, Bedford, Texas, 76021. Here tonight on behalf of Walker Le asing, the property owner, there was an ADP that was approved on the adjacent office that we're really trying to mimic on this next phase of the development. We've got some constraints with the adjacent floodplain that we're trying to work between. So with that, we would ask for your support and be happy to answer any questions the commission might have. Thank you. And I see no questions. So thank you. I also don't have any other cards on this item. So I guess I'll open it up for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Beck? I move that we approve this agenda item. Commissioner Dud owitz? Is there any further discussion on this? Okay. Then let's vote on the board. And again, this item passes 5-0. Thank you. The next item of business is item 3A, public hearing for Z16-0012. I'm going to open the public hearing. However, the applicant has requested to continue this item until September 14th. This is a public hearing, though. If you would like to speak on this, you may. However, that would forfeit your turn at the next meeting. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this item? Okay . Then moving on. Thank you. Item 3B, Z16-0010. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding a rezone request for the Teasley Lane High School Edition. And that will be Ms. Haley Zagurski presenting this item. Haley? And this is a -- do I open the public hearing at this time? Correct. Legal? Yes. And I'm going to open the public hearing at this time. Thank you. Haley Zagurski with the Planning Department. This is item Z 16-10. The request was to rezone 80.49 acres from NR2 and NRMU district to the CMG district, as well as establish an initial zoning of 1.67 acres from the RD5X zoning that was assigned when it was annexed to CMG. The applicant and owner of all three parcels of land is Denton ISD. And staff is in approval of this. Our findings that the CMG district conforms with the future land use designation and the use is supported by the surrounding land use patterns. So I'll stand for any questions. I don't see any questions on the board. Thank you, Haley. Thank you. Is the applicant here and would they like to speak on this item? Sir, are you the applicant? Yes, I am. Please come forward and set your name and address for the record. Thank you. My name is Bill Coleman with Coleman and Associates Land Surveying. We represent the ISD in this matter and I'm here for any questions. Ask that you approve it. Thank you, sir. And I see no questions. So thank you. This is a public hearing. You are allowed three minutes to speak on this item if anyone would like to make any comments or have any questions. Please come forward, sir. State your name and address for the record. And then if you could also please fill out a blue card before you leave this evening. It would be helpful. Sorry, please into the microphone, please, sir, so people at home can hear you. Okay. My name is Don Padilla and I reside at 5353 Teesson Lane, which is right next door to Geyer High School. And I don't understand what they're trying to tell us that they want to do. Can somebody explain that to me? We went over this in our work session, but I'm sure we could get staff to give another presentation. Is it not going to be a high school anymore? Are they changing part of that property to become commercial property? What is it that they're asking? The applicant is requesting to consolidate the zoning designations on DISD property. DISD owns that entire acreage and what they're doing, they're not altering the nature of the use. The school will continue to operate there. They just want to make sure that their zoning designations are the same because right now there's several different zoning designations on the property. So it's a matter of housekeeping on their part. Okay. So they're just trying to make it all one item. Correct. Absolutely. Very good. Thank you. Good question. Yeah, you bet. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item or have a question? Okay. I guess with that, I will close the public hearing. Is that correct, legal? Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Dudowitz. I move that we approve. And Commissioner Taylor. Second. Any discussion on this item? Then let's vote. That item passes five zero. Moving on to item three C, another public hearing. I'm going to open the public hearing for item Z16-0009. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding a rezone request from PD 138 to R CCN and that will be presented by Julie Wyatt. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt. Oh, there it is right there. The request before you is to consider making a recommendation regarding a rezoning from PD 138 to RCCN. This tract is a leftover part of a PD that has now gone to an MPC, so it's a different vehicle. This is the last of that PD 138. The applicant is looking to rezone in order to develop the property with the hospital and to make the zoning consistent with the zoning to the south, with the property to the south. The location is on I-35W and Crawford Road. Staff looked at it and although the request does not meet the future land use map, it does meet other elements of the Denton plan and it meets the goals and objectives of the Denton plan. It's also consistent with the type of zoning and land use pattern that you would see at this type of hard corner of a freeway and an arterial, so staff does recommend approval of the request. And I have not seen the applicant, so I don't know if he's here. Sorry. Sit tight, Julie. We've got a question from Commissioner Taylor. Sure. I was curious if you had that preservation plan. I do. In work session, there were questions regarding the trees on the site. There has been some clearing going on at the site. A plat's not approved, but they did obtain a clearing and grading permit provided that they complied with the tree preservation requirements and our urban forestry reviewed this tree preservation plan. This is actually the property in question. I read it quickly. This is, let's zoom in a little so we can see better. These trees are with the empty circles are trees to be preserved and the outline is the tree protection fencing. So if we'll zoom out, we can see what's existing on the site. It looks like all of the trees within the subject property in this area are going to be are preserved. Then let's go to the next. This is the next sheet and this goes more into where the hospital development and the pad sites are going to be. And there are some trees that will have that will be removed and I'm guessing there have been some that have been removed already. The pluses and the dark circles, would those indicate remo vals? Yes. These are the asterisks, the X's and then the crosses are trees to be removed. The delineation is whether it's a protected tree, quality tree, secondary tree. Then they'll have to mitigate based upon the zoning. And in that mitigation, any payments maybe into the tree fund or planting trees on site would happen at site plan or building permit. Thank you. I drive past this parcel and so I noticed that they were already clearing it and there was some confusion as to the area that was being rez oned. So I was worried that they were clearing before the rezoning had occurred. But most of the clearing is on that southern lot, which is already the correct zoning. So thank you. Sure. Thanks Julie. And is the applicant here? Would they like to speak? Hello, I'm Daniel Franklin with Barry Hampton Brown representing the applicant. And I'm here to answer any questions, but I think Julie did a pretty good job of covering it. Commissioner Taylor, do you still have a question or that just hasn't been? Okay. Sir, can you please state your address for the record too, please? Yes, sir. 5013 Vineyard Lane, McKinney, Texas. Thank you. This is a public hearing, meaning anyone here in attendance can speak on this item. Is there anyone that would like to speak to this or have any questions? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that we make a recommendation to City Council to approve this rezoning. This is a beneficial housekeeping measure for the city to remove an old PD, an old plan development, which is a type of zoning that no longer exists anywhere, that is not allowed anywhere in the city and creates problems in the future as we revise our ordinances and we have these small areas that do not abide by our new ordinances. So for those reasons I move we recommend approval. Commissioner Rosal. Thank you, Chair. As I mentioned in a work session, I was initially concerned about this because of the future land use map discrepancies, but I appreciate working through that in work session to understand the greater concept and idea behind this corner as it gets built out, especially with Hunter's Ranch. So with that I second the motion. We've got a first from Commissioner Taylor and a second from Commissioner Rosal. Is there any discussion on this item? Okay, then let's vote . That item passes 5-0. Next item of business is item 3D. I'd like to open the public hearing for PDA 16-0004. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding approval of a detailed plan of a plan development 174 to depict an amenity center. And that will be again presented by Ms. Wyatt. Wrong thing. Here we go. All right, the request before you is to make a recommendation to City Council regarding a detailed plan approval for a private amenity center in PD 174. The location and the use of this private amenity center has been set forth in the concept plan in a previously approved detailed plan. At this stage we're really looking at the details of this site and how it's going to be developed. Staff looked at it and we looked at it in terms of the criteria for approval in the 1991 code, which is what we have to use to analyze the site and staff does recommend approval that it meets the criteria for approval. And I'll pull up the site plan so if anybody has any questions. The applicant is here. So I have a question just because there are many people who missed our work session. I just want to be clear on what it is we're talking about this evening, what it is we're voting on. So this PD was approved in the 90s with a stip ulation that there would be an amenity center at some point in the future. That was already pre- approved. And so but the catch was that when the amenity center was going to come to the HOA at that point it would be required for us to at least look at the site plan. Is that correct? You're exactly right. Okay, of course I am. Do you want me to go over the site plan? Would you like for me to go over the site plan? I think it would be helpful for the people here since there were many that missed out on that work session. So like you said, this was this this use and location were approved with the 1999 ordinance that provided the concept plan for this PD. There was a detailed plan for the residential portion of the PD and this is this is the exhibit that shows how it's all laid out. But as you as you said these areas, the school site that and the amenity center were were left out of that detail plan amendment to come forward at a later date. Now the applicant has come forward for the amenity center. This is the site plan that they are proposing. Within it they are they are proposing a a restroom facility. It has a brick or a masonry exterior and it does provide a gate which then works in concert with a six-foot wrought iron fence that will control access to that pool area. There's also a wrought iron fence around a dog park on the southern side of the of the property that will control access of course as well. Recreational elements include the pool, a putting green, bocce ball, a soccer field, and then playground. And then additionally they are proposing sidewalks that run through the property and also connect to the to the sidewalk system for the streets. There is parking on site that's that's provided as well as bicycle parking and a drop-off area here. The landscape plan includes tree plantings not only throughout the site but also between those those recreation facilities and the single- family homes that are adjacent. There is parking lot screening here in the front and then additional landscape islands throughout. Public notification was sent out to the to the PD per what per code Texas local government code requirements the whole PD needed to be notified so we sent out a lot of notifications for this. It does meet the criteria in the 1991 code and so staff recommends approval subject to the conditions that it complies with the landscape plan site plan and site details. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. So this was evaluated based on the 1991 code. I was just noticing the landscape plan that that looks like one of our modern ones it appears that it would meet our current landscape code. I applied the current code . Okay so this would actually meet our current ordinances. Yes I particularly because it was adjacent to residential we wanted to make sure that there was a buffer to mitigate any noise you know anything and then we also wanted an applicant actually came forward with with a lot of the trees as well. We also wanted the parking lot to be screened so we we worked with them applied a lot of the elements that are in the current code today. So this well exceeds the 1991 requirements which had almost no landscape requirement sidewalk. Pedestrian there wasn't a lot of direction in the 1991 code regarding landscaping so thank you. Sure. Commissioner Dudowitz. There's been a lot of time on talking about this particular project in work session so I want the public to understand we are not voting on whether there should be a amenity center or not. What we're looking at does it comply with our site plan recommendations, landscaping, tree coverage, sidewalks, bricks, mortar and that type of stuff. So that's what we're looking at and is presented by staff. It far exceeds any any of our requirements for for that type of project. Is that I'm pretty sure that's what we're talking about. Thank you. Any other questions or comments for staff? Thanks Julie. And I understand the applicant is here. Is that now Mr. Douglas your card that I read at the beginning? Thanks for sitting tight. Thank you very much. Good evening. Jim Douglas of Douglas Properties 2309 Avenue K in Plano. Thank you very much. It 's really Julie still saw a lot of my thunder as far as I was going to explain it to you. She did a better job than I would have. But did want to bring up that we are very interested in having the amenity center as nice as possible. That's why we did bring it up to current standards and hopefully even exceeded those. We tried very hard to come up with items in this area that would appeal to all the different variety of age groups, people and everything else that live in country lakes. We have the pool area, we have the bocce ball, we have the putting green, we have a soccer field, we have a dog park, we have a playground, we have extensive landscaping and again we went to the extra expense of drilling a well so to take care of all these landscaping and all the plants. That doesn't put an undue burden on the HOA either of buying for city water plus when there's a drought or restrictions we're not under that because obviously we're spending a lot of money on this and we want to stay functional and looking nice. We also have with me tonight one of the board members of the HOA so if there's any specific questions you have of the HOA this has been presented to the annual meeting at the HOA so those homeowners that attended the annual meeting were apprised of this and I'll be glad to answer any other question you might have. We also have the people that will be building the Amita Center that have designed it so if you have any particular questions on that they're here also to answer your questions. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. The screen hasn't updated yet so I can't make a re-request. That's okay I'm going to keep my eyes open. Something I've been meaning to ask and I've forgotten earlier. I'm not very familiar is this a gated community or is it open to the public? This is not a gated community and the thing about it's a little different because part of it is in Denton and part of it's in Argyle but it's one HOA. It's not separate HOAs where the Argyle or Denton so the people who live in the Argyle portion can use this Amita Center just like the people in the Denton can use the Amita Center in Argyle. It's one HOA. Also it seems like you know when you go back to the original PD as proved back in 1999 if you look at site plans there's very splotches of blue on that which indicates water. Well these were drainage areas that's what was the reason Zion and planned for. But again we're trying to do what the intent of this PD was plus being fair to the people who bought homes early on in this subdivision that they were shown this fancy glossy brochure which we didn't provide. We bought the property out of bankruptcy so that we've come in and but we've abided by the PD and we've tried to fulfill everything that was on the brochures. So we've even drilled wells to ensure that these detention areas do have water in them. We've placed fountains in them to keep the water agitated which that was not what they were raising Zion for. They were Zionists be detention and dry up when it's not raining. Well again we felt like since they had those brochures printed this is what needed to be followed. So this is what we've tried to go above and beyond everything from ever since we bought the property. I have a question. So we got a lot of feedback about this and I'm really grateful to your neighborhood for bringing this up because we very rarely get this many responses. Seemed to me about half were in favor and half were opposed and those who were opposed the primary primarily the reasons I gathered were concerns about increased traffic HOA fees and vandalism. Now those are not really things that we can look at as a planning and zoning commission because we are not the HOA but I just want to make sure are you aware of these concerns and how have you been able to to reach out to the neighborhood to make sure that those concerns are being addressed? Well first of all the community center is on a four lane road which is John Payne and there are no homes that front on John Payne. So this is this is a different this is so no words even if someone parks along John Payne it's not in front of anybody's house because there's no homes front on John Payne and it is a four lane roadway. As far as HOA dues I have Tim Stewart here he can address those in a second if you'd like to but which is again like I said it's not really part of this approval process but we're willing to share in the information but as we're adding homes that it should balance balance out to where and I'm not I can't say it's not going to be an increase costs go up all the time but there's in the future it'll be 1,400 homes built in the subdivision and you need a second amenity center because one amenity center is just not enough for 1,400 homes. I mean you've got about 700 or 600 so 700 now and and again this was presented at the HOA annual meeting and was discussed as far as budget items . As far as vandalism we've done a lot of these amenity centers and more years and I won't say I've been doing this but the vandalism does not appear to be any different than what you have with any other amenity center. Situation if somebody wants to get in there they're going to get in there and so many times the code is handed out and maybe to a friend or something like that and then they can come back. All the main areas do have security you know the fence and a code and if you give the code out then you're opening the door up for someone to come in there and vandalize or it can be you know whoever. So it sounds to me that you are you are aware of these concerns you've had a meeting about this and people know how to contact you with further questions and such. Yes ma'am. Okay thank you. All right thank you. I have another card on this uh Mr or Ms Lloyd Davy Lloyd. Yes ma'am oh yes you were in our work session yes yes I'm glad you remembered your thought. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record and your time will begin. Well you'll already wonder why I'm here because our address is 9813 Meadow Creek Argo but I live in country lakes. We've lived there almost 12 years. When we moved there there wasn't going to be a school where there's now going to be a school where there's now a Catholic church was supposed to be where there was going to be a school built and I have a little bit of concern of there being a school right across the street from a swimming pool and that's they've convinced me of everything else I had questions about but this is still a concern that I think is valid. Thank you ma'am. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. I would like to have the representative for the HOA come up and just as a courtesy for the people again I know this is nothing that we as a commission would address but just as a courtesy a lot of people did come here could you respond to their concerns about increased fees regarding the cementity center. My name is Tim Stewart uh four for one Chapel Downs Court South Lake Texas. I'm on the board acting member president right now and I also work for Bloomfield Homes. The board consists of three developer representatives and it consists of two homeowner representatives so it's a very active board there's active communication amongst us all so when things happen on a two in the morning or three in the morning there's usually an email that gets to us relatively quick and there's the two homeowners who live on site which are very passionate about what goes on. The amenity I think I've read through the next door or the neighbor accounts there's about 45 of them. I think some of the people's concern is just sometimes lack of knowledge maybe they weren't at the annual meeting or a lot of times passed and we all forgot. As a developer we're paying for the infrastructure to put in the HOA amenity that's there I think some people were concerned maybe they're going to pay for it. From a due standpoint we've been adding about I think we added 78 homeowners last year and we've done anticipation that you're going to continue to add 70 to 100 homeowners a year it's 675 dollars a year which is about 70 thousand dollars a year of incremental revenue that's coming on before this HOA site opens up you're probably going to have well over 100 to 150 new homeowners when it's operating fully so the incremental revenue associated with those new members coming into the community we believe in our estimates offsets what cost will be incur red by the association. This association I got to tell you has been very frugal with the downturn economic downturn almost to a point where it was neglected by the previous owners and it's been a catch-up every sense you know fixing the walls doing landscaping we're not done yet but they are probably the most well-funded HOA that as a developer we're involved with in most cases we're writing checks to cover it I mean they have about a half million four hundred and ten thousand dollars in the bank right now so and that's good because they're going to want to have reserves they got about a hundred earmark just for the reserves right now with the other 300 or so and the operating fund so it's well funded and you know what that needs to stay that way we don't want to get them in a position where they're going to be deficit spending current year's budget has them accum ulating about 60,000 dollars of incremental cash 40,000 in the operating fund 20,000 in the reserve so I think a lot of thoughts gone into it and that thought's been backed up by the popularity of the neighborhood new homeowners moving in and then the timing of the phases and being developed and then bringing on the humanity center so with 1400 residents potential or home sites being in there and looking at where the original pd stated that there be something up there and the hoa is really working towards being able to adequately fund that and protect that for a long term so I think I think they're in a really good position to do it I mean I wish some of the other neighborhoods we were in did the same thing and it was what we're as well funded once we bought them but this one has been thought out adequately funded and you know it's got a little growing pains right now and that can be exciting for some and nervous for others and we're continuing to work with the current board members and the voting committee and it's very active and communication goes daily so and we're tuned to it we want to hear what the homeowners say great thank you so as long as you're here could you please address miss loyd's concern about the school being in proximity to the amenity center I mean basically it was there when we got here city of dent on had a school site planned for the manny center was identified and when the pd was again rat ified that's what we had so you've got a parking lot you've got a you know the bathroom centers and then you have a pool the pool is going to be fenced off and I like it that it's not right on you know where cars are parking in front of somebody's house so you know you're always going to have safety concerns with the pool you know we're going to have card accesses and we're going to you know people are going to have to be just in any pool safety is key location being near a school I think that all the all the elements of safety and fencing and the design have been put into consideration for safety the residents thank you this is a public hearing and I see there are a lot of people here who are interested in this item so if you'd like to speak on this or if you have any questions now is the chance to do that you can just approach the microphone and then just fill out a card before you leave tonight please state your name and address for the record please and then I see you have that blue card there's that's perfect yes ma'am first of all I'd like to say that I'm new to Denton I've only lived in country lakes for since March I bought a home there and since I've lived there I have some very basic concerns I'd like to express to the city of Denton first of all Crawford Road is a very narrow two-lane road that is now supporting the existing community of country lakes and as I hear your other discussions apparently a hospital development now destined at I-35W and Crawford Road and we're also talking about 1,400 new homes in country lakes yet we have Crawford Road is our primary means of ingress and egress to that whole area I'd like to know who is going to improve Crawford Road is it in Denton or is it in Argyle secondly I'm concerned about parking at the amenity center I'm hoping that since we're talking soccer fields swimming pools and all of these types of amenities that will draw families and lots of people for soccer games and all that there will be sufficient parking to support that amen ity without street parking because then again we get back to John Payne John Payne is the primary ingress and egress into country lakes and if parking is allowed even on the the roadway there you 're going to inhibit traffic over time with the continued growth of that neighborhood I hope you 'll consider all of these aspects as you approve this and continue development within country lakes and adjacent property on Crawford Road thank you ma'am your name and address oh I'm sorry okay my name is Beverly Brady and I live at 5-7-1-7 to Waukene Argyle which is on the Denton side of Argyle thank you and if you could please give that card over there that'd be great thank you um Commissioner Rozelle did you have a question I don't have a question I just wanted to respond to the statements to provide clarity to the Crawford issue and our master mobility plan or the mobility plan for Denton Crawford is included in that and it's considered a primary arterial so there is going to be expansion to Crawford I don't know the timeline of that but that is set to be addressed that is on the list and then I appreciate your feedback at the parking that's something that we can certainly that is part of the purview of this discussion is to look at at the site plan when parking is under that and so I just appreciate your feedback and lastly welcome to Denton and thank you for being active in these discussions that's very helpful thank you Ms Wyatt would you like to talk about the parking lot please thank you I can't talk about the parking lot we don't have a parking ratio for this type of use within the Denton development code so you know we worked with the applicant to find out what they felt was the most appropriate parking ratio we looked at that and made sure that we felt like it was appropriate they may be able if if the community's concerned about additional parking they may be able to add additional parking we also wanted to make sure that there was um that community residents could access it not just by car but by bicycle and by sidewalk as well so you know we wanted to keep parking appropriate for the site because we wanted to maintain the green space and but still provide adequate for those who want to drive there so we don't have a ratio necessarily how many I'm curious how many parking spots are in it are on it right now and that file is keeping in mind that it is in a neighborhood with there's going to be sidewalks and bike racks and such too but there are about 20 parking spaces are there um are there okay I'm sorry I can 't see it okay all right 21 I'm sorry 21 thank you sure thank you and Earl would you like to talk about Crawford Road thank you good evening commissioners uh Crawford Roads it's an interesting uh unique situation there because it's a border between Denton and Argyle and the boundary the city's boundary line for that road is actually at the center of the street so half of it's owned and maintained by the city of Denton the north side and the south side's own and maintained by the city of Argyle we've discussed this with Argyle and they're interested in eventually ultimately taking ownership and maintenance of that roadway however the ultimate right away is not there at this time so as platting occurs and development occurs along that roadway will exact the right away along their frontage and once the right away is accumulated along that entire stretch we'll have to do eventually a boundary adjustment with the city of Argyle so that they can't take ownership is there a timeline on that it's not like a long process it 's going to be a long process unless Argyle takes the initiative to acquire through condemnation or acquisition so maybe this neighborhood could go to the Argyle planning and zoning commission push this through but so there are plans for it but it's there's a plan for it right just no no timeline and as for parking on John Payne John Payne does not allow parking on that street thank you this is a public hearing is there anyone else that would like to speak or have any questions please and you could please set your name and address for the record and then fill out a blue card and hand it in before you leave thank you um i had a couple of questions one was answered uh regarding security access someone had mentioned a code the question was is it going to be a code is going to be card uh like the current amenity center is and you answer that would be a card and that's that's a secure means the other question brought up by my new neighbor um was regarding the soccer field will this soccer field be used for city leagues and things like that or is this this is primarily i assume for the residents of uh country lakes my name is Tim Maddox 5720 Balmorray my mind i was like sorry please continue that's it thank you for the opportunity and i'll fill out a card would you like to address that sir yes i think we call it a soccer field it's an hoa play field i mean they can go out you can play pick up game of football you can do whatever it's not going to be sanctioned in the denton county soccer league where it opens up every saturday to games from eight to eight so our plan is it's hoa owned and it'll be hoa played and there'll be areas where they can hang out but no schools or leagues or anything like that so a quick question is that a regulation soccer field or is it kind of a mini it's just a designation for an open field to be used for it could have been called field but yeah okay because i think people are going to get the wrong impression about regulation 100 meters by 50 meters type situation and it's huge we spent the last 11 years on the soccer field so yeah it's people and chaos maybe you should call it a play field maybe or ball field play field i think is what normally is designated for this type of area open play field sir sorry the plans themselves i mean uh he's with ventric says a playing field so thank you so anyone else who would like to speak on this item or have any questions are you sure you already spoke once i'm sorry i know anyone else tell it to your neighbor and then they can come up huh there's no rules against it i'm the chair i'm gonna say it's okay all right there you go way to go neighbors set your name and address for the record please i'm tracy maddox 5720 balmerie drive in argyle but really didn't um okay so the question is what will it take to have some more discussions with the city of dent on planning and zoning with argyle about crawford or is it just like at a dead stop that's a great question our own do you have an answer to that thanks for being a team player yeah i'm assuming you're wanting to know what the timeline is to forward and widening eventually of crawford road with both cities and what argals intentions are to to uh i guess take ownership and maintenance of that roadway um that's something we can set up with the city of argal um just not sure who the proper contacts would be there to begin with but we can eventually essentially get that get that ball rolling if you'd like so so could people get in touch with you or all for and you could or yeah okay so y'all hit him up after the meeting and get his contact info all right i have one other question not related to hers so when we moved in we've been there since 2007 the amenity center was going to be a swimming area for adults only not like adult only but you know i mean it was like only like 18 and up and so i'm sure with all the other stuff it really is for kids but and since our hoa people are here the current amenity center we really out of a seven day week we really get about three days of swimming because it's always shut down for people who maintenance and so uh i was wondering if that's something that's open for discussion with our hoa about having i know that's not you guys but this is our hoa people are here i'm april woods i'm with first service residential um 1240 keller parkway keller um right now we've had two fecal contaminations in the pool this year both caused by young children so not intentional and that is something to be expected in a community pool going forward in regards to the adult swim i believe i've exchanged emails with your husband that is something that we can work with the social committee to set up perhaps now that we have an additional amenity center coming on board definitely to reserve some time potentially for an adult swim we obviously wouldn't be able to shut down the pool to other residents in the community but we could certainly recommend that a certain time be designated for that going forward nice to meet you that's all i have thank you so so this is kind of my sense now um i'm really appreciative of the neighborhood for coming out a lot of the questions seem to be more hoa related than planning and zoning related so i'd like to just mention that these are fantastic questions and i love your passion and i love your involvement in your neighborhood but perhaps if it's an hoa specific question you can hit up your hoa representative and set up another meeting in regards to some of the the rules and regulations about this yeah and i also wanted to mention too that earl eskobar is with the engineering department so he would definitely be a good person for y'all to talk to as far as working on some improvements to crawford road are there any questions or comments for the planning and zoning commission since this is a public hearing yes sir i'm assuming this i 'm anthony mcdougall i live at 5200 brookside drive either or gallo or denton i don't know where the line is i moved in country lakes in 2003 and this was the brochure that we were given when we moved there far left-hand corner here is a future school site and right above the amenity center that they're proposing to build now is also a future school site um for the planning and zoning commission the question i have is with so many homes coming into country lakes now and the schools in denton um being overcrowded and schools in argau being separated by the line that runs through country lakes when is the school going to be built or is it going to be built and why was the initial school i guess rezoned for a church sir a staff person that can answer that yes that'd be julie yes i'm sorry commissioner tedowitz i believe that uh st mark is planning at some point in time to put a parochial school i'm sorry i can't i'm i'm sorry i'm sorry i believe this the church area that you're talking about is st mark and from what i understood being a parishioner there is plans to build a parochial school on that site catholic school okay now i can't honestly say that but that was the plan and that's still possibly what and you may know more but uh there was a plan development amendment for that that catholic church a couple of years ago and i don't i don't have all the details as to why that a school was no longer contemplated for that site and for the other school in the neighborhood we don't have an application for that at this time so i don't know what the timing would be for that so just a placeholder for now much much like the amenity center was when the detail plan came in commissioner taylor thank you chair so dentin isd would be the one that would set the time frame based on when they have the student enrollment or whatever their criteria are right is that correct my assumption would be dentin isd in conjunction with probably the developer because there's probably going to have to be some cooperation there because a detail plan amendment is going to be required for it so um so but yeah i would assume it would once dentin isd needs the school does that answer your question sir as best as we can i think what i got out of it is no one knows kind of quick up in the airplane yeah go ahead i can provide the staff report to you um that was prepared when that catholic church came in if you'd like just contact me and i can provide the information to you perfect all right all right thank you community in action i love it thank you thank you very much good question sir yes ma'am if you could please state your name and address for the record and then be sure to fill out a blue card too before you leave thank you my name is therese the penny packer and i live at five eight oh nine to walk me drive argyle texas um i think this is a question for you instead of a soccer field would there be any consideration to perhaps a tennis court which would bring in less traffic a little diversity a little more adult that would be a question for your hoa okay yes that's a good question now can i get another one sure oh yeah you still got time okay um the traffic is a concern because i go to work every day and it's hard to get in and out and when they block off the road for construction like they did this week there was no other way to get out to 377 unless you got to the railroad track and then had to go all the way back to 35 so is there ever going to be another way in and out of country lakes and i don't know if that's for you either that's a good planning and zoning question yeah and i think that's probably something that earl could address it yeah yeah was that yeah i'm good it's great yes thank you thank you and then please fill out a blue card too before you leave yeah i think they're out there yeah does that help a little bit john payne eventually will extend to the north as development occurs um all the way to i believe it's johnson street to correct me if i'm incorrect so johnson street is the southern boundary line of the entire country lakes north or country like yeah country lakes north development so eventually the developer will develop all phases and as they do so along john payne it will extend all the way to johnson to provide that point of access but that sounds like it's going to be a little ways off and the cementity center is going to be coming in sooner so addressing her concern about how to get around within the neighborhood when they're blocking off streets for construction is there a plans a backup plan for that construction of the amenity center yes ma'am as i understood that was your question is when there's probably going to be some blocking of lanes with the moving construction equipment in and out and that's what i understood your question to be yeah could you address that yeah by looking at this development uh just site plan right now there's no lots to the north of this amenity center so there shouldn't be any traffic blocked as part of the construction of the amenity center itself um all the lots proposed along with the amenity center to the east and south and so there shouldn't be any blockage of of traffic i don't believe okay thanks there's no there's no lots to the to the north of this so this is at the north end so any of the construction is going to be out away from any of the existing homeowners as well as any new homeowners it's going to be at the far end of that so the construction of the center will not affect any of the traffic and also what i'm here is the the school site up there across the center is owned by the denton school district it has been dated to them so any questions anybody has about when the school is going to be built that doesn't even directed to the isd we have met with them on numerous times to offer whatever we could to encourage them you know to build it but it's definitely it's on their radar but you'd have to ask them when thank you would it be possible to get the the 1999 concept plan up to see the entire development sorry so and so that's johnson is the east west road at the very top of the development is that correct and so at some point in the future that will become a an arterial or it would have to be improved once that development that was adjacent to it would come in and yeah please come forward and say your name and address hello my name is jeff greason i live at 5916 eagle mountain drive argyle denton isd i want to add to the question that she had was are there plans and development for john payne to extend all the way to either 377 actually leave country lakes we only have two entrances they come into crawford we talked about was very congested you've got ropes and ranch coming through you're going to have the hospital coming through i understand we don't need to talk about crawford we get that but there are only two entrances to country lakes i'm in the back so john payne comes right past where i where i live increased traffic will it ever leave country lakes to 377 or to i apologize there's a gravel road to the north beby johnson that's johnson what's the timing i'm not earl do you have no timing at all on does it kind of depend on when the neighborhood how quickly the neighborhood is built out thank you thank you sir and please remember to fill out a blue card you got it awesome oops yeah there's no immediate plans for the extension of johnson road that's the question at this time however with the you know the implementation of roadway impact fees and this development that comes in there might be an opportunity to to extend make that extension a lot sooner as a traffic start begin to increase and the need for that second point is needed thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak this is a public hearing yes please sir my name is brad quick i live at 9204 benbro ok lane in aria and uh i'm a engineer for a general contractor large general contractor so i look at a lot of this and i've actually lived in two places in country lakes lived over at 5416 now live in the backside where everybody's talking about this and i'm doing what i do i've looked at a lot of the plans i've talked with the builder quite a lot and i've seen a lot of this stuff and i've looked into what the city of dentin what city oracle has so i can actually answer some of the questions some of these people have there's actually three ways in and out of country lakes the other two paved sections at the front and then when you come up john pain where it makes that first hard big right hand turn there's a dirt road that connects up to johnson also connects to the johnson road connects at the bridge you can carry it across and go over towards pondor or you can go towards 377 now john pain will only go up to johnson road and meet we cannot cross from where we're at into the 377 i was some people's question because that's the railroad we can't we're at where we're at and you i know you're speaking about being blocked in well that one that has nothing to do with anybody here talked to the texas railroad commission because they were doing maintenance on the railroad tracks which nobody here can handle and i know we do need to get that and i think the easiest answer is for like crawford road sir just contact your counterpart over there it's not too hard when you find your info and find find theirs so we can get that handled and with the ammendi center uh people i know it's it's approved it's going everybody's here and there's a lot of questions with it uh that's one of the reasons we stayed in the neighborhood is to move over and we moved where we did because that amenity center going in with the school right there and the way the amenity center is being ran now compared to what it was when we first moved in eight years ago it's a lot better now with the key card access they're all having a lot less vandalism and people are concerned about the vandalism that's the kids that live in the neighborhood that's who you're doing that so it's not outside people it's not anything like that and with the traffic concerns i don't see more traffic concerns than what we have now it 's going to be just like the one that's in existence now on the argon side that was now serv icing everybody i have my 16 year old son i have a 17 year old sister that lives with me they make that walk to go i want them to stay closer and so there actually gets more traffic now because people are having to drive over because you want these kids walking 105 degree temperature so any other concerns with that or with the zoning and how many parking spaces are there this is definitely bigger and it's got more than what's currently existing servicing the entire neighborhood so there shouldn't be any questions or concerns with it i think it's one of those that should be just get done right away it's being managed pretty well with what we have existing and like i said it's on john payne there's no parking on there there's no shoulder it's large sidewalks four lane road and just like it is now most people are going to walk to it they're going to go to it and go there it's going to be actually help the neighborhood and actually cut down on traffic going to the other amenity center where they've had we've had to install stop signs where there were none because of the increased traffic of more people moving in the neighborhood thank you sorry so thank you um just for the record then are you are you for or against the i afford this okay that's the whole reason we moved where we did we were leaving the house that we were renting there so we've been there in that neighborhood for eight years and we decided to buy the people we were written from didn't want to sell but we love the neighborhood so much with everything that it is especially when the new company took over the new property management company took over they improved it immensely especially with the amenity center and because that mandy center and the school was getting built in over there that's why we moved where we did we stayed inside the neighborhood because we like the one that was there we like how they've done it this one's going to be a lot better and everything is there it's just going to be just for the residents it's not it's not open to the public just like it is currently right now with everything you know we have our dogs we run them around and on the grass and everything like that so this is going to be really good it's going to be better for the people better for everybody and this is made for families so that's what it needs to be what it is so i'm all for this and i can't wait for it to open up because that's a long walk in flip-flops to get over there thank you sir thank you this is a public hearing does anyone who'd like to speak for against the side if you have any questions it's a good chance for you to do it yeah please thank you my name is angela jack i'm at 5413 balmora drive and i don't know if this is so much a planning and zoning but with all the new construction and if there was a way that the trucks could come in a different route and save crawford road i would just like to make that appeal because we have bikers on crawford we have runners we have people leaving and going to work and same time and so we just it's a very dangerous road and so the more the big trucks are on there the more dangerous it gets so thank you is that would that be a p and z question or is that an hoa question is that something that we can address is the traffic flow of the construction vehicles yes how would how would we like to address that come on girl you get no workout tonight or all see if i can go back to the presentation here oh wow am i going the right direction i'm sorry i might need the developer's assistance here mr douglas um the amenity center is part of a phase that three b three b and so if the i think in terms of construction traffic if you can limit it to just john pain and come around and not impact the local roads i think that would be the approach that you might have to take again we've instructed all our contractors and the truck drivers to use john pain and in fact even in the rush time which truck drivers did like this we actually had them going up old john pain and across johnson road so we did try to do that however you know we can't control every truck that comes in and out of there but we did our very best as we was developing this phase to bring as much traffic in across johnson road but again there's always that that road driver and again there's a lot of other traffic not just what we're doing development but there's home building there's moving vans there's all kinds of other truck and there's other trucks using cropper roads not even associated with our subdivision so again there there is a lot and i understand it's a two lane two lane road but we do everything we can to bring as much of the heavier truck traffic in from johnson road and down old john pang thank you anyone else would like to speak for or against this item or any questions you all feel it empowered with knowledge you know what's going on now love it okay so with that i'm going to close the public hearing thank you for sticking around so late tonight and i'm going to open it up for discussion or a motion from the commission commissioner beck i forget that i would like to thank everybody for coming in tonight i appreciate it and though you asked some things that we can't address this commission it's good to see people getting involved uh and and trying to make things happen so i do appreciate you all making it out tonight and again as far as crawford road is concerned remember the other half of that is our guys so take this group of people and take it to the heart of city commissioners over there and uh try and get them to help you with that aspect of that road improvement too and uh with that being said i would like to motion that we approve this agenda commissioner rooselle second any discussion about this i just like to say one once more thank you all for sticking around on a school night it's so late and uh i really i can tell that you're a very engaged uh community and a strong neighborhood it's a lot of questions unfortunately that we can't really address tonight but it sounds like we have all the right people in the right room together so i encourage you to meet with each other after the meeting so you can really work out the finer details with this with this project at your hoa so with that let's vote on the board um the motion does pass five zero thank you very much for coming out um and then item i guess that's it any are there any concluding items that we need to address yes we're good all right yeah i'm sorry commissioner commissioner beck thank you chair uh i have recently been made aware of and have been reading some material on a lot of communities that are reducing and even eliminating their parking requirements um and it's kind of a win-win situation uh developers you know it keeps their costs down it opens up more green space for the community and uh hold just hold that thought one second commissioner beck will we let the room clear okay it's kind of hard to hear you okay i didn't know it had volume control you guys came in line i appreciate it all right let's try that again let me just turn up my turn up your ears as i tell my kids turn up your ears all right let's try it again am i good to go yeah i've been lately made aware of and i've read a lot of material on a lot of communities uh that are reducing or even eliminating their parking requirements and it's kind of a win-win situation for everybody developers are spending less as a result of it and it opens up more green space for the community and and and with fewer parking space especially if it's in uh dense populated areas it encourages people to ride their bikes walk so that being said i would like uh for this commission to review parking space requirements as laid out in sub chapter 14 in the development code sections 35.14.1 through 35.14.10 for the express purpose of reducing such spaces to expand our green space and encourage fewer people to drive their autist to places within short distances of their home well stated sir okay for a future agenda item how to do larry i'm gonna ask you to email me that request the commission has heard it it's on the record but if you could email it to me and then we'll take care from there i heard you larry loud and clear anything else okay that will conclude our meeting the time is 7 45 thank you very much [ Silence ]