Jan 24, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2018-01-24 4:00 PM

January 24th 2018 this meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 405 our first order of business will be to go through and receive clarification of agenda items so does anybody have a question on the consent agenda? Nothing? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair you know I just had a quick question on 3A. Sorry Haley. You know it just talks about that sewer conventionally again in a note. I assume that it can be. Yes. And where it's located and that's gonna be taken off eventually. Yes ma'am with this being a preliminary plat sometimes those standard notes just get left on there but there will be sewer service to the site and that won't be on the final plot. Okay good deal thanks. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Just I'm still a little foggy on E here the conveyance approval of the conveyance plan. What exactly are we doing here? This is a conveyance plot so it is being plotted just to reconfigure the lots for the sale of the property. The conveyance plot doesn't grant any development rights for anything at this time so it would still come back and be preliminary and final plotted. This is just moving some lot lines around for the sale of the property. So it's a solid lot now we're splitting it up? It was previously three lots we're just adjusting the boundary lines of them a little bit but you can see kind of in the gray area on there there's the original lot numbers. Okay. Got you. Okay thank you. Anybody else on consent agenda? Okay thank you Hayley. We only have one item on our public hearings tonight that will be item A. Shandrin if you want to walk us through this item? Good afternoon. It's good to see you guys. Yeah. So this is a rezoning request for property located on Audre Lane Z 1726. It's approximately 13 acres and they are requesting to go from NR 2 which is a single-family residential district that allows up to two dwelling units per acre. They want to re zone to an NR 6 that allows some single primarily single-family use but also some duplex and townhome use with a maximum of six units per acre. The property is located just southeast of the Audre and Nottingham intersection. Audre Lane actually serves as the western boundary and also the northern boundary of the property. And just to give you some landmarks the Ditten Bible Church is here. Mingo Road goes diagonally through the map and then D itten Church of Christ is here. The site is primarily undeveloped although there are some limited agricultural uses and it has not been platted as of yet. Do you want me to go through the full presentation? Well we do the shortened version here because I know we have a number of other reports to be given and then we can certainly go through the full if we need to it in there. Okay we can do that. So we look at two items, well two major criteria when we consider rezoning requests. One does it meet the future land use plan and then two will the site be adequately served by public utilities and public services? Are the roads sufficient? Is the wastewater water connections are they there and available? Public police fired EMS, what are the impacts on those? The first criteria that we assess is the compatibility with the comprehensive plan and primarily the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. And so for this area as you can tell from the insert, the area that the subject property is located within is primarily surrounded by what we classify as low density residential and the intent of low density residential is to promote single- family detached units that range from about one unit per acre up to a max of about four units per acre. And what we found when we looked at this request is that it the NR6 zoning in particular does not is not compatible with what we would classify as low density residential. What we typically see NR6 and what we would call the moderate residential category which we in that class we see the NR6 zoning and then we'll also get into the mixed use the NRMU and then the NRMU-12s. In this area we have most of the the construction is single -family detached. They are approximately 50 to 60 foot wide lots and really are consistent with what we intended for these areas for low density residential. So when a site does not is not compatible with the future land use plan there is some additional criteria that the DDC allows us to consider and one of that one of those is compatibility as we talked about with what 's already on the ground as far as the construction type, the land use, the scale. We can look at those elements to see if the requested district would fit within what's already there. As far as those elements NR6 mostly meets those criteria where we get the discrepancies with the there's two land uses that would get introduced with this new zoning district townhomes and duplexes would be permitted with the NR6 outright and that is not consistent with what's already been constructed in this area. If you guys remember I think it was in December there was a case that came before you the Yale property right and that that request was basically identical to the one that's before you today and council did end up approving that as NR6 with the conditional overlay and so what essentially happened is that we the on its faces NR6 but with the conditions it's more of an NR4 product so they restricted the uses to single-family only and then they actually kept the number of dwelling units that would be constructed so to maintain consistency with the area. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In regards to that case that that one was something where the applicant was applying it was a little over four it was a little over four units per acre and that's why we had to go to NR6 and so I get what you're saying the council approved it do you have any idea what the applicant unit per acre actual number is I know it's over four it's why it's going to NR6. Well actually I spoke with the applicant for this case the Audra tract and he's coming in right at four units per acre so they they are I'm not quite clear on why they are requesting the NR6 I think it may have to do with the total lot counts that they are hoping to get out of the site but when I look at it I haven't identified any constraints like flood plain or ESA that would keep them from constructing the NR4 even product on this site. Okay and then the what was the conditional overlay that was given by the city council? For the property to the north. The property to the north. And Haley if you can help me out but essentially it restricted the uses to only single-family detached construction right? Yes. And then it was they restricted the use single- family only and I can't remember it was like 4.6 or 4.8 units. They reduced or they limited the number of lots to what was shown on the conceptual site plan which was I believe about 35 lots total. Commissioner Bec. Thank you chair. Okay going to the point where there was an overlay before we got the city council we were under the impression that NR6 couldn't do an overlay so what happened at City Council? Does that apply now? Has that been a changed thing ? Victor's not answering my question first. And if I guess if you would if I could revisit that under my presentation I'll definitely answer that question. Okay. Or I can go into my presentation right now. Well just quick answer though is that overlay an option tonight? Yes. Okay. Please continue. Okay so getting back to the presentation we look at compatibility with what's already been constructed in the area. We look at available infrastructure that can serve the site. For this site there is available water and sewer along both segments of Audre Lane to the west and to the north. Obviously there will be extensions required in order for this site to be developed but that utility is available on those two right-of-ways. As far as the roadways that serve the site, Audre Lane on the west is currently an undivided two-lane road and the mobility plan actually costs for a four-lane divided with sidewalks and bike lanes and then for Audre Lane on the north it will be ultimate cross-section of about 65 feet a right-of-way. And then right-of-way dedications, perimeter street improvements would all occur at the platting stage so we're not quite there yet. Once the site is more fleshed out we can make those assessments. And again no ESA. We didn't find any ESA, no floodplain issues. There is some tree canopy on the site as you can see just on the west side as you get close to Audre. Then some, I'm not sure what the condition of those trees are but the tree preservation and mitigation requirements will kick in once they get into site development. As required by the Texas Local Government Code we did public notifications. We sent 66 letters to the adjacent property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. We received six letters in opposition. Those areas highlighted in red are the those properties that are opposed to the request and that comes that comes out to about 3% so we haven't triggered the supermajority at council yet. We sent 173 courtesy notices within 500 feet to property owners within 500 feet and then the applicant also held a neighborhood meeting last week. So in summary we are recommending denial for this request based on it's not consistent with the future land use plan. It's not compatible with the existing the surrounding properties and we feel that an NR3 NR4 zoning is more appropriate. Now we did have some struggle with this recommendation given what happened with the case to the north and obviously if City Council chose to do an overlay similar to what they did with the yellow estate that would be more appropriate. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Egress and ingress is going to be I'm assuming Lattimore is going to extend into the new area. This street here? Yes. I'm gonna actually defer to pre-tem to see if there's any requirements to extend that street. I was gonna say because if it does you're gonna have a dramatic shift from NR2 to NR6 and that's gonna look weird and I guess that other little vertical stretch there is that gonna be a road to? Good afternoon my name is pre-tem I'm the traffic engineer for the city. At this stage where it's really preliminary primarily some of the something like this comes on we require a traffic study and definitely it's an option to extend Lattimore it makes more sense to use Latt imore as a connection there but there will be some other connection points to the side the site is pretty large. You don't have any specifics right now? No specifics unless they have a number of units we can't really define what kind of traffic requirements they trigger. Okay but is there gonna be more than one entrance and exit? Yes. Okay thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank You Chair. Shandrin. Forgive me for my ignorance is there tree preservation differences between NR2 and NR6? Not necessarily. We have some landscape standards that vary based on zoning districts but the tree preservation requirements vary based on the type of tree, the size obviously. I'm more just worried about if there's citizens here tonight that are saying hey we don't want you to rezone it because we're afraid we're gonna lose all those beautiful trees that are backed up to our lots there. We want to make sure that the preservation that the current zoning isn't too much different or different at all than the proposed zoning. No the preservation requirements are based on the trees. And then along Audre there do we currently have that right away or is that gonna be captured the plotting process? Yes for the future mobility expansion I should say. For both sections of Audre both on the north and the west we will get dedications with the plats. We don't currently have the full right away. Exactly. So it'd be smart for us to try to. Well thank you. Commissioner Rossell. Thank You Chair. I was actually absent at this previous northern meeting and so forgive my ignorance or memory on the minutes but is this the same applicant as the north property? No there are two different applicants two different owners. And so I know this is rezoning but there hasn't been any unified one neighborhood. It's gonna be two distinct developments. Yes we encourage them to work together in the beginning but throughout business reasons I guess they needed to do it separately. Okay and then the other question I have is I'm trying to understand the staff's perspective given council's consideration. So if we remove that if staff not okay are not recommending because of the uses in NR6 or because of the density of NR6? It's a bit of both and we don't have the City Council is and Victor will get into this in his presentation. The City Council has more discretion to do those types of actions than we do. The code doesn't give us the leeway to do that to add a conditional overlay as staff or to recommend that to you. Okay thanks. Commissioner Sanchez. Looking at this map I was looking at there's a lot of NR4 surrounding that and then across across Audra there's NR6 and then I guess just looking at that being that this is a pretty much vacant land this whole area is vacant. I was looking at NR6 and it basically says which these areas will be prominent feature of Denton's newest neighborhoods and so this is a new area most of the old areas around it are older neighborhoods so I guess my idea was you know NR6 is something that we're looking at develop within I would think because the city is in these open areas that are small that would be my my idea because we want to fill in and we also want to make best use of those areas so my I guess my question is why wouldn't you develop that well that yellow section right next to Audra I imagine that would be business at one point or over time that whole area is going to fill in because it's vacant right now is it going to be are we looking at NR4 over time because when was this I guess my question is when was the NR2 given you know if it was 10-15 years ago things have changed quite a bit in that area over that time over that time period sure that's fair the NR2 if I'm if I'm correct was established when we did the city-wide rezoning and a lot of this area was developed prior to actually the DDC the current DDC that we have and so the what you see on the ground may not completely match what the current code is just because it was developed prior but that point you made about the infield is good typically we see the in our mixed-use districts and an NR6 as a we use it as a transition zoning between maybe commercial or higher density residential and lower density residential so a more appropriate place would be where you see it along Amingo Road that's a major arterial so you can see well we would encourage the NR6 the NRMU the NRMU-12s along this area but typically we wouldn't want to introduce that type of density in an established neighborhood even though like you're correct these are infield products but we still would want them to fit within and be compatible with what's already on the ground if that makes sense thanks Chandrian all the other items that we have in our public hearing tonight have been renoticed and we will not hear those so with that I'm gonna say that concludes our agenda that will go through in council chambers and so we will proceed to our work session reports and at this time I will turn it over to Victor Flores for his presentation on overlay districts well I believe I'm just guessing that my presentations be maybe fielded more by my by questions but I'll just kind of give briefly give a summary as was discussed City Commission the City Council approved an overlay district previously mentioned development legal was asked and has been asked to kind of review the standards for imposing overlay districts it's kind of it's just after reviewing case law and discussing amongst our team just the unified analysis of our department that the overlay districts are permitted and and that stems out just be very very basic and we can guess as far into the details as we want to go on with questions but it comes from the premise that the City Council is vested with authority to do all things related to zoning and so in other instances there are very prescribed overlay districts within the code that authority to create these overlay districts is within the authority of the City Council now the City Council has delegated a certain authority over to this Commission to make similar recommendations to them and so just based on on that premise alone it's our understanding joined with case law and another analysis that we've done the overlay districts are permitted and it would be printed permitted in the case that was just talked about before limited to what we can find on the permitted uses sheet then and saying okay we have the permitted uses sheet which includes everything from max lot size max building height the certain users for you know from you know on that like we just talked about in our sixes basically in our floor but added in there with townh omes and duplexes so this extent of what type of overlay we can create is adjust to the criteria that are listed within that within that permitted uses or where should we start looking for for resources if we're thinking that an overlay will be right in this scenario simple questions you answer yes just stay with them within those standards and if I can digress just a little bit to kind of maybe explain what was once the position or the communicated position to this commission that maybe overlay districts were not permitted don't know how far along that that stem back but I can only assume that it was a progression of a recommendation given out of caution in this sense is that when you're not dealing with overlay districts that are prescribed in the code it's just council's job to make those tough decisions on the fly what is or what is not within those standards correct yeah that's just I guess I get right we don't want to create I know we had a developer here a couple months back for a P&Z meeting that we ended up we were talking about creating overlay district on something along the future expansion 2499 and he was like you guys are essentially creating new zoning at the dais and so I get it but I just we don't want to know within what parameters should we be operating and then going back to to answer your question and it was a pretty short pretty short answer but yes you would stick within those standards and on top of that you would I would say the general rule just put plainly is you could not I use this example if the standards are to have a six foot fence around the property you would not be able to I guess override the council and say no we want a four foot fence which would be because you would be able to recommend something more restrictive an eight foot fence okay because that would still satisfy the purpose original intent purpose of those standards okay got it so nothing with a specific direction but more or less that you have like in this sense like a maximum right you can't like what would they do within our six they completely just removed two uses there I get what you're saying it's like hey everything in this zone needs to be four foot fences right setting say hey it has to be a parking additional parking yeah or cannot be over cannot be over this amount of feet and again I mean my job is to help you know keep everybody within within the rails and so again not fully understanding the reason why the recommendation of the past was given to to not allow overlay districts but I can assume it was out of caution to just for not to get beyond the standards but you can within the standards you can establish these overlay districts thank you commissioner Ellis thank you chair you may have kind of answered this already done I'm assuming you as a legal team had a change of heart on this overlay I was certainly someone very concerned after that meeting because we were told one thing and then council did exactly what we were told we couldn't do so I certainly voiced that concern and so did you just as a team have collectively get together and then just decide that this is something that can be recommended yes at this level and then above obviously for a final yes yeah we've discussed it from the city attorney down to other land use and real estate attorneys as well okay so it was just maybe an old something that was being used but right and again I don't think that there's been a variation or deviation from past but I think what what was maybe incrementally a movement towards a conservative side again in kind of creating these standards on overlay districts that may be outside of the original intent of the listed requirements maybe that's where it came from but in our discussions we definitely cross our t's and dotted our eyes and did some research and said yeah you know we're all on the same page here thank you Commissioner Sullivan thank you chair just to clarify Commissioner Smith's point the meeting that we had where we were negotiating with the developer that's something that we should not have been doing at that point in time or going forward or so again I would say on a case-by-case basis I'm not saying for me not to engage the developer but definitely I would not let me say this way to answer your question directly I would not engage a developer on standards that may not be prescribed already now if you're talking about standards and heightened requirements on the standards are already present it's possible if the council wanted to engage in a discussion like that that would be that'd be fine but to go beyond those I guess four corners of whatever is already written I would recommend against that thank you Commissioner Smith thank you sure so what he was you're specifically talking about Commissioner Sullivan was that we were we were saying you know hey there's a camera what it was but it was criteria of hey we're gonna remove we're gonna move bars and clubs out of permitted uses mr. developer is that okay with you is that type of dialogue allowed is that is that that's not gonna put us in any type of type of issues there for we're saying hey we're gonna move this is that okay with you and the developer says yes okay okay great then in my motion I'm gonna say motion to approve with conditions that these two things are removed I don't listen the dialogue isn't what's the issue the issue it's the requiring requiring of the applicant are purporting to to require of them to do X Y & Z when it's not prescribed in the code already against his own voluntary will again this is a recommending board so everything is recommended is is is final say so yeah is with the council but the dialogue itself is not the concern it's again requiring the applicant to do something outside of this albis code okay commissioner Roselle on a maybe a step back on a zoning case should we be talking about the developer at all about the use cases or what they might or might not build again it's not wrong to have that dialogue with a developer if it's one of ten things that you consider well I think that makes sense but in the situation which we're talking about a rezone and the developers requesting certain things and there so in this case the developers like yeah we won't put a bar there he gets that restricted that's now applied to the zone he could go sell the property and a new developer would be under the bounds that another developer negotiated with this commission so I'm wondering it's been my premise of the past two years that on zoning cases the purported or positioned actual build out shouldn't be informed and taking into consideration we should see if that zoning and that part of the land and that city is appropriate regardless of what the developer might be telling us that's going in there because they're not bound by that yes yeah you know you're definitely correct in in that scenario I guess I'm leaning more towards because your question is a question specific to use right right and obviously our code determines what uses can or cannot be in a certain area I think that would be lean lean or getting closer to the realm of not being within the standards that you're able to operate out of in establishing requirements of the overlay district Commissioner Smith to add on to I think Victor said their Commissioner Roselle's that in that specific case we could see that that that zone was going to be a budding neighborhoods there so it didn't really yes we discussed with the with the developer we agreed upon and that's a case-by-case basis we were talked about but in that specific case I could see that even then didn't matter what the developers projected use was going to be for it and then therefore hey you're not going to use it for this so we'll go ahead and remove it but more or less that we're gonna rezone it that use is there and we know it's a budding these these neighborhoods here so no matter what even if the developer does sell it off doesn't matter what the developer was going to do with it or whoever he sells it to is going to do with it we would never underneath no one's circumstances that under no developers direction will whoever want bars and restaurants they are right next those neighborhoods so and then yes and yes and then to highlight I believe the concerns are more attached to traffic to to dense to density and like hours of operation as compared to the specific use yeah mr. Roselle I appreciate the clarification I guess my concern is that there's always a temptation for myself and from past Commissioner this the Commission general to blur the lines between use and zoning and I think this quasi ability to zone on the fly is going to increase the temptation to engage in developers and negotiating how that land should be used and I'm bringing forth as a concern to this Commission as well as to the legal that I think there's been times in which on the dais we've said okay how are we gonna negotiate what's gonna be there what's not to be there and we come up with these really arduous motions right there and in the middle of discussion and I think that can be dangerous it sounds like that's permitted which is fine I'm just in voicing a concern that I had going forward about the use that this Commission takes in that I'd hope it's used with much discretion well no and I guess to my one of my very first comments was don't know I can't pin down necessarily where where in our history and advising this board the determination came down no you can't allow overlay districts but I'm fairly confident that it came out of caution as you were expressing you know the cautions concerns of us starting to regulate use you know overriding what was approved by council right to the code of ordinances but still I guess our point today in my in my report is that that option is on the table like you say but again you do want to use caution and I mean that's what I'm here for to kind of help you guys walk you guys through that when you think hey we're getting a little too close to use I'm gonna jump in and then history and Ron may be able to add some perspective to my recollection of the concern in the past about the overlay districts had to do with the ability to track them and keep up with them and so for example and I'll use myself this when I go online the city website and start searching parcels and looking at pieces and go that's zoned in our six and that's on in our four it doesn't show up that it has an overlay on it and so the only way you find out that it has a use restriction let's use that term since that's the example that we're putting out here that you can't have a bar there is until if you haven't done your homework you've already purchased it it sales it's in our six and you come in to put a bar there and oh three years ago it had a overlay restriction put on it that you can't have a bar there but it's owned to have a bar there and so I that's just the history that I recall as to why those were not encouraged and I would agree with Commissioner Roselle's opinion that in certain circumstances and more being the exception than the rule that we use these because it it will make a difficult housekeeping record-keeping process on every single track if it becomes that we're going to put overlays patch work on top of all these things limiting uses and all these other things just to shoehorn versus it's cleanly zoned and you can do anything that's allowed in the zoning use in that particular place and that's my recollection of why that was done that way and I would ask Ron if you've got anything you want to add to that as well for us from your many years of experience and recoll ection as well thank you chair members of the Commission we that's that's accurate we've identified 35 of these zoning districts that have overlays or conditions on them as part of our zoning map or zoning layers now so sure that will continue to grow maybe but currently we have 35 just to help illustrate what Commissioner Strange has discussed okay Commissioner Smith since we're talking about the ability that we have as commissioned to create them what is the process or ability to be able to remove them if there was something like Commissioner Roselle's bringing up it says we've rezoned it we've put an overlay on there and sold is there a process are we able to remove it or as soon as it's done said by us and the council also repeats it and proves it is it done and written in the history books what we not that it's done same process like a reason any other reason so just like it's gonna go from NR six NR six with overlay to NR six without overlay correct so that's be a holdover rezoned process so we wouldn't want to do it that's not that's not saying hey we got up we know hey if we come like it we can we can we can reverse it we don't want to do that that looks terrible but you just wanted to know and in the instance of sort of the last one you know the neighboring property we'll talk if you notice on the on the map that change it had it sort of had the cross hatches in it so that's where we're kind of to go back with the chair was was alluding to we're really trying to use the full capability of our the GIS that we have so making sure that that is documented and then in addition to that once these hopefully there's not you know if we want to have a hundred two hundred but as they you know as as we get more of them and even the 35 that we have making sure that in our land management files to through track at our permitting software we're now in the process of almost complete updating so every property that's sort of encompassed within that that overlay it's now in the land management file so so we're starting to get it in different places so what happens is you're reviewing you might have 20 permits reviewing a day and you may not know to look at the map or to know that this ordinance was passed so we're now putting it in a number of different places sort of stop stop gaps I think that'll give everybody we've got a couple hours before we go into our next session to mull this over and then we can see where we end up on our public hearing item any other questions Commissioner Ellis I have a question while we're discussing this because I do feel like sometimes this is a tool that's needed to be able to get a rezoning done for instance that particular tract of land we only wanted a set number of lots in there because the density can be scary if we just put it on there and you're right I mean a development doesn't go with the zoning change so there's always that you know risk that if we rezone it it's not going to be what we think because they've gone under or whatever sold the land and it becomes something else that we didn't want so I mean it is a tool that can be helpful to all the community the developer and whatnot so I guess I just wanted to throw that out there and hope that you see it perhaps as a tool that that is valuable at times can use if you if you don't land on whether you want to do conditional overlays tonight the other option is to approve a lesser zoning which is the nr 4 and that still gets them to where they need to be just to keep that in in mind responded Commissioner Ellis I agree I think the big issue and maybe staff has addressed it has been the ability to track it and I think that's been one of the concerns and sounds like maybe with putting it in multiple places and being it beyond the GIS map and more readily available maybe it's not as big of an issue I know again in past now five and a half years and quickly getting towards the end of my tenure here but that's a long time in the technology world so the ability to track these has probably changed considerably from what it used to be and that was that was the main concern just again adding perspective not right or wrong just perspective as to why it wasn't an encouraged tool for us to use was the ability to track it and and be able to to produce it for publicly for people to be able to keep up with what was clean zoning and what may have an overlay on it and Commissioner Sanchez I had a question you said you could always approve a like in our four now we wouldn't do that without the request of the developer right actually you can if he agrees to accept the inner floor zoning you can do it without him having to amend the application so you can approve a less a more restrictive zoning but you can't go up without him he would have to amend the application if he wanted like an inner emu okay Commissioner Smith a chair so that's that's what this one our options were given the option five options approve submitted approved subject conditions deny postpone or table so that is an approve of subject to condition so that so our conditions we're saying are essentially this on a zoning on a zoning case our conditions are an overlay which we want to use sparingly or our conditions are to approve for a zoning that is a lesser nothing greater a lesser density yes okay what happens in that since we're talking about these overlays and this kind of discussion here what happens if this is a commercial I don't know there's like I say it's a NRM you in our emu or an MRE in our you 12 what can you do that as well does that make sense where there's okay go ahead yeah so if they came in with like an inner emu 12 requests yeah we could we could approve an inner emu or a six or anything lower than that as long as they agree or amenable to the change but we couldn't go into yeah like a cg right I was trying to I was thinking more so within that same family of droning correct you want to stay within there in the residence but you can go it falls into the mixed uses there it's not just the end it's not just the the NR that's eminent to the mix right so but if they started it in the emu 12 they can go down we couldn't we still can't go up from 6 to 12 okay okay can't okay okay are there any other conditions we don't know about none that they want me to share on camera right now I used to be a consultant thank Victor's got one thing that's a tie up on here I think question was supposed to Shandrian as to whether staff and I forget who was whether staff could actually recommend conditions on the overlay district and just to support her is that staff isn't invested with authority to to to make those recommendations it's again going back to my previous comment was the authority the zone is within the city council city council has invested that delegated some of that authority to this to this board and so that's why those recommendations come from the board and not necessarily the staff staff just interprets the code as as it is and since what they have to recommend and then it's within the purview of this council to make those recommendations okay thank you a lot of good discussion and I'm sure we'll have some more on this a little later this evening we've got three more staff reports the next one we have is going to be drainage and transportation and I don't know if Chad drainage goes first good evening chair commissioners I'm Chad Allen I'm the deputy city engineer in charge of capital project delivery and today I'm going to talk about the currently ongoing updates to our drainage and transportation design criteria manuals forgive me if my throat cracks I had the flu last week I'm not contagious so we're asking you to provide comments if you have any and then also consider recommending approval of the updates to our drainage design criteria manual and our transportation design criteria manual so what are the design criteria manuals these are documents that we create and we upload to the city's website we distribute them to developers and consulting engineers and they include very technical engineering related details that allow engineers to implement our development code and to follow our development code our development code basically represents the official regulations of the city of Denton and variances from the development code require your approval but the design criteria are very specific engineering procedures and calculations and values and maps and diagrams that we provide that allow engineers and developers to meet the intent of the development code and variances from the design criteria can be approved at staff level for instance by the city engineer he can approve changes it's recommended that we review these documents annually and then maybe we perform a major update at least every five years and that's what we're doing right now so we're trying to update the design criteria manuals so the main goals of our update project are to reevaluate the current drainage and transportation design criteria and update them where appropriate to identify development issues that come up in DRC and try to find resolutions to those that we can put into the documents to clarify and consolidate the design criteria from the various sources and then to try to eliminate inconsistencies between the various documents like the development code the criteria manuals we're talking about we have a flood prevention and protection ordinance we have standard details we have various plans around the city like the downtown plan so we're hoping with this update we can eliminate any inconsistencies between all of those documents that we've identified in the past and then also we want to provide the development community an opportunity to have input into this process so a little bit of background about the update we started updating our manuals early last year we started updating the water and wastewater design criteria manual the drainage design criteria manual and the transportation design criteria manual we're doing this all at the same time that we're also updating the development code because we want to make sure all the documents work together and we want to eliminate any conflicts between all of those documents so we're updating the development code and these criteria manuals at the same time we updated the water and wastewater design criteria manual first and that update was completed last year in October it was adopted by City Council last year in October in August we selected a consultant T. Nolan Perkins to help us update the drainage and the transportation criteria manuals so the update process includes multiple staff workshops with us and our design consultant and our consultant there's also a review we've conducted a review of other local municipal requirements our consultant has met with certain staff with one-on-one discussions we're having two public comment sessions we're bringing it tonight for P &Z consideration we're having a couple of meetings next month with developers with a development community and then in the end we're gonna ask for the new updates to be adopted by City Council this whole process involves a lot of different stakeholders where we've met and had input from our DRC staff from our capital projects engineering folks floodplain administrator the traffic engineer this guy over here city engineer the drainage and traffic maintenance and operations staff our capital project inspectors our environmental services folks and also the local development community so here's here's what's happened so far this is what we've done so far in the process last September we hired T. Nolan Perkins to help us work on the manual in October they had their first workshop with city staff in November they submitted their first draft for our review we had two other workshops in December and then earlier this month they submitted their final draft that we were going to issue for public comment and for P&Z considerations so we posted the documents for public comment on January 4th and that's a 30-day comment period it ends on February 2nd we posted it on the City of Denton website we put notices here at City Hall and then we've distributed to the development community through our planning department and through the Denton County Development Alliance the remaining steps are to bring it before P&Z tonight and then we have two meetings scheduled with the development community in February we hope to have all the comments incorporated by February 19th and then the final draft completed by the end of February and then early in March we hope to have approval by council and then our schedule right now is for the updates to be published in their final format on March 9th so here are the specific changes that we're proposing for the drainage manual we changed the title to the storm water design criteria manual from the drainage design criteria manual we've moved a lot of really technical detailed engineering related items from the development code and we put them into the criteria manual that's where we think they belong so for instance we've moved very specific engineering related specific design criteria about design flood frequencies and street and storm drain design and easement widths around pipe systems and really detailed detention pond design items we moved all of those out of the development code and into the criteria manual we've added a decision chart related to floodplain fill requirements so that they're more easily understood we 've added stream bank protection criteria because we're concerned about erosion of our streams and creeks we've made allowances for limited use of detention ponds for recreational structures like picnic tables and playground equipment in very certain areas in detention ponds we've clarified the limits on floodplain development to try to make them more clear and we've simplified our minimum finished floor elevation requirements and we move those to the development code what changes do we not make we didn't really make any major changes to storm water policy in the new manual we were just trying to clarify the existing policy we're trying to make it easier to understand we didn 't change any of the design calculations we made no significant changes to flood plain criteria no changes to the channel design criteria we continue to reference and use the net clock net cog I swim manual and we made no changes to the our primary design storm event which is the fully developed 100 year storm so I believe that's that's all I have to talk about the drainage manual and I can turn it over to pre town to talk about the transportation criteria manual right now sure go ahead commissioner Alice thank you chair I just a question does ice swim need to be in definitions in this manual does it need to be in definitions yeah I mean I know what ice one is because Debra shared that with us at a meeting before but does everyone does somebody coming from another area know what ice one is another community around here in the Metro plex they would probably but we can certainly add that to the definitions if it was a thought yeah I figured they would know it in the Metroplex but if they came from another state you know because I know some people isn't there an ice one that has to do with solid waste isn't that acronym used as well so I do not know but if it's confusing like that to you it is possible yeah that I had that maybe that just needs to be in the definition part of the manual we can certainly do that we'll do it I have a comment just to bring it I know this is always a an issue at least to us as builders is the ability to fence easements I know that that's still prohibited in the in the ordinance and I don't know if there's some flexibility that's been discussed several times if that's something that can be talked about over the next 30 days to see if there's instances where easements can be fence because we have many many lots that have drainage easements on them and it becomes a who takes care of it who maintains it and all those types of issues for the few times that they need to be accessed at whatever point that they are maybe there are some possibilities for releases to be signed if people want to fence them that the city has to come in there they're not responsible for putting the fences back up and people can use those easements and just want to bring that up or felt like it's an appropriate time to to bring that item before you that's this is definitely the appropriate time fences come up so many times you know fences and easements fences in flood plains we really want to fix the way fences are described in the new manuals it's one it was one of our major goals at the beginning is to clarify and clean up when fences are allowed if there's any areas where we can allow fence where maybe we didn't previously so we can definitely work on that harder we have changed the fence requirements in these manuals so yes please read that make comments on it during this comment period let us know your suggestions and after these updates occur we really want our fence regulations to be more clear so well if I'm miss read it in 3.9 be 1b says fences may not be placed okay so I think I think previously there was it was a little bit unclear about fences and we tried to make it more clear maybe it's too black and white now so go ahead and give us those that in those comments please okay well won't waste the Commission's time okay did we take the easy way out and just say no fences ever I think maybe we did that I think so okay Commissioner Ellis thank you I'm gonna piggyback on that because that was where some of my notes were two on three point nine because you've got it titled easements in fences except there's really nothing about fences in there other than they're not allowed so my I had a big question mark like I don't get the fences part because you definitely haven't spelled out where they're allowed you do say that except as specifically provided for below but then it says in the storm drain above ground they're not allowed and then you mentioned it one time in the closed systems but it's yeah fences needs to be explored if you're actually calling this chapter titled that it probably needs to be spelled out a little more specific okay absolutely Commissioner Beck I'm gonna try not get over my head on this but just for the record the DDC supersedes criteria manuals correct yes okay you mentioned you were taking things out of the DDC and put them in the criteria manual yes are we weakening the DDC no I don't think so the development code just says that the major overall policies and then the design criteria provides engineering data to help you implement those so no we haven't weakened the development code at all as part of this process that was not that was not the intent at all thank you does that have to do just a pony on with Commissioner Beck 's comment the amount of time that goes between when we do updates to DDC versus when we do criteria manual updates so that we can keep it fresher and more relevant and changed it could have something to do with that it was really more about taking those really technical requirements out of the development code and putting them somewhere where maybe some engineering preference might have to come into account and so the city engineer can maybe on individual projects make decisions and not have to vary from the development code okay any other questions on drainage Chad thank you for your presentation all right as as I introduced earlier I'm pre-tem they smoke traffic engineer for the city I'll be presenting and talking about the significant change in the next five slides to the transportation criteria manual update and I really try to encompass the major changes there are some minor changes and it's all in the back of material the main thing I want to point out is we 've completely reorganized the criteria manual the reason being it was really confusing cumbersome to follow sequencing was not great you have to go back and forth between sections of the existing manual so what we've done is made it made it more clear free-flowing step-by-step process to go from one point a to point B the major sections that were changed were street classification and geometric standards and then the traffic impact analysis requirements the way the guidelines are set for traffic impact analysis and lastly we've added the perimeter street guidelines as some of you might know that we've taken those to City Council approved last October primarily what they were doing is clarifying what was mentioned in the roadway impact fee ordinance and how it related to the DDC that's the clarification that was included in the guidelines we all we did is take the whole section and implemented in the criteria manual street classification geometric standards what we try to do here is make it much more easier with the terminology with the type of street sections the we added a flexibility for design and which actually we're getting into the next step which is context-sensitive design options when we're looking at streets segments we wanted it to be more in line with what the land uses were next to it and as we head forward to making most of our streets complete streets which takes care of all the modes of transportation so all these different classifications that you look at were kind of clubbed up together to give more flexibility for neuro development when they're talking about what the cross sections and uses are and I'll explain a little bit in the next example I took an example for a two-lane collector initially we in the original design manual we only had one particular cross section that was brought out right now we're looking at different options we can actually within the cross section we can if there is a high parking area or a low parking area for example if it's a single-family development with larger lots they typically don't intend to use lesser on street parking when you get into newer subdivisions these they get more denser higher density f uses up a lot of street parking just because the way things are and more parking is required based on that we can fluctuate between or switch between these options so if you have higher parking demand you would require parking but if you don't then you can utilize that space for other modes of transportation make it more a bike friendly make it more transit friendly and then obviously the third option is medium so we added this whole flexible item it is context sensitive design and moving on to the next level which is actually financing and getting grant funding for some of these projects street project it makes it more easier if we have these alternatives and options built in that way we can go after funds that are specifically out there through the federal government for bikes and pedestrian improvement and transit improvement so that that's the line of thinking that we're thinking of traffic impact analysis that's the next section that we updated essentially developments are required to conduct traffic studies to look at what the impacts for the traffic's are and we've categorized them into smaller developments typically that generate less than 500 trips are smaller they look into what the impacts are in the future when the development is complete but they will also look at five years out of that and see you know five years after the development is complete what are the impacts and what the implications are for larger developments it's slightly different they create a bigger impact bigger footprint developments that are typically more than 500 trips during the peak hours and for them we are not only looking at immediate future or even five years we're looking at a 20- year horizon and part of this is is a two-way thing we actually feel that the city needs to know what the timing should be on what when some of these major street improvements and the capital projects go in place so we as city want to know how that it's going to play at the same time we want to know what part development surrounding that area is going to play in as far as finance as well as other instruments into this whole thing so that's the reason of setting Commissioner Smith thank you chair those larger developments and the 20-year 20-year right you guys are doing that review for you know long-term outlook what variables this is not this is not anything change the criteria it's more just from my own personal knowledge what variables are being used to calculate what of the TIA is going to show 20 years from now is it just projected population growth that's put out by you know so demographers what's going on here so what's happening is the city of Denton has a traffic model and by that I mean it is a future travel demand model similar to water or wastewater predictions they have their models 20 years into future what's going to happen traffic has similar models it regionally cog has a regional model we took that model we intensified we modified changed it for the city so every few years every five to seven years a cog comes up with new data for the rest of the region based on their projections we will project based on working with planning we will change our land use internally and that model kit keeps on updating and we'll use that as the 20-year horizon thank you commissioner Ellis thank you chair quick question when in the development process is the TIA discussion when does it start that's a good question I might have to look to planning for that answer it depends within the criteria manual there are some there are some bulleted items you know to go and to go back to that you know it's kind of brought up earlier about you know when there's a rezoning can we look you know should we should we be looking at this over the last couple meetings or you know we have pulled some items off off the agenda specifically requesting for a TIA as part of the zoning when we have some with the commercial it's much harder to predict because you have such a variety of uses in such a different trip generation rates with all the various land use categories in some instances it could even be be lower I guess residential it's pretty easy I mean we know if you're changing the zoning particularly for a property that annex ed into the city it's being assigned the RD5X they're essentially able to do you know depending on the the number a handful of single-family residential if you're going up all of a sudden now to to six units an acre and you're 900 acres, we know right off the bat what your maximum's gonna be. We have one, in an instant I'm gonna get into specifics of it, it's 950 units, residential units. We've asked them to provide us with TIA. And so we're starting now on some of these large projects to look at that as part of the rezoning. The SUPs, when we have a specific use, if it does trigger that, the 100 or 1,000, then we are now asking for a TIA. So when it comes in front of the commission, we as staff can make a better recommendation and you can make a much more informed decision. - Right, so in this manual it does spell out when one is needed, it just doesn't say at what point one is needed. So is there, are you using any kind of regular process now of when you're requesting one or? - We will be, very soon. Right now we do PDMs, we're looking to go really to more of a pre-application. So at that pre-application, before you formally submit, you will know that if a TIA is needed. So all of a sudden you're not six months into the process and then oh, by the way, we need a TIA. So we wanna get to a point where everything is laid out up front, so. - Yeah, and that I understand. So let's say, 'cause in here it even spells out when one definitely is needed. But is there a requirement for when it gets done, by when it gets done? - It would need to get, yeah, prior to going to any sort of public hearing. Meaning when will they submit it to the city? - Yeah, 'cause it's all part of the, I mean it's all part of the development process. - Really it needs to come with the application. - Okay. - With that formal submittal. - It needs to, but it doesn't necessarily. - Not now. - Okay. - Not now. (laughs) They do take some time. - Commissioner Sullivan. - I'm curious if all developers have a street impact fee that has to be paid, how's that determined if it's not, if there's no traffic impact analysis to determine how many cars are going in and out? I mean, how's that impact fee determined? And if there is a calculation that's involved, can't you work back from the calculation to say, here's what the impact to the neighborhood's gonna be? - So, I'll slightly touch on it. Yeah, the impact calculation does involve some of the trip generation aspects of how many trips are generated and how many trips we'll be using the overall transportation system. But what happens is when we looked at the big picture, the impact fee only looks at larger arterials and fixing them. As part of the development, when there are streets and collectors next to a particular development, those streets are not being looked at or considered in the traffic impact fee. So this is like a combination. When we do the traffic impact analysis, it will tell us what is being impacted by that particular development. So if the developer chooses to fix perimeter streets or with, and does any additional offsite improvements that gets credited towards the impact fee, they get credit. - So what I think I heard you say was, certain streets aren't impacted to the point to where impact fees are assessed, even though more cars are gonna be traveling on that street because they're not connected to a bigger street or something. I'm not, I mean, it's not logical. That's what I'm saying. - What I'm saying is the roadway impact fee was developed using a set of projects. They pre-identified all the major arterials and how they could be improved. And we can talk about roadway impact fee ordinance and the way it was set up. So the projects that are already outlined in that particular ordinance, what project the impact fee will be allocated. There are five different areas that were identified, A through E, and each area got allocated different types of projects. So the projects have already been identified for the impact fee to be used towards those projects. So if you're a little small subdivision, that has a small road, that roadway is not being considered in the impact fee, that's not under project under the impact fee. - So the impact fee doesn't apply to that street? - It does apply to the project. - Is money being collected based on that street, but it's not being used for that street? - It's a balancing act. It's being used towards that street, but there are also other needs that come before that street is required to be widened. Say for example, looking at a larger street, if the need is immediately improving the transportation network within the area where the project is, then we apply the fees to that to improve that and then we'll come up with a capital project that-- - So fees collected on a small street could be used on the south side of town, could be used on the north side of town. - That's why they have five areas. So they are divided into different-- - Okay, in area one, fees are collected because of the new development, but streets in zone five are being improved with the money collected from zone one. - No, you can only use them within the same zone. - Okay, all right, that's fine. That's what I was confused about. - Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair. In that handout we got last week, it states that TIA is required if a development will, one, generate equal to or more than 100 peak hour trips, two, generate equal to or more than 1,000 vehicle trips per day, and three, project the area to be developed, the area projected to be developed is equal to or more than 100 acres. Here's my question, and this kind of revolves around what we were dealing with on Ryan Road last week, or last time, where you've got more than one development that's gone on there. Is this required of each development, or is there a cumulative rate if each development impacts the same stretch of road? We brought up the fact that we had four different developments going on on Ryan Road, but if you're just doing a TIA for the individual development at the time, we're not really looking at the bigger picture because all those developments are gonna impact that particular stretch of road. Does that make sense? - It makes sense. - Okay. - To answer your question, it's a two-part answer. The first part, the TIA looks at the overall impact, so it identifies the impact. The roadway impact fee is collected irrespective of what is happening to the perimeter street. So the impact fee is collected for that particular zone, and at that time, they reassess, and if Ryan Road is an important street that needs to be updated, it will move up the list of the capital projects. Typically, when developments go in, they don't dedicate the entire sum that's required to develop that particular roadway, so then we have to come up with more funds to subsidize if we go move forward with that particular project. But funds are collected for impacts to the transportation network by those developers. - Commissioner Smith. Do we have a follow-up? Commissioner Beck, let me-- - That's okay. - You're sitting over there-- - Just so I'm clear, then there is a cumulative effect? That is what you're saying? - Yes. - Okay. - Right, thank you. - Commissioner Sanchez. I know this is pretty complicated stuff, and I know we can't talk to the public. You can't get into this whole thing, but is there something you all can do, because that's a big issue we get every two weeks. There's people complaining about the analysis and the traffic and stuff. Is there any kind of presentation that you all can do to explain to people, because we don't know, is explain to people this road is gonna be, that's all they wanna know. Is this road gonna be fixed within so many years? I think that's something we owe the public, especially when they come up here. They wanna know about the road. It's gonna impact, you're gonna put these many houses, traffic is gonna be jammed. That's what they care about. And I think this is where we have to be involved, or you all have to be involved, is spend some time at these meetings and talk to them about the traffic. Is it gonna be repaired in five years, 10 years, or whatever, because that's, I think, the biggest gist of what we get every two weeks. - To answer your question, this is where, and we've noticed the same thing, and the current transportation criteria manual does not lend itself towards that, and we're trying to fix it. So when the developments go in, currently we do not know what the impacts are 10 years, 20 years in the future for that particular roadway, or when that roadway would be fixed. With this type of analysis, we'll find out, say 20 years from now, in 10 years, this road needs to be fixed, because it'll be to its capacity, it'll be congested, and at 10 year mark, we need to be ready with all the funds to fund this project. So that's the missing piece that's missing in the current code, and we're trying, or in the current criteria manual, and we're trying to, as projects move forward, make each project pay and understand and assess when their project will trigger those improvements. - I guess my only question, again, going back, is being able to talk to the public, and at least make them feel, when they leave the meeting, that they feel comfortable, rather than frustrated. We came and left with nothing. That's all I want, is somebody talk to them a little bit. This is how we do it, and-- - Yeah, we can definitely do that. - Commissioner Smith. - Thank you, Chair. I think what Commissioner Beck was mentioning earlier was the fear of having a numerous development that are being developed on the exact same road, all happening in some sort of concurrent time, that not, you know, if there's one development being done, and it doesn't meet that hundred, or it doesn't meet that thousand trip limit, it not triggering. Not triggering for that one, and then maybe it doesn't trigger for the next development, and then the third development doesn't trigger. So the fear that I have, and what I wanna know is, at what point in time do we, as a commission, does council approve development, and whether it's the final plotting and everything else, and the city's giving the okay, at what point in time does, even though it's not built, even though there's not houses there yet, but it's approved, at what time does that consideration, is that being taken into the TIA? Does that question make sense? - Yeah, I mean, that consideration will be taken into the new TIAs. It will project traffic in the future. - Even though it develops not there, it'll take it into-- - It'll take, so it will be a cumulative effect. We talked about the traffic model. Traffic model will update that information and say, this area or this particular parcel has been approved, or plotted for 100 units. That will already be in the system before the next one goes in. - Perfect, awesome, thank you. - Well, I'm gonna chime in, 'cause I know I've had on the matrix for quite some time to have this discussion, and to actually, to Commissioner Sanchez's point, to go beyond the actual criteria manual, and actually get into whose responsibility it is to do these things. I think, from my perspective, being in the development business, a lot of things get skipped over as to what a developer does and provides, versus what's not being taken care of. The developer, just for the sake of the commission and for the discussion, puts in all the streets, all the utilities at their expense, and then at the end of the development, and the final acceptance, gives it to the city, and now the city takes and owns those utilities and those streets that are put into the city standards. So they've paid for, sometimes, millions of dollars of improvements on their particular property, and then we have people that come before us in this commission wanting to know what the developer's gonna pay for, for the street out that's up front or down the street, and they've already done millions of dollars, possibly, of improvements on their piece of property, and then paying, since we're talking about houses, a $2,000 per house traffic impact fee that goes into the fund to be spent in the area that their subdivision or development is to pay for roads outside of their property to be improved. Am I stating that correctly, how the process works for everybody here? - So it's a yes and no. - Okay, correct, please. - There is something called a perimeter street improvement that is directly next to the development, so that would provide direct access to developments in the immediate vicinity of the development. Everything should be updated and upgraded, and that will count towards your traffic impact credit. And yes, the remaining part of money that's remaining will update whatever's feeding the major streets into the development, so yes and no. - Yeah, I skipped a little extra piece about the perimeter street paving, but yes, I understand that principle as well. I was assuming if there aren't any perimeter street improvements that are required, they pay the $2,000 to the city. The city decides whether they take the money and spend it somewhere else in the zone, or in lieu of taking the $2,000 requiring the developer to make those perimeter street improvements right there alongside their property before they accept the improvements. - Right, I think the thing is, the city, when they're looking at this money, we're looking at a big picture. We're looking at what these streets are feeding into, what are the major routes, where congestion is. So the way the capital projects are planned in a particular zone is the area of maximum congestion gets the first look, and then move on so on and so forth, until it gets to a point where you're not actually seeing development go up to the congestion, not the congestion level, but the capacity level, then those streets don't get pulled in or rank higher and higher. So yes, it's a process, and yeah, the fund is flexible to move around within a particular zone, not between zones. - Commissioner Sullivan. - Thank you. Here, for example, Ryan Road, we talked about two weeks ago . The new development, I don't know what the other ones have paid, the new development's gonna be paying a million dollars into the street impact fee. We don't know where that's gonna be spent on Ryan Road. Meanwhile, all the streets of Thistle Hill, all the streets of Ryan Ranch that have been there for 10 years or so, got brand new asphalt in the last year and a half. Meanwhile, Ryan Road is still the two-lane, bumpy, dangerous street that it has been for the last 10 years. Now, am I to believe that there is a plan 20 years from now to sign the Ryan Road in 10, 15, 20 years after all the development's been put up and after it becomes potholes all along up and down the street, finally, some subdivision that goes in north or south of the area is gonna then be paying for Ryan Road? - No, that's not the answer. - Okay. - So what will happen is the roadway impact fee is collected from all the developers that went in. Now, what happens is the city goes in and assesses is Ryan Road at capacity, which it's pretty close to getting there, then we use that as planning for our next big capital project. And obviously, the funds that are collected from all these developers are not enough to fix Ryan Road from one end to the other. From 2181 to 1830, it's not possible to do the whole road with just the impact fees. So what happens is then the city decides that this is a big capital project, we go for other funds to balance what we got from the developer and fix the road. So we've identified other streets. Hickory Creek is under construction soon. I don't know, maybe Chad can elaborate. But we have identified some of these projects that are going in. And yes, Ryan Road is on the list. We'll definitely look at it in our next round for the bond. - I'm gonna change subjects and bring up something else. - I have some more slides if we can. - You do? Okay, I thought you were done. You continue and then I'll ask this question at the end if you don't address it. - All right. So that's the last slide, by the way. We've just simplified the criteria manual. We've reduced the number of pages, reduced the confusion. We added some missing information. And then we've removed redundant information. There was information that was in multiple locations, standard plans and stuff like that. So we've removed that. So that's the end. And this is my recommendation. - Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. Just a question on the removal of appendix B. Did that kind of go away altogether or was that somehow incorporated? I didn't quite notice how that fit into the new manual. - So the downtown plan is actually, those are suggestions by, and maybe planning can help me answer that question, but the plan was a planning level document and suggestions of how context sensitive design could be implemented. But what we did is we actually took the concept and we've implemented in our actual design process. So we don't need to have those particular cross sections in place because we were much more flexible upfront. We've completely removed them. It becomes confusing. - Commissioner Beck. - I have a real easy softball question for you. Just a general question here. Are all residential streets bike friendly, were they're equal to cars or not? Or does it have to be a certain collector street to be? 'Cause unless it's marked, it's not clear whether bikes have the same equal standing as an automobile. - Per law, bikes have the equal right to drive in the middle of a residential street. - Yes, and use the driving lane as a full lane. - Okay, thank you. - I'll ask my question again. As we continue to increase the standards for our streets, is there a place where we cross good stewardship of money of what's underneath the street? So the pipe, sewer, water, storm has a 30 year life, and yet we're continuing to make going from six inch subgrade, seven inch, eight inch, continuing to build longer and more expensive roads, life, to try to increase the lifespan of them, but what's underneath them doesn't. And then we're spending and not being good stewards of the money that we have, we're putting a road in and we're gonna have to come cut it up and tear it up to repair the piping underneath it. - Just to clarify for everyone, you're talking about the cross section, how deep the road is and the thickness is. Yeah, we have, and this is a new thing that we're trying to do, is we've introduced some kind of flexibility and it's in different, it's in the standard plans, but what is happening is if there is, if the developer feels or his engineer feels that there can be a smaller section, it depends on the soil conditions. So if a geotechnical report is presented to the city that outlines under these soil conditions, you don't need this pavement thickness, if we go with a smaller pavement thickness, it'll still sustain it. So there are certain options that are being added and that's where the flexibility comes into play. And I'm not the person really to talk to, but if anyone, I think the city engineer can help with that. - But it's the developer's responsibility to do that rather than city coming and saying in this particular area instead of requiring eight inch subgrade, eight inch paving , everything else is six and six and was put in 20 years ago and that's good enough. It's a developer's responsibility to do that. - Correct, it is the developer's responsibility to put in, to do the geotechnical study, but the way the city looks at it, there are different regions with different soil forms and it's really hard for us to have 15 different sections. So we'd come up with the conservative section and if the engineers feel that there's a soil that can sustain the smaller section, we're open to that. - Okay. Sure, please come up to the mic. - I'm Ron Harris with Tignall and Perkins. To answer that question, actually the utilities are about the same design life. A water sewer is gonna last between 20 and 40 years if you look in the criteria manual. The asphalt sections are designed for 20 years, the concrete sections are designed for 40 years. So they're pretty comparable. - Okay, great, thank you. So finally, the slide, we recommend approval of the updated criteria manuals, both the stormwater design and transportation. - So we'll go to public comment now for the next 30 days and then this will come back for recommendation to us or does it move on to city council just so we understand the process? - I think the public comment period started January 3rd and we're currently in it. We will have some developer meetings and outreach with the developers to get their feedbacks and then after that, we'll come back. - And then we'll make recommendation to council? - Yes. - Okay, great. - Correct, Ted? - Just process, just kind of for everybody. - I'm sorry, I'm looking at the remaining steps and I don't see it coming back to PNZ again. I'm not sure if that's true or not so I can definitely look into that. - If I recall from previous presentations, if there are changes or comments that may come back and if there aren't, then I think it may be it moves on. - Okay, that makes sense. - I think that's what we did when we had it for utilities, I think, possibly. - Okay. - Anyway, okay. Any other questions for staff on these, either one of these two items? Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. Just real quick, any of our comments today, do you need us to email them separately to you or with whatever we discussed at this work session? Do you need that in a separate email or does the meeting suffice? - The meeting is good. We've taken notes, we understand what comments were made during this meeting. If you have any additional comments afterward, we would be happy to have those in an email format. You can contact me, Chad Allen, but yes, we've received your comments today that you've given us at this meeting. - Okay, thank you. - Great, okay. Thank you, great presentation. - Do you want to drop? - Sure. - Deborah, before you get started, how long do you need? Do we want a break and get food or go ahead and then-- - You can break and eat and I will present what you eat. - Okay. (laughing) - Oh no, I will give you a chance. - Okay. - And of course, you can always email me. - All right, at 5.37, I'll call a recess and we'll take a break and we'll get some food and we'll reconvene. (murmuring) Good evening and welcome back to the City of Denton work session. I will call us back into order at, it's like 5.48. - Good evening. My name is Deborah Viera. I'm with the Environmental Services Department and we are going to discuss the changes or proposed revisions to sub-chapter 17 of the Denton Development Code addressed in environmentally sensitive areas, also known as the ESAs. Some of you have got some training from me, have heard me before about environmental sensitive areas. Some of you are new to the board. So I'm going to do a 101 in 30 seconds. But let me put an offer out there for the commission. If you are interested in getting any training session about environmentally sensitive area, a staff is available to do that in the near future. Just let us know and we will scale something so in that way, all the new commissioners could get up to speed of what ESAs are and so on. So basically, the City of Denton provide special protection to four type of environmental sensitive areas. Those are floodplains, riparian buffers, water-related habitats and upland. Some of these ESAs or type of ESAs, because they are dependent on the presence of water, they co-locate or they are nested inside each other. When it comes down to floodplains, the city makes two distinctions. We identify those that are defined as a developed or that means that they have been heavily modified, disturbed and there's no habitat out there to protect. And then we have the undeveloped floodplains, which are those who are more in a natural state. In general, the ESAs provide six functions. It is provide habitat, wildlife live in them, serve as a conduit of plants, nutrients, wildlife move from point A through point B through the ESAs . They act as a barrier, they filter pollutants, they serve as a source for resources and serve as a sink and sequestration area for pollutants. So those are the ecological functions that those environmental sensitive areas provide. But ESAs have also an added value to us. First, by the city having regulations that protects those areas helps the city with the TCEQ phase two municipal separate storm source system or MS4 permit. That permit is issued by TCEQ on a five year cycle. So every five years we get a new permit that we have to submit through TCEQ. Having those special regulations that protects those areas allow us to actually meet the goals and objective of the permit for the city. The TCEQ construction general permit also is able to be met in some aspects by the protection of ESAs. Important and related to the previous discussion about drainage, having ESAs identified on a map and having protections of those areas have helped the city with the National Floodplain Insurance Program. Those are the floodplain management regulations that we have in place to protect properties during rain events. The higher we rate on the program, that means that translate into actually savings to homeowners and property owners who are in the floodplain who needs to get floodplain insurance. So put us in a better position, in a better rate system for them and we can actually pass those savings to the policy owners . And it help us with the integrated storm water management I-Swim City designation. We got that designation I believe in 2016 and currently we are ranked silver level on the ranking system for I-Swim. Why we need to revise 17? Well, the entire debt and development code and criteria manual have been going through some changes throughout the past 15 years. 17 have never been revised. So there are inconsistencies with other regulations when we started back in 2002, everything dovetail. But as changes have been made, then those inconsistencies have been created. So we have to kind of go back and try to see that all the regulations were 17 and other regulations apply, they do. The development community have indicated to us that the wording of that sub-chapter could be improved. Some of the phrasing could be improved. There are aspects of 17 that they lack clarity. So additional language will actually help understand what the city is trying to attain. There are some policies that were established when the DDC was adopted and sub-chapter 17 was created that even though the policy was created, there was no how to do. So in this process, we were looking into those instances as well. And evaluation of the existing policies. Which policies are working? Which one are not? Which one we have to just tweak? Which one we have to revamp completely? And new policies. We are 15, almost 16 years after that, should we consider new policies as well. So those are the reasons why 17 have been brought up for revision. So anything that is related to environmental issues is better through the Committee on the Environment. The Committee on the Environment is a sub-committee of city council composed by three council members. In June of 2016, we went to the COE and we presented our request for starting revising 17. They gave us the green light to do it. It took us 13 months with them. Just keep in mind, this committee only meets once a month and they have a long agenda. So we were kind of taking small pieces at a time and took us that long. All the code revisions were classified in four types. Corrections, those are the typos, the grammatical errors, the acronyms and things like that. Those are the easy fixes. Then code language clarifications and code language additions. Clarifications are if we can improve the phrasing or we can add something to make that more clear. Code language addition is those are instances that the policy were there. We were not changing the policy but we are providing language to give better guidance to the development community about that policy. And policy changes. The language that are being proposed have been vetted through the public as well. We have posted all the red lines and clean versions through the development code of the web page. Notices to all project docs applicants were sent via email so we did a blast email out. Some of you may have got notices. We did a presentation as a part of the DDC update open house meetings with Clarion twice. And we have solicited input from local and out of town developers and consultants. We're still receiving those. As of yesterday at 5 p.m. I got a new batch of comments. So the compilation that I provided to you is a work in progress, those new comments will be added to it. My goal is that when we go to public hearing we hopefully have the whole compilation finished. And also there will be a column where I'm going to provide some explanation of how those issues have been addressed already. So when we start changing 17 we also have to make sure that the connections to the rest of the DDC are valid or needs to be modified. So this is the list of changes outside 17 that will have to take in place for the proposed changes to actually have a dovetailing with them. So we will have to go and change the final plot checklist. This is just something that could be done administratively. Change, I'm sorry, staff review procedure detail on 3.7 will have to be revised and add that additional language. And you will see where the proposed changes will tie to those as we move through the slides. The staff review procedure on 3.7D will have to also be amended with the following language in green. The drainage criteria manual, we already made the changes and it is just removing coastal Bermuda, adding the word native and make it plural on grasses. That's the extent that needs to be done. We have to change the alternative ESA plan checklist. That's something that we will do administratively. We will be creating a new ESA criterion manual. We will touch bases later during the presentation. And we will have to update the ESA map. So let's start, let's see how far I can get. So what I have done, I picked the top, I believe seven or eight substantial changes to be discussed and we will go through it. However, if you want to go line by line, staff is ready to do that. Just let me know what will be your preference. So am I going with the motor suspension? - Let's go with your presentation and if we need to get into more detail, we will. - Okay, so first we want to increase and expand the credits given when ESAs are preserved. Currently in Italian you will see where the current language is. It's pretty much, if you preserve ESAs and this is mostly trees, you can get credit under the landscape tree canopy requirements. So let's say that you leave one area intact, which is ESA, happens to be within your parking lot. Then you can use that natural area to count towards your landscape requirements and so on. Especially oblong habitat. Oblong habitat we're dealing with post-ogues and they're quite sensitive for modification in hydrology. So the chances that a post-ogue will do well close to a parking lot is not that great. So we kind of try to revamp the amount of credit that we are given. We understand that trees are expensive, but a landscape is expensive. And if you have to leave an area natural plus you have to provide more landscape that adds to it. So we went through it and we took the draft of the tree code and looked into that. And the language that you will see here really dovetails with the draft of the tree code. I believe the tree code will be presented to you probably maybe in two or four weeks or so. So it is a good timing that you will be seeing the revisions to the ESA and then following will be the tree code as well. So there's some close connection between the two. So first one square foot of tree canopy will be given for every square foot of preserved ESA tree canopy, one to one. So let's say that you need to preserve 30% of your tree canopy on site. If you happen to have ESAs and those ESAs have trees on it then those trees can count toward that 30% that you have. So that save you and help developers. Two square feet of landscape crap will be given for every square foot of preserved ESA tree canopy. So on the landscape section of it, you will be two to one. And no, that sits in between two ecoregions. You have the Easter cross timber on the west side, you have the grasses on the west side of town. So that's one of the reasons the western side of town is more grass oriented. So and we believe that there's merits and those ecosystems should be preserved. So we are proposing one square foot of landscape care will be given for every square foot of no wooded preserved area. And that is to respond to the natural condition of that location where the western part of town is more grass driven. - Commissioner Sanchez. - When you say grasses, are you talking about native grasses? - Yes, yes. Yeah, correct. - Okay, just not any grasses. They have to be the native. - Yeah, well for example, if you have riparian buffers, they might be dominated by grasses instead of trees. So if you are protecting the riparian buffer which has grasses on it, then you could take, you can use that towards your landscape credits. So right now, the code is more shifted toward giving credits for trees and we kind of forget all the type of vegetation. - I guess I'm just, a lot of those areas can be dominated by grasses but not necessarily native grasses. So you have to look at the species, it's important that it's a native grass. - Yeah, well when we go out and the riparian buffer, I will tell you that it is common to find exotic species mixed into the entire vegetation. But when we do a isophyll assessment, one of the things that we look into it is the species present, okay? And that rates the whole, helps on the rating of the habitat itself. If it is good, you will see that there will be more native plant species present that exotic, the present exotic reduces the ranking and so on. So all that is already built into the process. We are keeping the same language about the Parkland dedication that was on the original statement as well as the drainage standards. - Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. Teppera, with the credits on one, does the developer then choose between A and B with regard to that one? Or do they get A and B? - Well, I will say, as written, they will get A and B. Is that something that you would like to change? Okay. - No, I was hoping they wouldn't have to choose. I was hoping they'd get both of those. Okay, thanks. - So, yes. - Before you move on with that slide, since you brought up that we're gonna be seeing the tree code in a few weeks, how do the credits given here compared to what's gonna be in mitigation, 'cause in the past it's been one to two or one to four, and one of my concerns has always been if we really wanna preserve, why don't we encourage it more rather than one to one make it one to four, if we really wanna encourage them to preserve. - Well, actually, this would be, this mimics what the tree code has. And the tree code also is moving into, DBH and things like that, they are moving into square foot of tree canopy. So, when Haywood comes and explain the details of the changes, that would be one interesting point to make . But yeah, me and Haywood have been working on this. So, what you are saying is dovetails with what Haywood is working on. - I think that's good, if there's now gonna be some consistency because there hasn't been in the past. - Yes. - Okay, great. Looking forward to that. - The second substantial changes will be to establish an appeal process for ESA staff field assessment determination. And this is why on my two slides back when I was all that language in green, this is why. Right now, the ESA staff field determination, there's no appeal process for it. Okay, we have been lucky in 15 years that we have not been challenged. But it's a deficiency on 17. So, we are adding that appeal process and that will be given through the zoning board of adjustments. So, we will provide new language on 17 and new language on 3.7. The designation on the depiction of developed and undeveloped floodplain habitants. And this is where the major change is. So, I'm going to slow down a little so in that way you can catch up with me. The city of them make distinctions between developed and undeveloped floodplain. In black and italics, you will see the current definition of what a developed floodplain it is. So, what we did, we changed, or we updated how the 100 year floodplain is now being called. FEMA now calls it a 1% annual chance floodplain. Why? Because the 100 year floodplain designation promotes a false sense of security that that type of flooding only happens 100 year when in reality is in every single year you have one chance for that type of rain event and floods to happen. So, we're kind of updating and making be consistent with FEMA. And we added language like for which the natural stream has been redesigned and no longer characteristic of natural channel and or its floodplain have been significantly modified, graded, filled and otherwise disturbed. The proposed definition is an improvement of what the current definition is. It give a little bit of more guidance. The definition of undeveloped floodplain pretty much to stay the same what we did, we just changed the term 100 year floodplain for FEMA on percent annual chance floodplain but stays the same. So, let's step back and take a little bit of background information. The floodplain ESAs are defined by what FEMA calls the 1%. We follow the same boundaries. FEMA firms, which are the FEMA maps, came into existence as a way to provide a national standard with a regional discrimination. And they choose that the 100 year flood was the item by which that floodplain boundary will be established. - Commissioner Beck. - Thank you, Chair. This FEMA plan, has it been updated recently or where is it? - The last time that got updated was, I believe, in 2011, they did, 2011? Yes. They pretty much redo all the firms for the city. But taking, just be aware that every time that a development modifies the floodplain, either through reclamation or through a better mapping of the floodplain, those updates are also incorporated into those firms, okay? And now FEMA before, for those changes to reflect on the firms, used to take years. Now they are, I think, within weeks, like six weeks, they actually provide that new information on their website, okay? So, because FEMA maps are constantly changing and updating, so the ESA floodplain goes with it, okay? - Okay, great, thanks. - And the purpose of the floodplain, of those firms, are not based on ecological considerations, are based on flood insurance purposes, okay? So, why using FEMA maps to establish our floodplain ESA maps? It is not a perfect match, I will give you that, but it's a good fit. Floodplain delineation are based on risk, no habitat boundaries. Uncertainty with unstudied floodplain, we have plenty of those in the city of Denton, and they don't follow ECA regions. But the good side of it is that when we, when development happens, and they happen to have a floodplain, they will have, they will dedicate that area as a drainage easement. So that area will be set apart, and development will be excellent, or very limited development could happen on those drainage areas. ESA level playing field reduces the chances for taking claims. The developers are already providing that drainage to meet subchapter 19 of the Denton Development Code. So, in some extent, we are not taking more than what the developer would be required to meet for subchapter 19. And everybody knows FEMA and their FEMA floodplain maps. So, it is something that developers, designers, engineers understand. So, I'm going to give you a snapshot of developed and undeveloped floodplain maps in the city of Denton. The two maps are the same. The two maps is the same scale. One is just showing the aerial. The other one is showing the ESA layer superimposed on that floodplain. The hot pink is the developed floodplain. The teal color is the undeveloped floodplain. And I'm going to step out. If you see, especially in this area, you will agree that that floodplain looks quite natural. The stream still meandering. The vegetation seems to be thick and healthy. Why do we have the changes from undeveloped to developed to undeveloped to developed to undeveloped again? So, those are inconsistencies that the floodplain ESA layer has right now. Okay? Remember, the ESA map was created back in 1999, roughly. When the Denton Development Cone was first adopted in 1999, the city started working on the implementation of the DDC, which got adopted roughly two years and a half later. In the in-between, the city came out with something called interim regulations. Some of you might be familiar with that term. And some of the provisions that we currently have on '17 made it to that point. So, we had the ESA map. So, we are 15, 16 years after many of those areas are still intact while we are designating areas as a developed floodplain where no development have happened in those areas. And this is a situation that you can see throughout the entire city. That's another example of those situations. But they are more common or found more common on the west part of town. If I am a developer and or I am a property owner and I have undeveloped floodplain under this map and my next door neighbor comes and he happens to have the developed designation, I will complain why the inconsistencies. Why is he not required to provide all the additional requirements when I am required to provide all those? So, we have to go back and from a quality standpoint just trying to make everybody consistent. This is another example of what we have. So, we are proposing to change how developed and undeveloped are currently shown on the ESA map. We are not getting rid of the designation. We are just trying to change how they are depicted on the ESA map. Firms are updated on a regular basis. We cover that. So, that makes that layer to be a very influx. And standards should be applied based on site conditions where development is about to happen and not based on an outdated map. So, what are the substantial changes? Upon-- we are proposing or they see-- actually the COE is proposing that we make the following changes. Upon field verification areas designated as FEMA 1% annual chance floodplain will be classified according to the existing condition as developed or undeveloped floodplain. Meaning that if there is a development application submitted, we will tell that the applicant, you have a floodplain ESA. Let us go to your site and determine if it is developed or undeveloped. And see based on the field verification, these are the set of standards that apply to you. Developed floodplain standards, what we add to those standards, what I did, I took the original language. It was previously in a paragraph form. I broke it down in numbers. And the only thing changes that we are-- the only thing new that we are proposing is item number two , which has just two clarification that says that if you have a developed floodplain but you could still have a healthy repair and buffer going through it. And you will still be able-- and you are still required to provide protection to the repair and buffer even though it is nested or inside of a developed floodplain. That's a point of-- that many people have complaining because it's not very clear right now in the development code. So this is just a clarification for it. You might remember the Ryan Meadows development where they had to go through an alternative ESA plan because they were required to extend Cricdale as a part of the thoroughfare plan. Because this-- the-- because staff didn't have the authority to approve that, they had to go through an alternative ESA plan and that is additional time that they have to spend. So we have taken-- we have listened to the development community. And now what we are do-- what we are proposing is for those roadways that are identified in the thoroughfare plan to be extended through ESAs, they will not have to go through an alternative ESA to do so. And we made it consistent that this is not only within the floodplain but if there's water related habitat or repair and buffer nested inside that will also be impacted, all those disturbance will be exempted from going through an alternative ESA plan. As long as the areas that are impacted are restored, rehabilitated, stabilized and so on. And that would be approved at staff level. This is the-- related to the exemption roadway identified for a repair and buffer. So substantial changes on-- okay. Upland habitat. Up to now, upland-- preservation of upland habitat was only required for residential uses, single family, multi-family, 2F. Okay. Now the committee on the environment thinks and consider that we are losing a lot of tree canopy due to non-residential development that happens to have upland habitat within the premises. So they are proposing that non-residential development to preserve 30% of the upland. Before it was non, now it's 30%. But this is the 30% that you will hear Haywood in couple of weeks to talk about it. So let's say that you are a non-residential development. You happen to have upland habitat. You will also be required to tree coat preservation or mitigation. So if you are preserving the 30% of the upland, you will be meeting the tree coat with it. So you will not be paying additional entry into the tree fund and you will not be having to replant trees on site. Okay. So at this point, I'm going to stop here and I'm proposing that the next time that we meet, that we will continue our presentation. >> Okay. Do I have questions so far? >> So please, some of you have already emailed me questions . But if you have any questions, comments from now to the next time, please feel free to email those to me and I can prepare a response for all of you. >> Commissioner Schmitt. >> Thank you, Chair. I'm going to ask this question to you but actually, Chair Strange, if you could answer it. On the 30% requirement that you just mentioned on the non-residential development, what type of cost are you going to see to non-residential developers by having that requirement now in place? I think it's a good requirement but what kind of new costs would they have? Since there is no requirement that now that added on there, how is that going to impact them financially? >> Well, it goes back how you cite your development, okay. So if the upland habitat is -- and again, you pick and choose which portion of the upland habitat you preserve, okay. >> Okay. >> We recommend that you pick areas of preservation that are continuations of other tree areas on the adjacent parcels to you because in that way you prevent fragmentation of the habitat, okay. However, you pick and choose which portion of the upland you preserve as long as the 30%. Yes, there will be -- that means that you -- if you have a standard site plan, for example, that you use in all the locations and you end up having to modify that standard, that would probably come to an expense having to alter those site plans. At the same time, if that 30% will count towards your tree preservation, then otherwise so there is some cost saving or at least not duplication of cost. >> I'm going to make one statement here regarding upland habitat. It's got to be at least 10 acres before it qualifies. So we're not talking about individual trees that are sitting up there that are -- >> Okay. >> It's got to be a 10 acre stand. >> So upland habitat is not all tree stands. It has to meet a criteria and that's a good point, that have to be 10 acres total and it has to have a specific species present, post-ogues and blackjacks. Those are the typical flag species that we'll use for eastern cross timber forest. So it's not every single tree stand is the one identified as an upland habitat. Yes. >> I was just going to say -- >> Commissioner Sanchez. >> Oh, I'm sorry. The define -- making -- you know, having definitions when you're talking about the different types of habitats is define what you're actually talking about because when I was looking through this, I was kind of questioning, what does she actually mean by upland habitat and, you know , define what it is and if you're updating this because anybody that starts reading through this is going to be hard. Well, I don't know what she's really talking about. You have to define your -- those terms. You know, does it make sense? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. I just want to say thank you for the change on the mobility plan because I actually had a note on my card from the matrix, a comment back from 10/26/16, Commissioner Roselle and I from that exact example. So thank you for keeping up with that and incorporating that into our ESA. So we look forward to continuing. Will you be back next time or -- >> Correct. We are planning to actually go as a public hearing item in two weeks from now. What we are planning is just to have a continuing our work session. If you have any comments, email those to me, any questions so in that way, I can provide those either responses ahead of time or during the meeting and hopefully we can complete. If you have any questions that might not be related to those substantial changes, let me know, staff will be available to go line by line if necessary. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And at 625, I will close our work session and we'll recon vene at 630 in council chambers. >> Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January the 24th, 2018. This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum present and I will call us to order at 632. Our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the US and the Texas flag. [ Inaudible Remark ] >> Our next order of business will be to consider approval of our Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. Does anybody have any changes or could we have a motion with both sets of minutes? Commissioner Ellis. >> Chair, can we do them separate because I need to recuse on one of them. >> Sure. >> Okay, Commissioner Smith. >> Do we have a vote on them separately? >> Separately. Let's take a motion separately. >> Okay. >> Do you mind with the dates? >> You are, you have four. >> December 13th. >> Motion to approve the minutes for December 13th, 2017. >> Okay. Commissioner Beck. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a first and a second for the minutes of December 13th. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. [ Pause ] The motion is going to carry 7-0. Commissioner Smith. >> Motion to approve the minutes for January 10th, 2018. >> Okay. Commissioner Sullivan. >> Second that motion. >> Okay. We have a first and a second for approval of our minutes for January 10th, 2018. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. [ Pause ] That motion is going to carry 5-0 with two recuse. That will move us on to our consent agenda. Commissioner Rossell. >> I motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Okay. Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Second. >> Okay. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any comments or questions? Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. [ Pause ] The motion will carry 7-0. [ Pause ] That will move us to our public hearings section this evening. And just as an announcement to those, if you haven't noticed on your agenda, if you're here for item B, C, or D, all of those items will not be heard tonight. The only item we'll be hearing is item 4A. And at that time, at this time, I'm going to open the public hearing for Z17-0026B. And I will call on Shandrian for presentation. >> Good evening. I'm Shandrian Jarvis with the Development Services Department. The next item, Z17-26, is a rezoning request for a property located on the east side of the city near the Audre and Nottingham Lane intersection. The request is to rezone approximately 13 acres from a neighborhood residential 2 zoning district, which is basically a single family detached that allows a maximum of two dwelling units per acre. And the applicant is requesting to go to a neighborhood residential 6, which allows single family town homes and duplexes at a maximum of six dwelling units per acre. Just to give you some landmarks, this Mingo Road, there we go, Mingo Road is here. The Denton Bible Church is to the north. The Denton Church of Christ is here. Audre Lane serves as the western boundary of the tract, and then the north, on the north, there's also an extension of Audre. The plot, the lot is currently undeveloped primarily. There are some limited agricultural uses, and it has not been plotted. When we analyze zoning and rezoning requests, we have two basic criteria that serve as a guide. And we have two specific criteria that are in effect according to the DDC. The first one is, does the request meet the intent of the Future Land Use Plan, which is an element of the comprehensive plan? And then two, if we do approve or recommend approval for the request, would there be adequate provision of roadways, transportation, water, sewer, and then public services, and then the parks, so we look at those things. The first item that we considered was the consistency with the Future Land Use Plan. This area, the subject property, is classified as low density residential, the light yellow on the map. Low density is intended to promote single-family detached units that range in a density of one unit per acre all the way up to four. Well, let me go ahead and describe what else is going on in the area. As you get closer to Mingo Road, which is a primary arter ial, you'll see a mix of some commercial. You'll see moderate residential land use classification here, some commercial just to the north, and as you go further out, some employment center industrial. And those, that is what you would typically find along a major street, those more intense uses. And then we have those moderate residential uses that would then transition to the low density as you get farther away from the main streets. So when we looked at this request, we found that it did meet the Future Land Use Map. NR6, as I stated before, promotes a higher density than what we currently see in this area of the city. And it also would introduce some uses that are not compatible with this area. Currently, the main product there is single-family, well, primarily is single-family detached, and the zoning's range from NR2 up to an NR4. And most of the lots are about, are either somewhere between 40 and 50 and 60 feet wide. So when a request doesn't meet the Future Land Use Plan, the DDC directs us to consider some other items or some other elements as we analyze the request. We start with compatibility, again, with the existing character and what's already built in that area. Compatibility in terms of building scale, the land use, and construction type. We look at that. We compare what is there with what's being requested. We also look at any potential impacts to the public infrastructure, such as the roadways, the water, the wastewater, sewer, and then again, the public services, police, fire, EMS, and schools, and parks. We also look at the environmental impacts. Would there be any, if there's any environmentally sensitive areas, what would be the impact to that? If there's existing tree canopy on the site, what would be the impact to those? And then erosion control. So things like that are what we consider as we look at these requests. And then the code also gives us a catch-all, anything, any other compelling reason for the request, basically. So that's left up to your imagination. So when we look at compatibility, again, the surrounding zones range from NR2 to NR4. If you remember, maybe in December, this track to the north , immediately to the north, was brought to you for consideration. The applicant was requesting an NR6 zoning, basically identical to what we're here for today. City Council actually approved the zoning with the conditional overlay that restricted the uses on the property to just single family. And then it put a cap on the number of units that could be developed. So when we look at what available infrastructure is in the area, along Audre Lane on the western border of the track, there is water and wastewater available, and then also along the north edge, it's available for extensions into this property. And those would be required when they get ready to develop. The western segment of Audre is currently a two-lane, und ivided road. The city's mobility plan identifies it to be, when it's finally improved, it'll be a four-lane divided with sidewalks and bike lanes. And the segment to the north is ultimately planned to be a 65-foot right-of-way. The street width is going to be less than that. And I believe that's going to also include sidewalks on both sides of the street. The right-of-way dedications and the perimeter street improvements associated with this site will be assessed at the platting stage. We wouldn't do it here at zoning. Just a note. So looking at the environmental aspects, we didn't find any ESA on site. There's no floodplain. On the western section of the track, there is some tree canopy, which would trigger our tree preservation and mitigation if needed. So as required by the Texas Local Government Code, we sent out 66 letters to property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. We received to date six letters in opposition, and these areas highlighted in red show the feedback that we received from those owners within that 200 feet boundary. We also issued 173 courtesy notices for the 500-foot buffer , which is that blue line. And then the applicant held a neighborhood meeting last week. So in summary, NR6 is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. It's incompatible with the surrounding property in terms of permitted density and uses. And then we feel as staff that the site is more suitable to an NR4 or NR3 district. So we are recommending denial. And that concludes my presentation. I can answer questions and the applicant is also here. I have a question. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Shandrin, for the presentation. Could you tell us what the on-street parking requirements or allowances are for both NR2 and NR6 and what are those for each, if they're different? I'm going to. No. I don't have that information with me per se, but generally any unstriped street is open for on-street parking unless there's a sign that says it's not allowed. So they could be parking on both sides of the street. Unless there's a, unless it's striped or there's a sign prohibiting it. And if that's the case, does that allow for fire trucks to make it through there? What we, the feedback we received is that our smallest street cross section does not facilitate the fire truck if there is parking on both sides of the street. And I know the city is currently looking at that to make some changes so that at least we can get a fire truck through. It may look like, it may end up that we allow parking on one side of the street or we just widen the section altogether, but that hasn't been finalized yet. Okay. Thank you. Mr. I just wanted to add to that. If you recall from the work sessions, the new transportation criteria manual had those new sections. So the widths for residential streets have been widened. And so it kind of goes back to that context sensitive corridor, if you will. So they, there, I think there were three options where they could choose whether or not they would be on street parking or bike lane. That would be looked at. Obviously those would be adopted prior to this property going through platting. So they would be subject to that new, that new criteria manual. Great. Thanks, Richard. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Ellis. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. Okay. So on that note, but zoning does not change a residential street with. No. Okay. Just want to make that clarification. Thank you. I have two cards wishing to speak. First card will be Thomas Fletcher. Good evening. Thomas Fletcher, Kim Lee Horn. I'm the engineer for the applicant 5750 Genesis court Frisco, Texas . I've got a quick presentation for you all. Okay. This which scene on the screen is the aerial of the site to the south. We have all dress states, which we abut on our south property line. And then also we have, I believe it's. Let me double check. I believe it's. East Ridge edition. Which came after all the states East Oaks edition. So the that's the tracks to our south throughout our track. We've got a small sliver that goes up to all the east west section of all. And then we've got the north south section of all on our west. As Shandrian mentioned the east west section is slated to be a 65 foot right away, which is a collector section and be 37 foot back to back. And that does have sidewalks, future sidewalks. The the existing section on Audre north south is currently four lane undivided section. So I believe that pavement with is somewhere between 45 to 49 feet back to back, which has two lanes in each direction , which would generally be classified as a minor arterial. Here is the current dent in zoning map. As you can see, the site just to our north was recently adopted in our six with overlay conditions. We intend I have a concept plan I'll show you here in a second, but we intend to develop single family residential. So we are open to recommendation with overlay conditions. So just want to make sure that you all are aware of that, that we're not we were not intending to develop anything other than single family. So we want to make sure that you all are aware. Here's the future land use plan, which shows our track and all their surrounding tracks, which is moderate residential , which is up to four units per acre. And then here's our concept plan. So what you're seeing is this tract is approximately 13 acres on the layout. We're showing 56 residential lots because of the western portion, the depth of the track on the western portion. We've got really deep lots along there which provide opportunity for tree preservation along the state's boundary. We also have flexibility in our plan to provide tree preservation on the perimeter where it's where it's to the south where there's the existing homes. So there was a homeowners meeting in which the Brad Shelton and one of the other engineers from our firm attended last week. There were comments and concerns that were brought up in that and I'll try and address those within this presentation. But I did want to point out the Aldra State's plat when it was plotted back in 84. That is a plat of 54 lots on 12 acres, which is a four point five density. So when you look at the current zoning maps that show it's in our four in actuality, it's slightly over in our four. So our development with the 56 lots on 13 acres, that's four point three units. So it's actually when you look at the densities of the adjacent plants in the area that that we're next to, we're really in line with the with the existing conditions. So some of the concerns that came up with the neighborhood meeting was the was the traffic. Main entry for this development would be on Alder Lane, which is a four lane divided roadway. Fifty six lots would be a very minimal impact to the existing traffic percentage wise that's already there. We would have two points of access to meet the fire code requirements, a connection to Alder Lane and then a connection to Latimore. When Alder State's was developed, the city had foresight to know that development is going to grow and they provided a street stub to the to the undeveloped track so that when it does develop, it would have connection for utility and for for transportation purposes. There was a concern about on street parking that was mentioned in any development. We're following the current standards as the city updates their standards. We follow those standards. The city does have off street parking requirements of two off street parking spaces per lot. So the setback limits for the garage are stipulated such that there's room for two vehicles in the parking in the driveway for for each lot. Street damage. The that's always a concern when we go through the development process and do the design. There's pre construction meeting held with the city and the city take notes of the conditions of the existing roadways and the inspectors are constantly monitoring construction looking at is that our construction that's causing damage to the street or is it. Is there something else or is there damage at all. So that's that's one of the things that's looked at and kind of governed through the process. The contractor would be responsible. They're there. There are three way contracts with the city. They have responsibilities to the developer and to the city if damage is called to remedy that that damage and in my experience and projects where there's been any item that hasn't been remedied to the city's satisfaction and the city just withholds the final acceptance. So we would not get a final acceptance letter until the city is satisfied with the project the improvements the public improvements and remediation of any damage that may have occurred. Tree removal concerns with the extra depth lots. We are doing a layout such that we're preserving that perimeter trees those so that the neighbors still have those right there on the border with their property. We are obligated to meet the city of Denton's ordinances for tree removal, which currently requires over 20% of 20% of the tree canopy to be preserved. So we would be following those regulations and I think with the plan that we've got, we would actually be exceeding those regulations but as part of this, as this moves forward we would do a tree survey with the preliminary plat and quantify that density as I mentioned, what we're proposing is a is 56 units on 13 acres which is a 4.3 density. I've shown you that the Alder states was 4.49 when it developed East Oaks edition was 34 lots on 7.745 acres which is 4.39. So we're actually just slightly under that. We're, we're happy to do an overlay or if y'all are inclined to recommend approval with an overlay condition of single family use only with a density of no greater than 4. 3 or somewhere in that that area where we're perfectly acceptable with that. And there was another concern about decreased property values. One of the things we did was get on Denton Central Appraisal District and kind of look at some of the property values in the area. And what we can tell you is that based off of current market conditions land prices development calls, all that's going to drive a proposed starting home price point above the current home valuations that are in the area. So, if anything, this develop would act development would actually help increase the property values because when development occurs, newer development occurs in the area with higher valuations that helps bring up the valuations of the adjacent properties. So project benefits for the proposed density is in line with the adjacent developments. It meets a market need for size and style of housing. We feel it's consistent with the Denton plan and that we're, we're right at or just over the four units per acre, and it 's consistent with the, with the adjacent subdivisions and consistent with the approved zoning of the track to the north of us that was done recently. It provides open space and trees we had a nice open space park area, kind of in our north eastern corner that we were adding so that we could kind of create a nice little pocket park amenity in there. And, you know, it was with the development will, you know, meet that all the drainage ordinances the codes requirements for that and provide a benefit as far as the, the utility and drainage of the area. And really that's, that's all my presentation I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have got some questions Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Yes, sir. A couple of questions for you. So 4.3 is the number of units per acre that you have right now with 56. So, you know, we have, we have the ability to to reduce down from proposed or applied for zone. We can't do it for yours. If you're 4.3, we can't we can't we suggest appear as a commission we can't suggest say we shouldn't do in our six we should do in our four instead, because you know, you don't confine to in our four. Because you have 4.3. Correct. Is there any way for you during this conceptual stage to be able to reconfigure lots to be able to fit to in our four zoning if we were to vote that way. I think we could I mean if basically we're saying is if we go to in our four with a maximum of four, we would end up having to take away for lots from the plan. That would, what that would come down to. So it's my understanding and I'm and correct me if I'm wrong, that you can make a recommendation for in our six not to exceed 56 units on the property. You can write, you can, but there's been discussion and work session before that, as we throw out overlays left and right the problem with overlays is that if something were to happen to this project and was to fall through. There's no there's no clear designation as of right now, whenever another developers looking for land that we've rez oned with an overlay there's no clear designation on that zoning of if an overlay exists unless they do digging and so there could be a scenario where someone could purchase a piece of land without knowing there's an overlay on it, which is probably their fault for not doing due diligence but right we want to avoid having hundreds of overlay districts on every single new zoning property we do so just to just a piece brought up there and I would say I would want to consult my client. But without answering. Yeah, because we're talking about, you know, I think our preference would be if you are open to the overlay with the maximum not to exceed, but if if that's something you would like me to consult with my client on I can do that and you can't shortlist we asked a couple of questions so there's be public hearing later so you can write very well do that come back afterwards. The was the projected home value and the conceptual. I mean just just looking at the development costs for this type of development size lot I think we're projecting a starting price in the 240 to 280 range. I mean, we're still talking because we don't until we have zoning to we kind of go through and do the preliminary plat and kind of get more of the details defined it's hard to dial in with a particular builder, but I would say that we 're looking at a starting price around the 240 and up to 280 and it could go up from there and we're in the zoning processes not so right that it is right sexual just wanted to know because he said it'd be more than what's surrounding it. What's more right building $500,000 houses there I don't think so right now and then when I looked at the home values there looked like the home values were in the lower 200,000 range. So that just kind of gives you an idea is probably we're probably talking 10 to 20% more is kind of where I would estimate that at this point now question for you as well as with the the lot north of you that a butts right there in that corner behind the church that we that was voted in our six. So was there any discussion with that project and collaborating in this time at all was at one point the app you know my client looked to see if they had any interest in selling that property. I did at one time do a layout on that property and that included that property. There wasn't a deal to be had, I guess that developer had planned to move forward with his development as a single project. You know we did look at hey if this property was able to be tied to this tract as well how could we do a layout that would maximize the topography and the site conditions provide open space. And, but from that point, since there was no willingness to sell it really became two separate projects. Commissioner Zell, thank you, Mr. Fletcher for your presentation is actually really helpful to answer a lot of my questions. The only one I have left over from the presentation is, it 's my understanding that the address states lots are 50 to 60 feet wide on the frontage, how would your lots compared to so I know like, so our lots are minimum lot frontage would be 50 foot in width. So they're they're comparable I mean when I pulled the Aud ra plaid, there were, I think their lots were up to 60 foot wide. It looked like the depth on most of their lots were in the 116 foot 117 foot depth range. So the majority of our lots especially on the western portion of the track would be 135 and that range because of the depth of the track because the residential street going through there is in a 50 foot right of way. It's a loaded street so you take the overall depth and take the 50 foot out and essentially we're splitting it between the two. One of the things we did on our, on our concept plan is we try to put a curvilinear element to the street so we didn't have a straight thoroughfare so it kind of breaks up that that drive as you come into the, into the subdivision but. The lots would be a little bit narrower but they, the majority of them would be on average quite a bit deeper. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr pleasure for your presentation I like the idea that you're going to leave that one little stretch of land up there on the northeast sexers wooded area maybe future Clark. Right. In your discussions with the community, the community meeting had to go discuss setbacks. I'm not sure I like said I wasn't able to attend that the engineer I've got the engineer here with me that was. Could we ask him. Yeah, absolutely. Either Scott or Brad can come up. And if we could, could you tell us how many people attended the meeting. Scott Pemburn, Kimmy horn. 5750 Genesis court Frisco, Texas. So your last name again, Pemburn pain burn pain burn. Okay, thank you. Setbacks were discussed. The setbacks were proposing or in in line with the zoning, of course, we, we have, I think currently five foot set backs on the side yards. And I think, I think 10 foot setbacks in the front. 10 foot. The zoning ordinance and this is for all the different zoning districts. So in our two has a 10 foot side yard setback in our three, I believe has a six foot side yard setback in our four is a five foot side yard set back in our six is a four foot side yard setback. When we do residential development, we never utilize the four foot side yard setback when you have less than eight feet or less than 10 feet between buildings, you have certain fire code requirements that you then have to follow which makes building construction more expensive. With the, with the layout when we talk about a 50 foot lot we have a 40 foot pad the builders really look for the building pad, and they develop we we developed a lot around the building pad so they've got 40 foot product. We do a 50 foot lot five foot side yards 10 foot in between buildings, the city standard setbacks if you look the city has a minimum setback of 10 feet along the front yard a minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet as well. These lots the minimum depth of these lots are building pads are going to be 40 by 75 with a minimum depth of 120 on on some of the lots that are further to the east. You've got a 20 foot front yard setback 75 foot pad that leaves a 25 foot rear yard. So the city does allow for 10 foot front yard setback but they require 20 feet for the setback to the garage in order to account for those two off street parking requirements. Thank you that's what I was looking for you mentioned you could get to two cars and driveway but I see how that's one of the things like most. That's one of the things that you really have to explain if you're asking what by code what is the code minimum. Well the code minimum front yard setback is 10 feet that's in the development code, but it also has the requirement of 20 feet for from the property to the garage where you get and we do all when we go through into our grading plans and everything we set the whole building 20 foot back because it just when you start talking about grading and drive slopes and all that it just it kind of makes it more of a challenge when you get that close to the street. Okay, one more question for you but Scott how many people attended the community meeting. I'm in the neighborhood of 10 to 15. 1015. Okay, thank you. One last question for you, Mr. Fletcher. Yes, sir. In your presentation you talked about how you, the way your layout was that you would minimize tree removal but when I look, looking at the picture that new street that you're going to connect to Audra runs right through a big patch of trees and then you have houses on both sides. So, right when we put this together I don't know if you can bring it back up but when we put this together and did the layout we realized that there's, once we do our tree survey, that there's probably some opportunity to adjust the layout in that area for additional tree preservation. We even talked about maybe looking at doing a boulevard in there where the street wraps around it if we have enough depth, so that we can kind of create some nice center median with three or four of the really nice large trees in that. And that would be something once we have a tree survey we would try because it adds value. I mean we want to preserve the trees. Anything we can do to enhance the look and feel of the neighborhood is going to make it more desirable. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Next card I have is Brad Shelton. Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Brad Shelton, 2925 Punch Club Road here in Denton. I think Thomas has done very well at doing the presentation and answering questions but I'm also here to answer any further questions that you may have of me on behalf of the applicant. Commissioner Matt. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I meant to ask, he said he had roughly 15 to 20 people there. Yes, sir. We got six letters of opposition to this. What was the headcount on that at the meeting? Did you seem to have a 50/50? It was mixed. The biggest concerns, again, that night were from the few was, of course, just not having anything nearby their existing homes, which is usual. But the biggest thing was was fire and the front yard setbacks. They seem to be the two looming issues on there. And again, we have to, by right, meet the Denton Development Code. And so, through the planning and engineering design phase, that will be taken care of and be addressed. And in those meetings as well, the fire marshal is there, planning staff, engineering staff are all within those meetings. So we have to get input and design and go from that point. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Also, I believe the houses that are currently on the way out of more that you're going to connect with there. Yes, sir. And the ones you have but two on the south side. Those are brick homes. So are y'all going to be building brick homes too? Is it going to be? We'll be some masonry to it. Yes, sir. And now how much that again, we're very in the very preliminary stage of this. So we, you know, we've identified a few builders, but nobody that we can't really physically talk to them to once we get through to the next further steps to be able to have something in hand from engineering and stuff. But yes, you know, they'll have masonry on them. Yes, sir. They're not. Well, I'm concerned if we're going to consider an overlay. Yes, sir. We may not. But blending in is important, especially coming in on the flat or if you're not blending in with those houses there, it's going to be quite dramatic. Yes, sir. So just something to consider. Yes, sir. Thank you. I have a question. If we do consider an overlay, the numbers that we got were a total of 56 lots and then to restrict it to single family only those family detached single family detached. Correct. That's a difference in the wording. So I'm sure it 's detached. Okay. Those two conditions would be okay. It wouldn't interfere with your project the way you currently have it designed. Correct. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant. Thank you. Thank you, sir. This is a public hearing. Anyone who weeks wishes to speak on this item please come forward at this time. If you'll give us your name and your address, and if you haven't already filled out a card if you'll fill one out for us before you leave this evening. Sir. Good evening. My name is Jerry Steger and I live at 2408 whispering Oaks, which is one of the streets, just south of what this proposed project will be. I appeared before you in December, speaking in opposition of the Yale project. My reasoning for objecting to that was that your planning and zoning committee recommended an NR for for that. But for whatever reasons, or you were sold to go NR six and that's what you did. There's really three pieces of property, looking at this. There's the Yale project. There's this project and then there's the Johnson properties that are to the east, and they follow Oak Valley, all the way north to Audra. So there's really three pieces to this package. I don't know that you're looking at all three but we as residents are. We would we currently see Latimore being extended into this proposed project area. And I'm thrilled that you're planning and zoning recommended an NR for. I would hate for the council to up serve that and change that to an NR six. I attended the neighborhood meeting, a week or so ago, and I was in opposition of that and I spoke about that at the meeting and these were the things I only can talk about the things that were presented there, but bring me major concern. Number one is this is a very high, high residential area there. They're putting a lot of houses on a small piece of property. What this looks like is Mac place Lee drive and Mac drive. That's what this looks like at the meeting they told us that these were 10 foot setbacks and I asked if they were 10 foot setbacks for the driveway. And they said yes. Now I drive an F 150 crew cab. It's 19 feet long, my truck would not fit in that driveway. But yet the engineer tonight said that those are 20 foot setbacks. So my truck would fit in that the concern that was echoed that night was that how many vehicles does each family have . And if those are 10 foot driveways, only my Subaru will fit in the driveway and maybe a smart car. But there's a lot of people that drive our concern was that there'd be a huge amount of vehicles parked on the street. Not only that, but they told us that the streets are 27 feet wide. And then they're going to have traffic calming devices in there with a 50 foot lot and two side driveway two drive ways. That's not a lot of room to park any off street parking. I too am concerned with emergency vehicles coming down that and I would just hate to have anything happen that the trucks to trucks park opposite each other on the road. I don't believe would let an emergency vehicle through the garbage trucks. I would have trouble getting by two cars parked on our side of the street on whispering Oaks. Whispering Oaks is 29 and a half feet wide. That's that's that's wide. The other concern that we had was there's no sidewalks in this project. And that that the setback was just was just a major concern , not only for numbers of vehicles, but also for safety reasons. So I'm I'm encouraged that the planning and zoning committee recommended an NR for I would encourage the council to accept that because we'll be back here again in the not too distant future when Johnson properties wants to come and approach the council. So they already have a precedent of a six on the Yale properties. And then this would be a four. I mean, I don't know if it's even possible. Maybe the city attorney can help with that. Is it possible for you to rescind your zoning in our six for the Yale properties and go back to a four? I'm afraid the precedent is being set here and it's going to impact our neighborhood. Oak Valley will run right straight up into Audra. And so it directly impacts our traffic flow and the impact on our neighborhood. I'll pose your question to the city attorney. But just just ensure just in brief, there is not a mechanism to to rescind a zoning once approved by by city by city council. I have some other questions. Commissioner Rosal. Thank you, Charles. Trying to do some quick math. We called me Victor didn't take long enough. We can skip you and come back. No, we'll go. Okay. Mr. Stegarth, appreciate you being here and voicing your concerns. I unfortunately wasn't at the Yale Commission meeting to talk to you if you spoke then or not. If it went to an inner four, as we looked at that be 52 lots, they're proposing 56 lots. Are you if I understand you correctly, you're OK with the approval of 52 lots, but not the 56 lots. Do I understand that correctly? Help me understand the impact of an additional four lots in the area. That would be a significant change. I'm trying to understand because it's a small percentage of 56. We're looking at less than 10 percent. Actually, I'm not qualified to argue that I would just refer back to the planning and zoning committee lady that was here last month and said they recommend a four. So I was in favor of that because it's just consistent with the area north of Audra and then the Yale and then this proposed and then East Oaks. And then the area south of us. It's just a harmonious geographic section and it's not done yet. As I said, the Johnson properties will come up after this. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stegarth, for your presentation. I appreciate you bringing up the Johnson properties, which is to the east of everything. That's correct. And I was I was looking at that too. And you're right. There's going to be more development in there. And so sitting the president's important. Just one quick. You mentioned that you didn't think there was any sidewalks in this development, but believe Mr. Fletcher said there was. So is that right, Mr. Fletcher? There will be. OK. OK. OK. So I got that from the neighborhood meeting when I asked the question. OK. All right. But that's good. OK. So you're OK. Yeah. OK. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Hi there. So with with an N.R. four or the N.R. six overlay is that the applicant discussed with us is really just a couple of lots different. So is your concern more with the setback versus two extra lots being developed? Can you help us understand that? And maybe that's where Commissioner Rosell was wanting clarification as well. Why an N.R. four seems I know the neighborhood of Latimore and I know the neighborhood of Whispering Oaks. And those neighborhoods do not have the concentration of short narrow lots and stacking them side by side ten foot difference between the between the properties. It doesn't look like our neighborhood. It doesn't look like the neighborhood north of us. It doesn't look like our neighborhood doesn't look like their neighborhood south of us. So you see that there's a whole bunch of dominoes being placed in these lots. And it doesn't it doesn't look and I think that's what's important to the planning and zoning and just the visual concept of our neighborhoods. And it it just looked like a bunch of dominoes. It looked like they were all stacked in a row. A number of our neighbors will have one or two backdoor neighbors. So it's just it's just not consistent with the property lines. The property lines are 70 by 120. Thank you for your comments. I don't see any other questions. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak please come forward this time. Yes. Good evening commissioners. My name is David Zoltner and I live at twenty five one temporary which is in the East Oaks subdivision which is just south of this development. Well first of all I find myself very much in agreement with the staff analysis and all the conclusions that led to this denial. Now I've heard a lot of stuff tonight that's kind of changing this to a certain degree. Now I've heard the possibility of a of a 56 unit overlay. But the big problem here just as Commissioner Ellis this is all about the setbacks the N.R. six is obviously by right going to allow this developer to use the 10 foot setback. And the problem here is that the size of these homes during this public meeting or the neighborhood meeting was somewhere between fifteen hundred and twenty seven hundred square feet. Now twenty seven hundred square feet I'm assuming is probably going to be a four bedroom home a four bedroom home with two parking spaces in a 10 foot setback. You are absolutely guaranteeing on street parking. It's just going to happen. Now the N.R. four helped me with the math here but the N.R. four would allow up to four units. So we're right at fifty two fifty three units. Now the maximum by right on N.R. six would be seventy eight or seventy nine homes. Now OK if there's an overlay that's something to talk about . But my main concern is is the fact that that we're so close and I heard tonight that this is an N.R. four waiting to happen in my opinion. Now if you can't recommend or change or have a developer agree to an N.R. four you're within you're within two or three units right now of this N.R. four. And to make it consistent with that order as states now the developer already mentioned he may be forced to give up one or two of these lots for connector a tertiary connector. So we're within two units of an N.R. four here. Now I don't know if it's possible to do an N.R. four variance for only two units. I hope that's possible otherwise you just throw this thing all the way open to N.R. six with all the pushback and all the nonsense and all the setbacks and all the on street parking. So please I am opposing the the only N.R. six part of this. I'm in actually in favor of the development I could easily be convinced that this is an N.R. four. But I agree completely with your staff analysis and I would recommend denial of this N.R. six and hardly encourage you to talk to this developer about either reducing just the number of lots by one or two or three to where we can solve this setback issue which is the number one problem in my opinion that you're dealing with here. You are guaranteeing on street. It's it's you're going to have cars. The problem is that these garages now become storage units. And so you've you've got people moving into new homes just south of me now in this summer oaks division they're moving into a new house with a two car garage they fill it with stuff and there's already four cars in the parking in the street right now. Do not allow a four bedroom house to be built 10 feet from a curb please. Thank you very much. I have some questions for you Commissioner Roselle. Thank you sir. I appreciate you coming up and speaking. I have a couple questions you said you live in a whispering oaks. I live on Timber Trail which is in that same East Oaks. I'm two blocks I didn't receive a courtesy notice. And is your street much like the other gentlemen's in which the trash the trash compost truck is having a tough time comes up your shoes are plenty of room on your street currently for emergency services and utility vehicles. Well, right our street is, you know, Timber Trail is an older street is 20 years old it's wide and so do you have on street parking in your neighborhood. We have on street. Correct. Occasionally I mean yeah I mean visitors weekend football game you bet. Every now and then there's. This is the difference between this visitor. This visitor tally that you often see on these parking discussions versus, you know, weekday. So sure, I guess my point to be more direct is, you're suggesting that if we move it to 52 lots there wouldn't be any on street parking issues. I'm suggesting if it was 52 lots under an NR for that that 20 foot setback would be mandatory by your. And many of the new parking modifications that are going to City Council, very soon will be designating for cars can be parked in a driveway in a single family. So you're creating a problem here. Now this may be, you know, one of the last that sneaks in under this new parking or the old parking but it's just you 're creating a problem. It's my understanding from the developers presentation that they are going to have a 20 foot setback on the driveway. Well, that's again if if that becomes a separate condition under an NR six if you want to make that a you know one of his conditions, you know, but under the NR six, it doesn't have to happen. I'm personally not interested in making that a condition. I'm just trying to understand your perspective on if it is a 20 foot setback. Do you feel that eliminates some of the off street parking? Absolutely. Okay, absolutely. I don't think any single family residents in Denton, by the way, should have any less than a 20 foot setback. We've only had the 10 foot since 2002. That was a big mistake we made about 15 years ago. And I think we're about to fix that anyway. Unless this is one of the last that sneaks in with these little baby front yards and 10 foot driveways. This is a big problem. Sure. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. He can have a seat. It's fine there. If you like. No, it's OK. In regards to in regards to I'm going to ask the applicant here shortly about the wide difference in the reported square footage for the proposed development. Because you're right. Fifteen hundred to twenty seven hundred square feet is that 's a pretty wide variance there. That's a twelve hundred variance. You can fit another house in that variance there. So I'd like to know what what the exact is. But I will tell you this that based off of the property values surrounding that area about one hundred and twenty hundred twenty five dollars per square foot seems like what it's about. The proposed estimate for value as well as the square footage that area at one hundred twenty five dollars a square foot valuation for the types of value of home they 're looking at. You're looking between 18 and 20 and 18 and 2000 square foot homes. Eighteen hundred and two thousand square foot homes. I think twenty seven hundred might be might be a little bit high to be worried about. So I'd actually like to ask that can come back up and possibly explain why the neighborhood meeting there was a wide wide variance and what their projected conceptual square footage per home is. I can't. The twenty seven hundred was just information that got back to me from the neighborhood meeting. I was not there. I heard that the twenty seven. You're good. Thank you. Thank you. So the as far as the square footage goes when you talk about a variance between fifteen hundred and twenty seven hundred you're talking about some buyers want a single story home. Those some some people want a two story home when you start talking about a two story home you can get to twenty seven hundred square feet very quickly just by going vertical. Just to clarify one point on the driveway setback the city of Denton when you talk about the front building line the ten foot is for the front facade of the building. It's not for the garage. The garage setback is twenty feet. So the driveway in any zoning district has to be twenty feet. We're perfectly okay. Listening to the concerns from the residents what we'd like to do we want to be good neighbors. We want to be a good development coming in. What I'd like to propose a request for consideration as we would like to reduce the total number of lots from fifty six to fifty four. That's the two that the gentleman just mentioned. We would like to institute a twenty foot building line so that no building no portion of the building is going to be between that ten and twenty feet. So the building and the garage has to meet the minimum twenty foot building setback in that the that the use would only be single family detached. So I think those three things hopefully provide some shows the residents that we're we're trying to come in and bring a good product a successful product and work with them and hear their concerns. Since I currently hold the floor I'll ask just for clarification. So you're saying that fifty four lots of twenty foot setback no duplexes no town homes. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Sullivan and I know you had a question for comment for the applicant. Yes. Okay. I have a hard I guess I'm having a hard time understanding as I'm looking at the regulations for in our four in our six every dimension is identical from except for the lot area and the front yard setback. And you've addressed that. That's the biggest concern for a lot of people. Side yard is the same lot depth is the same lot width is the same minimum side yard adjacent to the street minimum rear yard maximum lot coverage virtually every number is identical. So I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the you know the two lots that may or may not happen if in both in our four in our six the lot width is 50 and the depth is 80 . I don't understand how you get how you're getting more houses. If those have to be the same. So those are all minimum dimensions. So when we look at laying out a plan we lay out. So for instance, the builder profile for this development is a 40 foot pad 75 foot deep so we take those dimensions, the minimum side yards minimum side yards on a corner, and we determine what our minimum lot dimensions are so that 50 by 80 is a minimum within the development code but a 50 by 80 wouldn't work for the builder profile that we're looking at. So when we lay out those lots we have a minimum lot size of think our minimum is 50 by 120. And our the majority of them are deeper than that. So, all the layout that were proposed falls within that those allow able dimensions that are within the code. I understand that what you're going to be building is going to be bigger than what's here. Right, but these are the minimums and they're identical. I'm having a hard time understanding where you're taking out the two or squeezing in two extras when the lot sizes all have to be the same for in our six or in our four in our six. And so if, if the 20 foot of the 20 foot is the only difference and you're willing to give a 20 foot set back in our four seems like the perfect fit. You don't have to do anything different because all the dimensions are the same, except that 20 foot side and in the economics of it when we talk about adding stuff to serve future development for the track to the north or to the east minute ads call so two lots doesn't sound like a lot but that's two additional lots that the, you know that the developer has to sell to the builder which is a very, which can be very significant to the. The finances of the project. Okay. I still understand where those two lots are coming from if the lot sizes are identical. What's the difference. We've got the same amount of land right if we were those two lots coming from are going to understand since we're taking them away will either add to the open space. The lots may be what I'm saying is why would you need to take them away. If the minimum lot sizes for four and six is 50 by 80, you're going to have bigger lots. Right, right. We need the in our six with overlay so that we can do more than 52. If we are straight in our four zoning, all those other categories and concerns are allevi ated but we can the maximum number of lots that we can develop or 52, because the number of lots that we can do is 52. Because the maximum density is four units per acre. So basically the in our six zoning with the overlay condition allows us to add two additional lots and provide a good quality neighborhood with open space with a builder pad for a product that is in line with this area. So really the whole the whole ask there for versus in our six versus in our four is just so that we can pick up those and originally we were asking for four and in discussion with the applicant. We're, we're saying that we'll, we'll remove two of those four and go down to 54 is what is what we're now proposing. Okay, thank you. Just for clarification while you're here. The existing lots around there and what did you say the density was on those, the arbor estates the density is 4.49 units per acre. And armor states just just to kind of give you an idea that their phase was 54 lots, so it's the same as what we're requesting now, and it was on 12.021 acres. And this is from the plat from the appraisal district. East Oaks edition phase one was 34 lots on 7.745 acres, which is a density of 4.39. So those existing subdivisions aren't in our for either. Well, so when those subdivisions were developed the the zoning districts were different. When they brought all the zoning districts up to try and conform they kind of looked at where does that fit most closely to its single family detached. It fits an in our four closer than an in our six but it doesn't meet all the requirements of an in our four zoning district. Correct. So those districts are fairly close to what you all are asking for. When you really crunch the numbers and do the density of the number of units over the acreage. It's very similar to what you've asked for. That's correct and I have the plat I mean the difference is our lots are a little bit smaller but we're putting open space within the development, whereas when that development when all your states and these other developments were done. There was no open space provided into the development. I understand. Thank you for the clarification Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Do you know the average front yard setback on the adjacent lots that are developed. I don't I just know that the city of didn't the didn't development code and I don't know the standards that were in place and 84 when that development first started, but it appears that just looking from an aerial that it would be consistent with to off street parking spaces so I would assume that it's probably a minimum of 20 feet setback for the for the driveway but I don't have an exact answer for you. So just noticing with the NR for it, it does have that limitation that it would have to conform to the average of the adjacent property setback. I was curious. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. So, Sam the adjacent developments been about 4.3 4.4 maybe 4.25. So you reducing it down to a 45 lot on 13 acres would put you at, sorry, 54 lot on 13 acres, not to do the math. It's put you to 4.15 correct units per acre. So much less than the surrounding current once the only difference is going to be that and your conceptual plan would be that that you have more open space that will constrict and make it make those lots smaller just because there is open space. That's right and some of the lots may actually be larger in square footage just because of the depth. So our minimum lot size would be smaller than theirs, but we would have several lots that may actually have more square footage because of the depth. In regards to citizens concerned, the more depth the better in this scenario. Correct. It puts the houses further away from the existing development. Thanks, sir. I don't have any other questions at this time. This is a public hearing, anybody who would like to speak, please come forward at this time. Well, they're right outside the door and after you speak, it's not a problem. Just give us your name and address. I have house on 2508 whispering oaks, just Jason to the south of this proposed development. The question I have is the developer, or rather for whoever would give legal opinion, if you go for an NR6, but this developer doesn't develop it, somebody else comes in. And this overlay, as I heard you say, is included in the NR 6. What happens then? Can that overlay be taken away? I'll let legal weigh in on that. So just to kind of keep it really brief, it would run like any other zoning. It attaches to the land. So the zoning plus overlay district attaches to the land. The only way to remove that would be to, as any other rez oning, is to come back and get it rezoned again, including the overlay district. So in summary, if you make the NR6 with this 54 unit per the area overlay, it would, if somebody else came in, one develop in there, NR6 with duplexes two stories tall, they wouldn't be able to without coming to the rezoning again. Even though it's not changing the NR6 part, it would be removing the other. Okay. That's all I needed to know. I think the NR4 is about where the density is. But I do have a comment about the kind of home, now that I think about it, that was brought up by, I think it was Mr. Smith, about the kind of brick houses. Mr. Beck. Okay. Kind of hard to keep track. Who says what? But the houses along Whispering Oaks and Lattimore, which are adjacent to this proposed addition, are all brick houses in the front and sides, at minimum. I can't speak about all the back sides. My concern would be the amount of brick on the houses that are being developed, just to keep it the same feel of the neighborhood. And I thank you. Don't have any questions. Thank you for your comments, sir. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Please come to the mic and give us your name and address. My name is Vernon Mamm. I live in 2224 Lattimore. My concern is Lattimore is a dead end street. Right now. Is that possible for it to be open all the way through into new subdivision? I'll ask a plan staff to come and address if it went on to the property to the east. Is that what your question is? That if it continued on to the east, rather than the way it currently has been presented, if that's a possibility. I like I said, I live on Lattimore and there's a ton of young kids that plays out in the street. They even come from down the drain, which is in two houses up from me and there's kids came down this drain to play on Lattimore. And I'm just thinking that the traffic was if they go in and open that straight up, the kids are going to have no place to play other than in their backyard or whatever. So that was my question and my concern. If they open up L attimore, there's going to be some people that's going to move out. Okay. I'll ask staff to put the overhead up, I guess, of L attimore and they can help walk through if that's a possibility and how that might take place. Okay, we're talking about this. I'm talking about this street right there. That's Lattimore. Okay. I believe what the city traffic engineer mentioned in the work session was that there may be possibility to extend this road, but we wouldn't know if that's needed until we get to the site development phase of the project, which is the next phase planning. So it could be extended depending on what types of traffic, what the traffic numbers look like and are not there. But we wouldn't have that information until this site is more fleshed out and we can analyze the plan at that point. So the question would be then, we don't know whether it could be possibly a street stub out for future connection to it looks like the street was going to be Oak Valley. Looks like a valley is the north south to the east right there. And when I looked at the mobility plan, there was in a, it didn't come up as an extension. Okay. But again, based on what comes out of the traffic impact analysis, it may or may not be improved. Okay. Okay. I have a couple questions. I don't know if this for staff, Commissioner Ellis. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir, for your comments. I think the question is, is there a way to get the traffic to the site? I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. So the northern most east west street doesn't become any longer than what we've currently got shown. So. Continue if you had. So. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that's a good question. Typically what happens because we don't like to have those dead end utilities. Now, certainly with that, I mean, those utilities could loop around to the north. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. So, all that being said, it seems as though, to the best of my knowledge, this development will align itself very well with the current development in terms of density. It's actually a less dense development than what's currently there. It seems like they're also taking into consideration to ensure, through traffic measures and street construction, to keep traffic down so that kids are safe to move about, hopefully not playing in the streets, but move about the streets safely. And they'll have open space that hopefully can provide an area for those kids that they don't have to move out of the neighborhood, but they actually have a new place that they can play. So, with that, I will move that this is approved. How do I... I'll clarify this. This was recommended as a denial, correct? So, my motion is to not... Just change your motion. Okay, perfect. So, I move to approve this request as an NR6 with an overlay condition that only single-family detached buildings are built with a maximum of 54 lots. Would you entertain a friendly amendment? It depends. Okay, I think the other condition that was requested was to have the 20-foot front yard setback. Would you add that for a total of three conditions to your suggested motion of approval? Can that be added to the overlay, the build setback? Okay. Yes, I will entertain that amendment and require with this motion an NR6 with only single-family detached buildings constructed at a maximum of 54 lots and a build line of 20-foot setback. Yep, front yard. Front yard. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Being that the applicant has been extremely gracious in making some compromise to be able to do this and knowing now that even the existing surrounding neighborhoods shouldn't even be classified as NR4 with their density, this is going to be a less dense area than the surrounding areas based off the math and what it shows. I think it'd be hard for us to, even though yes, we could go and vote as an NR4. I think it'd be incongruent as well as I was the one who made the motion on the past on the Yale project for the NR6 approval because of its density being close to 4.2. Going through and saying, "They have to buy by NR4, but your neighbors just to the north that get the NR6 plus the overlay," doesn't seem very congr uent with that area. So I will make a second motion, please. Okay. We have a first and a second for approval with the three conditions stated. Any further discussion? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Again, I'd like to thank everybody for coming down and speaking out. It's essential for us to make a good sound decision. I'd like Commissioner Rosell, I too was opposed to the NR6, but considering the concessions that are made here, I think we have what both sides are going to be happy with. We've got the 20-foot setback. We got the almost exact number of houses as an NR4 with the overlay in there, and that will be set in stone. So the other consideration that we can't look at now because this is the zoning thing, but we can look at the design standards was the issue of what the houses are going to look like, and we can discuss that then. Hopefully the developer will keep in mind what Mr. Potters has said about BRIC, and we'll deal with that at that time. But again, I can go along with this motion myself. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez. Yeah, I think we've had a healthy discussion here tonight. Listening to the developer and listening to the concerns of the community, I think like everybody else, I think they have met some of your concerns , a lot of the concerns that were brought forward. And therefore, I think that personally I'll be voting for it because I think because of the overlays, that pretty much I think will satisfy a lot of people that brought concerns tonight. Commissioner Sullivan. Yes, thank you all for showing up. I didn't hear a single voice about the number of homes being built, but I did hear setbacks, widths, depths, things of that nature. And I think that if the applicant is willing to go along with the conditions that were put forth, where the setback is 20 feet, everything else is what everybody I think has been, I think, appeased to some degree that everybody's getting what everybody wants and that nobody's having to give up anything other than two houses. Sorry. But so I think at this point, I would be voting for it as well. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Not a whole lot more to add than was already said, other than I will support it as well. I think it's a good in-fill decision, especially with the restrictions on it. And as involved as you have been tonight, those of you who live in the area, it's really important that we hear you. And please stay involved with the development. Come and hear the platting. It'll be presented in the going forwards, the preliminary and the final. Please stay tuned and pay attention to that. And then after that, the site plan. Thank you. We have a first and a second for approval with three conditions and seeing no further discussion, I will call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. Good luck with your project and thank you to all the neighbors for coming out. I hope we were able to find a good compromise at work for everyone. So thank you all for coming out. Again in our public hearing section, we have three other items, item B, C and D that are going to be renoticed and will not be heard tonight. And with that said, that will move us to our project matrix . Commissioner Smith. I mentioned it last time in regards to having talking about changes to the code for neighborhood meetings. I thought I was going to get up on the matrix, but you might have answered it last time. Did you answer that last time that we're in the process of including them in the code? Yeah, we're looking at that as part of the DDC rewrite. Got it. Great. Thank you. So we'll be back when we get there. Commissioner Beck. Thanks, Chair. I just need to go on record date because I've been approached by people that share my concern about the parking minimum thing. So I know we talked about it last time and just want to keep it in the purview of where we're going. I thought if it wasn't sent, I will make sure it's sent to tomorrow. In addition, actually to go back to the neighborhood meetings, one thing that we're doing now is what we will be doing within the next week. When we prepare the notifications that go out to the 200 and 500, in the past we've provided the list that the applicant has asked for for the neighborhood meeting. What we're going to be doing now is just giving that to them right up front. While we can't require it, we are going to be saying, you know, we highly recommend a neighborhood meeting. Here's the list of everyone that's going to be getting it. So they have it up front and they don't have to ask for it later on. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of bringing things up again. With regard to the tree code, I do hope Deborah's right that we are going to hear that soon. I sit on a small area planning committee and the chatter last week was that the whole thing is dead. So I would love to -- I assured them it wasn't, but I would love something concrete to be able to share with these people who are stating this. I'll put it on the record. The draft will be heard in a workshop at the next meeting. And so similar to what we did with Deborah's item this evening where we sort of staggered the work session to go over the whole proposed and then come back two weeks later. That's exactly what we'll be doing with the tree code update. And so we're still looking at modifying some of the numbers and making sure it's sort of fair and equitable for everybody because it is a big jump, some of the percentages. And so we just want to make sure that as we move forward, we've looked at all angles. Excellent. I have one more. Just given our discussion at work session, could we maybe have a little work session on traffic impact fees and how they're collected and what fund it sits in and who manages that and how it's spent? And that just seems to be coming up more and more. Yes. In fact, I mentioned it to Pre-Kim. I said I think we need to come back and do a separate item just on impact fee. Anybody else? Okay. With that at 8.05, I will close our meeting tonight. Thank you everyone for coming out.