1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,240
January 24th 2018 this meeting has been duly posted and we

2
00:00:05,240 --> 00:00:05,980
have a quorum

3
00:00:05,980 --> 00:00:10,750
present and I will call us to order at 405 our first order

4
00:00:10,750 --> 00:00:12,560
of business will be

5
00:00:12,560 --> 00:00:16,429
to go through and receive clarification of agenda items so

6
00:00:16,429 --> 00:00:18,120
does anybody have a

7
00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:22,640
question on the consent agenda?

8
00:00:25,839 --> 00:00:32,240
Nothing? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair you know I

9
00:00:32,240 --> 00:00:33,280
just had a quick

10
00:00:33,280 --> 00:00:37,359
question on 3A.

11
00:00:55,840 --> 00:01:05,209
Sorry Haley. You know it just talks about that sewer

12
00:01:05,209 --> 00:01:07,239
conventionally again in a note.

13
00:01:07,239 --> 00:01:11,230
I assume that it can be. Yes. And where it's located and

14
00:01:11,230 --> 00:01:12,040
that's gonna be taken

15
00:01:12,040 --> 00:01:15,250
off eventually. Yes ma'am with this being a preliminary

16
00:01:15,250 --> 00:01:16,439
plat sometimes those

17
00:01:16,439 --> 00:01:18,959
standard notes just get left on there but there will be

18
00:01:18,959 --> 00:01:19,920
sewer service to the

19
00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,689
site and that won't be on the final plot. Okay good deal

20
00:01:22,689 --> 00:01:24,280
thanks.

21
00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:28,439
Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Just I'm still a little

22
00:01:28,439 --> 00:01:30,019
foggy on E here the

23
00:01:30,019 --> 00:01:33,620
conveyance approval of the conveyance plan. What exactly

24
00:01:33,620 --> 00:01:36,040
are we doing here?

25
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:41,680
This is a conveyance plot so it is being plotted just to

26
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:43,760
reconfigure the lots for

27
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:46,659
the sale of the property. The conveyance plot doesn't grant

28
00:01:46,659 --> 00:01:47,599
any development rights

29
00:01:47,599 --> 00:01:49,450
for anything at this time so it would still come back and

30
00:01:49,450 --> 00:01:50,200
be preliminary and

31
00:01:50,200 --> 00:01:53,469
final plotted. This is just moving some lot lines around

32
00:01:53,469 --> 00:01:54,519
for the sale of the

33
00:01:54,519 --> 00:01:58,049
property. So it's a solid lot now we're splitting it up? It

34
00:01:58,049 --> 00:01:59,599
was previously three

35
00:01:59,599 --> 00:02:01,969
lots we're just adjusting the boundary lines of them a

36
00:02:01,969 --> 00:02:03,079
little bit but you can

37
00:02:03,079 --> 00:02:06,840
see kind of in the gray area on there there's the original

38
00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:08,199
lot numbers. Okay.

39
00:02:08,199 --> 00:02:18,409
Got you. Okay thank you. Anybody else on consent agenda?

40
00:02:18,409 --> 00:02:22,039
Okay thank you Hayley. We only

41
00:02:22,039 --> 00:02:27,240
have one item on our public hearings tonight that will be

42
00:02:27,240 --> 00:02:29,360
item A. Shandrin if

43
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,599
you want to walk us through this item?

44
00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:46,180
Good afternoon. It's good to see you guys. Yeah. So this is

45
00:02:46,180 --> 00:02:48,039
a rezoning request for

46
00:02:48,039 --> 00:02:53,360
property located on Audre Lane Z 1726. It's approximately

47
00:02:53,360 --> 00:02:55,039
13 acres and they are

48
00:02:55,039 --> 00:02:58,909
requesting to go from NR 2 which is a single-family

49
00:02:58,909 --> 00:03:00,479
residential district that

50
00:03:00,479 --> 00:03:04,659
allows up to two dwelling units per acre. They want to re

51
00:03:04,659 --> 00:03:06,240
zone to an NR 6 that

52
00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:09,610
allows some single primarily single-family use but also

53
00:03:09,610 --> 00:03:10,879
some duplex

54
00:03:10,879 --> 00:03:15,139
and townhome use with a maximum of six units per acre. The

55
00:03:15,139 --> 00:03:18,240
property is located

56
00:03:18,360 --> 00:03:23,849
just southeast of the Audre and Nottingham intersection.

57
00:03:23,849 --> 00:03:24,639
Audre Lane

58
00:03:24,639 --> 00:03:27,289
actually serves as the western boundary and also the

59
00:03:27,289 --> 00:03:28,520
northern boundary of the

60
00:03:28,520 --> 00:03:33,080
property. And just to give you some landmarks the Ditten

61
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:35,520
Bible Church is

62
00:03:35,520 --> 00:03:40,560
here. Mingo Road goes diagonally through the map and then D

63
00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:41,599
itten Church of Christ

64
00:03:41,599 --> 00:03:48,050
is here. The site is primarily undeveloped although there

65
00:03:48,050 --> 00:03:48,439
are some

66
00:03:48,439 --> 00:03:57,539
limited agricultural uses and it has not been platted as of

67
00:03:57,539 --> 00:03:58,919
yet. Do you want me to

68
00:03:58,919 --> 00:04:03,039
go through the full presentation?

69
00:04:03,800 --> 00:04:07,360
Well we do the shortened version here because I know we

70
00:04:07,360 --> 00:04:08,280
have a number of other

71
00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:11,969
reports to be given and then we can certainly go through

72
00:04:11,969 --> 00:04:13,000
the full if we need

73
00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:19,240
to it in there. Okay we can do that. So we look at two

74
00:04:19,240 --> 00:04:21,639
items, well two major criteria when we

75
00:04:21,639 --> 00:04:25,259
consider rezoning requests. One does it meet the future

76
00:04:25,259 --> 00:04:26,720
land use plan and then

77
00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:32,829
two will the site be adequately served by public utilities

78
00:04:32,829 --> 00:04:33,319
and public

79
00:04:33,319 --> 00:04:39,399
services? Are the roads sufficient? Is the wastewater water

80
00:04:39,399 --> 00:04:44,480
connections are they there and available? Public police

81
00:04:44,480 --> 00:04:45,920
fired EMS, what are the

82
00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:54,199
impacts on those? The first criteria that we assess is the

83
00:04:54,199 --> 00:04:59,839
compatibility with the comprehensive plan and primarily the

84
00:04:59,839 --> 00:05:00,759
future land use

85
00:05:00,759 --> 00:05:05,519
element of the comprehensive plan. And so for this area as

86
00:05:05,519 --> 00:05:07,000
you can tell from the

87
00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:11,209
insert, the area that the subject property is located

88
00:05:11,209 --> 00:05:11,800
within is

89
00:05:11,800 --> 00:05:15,220
primarily surrounded by what we classify as low density

90
00:05:15,220 --> 00:05:17,120
residential and the

91
00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:20,879
intent of low density residential is to promote single-

92
00:05:20,879 --> 00:05:22,439
family detached units

93
00:05:22,439 --> 00:05:26,699
that range from about one unit per acre up to a max of

94
00:05:26,699 --> 00:05:29,279
about four units per acre.

95
00:05:29,279 --> 00:05:33,629
And what we found when we looked at this request is that it

96
00:05:33,629 --> 00:05:35,319
the NR6 zoning in

97
00:05:35,319 --> 00:05:38,899
particular does not is not compatible with what we would

98
00:05:38,899 --> 00:05:39,920
classify as low

99
00:05:39,920 --> 00:05:44,389
density residential. What we typically see NR6 and what we

100
00:05:44,389 --> 00:05:45,319
would call the

101
00:05:45,319 --> 00:05:50,660
moderate residential category which we in that class we see

102
00:05:50,660 --> 00:05:52,040
the NR6 zoning

103
00:05:52,040 --> 00:05:56,060
and then we'll also get into the mixed use the NRMU and

104
00:05:56,060 --> 00:05:59,439
then the NRMU-12s.

105
00:05:59,439 --> 00:06:08,990
In this area we have most of the the construction is single

106
00:06:08,990 --> 00:06:10,160
-family detached.

107
00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:18,100
They are approximately 50 to 60 foot wide lots and really

108
00:06:18,100 --> 00:06:19,720
are consistent with

109
00:06:19,720 --> 00:06:24,519
what we intended for these areas for low density

110
00:06:24,519 --> 00:06:25,879
residential.

111
00:06:29,480 --> 00:06:33,350
So when a site does not is not compatible with the future

112
00:06:33,350 --> 00:06:36,319
land use plan there is

113
00:06:36,319 --> 00:06:40,939
some additional criteria that the DDC allows us to consider

114
00:06:40,939 --> 00:06:42,120
and one of that

115
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:45,490
one of those is compatibility as we talked about with what

116
00:06:45,490 --> 00:06:46,519
's already on the

117
00:06:46,519 --> 00:06:50,769
ground as far as the construction type, the land use, the

118
00:06:50,769 --> 00:06:52,480
scale. We can look at

119
00:06:52,480 --> 00:06:52,480
those elements to see if the requested district would fit

120
00:06:52,480 --> 00:06:57,519
within what's

121
00:06:57,519 --> 00:07:08,639
already there. As far as those elements NR6 mostly meets

122
00:07:08,639 --> 00:07:09,519
those criteria

123
00:07:09,519 --> 00:07:13,620
where we get the discrepancies with the there's two land

124
00:07:13,620 --> 00:07:15,000
uses that would get

125
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:19,600
introduced with this new zoning district townhomes and

126
00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:23,709
duplexes would be permitted with the NR6 outright and that

127
00:07:23,709 --> 00:07:24,920
is not consistent with

128
00:07:24,920 --> 00:07:30,189
what's already been constructed in this area. If you guys

129
00:07:30,189 --> 00:07:32,720
remember I think it was

130
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:36,990
in December there was a case that came before you the Yale

131
00:07:36,990 --> 00:07:39,480
property right and

132
00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:43,120
that that request was basically identical to the one that's

133
00:07:43,120 --> 00:07:43,839
before you

134
00:07:43,839 --> 00:07:50,660
today and council did end up approving that as NR6 with the

135
00:07:50,660 --> 00:07:51,240
conditional

136
00:07:51,240 --> 00:07:56,670
overlay and so what essentially happened is that we the on

137
00:07:56,670 --> 00:07:58,519
its faces NR6 but

138
00:07:58,519 --> 00:08:03,199
with the conditions it's more of an NR4 product so they

139
00:08:03,199 --> 00:08:05,040
restricted the uses to

140
00:08:05,040 --> 00:08:08,470
single-family only and then they actually kept the number

141
00:08:08,470 --> 00:08:09,240
of dwelling

142
00:08:09,240 --> 00:08:12,449
units that would be constructed so to maintain consistency

143
00:08:12,449 --> 00:08:13,160
with the area.

144
00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:17,029
Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In regards to that

145
00:08:17,029 --> 00:08:18,759
case that that one was

146
00:08:18,759 --> 00:08:21,550
something where the applicant was applying it was a little

147
00:08:21,550 --> 00:08:22,240
over four it

148
00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:25,069
was a little over four units per acre and that's why we had

149
00:08:25,069 --> 00:08:26,519
to go to NR6 and

150
00:08:26,519 --> 00:08:29,709
so I get what you're saying the council approved it do you

151
00:08:29,709 --> 00:08:30,560
have any idea what

152
00:08:30,560 --> 00:08:34,509
the applicant unit per acre actual number is I know it's

153
00:08:34,509 --> 00:08:35,480
over four it's

154
00:08:35,480 --> 00:08:38,720
why it's going to NR6. Well actually I spoke with the

155
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:40,759
applicant for this case

156
00:08:40,759 --> 00:08:44,990
the Audra tract and he's coming in right at four units per

157
00:08:44,990 --> 00:08:47,960
acre so they they are

158
00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:52,289
I'm not quite clear on why they are requesting the NR6 I

159
00:08:52,289 --> 00:08:53,799
think it may have

160
00:08:53,799 --> 00:08:57,009
to do with the total lot counts that they are hoping to get

161
00:08:57,009 --> 00:08:57,840
out of the site

162
00:08:57,840 --> 00:09:01,059
but when I look at it I haven't identified any constraints

163
00:09:01,059 --> 00:09:01,679
like flood

164
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:06,149
plain or ESA that would keep them from constructing the NR4

165
00:09:06,149 --> 00:09:07,799
even product on this

166
00:09:07,799 --> 00:09:10,679
site. Okay and then the what was the conditional overlay

167
00:09:10,679 --> 00:09:11,279
that was given by the

168
00:09:11,279 --> 00:09:15,120
city council? For the property to the north. The property

169
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:17,000
to the north. And Haley if you can help me out but

170
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:22,409
essentially it restricted the uses to only single-family

171
00:09:22,409 --> 00:09:24,360
detached construction

172
00:09:24,360 --> 00:09:33,379
right? Yes. And then it was they restricted the use single-

173
00:09:33,379 --> 00:09:35,039
family only and I can't

174
00:09:35,039 --> 00:09:41,759
remember it was like 4.6 or 4.8 units. They reduced or they

175
00:09:41,759 --> 00:09:42,720
limited the number

176
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:45,159
of lots to what was shown on the conceptual site plan which

177
00:09:45,159 --> 00:09:45,720
was I believe

178
00:09:45,720 --> 00:09:53,190
about 35 lots total. Commissioner Bec. Thank you chair.

179
00:09:53,190 --> 00:09:55,120
Okay going to the point

180
00:09:55,120 --> 00:09:57,759
where there was an overlay before we got the city council

181
00:09:57,759 --> 00:09:58,360
we were under the

182
00:09:58,360 --> 00:10:02,080
impression that NR6 couldn't do an overlay so what happened

183
00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:02,919
at City

184
00:10:02,919 --> 00:10:07,679
Council? Does that apply now? Has that been a changed thing

185
00:10:07,679 --> 00:10:07,919
? Victor's not answering my question first.

186
00:10:07,919 --> 00:10:13,139
And if I guess if you would if I could revisit that under

187
00:10:13,139 --> 00:10:14,039
my presentation I'll

188
00:10:14,039 --> 00:10:16,490
definitely answer that question. Okay. Or I can go into my

189
00:10:16,490 --> 00:10:17,559
presentation right now.

190
00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:20,169
Well just quick answer though is that overlay an option

191
00:10:20,169 --> 00:10:22,120
tonight? Yes. Okay.

192
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:31,659
Please continue. Okay so getting back to the presentation

193
00:10:31,659 --> 00:10:32,240
we look at

194
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:35,450
compatibility with what's already been constructed in the

195
00:10:35,450 --> 00:10:37,320
area. We look at

196
00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:42,389
available infrastructure that can serve the site. For this

197
00:10:42,389 --> 00:10:43,559
site there is

198
00:10:43,559 --> 00:10:48,879
available water and sewer along both segments of Audre Lane

199
00:10:48,879 --> 00:10:49,919
to the west and

200
00:10:49,919 --> 00:10:55,159
to the north. Obviously there will be extensions required

201
00:10:55,159 --> 00:10:56,120
in order for

202
00:10:56,120 --> 00:11:00,220
this site to be developed but that utility is available on

203
00:11:00,220 --> 00:11:00,720
those two

204
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:06,659
right-of-ways. As far as the roadways that serve the site,

205
00:11:06,659 --> 00:11:07,980
Audre Lane on the

206
00:11:07,980 --> 00:11:11,950
west is currently an undivided two-lane road and the

207
00:11:11,950 --> 00:11:14,159
mobility plan actually costs

208
00:11:14,159 --> 00:11:18,080
for a four-lane divided with sidewalks and bike lanes and

209
00:11:18,080 --> 00:11:19,279
then for Audre Lane

210
00:11:19,279 --> 00:11:23,509
on the north it will be ultimate cross-section of about 65

211
00:11:23,509 --> 00:11:24,360
feet a right-of-way.

212
00:11:24,360 --> 00:11:28,519
And then right-of-way dedications, perimeter street

213
00:11:28,519 --> 00:11:29,320
improvements would all

214
00:11:29,320 --> 00:11:33,039
occur at the platting stage so we're not quite there yet.

215
00:11:33,039 --> 00:11:34,039
Once the site is

216
00:11:34,039 --> 00:11:42,679
more fleshed out we can make those assessments. And again

217
00:11:42,679 --> 00:11:44,559
no ESA. We didn't

218
00:11:44,559 --> 00:11:48,429
find any ESA, no floodplain issues. There is some tree

219
00:11:48,429 --> 00:11:49,639
canopy on the site as you

220
00:11:49,639 --> 00:11:54,440
can see just on the west side as you get close to Audre.

221
00:11:54,440 --> 00:11:55,600
Then some, I'm not sure

222
00:11:55,600 --> 00:11:58,370
what the condition of those trees are but the tree

223
00:11:58,370 --> 00:12:00,159
preservation and mitigation

224
00:12:00,159 --> 00:12:03,440
requirements will kick in once they get into site

225
00:12:03,440 --> 00:12:07,240
development. As required by the

226
00:12:07,240 --> 00:12:11,700
Texas Local Government Code we did public notifications. We

227
00:12:11,700 --> 00:12:12,759
sent 66

228
00:12:12,759 --> 00:12:17,960
letters to the adjacent property owners within 200 feet of

229
00:12:17,960 --> 00:12:18,080
the

230
00:12:18,080 --> 00:12:21,960
subject property. We received six letters in opposition.

231
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:24,159
Those areas

232
00:12:24,159 --> 00:12:28,759
highlighted in red are the those properties that are

233
00:12:28,759 --> 00:12:30,080
opposed to the

234
00:12:30,080 --> 00:12:33,639
request and that comes that comes out to about 3% so we

235
00:12:33,639 --> 00:12:34,480
haven't triggered the

236
00:12:34,480 --> 00:12:40,950
supermajority at council yet. We sent 173 courtesy notices

237
00:12:40,950 --> 00:12:42,720
within 500 feet to

238
00:12:42,720 --> 00:12:45,929
property owners within 500 feet and then the applicant also

239
00:12:45,929 --> 00:12:46,559
held a neighborhood

240
00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:53,360
meeting last week. So in summary we are recommending denial

241
00:12:53,360 --> 00:12:54,120
for this request

242
00:12:54,120 --> 00:12:58,590
based on it's not consistent with the future land use plan.

243
00:12:58,590 --> 00:13:00,320
It's not compatible

244
00:13:00,320 --> 00:13:04,190
with the existing the surrounding properties and we feel

245
00:13:04,190 --> 00:13:05,399
that an NR3

246
00:13:05,399 --> 00:13:09,889
NR4 zoning is more appropriate. Now we did have some

247
00:13:09,889 --> 00:13:11,159
struggle with this

248
00:13:11,159 --> 00:13:13,679
recommendation given what happened with the case to the

249
00:13:13,679 --> 00:13:15,000
north and obviously if

250
00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:18,679
City Council chose to do an overlay similar to what they

251
00:13:18,679 --> 00:13:19,639
did with the yellow

252
00:13:19,639 --> 00:13:25,370
estate that would be more appropriate. Commissioner Beck.

253
00:13:25,370 --> 00:13:27,080
Thank you chair.

254
00:13:27,080 --> 00:13:31,269
Egress and ingress is going to be I'm assuming Lattimore is

255
00:13:31,269 --> 00:13:32,360
going to extend

256
00:13:32,360 --> 00:13:39,600
into the new area. This street here? Yes. I'm gonna

257
00:13:39,600 --> 00:13:41,320
actually defer to pre-tem to

258
00:13:41,320 --> 00:13:44,269
see if there's any requirements to extend that street. I

259
00:13:44,269 --> 00:13:45,139
was gonna say

260
00:13:45,139 --> 00:13:49,320
because if it does you're gonna have a dramatic shift from

261
00:13:49,320 --> 00:13:51,120
NR2 to NR6 and that's

262
00:13:51,120 --> 00:13:55,480
gonna look weird and I guess that other little vertical

263
00:13:55,480 --> 00:13:56,679
stretch there is that

264
00:13:56,679 --> 00:14:01,000
gonna be a road to? Good afternoon my name is pre-tem I'm

265
00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:02,200
the traffic engineer for

266
00:14:02,200 --> 00:14:05,919
the city. At this stage where it's really preliminary

267
00:14:05,919 --> 00:14:07,679
primarily some of the

268
00:14:07,679 --> 00:14:12,000
something like this comes on we require a traffic study and

269
00:14:12,000 --> 00:14:13,159
definitely it's an

270
00:14:13,159 --> 00:14:16,730
option to extend Lattimore it makes more sense to use Latt

271
00:14:16,730 --> 00:14:18,259
imore as a connection

272
00:14:18,259 --> 00:14:21,909
there but there will be some other connection points to the

273
00:14:21,909 --> 00:14:22,820
side the site

274
00:14:22,820 --> 00:14:26,779
is pretty large. You don't have any specifics right now? No

275
00:14:26,779 --> 00:14:27,720
specifics unless

276
00:14:27,720 --> 00:14:31,389
they have a number of units we can't really define what

277
00:14:31,389 --> 00:14:32,399
kind of traffic

278
00:14:32,399 --> 00:14:36,529
requirements they trigger. Okay but is there gonna be more

279
00:14:36,529 --> 00:14:38,000
than one entrance

280
00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:44,879
and exit? Yes. Okay thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank

281
00:14:44,879 --> 00:14:46,000
You Chair.

282
00:14:46,000 --> 00:14:51,730
Shandrin. Forgive me for my ignorance is there tree

283
00:14:51,730 --> 00:14:52,720
preservation differences

284
00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:59,509
between NR2 and NR6? Not necessarily. We have some

285
00:14:59,509 --> 00:15:00,799
landscape standards that vary

286
00:15:00,799 --> 00:15:03,559
based on zoning districts but the tree preservation

287
00:15:03,559 --> 00:15:05,000
requirements vary based on

288
00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:09,279
the type of tree, the size obviously. I'm more just worried

289
00:15:09,279 --> 00:15:10,799
about if there's

290
00:15:10,799 --> 00:15:13,279
citizens here tonight that are saying hey we don't want you

291
00:15:13,279 --> 00:15:14,480
to rezone it

292
00:15:14,480 --> 00:15:16,120
because we're afraid we're gonna lose all those beautiful

293
00:15:16,120 --> 00:15:16,799
trees that are backed

294
00:15:16,799 --> 00:15:19,009
up to our lots there. We want to make sure that the

295
00:15:19,009 --> 00:15:19,840
preservation that the

296
00:15:19,840 --> 00:15:22,710
current zoning isn't too much different or different at all

297
00:15:22,710 --> 00:15:24,879
than the proposed zoning.

298
00:15:24,879 --> 00:15:27,360
No the preservation requirements are based on the trees.

299
00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:28,000
And then along

300
00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:33,559
Audre there do we currently have that right away or is that

301
00:15:33,559 --> 00:15:33,799
gonna be

302
00:15:33,799 --> 00:15:37,440
captured the plotting process? Yes for the future mobility

303
00:15:37,440 --> 00:15:38,519
expansion I should say.

304
00:15:38,519 --> 00:15:41,879
For both sections of Audre both on the north and the west

305
00:15:41,879 --> 00:15:42,559
we will get

306
00:15:42,559 --> 00:15:47,070
dedications with the plats. We don't currently have the

307
00:15:47,070 --> 00:15:48,159
full right away.

308
00:15:48,159 --> 00:15:54,649
Exactly. So it'd be smart for us to try to. Well thank you.

309
00:15:54,649 --> 00:15:56,000
Commissioner Rossell.

310
00:15:56,000 --> 00:16:00,519
Thank You Chair. I was actually absent at this previous

311
00:16:00,519 --> 00:16:02,840
northern meeting and so

312
00:16:02,840 --> 00:16:06,049
forgive my ignorance or memory on the minutes but is this

313
00:16:06,049 --> 00:16:07,399
the same applicant as

314
00:16:07,399 --> 00:16:10,850
the north property? No there are two different applicants

315
00:16:10,850 --> 00:16:11,639
two different owners.

316
00:16:11,639 --> 00:16:16,389
And so I know this is rezoning but there hasn't been any

317
00:16:16,389 --> 00:16:18,679
unified one neighborhood.

318
00:16:18,679 --> 00:16:22,070
It's gonna be two distinct developments. Yes we encourage

319
00:16:22,070 --> 00:16:23,000
them to work together

320
00:16:23,000 --> 00:16:26,039
in the beginning but throughout business reasons I guess

321
00:16:26,039 --> 00:16:26,879
they needed to do it

322
00:16:26,879 --> 00:16:30,620
separately. Okay and then the other question I have is I'm

323
00:16:30,620 --> 00:16:31,600
trying to

324
00:16:31,600 --> 00:16:33,850
understand the staff's perspective given council's

325
00:16:33,850 --> 00:16:35,919
consideration. So if we remove

326
00:16:35,919 --> 00:16:42,440
that if staff not okay are not recommending because of the

327
00:16:42,440 --> 00:16:43,360
uses in

328
00:16:43,360 --> 00:16:47,379
NR6 or because of the density of NR6? It's a bit of both

329
00:16:47,379 --> 00:16:50,080
and we don't have the

330
00:16:50,080 --> 00:16:52,850
City Council is and Victor will get into this in his

331
00:16:52,850 --> 00:16:54,440
presentation. The City

332
00:16:54,440 --> 00:16:58,309
Council has more discretion to do those types of actions

333
00:16:58,309 --> 00:17:00,080
than we do. The code

334
00:17:00,080 --> 00:17:03,330
doesn't give us the leeway to do that to add a conditional

335
00:17:03,330 --> 00:17:04,880
overlay as staff or to

336
00:17:04,880 --> 00:17:12,119
recommend that to you. Okay thanks.

337
00:17:14,799 --> 00:17:20,799
Commissioner Sanchez. Looking at this map I was looking at

338
00:17:20,799 --> 00:17:22,720
there's a lot of NR4

339
00:17:22,720 --> 00:17:27,319
surrounding that and then across across Audra there's NR6

340
00:17:27,319 --> 00:17:29,400
and then I guess just

341
00:17:29,400 --> 00:17:33,539
looking at that being that this is a pretty much vacant

342
00:17:33,539 --> 00:17:34,759
land this whole area

343
00:17:34,759 --> 00:17:39,960
is vacant. I was looking at NR6 and it basically says which

344
00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:41,240
these areas will be

345
00:17:41,240 --> 00:17:45,180
prominent feature of Denton's newest neighborhoods and so

346
00:17:45,180 --> 00:17:46,359
this is a new area

347
00:17:46,359 --> 00:17:51,039
most of the old areas around it are older neighborhoods so

348
00:17:51,039 --> 00:17:52,960
I guess my idea

349
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:57,519
was you know NR6 is something that we're looking at develop

350
00:17:57,519 --> 00:17:58,640
within I would think

351
00:17:58,640 --> 00:18:04,599
because the city is in these open areas that are small that

352
00:18:04,599 --> 00:18:06,240
would be my my idea

353
00:18:06,240 --> 00:18:09,450
because we want to fill in and we also want to make best

354
00:18:09,450 --> 00:18:11,119
use of those areas so

355
00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:15,890
my I guess my question is why wouldn't you develop that

356
00:18:15,890 --> 00:18:17,799
well that yellow section

357
00:18:17,799 --> 00:18:21,240
right next to Audra I imagine that would be business at one

358
00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:23,400
point or over time

359
00:18:23,400 --> 00:18:25,970
that whole area is going to fill in because it's vacant

360
00:18:25,970 --> 00:18:27,559
right now is it

361
00:18:27,559 --> 00:18:32,619
going to be are we looking at NR4 over time because when

362
00:18:32,619 --> 00:18:34,000
was this I guess my

363
00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:39,730
question is when was the NR2 given you know if it was 10-15

364
00:18:39,730 --> 00:18:41,000
years ago things

365
00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:43,890
have changed quite a bit in that area over that time over

366
00:18:43,890 --> 00:18:44,880
that time period

367
00:18:44,880 --> 00:18:49,509
sure that's fair the NR2 if I'm if I'm correct was

368
00:18:49,509 --> 00:18:50,720
established when we did the

369
00:18:50,720 --> 00:18:54,400
city-wide rezoning and a lot of this area was developed

370
00:18:54,400 --> 00:18:55,839
prior to actually the

371
00:18:55,839 --> 00:18:59,519
DDC the current DDC that we have and so the what you see on

372
00:18:59,519 --> 00:19:01,519
the ground may not

373
00:19:01,519 --> 00:19:04,369
completely match what the current code is just because it

374
00:19:04,369 --> 00:19:06,039
was developed prior

375
00:19:06,039 --> 00:19:11,079
but that point you made about the infield is good typically

376
00:19:11,079 --> 00:19:12,279
we see the in

377
00:19:12,279 --> 00:19:17,119
our mixed-use districts and an NR6 as a we use it as a

378
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:19,640
transition zoning between

379
00:19:19,640 --> 00:19:23,509
maybe commercial or higher density residential and lower

380
00:19:23,509 --> 00:19:23,920
density

381
00:19:23,920 --> 00:19:28,380
residential so a more appropriate place would be where you

382
00:19:28,380 --> 00:19:29,119
see it along

383
00:19:29,119 --> 00:19:34,759
Amingo Road that's a major arterial so you can see well we

384
00:19:34,759 --> 00:19:35,559
would encourage the

385
00:19:35,559 --> 00:19:42,990
NR6 the NRMU the NRMU-12s along this area but typically we

386
00:19:42,990 --> 00:19:43,599
wouldn't want to

387
00:19:43,599 --> 00:19:47,160
introduce that type of density in an established

388
00:19:47,160 --> 00:19:49,079
neighborhood even though

389
00:19:49,079 --> 00:19:53,960
like you're correct these are infield products but we still

390
00:19:53,960 --> 00:19:54,720
would want them to

391
00:19:54,720 --> 00:19:58,980
fit within and be compatible with what's already on the

392
00:19:58,980 --> 00:20:01,000
ground if that makes

393
00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:03,000
sense

394
00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:16,920
thanks Chandrian all the other items that we have in our

395
00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:18,759
public hearing

396
00:20:18,759 --> 00:20:21,980
tonight have been renoticed and we will not hear those so

397
00:20:21,980 --> 00:20:23,640
with that I'm gonna say

398
00:20:23,640 --> 00:20:27,970
that concludes our agenda that will go through in council

399
00:20:27,970 --> 00:20:29,400
chambers and so we

400
00:20:29,400 --> 00:20:35,509
will proceed to our work session reports and at this time I

401
00:20:35,509 --> 00:20:36,319
will turn it over to

402
00:20:36,319 --> 00:20:39,960
Victor Flores for his presentation on overlay districts

403
00:20:39,960 --> 00:20:42,799
well I believe I'm

404
00:20:42,799 --> 00:20:46,279
just guessing that my presentations be maybe fielded more

405
00:20:46,279 --> 00:20:47,720
by my by questions

406
00:20:47,720 --> 00:20:52,980
but I'll just kind of give briefly give a summary as was

407
00:20:52,980 --> 00:20:54,960
discussed City

408
00:20:54,960 --> 00:21:01,609
Commission the City Council approved an overlay district

409
00:21:01,609 --> 00:21:03,079
previously mentioned

410
00:21:03,079 --> 00:21:11,470
development legal was asked and has been asked to kind of

411
00:21:11,470 --> 00:21:13,079
review the standards

412
00:21:13,079 --> 00:21:17,220
for imposing overlay districts it's kind of it's just after

413
00:21:17,220 --> 00:21:18,640
reviewing case law

414
00:21:18,640 --> 00:21:25,230
and discussing amongst our team just the unified analysis

415
00:21:25,230 --> 00:21:26,519
of our department that

416
00:21:26,519 --> 00:21:31,269
the overlay districts are permitted and and that stems out

417
00:21:31,269 --> 00:21:32,640
just be very very

418
00:21:32,640 --> 00:21:37,910
basic and we can guess as far into the details as we want

419
00:21:37,910 --> 00:21:39,200
to go on with

420
00:21:39,200 --> 00:21:42,529
questions but it comes from the premise that the City

421
00:21:42,529 --> 00:21:44,000
Council is vested with

422
00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:51,289
authority to do all things related to zoning and so in

423
00:21:51,289 --> 00:21:52,720
other instances there

424
00:21:52,720 --> 00:21:58,279
are very prescribed overlay districts within the code that

425
00:21:58,279 --> 00:21:59,440
authority to create

426
00:21:59,440 --> 00:22:02,250
these overlay districts is within the authority of the City

427
00:22:02,250 --> 00:22:03,759
Council now the

428
00:22:03,759 --> 00:22:07,140
City Council has delegated a certain authority over to this

429
00:22:07,140 --> 00:22:08,799
Commission to

430
00:22:08,799 --> 00:22:14,029
make similar recommendations to them and so just based on

431
00:22:14,029 --> 00:22:16,119
on that premise alone

432
00:22:16,119 --> 00:22:19,559
it's our understanding joined with case law and another

433
00:22:19,559 --> 00:22:21,039
analysis that we've done

434
00:22:21,039 --> 00:22:24,609
the overlay districts are permitted and it would be printed

435
00:22:24,609 --> 00:22:25,680
permitted in the

436
00:22:25,680 --> 00:22:29,039
case that was just talked about before

437
00:22:38,799 --> 00:22:45,200
limited to what we can find on the permitted uses sheet

438
00:22:45,200 --> 00:22:47,240
then and saying okay we have the permitted

439
00:22:47,240 --> 00:22:50,450
uses sheet which includes everything from max lot size max

440
00:22:50,450 --> 00:22:51,839
building height the

441
00:22:51,839 --> 00:22:53,769
certain users for you know from you know on that like we

442
00:22:53,769 --> 00:22:54,799
just talked about in our

443
00:22:54,799 --> 00:22:58,009
sixes basically in our floor but added in there with townh

444
00:22:58,009 --> 00:22:59,640
omes and duplexes so

445
00:22:59,640 --> 00:23:03,769
this extent of what type of overlay we can create is adjust

446
00:23:03,769 --> 00:23:04,720
to the criteria

447
00:23:04,720 --> 00:23:09,799
that are listed within that within that permitted uses or

448
00:23:09,799 --> 00:23:11,200
where should we start

449
00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:13,089
looking for for resources if we're thinking that an overlay

450
00:23:13,089 --> 00:23:13,599
will be right

451
00:23:13,599 --> 00:23:17,099
in this scenario simple questions you answer yes just stay

452
00:23:17,099 --> 00:23:18,279
with them within

453
00:23:18,279 --> 00:23:22,559
those standards and if I can digress just a little bit to

454
00:23:22,559 --> 00:23:23,680
kind of maybe

455
00:23:23,680 --> 00:23:30,019
explain what was once the position or the communicated

456
00:23:30,019 --> 00:23:31,079
position to this

457
00:23:31,079 --> 00:23:34,309
commission that maybe overlay districts were not permitted

458
00:23:34,309 --> 00:23:35,400
don't know how far

459
00:23:35,400 --> 00:23:38,819
along that that stem back but I can only assume that it was

460
00:23:38,819 --> 00:23:41,119
a progression of a

461
00:23:41,119 --> 00:23:46,130
recommendation given out of caution in this sense is that

462
00:23:46,130 --> 00:23:47,359
when you're not

463
00:23:47,359 --> 00:23:49,970
dealing with overlay districts that are prescribed in the

464
00:23:49,970 --> 00:23:51,160
code it's just

465
00:23:51,160 --> 00:23:55,269
council's job to make those tough decisions on the fly what

466
00:23:55,269 --> 00:23:56,359
is or what is

467
00:23:56,359 --> 00:23:59,410
not within those standards correct yeah that's just I guess

468
00:23:59,410 --> 00:24:00,599
I get right we don't

469
00:24:00,599 --> 00:24:02,950
want to create I know we had a developer here a couple

470
00:24:02,950 --> 00:24:04,759
months back for a P&Z

471
00:24:04,759 --> 00:24:07,369
meeting that we ended up we were talking about creating

472
00:24:07,369 --> 00:24:08,440
overlay district on

473
00:24:08,440 --> 00:24:11,240
something along the future expansion 2499 and he was like

474
00:24:11,240 --> 00:24:11,759
you guys are

475
00:24:11,759 --> 00:24:15,680
essentially creating new zoning at the dais and so I get it

476
00:24:15,680 --> 00:24:17,119
but I just we don't

477
00:24:17,119 --> 00:24:20,720
want to know within what parameters should we be operating

478
00:24:20,720 --> 00:24:21,279
and then going

479
00:24:21,279 --> 00:24:25,039
back to to answer your question and it was a pretty short

480
00:24:25,039 --> 00:24:25,960
pretty short answer

481
00:24:25,960 --> 00:24:29,720
but yes you would stick within those standards and on top

482
00:24:29,720 --> 00:24:31,480
of that you would I

483
00:24:31,480 --> 00:24:36,549
would say the general rule just put plainly is you could

484
00:24:36,549 --> 00:24:38,000
not I use this

485
00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:41,210
example if the standards are to have a six foot fence

486
00:24:41,210 --> 00:24:43,559
around the property you

487
00:24:43,559 --> 00:24:46,950
would not be able to I guess override the council and say

488
00:24:46,950 --> 00:24:48,480
no we want a four

489
00:24:48,480 --> 00:24:51,019
foot fence which would be because you would be able to

490
00:24:51,019 --> 00:24:52,000
recommend something

491
00:24:52,000 --> 00:24:54,759
more restrictive an eight foot fence okay because that

492
00:24:54,759 --> 00:24:55,960
would still satisfy the

493
00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:59,720
purpose original intent purpose of those standards okay got

494
00:24:59,720 --> 00:25:00,640
it so nothing with a

495
00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:04,640
specific direction but more or less that you have like in

496
00:25:04,640 --> 00:25:05,920
this sense like a

497
00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:08,900
maximum right you can't like what would they do within our

498
00:25:08,900 --> 00:25:09,640
six they completely

499
00:25:09,640 --> 00:25:13,150
just removed two uses there I get what you're saying it's

500
00:25:13,150 --> 00:25:13,759
like hey everything

501
00:25:13,759 --> 00:25:17,630
in this zone needs to be four foot fences right setting say

502
00:25:17,630 --> 00:25:18,160
hey it has to

503
00:25:18,160 --> 00:25:21,029
be a parking additional parking yeah or cannot be over

504
00:25:21,029 --> 00:25:22,119
cannot be over this

505
00:25:22,119 --> 00:25:27,519
amount of feet and again I mean my job is to help you know

506
00:25:27,519 --> 00:25:28,559
keep everybody

507
00:25:28,559 --> 00:25:32,660
within within the rails and so again not fully

508
00:25:32,660 --> 00:25:35,960
understanding the reason why the

509
00:25:35,960 --> 00:25:39,180
recommendation of the past was given to to not allow

510
00:25:39,180 --> 00:25:40,759
overlay districts but I can

511
00:25:40,759 --> 00:25:44,900
assume it was out of caution to just for not to get beyond

512
00:25:44,900 --> 00:25:46,720
the standards but you

513
00:25:46,720 --> 00:25:49,470
can within the standards you can establish these overlay

514
00:25:49,470 --> 00:25:50,079
districts thank

515
00:25:50,079 --> 00:25:54,849
you commissioner Ellis thank you chair you may have kind of

516
00:25:54,849 --> 00:25:55,759
answered this

517
00:25:55,759 --> 00:26:00,109
already done I'm assuming you as a legal team had a change

518
00:26:00,109 --> 00:26:01,400
of heart on this

519
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:03,980
overlay I was certainly someone very concerned after that

520
00:26:03,980 --> 00:26:05,400
meeting because we

521
00:26:05,400 --> 00:26:07,819
were told one thing and then council did exactly what we

522
00:26:07,819 --> 00:26:09,000
were told we couldn't do

523
00:26:09,000 --> 00:26:13,559
so I certainly voiced that concern and so did you just as a

524
00:26:13,559 --> 00:26:14,440
team have

525
00:26:14,440 --> 00:26:19,579
collectively get together and then just decide that this is

526
00:26:19,579 --> 00:26:21,480
something that can

527
00:26:21,480 --> 00:26:25,000
be recommended yes at this level and then above obviously

528
00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:26,079
for a final yes

529
00:26:26,079 --> 00:26:30,599
yeah we've discussed it from the city attorney down to

530
00:26:30,599 --> 00:26:32,799
other land use and real

531
00:26:32,799 --> 00:26:36,079
estate attorneys as well okay so it was just maybe an old

532
00:26:36,079 --> 00:26:37,279
something that was

533
00:26:37,279 --> 00:26:40,910
being used but right and again I don't think that there's

534
00:26:40,910 --> 00:26:42,279
been a variation or

535
00:26:42,279 --> 00:26:46,960
deviation from past but I think what what was maybe

536
00:26:46,960 --> 00:26:50,880
incrementally a movement

537
00:26:50,880 --> 00:26:56,109
towards a conservative side again in kind of creating these

538
00:26:56,109 --> 00:26:57,319
standards on

539
00:26:57,319 --> 00:27:01,190
overlay districts that may be outside of the original

540
00:27:01,190 --> 00:27:02,640
intent of the listed

541
00:27:02,640 --> 00:27:06,990
requirements maybe that's where it came from but in our

542
00:27:06,990 --> 00:27:08,079
discussions we definitely

543
00:27:08,079 --> 00:27:10,670
cross our t's and dotted our eyes and did some research and

544
00:27:10,670 --> 00:27:11,559
said yeah you know

545
00:27:11,559 --> 00:27:14,960
we're all on the same page here thank you

546
00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:19,059
Commissioner Sullivan thank you chair just to clarify

547
00:27:19,059 --> 00:27:20,160
Commissioner Smith's

548
00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:24,630
point the meeting that we had where we were negotiating

549
00:27:24,630 --> 00:27:26,119
with the developer

550
00:27:26,119 --> 00:27:28,529
that's something that we should not have been doing at that

551
00:27:28,529 --> 00:27:29,720
point in time or

552
00:27:29,720 --> 00:27:36,920
going forward or so again I would say on a case-by-case

553
00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:38,559
basis I'm not saying for

554
00:27:38,559 --> 00:27:44,400
me not to engage the developer but definitely I would not

555
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:45,440
let me say this

556
00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:48,819
way to answer your question directly I would not engage a

557
00:27:48,819 --> 00:27:50,039
developer on

558
00:27:50,039 --> 00:27:53,599
standards that may not be prescribed already now if you're

559
00:27:53,599 --> 00:27:54,519
talking about

560
00:27:54,519 --> 00:27:59,839
standards and heightened requirements on the standards are

561
00:27:59,839 --> 00:28:02,279
already present it's

562
00:28:02,279 --> 00:28:04,920
possible if the council wanted to engage in a discussion

563
00:28:04,920 --> 00:28:05,980
like that that would be

564
00:28:05,980 --> 00:28:10,089
that'd be fine but to go beyond those I guess four corners

565
00:28:10,089 --> 00:28:11,319
of whatever is already

566
00:28:11,319 --> 00:28:15,920
written I would recommend against that thank you

567
00:28:15,920 --> 00:28:17,359
Commissioner Smith thank you

568
00:28:17,359 --> 00:28:19,990
sure so what he was you're specifically talking about

569
00:28:19,990 --> 00:28:20,960
Commissioner Sullivan was

570
00:28:20,960 --> 00:28:24,730
that we were we were saying you know hey there's a camera

571
00:28:24,730 --> 00:28:25,000
what it was but it was

572
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:28,759
criteria of hey we're gonna remove we're gonna move bars

573
00:28:28,759 --> 00:28:30,400
and clubs out of

574
00:28:30,400 --> 00:28:35,410
permitted uses mr. developer is that okay with you is that

575
00:28:35,410 --> 00:28:35,680
type of

576
00:28:35,680 --> 00:28:39,589
dialogue allowed is that is that that's not gonna put us in

577
00:28:39,589 --> 00:28:41,200
any type of type of

578
00:28:41,200 --> 00:28:43,450
issues there for we're saying hey we're gonna move this is

579
00:28:43,450 --> 00:28:44,240
that okay with you

580
00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:46,519
and the developer says yes okay okay great then in my

581
00:28:46,519 --> 00:28:47,759
motion I'm gonna say

582
00:28:47,759 --> 00:28:51,089
motion to approve with conditions that these two things are

583
00:28:51,089 --> 00:28:52,519
removed I don't

584
00:28:52,519 --> 00:28:57,839
listen the dialogue isn't what's the issue the issue it's

585
00:28:57,839 --> 00:28:58,720
the requiring

586
00:28:58,720 --> 00:29:04,730
requiring of the applicant are purporting to to require of

587
00:29:04,730 --> 00:29:05,799
them to do

588
00:29:05,799 --> 00:29:09,359
X Y & Z when it's not prescribed in the code already

589
00:29:09,359 --> 00:29:11,400
against his own voluntary

590
00:29:11,400 --> 00:29:15,029
will again this is a recommending board so everything is

591
00:29:15,029 --> 00:29:16,359
recommended is is is

592
00:29:16,359 --> 00:29:21,200
final say so yeah is with the council but the dialogue

593
00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:23,319
itself is not the

594
00:29:23,319 --> 00:29:26,529
concern it's again requiring the applicant to do something

595
00:29:26,529 --> 00:29:26,880
outside of

596
00:29:26,880 --> 00:29:32,990
this albis code okay commissioner Roselle on a maybe a step

597
00:29:32,990 --> 00:29:34,160
back on a

598
00:29:34,160 --> 00:29:36,619
zoning case should we be talking about the developer at all

599
00:29:36,619 --> 00:29:37,680
about the use cases

600
00:29:37,680 --> 00:29:44,119
or what they might or might not build again it's not wrong

601
00:29:44,119 --> 00:29:45,039
to have that

602
00:29:45,039 --> 00:29:49,509
dialogue with a developer if it's one of ten things that

603
00:29:49,509 --> 00:29:51,400
you consider well I

604
00:29:51,400 --> 00:29:54,230
think that makes sense but in the situation which we're

605
00:29:54,230 --> 00:29:55,119
talking about a

606
00:29:55,119 --> 00:29:58,700
rezone and the developers requesting certain things and

607
00:29:58,700 --> 00:29:59,720
there so in this

608
00:29:59,720 --> 00:30:01,710
case the developers like yeah we won't put a bar there he

609
00:30:01,710 --> 00:30:03,400
gets that restricted

610
00:30:03,400 --> 00:30:06,769
that's now applied to the zone he could go sell the

611
00:30:06,769 --> 00:30:08,640
property and a new developer

612
00:30:08,640 --> 00:30:11,470
would be under the bounds that another developer negotiated

613
00:30:11,470 --> 00:30:11,960
with this

614
00:30:11,960 --> 00:30:15,170
commission so I'm wondering it's been my premise of the

615
00:30:15,170 --> 00:30:16,359
past two years that on

616
00:30:16,359 --> 00:30:22,259
zoning cases the purported or positioned actual build out

617
00:30:22,259 --> 00:30:23,279
shouldn't be informed

618
00:30:23,279 --> 00:30:26,119
and taking into consideration we should see if that zoning

619
00:30:26,119 --> 00:30:27,160
and that part of the

620
00:30:27,160 --> 00:30:30,369
land and that city is appropriate regardless of what the

621
00:30:30,369 --> 00:30:31,240
developer might

622
00:30:31,240 --> 00:30:33,630
be telling us that's going in there because they're not

623
00:30:33,630 --> 00:30:35,240
bound by that yes

624
00:30:35,240 --> 00:30:40,279
yeah you know you're definitely correct in in that scenario

625
00:30:40,279 --> 00:30:41,880
I guess I'm leaning

626
00:30:41,880 --> 00:30:47,660
more towards because your question is a question specific

627
00:30:47,660 --> 00:30:50,400
to use right right and

628
00:30:50,400 --> 00:30:53,829
obviously our code determines what uses can or cannot be in

629
00:30:53,829 --> 00:30:54,920
a certain area I

630
00:30:54,920 --> 00:31:01,359
think that would be lean lean or getting closer to the

631
00:31:01,359 --> 00:31:02,680
realm of not being within

632
00:31:02,680 --> 00:31:04,890
the standards that you're able to operate out of in

633
00:31:04,890 --> 00:31:05,519
establishing

634
00:31:05,519 --> 00:31:08,799
requirements of the overlay district

635
00:31:10,200 --> 00:31:13,700
Commissioner Smith to add on to I think Victor said their

636
00:31:13,700 --> 00:31:15,359
Commissioner Roselle's

637
00:31:15,359 --> 00:31:20,519
that in that specific case we could see that that that zone

638
00:31:20,519 --> 00:31:21,920
was going to be a

639
00:31:21,920 --> 00:31:27,069
budding neighborhoods there so it didn't really yes we

640
00:31:27,069 --> 00:31:28,240
discussed with the with

641
00:31:28,240 --> 00:31:30,450
the developer we agreed upon and that's a case-by-case

642
00:31:30,450 --> 00:31:31,319
basis we were talked about

643
00:31:31,319 --> 00:31:34,049
but in that specific case I could see that even then didn't

644
00:31:34,049 --> 00:31:34,839
matter what the

645
00:31:34,839 --> 00:31:37,200
developers projected use was going to be for it and then

646
00:31:37,200 --> 00:31:38,279
therefore hey you're not

647
00:31:38,279 --> 00:31:40,269
going to use it for this so we'll go ahead and remove it

648
00:31:40,269 --> 00:31:41,339
but more or less that

649
00:31:41,339 --> 00:31:44,119
we're gonna rezone it that use is there and we know it's a

650
00:31:44,119 --> 00:31:45,319
budding these these

651
00:31:45,319 --> 00:31:47,539
neighborhoods here so no matter what even if the developer

652
00:31:47,539 --> 00:31:48,200
does sell it off

653
00:31:48,200 --> 00:31:50,559
doesn't matter what the developer was going to do with it

654
00:31:50,559 --> 00:31:51,440
or whoever he sells

655
00:31:51,440 --> 00:31:53,799
it to is going to do with it we would never underneath no

656
00:31:53,799 --> 00:31:53,960
one's

657
00:31:53,960 --> 00:31:57,170
circumstances that under no developers direction will

658
00:31:57,170 --> 00:31:58,039
whoever want bars and

659
00:31:58,039 --> 00:32:02,000
restaurants they are right next those neighborhoods so and

660
00:32:02,000 --> 00:32:03,960
then yes and yes

661
00:32:03,960 --> 00:32:09,269
and then to highlight I believe the concerns are more

662
00:32:09,269 --> 00:32:12,440
attached to traffic to

663
00:32:12,440 --> 00:32:21,539
to dense to density and like hours of operation as compared

664
00:32:21,539 --> 00:32:22,599
to the specific

665
00:32:22,599 --> 00:32:27,839
use yeah mr. Roselle I appreciate the clarification I guess

666
00:32:27,839 --> 00:32:28,680
my concern is that

667
00:32:28,680 --> 00:32:31,470
there's always a temptation for myself and from past

668
00:32:31,470 --> 00:32:32,720
Commissioner this the

669
00:32:32,720 --> 00:32:36,940
Commission general to blur the lines between use and zoning

670
00:32:36,940 --> 00:32:38,119
and I think this

671
00:32:38,119 --> 00:32:42,259
quasi ability to zone on the fly is going to increase the

672
00:32:42,259 --> 00:32:43,400
temptation to

673
00:32:43,400 --> 00:32:47,319
engage in developers and negotiating how that land should

674
00:32:47,319 --> 00:32:49,079
be used and I'm bringing

675
00:32:49,079 --> 00:32:52,559
forth as a concern to this Commission as well as to the

676
00:32:52,559 --> 00:32:54,640
legal that I think

677
00:32:54,640 --> 00:32:58,339
there's been times in which on the dais we've said okay how

678
00:32:58,339 --> 00:32:58,680
are we gonna

679
00:32:58,680 --> 00:33:00,950
negotiate what's gonna be there what's not to be there and

680
00:33:00,950 --> 00:33:01,640
we come up with

681
00:33:01,640 --> 00:33:06,099
these really arduous motions right there and in the middle

682
00:33:06,099 --> 00:33:07,400
of discussion and I

683
00:33:07,400 --> 00:33:10,609
think that can be dangerous it sounds like that's permitted

684
00:33:10,609 --> 00:33:11,960
which is fine I'm

685
00:33:11,960 --> 00:33:15,170
just in voicing a concern that I had going forward about

686
00:33:15,170 --> 00:33:16,119
the use that this

687
00:33:16,119 --> 00:33:20,400
Commission takes in that I'd hope it's used with much

688
00:33:20,400 --> 00:33:22,119
discretion well no and I

689
00:33:22,119 --> 00:33:28,579
guess to my one of my very first comments was don't know I

690
00:33:28,579 --> 00:33:29,240
can't pin down

691
00:33:29,240 --> 00:33:34,519
necessarily where where in our history and advising this

692
00:33:34,519 --> 00:33:36,079
board the

693
00:33:36,079 --> 00:33:39,410
determination came down no you can't allow overlay

694
00:33:39,410 --> 00:33:41,279
districts but I'm fairly

695
00:33:41,279 --> 00:33:44,490
confident that it came out of caution as you were

696
00:33:44,490 --> 00:33:45,880
expressing you know the

697
00:33:45,880 --> 00:33:51,000
cautions concerns of us starting to regulate use you know

698
00:33:51,000 --> 00:33:52,480
overriding what

699
00:33:52,480 --> 00:33:57,589
was approved by council right to the code of ordinances but

700
00:33:57,589 --> 00:33:59,440
still I guess our

701
00:33:59,440 --> 00:34:02,390
point today in my in my report is that that option is on

702
00:34:02,390 --> 00:34:03,720
the table like you say

703
00:34:03,720 --> 00:34:07,410
but again you do want to use caution and I mean that's what

704
00:34:07,410 --> 00:34:09,000
I'm here for to kind

705
00:34:09,000 --> 00:34:12,869
of help you guys walk you guys through that when you think

706
00:34:12,869 --> 00:34:14,000
hey we're getting a

707
00:34:14,000 --> 00:34:19,920
little too close to use I'm gonna jump in and then history

708
00:34:19,920 --> 00:34:21,360
and Ron may be able

709
00:34:21,360 --> 00:34:25,679
to add some perspective to my recollection of the concern

710
00:34:25,679 --> 00:34:26,519
in the past

711
00:34:26,519 --> 00:34:30,869
about the overlay districts had to do with the ability to

712
00:34:30,869 --> 00:34:32,440
track them and keep

713
00:34:32,440 --> 00:34:36,929
up with them and so for example and I'll use myself this

714
00:34:36,929 --> 00:34:38,880
when I go online the

715
00:34:38,880 --> 00:34:41,710
city website and start searching parcels and looking at

716
00:34:41,710 --> 00:34:42,719
pieces and go that's

717
00:34:42,719 --> 00:34:46,110
zoned in our six and that's on in our four it doesn't show

718
00:34:46,110 --> 00:34:46,880
up that it has an

719
00:34:46,880 --> 00:34:51,510
overlay on it and so the only way you find out that it has

720
00:34:51,510 --> 00:34:53,440
a use restriction

721
00:34:53,440 --> 00:34:55,739
let's use that term since that's the example that we're

722
00:34:55,739 --> 00:34:56,679
putting out here that

723
00:34:56,679 --> 00:35:01,449
you can't have a bar there is until if you haven't done

724
00:35:01,449 --> 00:35:03,280
your homework you've

725
00:35:03,280 --> 00:35:05,849
already purchased it it sales it's in our six and you come

726
00:35:05,849 --> 00:35:06,559
in to put a bar

727
00:35:06,559 --> 00:35:10,039
there and oh three years ago it had a overlay restriction

728
00:35:10,039 --> 00:35:11,159
put on it that you

729
00:35:11,159 --> 00:35:14,599
can't have a bar there but it's owned to have a bar there

730
00:35:14,599 --> 00:35:16,719
and so I that's just

731
00:35:16,719 --> 00:35:21,239
the history that I recall as to why those were not

732
00:35:21,239 --> 00:35:23,320
encouraged and I would

733
00:35:23,320 --> 00:35:29,159
agree with Commissioner Roselle's opinion that in certain

734
00:35:29,159 --> 00:35:30,000
circumstances

735
00:35:30,000 --> 00:35:34,289
and more being the exception than the rule that we use

736
00:35:34,289 --> 00:35:35,960
these because it it

737
00:35:35,960 --> 00:35:42,320
will make a difficult housekeeping record-keeping process

738
00:35:42,320 --> 00:35:43,400
on every single

739
00:35:43,400 --> 00:35:47,099
track if it becomes that we're going to put overlays patch

740
00:35:47,099 --> 00:35:48,239
work on top of all

741
00:35:48,239 --> 00:35:51,510
these things limiting uses and all these other things just

742
00:35:51,510 --> 00:35:52,880
to shoehorn versus

743
00:35:52,880 --> 00:35:57,159
it's cleanly zoned and you can do anything that's allowed

744
00:35:57,159 --> 00:35:58,199
in the zoning

745
00:35:58,199 --> 00:36:02,860
use in that particular place and that's my recollection of

746
00:36:02,860 --> 00:36:04,280
why that was done

747
00:36:04,280 --> 00:36:07,039
that way and I would ask Ron if you've got anything you

748
00:36:07,039 --> 00:36:08,360
want to add to that as

749
00:36:08,360 --> 00:36:13,530
well for us from your many years of experience and recoll

750
00:36:13,530 --> 00:36:14,880
ection as well

751
00:36:14,880 --> 00:36:19,889
thank you chair members of the Commission we that's that's

752
00:36:19,889 --> 00:36:20,480
accurate

753
00:36:20,480 --> 00:36:24,579
we've identified 35 of these zoning districts that have

754
00:36:24,579 --> 00:36:25,440
overlays or

755
00:36:25,440 --> 00:36:29,460
conditions on them as part of our zoning map or zoning

756
00:36:29,460 --> 00:36:32,119
layers now so sure that

757
00:36:32,119 --> 00:36:35,690
will continue to grow maybe but currently we have 35 just

758
00:36:35,690 --> 00:36:36,159
to help

759
00:36:36,159 --> 00:36:40,199
illustrate what Commissioner Strange has discussed okay

760
00:36:40,199 --> 00:36:41,800
Commissioner Smith since

761
00:36:41,800 --> 00:36:44,039
we're talking about the ability that we have as

762
00:36:44,039 --> 00:36:46,440
commissioned to create them what

763
00:36:46,440 --> 00:36:49,659
is the process or ability to be able to remove them if

764
00:36:49,659 --> 00:36:51,239
there was something like

765
00:36:51,239 --> 00:36:54,920
Commissioner Roselle's bringing up it says we've rezoned it

766
00:36:54,920 --> 00:36:55,880
we've put an

767
00:36:55,880 --> 00:37:00,920
overlay on there and sold is there a process are we able to

768
00:37:00,920 --> 00:37:01,960
remove it or as

769
00:37:01,960 --> 00:37:07,030
soon as it's done said by us and the council also repeats

770
00:37:07,030 --> 00:37:08,760
it and proves it is

771
00:37:08,760 --> 00:37:14,210
it done and written in the history books what we not that

772
00:37:14,210 --> 00:37:16,079
it's done same process

773
00:37:16,079 --> 00:37:19,059
like a reason any other reason so just like it's gonna go

774
00:37:19,059 --> 00:37:20,079
from NR six NR six

775
00:37:20,079 --> 00:37:22,409
with overlay to NR six without overlay correct so that's be

776
00:37:22,409 --> 00:37:23,519
a holdover rezoned

777
00:37:23,519 --> 00:37:26,130
process so we wouldn't want to do it that's not that's not

778
00:37:26,130 --> 00:37:27,039
saying hey we got

779
00:37:27,039 --> 00:37:30,250
up we know hey if we come like it we can we can we can

780
00:37:30,250 --> 00:37:31,639
reverse it we don't want

781
00:37:31,639 --> 00:37:34,860
to do that that looks terrible but you just wanted to know

782
00:37:34,860 --> 00:37:36,360
and in the instance

783
00:37:36,360 --> 00:37:39,690
of sort of the last one you know the neighboring property

784
00:37:39,690 --> 00:37:40,920
we'll talk if you

785
00:37:40,920 --> 00:37:43,260
notice on the on the map that change it had it sort of had

786
00:37:43,260 --> 00:37:44,440
the cross hatches in

787
00:37:44,440 --> 00:37:47,719
it so that's where we're kind of to go back with the chair

788
00:37:47,719 --> 00:37:48,960
was was alluding to

789
00:37:48,960 --> 00:37:54,449
we're really trying to use the full capability of our the

790
00:37:54,449 --> 00:37:55,199
GIS that we have

791
00:37:55,199 --> 00:37:58,659
so making sure that that is documented and then in addition

792
00:37:58,659 --> 00:38:00,199
to that once these

793
00:38:00,199 --> 00:38:02,789
hopefully there's not you know if we want to have a hundred

794
00:38:02,789 --> 00:38:03,920
two hundred but as

795
00:38:03,920 --> 00:38:07,250
they you know as as we get more of them and even the 35

796
00:38:07,250 --> 00:38:08,800
that we have making sure

797
00:38:08,800 --> 00:38:12,010
that in our land management files to through track at our

798
00:38:12,010 --> 00:38:12,719
permitting

799
00:38:12,719 --> 00:38:16,829
software we're now in the process of almost complete

800
00:38:16,829 --> 00:38:17,719
updating so every

801
00:38:17,719 --> 00:38:20,429
property that's sort of encompassed within that that

802
00:38:20,429 --> 00:38:22,360
overlay it's now in the

803
00:38:22,360 --> 00:38:24,670
land management file so so we're starting to get it in

804
00:38:24,670 --> 00:38:25,559
different places

805
00:38:25,559 --> 00:38:29,039
so what happens is you're reviewing you might have 20

806
00:38:29,039 --> 00:38:30,320
permits reviewing a day

807
00:38:30,320 --> 00:38:34,199
and you may not know to look at the map or to know that

808
00:38:34,199 --> 00:38:36,000
this ordinance was passed

809
00:38:36,000 --> 00:38:38,880
so we're now putting it in a number of different places

810
00:38:38,880 --> 00:38:42,079
sort of stop stop gaps

811
00:38:42,719 --> 00:38:48,449
I think that'll give everybody we've got a couple hours

812
00:38:48,449 --> 00:38:49,679
before we go into our

813
00:38:49,679 --> 00:38:53,780
next session to mull this over and then we can see where we

814
00:38:53,780 --> 00:38:55,719
end up on our public

815
00:38:55,719 --> 00:39:00,500
hearing item any other questions Commissioner Ellis I have

816
00:39:00,500 --> 00:39:00,719
a question

817
00:39:00,719 --> 00:39:03,349
while we're discussing this because I do feel like

818
00:39:03,349 --> 00:39:04,920
sometimes this is a tool that's

819
00:39:04,920 --> 00:39:10,280
needed to be able to get a rezoning done for instance that

820
00:39:10,280 --> 00:39:11,360
particular tract of

821
00:39:11,360 --> 00:39:16,139
land we only wanted a set number of lots in there because

822
00:39:16,139 --> 00:39:17,480
the density can be

823
00:39:17,480 --> 00:39:20,690
scary if we just put it on there and you're right I mean a

824
00:39:20,690 --> 00:39:20,920
development

825
00:39:20,920 --> 00:39:24,920
doesn't go with the zoning change so there's always that

826
00:39:24,920 --> 00:39:26,280
you know risk that

827
00:39:26,280 --> 00:39:29,110
if we rezone it it's not going to be what we think because

828
00:39:29,110 --> 00:39:30,519
they've gone under

829
00:39:30,519 --> 00:39:32,969
or whatever sold the land and it becomes something else

830
00:39:32,969 --> 00:39:35,119
that we didn't want so I

831
00:39:35,119 --> 00:39:40,860
mean it is a tool that can be helpful to all the community

832
00:39:40,860 --> 00:39:42,800
the developer and

833
00:39:42,800 --> 00:39:46,429
whatnot so I guess I just wanted to throw that out there

834
00:39:46,429 --> 00:39:47,199
and hope that you

835
00:39:47,199 --> 00:39:53,199
see it perhaps as a tool that that is valuable at times

836
00:39:56,519 --> 00:40:00,500
can use if you if you don't land on whether you want to do

837
00:40:00,500 --> 00:40:02,400
conditional

838
00:40:02,400 --> 00:40:06,869
overlays tonight the other option is to approve a lesser

839
00:40:06,869 --> 00:40:08,039
zoning which is the nr

840
00:40:08,039 --> 00:40:11,369
4 and that still gets them to where they need to be just to

841
00:40:11,369 --> 00:40:14,639
keep that in in mind

842
00:40:15,880 --> 00:40:19,920
responded Commissioner Ellis I agree I think the big issue

843
00:40:19,920 --> 00:40:22,559
and maybe staff has

844
00:40:22,559 --> 00:40:25,750
addressed it has been the ability to track it and I think

845
00:40:25,750 --> 00:40:26,679
that's been one of

846
00:40:26,679 --> 00:40:29,179
the concerns and sounds like maybe with putting it in

847
00:40:29,179 --> 00:40:31,760
multiple places and being

848
00:40:31,760 --> 00:40:35,090
it beyond the GIS map and more readily available maybe it's

849
00:40:35,090 --> 00:40:35,719
not as big of an

850
00:40:35,719 --> 00:40:42,880
issue I know again in past now five and a half years and

851
00:40:42,880 --> 00:40:44,519
quickly getting towards

852
00:40:44,519 --> 00:40:48,679
the end of my tenure here but that's a long time in the

853
00:40:48,679 --> 00:40:50,840
technology world so the

854
00:40:50,840 --> 00:40:54,050
ability to track these has probably changed considerably

855
00:40:54,050 --> 00:40:55,360
from what it used

856
00:40:55,360 --> 00:40:59,389
to be and that was that was the main concern just again

857
00:40:59,389 --> 00:41:00,599
adding perspective

858
00:41:00,599 --> 00:41:05,059
not right or wrong just perspective as to why it wasn't an

859
00:41:05,059 --> 00:41:08,159
encouraged tool for us

860
00:41:08,159 --> 00:41:12,460
to use was the ability to track it and and be able to to

861
00:41:12,460 --> 00:41:13,519
produce it for

862
00:41:13,519 --> 00:41:16,889
publicly for people to be able to keep up with what was

863
00:41:16,889 --> 00:41:18,599
clean zoning and what

864
00:41:18,599 --> 00:41:24,159
may have an overlay on it and Commissioner Sanchez I had a

865
00:41:24,159 --> 00:41:24,639
question you

866
00:41:24,639 --> 00:41:28,400
said you could always approve a like in our four now we

867
00:41:28,400 --> 00:41:29,760
wouldn't do that without

868
00:41:29,760 --> 00:41:34,400
the request of the developer right actually you can if he

869
00:41:34,400 --> 00:41:36,400
agrees to accept

870
00:41:36,400 --> 00:41:39,610
the inner floor zoning you can do it without him having to

871
00:41:39,610 --> 00:41:40,039
amend the

872
00:41:40,039 --> 00:41:43,650
application so you can approve a less a more restrictive

873
00:41:43,650 --> 00:41:45,199
zoning but you can't go

874
00:41:45,199 --> 00:41:48,409
up without him he would have to amend the application if he

875
00:41:48,409 --> 00:41:49,039
wanted like an

876
00:41:49,039 --> 00:41:54,239
inner emu okay Commissioner Smith a chair so that's that's

877
00:41:54,239 --> 00:41:54,960
what this one our

878
00:41:54,960 --> 00:41:57,170
options were given the option five options approve

879
00:41:57,170 --> 00:41:58,039
submitted approved

880
00:41:58,039 --> 00:42:01,320
subject conditions deny postpone or table so that is an

881
00:42:01,320 --> 00:42:02,159
approve of subject

882
00:42:02,159 --> 00:42:05,369
to condition so that so our conditions we're saying are

883
00:42:05,369 --> 00:42:06,320
essentially this on a

884
00:42:06,320 --> 00:42:10,800
zoning on a zoning case our conditions are an overlay which

885
00:42:10,800 --> 00:42:11,440
we want to use

886
00:42:11,440 --> 00:42:16,659
sparingly or our conditions are to approve for a zoning

887
00:42:16,659 --> 00:42:18,199
that is a lesser

888
00:42:18,199 --> 00:42:22,679
nothing greater a lesser density yes okay what happens in

889
00:42:22,679 --> 00:42:23,280
that since we're

890
00:42:23,280 --> 00:42:25,969
talking about these overlays and this kind of discussion

891
00:42:25,969 --> 00:42:27,400
here what happens if

892
00:42:27,400 --> 00:42:33,130
this is a commercial I don't know there's like I say it's a

893
00:42:33,130 --> 00:42:35,280
NRM you in our

894
00:42:35,280 --> 00:42:38,760
emu or an MRE in our you 12 what can you do that as well

895
00:42:38,760 --> 00:42:39,280
does that make sense

896
00:42:39,280 --> 00:42:43,750
where there's okay go ahead yeah so if they came in with

897
00:42:43,750 --> 00:42:45,119
like an inner emu 12

898
00:42:45,119 --> 00:42:49,590
requests yeah we could we could approve an inner emu or a

899
00:42:49,590 --> 00:42:51,320
six or anything lower

900
00:42:51,320 --> 00:42:55,280
than that as long as they agree or amenable to the change

901
00:42:55,280 --> 00:42:56,079
but we couldn't

902
00:42:56,079 --> 00:43:00,639
go into yeah like a cg right I was trying to I was thinking

903
00:43:00,639 --> 00:43:01,920
more so within

904
00:43:01,920 --> 00:43:06,159
that same family of droning correct you want to stay within

905
00:43:06,159 --> 00:43:06,559
there in the

906
00:43:06,559 --> 00:43:09,900
residence but you can go it falls into the mixed uses there

907
00:43:09,900 --> 00:43:10,519
it's not just the

908
00:43:10,519 --> 00:43:13,730
end it's not just the the NR that's eminent to the mix

909
00:43:13,730 --> 00:43:14,739
right so but if they

910
00:43:14,739 --> 00:43:18,030
started it in the emu 12 they can go down we couldn't we

911
00:43:18,030 --> 00:43:18,800
still can't go up

912
00:43:18,800 --> 00:43:26,920
from 6 to 12 okay okay can't okay okay are there any other

913
00:43:26,920 --> 00:43:27,559
conditions we don't

914
00:43:27,559 --> 00:43:32,480
know about none that they want me to share on camera right

915
00:43:32,480 --> 00:43:34,360
now I used to be

916
00:43:34,360 --> 00:43:39,190
a consultant thank Victor's got one thing that's a tie up

917
00:43:39,190 --> 00:43:40,199
on here I think

918
00:43:40,199 --> 00:43:44,380
question was supposed to Shandrian as to whether staff and

919
00:43:44,380 --> 00:43:45,559
I forget who was

920
00:43:45,559 --> 00:43:49,119
whether staff could actually recommend conditions on the

921
00:43:49,119 --> 00:43:51,239
overlay district and

922
00:43:51,239 --> 00:43:55,530
just to support her is that staff isn't invested with

923
00:43:55,530 --> 00:43:57,079
authority to to to make

924
00:43:57,079 --> 00:44:02,519
those recommendations it's again going back to my previous

925
00:44:02,519 --> 00:44:03,920
comment was the

926
00:44:03,920 --> 00:44:06,750
authority the zone is within the city council city council

927
00:44:06,750 --> 00:44:07,639
has invested that

928
00:44:07,639 --> 00:44:10,250
delegated some of that authority to this to this board and

929
00:44:10,250 --> 00:44:11,239
so that's why those

930
00:44:11,239 --> 00:44:13,880
recommendations come from the board and not necessarily the

931
00:44:13,880 --> 00:44:14,679
staff staff just

932
00:44:14,679 --> 00:44:18,909
interprets the code as as it is and since what they have to

933
00:44:18,909 --> 00:44:20,039
recommend and

934
00:44:20,039 --> 00:44:24,500
then it's within the purview of this council to make those

935
00:44:24,500 --> 00:44:25,599
recommendations

936
00:44:25,599 --> 00:44:33,030
okay thank you a lot of good discussion and I'm sure we'll

937
00:44:33,030 --> 00:44:33,599
have some more on

938
00:44:33,599 --> 00:44:39,070
this a little later this evening we've got three more staff

939
00:44:39,070 --> 00:44:40,280
reports the next

940
00:44:40,280 --> 00:44:44,420
one we have is going to be drainage and transportation and

941
00:44:44,420 --> 00:44:46,579
I don't know if Chad

942
00:44:46,579 --> 00:44:49,639
drainage goes first

943
00:44:59,519 --> 00:45:03,389
good evening chair commissioners I'm Chad Allen I'm the

944
00:45:03,389 --> 00:45:04,719
deputy city engineer in

945
00:45:04,719 --> 00:45:07,599
charge of capital project delivery and today I'm going to

946
00:45:07,599 --> 00:45:08,360
talk about the

947
00:45:08,360 --> 00:45:11,570
currently ongoing updates to our drainage and

948
00:45:11,570 --> 00:45:12,679
transportation design

949
00:45:12,679 --> 00:45:16,610
criteria manuals forgive me if my throat cracks I had the

950
00:45:16,610 --> 00:45:18,039
flu last week I'm not

951
00:45:18,039 --> 00:45:25,780
contagious so we're asking you to provide comments if you

952
00:45:25,780 --> 00:45:26,400
have any and

953
00:45:26,400 --> 00:45:29,159
then also consider recommending approval of the updates to

954
00:45:29,159 --> 00:45:30,159
our drainage design

955
00:45:30,159 --> 00:45:33,659
criteria manual and our transportation design criteria

956
00:45:33,659 --> 00:45:35,519
manual so what are the

957
00:45:35,519 --> 00:45:38,460
design criteria manuals these are documents that we create

958
00:45:38,460 --> 00:45:39,119
and we upload

959
00:45:39,119 --> 00:45:42,989
to the city's website we distribute them to developers and

960
00:45:42,989 --> 00:45:43,840
consulting engineers

961
00:45:43,840 --> 00:45:47,579
and they include very technical engineering related details

962
00:45:47,579 --> 00:45:48,280
that allow

963
00:45:48,280 --> 00:45:51,130
engineers to implement our development code and to follow

964
00:45:51,130 --> 00:45:52,280
our development code

965
00:45:52,280 --> 00:45:55,070
our development code basically represents the official

966
00:45:55,070 --> 00:45:55,880
regulations of

967
00:45:55,880 --> 00:45:58,599
the city of Denton and variances from the development code

968
00:45:58,599 --> 00:45:59,440
require your

969
00:45:59,440 --> 00:46:03,159
approval but the design criteria are very specific

970
00:46:03,159 --> 00:46:04,280
engineering procedures and

971
00:46:04,280 --> 00:46:07,489
calculations and values and maps and diagrams that we

972
00:46:07,489 --> 00:46:08,480
provide that allow

973
00:46:08,480 --> 00:46:10,780
engineers and developers to meet the intent of the

974
00:46:10,780 --> 00:46:11,840
development code and

975
00:46:11,840 --> 00:46:15,050
variances from the design criteria can be approved at staff

976
00:46:15,050 --> 00:46:15,800
level for instance

977
00:46:15,800 --> 00:46:19,159
by the city engineer he can approve changes it's

978
00:46:19,159 --> 00:46:20,199
recommended that we review

979
00:46:20,199 --> 00:46:23,409
these documents annually and then maybe we perform a major

980
00:46:23,409 --> 00:46:24,440
update at least every

981
00:46:24,440 --> 00:46:27,130
five years and that's what we're doing right now so we're

982
00:46:27,130 --> 00:46:28,480
trying to update the

983
00:46:28,480 --> 00:46:33,550
design criteria manuals so the main goals of our update

984
00:46:33,550 --> 00:46:34,880
project are to

985
00:46:34,880 --> 00:46:38,099
reevaluate the current drainage and transportation design

986
00:46:38,099 --> 00:46:38,800
criteria and

987
00:46:38,800 --> 00:46:41,630
update them where appropriate to identify development

988
00:46:41,630 --> 00:46:42,599
issues that come up

989
00:46:42,599 --> 00:46:45,480
in DRC and try to find resolutions to those that we can put

990
00:46:45,480 --> 00:46:46,519
into the documents

991
00:46:46,519 --> 00:46:50,099
to clarify and consolidate the design criteria from the

992
00:46:50,099 --> 00:46:51,440
various sources and

993
00:46:51,440 --> 00:46:54,650
then to try to eliminate inconsistencies between the

994
00:46:54,650 --> 00:46:55,840
various documents like the

995
00:46:55,840 --> 00:46:59,079
development code the criteria manuals we're talking about

996
00:46:59,079 --> 00:46:59,840
we have a flood

997
00:46:59,840 --> 00:47:02,230
prevention and protection ordinance we have standard

998
00:47:02,230 --> 00:47:03,320
details we have various

999
00:47:03,320 --> 00:47:06,599
plans around the city like the downtown plan so we're

1000
00:47:06,599 --> 00:47:07,840
hoping with this update we

1001
00:47:07,840 --> 00:47:10,090
can eliminate any inconsistencies between all of those

1002
00:47:10,090 --> 00:47:11,019
documents that we've

1003
00:47:11,019 --> 00:47:14,230
identified in the past and then also we want to provide the

1004
00:47:14,230 --> 00:47:14,920
development community

1005
00:47:14,920 --> 00:47:19,269
an opportunity to have input into this process so a little

1006
00:47:19,269 --> 00:47:20,320
bit of background

1007
00:47:20,320 --> 00:47:23,550
about the update we started updating our manuals early last

1008
00:47:23,550 --> 00:47:24,800
year we started

1009
00:47:24,800 --> 00:47:27,389
updating the water and wastewater design criteria manual

1010
00:47:27,389 --> 00:47:28,360
the drainage design

1011
00:47:28,360 --> 00:47:30,820
criteria manual and the transportation design criteria

1012
00:47:30,820 --> 00:47:31,880
manual we're doing this

1013
00:47:31,880 --> 00:47:34,639
all at the same time that we're also updating the

1014
00:47:34,639 --> 00:47:36,159
development code because we

1015
00:47:36,159 --> 00:47:38,590
want to make sure all the documents work together and we

1016
00:47:38,590 --> 00:47:39,639
want to eliminate any

1017
00:47:39,639 --> 00:47:41,960
conflicts between all of those documents so we're updating

1018
00:47:41,960 --> 00:47:42,719
the development code

1019
00:47:42,719 --> 00:47:46,760
and these criteria manuals at the same time we updated the

1020
00:47:46,760 --> 00:47:47,760
water and wastewater

1021
00:47:47,760 --> 00:47:51,320
design criteria manual first and that update was completed

1022
00:47:51,320 --> 00:47:52,519
last year in October

1023
00:47:52,519 --> 00:47:56,219
it was adopted by City Council last year in October in

1024
00:47:56,219 --> 00:47:58,159
August we selected a

1025
00:47:58,159 --> 00:48:01,369
consultant T. Nolan Perkins to help us update the drainage

1026
00:48:01,369 --> 00:48:01,599
and the

1027
00:48:01,599 --> 00:48:05,610
transportation criteria manuals so the update process

1028
00:48:05,610 --> 00:48:07,320
includes multiple staff

1029
00:48:07,320 --> 00:48:10,079
workshops with us and our design consultant and our

1030
00:48:10,079 --> 00:48:11,679
consultant there's

1031
00:48:11,679 --> 00:48:14,199
also a review we've conducted a review of other local

1032
00:48:14,199 --> 00:48:16,000
municipal requirements our

1033
00:48:16,000 --> 00:48:19,210
consultant has met with certain staff with one-on-one

1034
00:48:19,210 --> 00:48:20,599
discussions we're having

1035
00:48:20,599 --> 00:48:24,289
two public comment sessions we're bringing it tonight for P

1036
00:48:24,289 --> 00:48:24,500
&Z

1037
00:48:24,500 --> 00:48:27,690
consideration we're having a couple of meetings next month

1038
00:48:27,690 --> 00:48:28,820
with developers with

1039
00:48:28,820 --> 00:48:31,460
a development community and then in the end we're gonna ask

1040
00:48:31,460 --> 00:48:32,420
for the new updates

1041
00:48:32,420 --> 00:48:37,079
to be adopted by City Council this whole process involves a

1042
00:48:37,079 --> 00:48:37,679
lot of different

1043
00:48:37,679 --> 00:48:41,309
stakeholders where we've met and had input from our DRC

1044
00:48:41,309 --> 00:48:42,320
staff from our

1045
00:48:42,320 --> 00:48:45,579
capital projects engineering folks floodplain administrator

1046
00:48:45,579 --> 00:48:46,219
the traffic

1047
00:48:46,219 --> 00:48:49,849
engineer this guy over here city engineer the drainage and

1048
00:48:49,849 --> 00:48:51,320
traffic maintenance and

1049
00:48:51,320 --> 00:48:54,900
operations staff our capital project inspectors our

1050
00:48:54,900 --> 00:48:55,960
environmental services

1051
00:48:55,960 --> 00:49:00,309
folks and also the local development community so here's

1052
00:49:00,309 --> 00:49:01,360
here's what's

1053
00:49:01,360 --> 00:49:04,170
happened so far this is what we've done so far in the

1054
00:49:04,170 --> 00:49:05,920
process last September we

1055
00:49:05,920 --> 00:49:09,420
hired T. Nolan Perkins to help us work on the manual in

1056
00:49:09,420 --> 00:49:10,760
October they had their

1057
00:49:10,760 --> 00:49:14,090
first workshop with city staff in November they submitted

1058
00:49:14,090 --> 00:49:15,079
their first draft

1059
00:49:15,079 --> 00:49:19,400
for our review we had two other workshops in December and

1060
00:49:19,400 --> 00:49:20,199
then earlier

1061
00:49:20,199 --> 00:49:22,289
this month they submitted their final draft that we were

1062
00:49:22,289 --> 00:49:23,000
going to issue for

1063
00:49:23,000 --> 00:49:27,800
public comment and for P&Z considerations so we posted the

1064
00:49:27,800 --> 00:49:28,280
documents

1065
00:49:28,280 --> 00:49:31,500
for public comment on January 4th and that's a 30-day

1066
00:49:31,500 --> 00:49:32,679
comment period it ends

1067
00:49:32,679 --> 00:49:36,559
on February 2nd we posted it on the City of Denton website

1068
00:49:36,559 --> 00:49:38,559
we put notices here at

1069
00:49:38,559 --> 00:49:42,510
City Hall and then we've distributed to the development

1070
00:49:42,510 --> 00:49:43,199
community through our

1071
00:49:43,199 --> 00:49:46,409
planning department and through the Denton County

1072
00:49:46,409 --> 00:49:48,760
Development Alliance the

1073
00:49:48,760 --> 00:49:51,969
remaining steps are to bring it before P&Z tonight and then

1074
00:49:51,969 --> 00:49:52,619
we have two

1075
00:49:52,619 --> 00:49:55,829
meetings scheduled with the development community in

1076
00:49:55,829 --> 00:49:57,679
February we hope to have

1077
00:49:57,679 --> 00:50:01,099
all the comments incorporated by February 19th and then the

1078
00:50:01,099 --> 00:50:01,800
final draft

1079
00:50:01,800 --> 00:50:05,780
completed by the end of February and then early in March we

1080
00:50:05,780 --> 00:50:06,480
hope to have

1081
00:50:06,480 --> 00:50:09,500
approval by council and then our schedule right now is for

1082
00:50:09,500 --> 00:50:10,400
the updates to

1083
00:50:10,400 --> 00:50:15,300
be published in their final format on March 9th so here are

1084
00:50:15,300 --> 00:50:16,239
the specific

1085
00:50:16,239 --> 00:50:18,920
changes that we're proposing for the drainage manual we

1086
00:50:18,920 --> 00:50:19,960
changed the title to

1087
00:50:19,960 --> 00:50:22,889
the storm water design criteria manual from the drainage

1088
00:50:22,889 --> 00:50:24,119
design criteria manual

1089
00:50:24,119 --> 00:50:27,789
we've moved a lot of really technical detailed engineering

1090
00:50:27,789 --> 00:50:29,039
related items from

1091
00:50:29,039 --> 00:50:31,250
the development code and we put them into the criteria

1092
00:50:31,250 --> 00:50:32,199
manual that's where we

1093
00:50:32,199 --> 00:50:35,800
think they belong so for instance we've moved very specific

1094
00:50:35,800 --> 00:50:36,679
engineering related

1095
00:50:36,679 --> 00:50:40,010
specific design criteria about design flood frequencies and

1096
00:50:40,010 --> 00:50:40,840
street and storm

1097
00:50:40,840 --> 00:50:44,059
drain design and easement widths around pipe systems and

1098
00:50:44,059 --> 00:50:45,039
really detailed

1099
00:50:45,039 --> 00:50:47,519
detention pond design items we moved all of those out of

1100
00:50:47,519 --> 00:50:48,760
the development code and

1101
00:50:48,760 --> 00:50:51,980
into the criteria manual we've added a decision chart

1102
00:50:51,980 --> 00:50:53,400
related to floodplain

1103
00:50:53,400 --> 00:50:56,179
fill requirements so that they're more easily understood we

1104
00:50:56,179 --> 00:50:57,199
've added stream

1105
00:50:57,199 --> 00:50:59,719
bank protection criteria because we're concerned about

1106
00:50:59,719 --> 00:51:00,760
erosion of our streams

1107
00:51:00,760 --> 00:51:05,059
and creeks we've made allowances for limited use of

1108
00:51:05,059 --> 00:51:06,800
detention ponds for

1109
00:51:06,800 --> 00:51:10,400
recreational structures like picnic tables and playground

1110
00:51:10,400 --> 00:51:11,880
equipment in very

1111
00:51:11,880 --> 00:51:15,809
certain areas in detention ponds we've clarified the limits

1112
00:51:15,809 --> 00:51:16,800
on floodplain

1113
00:51:16,800 --> 00:51:20,010
development to try to make them more clear and we've

1114
00:51:20,010 --> 00:51:21,280
simplified our minimum

1115
00:51:21,280 --> 00:51:23,489
finished floor elevation requirements and we move those to

1116
00:51:23,489 --> 00:51:25,119
the development code

1117
00:51:25,119 --> 00:51:28,489
what changes do we not make we didn't really make any major

1118
00:51:28,489 --> 00:51:29,440
changes to storm

1119
00:51:29,440 --> 00:51:32,309
water policy in the new manual we were just trying to

1120
00:51:32,309 --> 00:51:33,480
clarify the existing

1121
00:51:33,480 --> 00:51:36,809
policy we're trying to make it easier to understand we didn

1122
00:51:36,809 --> 00:51:37,519
't change any of the

1123
00:51:37,519 --> 00:51:41,059
design calculations we made no significant changes to flood

1124
00:51:41,059 --> 00:51:41,440
plain

1125
00:51:41,440 --> 00:51:45,309
criteria no changes to the channel design criteria we

1126
00:51:45,309 --> 00:51:46,400
continue to reference

1127
00:51:46,400 --> 00:51:50,440
and use the net clock net cog I swim manual and we made no

1128
00:51:50,440 --> 00:51:51,599
changes to the our

1129
00:51:51,599 --> 00:51:54,619
primary design storm event which is the fully developed 100

1130
00:51:54,619 --> 00:51:56,039
year storm so I

1131
00:51:56,039 --> 00:51:59,250
believe that's that's all I have to talk about the drainage

1132
00:51:59,250 --> 00:52:00,079
manual and I can turn

1133
00:52:00,079 --> 00:52:02,159
it over to pre town to talk about the transportation

1134
00:52:02,159 --> 00:52:03,280
criteria manual right now

1135
00:52:03,280 --> 00:52:07,150
sure go ahead commissioner Alice thank you chair I just a

1136
00:52:07,150 --> 00:52:08,559
question does ice

1137
00:52:08,559 --> 00:52:12,670
swim need to be in definitions in this manual does it need

1138
00:52:12,670 --> 00:52:13,840
to be in definitions

1139
00:52:13,840 --> 00:52:16,719
yeah I mean I know what ice one is because Debra shared

1140
00:52:16,719 --> 00:52:17,360
that with us at a

1141
00:52:17,360 --> 00:52:19,969
meeting before but does everyone does somebody coming from

1142
00:52:19,969 --> 00:52:20,840
another area know

1143
00:52:20,840 --> 00:52:24,260
what ice one is another community around here in the Metro

1144
00:52:24,260 --> 00:52:24,840
plex they would

1145
00:52:24,840 --> 00:52:27,389
probably but we can certainly add that to the definitions

1146
00:52:27,389 --> 00:52:28,280
if it was a thought

1147
00:52:28,280 --> 00:52:30,489
yeah I figured they would know it in the Metroplex but if

1148
00:52:30,489 --> 00:52:31,320
they came from another

1149
00:52:31,320 --> 00:52:34,530
state you know because I know some people isn't there an

1150
00:52:34,530 --> 00:52:35,079
ice one that has

1151
00:52:35,079 --> 00:52:38,599
to do with solid waste isn't that acronym used as well so I

1152
00:52:38,599 --> 00:52:39,719
do not know

1153
00:52:39,719 --> 00:52:42,590
but if it's confusing like that to you it is possible yeah

1154
00:52:42,590 --> 00:52:43,920
that I had that maybe

1155
00:52:43,920 --> 00:52:46,130
that just needs to be in the definition part of the manual

1156
00:52:46,130 --> 00:52:46,960
we can certainly do

1157
00:52:46,960 --> 00:52:52,440
that we'll do it I have a comment just to bring it I know

1158
00:52:52,440 --> 00:52:54,159
this is always a

1159
00:52:54,159 --> 00:52:58,440
an issue at least to us as builders is the ability to fence

1160
00:52:58,440 --> 00:52:59,679
easements I know

1161
00:52:59,679 --> 00:53:02,889
that that's still prohibited in the in the ordinance and I

1162
00:53:02,889 --> 00:53:03,599
don't know if

1163
00:53:03,599 --> 00:53:07,469
there's some flexibility that's been discussed several

1164
00:53:07,469 --> 00:53:08,239
times if that's

1165
00:53:08,239 --> 00:53:11,090
something that can be talked about over the next 30 days to

1166
00:53:11,090 --> 00:53:11,800
see if there's

1167
00:53:11,800 --> 00:53:16,579
instances where easements can be fence because we have many

1168
00:53:16,579 --> 00:53:17,760
many lots that have

1169
00:53:17,760 --> 00:53:21,440
drainage easements on them and it becomes a who takes care

1170
00:53:21,440 --> 00:53:22,199
of it who

1171
00:53:22,199 --> 00:53:25,469
maintains it and all those types of issues for the few

1172
00:53:25,469 --> 00:53:26,820
times that they need

1173
00:53:26,820 --> 00:53:30,539
to be accessed at whatever point that they are maybe there

1174
00:53:30,539 --> 00:53:30,960
are some

1175
00:53:30,960 --> 00:53:35,429
possibilities for releases to be signed if people want to

1176
00:53:35,429 --> 00:53:36,840
fence them that the

1177
00:53:36,840 --> 00:53:39,340
city has to come in there they're not responsible for

1178
00:53:39,340 --> 00:53:40,519
putting the fences back

1179
00:53:40,519 --> 00:53:43,159
up and people can use those easements and just want to

1180
00:53:43,159 --> 00:53:44,559
bring that up or felt

1181
00:53:44,559 --> 00:53:47,780
like it's an appropriate time to to bring that item before

1182
00:53:47,780 --> 00:53:48,800
you that's this

1183
00:53:48,800 --> 00:53:52,059
is definitely the appropriate time fences come up so many

1184
00:53:52,059 --> 00:53:53,119
times you know

1185
00:53:53,119 --> 00:53:56,519
fences and easements fences in flood plains we really want

1186
00:53:56,519 --> 00:53:57,400
to fix the way

1187
00:53:57,400 --> 00:53:59,949
fences are described in the new manuals it's one it was one

1188
00:53:59,949 --> 00:54:00,840
of our major goals

1189
00:54:00,840 --> 00:54:04,050
at the beginning is to clarify and clean up when fences are

1190
00:54:04,050 --> 00:54:04,559
allowed if

1191
00:54:04,559 --> 00:54:09,079
there's any areas where we can allow fence where maybe we

1192
00:54:09,079 --> 00:54:10,360
didn't previously so

1193
00:54:10,360 --> 00:54:13,199
we can definitely work on that harder we have changed the

1194
00:54:13,199 --> 00:54:14,320
fence requirements in

1195
00:54:14,320 --> 00:54:18,030
these manuals so yes please read that make comments on it

1196
00:54:18,030 --> 00:54:19,320
during this comment

1197
00:54:19,320 --> 00:54:22,849
period let us know your suggestions and after these updates

1198
00:54:22,849 --> 00:54:24,119
occur we really want

1199
00:54:24,119 --> 00:54:30,139
our fence regulations to be more clear so well if I'm miss

1200
00:54:30,139 --> 00:54:33,920
read it in 3.9 be 1b

1201
00:54:33,920 --> 00:54:39,179
says fences may not be placed okay so I think I think

1202
00:54:39,179 --> 00:54:40,760
previously there was it

1203
00:54:40,760 --> 00:54:42,969
was a little bit unclear about fences and we tried to make

1204
00:54:42,969 --> 00:54:44,199
it more clear maybe

1205
00:54:44,199 --> 00:54:47,139
it's too black and white now so go ahead and give us those

1206
00:54:47,139 --> 00:54:48,599
that in those comments

1207
00:54:48,599 --> 00:54:53,059
please okay well won't waste the Commission's time okay did

1208
00:54:53,059 --> 00:54:53,599
we take the

1209
00:54:53,599 --> 00:54:56,170
easy way out and just say no fences ever I think maybe we

1210
00:54:56,170 --> 00:54:57,280
did that I think so

1211
00:54:57,280 --> 00:55:01,150
okay Commissioner Ellis thank you I'm gonna piggyback on

1212
00:55:01,150 --> 00:55:01,800
that because that was

1213
00:55:01,800 --> 00:55:04,070
where some of my notes were two on three point nine because

1214
00:55:04,070 --> 00:55:05,079
you've got it titled

1215
00:55:05,079 --> 00:55:08,010
easements in fences except there's really nothing about

1216
00:55:08,010 --> 00:55:08,840
fences in there

1217
00:55:08,840 --> 00:55:13,170
other than they're not allowed so my I had a big question

1218
00:55:13,170 --> 00:55:14,679
mark like I don't get

1219
00:55:14,679 --> 00:55:16,920
the fences part because you definitely haven't spelled out

1220
00:55:16,920 --> 00:55:18,360
where they're allowed

1221
00:55:18,360 --> 00:55:23,239
you do say that except as specifically provided for below

1222
00:55:23,239 --> 00:55:24,840
but then it says in

1223
00:55:24,840 --> 00:55:28,460
the storm drain above ground they're not allowed and then

1224
00:55:28,460 --> 00:55:29,420
you mentioned it one

1225
00:55:29,420 --> 00:55:33,739
time in the closed systems but it's yeah fences needs to be

1226
00:55:33,739 --> 00:55:34,840
explored if you're

1227
00:55:34,840 --> 00:55:37,900
actually calling this chapter titled that it probably needs

1228
00:55:37,900 --> 00:55:38,719
to be spelled out

1229
00:55:38,719 --> 00:55:44,840
a little more specific okay absolutely Commissioner Beck

1230
00:55:44,840 --> 00:55:50,239
I'm gonna try not get over my head on this but just for the

1231
00:55:50,239 --> 00:55:51,800
record the DDC

1232
00:55:51,800 --> 00:55:55,250
supersedes criteria manuals correct yes okay you mentioned

1233
00:55:55,250 --> 00:55:55,960
you were taking things

1234
00:55:55,960 --> 00:55:59,289
out of the DDC and put them in the criteria manual yes are

1235
00:55:59,289 --> 00:56:00,119
we weakening the

1236
00:56:00,119 --> 00:56:04,889
DDC no I don't think so the development code just says that

1237
00:56:04,889 --> 00:56:06,159
the major overall

1238
00:56:06,159 --> 00:56:10,030
policies and then the design criteria provides engineering

1239
00:56:10,030 --> 00:56:11,039
data to help you

1240
00:56:11,039 --> 00:56:14,920
implement those so no we haven't weakened the development

1241
00:56:14,920 --> 00:56:15,519
code at all as

1242
00:56:15,519 --> 00:56:19,010
part of this process that was not that was not the intent

1243
00:56:19,010 --> 00:56:20,079
at all thank you

1244
00:56:20,079 --> 00:56:23,289
does that have to do just a pony on with Commissioner Beck

1245
00:56:23,289 --> 00:56:24,920
's comment the amount

1246
00:56:24,920 --> 00:56:28,130
of time that goes between when we do updates to DDC versus

1247
00:56:28,130 --> 00:56:28,659
when we do

1248
00:56:28,659 --> 00:56:31,869
criteria manual updates so that we can keep it fresher and

1249
00:56:31,869 --> 00:56:32,760
more relevant and

1250
00:56:32,760 --> 00:56:35,599
changed it could have something to do with that it was

1251
00:56:35,599 --> 00:56:36,599
really more about

1252
00:56:36,599 --> 00:56:38,460
taking those really technical requirements out of the

1253
00:56:38,460 --> 00:56:38,960
development

1254
00:56:38,960 --> 00:56:42,239
code and putting them somewhere where maybe some

1255
00:56:42,239 --> 00:56:44,360
engineering preference might

1256
00:56:44,360 --> 00:56:47,300
have to come into account and so the city engineer can

1257
00:56:47,300 --> 00:56:48,480
maybe on individual

1258
00:56:48,480 --> 00:56:51,239
projects make decisions and not have to vary from the

1259
00:56:51,239 --> 00:56:54,519
development code okay any

1260
00:56:54,519 --> 00:56:59,119
other questions on drainage Chad thank you for your

1261
00:56:59,119 --> 00:57:01,599
presentation

1262
00:57:03,360 --> 00:57:09,050
all right as as I introduced earlier I'm pre-tem they smoke

1263
00:57:09,050 --> 00:57:11,880
traffic engineer for

1264
00:57:11,880 --> 00:57:14,670
the city I'll be presenting and talking about the

1265
00:57:14,670 --> 00:57:16,280
significant change in the

1266
00:57:16,280 --> 00:57:20,429
next five slides to the transportation criteria manual

1267
00:57:20,429 --> 00:57:22,199
update and I really try

1268
00:57:22,199 --> 00:57:25,889
to encompass the major changes there are some minor changes

1269
00:57:25,889 --> 00:57:27,059
and it's all in the

1270
00:57:27,059 --> 00:57:30,690
back of material the main thing I want to point out is we

1271
00:57:30,690 --> 00:57:31,840
've completely

1272
00:57:31,840 --> 00:57:35,260
reorganized the criteria manual the reason being it was

1273
00:57:35,260 --> 00:57:36,400
really confusing

1274
00:57:36,400 --> 00:57:39,610
cumbersome to follow sequencing was not great you have to

1275
00:57:39,610 --> 00:57:40,599
go back and forth

1276
00:57:40,599 --> 00:57:43,840
between sections of the existing manual so what we've done

1277
00:57:43,840 --> 00:57:44,840
is made it made it

1278
00:57:44,840 --> 00:57:50,139
more clear free-flowing step-by-step process to go from one

1279
00:57:50,139 --> 00:57:51,159
point a to point

1280
00:57:51,159 --> 00:57:54,860
B the major sections that were changed were street

1281
00:57:54,860 --> 00:57:56,760
classification and geometric

1282
00:57:56,760 --> 00:58:00,429
standards and then the traffic impact analysis requirements

1283
00:58:00,429 --> 00:58:00,920
the way the

1284
00:58:00,920 --> 00:58:04,250
guidelines are set for traffic impact analysis and lastly

1285
00:58:04,250 --> 00:58:05,199
we've added the

1286
00:58:05,199 --> 00:58:08,409
perimeter street guidelines as some of you might know that

1287
00:58:08,409 --> 00:58:10,000
we've taken those to

1288
00:58:10,000 --> 00:58:13,610
City Council approved last October primarily what they were

1289
00:58:13,610 --> 00:58:14,159
doing is

1290
00:58:14,159 --> 00:58:18,750
clarifying what was mentioned in the roadway impact fee

1291
00:58:18,750 --> 00:58:20,460
ordinance and how it

1292
00:58:20,460 --> 00:58:23,150
related to the DDC that's the clarification that was

1293
00:58:23,150 --> 00:58:23,840
included in the

1294
00:58:23,840 --> 00:58:27,059
guidelines we all we did is take the whole section and

1295
00:58:27,059 --> 00:58:28,320
implemented in the

1296
00:58:28,320 --> 00:58:33,389
criteria manual street classification geometric standards

1297
00:58:33,389 --> 00:58:34,199
what we try to do

1298
00:58:34,199 --> 00:58:38,380
here is make it much more easier with the terminology with

1299
00:58:38,380 --> 00:58:39,719
the type of street

1300
00:58:39,719 --> 00:58:48,119
sections the we added a flexibility for design and which

1301
00:58:48,119 --> 00:58:49,679
actually we're getting

1302
00:58:49,679 --> 00:58:53,400
into the next step which is context-sensitive design

1303
00:58:53,400 --> 00:58:54,800
options when

1304
00:58:54,800 --> 00:58:57,809
we're looking at streets segments we wanted it to be more

1305
00:58:57,809 --> 00:58:58,760
in line with what

1306
00:58:58,760 --> 00:59:02,860
the land uses were next to it and as we head forward to

1307
00:59:02,860 --> 00:59:04,360
making most of our

1308
00:59:04,360 --> 00:59:08,340
streets complete streets which takes care of all the modes

1309
00:59:08,340 --> 00:59:09,440
of transportation so

1310
00:59:09,440 --> 00:59:14,619
all these different classifications that you look at were

1311
00:59:14,619 --> 00:59:15,599
kind of clubbed up

1312
00:59:15,599 --> 00:59:19,519
together to give more flexibility for neuro development

1313
00:59:19,519 --> 00:59:20,800
when they're talking

1314
00:59:20,800 --> 00:59:23,989
about what the cross sections and uses are and I'll explain

1315
00:59:23,989 --> 00:59:24,880
a little bit in the

1316
00:59:24,880 --> 00:59:29,239
next example I took an example for a two-lane collector

1317
00:59:29,239 --> 00:59:31,000
initially we in the

1318
00:59:31,000 --> 00:59:34,219
original design manual we only had one particular cross

1319
00:59:34,219 --> 00:59:35,239
section that was

1320
00:59:35,239 --> 00:59:38,449
brought out right now we're looking at different options we

1321
00:59:38,449 --> 00:59:39,679
can actually within

1322
00:59:39,679 --> 00:59:44,519
the cross section we can if there is a high parking area or

1323
00:59:44,519 --> 00:59:46,159
a low parking area

1324
00:59:46,159 --> 00:59:50,059
for example if it's a single-family development with larger

1325
00:59:50,059 --> 00:59:50,760
lots they

1326
00:59:50,760 --> 00:59:54,889
typically don't intend to use lesser on street parking when

1327
00:59:54,889 --> 00:59:56,599
you get into newer

1328
00:59:56,599 --> 01:00:00,860
subdivisions these they get more denser higher density f

1329
01:00:00,860 --> 01:00:02,239
uses up a lot of street

1330
01:00:02,239 --> 01:00:06,159
parking just because the way things are and more parking is

1331
01:00:06,159 --> 01:00:07,639
required based on

1332
01:00:07,639 --> 01:00:10,920
that we can fluctuate between or switch between these

1333
01:00:10,920 --> 01:00:13,039
options so if you have

1334
01:00:13,039 --> 01:00:15,670
higher parking demand you would require parking but if you

1335
01:00:15,670 --> 01:00:16,559
don't then you can

1336
01:00:16,559 --> 01:00:20,480
utilize that space for other modes of transportation make

1337
01:00:20,480 --> 01:00:21,320
it more a bike

1338
01:00:21,320 --> 01:00:25,039
friendly make it more transit friendly and then obviously

1339
01:00:25,039 --> 01:00:26,320
the third option is

1340
01:00:26,320 --> 01:00:31,159
medium so we added this whole flexible item it is context

1341
01:00:31,159 --> 01:00:32,519
sensitive design and

1342
01:00:32,519 --> 01:00:36,980
moving on to the next level which is actually financing and

1343
01:00:36,980 --> 01:00:38,400
getting grant

1344
01:00:38,400 --> 01:00:41,269
funding for some of these projects street project it makes

1345
01:00:41,269 --> 01:00:42,039
it more easier

1346
01:00:42,039 --> 01:00:45,250
if we have these alternatives and options built in that way

1347
01:00:45,250 --> 01:00:46,199
we can go after

1348
01:00:46,199 --> 01:00:48,969
funds that are specifically out there through the federal

1349
01:00:48,969 --> 01:00:50,559
government for bikes

1350
01:00:50,559 --> 01:00:54,010
and pedestrian improvement and transit improvement so that

1351
01:00:54,010 --> 01:00:55,079
that's the line of

1352
01:00:55,079 --> 01:00:58,150
thinking that we're thinking of traffic impact analysis

1353
01:00:58,150 --> 01:00:59,119
that's the next section

1354
01:00:59,119 --> 01:01:05,119
that we updated essentially developments are required to

1355
01:01:05,119 --> 01:01:06,239
conduct traffic studies

1356
01:01:06,239 --> 01:01:09,460
to look at what the impacts for the traffic's are and we've

1357
01:01:09,460 --> 01:01:10,519
categorized them

1358
01:01:10,519 --> 01:01:13,369
into smaller developments typically that generate less than

1359
01:01:13,369 --> 01:01:14,679
500 trips are smaller

1360
01:01:14,679 --> 01:01:18,179
they look into what the impacts are in the future when the

1361
01:01:18,179 --> 01:01:19,199
development is

1362
01:01:19,199 --> 01:01:22,940
complete but they will also look at five years out of that

1363
01:01:22,940 --> 01:01:24,159
and see you know five

1364
01:01:24,159 --> 01:01:28,079
years after the development is complete what are the

1365
01:01:28,079 --> 01:01:28,920
impacts and what the

1366
01:01:28,920 --> 01:01:32,130
implications are for larger developments it's slightly

1367
01:01:32,130 --> 01:01:33,159
different they create a

1368
01:01:33,159 --> 01:01:37,030
bigger impact bigger footprint developments that are

1369
01:01:37,030 --> 01:01:38,119
typically more

1370
01:01:38,119 --> 01:01:44,019
than 500 trips during the peak hours and for them we are

1371
01:01:44,019 --> 01:01:45,199
not only looking at

1372
01:01:45,199 --> 01:01:48,920
immediate future or even five years we're looking at a 20-

1373
01:01:48,920 --> 01:01:50,039
year horizon and

1374
01:01:50,039 --> 01:01:54,170
part of this is is a two-way thing we actually feel that

1375
01:01:54,170 --> 01:01:55,679
the city needs to know

1376
01:01:55,679 --> 01:01:59,659
what the timing should be on what when some of these major

1377
01:01:59,659 --> 01:02:00,840
street improvements

1378
01:02:00,840 --> 01:02:03,690
and the capital projects go in place so we as city want to

1379
01:02:03,690 --> 01:02:04,719
know how that it's

1380
01:02:04,719 --> 01:02:08,340
going to play at the same time we want to know what part

1381
01:02:08,340 --> 01:02:10,360
development surrounding

1382
01:02:10,360 --> 01:02:14,630
that area is going to play in as far as finance as well as

1383
01:02:14,630 --> 01:02:16,119
other instruments

1384
01:02:16,119 --> 01:02:18,639
into this whole thing so that's the reason of setting

1385
01:02:18,639 --> 01:02:18,960
Commissioner Smith

1386
01:02:18,960 --> 01:02:23,059
thank you chair those larger developments and the 20-year

1387
01:02:23,059 --> 01:02:25,440
20-year

1388
01:02:25,440 --> 01:02:28,280
right you guys are doing that review for you know long-term

1389
01:02:28,280 --> 01:02:31,039
outlook what variables this is not

1390
01:02:31,039 --> 01:02:33,119
this is not anything change the criteria it's more just

1391
01:02:33,119 --> 01:02:33,920
from my own personal

1392
01:02:33,920 --> 01:02:38,389
knowledge what variables are being used to calculate what

1393
01:02:38,389 --> 01:02:40,519
of the TIA is going to show 20 years from now

1394
01:02:40,519 --> 01:02:44,280
is it just projected population growth that's put out by

1395
01:02:44,280 --> 01:02:48,320
you know so demographers what's going on here

1396
01:02:48,320 --> 01:02:52,920
so what's happening is the city of Denton has a traffic

1397
01:02:52,920 --> 01:02:58,880
model and by that I mean it is a future travel demand model

1398
01:02:58,880 --> 01:03:02,119
similar to water or wastewater predictions they have their

1399
01:03:02,119 --> 01:03:03,159
models 20

1400
01:03:03,159 --> 01:03:05,909
years into future what's going to happen traffic has

1401
01:03:05,909 --> 01:03:10,519
similar models it regionally cog has a regional model we

1402
01:03:10,519 --> 01:03:14,239
took that model we intensified we modified changed it for

1403
01:03:14,239 --> 01:03:18,079
the city so every few years every five to seven years

1404
01:03:18,079 --> 01:03:21,960
a cog comes up with new data for the rest of the region

1405
01:03:21,960 --> 01:03:25,519
based on their projections we will project based on working

1406
01:03:25,519 --> 01:03:28,719
with planning we will change our land use internally and

1407
01:03:28,719 --> 01:03:32,199
that model kit keeps on updating and we'll use that as the

1408
01:03:32,199 --> 01:03:33,079
20-year horizon

1409
01:03:33,079 --> 01:03:39,239
thank you commissioner Ellis thank you chair quick question

1410
01:03:39,239 --> 01:03:43,360
when in the development process is the TIA discussion when

1411
01:03:43,360 --> 01:03:46,679
does it start that's a good question I might have to look

1412
01:03:46,679 --> 01:03:52,599
to planning for that answer it depends

1413
01:03:54,440 --> 01:04:00,630
within the criteria manual there are some there are some

1414
01:04:00,630 --> 01:04:04,119
bulleted items you know to go and to go back to that you

1415
01:04:04,119 --> 01:04:06,079
know it's kind of brought up earlier about you know when

1416
01:04:06,079 --> 01:04:08,320
there's a rezoning can we look you know should we should we

1417
01:04:08,320 --> 01:04:12,280
be looking at this over the last couple meetings or you

1418
01:04:12,280 --> 01:04:15,469
know we have pulled some items off off the agenda

1419
01:04:15,469 --> 01:04:19,840
specifically requesting for a TIA as part of the zoning

1420
01:04:19,840 --> 01:04:23,750
when we have some with the commercial it's much harder to

1421
01:04:23,750 --> 01:04:23,960
predict

1422
01:04:24,760 --> 01:04:27,530
because you have such a variety of uses in such a different

1423
01:04:27,530 --> 01:04:30,730
trip generation rates with all the various land use

1424
01:04:30,730 --> 01:04:34,159
categories in some instances it could even be be lower I

1425
01:04:34,159 --> 01:04:37,849
guess residential it's pretty easy I mean we know if you're

1426
01:04:37,849 --> 01:04:41,570
changing the zoning particularly for a property that annex

1427
01:04:41,570 --> 01:04:44,960
ed into the city it's being assigned the RD5X they're

1428
01:04:44,960 --> 01:04:48,610
essentially able to do you know depending on the the number

1429
01:04:48,610 --> 01:04:52,250
a handful of single-family residential if you're going up

1430
01:04:52,250 --> 01:04:53,880
all of a sudden now to

1431
01:04:54,440 --> 01:04:59,440
to six units an acre and you're 900 acres,

1432
01:04:59,920 --> 01:05:03,659
we know right off the bat what your maximum's gonna be.

1433
01:05:03,659 --> 01:05:07,059
We have one, in an instant I'm gonna get into specifics

1434
01:05:07,059 --> 01:05:10,619
of it, it's 950 units, residential units.

1435
01:05:10,619 --> 01:05:13,219
We've asked them to provide us with TIA.

1436
01:05:13,219 --> 01:05:16,460
And so we're starting now on some of these large projects

1437
01:05:16,460 --> 01:05:19,900
to look at that as part of the rezoning.

1438
01:05:19,900 --> 01:05:22,699
The SUPs, when we have a specific use,

1439
01:05:22,699 --> 01:05:26,739
if it does trigger that, the 100 or 1,000,

1440
01:05:26,739 --> 01:05:29,260
then we are now asking for a TIA.

1441
01:05:29,260 --> 01:05:32,960
So when it comes in front of the commission,

1442
01:05:32,960 --> 01:05:34,780
we as staff can make a better recommendation

1443
01:05:34,780 --> 01:05:37,340
and you can make a much more informed decision.

1444
01:05:37,340 --> 01:05:39,380
- Right, so in this manual it does spell out

1445
01:05:39,380 --> 01:05:42,179
when one is needed, it just doesn't say

1446
01:05:42,179 --> 01:05:43,800
at what point one is needed.

1447
01:05:43,800 --> 01:05:48,539
So is there, are you using any kind of regular process now

1448
01:05:48,539 --> 01:05:50,739
of when you're requesting one or?

1449
01:05:50,739 --> 01:05:52,500
- We will be, very soon.

1450
01:05:52,500 --> 01:05:56,300
Right now we do PDMs, we're looking to go really

1451
01:05:56,300 --> 01:05:58,780
to more of a pre-application.

1452
01:05:58,780 --> 01:06:01,820
So at that pre-application, before you formally submit,

1453
01:06:01,820 --> 01:06:05,139
you will know that if a TIA is needed.

1454
01:06:05,139 --> 01:06:08,019
So all of a sudden you're not six months into the process

1455
01:06:08,019 --> 01:06:10,820
and then oh, by the way, we need a TIA.

1456
01:06:10,820 --> 01:06:12,780
So we wanna get to a point where everything

1457
01:06:12,780 --> 01:06:14,579
is laid out up front, so.

1458
01:06:14,579 --> 01:06:15,699
- Yeah, and that I understand.

1459
01:06:15,699 --> 01:06:18,820
So let's say, 'cause in here it even spells out

1460
01:06:18,820 --> 01:06:21,059
when one definitely is needed.

1461
01:06:21,059 --> 01:06:25,139
But is there a requirement for when it gets done,

1462
01:06:25,139 --> 01:06:26,820
by when it gets done?

1463
01:06:26,820 --> 01:06:28,340
- It would need to get, yeah,

1464
01:06:28,340 --> 01:06:30,900
prior to going to any sort of public hearing.

1465
01:06:32,139 --> 01:06:35,139
Meaning when will they submit it to the city?

1466
01:06:35,139 --> 01:06:37,179
- Yeah, 'cause it's all part of the,

1467
01:06:37,179 --> 01:06:38,739
I mean it's all part of the development process.

1468
01:06:38,739 --> 01:06:41,219
- Really it needs to come with the application.

1469
01:06:41,219 --> 01:06:42,340
- Okay.

1470
01:06:42,340 --> 01:06:43,800
- With that formal submittal.

1471
01:06:43,800 --> 01:06:45,699
- It needs to, but it doesn't necessarily.

1472
01:06:45,699 --> 01:06:46,539
- Not now. - Okay.

1473
01:06:46,539 --> 01:06:47,500
- Not now. (laughs)

1474
01:06:47,500 --> 01:06:49,480
They do take some time.

1475
01:06:51,579 --> 01:06:52,900
- Commissioner Sullivan.

1476
01:06:52,900 --> 01:06:57,900
- I'm curious if all developers have a street impact fee

1477
01:06:59,380 --> 01:07:03,460
that has to be paid, how's that determined

1478
01:07:03,460 --> 01:07:08,380
if it's not, if there's no traffic impact analysis

1479
01:07:08,380 --> 01:07:12,480
to determine how many cars are going in and out?

1480
01:07:12,480 --> 01:07:14,820
I mean, how's that impact fee determined?

1481
01:07:14,820 --> 01:07:19,019
And if there is a calculation that's involved,

1482
01:07:19,019 --> 01:07:22,300
can't you work back from the calculation to say,

1483
01:07:22,300 --> 01:07:25,739
here's what the impact to the neighborhood's gonna be?

1484
01:07:27,659 --> 01:07:31,039
- So, I'll slightly touch on it.

1485
01:07:31,039 --> 01:07:35,059
Yeah, the impact calculation does involve

1486
01:07:35,059 --> 01:07:38,139
some of the trip generation aspects

1487
01:07:38,139 --> 01:07:40,019
of how many trips are generated

1488
01:07:40,019 --> 01:07:41,519
and how many trips we'll be using

1489
01:07:41,519 --> 01:07:44,420
the overall transportation system.

1490
01:07:44,420 --> 01:07:47,659
But what happens is when we looked at the big picture,

1491
01:07:47,659 --> 01:07:50,260
the impact fee only looks at larger arterials

1492
01:07:50,260 --> 01:07:52,179
and fixing them.

1493
01:07:52,179 --> 01:07:55,099
As part of the development, when there are streets

1494
01:07:55,099 --> 01:07:58,380
and collectors next to a particular development,

1495
01:07:58,380 --> 01:08:00,780
those streets are not being looked at

1496
01:08:00,780 --> 01:08:03,219
or considered in the traffic impact fee.

1497
01:08:03,219 --> 01:08:04,739
So this is like a combination.

1498
01:08:04,739 --> 01:08:07,079
When we do the traffic impact analysis,

1499
01:08:07,079 --> 01:08:09,619
it will tell us what is being impacted

1500
01:08:09,619 --> 01:08:11,059
by that particular development.

1501
01:08:11,059 --> 01:08:16,060
So if the developer chooses to fix perimeter streets

1502
01:08:16,340 --> 01:08:21,260
or with, and does any additional offsite improvements

1503
01:08:21,260 --> 01:08:25,340
that gets credited towards the impact fee, they get credit.

1504
01:08:26,100 --> 01:08:29,380
- So what I think I heard you say was,

1505
01:08:29,380 --> 01:08:33,859
certain streets aren't impacted to the point

1506
01:08:33,859 --> 01:08:36,460
to where impact fees are assessed,

1507
01:08:36,460 --> 01:08:41,340
even though more cars are gonna be traveling on that street

1508
01:08:41,340 --> 01:08:45,880
because they're not connected to a bigger street

1509
01:08:45,880 --> 01:08:46,720
or something.

1510
01:08:46,720 --> 01:08:51,720
I'm not, I mean, it's not logical.

1511
01:08:53,140 --> 01:08:54,539
That's what I'm saying.

1512
01:08:54,539 --> 01:08:56,260
- What I'm saying is the roadway impact fee

1513
01:08:56,260 --> 01:08:59,699
was developed using a set of projects.

1514
01:08:59,699 --> 01:09:02,899
They pre-identified all the major arterials

1515
01:09:02,899 --> 01:09:05,020
and how they could be improved.

1516
01:09:05,020 --> 01:09:08,220
And we can talk about roadway impact fee ordinance

1517
01:09:08,220 --> 01:09:09,739
and the way it was set up.

1518
01:09:09,739 --> 01:09:14,539
So the projects that are already outlined

1519
01:09:14,539 --> 01:09:16,420
in that particular ordinance,

1520
01:09:16,420 --> 01:09:19,739
what project the impact fee will be allocated.

1521
01:09:19,739 --> 01:09:22,420
There are five different areas that were identified,

1522
01:09:22,420 --> 01:09:25,100
A through E, and each area got allocated

1523
01:09:25,100 --> 01:09:26,720
different types of projects.

1524
01:09:26,720 --> 01:09:29,100
So the projects have already been identified

1525
01:09:29,100 --> 01:09:32,659
for the impact fee to be used towards those projects.

1526
01:09:32,659 --> 01:09:35,100
So if you're a little small subdivision,

1527
01:09:35,100 --> 01:09:38,560
that has a small road, that roadway is not being considered

1528
01:09:38,560 --> 01:09:42,079
in the impact fee, that's not under project

1529
01:09:42,079 --> 01:09:43,180
under the impact fee.

1530
01:09:43,979 --> 01:09:48,060
- So the impact fee doesn't apply to that street?

1531
01:09:48,060 --> 01:09:49,899
- It does apply to the project.

1532
01:09:49,899 --> 01:09:53,420
- Is money being collected based on that street,

1533
01:09:53,420 --> 01:09:55,640
but it's not being used for that street?

1534
01:09:57,000 --> 01:09:58,659
- It's a balancing act.

1535
01:09:58,659 --> 01:10:02,420
It's being used towards that street,

1536
01:10:02,420 --> 01:10:04,659
but there are also other needs that come

1537
01:10:04,659 --> 01:10:07,579
before that street is required to be widened.

1538
01:10:07,579 --> 01:10:09,920
Say for example, looking at a larger street,

1539
01:10:09,920 --> 01:10:12,079
if the need is immediately improving

1540
01:10:12,079 --> 01:10:14,699
the transportation network within the area

1541
01:10:14,699 --> 01:10:17,739
where the project is, then we apply the fees to that

1542
01:10:17,739 --> 01:10:21,260
to improve that and then we'll come up

1543
01:10:21,260 --> 01:10:23,180
with a capital project that--

1544
01:10:23,180 --> 01:10:26,819
- So fees collected on a small street could be used

1545
01:10:26,819 --> 01:10:28,939
on the south side of town, could be used

1546
01:10:28,939 --> 01:10:29,779
on the north side of town.

1547
01:10:29,779 --> 01:10:31,399
- That's why they have five areas.

1548
01:10:31,399 --> 01:10:32,819
So they are divided into different--

1549
01:10:32,819 --> 01:10:37,100
- Okay, in area one, fees are collected

1550
01:10:37,100 --> 01:10:39,420
because of the new development,

1551
01:10:39,420 --> 01:10:43,220
but streets in zone five are being improved

1552
01:10:43,220 --> 01:10:45,140
with the money collected from zone one.

1553
01:10:45,140 --> 01:10:47,939
- No, you can only use them within the same zone.

1554
01:10:47,939 --> 01:10:50,140
- Okay, all right, that's fine.

1555
01:10:50,140 --> 01:10:52,420
That's what I was confused about.

1556
01:10:52,420 --> 01:10:53,340
- Commissioner Beck.

1557
01:10:53,340 --> 01:10:54,960
- Thank you, Chair.

1558
01:10:54,960 --> 01:10:56,739
In that handout we got last week,

1559
01:10:56,739 --> 01:11:00,819
it states that TIA is required if a development will,

1560
01:11:00,819 --> 01:11:04,420
one, generate equal to or more than 100 peak hour trips,

1561
01:11:04,420 --> 01:11:08,579
two, generate equal to or more than 1,000

1562
01:11:08,579 --> 01:11:11,020
vehicle trips per day, and three,

1563
01:11:11,020 --> 01:11:14,420
project the area to be developed,

1564
01:11:14,420 --> 01:11:16,699
the area projected to be developed is equal to

1565
01:11:16,699 --> 01:11:18,460
or more than 100 acres.

1566
01:11:18,460 --> 01:11:21,220
Here's my question, and this kind of revolves around

1567
01:11:21,220 --> 01:11:23,899
what we were dealing with on Ryan Road last week,

1568
01:11:23,899 --> 01:11:26,739
or last time, where you've got more than one development

1569
01:11:26,739 --> 01:11:27,800
that's gone on there.

1570
01:11:28,819 --> 01:11:30,659
Is this required of each development,

1571
01:11:30,659 --> 01:11:34,840
or is there a cumulative rate if each development impacts

1572
01:11:34,840 --> 01:11:36,779
the same stretch of road?

1573
01:11:36,779 --> 01:11:39,060
We brought up the fact that we had four different

1574
01:11:39,060 --> 01:11:40,460
developments going on on Ryan Road,

1575
01:11:40,460 --> 01:11:43,619
but if you're just doing a TIA for the individual

1576
01:11:43,619 --> 01:11:45,939
development at the time, we're not really looking

1577
01:11:45,939 --> 01:11:48,420
at the bigger picture because all those developments

1578
01:11:48,420 --> 01:11:51,460
are gonna impact that particular stretch of road.

1579
01:11:51,460 --> 01:11:52,720
Does that make sense?

1580
01:11:52,720 --> 01:11:53,699
- It makes sense. - Okay.

1581
01:11:53,699 --> 01:11:57,420
- To answer your question, it's a two-part answer.

1582
01:11:57,420 --> 01:12:00,140
The first part, the TIA looks at the overall impact,

1583
01:12:00,140 --> 01:12:02,079
so it identifies the impact.

1584
01:12:02,079 --> 01:12:05,899
The roadway impact fee is collected irrespective

1585
01:12:05,899 --> 01:12:10,220
of what is happening to the perimeter street.

1586
01:12:10,220 --> 01:12:13,500
So the impact fee is collected for that particular zone,

1587
01:12:13,500 --> 01:12:15,340
and at that time, they reassess,

1588
01:12:15,340 --> 01:12:18,100
and if Ryan Road is an important street

1589
01:12:18,100 --> 01:12:20,859
that needs to be updated, it will move up the list

1590
01:12:20,859 --> 01:12:22,420
of the capital projects.

1591
01:12:22,420 --> 01:12:24,899
Typically, when developments go in,

1592
01:12:24,899 --> 01:12:27,899
they don't dedicate the entire sum that's required

1593
01:12:27,899 --> 01:12:29,739
to develop that particular roadway,

1594
01:12:29,739 --> 01:12:31,899
so then we have to come up with more funds

1595
01:12:31,899 --> 01:12:34,100
to subsidize if we go move forward

1596
01:12:34,100 --> 01:12:35,300
with that particular project.

1597
01:12:35,300 --> 01:12:38,460
But funds are collected for impacts

1598
01:12:38,460 --> 01:12:41,340
to the transportation network by those developers.

1599
01:12:45,779 --> 01:12:46,819
- Commissioner Smith.

1600
01:12:47,899 --> 01:12:49,739
Do we have a follow-up?

1601
01:12:49,739 --> 01:12:51,020
Commissioner Beck, let me--

1602
01:12:51,020 --> 01:12:51,859
- That's okay.

1603
01:12:51,859 --> 01:12:52,680
- You're sitting over there--

1604
01:12:52,680 --> 01:12:57,680
- Just so I'm clear, then there is a cumulative effect?

1605
01:12:57,859 --> 01:12:58,939
That is what you're saying?

1606
01:12:58,939 --> 01:12:59,899
- Yes. - Okay.

1607
01:12:59,899 --> 01:13:01,000
- Right, thank you.

1608
01:13:02,739 --> 01:13:04,420
- Commissioner Sanchez.

1609
01:13:04,420 --> 01:13:07,060
I know this is pretty complicated stuff,

1610
01:13:07,060 --> 01:13:10,659
and I know we can't talk to the public.

1611
01:13:10,659 --> 01:13:12,460
You can't get into this whole thing,

1612
01:13:12,460 --> 01:13:15,300
but is there something you all can do,

1613
01:13:15,300 --> 01:13:18,539
because that's a big issue we get every two weeks.

1614
01:13:18,539 --> 01:13:21,539
There's people complaining about the analysis

1615
01:13:21,539 --> 01:13:24,060
and the traffic and stuff.

1616
01:13:24,060 --> 01:13:27,060
Is there any kind of presentation that you all can do

1617
01:13:28,579 --> 01:13:32,260
to explain to people, because we don't know,

1618
01:13:32,260 --> 01:13:35,699
is explain to people this road is gonna be,

1619
01:13:35,699 --> 01:13:37,779
that's all they wanna know.

1620
01:13:37,779 --> 01:13:41,060
Is this road gonna be fixed within so many years?

1621
01:13:41,060 --> 01:13:42,819
I think that's something we owe the public,

1622
01:13:42,819 --> 01:13:44,420
especially when they come up here.

1623
01:13:44,420 --> 01:13:45,939
They wanna know about the road.

1624
01:13:45,939 --> 01:13:48,619
It's gonna impact, you're gonna put these many houses,

1625
01:13:48,619 --> 01:13:50,100
traffic is gonna be jammed.

1626
01:13:50,100 --> 01:13:51,260
That's what they care about.

1627
01:13:51,260 --> 01:13:53,659
And I think this is where we have to be involved,

1628
01:13:53,659 --> 01:13:55,319
or you all have to be involved,

1629
01:13:55,319 --> 01:13:58,140
is spend some time at these meetings

1630
01:13:58,140 --> 01:14:01,100
and talk to them about the traffic.

1631
01:14:01,100 --> 01:14:03,500
Is it gonna be repaired in five years, 10 years,

1632
01:14:03,500 --> 01:14:06,199
or whatever, because that's, I think,

1633
01:14:06,199 --> 01:14:09,340
the biggest gist of what we get every two weeks.

1634
01:14:09,340 --> 01:14:11,939
- To answer your question, this is where,

1635
01:14:11,939 --> 01:14:13,420
and we've noticed the same thing,

1636
01:14:13,420 --> 01:14:16,420
and the current transportation criteria manual

1637
01:14:16,420 --> 01:14:19,279
does not lend itself towards that,

1638
01:14:19,279 --> 01:14:20,699
and we're trying to fix it.

1639
01:14:20,699 --> 01:14:23,579
So when the developments go in,

1640
01:14:23,579 --> 01:14:26,979
currently we do not know what the impacts are

1641
01:14:26,979 --> 01:14:28,979
10 years, 20 years in the future

1642
01:14:28,979 --> 01:14:30,220
for that particular roadway,

1643
01:14:30,220 --> 01:14:32,819
or when that roadway would be fixed.

1644
01:14:32,819 --> 01:14:35,380
With this type of analysis, we'll find out,

1645
01:14:35,380 --> 01:14:38,300
say 20 years from now, in 10 years,

1646
01:14:38,300 --> 01:14:39,460
this road needs to be fixed,

1647
01:14:39,460 --> 01:14:43,260
because it'll be to its capacity, it'll be congested,

1648
01:14:43,260 --> 01:14:45,539
and at 10 year mark, we need to be ready

1649
01:14:45,539 --> 01:14:48,020
with all the funds to fund this project.

1650
01:14:48,020 --> 01:14:50,100
So that's the missing piece that's missing

1651
01:14:50,100 --> 01:14:51,979
in the current code, and we're trying,

1652
01:14:51,979 --> 01:14:53,380
or in the current criteria manual,

1653
01:14:53,380 --> 01:14:57,420
and we're trying to, as projects move forward,

1654
01:14:57,420 --> 01:15:01,220
make each project pay and understand and assess

1655
01:15:01,220 --> 01:15:04,840
when their project will trigger those improvements.

1656
01:15:07,100 --> 01:15:09,760
- I guess my only question, again, going back,

1657
01:15:09,760 --> 01:15:12,279
is being able to talk to the public,

1658
01:15:12,279 --> 01:15:16,380
and at least make them feel, when they leave the meeting,

1659
01:15:16,380 --> 01:15:19,300
that they feel comfortable, rather than frustrated.

1660
01:15:19,300 --> 01:15:21,800
We came and left with nothing.

1661
01:15:21,800 --> 01:15:24,060
That's all I want, is somebody talk to them a little bit.

1662
01:15:24,060 --> 01:15:27,640
This is how we do it, and--

1663
01:15:27,640 --> 01:15:30,899
- Yeah, we can definitely do that.

1664
01:15:32,260 --> 01:15:33,100
- Commissioner Smith.

1665
01:15:33,100 --> 01:15:33,920
- Thank you, Chair.

1666
01:15:33,920 --> 01:15:36,380
I think what Commissioner Beck was mentioning earlier

1667
01:15:36,380 --> 01:15:41,380
was the fear of having a numerous development

1668
01:15:42,739 --> 01:15:45,420
that are being developed on the exact same road,

1669
01:15:45,420 --> 01:15:48,500
all happening in some sort of concurrent time,

1670
01:15:48,500 --> 01:15:52,619
that not, you know, if there's one development being done,

1671
01:15:52,619 --> 01:15:54,460
and it doesn't meet that hundred,

1672
01:15:54,460 --> 01:15:57,140
or it doesn't meet that thousand trip limit,

1673
01:15:57,140 --> 01:15:58,619
it not triggering.

1674
01:15:58,619 --> 01:15:59,939
Not triggering for that one,

1675
01:15:59,939 --> 01:16:01,899
and then maybe it doesn't trigger for the next development,

1676
01:16:01,899 --> 01:16:04,060
and then the third development doesn't trigger.

1677
01:16:04,060 --> 01:16:07,380
So the fear that I have, and what I wanna know is,

1678
01:16:07,380 --> 01:16:11,220
at what point in time do we, as a commission,

1679
01:16:11,220 --> 01:16:13,739
does council approve development,

1680
01:16:13,739 --> 01:16:16,220
and whether it's the final plotting and everything else,

1681
01:16:16,220 --> 01:16:17,779
and the city's giving the okay,

1682
01:16:17,779 --> 01:16:20,060
at what point in time does, even though it's not built,

1683
01:16:20,060 --> 01:16:22,899
even though there's not houses there yet,

1684
01:16:22,899 --> 01:16:26,460
but it's approved, at what time does that consideration,

1685
01:16:26,460 --> 01:16:28,899
is that being taken into the TIA?

1686
01:16:28,899 --> 01:16:30,260
Does that question make sense?

1687
01:16:30,260 --> 01:16:33,380
- Yeah, I mean, that consideration will be taken

1688
01:16:33,380 --> 01:16:34,899
into the new TIAs.

1689
01:16:34,899 --> 01:16:37,260
It will project traffic in the future.

1690
01:16:37,260 --> 01:16:39,260
- Even though it develops not there, it'll take it into--

1691
01:16:39,260 --> 01:16:42,220
- It'll take, so it will be a cumulative effect.

1692
01:16:42,220 --> 01:16:43,859
We talked about the traffic model.

1693
01:16:43,859 --> 01:16:46,500
Traffic model will update that information and say,

1694
01:16:46,500 --> 01:16:49,699
this area or this particular parcel has been approved,

1695
01:16:49,699 --> 01:16:52,180
or plotted for 100 units.

1696
01:16:52,180 --> 01:16:53,899
That will already be in the system

1697
01:16:53,899 --> 01:16:55,180
before the next one goes in.

1698
01:16:55,180 --> 01:16:56,739
- Perfect, awesome, thank you.

1699
01:16:58,100 --> 01:17:00,460
- Well, I'm gonna chime in, 'cause I know I've had

1700
01:17:00,460 --> 01:17:04,859
on the matrix for quite some time to have this discussion,

1701
01:17:04,859 --> 01:17:07,819
and to actually, to Commissioner Sanchez's point,

1702
01:17:07,819 --> 01:17:11,779
to go beyond the actual criteria manual,

1703
01:17:11,779 --> 01:17:14,619
and actually get into whose responsibility it is

1704
01:17:14,619 --> 01:17:16,060
to do these things.

1705
01:17:16,060 --> 01:17:19,979
I think, from my perspective, being in the development

1706
01:17:19,979 --> 01:17:22,939
business, a lot of things get skipped over

1707
01:17:22,939 --> 01:17:26,579
as to what a developer does and provides,

1708
01:17:26,579 --> 01:17:29,739
versus what's not being taken care of.

1709
01:17:29,739 --> 01:17:33,659
The developer, just for the sake of the commission

1710
01:17:33,659 --> 01:17:36,899
and for the discussion, puts in all the streets,

1711
01:17:36,899 --> 01:17:39,539
all the utilities at their expense,

1712
01:17:39,539 --> 01:17:42,100
and then at the end of the development,

1713
01:17:42,100 --> 01:17:44,939
and the final acceptance, gives it to the city,

1714
01:17:44,939 --> 01:17:48,340
and now the city takes and owns those utilities

1715
01:17:48,340 --> 01:17:51,260
and those streets that are put into the city standards.

1716
01:17:51,260 --> 01:17:54,460
So they've paid for, sometimes, millions of dollars

1717
01:17:54,460 --> 01:17:57,260
of improvements on their particular property,

1718
01:17:57,260 --> 01:18:00,020
and then we have people that come before us

1719
01:18:00,020 --> 01:18:01,739
in this commission wanting to know

1720
01:18:01,739 --> 01:18:03,140
what the developer's gonna pay for,

1721
01:18:03,140 --> 01:18:06,300
for the street out that's up front or down the street,

1722
01:18:06,300 --> 01:18:08,899
and they've already done millions of dollars, possibly,

1723
01:18:08,899 --> 01:18:11,460
of improvements on their piece of property,

1724
01:18:11,460 --> 01:18:14,020
and then paying, since we're talking about houses,

1725
01:18:14,020 --> 01:18:16,979
a $2,000 per house traffic impact fee

1726
01:18:16,979 --> 01:18:20,180
that goes into the fund to be spent in the area

1727
01:18:20,180 --> 01:18:22,659
that their subdivision or development is

1728
01:18:22,659 --> 01:18:26,899
to pay for roads outside of their property to be improved.

1729
01:18:26,899 --> 01:18:30,020
Am I stating that correctly, how the process works

1730
01:18:30,020 --> 01:18:31,899
for everybody here?

1731
01:18:31,899 --> 01:18:34,899
- So it's a yes and no.

1732
01:18:34,899 --> 01:18:36,420
- Okay, correct, please.

1733
01:18:36,420 --> 01:18:38,939
- There is something called a perimeter street improvement

1734
01:18:38,939 --> 01:18:41,619
that is directly next to the development,

1735
01:18:41,619 --> 01:18:44,779
so that would provide direct access to developments

1736
01:18:44,779 --> 01:18:47,659
in the immediate vicinity of the development.

1737
01:18:47,659 --> 01:18:50,859
Everything should be updated and upgraded,

1738
01:18:50,859 --> 01:18:55,420
and that will count towards your traffic impact credit.

1739
01:18:55,420 --> 01:18:58,100
And yes, the remaining part of money that's remaining

1740
01:18:58,100 --> 01:19:01,100
will update whatever's feeding the major streets

1741
01:19:01,100 --> 01:19:03,380
into the development, so yes and no.

1742
01:19:03,380 --> 01:19:05,260
- Yeah, I skipped a little extra piece

1743
01:19:05,260 --> 01:19:07,180
about the perimeter street paving,

1744
01:19:07,180 --> 01:19:11,060
but yes, I understand that principle as well.

1745
01:19:11,060 --> 01:19:13,380
I was assuming if there aren't any perimeter street

1746
01:19:13,380 --> 01:19:15,260
improvements that are required,

1747
01:19:15,260 --> 01:19:17,300
they pay the $2,000 to the city.

1748
01:19:17,300 --> 01:19:19,979
The city decides whether they take the money

1749
01:19:19,979 --> 01:19:22,180
and spend it somewhere else in the zone,

1750
01:19:22,180 --> 01:19:24,659
or in lieu of taking the $2,000

1751
01:19:24,659 --> 01:19:27,659
requiring the developer to make those

1752
01:19:27,659 --> 01:19:30,060
perimeter street improvements right there

1753
01:19:30,060 --> 01:19:32,420
alongside their property before they accept the

1754
01:19:32,420 --> 01:19:33,539
improvements.

1755
01:19:33,539 --> 01:19:35,460
- Right, I think the thing is,

1756
01:19:36,539 --> 01:19:38,500
the city, when they're looking at this money,

1757
01:19:38,500 --> 01:19:39,819
we're looking at a big picture.

1758
01:19:39,819 --> 01:19:42,659
We're looking at what these streets are feeding into,

1759
01:19:42,659 --> 01:19:45,579
what are the major routes, where congestion is.

1760
01:19:45,579 --> 01:19:47,619
So the way the capital projects are planned

1761
01:19:47,619 --> 01:19:51,779
in a particular zone is the area of maximum congestion

1762
01:19:51,779 --> 01:19:55,100
gets the first look, and then move on so on and so forth,

1763
01:19:55,100 --> 01:19:58,420
until it gets to a point where you're not actually

1764
01:19:58,420 --> 01:20:01,460
seeing development go up to the congestion,

1765
01:20:01,460 --> 01:20:04,180
not the congestion level, but the capacity level,

1766
01:20:04,180 --> 01:20:06,779
then those streets don't get pulled in

1767
01:20:06,779 --> 01:20:08,220
or rank higher and higher.

1768
01:20:08,220 --> 01:20:13,020
So yes, it's a process, and yeah,

1769
01:20:13,020 --> 01:20:15,420
the fund is flexible to move around

1770
01:20:15,420 --> 01:20:17,859
within a particular zone, not between zones.

1771
01:20:17,859 --> 01:20:19,220
- Commissioner Sullivan.

1772
01:20:19,220 --> 01:20:20,060
- Thank you.

1773
01:20:20,060 --> 01:20:23,720
Here, for example, Ryan Road, we talked about two weeks ago

1774
01:20:23,720 --> 01:20:23,939
.

1775
01:20:25,260 --> 01:20:27,380
The new development, I don't know what the other ones

1776
01:20:27,380 --> 01:20:29,340
have paid, the new development's gonna be paying

1777
01:20:29,340 --> 01:20:32,140
a million dollars into the street impact fee.

1778
01:20:33,739 --> 01:20:36,539
We don't know where that's gonna be spent on Ryan Road.

1779
01:20:36,539 --> 01:20:39,619
Meanwhile, all the streets of Thistle Hill,

1780
01:20:39,619 --> 01:20:42,420
all the streets of Ryan Ranch that have been there

1781
01:20:42,420 --> 01:20:46,460
for 10 years or so, got brand new asphalt

1782
01:20:46,460 --> 01:20:48,319
in the last year and a half.

1783
01:20:48,319 --> 01:20:52,420
Meanwhile, Ryan Road is still the two-lane,

1784
01:20:52,420 --> 01:20:56,739
bumpy, dangerous street that it has been

1785
01:20:56,739 --> 01:20:58,739
for the last 10 years.

1786
01:20:58,739 --> 01:21:03,739
Now, am I to believe that there is a plan 20 years from now

1787
01:21:05,340 --> 01:21:10,340
to sign the Ryan Road in 10, 15, 20 years

1788
01:21:11,060 --> 01:21:13,859
after all the development's been put up

1789
01:21:13,859 --> 01:21:18,220
and after it becomes potholes all along up and down

1790
01:21:18,220 --> 01:21:22,300
the street, finally, some subdivision that goes in

1791
01:21:22,300 --> 01:21:25,939
north or south of the area is gonna then be paying

1792
01:21:25,939 --> 01:21:27,000
for Ryan Road?

1793
01:21:28,300 --> 01:21:29,979
- No, that's not the answer.

1794
01:21:29,979 --> 01:21:31,020
- Okay.

1795
01:21:31,020 --> 01:21:34,460
- So what will happen is the roadway impact fee

1796
01:21:34,460 --> 01:21:37,460
is collected from all the developers that went in.

1797
01:21:37,460 --> 01:21:40,020
Now, what happens is the city goes in and assesses

1798
01:21:40,020 --> 01:21:43,060
is Ryan Road at capacity, which it's pretty close

1799
01:21:43,060 --> 01:21:47,060
to getting there, then we use that as planning

1800
01:21:47,060 --> 01:21:49,420
for our next big capital project.

1801
01:21:49,420 --> 01:21:51,979
And obviously, the funds that are collected

1802
01:21:51,979 --> 01:21:54,859
from all these developers are not enough

1803
01:21:54,859 --> 01:21:56,699
to fix Ryan Road from one end to the other.

1804
01:21:56,699 --> 01:22:00,659
From 2181 to 1830, it's not possible to do the whole road

1805
01:22:00,659 --> 01:22:02,560
with just the impact fees.

1806
01:22:02,560 --> 01:22:05,220
So what happens is then the city decides

1807
01:22:05,220 --> 01:22:06,939
that this is a big capital project,

1808
01:22:06,939 --> 01:22:10,659
we go for other funds to balance what we got

1809
01:22:10,659 --> 01:22:12,220
from the developer and fix the road.

1810
01:22:12,220 --> 01:22:14,420
So we've identified other streets.

1811
01:22:14,420 --> 01:22:18,079
Hickory Creek is under construction soon.

1812
01:22:18,079 --> 01:22:20,000
I don't know, maybe Chad can elaborate.

1813
01:22:20,000 --> 01:22:21,859
But we have identified some of these projects

1814
01:22:21,859 --> 01:22:22,979
that are going in.

1815
01:22:22,979 --> 01:22:24,819
And yes, Ryan Road is on the list.

1816
01:22:24,819 --> 01:22:29,319
We'll definitely look at it in our next round for the bond.

1817
01:22:32,460 --> 01:22:35,579
- I'm gonna change subjects and bring up something else.

1818
01:22:35,579 --> 01:22:37,460
- I have some more slides if we can.

1819
01:22:37,460 --> 01:22:38,300
- You do?

1820
01:22:38,300 --> 01:22:40,260
Okay, I thought you were done.

1821
01:22:40,260 --> 01:22:43,060
You continue and then I'll ask this question at the end

1822
01:22:43,060 --> 01:22:44,460
if you don't address it.

1823
01:22:44,460 --> 01:22:45,300
- All right.

1824
01:22:46,279 --> 01:22:48,439
So that's the last slide, by the way.

1825
01:22:49,539 --> 01:22:51,939
We've just simplified the criteria manual.

1826
01:22:51,939 --> 01:22:55,220
We've reduced the number of pages, reduced the confusion.

1827
01:22:55,220 --> 01:22:58,100
We added some missing information.

1828
01:22:58,100 --> 01:23:00,460
And then we've removed redundant information.

1829
01:23:00,460 --> 01:23:03,300
There was information that was in multiple locations,

1830
01:23:03,300 --> 01:23:04,899
standard plans and stuff like that.

1831
01:23:04,899 --> 01:23:06,380
So we've removed that.

1832
01:23:06,380 --> 01:23:09,220
So that's the end.

1833
01:23:09,220 --> 01:23:11,500
And this is my recommendation.

1834
01:23:11,500 --> 01:23:13,180
- Commissioner Ellis.

1835
01:23:13,180 --> 01:23:14,420
- Thank you, Chair.

1836
01:23:14,420 --> 01:23:17,060
Just a question on the removal of appendix B.

1837
01:23:17,060 --> 01:23:19,079
Did that kind of go away altogether

1838
01:23:19,079 --> 01:23:21,340
or was that somehow incorporated?

1839
01:23:21,340 --> 01:23:25,119
I didn't quite notice how that fit into the new manual.

1840
01:23:25,119 --> 01:23:28,220
- So the downtown plan is actually,

1841
01:23:28,220 --> 01:23:30,939
those are suggestions by, and maybe planning

1842
01:23:30,939 --> 01:23:32,340
can help me answer that question,

1843
01:23:32,340 --> 01:23:35,380
but the plan was a planning level document

1844
01:23:35,380 --> 01:23:39,020
and suggestions of how context sensitive

1845
01:23:39,020 --> 01:23:40,420
design could be implemented.

1846
01:23:40,420 --> 01:23:43,020
But what we did is we actually took the concept

1847
01:23:43,020 --> 01:23:45,979
and we've implemented in our actual design process.

1848
01:23:45,979 --> 01:23:49,020
So we don't need to have those particular cross sections

1849
01:23:49,020 --> 01:23:51,699
in place because we were much more flexible upfront.

1850
01:23:51,699 --> 01:23:53,739
We've completely removed them.

1851
01:23:53,739 --> 01:23:54,699
It becomes confusing.

1852
01:23:58,020 --> 01:23:59,380
- Commissioner Beck.

1853
01:23:59,380 --> 01:24:02,500
- I have a real easy softball question for you.

1854
01:24:02,500 --> 01:24:04,220
Just a general question here.

1855
01:24:04,220 --> 01:24:08,939
Are all residential streets bike friendly,

1856
01:24:08,939 --> 01:24:11,539
were they're equal to cars or not?

1857
01:24:11,539 --> 01:24:14,899
Or does it have to be a certain collector street to be?

1858
01:24:14,899 --> 01:24:18,619
'Cause unless it's marked, it's not clear whether bikes

1859
01:24:18,619 --> 01:24:22,500
have the same equal standing as an automobile.

1860
01:24:22,500 --> 01:24:25,359
- Per law, bikes have the equal right to drive

1861
01:24:25,359 --> 01:24:26,859
in the middle of a residential street.

1862
01:24:26,859 --> 01:24:31,859
- Yes, and use the driving lane as a full lane.

1863
01:24:32,699 --> 01:24:34,420
- Okay, thank you.

1864
01:24:38,060 --> 01:24:39,500
- I'll ask my question again.

1865
01:24:41,020 --> 01:24:46,020
As we continue to increase the standards for our streets,

1866
01:24:46,180 --> 01:24:51,180
is there a place where we cross good stewardship of money

1867
01:24:51,239 --> 01:24:52,779
of what's underneath the street?

1868
01:24:52,779 --> 01:24:57,779
So the pipe, sewer, water, storm has a 30 year life,

1869
01:24:58,779 --> 01:25:03,340
and yet we're continuing to make going from six inch

1870
01:25:03,340 --> 01:25:07,899
subgrade, seven inch, eight inch, continuing to build

1871
01:25:07,899 --> 01:25:08,340
longer

1872
01:25:08,659 --> 01:25:13,060
and more expensive roads, life, to try to increase

1873
01:25:13,060 --> 01:25:16,579
the lifespan of them, but what's underneath them doesn't.

1874
01:25:16,579 --> 01:25:18,680
And then we're spending and not being good stewards

1875
01:25:18,680 --> 01:25:20,500
of the money that we have, we're putting a road in

1876
01:25:20,500 --> 01:25:22,899
and we're gonna have to come cut it up and tear it up

1877
01:25:22,899 --> 01:25:25,140
to repair the piping underneath it.

1878
01:25:25,140 --> 01:25:27,500
- Just to clarify for everyone, you're talking about

1879
01:25:27,500 --> 01:25:30,739
the cross section, how deep the road is and the thickness

1880
01:25:30,739 --> 01:25:31,539
is.

1881
01:25:31,539 --> 01:25:34,539
Yeah, we have, and this is a new thing that we're trying

1882
01:25:34,539 --> 01:25:36,979
to do, is we've introduced some kind of flexibility

1883
01:25:36,979 --> 01:25:39,300
and it's in different, it's in the standard plans,

1884
01:25:39,300 --> 01:25:44,300
but what is happening is if there is, if the developer

1885
01:25:44,579 --> 01:25:48,439
feels or his engineer feels that there can be a smaller

1886
01:25:48,439 --> 01:25:52,380
section, it depends on the soil conditions.

1887
01:25:52,380 --> 01:25:55,859
So if a geotechnical report is presented to the city

1888
01:25:55,859 --> 01:25:58,979
that outlines under these soil conditions,

1889
01:25:58,979 --> 01:26:00,920
you don't need this pavement thickness,

1890
01:26:00,920 --> 01:26:02,779
if we go with a smaller pavement thickness,

1891
01:26:02,779 --> 01:26:04,460
it'll still sustain it.

1892
01:26:04,460 --> 01:26:07,439
So there are certain options that are being added

1893
01:26:07,439 --> 01:26:10,460
and that's where the flexibility comes into play.

1894
01:26:10,460 --> 01:26:15,460
And I'm not the person really to talk to, but if anyone,

1895
01:26:16,260 --> 01:26:19,300
I think the city engineer can help with that.

1896
01:26:19,300 --> 01:26:21,659
- But it's the developer's responsibility to do that

1897
01:26:21,659 --> 01:26:26,060
rather than city coming and saying in this particular area

1898
01:26:26,060 --> 01:26:29,819
instead of requiring eight inch subgrade, eight inch paving

1899
01:26:29,819 --> 01:26:29,899
,

1900
01:26:30,779 --> 01:26:33,899
everything else is six and six and was put in 20 years ago

1901
01:26:33,899 --> 01:26:35,420
and that's good enough.

1902
01:26:35,420 --> 01:26:37,859
It's a developer's responsibility to do that.

1903
01:26:38,979 --> 01:26:42,100
- Correct, it is the developer's responsibility to put in,

1904
01:26:42,100 --> 01:26:45,619
to do the geotechnical study, but the way the city looks

1905
01:26:45,619 --> 01:26:48,829
at it, there are different regions with different soil

1906
01:26:48,829 --> 01:26:48,979
forms

1907
01:26:48,979 --> 01:26:52,300
and it's really hard for us to have 15 different sections.

1908
01:26:52,300 --> 01:26:54,659
So we'd come up with the conservative section

1909
01:26:54,659 --> 01:26:58,140
and if the engineers feel that there's a soil

1910
01:26:58,140 --> 01:27:01,859
that can sustain the smaller section, we're open to that.

1911
01:27:01,859 --> 01:27:02,699
- Okay.

1912
01:27:04,479 --> 01:27:05,979
Sure, please come up to the mic.

1913
01:27:09,739 --> 01:27:12,260
- I'm Ron Harris with Tignall and Perkins.

1914
01:27:12,260 --> 01:27:16,300
To answer that question, actually the utilities

1915
01:27:16,300 --> 01:27:19,020
are about the same design life.

1916
01:27:20,060 --> 01:27:23,460
A water sewer is gonna last between 20 and 40 years

1917
01:27:23,460 --> 01:27:27,340
if you look in the criteria manual.

1918
01:27:27,340 --> 01:27:31,619
The asphalt sections are designed for 20 years,

1919
01:27:31,619 --> 01:27:34,340
the concrete sections are designed for 40 years.

1920
01:27:34,340 --> 01:27:36,899
So they're pretty comparable.

1921
01:27:37,859 --> 01:27:39,199
- Okay, great, thank you.

1922
01:27:42,020 --> 01:27:45,220
So finally, the slide, we recommend approval

1923
01:27:45,220 --> 01:27:48,539
of the updated criteria manuals, both the stormwater design

1924
01:27:48,539 --> 01:27:49,520
and transportation.

1925
01:27:53,060 --> 01:27:56,539
- So we'll go to public comment now for the next 30 days

1926
01:27:56,539 --> 01:27:59,420
and then this will come back for recommendation to us

1927
01:27:59,420 --> 01:28:02,619
or does it move on to city council just so we understand

1928
01:28:02,619 --> 01:28:03,460
the process? - I think the public

1929
01:28:03,460 --> 01:28:04,819
comment period started January 3rd

1930
01:28:04,819 --> 01:28:06,460
and we're currently in it.

1931
01:28:06,460 --> 01:28:10,100
We will have some developer meetings and outreach

1932
01:28:10,100 --> 01:28:12,579
with the developers to get their feedbacks

1933
01:28:12,579 --> 01:28:15,619
and then after that, we'll come back.

1934
01:28:15,619 --> 01:28:17,859
- And then we'll make recommendation to council?

1935
01:28:17,859 --> 01:28:19,979
- Yes. - Okay, great.

1936
01:28:19,979 --> 01:28:20,819
- Correct, Ted?

1937
01:28:26,020 --> 01:28:28,779
- Just process, just kind of for everybody.

1938
01:28:28,779 --> 01:28:30,819
- I'm sorry, I'm looking at the remaining steps

1939
01:28:30,819 --> 01:28:32,819
and I don't see it coming back to PNZ again.

1940
01:28:32,819 --> 01:28:34,520
I'm not sure if that's true or not

1941
01:28:34,520 --> 01:28:36,859
so I can definitely look into that.

1942
01:28:36,859 --> 01:28:39,899
- If I recall from previous presentations,

1943
01:28:39,899 --> 01:28:42,060
if there are changes or comments that may come back

1944
01:28:42,060 --> 01:28:44,460
and if there aren't, then I think it may be it moves on.

1945
01:28:44,460 --> 01:28:45,699
- Okay, that makes sense.

1946
01:28:45,699 --> 01:28:48,859
- I think that's what we did when we had it for utilities,

1947
01:28:48,859 --> 01:28:50,220
I think, possibly.

1948
01:28:50,220 --> 01:28:52,899
- Okay. - Anyway, okay.

1949
01:28:52,899 --> 01:28:55,220
Any other questions for staff on these,

1950
01:28:55,220 --> 01:28:56,659
either one of these two items?

1951
01:28:58,819 --> 01:28:59,880
Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair.

1952
01:28:59,880 --> 01:29:01,939
Just real quick, any of our comments today,

1953
01:29:01,939 --> 01:29:04,460
do you need us to email them separately to you

1954
01:29:04,460 --> 01:29:08,779
or with whatever we discussed at this work session?

1955
01:29:08,779 --> 01:29:10,539
Do you need that in a separate email

1956
01:29:10,539 --> 01:29:12,600
or does the meeting suffice?

1957
01:29:12,600 --> 01:29:13,539
- The meeting is good.

1958
01:29:13,539 --> 01:29:15,380
We've taken notes, we understand what comments

1959
01:29:15,380 --> 01:29:16,739
were made during this meeting.

1960
01:29:16,739 --> 01:29:18,859
If you have any additional comments afterward,

1961
01:29:18,859 --> 01:29:21,819
we would be happy to have those in an email format.

1962
01:29:21,819 --> 01:29:24,220
You can contact me, Chad Allen,

1963
01:29:24,220 --> 01:29:27,220
but yes, we've received your comments today

1964
01:29:27,220 --> 01:29:28,420
that you've given us at this meeting.

1965
01:29:28,420 --> 01:29:30,100
- Okay, thank you.

1966
01:29:30,100 --> 01:29:31,619
- Great, okay.

1967
01:29:31,619 --> 01:29:33,180
Thank you, great presentation.

1968
01:29:34,140 --> 01:29:35,180
- Do you want to drop?

1969
01:29:38,779 --> 01:29:39,619
- Sure.

1970
01:29:42,979 --> 01:29:44,340
- Deborah, before you get started,

1971
01:29:44,340 --> 01:29:45,300
how long do you need?

1972
01:29:45,300 --> 01:29:48,819
Do we want a break and get food or go ahead and then--

1973
01:29:48,819 --> 01:29:52,380
- You can break and eat and I will present what you eat.

1974
01:29:52,380 --> 01:29:53,220
- Okay.

1975
01:29:53,220 --> 01:29:56,340
(laughing)

1976
01:29:56,340 --> 01:29:58,100
- Oh no, I will give you a chance.

1977
01:29:58,100 --> 01:29:58,939
- Okay.

1978
01:29:58,939 --> 01:30:01,220
- And of course, you can always email me.

1979
01:30:01,220 --> 01:30:04,859
- All right, at 5.37, I'll call a recess

1980
01:30:04,859 --> 01:30:07,300
and we'll take a break and we'll get some food

1981
01:30:07,300 --> 01:30:08,859
and we'll reconvene.

1982
01:30:08,859 --> 01:30:11,199
(murmuring)

1983
01:30:13,420 --> 01:30:14,779
Good evening and welcome back

1984
01:30:14,779 --> 01:30:17,380
to the City of Denton work session.

1985
01:30:17,380 --> 01:30:20,060
I will call us back into order at,

1986
01:30:21,020 --> 01:30:23,979
it's like 5.48.

1987
01:30:30,100 --> 01:30:31,100
- Good evening.

1988
01:30:31,100 --> 01:30:32,380
My name is Deborah Viera.

1989
01:30:32,380 --> 01:30:35,460
I'm with the Environmental Services Department

1990
01:30:35,460 --> 01:30:39,420
and we are going to discuss the changes

1991
01:30:39,420 --> 01:30:41,659
or proposed revisions to sub-chapter 17

1992
01:30:41,659 --> 01:30:43,260
of the Denton Development Code

1993
01:30:43,260 --> 01:30:45,239
addressed in environmentally sensitive areas,

1994
01:30:45,239 --> 01:30:46,939
also known as the ESAs.

1995
01:30:49,460 --> 01:30:53,739
Some of you have got some training from me,

1996
01:30:53,739 --> 01:30:56,460
have heard me before about environmental sensitive areas.

1997
01:30:56,460 --> 01:30:59,579
Some of you are new to the board.

1998
01:30:59,579 --> 01:31:03,899
So I'm going to do a 101 in 30 seconds.

1999
01:31:03,899 --> 01:31:07,699
But let me put an offer out there for the commission.

2000
01:31:07,699 --> 01:31:11,220
If you are interested in getting any training session

2001
01:31:11,220 --> 01:31:13,300
about environmentally sensitive area,

2002
01:31:13,300 --> 01:31:16,960
a staff is available to do that in the near future.

2003
01:31:16,960 --> 01:31:19,100
Just let us know and we will scale something

2004
01:31:19,100 --> 01:31:22,739
so in that way, all the new commissioners

2005
01:31:22,739 --> 01:31:25,779
could get up to speed of what ESAs are and so on.

2006
01:31:27,020 --> 01:31:31,579
So basically, the City of Denton provide special protection

2007
01:31:31,579 --> 01:31:34,140
to four type of environmental sensitive areas.

2008
01:31:34,140 --> 01:31:35,979
Those are floodplains, riparian buffers,

2009
01:31:35,979 --> 01:31:37,979
water-related habitats and upland.

2010
01:31:37,979 --> 01:31:41,420
Some of these ESAs or type of ESAs,

2011
01:31:41,420 --> 01:31:43,979
because they are dependent on the presence of water,

2012
01:31:43,979 --> 01:31:47,380
they co-locate or they are nested inside each other.

2013
01:31:47,380 --> 01:31:49,560
When it comes down to floodplains,

2014
01:31:49,560 --> 01:31:52,140
the city makes two distinctions.

2015
01:31:52,140 --> 01:31:55,560
We identify those that are defined as a developed

2016
01:31:55,560 --> 01:31:58,779
or that means that they have been heavily modified,

2017
01:31:58,779 --> 01:32:02,619
disturbed and there's no habitat out there to protect.

2018
01:32:02,619 --> 01:32:05,539
And then we have the undeveloped floodplains,

2019
01:32:05,539 --> 01:32:09,060
which are those who are more in a natural state.

2020
01:32:11,859 --> 01:32:16,680
In general, the ESAs provide six functions.

2021
01:32:16,680 --> 01:32:20,500
It is provide habitat, wildlife live in them,

2022
01:32:20,500 --> 01:32:24,159
serve as a conduit of plants, nutrients,

2023
01:32:25,180 --> 01:32:29,020
wildlife move from point A through point B through the ESAs

2024
01:32:29,020 --> 01:32:29,020
.

2025
01:32:29,020 --> 01:32:32,460
They act as a barrier, they filter pollutants,

2026
01:32:32,460 --> 01:32:35,939
they serve as a source for resources

2027
01:32:35,939 --> 01:32:39,460
and serve as a sink and sequestration area for pollutants.

2028
01:32:39,460 --> 01:32:41,939
So those are the ecological functions

2029
01:32:41,939 --> 01:32:44,340
that those environmental sensitive areas provide.

2030
01:32:48,699 --> 01:32:52,699
But ESAs have also an added value to us.

2031
01:32:52,699 --> 01:32:56,220
First, by the city having regulations

2032
01:32:56,220 --> 01:32:58,579
that protects those areas helps the city

2033
01:32:58,579 --> 01:33:01,380
with the TCEQ phase two municipal separate storm

2034
01:33:01,380 --> 01:33:03,579
source system or MS4 permit.

2035
01:33:03,579 --> 01:33:07,859
That permit is issued by TCEQ on a five year cycle.

2036
01:33:07,859 --> 01:33:11,140
So every five years we get a new permit

2037
01:33:11,140 --> 01:33:13,659
that we have to submit through TCEQ.

2038
01:33:13,659 --> 01:33:17,420
Having those special regulations that protects those areas

2039
01:33:17,420 --> 01:33:21,420
allow us to actually meet the goals and objective

2040
01:33:21,420 --> 01:33:23,460
of the permit for the city.

2041
01:33:23,460 --> 01:33:28,460
The TCEQ construction general permit also is able to be met

2042
01:33:29,939 --> 01:33:33,659
in some aspects by the protection of ESAs.

2043
01:33:35,100 --> 01:33:39,739
Important and related to the previous discussion

2044
01:33:39,739 --> 01:33:44,180
about drainage, having ESAs identified on a map

2045
01:33:44,180 --> 01:33:47,579
and having protections of those areas have helped the city

2046
01:33:47,579 --> 01:33:50,260
with the National Floodplain Insurance Program.

2047
01:33:50,260 --> 01:33:55,260
Those are the floodplain management regulations

2048
01:33:55,420 --> 01:33:59,529
that we have in place to protect properties during rain

2049
01:33:59,529 --> 01:34:00,420
events.

2050
01:34:01,539 --> 01:34:06,539
The higher we rate on the program,

2051
01:34:09,899 --> 01:34:14,140
that means that translate into actually savings

2052
01:34:14,140 --> 01:34:16,140
to homeowners and property owners

2053
01:34:16,140 --> 01:34:17,859
who are in the floodplain who needs

2054
01:34:17,859 --> 01:34:20,300
to get floodplain insurance.

2055
01:34:20,300 --> 01:34:23,460
So put us in a better position,

2056
01:34:23,460 --> 01:34:25,340
in a better rate system for them

2057
01:34:25,340 --> 01:34:30,340
and we can actually pass those savings to the policy owners

2058
01:34:30,340 --> 01:34:30,340
.

2059
01:34:33,340 --> 01:34:37,619
And it help us with the integrated storm water management

2060
01:34:37,619 --> 01:34:39,979
I-Swim City designation.

2061
01:34:39,979 --> 01:34:43,380
We got that designation I believe in 2016

2062
01:34:43,380 --> 01:34:46,699
and currently we are ranked silver level

2063
01:34:46,699 --> 01:34:50,460
on the ranking system for I-Swim.

2064
01:34:52,979 --> 01:34:55,060
Why we need to revise 17?

2065
01:34:55,060 --> 01:34:59,220
Well, the entire debt and development code

2066
01:34:59,220 --> 01:35:04,220
and criteria manual have been going through some changes

2067
01:35:04,300 --> 01:35:06,380
throughout the past 15 years.

2068
01:35:06,380 --> 01:35:08,500
17 have never been revised.

2069
01:35:09,500 --> 01:35:14,500
So there are inconsistencies with other regulations

2070
01:35:14,819 --> 01:35:18,420
when we started back in 2002, everything dovetail.

2071
01:35:18,420 --> 01:35:20,460
But as changes have been made,

2072
01:35:20,460 --> 01:35:24,819
then those inconsistencies have been created.

2073
01:35:24,819 --> 01:35:27,739
So we have to kind of go back and try to see

2074
01:35:27,739 --> 01:35:32,739
that all the regulations were 17

2075
01:35:34,100 --> 01:35:36,819
and other regulations apply, they do.

2076
01:35:39,659 --> 01:35:44,300
The development community have indicated to us

2077
01:35:44,300 --> 01:35:48,819
that the wording of that sub-chapter could be improved.

2078
01:35:48,819 --> 01:35:52,180
Some of the phrasing could be improved.

2079
01:35:52,180 --> 01:35:57,180
There are aspects of 17 that they lack clarity.

2080
01:35:57,699 --> 01:36:01,340
So additional language will actually help understand

2081
01:36:01,340 --> 01:36:03,699
what the city is trying to attain.

2082
01:36:04,619 --> 01:36:07,739
There are some policies that were established

2083
01:36:07,739 --> 01:36:12,020
when the DDC was adopted and sub-chapter 17 was created

2084
01:36:12,020 --> 01:36:16,140
that even though the policy was created,

2085
01:36:16,140 --> 01:36:18,180
there was no how to do.

2086
01:36:18,180 --> 01:36:20,819
So in this process, we were looking

2087
01:36:20,819 --> 01:36:23,220
into those instances as well.

2088
01:36:23,220 --> 01:36:25,939
And evaluation of the existing policies.

2089
01:36:25,939 --> 01:36:27,380
Which policies are working?

2090
01:36:27,380 --> 01:36:28,739
Which one are not?

2091
01:36:28,739 --> 01:36:30,699
Which one we have to just tweak?

2092
01:36:30,699 --> 01:36:33,180
Which one we have to revamp completely?

2093
01:36:33,180 --> 01:36:35,500
And new policies.

2094
01:36:36,420 --> 01:36:41,140
We are 15, almost 16 years after that,

2095
01:36:41,140 --> 01:36:43,100
should we consider new policies as well.

2096
01:36:43,100 --> 01:36:45,979
So those are the reasons why 17

2097
01:36:45,979 --> 01:36:48,739
have been brought up for revision.

2098
01:36:49,779 --> 01:36:54,539
So anything that is related to environmental issues

2099
01:36:54,539 --> 01:36:57,100
is better through the Committee on the Environment.

2100
01:36:57,100 --> 01:36:59,460
The Committee on the Environment

2101
01:36:59,460 --> 01:37:01,500
is a sub-committee of city council

2102
01:37:01,500 --> 01:37:03,500
composed by three council members.

2103
01:37:06,060 --> 01:37:11,060
In June of 2016, we went to the COE

2104
01:37:11,300 --> 01:37:16,300
and we presented our request for starting revising 17.

2105
01:37:16,500 --> 01:37:18,739
They gave us the green light to do it.

2106
01:37:18,739 --> 01:37:21,539
It took us 13 months with them.

2107
01:37:21,539 --> 01:37:24,699
Just keep in mind, this committee only meets once a month

2108
01:37:24,699 --> 01:37:26,619
and they have a long agenda.

2109
01:37:26,619 --> 01:37:29,979
So we were kind of taking small pieces at a time

2110
01:37:29,979 --> 01:37:32,380
and took us that long.

2111
01:37:33,859 --> 01:37:36,779
All the code revisions were classified in four types.

2112
01:37:36,779 --> 01:37:40,020
Corrections, those are the typos, the grammatical errors,

2113
01:37:40,020 --> 01:37:41,739
the acronyms and things like that.

2114
01:37:41,739 --> 01:37:43,180
Those are the easy fixes.

2115
01:37:43,180 --> 01:37:45,539
Then code language clarifications

2116
01:37:45,539 --> 01:37:47,340
and code language additions.

2117
01:37:47,340 --> 01:37:51,420
Clarifications are if we can improve the phrasing

2118
01:37:51,420 --> 01:37:55,420
or we can add something to make that more clear.

2119
01:37:55,420 --> 01:37:58,460
Code language addition is those are instances

2120
01:37:58,460 --> 01:38:00,100
that the policy were there.

2121
01:38:00,100 --> 01:38:02,460
We were not changing the policy

2122
01:38:02,460 --> 01:38:05,979
but we are providing language to give better guidance

2123
01:38:05,979 --> 01:38:09,260
to the development community about that policy.

2124
01:38:09,260 --> 01:38:10,739
And policy changes.

2125
01:38:15,619 --> 01:38:18,859
The language that are being proposed

2126
01:38:18,859 --> 01:38:21,960
have been vetted through the public as well.

2127
01:38:23,060 --> 01:38:27,539
We have posted all the red lines and clean versions

2128
01:38:27,539 --> 01:38:30,699
through the development code of the web page.

2129
01:38:30,699 --> 01:38:35,140
Notices to all project docs applicants were sent via email

2130
01:38:35,140 --> 01:38:38,539
so we did a blast email out.

2131
01:38:39,420 --> 01:38:43,020
Some of you may have got notices.

2132
01:38:43,020 --> 01:38:45,939
We did a presentation as a part of the DDC update

2133
01:38:45,939 --> 01:38:49,779
open house meetings with Clarion twice.

2134
01:38:49,779 --> 01:38:53,420
And we have solicited input from local

2135
01:38:53,420 --> 01:38:55,779
and out of town developers and consultants.

2136
01:38:56,659 --> 01:38:58,340
We're still receiving those.

2137
01:38:58,340 --> 01:39:02,380
As of yesterday at 5 p.m. I got a new batch of comments.

2138
01:39:02,380 --> 01:39:05,619
So the compilation that I provided to you

2139
01:39:05,619 --> 01:39:09,340
is a work in progress, those new comments

2140
01:39:09,340 --> 01:39:10,899
will be added to it.

2141
01:39:10,899 --> 01:39:14,619
My goal is that when we go to public hearing

2142
01:39:14,619 --> 01:39:19,539
we hopefully have the whole compilation finished.

2143
01:39:19,539 --> 01:39:22,500
And also there will be a column where I'm going to provide

2144
01:39:22,500 --> 01:39:24,899
some explanation of how those issues

2145
01:39:24,899 --> 01:39:26,539
have been addressed already.

2146
01:39:30,359 --> 01:39:34,979
So when we start changing 17 we also have to make sure

2147
01:39:34,979 --> 01:39:39,979
that the connections to the rest of the DDC

2148
01:39:40,500 --> 01:39:42,979
are valid or needs to be modified.

2149
01:39:42,979 --> 01:39:47,380
So this is the list of changes outside 17

2150
01:39:47,380 --> 01:39:51,060
that will have to take in place for the proposed changes

2151
01:39:51,060 --> 01:39:54,420
to actually have a dovetailing with them.

2152
01:39:54,420 --> 01:39:58,020
So we will have to go and change the final plot checklist.

2153
01:39:58,020 --> 01:40:03,020
This is just something that could be done administratively.

2154
01:40:03,420 --> 01:40:08,420
Change, I'm sorry, staff review procedure detail on 3.7

2155
01:40:09,220 --> 01:40:13,220
will have to be revised and add that additional language.

2156
01:40:13,220 --> 01:40:16,100
And you will see where the proposed changes

2157
01:40:16,100 --> 01:40:19,199
will tie to those as we move through the slides.

2158
01:40:20,539 --> 01:40:24,699
The staff review procedure on 3.7D

2159
01:40:24,699 --> 01:40:26,819
will have to also be amended

2160
01:40:26,819 --> 01:40:30,420
with the following language in green.

2161
01:40:30,420 --> 01:40:32,300
The drainage criteria manual,

2162
01:40:32,300 --> 01:40:34,420
we already made the changes

2163
01:40:34,420 --> 01:40:37,939
and it is just removing coastal Bermuda,

2164
01:40:37,939 --> 01:40:42,220
adding the word native and make it plural on grasses.

2165
01:40:42,220 --> 01:40:44,600
That's the extent that needs to be done.

2166
01:40:45,739 --> 01:40:49,979
We have to change the alternative ESA plan checklist.

2167
01:40:49,979 --> 01:40:53,460
That's something that we will do administratively.

2168
01:40:54,340 --> 01:40:57,779
We will be creating a new ESA criterion manual.

2169
01:40:57,779 --> 01:41:01,100
We will touch bases later during the presentation.

2170
01:41:01,100 --> 01:41:04,659
And we will have to update the ESA map.

2171
01:41:06,659 --> 01:41:09,720
So let's start, let's see how far I can get.

2172
01:41:09,720 --> 01:41:12,699
So what I have done, I picked the top,

2173
01:41:12,699 --> 01:41:15,220
I believe seven or eight substantial changes

2174
01:41:15,220 --> 01:41:18,060
to be discussed and we will go through it.

2175
01:41:18,060 --> 01:41:22,100
However, if you want to go line by line,

2176
01:41:22,100 --> 01:41:24,100
staff is ready to do that.

2177
01:41:24,100 --> 01:41:27,340
Just let me know what will be your preference.

2178
01:41:28,260 --> 01:41:30,640
So am I going with the motor suspension?

2179
01:41:31,739 --> 01:41:34,020
- Let's go with your presentation

2180
01:41:34,020 --> 01:41:36,300
and if we need to get into more detail, we will.

2181
01:41:36,300 --> 01:41:40,619
- Okay, so first we want to increase

2182
01:41:40,619 --> 01:41:45,619
and expand the credits given when ESAs are preserved.

2183
01:41:47,739 --> 01:41:49,859
Currently in Italian you will see

2184
01:41:49,859 --> 01:41:51,699
where the current language is.

2185
01:41:51,699 --> 01:41:56,260
It's pretty much, if you preserve ESAs

2186
01:41:56,260 --> 01:42:00,300
and this is mostly trees,

2187
01:42:00,300 --> 01:42:04,100
you can get credit under the landscape

2188
01:42:04,100 --> 01:42:06,140
tree canopy requirements.

2189
01:42:06,140 --> 01:42:10,340
So let's say that you leave one area intact,

2190
01:42:10,340 --> 01:42:15,340
which is ESA, happens to be within your parking lot.

2191
01:42:15,619 --> 01:42:19,020
Then you can use that natural area

2192
01:42:19,020 --> 01:42:22,300
to count towards your landscape requirements and so on.

2193
01:42:22,300 --> 01:42:24,260
Especially oblong habitat.

2194
01:42:24,260 --> 01:42:27,640
Oblong habitat we're dealing with post-ogues

2195
01:42:27,640 --> 01:42:32,180
and they're quite sensitive for modification in hydrology.

2196
01:42:32,180 --> 01:42:35,939
So the chances that a post-ogue will do well

2197
01:42:35,939 --> 01:42:39,460
close to a parking lot is not that great.

2198
01:42:39,460 --> 01:42:43,340
So we kind of try to revamp the amount of credit

2199
01:42:43,340 --> 01:42:44,880
that we are given.

2200
01:42:44,880 --> 01:42:48,100
We understand that trees are expensive,

2201
01:42:48,100 --> 01:42:50,779
but a landscape is expensive.

2202
01:42:50,779 --> 01:42:54,500
And if you have to leave an area natural

2203
01:42:54,500 --> 01:42:56,579
plus you have to provide more landscape

2204
01:42:56,579 --> 01:42:58,180
that adds to it.

2205
01:42:58,180 --> 01:43:03,180
So we went through it and we took the draft

2206
01:43:04,060 --> 01:43:07,939
of the tree code and looked into that.

2207
01:43:07,939 --> 01:43:11,020
And the language that you will see here

2208
01:43:11,020 --> 01:43:14,739
really dovetails with the draft of the tree code.

2209
01:43:14,739 --> 01:43:18,020
I believe the tree code will be presented to you

2210
01:43:18,020 --> 01:43:22,220
probably maybe in two or four weeks or so.

2211
01:43:22,220 --> 01:43:24,819
So it is a good timing that you will be seeing

2212
01:43:24,819 --> 01:43:28,579
the revisions to the ESA and then following

2213
01:43:28,579 --> 01:43:29,979
will be the tree code as well.

2214
01:43:29,979 --> 01:43:33,340
So there's some close connection between the two.

2215
01:43:33,340 --> 01:43:37,260
So first one square foot of tree canopy

2216
01:43:37,260 --> 01:43:39,020
will be given for every square foot

2217
01:43:39,020 --> 01:43:42,439
of preserved ESA tree canopy, one to one.

2218
01:43:42,439 --> 01:43:45,539
So let's say that you need to preserve 30%

2219
01:43:45,539 --> 01:43:47,939
of your tree canopy on site.

2220
01:43:49,180 --> 01:43:54,180
If you happen to have ESAs and those ESAs have trees on it

2221
01:43:54,180 --> 01:43:57,779
then those trees can count toward that 30% that you have.

2222
01:43:57,779 --> 01:44:02,060
So that save you and help developers.

2223
01:44:02,060 --> 01:44:05,420
Two square feet of landscape crap will be given

2224
01:44:05,420 --> 01:44:08,260
for every square foot of preserved ESA tree canopy.

2225
01:44:08,260 --> 01:44:12,840
So on the landscape section of it, you will be two to one.

2226
01:44:13,779 --> 01:44:18,779
And no, that sits in between two ecoregions.

2227
01:44:19,100 --> 01:44:22,140
You have the Easter cross timber on the west side,

2228
01:44:22,140 --> 01:44:25,380
you have the grasses on the west side of town.

2229
01:44:25,380 --> 01:44:29,020
So that's one of the reasons the western side of town

2230
01:44:29,020 --> 01:44:30,699
is more grass oriented.

2231
01:44:30,699 --> 01:44:33,060
So and we believe that there's merits

2232
01:44:33,060 --> 01:44:35,899
and those ecosystems should be preserved.

2233
01:44:35,899 --> 01:44:39,739
So we are proposing one square foot of landscape care

2234
01:44:39,739 --> 01:44:41,199
will be given for every square foot

2235
01:44:41,199 --> 01:44:43,239
of no wooded preserved area.

2236
01:44:43,239 --> 01:44:48,239
And that is to respond to the natural condition of that

2237
01:44:51,859 --> 01:44:55,300
location where the western part of town is more grass

2238
01:44:55,300 --> 01:44:55,800
driven.

2239
01:44:57,779 --> 01:44:59,500
- Commissioner Sanchez.

2240
01:44:59,500 --> 01:45:03,369
- When you say grasses, are you talking about native

2241
01:45:03,369 --> 01:45:04,260
grasses?

2242
01:45:04,260 --> 01:45:05,779
- Yes, yes.

2243
01:45:05,779 --> 01:45:07,380
Yeah, correct.

2244
01:45:07,380 --> 01:45:09,060
- Okay, just not any grasses.

2245
01:45:09,060 --> 01:45:10,460
They have to be the native.

2246
01:45:10,460 --> 01:45:14,100
- Yeah, well for example, if you have riparian buffers,

2247
01:45:14,100 --> 01:45:17,479
they might be dominated by grasses instead of trees.

2248
01:45:17,479 --> 01:45:20,180
So if you are protecting the riparian buffer

2249
01:45:20,180 --> 01:45:23,020
which has grasses on it, then you could take,

2250
01:45:23,020 --> 01:45:27,539
you can use that towards your landscape credits.

2251
01:45:27,539 --> 01:45:30,779
So right now, the code is more shifted

2252
01:45:30,779 --> 01:45:34,420
toward giving credits for trees

2253
01:45:34,420 --> 01:45:38,060
and we kind of forget all the type of vegetation.

2254
01:45:38,060 --> 01:45:41,220
- I guess I'm just, a lot of those areas can be

2255
01:45:42,779 --> 01:45:46,819
dominated by grasses but not necessarily native grasses.

2256
01:45:46,819 --> 01:45:50,500
So you have to look at the species, it's important

2257
01:45:50,500 --> 01:45:52,100
that it's a native grass.

2258
01:45:52,100 --> 01:45:56,159
- Yeah, well when we go out and the riparian buffer,

2259
01:45:57,859 --> 01:46:02,859
I will tell you that it is common to find exotic species

2260
01:46:02,859 --> 01:46:05,840
mixed into the entire vegetation.

2261
01:46:07,060 --> 01:46:10,819
But when we do a isophyll assessment,

2262
01:46:10,819 --> 01:46:14,260
one of the things that we look into it

2263
01:46:14,260 --> 01:46:17,020
is the species present, okay?

2264
01:46:17,020 --> 01:46:21,060
And that rates the whole, helps on the rating

2265
01:46:21,060 --> 01:46:22,939
of the habitat itself.

2266
01:46:22,939 --> 01:46:26,260
If it is good, you will see that there will be more

2267
01:46:26,260 --> 01:46:30,300
native plant species present that exotic,

2268
01:46:30,300 --> 01:46:33,260
the present exotic reduces the ranking and so on.

2269
01:46:33,260 --> 01:46:38,260
So all that is already built into the process.

2270
01:46:38,619 --> 01:46:41,100
We are keeping the same language about the Parkland

2271
01:46:41,100 --> 01:46:46,100
dedication that was on the original statement

2272
01:46:46,100 --> 01:46:48,020
as well as the drainage standards.

2273
01:46:48,020 --> 01:46:49,100
- Commissioner Ellis.

2274
01:46:49,100 --> 01:46:49,939
- Thank you, Chair.

2275
01:46:49,939 --> 01:46:53,260
Teppera, with the credits on one, does the developer

2276
01:46:53,260 --> 01:46:57,020
then choose between A and B with regard to that one?

2277
01:46:57,020 --> 01:46:58,859
Or do they get A and B?

2278
01:46:58,859 --> 01:47:03,859
- Well, I will say, as written, they will get A and B.

2279
01:47:10,779 --> 01:47:13,779
Is that something that you would like to change?

2280
01:47:14,979 --> 01:47:16,100
Okay.

2281
01:47:16,100 --> 01:47:17,579
- No, I was hoping they wouldn't have to choose.

2282
01:47:17,579 --> 01:47:18,939
I was hoping they'd get both of those.

2283
01:47:18,939 --> 01:47:20,020
Okay, thanks.

2284
01:47:20,020 --> 01:47:21,859
- So, yes.

2285
01:47:23,859 --> 01:47:25,699
- Before you move on with that slide,

2286
01:47:26,819 --> 01:47:28,739
since you brought up that we're gonna be seeing

2287
01:47:28,739 --> 01:47:33,739
the tree code in a few weeks, how do the credits given here

2288
01:47:34,960 --> 01:47:38,819
compared to what's gonna be in mitigation,

2289
01:47:38,819 --> 01:47:42,619
'cause in the past it's been one to two or one to four,

2290
01:47:42,619 --> 01:47:44,579
and one of my concerns has always been

2291
01:47:44,579 --> 01:47:47,699
if we really wanna preserve, why don't we encourage it

2292
01:47:47,699 --> 01:47:50,340
more rather than one to one make it one to four,

2293
01:47:50,340 --> 01:47:51,659
if we really wanna encourage them to preserve.

2294
01:47:51,659 --> 01:47:53,979
- Well, actually, this would be,

2295
01:47:53,979 --> 01:47:56,340
this mimics what the tree code has.

2296
01:47:56,340 --> 01:47:59,739
And the tree code also is moving into,

2297
01:47:59,739 --> 01:48:02,619
DBH and things like that, they are moving into

2298
01:48:04,619 --> 01:48:05,979
square foot of tree canopy.

2299
01:48:05,979 --> 01:48:09,619
So, when Haywood comes and explain the details

2300
01:48:09,619 --> 01:48:14,619
of the changes, that would be one interesting point to make

2301
01:48:14,619 --> 01:48:14,619
.

2302
01:48:14,899 --> 01:48:18,020
But yeah, me and Haywood have been working on this.

2303
01:48:18,020 --> 01:48:20,939
So, what you are saying is dovetails

2304
01:48:20,939 --> 01:48:23,220
with what Haywood is working on.

2305
01:48:23,220 --> 01:48:24,619
- I think that's good, if there's now gonna be

2306
01:48:24,619 --> 01:48:27,899
some consistency because there hasn't been in the past.

2307
01:48:27,899 --> 01:48:29,500
- Yes. - Okay, great.

2308
01:48:29,500 --> 01:48:31,460
Looking forward to that.

2309
01:48:31,460 --> 01:48:34,420
- The second substantial changes will be to establish

2310
01:48:34,420 --> 01:48:36,100
an appeal process for ESA staff

2311
01:48:36,100 --> 01:48:37,420
field assessment determination.

2312
01:48:37,420 --> 01:48:40,500
And this is why on my two slides back

2313
01:48:40,500 --> 01:48:45,380
when I was all that language in green, this is why.

2314
01:48:45,380 --> 01:48:49,380
Right now, the ESA staff field determination,

2315
01:48:49,380 --> 01:48:51,180
there's no appeal process for it.

2316
01:48:51,180 --> 01:48:55,220
Okay, we have been lucky in 15 years

2317
01:48:55,220 --> 01:48:57,220
that we have not been challenged.

2318
01:48:57,220 --> 01:49:00,020
But it's a deficiency on 17.

2319
01:49:00,020 --> 01:49:03,500
So, we are adding that appeal process

2320
01:49:03,500 --> 01:49:05,140
and that will be given through

2321
01:49:05,140 --> 01:49:07,220
the zoning board of adjustments.

2322
01:49:08,300 --> 01:49:12,659
So, we will provide new language on 17

2323
01:49:12,659 --> 01:49:15,699
and new language on 3.7.

2324
01:49:18,899 --> 01:49:21,659
The designation on the depiction of developed

2325
01:49:21,659 --> 01:49:23,939
and undeveloped floodplain habitants.

2326
01:49:23,939 --> 01:49:27,100
And this is where the major change is.

2327
01:49:27,100 --> 01:49:29,539
So, I'm going to slow down a little

2328
01:49:29,539 --> 01:49:33,659
so in that way you can catch up with me.

2329
01:49:33,659 --> 01:49:36,260
The city of them make distinctions

2330
01:49:36,260 --> 01:49:38,539
between developed and undeveloped floodplain.

2331
01:49:38,539 --> 01:49:42,260
In black and italics, you will see the current definition

2332
01:49:42,260 --> 01:49:45,420
of what a developed floodplain it is.

2333
01:49:45,420 --> 01:49:48,380
So, what we did, we changed,

2334
01:49:48,380 --> 01:49:52,260
or we updated how the 100 year floodplain

2335
01:49:52,260 --> 01:49:53,180
is now being called.

2336
01:49:53,180 --> 01:49:56,979
FEMA now calls it a 1% annual chance floodplain.

2337
01:49:56,979 --> 01:50:01,979
Why? Because the 100 year floodplain designation

2338
01:50:02,579 --> 01:50:05,260
promotes a false sense of security

2339
01:50:05,260 --> 01:50:08,939
that that type of flooding only happens 100 year

2340
01:50:08,939 --> 01:50:11,539
when in reality is in every single year

2341
01:50:11,539 --> 01:50:15,060
you have one chance for that type of rain event

2342
01:50:15,060 --> 01:50:16,500
and floods to happen.

2343
01:50:16,500 --> 01:50:18,579
So, we're kind of updating

2344
01:50:18,579 --> 01:50:21,020
and making be consistent with FEMA.

2345
01:50:22,060 --> 01:50:26,819
And we added language like for which the natural stream

2346
01:50:26,819 --> 01:50:30,859
has been redesigned and no longer characteristic

2347
01:50:30,859 --> 01:50:34,060
of natural channel and or its floodplain

2348
01:50:34,060 --> 01:50:36,140
have been significantly modified,

2349
01:50:36,140 --> 01:50:39,180
graded, filled and otherwise disturbed.

2350
01:50:39,180 --> 01:50:41,779
The proposed definition is an improvement

2351
01:50:41,779 --> 01:50:43,939
of what the current definition is.

2352
01:50:43,939 --> 01:50:45,859
It give a little bit of more guidance.

2353
01:50:48,539 --> 01:50:50,659
The definition of undeveloped floodplain

2354
01:50:50,659 --> 01:50:52,420
pretty much to stay the same what we did,

2355
01:50:52,420 --> 01:50:55,220
we just changed the term 100 year floodplain

2356
01:50:55,220 --> 01:50:57,899
for FEMA on percent annual chance floodplain

2357
01:50:57,899 --> 01:50:59,020
but stays the same.

2358
01:51:01,579 --> 01:51:04,899
So, let's step back and take a little bit

2359
01:51:04,899 --> 01:51:07,420
of background information.

2360
01:51:08,619 --> 01:51:11,300
The floodplain ESAs are defined

2361
01:51:11,300 --> 01:51:13,340
by what FEMA calls the 1%.

2362
01:51:13,340 --> 01:51:17,899
We follow the same boundaries.

2363
01:51:17,899 --> 01:51:22,340
FEMA firms, which are the FEMA maps,

2364
01:51:22,340 --> 01:51:25,859
came into existence as a way to provide

2365
01:51:25,859 --> 01:51:30,220
a national standard with a regional discrimination.

2366
01:51:30,220 --> 01:51:32,420
And they choose that the 100 year flood

2367
01:51:32,420 --> 01:51:36,380
was the item by which that floodplain boundary

2368
01:51:36,380 --> 01:51:37,539
will be established.

2369
01:51:39,140 --> 01:51:40,300
- Commissioner Beck.

2370
01:51:40,300 --> 01:51:41,300
- Thank you, Chair.

2371
01:51:43,180 --> 01:51:46,579
This FEMA plan, has it been updated recently

2372
01:51:46,579 --> 01:51:48,100
or where is it?

2373
01:51:48,100 --> 01:51:50,859
- The last time that got updated was, I believe,

2374
01:51:50,859 --> 01:51:55,659
in 2011, they did, 2011?

2375
01:51:55,659 --> 01:51:56,859
Yes.

2376
01:51:56,859 --> 01:52:00,260
They pretty much redo all the firms for the city.

2377
01:52:00,260 --> 01:52:03,300
But taking, just be aware that every time

2378
01:52:03,300 --> 01:52:06,939
that a development modifies the floodplain,

2379
01:52:06,939 --> 01:52:10,100
either through reclamation or through a better mapping

2380
01:52:10,100 --> 01:52:14,140
of the floodplain, those updates are also incorporated

2381
01:52:14,140 --> 01:52:17,100
into those firms, okay?

2382
01:52:17,100 --> 01:52:20,380
And now FEMA before, for those changes to reflect

2383
01:52:20,380 --> 01:52:23,020
on the firms, used to take years.

2384
01:52:23,020 --> 01:52:26,100
Now they are, I think, within weeks, like six weeks,

2385
01:52:26,100 --> 01:52:28,619
they actually provide that new information

2386
01:52:28,619 --> 01:52:30,500
on their website, okay?

2387
01:52:30,500 --> 01:52:35,500
So, because FEMA maps are constantly changing

2388
01:52:35,699 --> 01:52:40,699
and updating, so the ESA floodplain goes with it, okay?

2389
01:52:40,979 --> 01:52:43,779
- Okay, great, thanks.

2390
01:52:43,779 --> 01:52:47,500
- And the purpose of the floodplain, of those firms,

2391
01:52:47,500 --> 01:52:50,100
are not based on ecological considerations,

2392
01:52:50,100 --> 01:52:53,500
are based on flood insurance purposes, okay?

2393
01:52:56,220 --> 01:53:00,220
So, why using FEMA maps to establish

2394
01:53:00,220 --> 01:53:02,939
our floodplain ESA maps?

2395
01:53:02,939 --> 01:53:06,300
It is not a perfect match, I will give you that,

2396
01:53:06,300 --> 01:53:07,300
but it's a good fit.

2397
01:53:08,220 --> 01:53:10,819
Floodplain delineation are based on risk,

2398
01:53:10,819 --> 01:53:12,819
no habitat boundaries.

2399
01:53:12,819 --> 01:53:14,899
Uncertainty with unstudied floodplain,

2400
01:53:14,899 --> 01:53:17,500
we have plenty of those in the city of Denton,

2401
01:53:17,500 --> 01:53:20,779
and they don't follow ECA regions.

2402
01:53:20,779 --> 01:53:25,420
But the good side of it is that when we,

2403
01:53:25,420 --> 01:53:27,460
when development happens, and they happen

2404
01:53:27,460 --> 01:53:29,819
to have a floodplain, they will have,

2405
01:53:29,819 --> 01:53:33,100
they will dedicate that area as a drainage easement.

2406
01:53:33,100 --> 01:53:35,500
So that area will be set apart,

2407
01:53:35,500 --> 01:53:37,180
and development will be excellent,

2408
01:53:37,180 --> 01:53:38,939
or very limited development could happen

2409
01:53:38,939 --> 01:53:41,180
on those drainage areas.

2410
01:53:41,180 --> 01:53:43,659
ESA level playing field reduces the chances

2411
01:53:43,659 --> 01:53:45,579
for taking claims.

2412
01:53:45,579 --> 01:53:48,819
The developers are already providing that drainage

2413
01:53:48,819 --> 01:53:52,300
to meet subchapter 19 of the Denton Development Code.

2414
01:53:52,300 --> 01:53:57,100
So, in some extent, we are not taking more

2415
01:53:57,100 --> 01:54:00,659
than what the developer would be required

2416
01:54:00,659 --> 01:54:03,699
to meet for subchapter 19.

2417
01:54:04,779 --> 01:54:09,260
And everybody knows FEMA and their FEMA floodplain maps.

2418
01:54:09,260 --> 01:54:13,539
So, it is something that developers, designers,

2419
01:54:13,539 --> 01:54:15,260
engineers understand.

2420
01:54:16,100 --> 01:54:20,859
So, I'm going to give you a snapshot of developed

2421
01:54:20,859 --> 01:54:24,420
and undeveloped floodplain maps in the city of Denton.

2422
01:54:24,420 --> 01:54:26,180
The two maps are the same.

2423
01:54:26,180 --> 01:54:28,140
The two maps is the same scale.

2424
01:54:28,140 --> 01:54:30,619
One is just showing the aerial.

2425
01:54:30,619 --> 01:54:37,140
The other one is showing the ESA layer superimposed

2426
01:54:37,140 --> 01:54:38,979
on that floodplain.

2427
01:54:38,979 --> 01:54:43,619
The hot pink is the developed floodplain.

2428
01:54:43,619 --> 01:54:48,140
The teal color is the undeveloped floodplain.

2429
01:54:48,140 --> 01:54:49,819
And I'm going to step out.

2430
01:54:49,819 --> 01:54:53,539
If you see, especially in this area, you will agree

2431
01:54:53,539 --> 01:54:57,340
that that floodplain looks quite natural.

2432
01:54:57,340 --> 01:54:59,560
The stream still meandering.

2433
01:54:59,560 --> 01:55:02,760
The vegetation seems to be thick and healthy.

2434
01:55:02,760 --> 01:55:09,539
Why do we have the changes from undeveloped to developed

2435
01:55:09,539 --> 01:55:13,819
to undeveloped to developed to undeveloped again?

2436
01:55:13,819 --> 01:55:15,779
So, those are inconsistencies

2437
01:55:15,779 --> 01:55:20,460
that the floodplain ESA layer has right now.

2438
01:55:20,460 --> 01:55:26,420
Okay? Remember, the ESA map was created back in 1999,

2439
01:55:26,420 --> 01:55:27,579
roughly.

2440
01:55:27,579 --> 01:55:32,500
When the Denton Development Cone was first adopted in 1999,

2441
01:55:32,500 --> 01:55:36,579
the city started working on the implementation of the DDC,

2442
01:55:36,579 --> 01:55:41,500
which got adopted roughly two years and a half later.

2443
01:55:41,500 --> 01:55:43,220
In the in-between, the city came

2444
01:55:43,220 --> 01:55:45,260
out with something called interim regulations.

2445
01:55:45,260 --> 01:55:47,859
Some of you might be familiar with that term.

2446
01:55:47,859 --> 01:55:51,260
And some of the provisions that we currently have

2447
01:55:51,260 --> 01:55:54,020
on '17 made it to that point.

2448
01:55:54,020 --> 01:55:56,579
So, we had the ESA map.

2449
01:55:56,579 --> 01:56:02,380
So, we are 15, 16 years after many

2450
01:56:02,380 --> 01:56:06,899
of those areas are still intact while we are designating

2451
01:56:06,899 --> 01:56:07,460
areas

2452
01:56:07,460 --> 01:56:09,020
as a developed floodplain

2453
01:56:09,020 --> 01:56:13,779
where no development have happened in those areas.

2454
01:56:13,779 --> 01:56:16,739
And this is a situation

2455
01:56:16,739 --> 01:56:19,420
that you can see throughout the entire city.

2456
01:56:19,420 --> 01:56:22,779
That's another example of those situations.

2457
01:56:22,779 --> 01:56:26,439
But they are more common or found more common

2458
01:56:26,439 --> 01:56:28,859
on the west part of town.

2459
01:56:28,859 --> 01:56:36,939
If I am a developer and or I am a property owner and I have

2460
01:56:36,939 --> 01:56:40,060
undeveloped floodplain under this map

2461
01:56:40,060 --> 01:56:44,020
and my next door neighbor comes and he happens

2462
01:56:44,020 --> 01:56:46,779
to have the developed designation,

2463
01:56:46,779 --> 01:56:51,420
I will complain why the inconsistencies.

2464
01:56:51,420 --> 01:56:55,699
Why is he not required to provide all the additional

2465
01:56:55,699 --> 01:56:59,859
requirements when I am required to provide all those?

2466
01:56:59,859 --> 01:57:03,869
So, we have to go back and from a quality standpoint just

2467
01:57:03,869 --> 01:57:04,420
trying

2468
01:57:04,420 --> 01:57:07,979
to make everybody consistent.

2469
01:57:07,979 --> 01:57:13,460
This is another example of what we have.

2470
01:57:13,460 --> 01:57:19,739
So, we are proposing to change how developed

2471
01:57:19,739 --> 01:57:23,699
and undeveloped are currently shown on the ESA map.

2472
01:57:23,699 --> 01:57:25,899
We are not getting rid of the designation.

2473
01:57:25,899 --> 01:57:29,979
We are just trying to change how they are depicted

2474
01:57:29,979 --> 01:57:33,619
on the ESA map.

2475
01:57:33,619 --> 01:57:35,699
Firms are updated on a regular basis.

2476
01:57:35,699 --> 01:57:37,020
We cover that.

2477
01:57:37,020 --> 01:57:44,619
So, that makes that layer to be a very influx.

2478
01:57:44,619 --> 01:57:47,739
And standards should be applied based on site conditions

2479
01:57:47,739 --> 01:57:50,420
where development is about to happen and not based

2480
01:57:50,420 --> 01:57:52,539
on an outdated map.

2481
01:57:54,380 --> 01:57:56,739
So, what are the substantial changes?

2482
01:57:56,739 --> 01:57:59,340
Upon-- we are proposing or they see--

2483
01:57:59,340 --> 01:58:01,739
actually the COE is proposing

2484
01:58:01,739 --> 01:58:04,060
that we make the following changes.

2485
01:58:04,060 --> 01:58:06,899
Upon field verification areas designated

2486
01:58:06,899 --> 01:58:10,899
as FEMA 1% annual chance floodplain will be classified

2487
01:58:10,899 --> 01:58:13,859
according to the existing condition as developed

2488
01:58:13,859 --> 01:58:15,500
or undeveloped floodplain.

2489
01:58:15,500 --> 01:58:19,180
Meaning that if there is a development application

2490
01:58:19,180 --> 01:58:23,340
submitted, we will tell that the applicant,

2491
01:58:23,340 --> 01:58:26,899
you have a floodplain ESA.

2492
01:58:26,899 --> 01:58:29,100
Let us go to your site and determine

2493
01:58:29,100 --> 01:58:31,340
if it is developed or undeveloped.

2494
01:58:31,340 --> 01:58:33,979
And see based on the field verification,

2495
01:58:33,979 --> 01:58:38,220
these are the set of standards that apply to you.

2496
01:58:40,819 --> 01:58:44,689
Developed floodplain standards, what we add to those

2497
01:58:44,689 --> 01:58:45,260
standards,

2498
01:58:45,260 --> 01:58:49,060
what I did, I took the original language.

2499
01:58:49,060 --> 01:58:52,779
It was previously in a paragraph form.

2500
01:58:52,779 --> 01:58:54,579
I broke it down in numbers.

2501
01:58:54,579 --> 01:58:57,140
And the only thing changes that we are--

2502
01:58:57,140 --> 01:59:01,460
the only thing new that we are proposing is item number two

2503
01:59:01,460 --> 01:59:01,460
,

2504
01:59:01,460 --> 01:59:04,460
which has just two clarification that says

2505
01:59:04,460 --> 01:59:07,420
that if you have a developed floodplain

2506
01:59:07,420 --> 01:59:11,220
but you could still have a healthy repair

2507
01:59:11,220 --> 01:59:13,699
and buffer going through it.

2508
01:59:13,699 --> 01:59:17,260
And you will still be able-- and you are still required

2509
01:59:17,260 --> 01:59:21,460
to provide protection to the repair and buffer even though

2510
01:59:21,460 --> 01:59:21,659
it

2511
01:59:21,659 --> 01:59:25,380
is nested or inside of a developed floodplain.

2512
01:59:25,380 --> 01:59:31,699
That's a point of-- that many people have complaining

2513
01:59:31,699 --> 01:59:34,020
because it's not very clear right now

2514
01:59:34,020 --> 01:59:35,020
in the development code.

2515
01:59:35,020 --> 01:59:37,020
So this is just a clarification for it.

2516
01:59:40,779 --> 01:59:45,500
You might remember the Ryan Meadows development

2517
01:59:45,500 --> 01:59:48,779
where they had to go through an alternative ESA plan

2518
01:59:48,779 --> 01:59:52,180
because they were required to extend Cricdale as a part

2519
01:59:52,180 --> 01:59:53,859
of the thoroughfare plan.

2520
01:59:53,859 --> 01:59:57,729
Because this-- the-- because staff didn't have the

2521
01:59:57,729 --> 01:59:58,340
authority

2522
01:59:58,340 --> 02:00:01,100
to approve that, they had to go through an alternative ESA

2523
02:00:01,100 --> 02:00:01,619
plan

2524
02:00:01,619 --> 02:00:04,539
and that is additional time that they have to spend.

2525
02:00:04,539 --> 02:00:09,819
So we have taken-- we have listened

2526
02:00:09,819 --> 02:00:11,300
to the development community.

2527
02:00:11,300 --> 02:00:14,180
And now what we are do-- what we are proposing is

2528
02:00:14,180 --> 02:00:17,260
for those roadways that are identified

2529
02:00:17,260 --> 02:00:21,819
in the thoroughfare plan to be extended through ESAs,

2530
02:00:21,819 --> 02:00:25,859
they will not have to go through an alternative ESA to do

2531
02:00:25,859 --> 02:00:26,340
so.

2532
02:00:26,340 --> 02:00:29,539
And we made it consistent that this is not only

2533
02:00:29,539 --> 02:00:36,060
within the floodplain but if there's water related habitat

2534
02:00:36,060 --> 02:00:39,100
or repair and buffer nested inside

2535
02:00:39,100 --> 02:00:45,420
that will also be impacted, all those disturbance will be

2536
02:00:45,420 --> 02:00:48,859
exempted from going through an alternative ESA plan.

2537
02:00:48,859 --> 02:00:51,819
As long as the areas that are impacted are restored,

2538
02:00:51,819 --> 02:00:55,739
rehabilitated, stabilized and so on.

2539
02:00:55,739 --> 02:00:58,819
And that would be approved at staff level.

2540
02:01:03,300 --> 02:01:08,220
This is the-- related to the exemption roadway identified

2541
02:01:08,220 --> 02:01:13,460
for a repair and buffer.

2542
02:01:13,460 --> 02:01:18,539
So substantial changes on-- okay.

2543
02:01:18,539 --> 02:01:19,939
Upland habitat.

2544
02:01:19,939 --> 02:01:23,819
Up to now, upland-- preservation of upland habitat was only

2545
02:01:23,819 --> 02:01:24,539
required

2546
02:01:24,539 --> 02:01:29,859
for residential uses, single family, multi-family, 2F.

2547
02:01:29,859 --> 02:01:34,210
Okay. Now the committee on the environment thinks and

2548
02:01:34,210 --> 02:01:34,779
consider

2549
02:01:34,779 --> 02:01:38,060
that we are losing a lot of tree canopy due

2550
02:01:38,060 --> 02:01:41,020
to non-residential development that happens

2551
02:01:41,020 --> 02:01:44,979
to have upland habitat within the premises.

2552
02:01:44,979 --> 02:01:49,100
So they are proposing that non-residential development

2553
02:01:49,100 --> 02:01:52,779
to preserve 30% of the upland.

2554
02:01:52,779 --> 02:01:55,260
Before it was non, now it's 30%.

2555
02:01:55,260 --> 02:02:00,619
But this is the 30% that you will hear Haywood in couple

2556
02:02:00,619 --> 02:02:02,340
of weeks to talk about it.

2557
02:02:02,340 --> 02:02:07,100
So let's say that you are a non-residential development.

2558
02:02:07,100 --> 02:02:10,539
You happen to have upland habitat.

2559
02:02:10,539 --> 02:02:15,470
You will also be required to tree coat preservation or

2560
02:02:15,470 --> 02:02:16,619
mitigation.

2561
02:02:16,619 --> 02:02:20,779
So if you are preserving the 30% of the upland,

2562
02:02:20,779 --> 02:02:23,899
you will be meeting the tree coat with it.

2563
02:02:23,899 --> 02:02:28,020
So you will not be paying additional entry

2564
02:02:28,020 --> 02:02:31,539
into the tree fund and you will not be having

2565
02:02:31,539 --> 02:02:34,579
to replant trees on site.

2566
02:02:34,579 --> 02:02:40,500
Okay. So at this point, I'm going to stop here

2567
02:02:40,500 --> 02:02:47,180
and I'm proposing that the next time that we meet,

2568
02:02:47,180 --> 02:02:51,899
that we will continue our presentation.

2569
02:02:51,899 --> 02:02:58,899
>> Okay. Do I have questions so far?

2570
02:02:58,899 --> 02:03:03,899
>> So please, some of you have already emailed me questions

2571
02:03:03,899 --> 02:03:03,899
.

2572
02:03:03,899 --> 02:03:07,659
But if you have any questions, comments from now to the

2573
02:03:07,659 --> 02:03:08,500
next time,

2574
02:03:08,500 --> 02:03:11,979
please feel free to email those to me and I can prepare a

2575
02:03:11,979 --> 02:03:12,460
response

2576
02:03:12,460 --> 02:03:13,979
for all of you.

2577
02:03:13,979 --> 02:03:15,300
>> Commissioner Schmitt.

2578
02:03:15,300 --> 02:03:16,220
>> Thank you, Chair.

2579
02:03:16,220 --> 02:03:18,470
I'm going to ask this question to you but actually, Chair

2580
02:03:18,470 --> 02:03:18,779
Strange,

2581
02:03:18,779 --> 02:03:20,060
if you could answer it.

2582
02:03:20,060 --> 02:03:22,140
On the 30% requirement that you just mentioned

2583
02:03:22,140 --> 02:03:24,899
on the non-residential development,

2584
02:03:24,899 --> 02:03:27,180
what type of cost are you going to see to non-residential

2585
02:03:27,180 --> 02:03:28,340
developers

2586
02:03:28,340 --> 02:03:30,899
by having that requirement now in place?

2587
02:03:30,899 --> 02:03:32,460
I think it's a good requirement but what kind

2588
02:03:32,460 --> 02:03:33,819
of new costs would they have?

2589
02:03:33,819 --> 02:03:37,659
Since there is no requirement that now that added

2590
02:03:37,659 --> 02:03:40,220
on there, how is that going to impact them financially?

2591
02:03:40,220 --> 02:03:44,420
>> Well, it goes back how you cite your development, okay.

2592
02:03:44,420 --> 02:03:53,239
So if the upland habitat is -- and again, you pick and

2593
02:03:53,239 --> 02:03:54,619
choose which portion

2594
02:03:54,619 --> 02:03:57,619
of the upland habitat you preserve, okay.

2595
02:03:57,619 --> 02:03:58,500
>> Okay.

2596
02:03:58,500 --> 02:04:03,659
>> We recommend that you pick areas of preservation

2597
02:04:03,659 --> 02:04:12,050
that are continuations of other tree areas on the adjacent

2598
02:04:12,050 --> 02:04:12,779
parcels to you

2599
02:04:12,779 --> 02:04:16,000
because in that way you prevent fragmentation of the

2600
02:04:16,000 --> 02:04:17,140
habitat, okay.

2601
02:04:17,140 --> 02:04:20,380
However, you pick and choose which portion

2602
02:04:20,380 --> 02:04:24,579
of the upland you preserve as long as the 30%.

2603
02:04:24,579 --> 02:04:26,739
Yes, there will be -- that means that you --

2604
02:04:26,739 --> 02:04:31,340
if you have a standard site plan, for example, that you use

2605
02:04:31,340 --> 02:04:33,020
in all the locations

2606
02:04:33,020 --> 02:04:36,649
and you end up having to modify that standard, that would

2607
02:04:36,649 --> 02:04:37,500
probably come

2608
02:04:37,500 --> 02:04:41,619
to an expense having to alter those site plans.

2609
02:04:41,619 --> 02:04:46,520
At the same time, if that 30% will count towards your tree

2610
02:04:46,520 --> 02:04:47,699
preservation,

2611
02:04:47,699 --> 02:04:52,979
then otherwise so there is some cost saving or at least not

2612
02:04:52,979 --> 02:04:55,579
duplication of cost.

2613
02:04:55,579 --> 02:04:58,789
>> I'm going to make one statement here regarding upland

2614
02:04:58,789 --> 02:04:59,220
habitat.

2615
02:04:59,220 --> 02:05:02,340
It's got to be at least 10 acres before it qualifies.

2616
02:05:02,340 --> 02:05:04,550
So we're not talking about individual trees that are

2617
02:05:04,550 --> 02:05:05,460
sitting up there that are --

2618
02:05:05,460 --> 02:05:05,899
>> Okay.

2619
02:05:05,899 --> 02:05:09,380
>> It's got to be a 10 acre stand.

2620
02:05:09,380 --> 02:05:12,659
>> So upland habitat is not all tree stands.

2621
02:05:12,659 --> 02:05:15,739
It has to meet a criteria and that's a good point, that

2622
02:05:15,739 --> 02:05:18,500
have to be 10 acres total

2623
02:05:18,500 --> 02:05:22,680
and it has to have a specific species present, post-ogues

2624
02:05:22,680 --> 02:05:24,140
and blackjacks.

2625
02:05:24,140 --> 02:05:27,670
Those are the typical flag species that we'll use for

2626
02:05:27,670 --> 02:05:30,380
eastern cross timber forest.

2627
02:05:30,380 --> 02:05:34,840
So it's not every single tree stand is the one identified

2628
02:05:34,840 --> 02:05:36,779
as an upland habitat.

2629
02:05:36,779 --> 02:05:38,500
Yes.

2630
02:05:38,500 --> 02:05:39,619
>> I was just going to say --

2631
02:05:39,619 --> 02:05:40,819
>> Commissioner Sanchez.

2632
02:05:40,819 --> 02:05:41,619
>> Oh, I'm sorry.

2633
02:05:41,619 --> 02:05:45,760
The define -- making -- you know, having definitions when

2634
02:05:45,760 --> 02:05:46,220
you're talking

2635
02:05:46,220 --> 02:05:50,909
about the different types of habitats is define what you're

2636
02:05:50,909 --> 02:05:52,699
actually talking about

2637
02:05:52,699 --> 02:05:55,460
because when I was looking through this, I was kind of

2638
02:05:55,460 --> 02:05:56,060
questioning,

2639
02:05:56,060 --> 02:05:59,930
what does she actually mean by upland habitat and, you know

2640
02:05:59,930 --> 02:06:00,060
,

2641
02:06:00,060 --> 02:06:05,319
define what it is and if you're updating this because

2642
02:06:05,319 --> 02:06:07,340
anybody that starts reading

2643
02:06:07,340 --> 02:06:08,460
through this is going to be hard.

2644
02:06:08,460 --> 02:06:10,460
Well, I don't know what she's really talking about.

2645
02:06:10,460 --> 02:06:14,619
You have to define your -- those terms.

2646
02:06:14,619 --> 02:06:16,579
You know, does it make sense?

2647
02:06:16,579 --> 02:06:17,300
>> Yes.

2648
02:06:17,300 --> 02:06:18,619
>> Okay.

2649
02:06:18,619 --> 02:06:26,729
>> Okay. I just want to say thank you for the change on the

2650
02:06:26,729 --> 02:06:27,300
mobility plan

2651
02:06:27,300 --> 02:06:30,970
because I actually had a note on my card from the matrix, a

2652
02:06:30,970 --> 02:06:33,979
comment back from 10/26/16,

2653
02:06:33,979 --> 02:06:36,659
Commissioner Roselle and I from that exact example.

2654
02:06:36,659 --> 02:06:40,529
So thank you for keeping up with that and incorporating

2655
02:06:40,529 --> 02:06:41,939
that into our ESA.

2656
02:06:41,939 --> 02:06:44,060
So we look forward to continuing.

2657
02:06:44,060 --> 02:06:46,420
Will you be back next time or --

2658
02:06:46,420 --> 02:06:46,939
>> Correct.

2659
02:06:46,939 --> 02:06:50,829
We are planning to actually go as a public hearing item in

2660
02:06:50,829 --> 02:06:52,579
two weeks from now.

2661
02:06:52,579 --> 02:06:56,680
What we are planning is just to have a continuing our work

2662
02:06:56,680 --> 02:06:57,619
session.

2663
02:06:57,619 --> 02:07:00,810
If you have any comments, email those to me, any questions

2664
02:07:00,810 --> 02:07:01,699
so in that way,

2665
02:07:01,699 --> 02:07:05,689
I can provide those either responses ahead of time or

2666
02:07:05,689 --> 02:07:06,939
during the meeting

2667
02:07:06,939 --> 02:07:09,100
and hopefully we can complete.

2668
02:07:09,100 --> 02:07:12,800
If you have any questions that might not be related to

2669
02:07:12,800 --> 02:07:14,619
those substantial changes,

2670
02:07:14,619 --> 02:07:18,869
let me know, staff will be available to go line by line if

2671
02:07:18,869 --> 02:07:20,060
necessary.

2672
02:07:20,060 --> 02:07:20,739
>> Great.

2673
02:07:20,739 --> 02:07:21,579
>> Thank you.

2674
02:07:21,579 --> 02:07:24,020
>> Thank you.

2675
02:07:24,020 --> 02:07:29,149
And at 625, I will close our work session and we'll recon

2676
02:07:29,149 --> 02:07:32,300
vene at 630 in council chambers.

2677
02:07:32,300 --> 02:07:38,979
>> Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning

2678
02:07:38,979 --> 02:07:44,380
and Zoning Commission meeting for January the 24th, 2018.

2679
02:07:44,380 --> 02:07:47,819
This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum

2680
02:07:47,819 --> 02:07:49,300
present and I will call us

2681
02:07:49,300 --> 02:07:51,819
to order at 632.

2682
02:07:51,819 --> 02:07:54,100
Our first order of business will be to stand and give the

2683
02:07:54,100 --> 02:07:56,619
pledge to the US and the Texas flag.

2684
02:07:56,619 --> 02:08:15,619
[ Inaudible Remark ]

2685
02:08:15,619 --> 02:08:43,300
>> Our next order of business will be to consider approval

2686
02:08:43,300 --> 02:08:44,220
of our Planning

2687
02:08:44,220 --> 02:08:47,380
and Zoning Commission minutes.

2688
02:08:47,380 --> 02:08:50,130
Does anybody have any changes or could we have a motion

2689
02:08:50,130 --> 02:08:52,819
with both sets of minutes?

2690
02:08:52,819 --> 02:08:55,060
Commissioner Ellis.

2691
02:08:55,060 --> 02:08:57,329
>> Chair, can we do them separate because I need to recuse

2692
02:08:57,329 --> 02:08:58,100
on one of them.

2693
02:08:58,100 --> 02:08:59,420
>> Sure.

2694
02:08:59,420 --> 02:09:01,020
>> Okay, Commissioner Smith.

2695
02:09:01,020 --> 02:09:02,220
>> Do we have a vote on them separately?

2696
02:09:02,220 --> 02:09:03,020
>> Separately.

2697
02:09:03,020 --> 02:09:04,260
Let's take a motion separately.

2698
02:09:04,260 --> 02:09:06,380
>> Okay.

2699
02:09:06,380 --> 02:09:07,859
>> Do you mind with the dates?

2700
02:09:07,859 --> 02:09:09,500
>> You are, you have four.

2701
02:09:09,500 --> 02:09:11,899
>> December 13th.

2702
02:09:11,899 --> 02:09:14,859
>> Motion to approve the minutes for December 13th, 2017.

2703
02:09:14,859 --> 02:09:16,300
>> Okay. Commissioner Beck.

2704
02:09:16,300 --> 02:09:17,020
>> Second.

2705
02:09:17,020 --> 02:09:20,229
>> Okay. We have a first and a second for the minutes of

2706
02:09:20,229 --> 02:09:21,739
December 13th.

2707
02:09:21,739 --> 02:09:25,460
Any questions or comments?

2708
02:09:25,460 --> 02:09:28,180
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.

2709
02:09:28,180 --> 02:09:34,779
[ Pause ]

2710
02:09:34,779 --> 02:09:37,579
The motion is going to carry 7-0.

2711
02:09:37,579 --> 02:09:41,260
Commissioner Smith.

2712
02:09:41,260 --> 02:09:44,060
>> Motion to approve the minutes for January 10th, 2018.

2713
02:09:44,060 --> 02:09:46,859
>> Okay. Commissioner Sullivan.

2714
02:09:46,859 --> 02:09:47,659
>> Second that motion.

2715
02:09:47,659 --> 02:09:50,869
>> Okay. We have a first and a second for approval of our

2716
02:09:50,869 --> 02:09:53,420
minutes for January 10th, 2018.

2717
02:09:53,420 --> 02:09:58,260
Any questions or comments?

2718
02:09:58,260 --> 02:10:01,060
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.

2719
02:10:01,060 --> 02:10:19,340
[ Pause ]

2720
02:10:19,340 --> 02:10:24,060
That motion is going to carry 5-0 with two recuse.

2721
02:10:24,060 --> 02:10:31,420
That will move us on to our consent agenda.

2722
02:10:31,420 --> 02:10:32,779
Commissioner Rossell.

2723
02:10:32,779 --> 02:10:34,979
>> I motion to approve the consent agenda.

2724
02:10:34,979 --> 02:10:41,659
>> Okay.

2725
02:10:41,659 --> 02:10:42,739
Commissioner Ellis.

2726
02:10:42,739 --> 02:10:43,180
>> Thank you, Chair.

2727
02:10:43,180 --> 02:10:43,979
Second.

2728
02:10:43,979 --> 02:10:48,010
>> Okay. We have a first and a second for approval of the

2729
02:10:48,010 --> 02:10:48,899
consent agenda.

2730
02:10:48,899 --> 02:10:53,100
Any comments or questions?

2731
02:10:53,100 --> 02:10:55,899
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.

2732
02:10:55,899 --> 02:11:00,899
[ Pause ]

2733
02:11:00,899 --> 02:11:03,500
The motion will carry 7-0.

2734
02:11:03,500 --> 02:11:08,819
[ Pause ]

2735
02:11:08,819 --> 02:11:12,560
That will move us to our public hearings section this

2736
02:11:12,560 --> 02:11:13,220
evening.

2737
02:11:13,220 --> 02:11:16,060
And just as an announcement to those, if you haven't

2738
02:11:16,060 --> 02:11:21,500
noticed on your agenda, if you're here for item B, C, or D,

2739
02:11:21,500 --> 02:11:23,699
all of those items will not be heard tonight.

2740
02:11:23,699 --> 02:11:26,619
The only item we'll be hearing is item 4A.

2741
02:11:26,619 --> 02:11:31,079
And at that time, at this time, I'm going to open the

2742
02:11:31,079 --> 02:11:36,739
public hearing for Z17-0026B.

2743
02:11:36,739 --> 02:11:39,939
And I will call on Shandrian for presentation.

2744
02:11:39,939 --> 02:11:41,020
>> Good evening.

2745
02:11:41,020 --> 02:11:44,229
I'm Shandrian Jarvis with the Development Services

2746
02:11:44,229 --> 02:11:45,020
Department.

2747
02:11:45,020 --> 02:11:49,789
The next item, Z17-26, is a rezoning request for a property

2748
02:11:49,789 --> 02:11:53,180
located on the east side of the city

2749
02:11:53,180 --> 02:11:57,739
near the Audre and Nottingham Lane intersection.

2750
02:11:57,739 --> 02:12:03,189
The request is to rezone approximately 13 acres from a

2751
02:12:03,189 --> 02:12:06,060
neighborhood residential 2 zoning district,

2752
02:12:06,060 --> 02:12:09,649
which is basically a single family detached that allows a

2753
02:12:09,649 --> 02:12:12,460
maximum of two dwelling units per acre.

2754
02:12:12,460 --> 02:12:15,670
And the applicant is requesting to go to a neighborhood

2755
02:12:15,670 --> 02:12:16,260
residential 6,

2756
02:12:16,260 --> 02:12:20,510
which allows single family town homes and duplexes at a

2757
02:12:20,510 --> 02:12:23,859
maximum of six dwelling units per acre.

2758
02:12:23,859 --> 02:12:29,880
Just to give you some landmarks, this Mingo Road, there we

2759
02:12:29,880 --> 02:12:32,420
go, Mingo Road is here.

2760
02:12:32,420 --> 02:12:35,140
The Denton Bible Church is to the north.

2761
02:12:35,140 --> 02:12:37,619
The Denton Church of Christ is here.

2762
02:12:37,619 --> 02:12:41,489
Audre Lane serves as the western boundary of the tract, and

2763
02:12:41,489 --> 02:12:43,100
then the north, on the north,

2764
02:12:43,100 --> 02:12:46,180
there's also an extension of Audre.

2765
02:12:46,180 --> 02:12:51,460
The plot, the lot is currently undeveloped primarily.

2766
02:12:51,460 --> 02:12:55,180
There are some limited agricultural uses, and it has not

2767
02:12:55,180 --> 02:12:56,380
been plotted.

2768
02:12:58,819 --> 02:13:04,550
When we analyze zoning and rezoning requests, we have two

2769
02:13:04,550 --> 02:13:07,500
basic criteria that serve as a guide.

2770
02:13:07,500 --> 02:13:10,710
And we have two specific criteria that are in effect

2771
02:13:10,710 --> 02:13:12,180
according to the DDC.

2772
02:13:12,180 --> 02:13:16,279
The first one is, does the request meet the intent of the

2773
02:13:16,279 --> 02:13:18,100
Future Land Use Plan,

2774
02:13:18,100 --> 02:13:21,340
which is an element of the comprehensive plan?

2775
02:13:21,340 --> 02:13:25,579
And then two, if we do approve or recommend approval for

2776
02:13:25,579 --> 02:13:26,539
the request,

2777
02:13:26,539 --> 02:13:29,750
would there be adequate provision of roadways,

2778
02:13:29,750 --> 02:13:34,300
transportation, water, sewer, and then public services,

2779
02:13:34,300 --> 02:13:37,739
and then the parks, so we look at those things.

2780
02:13:40,340 --> 02:13:45,100
The first item that we considered was the consistency with

2781
02:13:45,100 --> 02:13:48,539
the Future Land Use Plan.

2782
02:13:48,539 --> 02:13:52,649
This area, the subject property, is classified as low

2783
02:13:52,649 --> 02:13:56,739
density residential, the light yellow on the map.

2784
02:13:56,739 --> 02:14:02,060
Low density is intended to promote single-family detached

2785
02:14:02,060 --> 02:14:06,239
units that range in a density of one unit per acre all the

2786
02:14:06,239 --> 02:14:07,140
way up to four.

2787
02:14:11,140 --> 02:14:13,750
Well, let me go ahead and describe what else is going on in

2788
02:14:13,750 --> 02:14:15,260
the area.

2789
02:14:15,260 --> 02:14:19,359
As you get closer to Mingo Road, which is a primary arter

2790
02:14:19,359 --> 02:14:22,340
ial, you'll see a mix of some commercial.

2791
02:14:22,340 --> 02:14:27,630
You'll see moderate residential land use classification

2792
02:14:27,630 --> 02:14:30,060
here, some commercial just to the north,

2793
02:14:30,060 --> 02:14:33,270
and as you go further out, some employment center

2794
02:14:33,270 --> 02:14:33,859
industrial.

2795
02:14:33,859 --> 02:14:37,569
And those, that is what you would typically find along a

2796
02:14:37,569 --> 02:14:40,739
major street, those more intense uses.

2797
02:14:40,739 --> 02:14:45,710
And then we have those moderate residential uses that would

2798
02:14:45,710 --> 02:14:47,460
then transition to the low density

2799
02:14:47,460 --> 02:14:51,260
as you get farther away from the main streets.

2800
02:14:51,260 --> 02:14:55,130
So when we looked at this request, we found that it did

2801
02:14:55,130 --> 02:14:57,460
meet the Future Land Use Map.

2802
02:14:57,460 --> 02:15:03,260
NR6, as I stated before, promotes a higher density than

2803
02:15:03,260 --> 02:15:09,260
what we currently see in this area of the city.

2804
02:15:09,260 --> 02:15:12,470
And it also would introduce some uses that are not

2805
02:15:12,470 --> 02:15:14,380
compatible with this area.

2806
02:15:14,380 --> 02:15:18,659
Currently, the main product there is single-family, well,

2807
02:15:18,659 --> 02:15:20,859
primarily is single-family detached,

2808
02:15:20,859 --> 02:15:25,260
and the zoning's range from NR2 up to an NR4.

2809
02:15:25,260 --> 02:15:28,789
And most of the lots are about, are either somewhere

2810
02:15:28,789 --> 02:15:32,260
between 40 and 50 and 60 feet wide.

2811
02:15:34,859 --> 02:15:38,960
So when a request doesn't meet the Future Land Use Plan,

2812
02:15:38,960 --> 02:15:43,460
the DDC directs us to consider some other items

2813
02:15:43,460 --> 02:15:48,579
or some other elements as we analyze the request.

2814
02:15:48,579 --> 02:15:52,050
We start with compatibility, again, with the existing

2815
02:15:52,050 --> 02:15:55,460
character and what's already built in that area.

2816
02:15:55,460 --> 02:15:59,359
Compatibility in terms of building scale, the land use, and

2817
02:15:59,359 --> 02:16:00,859
construction type.

2818
02:16:00,859 --> 02:16:05,609
We look at that. We compare what is there with what's being

2819
02:16:05,609 --> 02:16:06,859
requested.

2820
02:16:06,859 --> 02:16:10,420
We also look at any potential impacts to the public

2821
02:16:10,420 --> 02:16:13,659
infrastructure, such as the roadways, the water,

2822
02:16:13,659 --> 02:16:17,529
the wastewater, sewer, and then again, the public services,

2823
02:16:17,529 --> 02:16:20,659
police, fire, EMS, and schools, and parks.

2824
02:16:20,659 --> 02:16:23,659
We also look at the environmental impacts.

2825
02:16:23,659 --> 02:16:27,270
Would there be any, if there's any environmentally

2826
02:16:27,270 --> 02:16:30,659
sensitive areas, what would be the impact to that?

2827
02:16:30,659 --> 02:16:34,190
If there's existing tree canopy on the site, what would be

2828
02:16:34,190 --> 02:16:35,659
the impact to those?

2829
02:16:35,659 --> 02:16:37,659
And then erosion control.

2830
02:16:37,659 --> 02:16:41,969
So things like that are what we consider as we look at

2831
02:16:41,969 --> 02:16:43,659
these requests.

2832
02:16:43,659 --> 02:16:48,780
And then the code also gives us a catch-all, anything, any

2833
02:16:48,780 --> 02:16:51,659
other compelling reason for the request, basically.

2834
02:16:51,659 --> 02:16:56,659
So that's left up to your imagination.

2835
02:16:56,659 --> 02:17:01,700
So when we look at compatibility, again, the surrounding

2836
02:17:01,700 --> 02:17:04,659
zones range from NR2 to NR4.

2837
02:17:04,659 --> 02:17:10,540
If you remember, maybe in December, this track to the north

2838
02:17:10,540 --> 02:17:14,340
, immediately to the north, was brought to you for

2839
02:17:14,340 --> 02:17:15,659
consideration.

2840
02:17:15,659 --> 02:17:19,680
The applicant was requesting an NR6 zoning, basically

2841
02:17:19,680 --> 02:17:22,659
identical to what we're here for today.

2842
02:17:22,659 --> 02:17:26,850
City Council actually approved the zoning with the

2843
02:17:26,850 --> 02:17:32,030
conditional overlay that restricted the uses on the

2844
02:17:32,030 --> 02:17:33,659
property to just single family.

2845
02:17:33,659 --> 02:17:43,879
And then it put a cap on the number of units that could be

2846
02:17:43,879 --> 02:17:46,659
developed.

2847
02:17:46,659 --> 02:17:50,139
So when we look at what available infrastructure is in the

2848
02:17:50,139 --> 02:17:54,659
area, along Audre Lane on the western border of the track,

2849
02:17:54,659 --> 02:18:01,020
there is water and wastewater available, and then also

2850
02:18:01,020 --> 02:18:05,909
along the north edge, it's available for extensions into

2851
02:18:05,909 --> 02:18:06,659
this property.

2852
02:18:06,659 --> 02:18:12,659
And those would be required when they get ready to develop.

2853
02:18:12,659 --> 02:18:17,350
The western segment of Audre is currently a two-lane, und

2854
02:18:17,350 --> 02:18:18,659
ivided road.

2855
02:18:18,659 --> 02:18:22,979
The city's mobility plan identifies it to be, when it's

2856
02:18:22,979 --> 02:18:26,760
finally improved, it'll be a four-lane divided with

2857
02:18:26,760 --> 02:18:28,659
sidewalks and bike lanes.

2858
02:18:28,659 --> 02:18:33,719
And the segment to the north is ultimately planned to be a

2859
02:18:33,719 --> 02:18:36,659
65-foot right-of-way.

2860
02:18:36,659 --> 02:18:41,659
The street width is going to be less than that.

2861
02:18:41,659 --> 02:18:44,920
And I believe that's going to also include sidewalks on

2862
02:18:44,920 --> 02:18:46,659
both sides of the street.

2863
02:18:46,659 --> 02:18:50,100
The right-of-way dedications and the perimeter street

2864
02:18:50,100 --> 02:18:53,549
improvements associated with this site will be assessed at

2865
02:18:53,549 --> 02:18:54,659
the platting stage.

2866
02:18:54,659 --> 02:19:02,659
We wouldn't do it here at zoning. Just a note.

2867
02:19:02,659 --> 02:19:06,620
So looking at the environmental aspects, we didn't find any

2868
02:19:06,620 --> 02:19:07,659
ESA on site.

2869
02:19:07,659 --> 02:19:13,659
There's no floodplain. On the western section of the track,

2870
02:19:13,659 --> 02:19:14,659
there is some tree canopy,

2871
02:19:14,659 --> 02:19:22,379
which would trigger our tree preservation and mitigation if

2872
02:19:22,379 --> 02:19:23,659
needed.

2873
02:19:23,659 --> 02:19:27,530
So as required by the Texas Local Government Code, we sent

2874
02:19:27,530 --> 02:19:33,350
out 66 letters to property owners within 200 feet of the

2875
02:19:33,350 --> 02:19:34,659
subject property.

2876
02:19:34,659 --> 02:19:41,559
We received to date six letters in opposition, and these

2877
02:19:41,559 --> 02:19:49,200
areas highlighted in red show the feedback that we received

2878
02:19:49,200 --> 02:19:52,659
from those owners within that 200 feet boundary.

2879
02:19:52,659 --> 02:19:58,389
We also issued 173 courtesy notices for the 500-foot buffer

2880
02:19:58,389 --> 02:20:02,870
, which is that blue line. And then the applicant held a

2881
02:20:02,870 --> 02:20:05,659
neighborhood meeting last week.

2882
02:20:05,659 --> 02:20:10,610
So in summary, NR6 is not consistent with the Future Land

2883
02:20:10,610 --> 02:20:11,659
Use Plan.

2884
02:20:11,659 --> 02:20:15,569
It's incompatible with the surrounding property in terms of

2885
02:20:15,569 --> 02:20:17,659
permitted density and uses.

2886
02:20:17,659 --> 02:20:22,829
And then we feel as staff that the site is more suitable to

2887
02:20:22,829 --> 02:20:25,659
an NR4 or NR3 district.

2888
02:20:25,659 --> 02:20:29,760
So we are recommending denial. And that concludes my

2889
02:20:29,760 --> 02:20:32,930
presentation. I can answer questions and the applicant is

2890
02:20:32,930 --> 02:20:33,659
also here.

2891
02:20:33,659 --> 02:20:35,659
I have a question. Commissioner Beck.

2892
02:20:35,659 --> 02:20:38,659
Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Shandrin, for the presentation.

2893
02:20:38,659 --> 02:20:43,899
Could you tell us what the on-street parking requirements

2894
02:20:43,899 --> 02:20:49,260
or allowances are for both NR2 and NR6 and what are those

2895
02:20:49,260 --> 02:20:52,659
for each, if they're different?

2896
02:20:52,659 --> 02:20:55,659
I'm going to.

2897
02:20:55,659 --> 02:20:56,659
No.

2898
02:20:56,659 --> 02:21:01,420
I don't have that information with me per se, but generally

2899
02:21:01,420 --> 02:21:06,000
any unstriped street is open for on-street parking unless

2900
02:21:06,000 --> 02:21:09,659
there's a sign that says it's not allowed.

2901
02:21:09,659 --> 02:21:12,659
So they could be parking on both sides of the street.

2902
02:21:12,659 --> 02:21:15,850
Unless there's a, unless it's striped or there's a sign

2903
02:21:15,850 --> 02:21:16,659
prohibiting it.

2904
02:21:16,659 --> 02:21:20,040
And if that's the case, does that allow for fire trucks to

2905
02:21:20,040 --> 02:21:21,659
make it through there?

2906
02:21:21,659 --> 02:21:26,120
What we, the feedback we received is that our smallest

2907
02:21:26,120 --> 02:21:30,739
street cross section does not facilitate the fire truck if

2908
02:21:30,739 --> 02:21:32,659
there is parking on both sides of the street.

2909
02:21:32,659 --> 02:21:36,780
And I know the city is currently looking at that to make

2910
02:21:36,780 --> 02:21:40,620
some changes so that at least we can get a fire truck

2911
02:21:40,620 --> 02:21:41,659
through.

2912
02:21:41,659 --> 02:21:45,059
It may look like, it may end up that we allow parking on

2913
02:21:45,059 --> 02:21:48,190
one side of the street or we just widen the section

2914
02:21:48,190 --> 02:21:51,659
altogether, but that hasn't been finalized yet.

2915
02:21:51,659 --> 02:21:55,659
Okay. Thank you.

2916
02:21:55,659 --> 02:21:57,670
Mr. I just wanted to add to that. If you recall from the

2917
02:21:57,670 --> 02:22:00,540
work sessions, the new transportation criteria manual had

2918
02:22:00,540 --> 02:22:01,659
those new sections.

2919
02:22:01,659 --> 02:22:05,659
So the widths for residential streets have been widened.

2920
02:22:05,659 --> 02:22:08,250
And so it kind of goes back to that context sensitive

2921
02:22:08,250 --> 02:22:09,659
corridor, if you will.

2922
02:22:09,659 --> 02:22:12,870
So they, there, I think there were three options where they

2923
02:22:12,870 --> 02:22:15,760
could choose whether or not they would be on street parking

2924
02:22:15,760 --> 02:22:16,659
or bike lane.

2925
02:22:16,659 --> 02:22:19,350
That would be looked at. Obviously those would be adopted

2926
02:22:19,350 --> 02:22:21,659
prior to this property going through platting.

2927
02:22:21,659 --> 02:22:24,090
So they would be subject to that new, that new criteria

2928
02:22:24,090 --> 02:22:24,659
manual.

2929
02:22:24,659 --> 02:22:26,659
Great. Thanks, Richard.

2930
02:22:26,659 --> 02:22:29,659
Okay.

2931
02:22:29,659 --> 02:22:34,659
Any other questions for staff?

2932
02:22:34,659 --> 02:22:35,659
Commissioner Ellis.

2933
02:22:35,659 --> 02:22:37,659
Sorry. Thank you, Chair.

2934
02:22:37,659 --> 02:22:41,530
Okay. So on that note, but zoning does not change a

2935
02:22:41,530 --> 02:22:42,659
residential street with.

2936
02:22:42,659 --> 02:22:43,659
No.

2937
02:22:43,659 --> 02:22:50,659
Okay. Just want to make that clarification. Thank you.

2938
02:22:50,659 --> 02:22:54,659
I have two cards wishing to speak.

2939
02:22:54,659 --> 02:23:02,659
First card will be Thomas Fletcher.

2940
02:23:02,659 --> 02:23:07,809
Good evening. Thomas Fletcher, Kim Lee Horn. I'm the

2941
02:23:07,809 --> 02:23:09,489
engineer for the applicant 5750 Genesis court Frisco, Texas

2942
02:23:09,489 --> 02:23:09,659
.

2943
02:23:09,659 --> 02:23:18,659
I've got a quick presentation for you all.

2944
02:23:18,659 --> 02:23:23,129
Okay. This which scene on the screen is the aerial of the

2945
02:23:23,129 --> 02:23:24,659
site to the south.

2946
02:23:24,659 --> 02:23:28,319
We have all dress states, which we abut on our south

2947
02:23:28,319 --> 02:23:29,659
property line.

2948
02:23:29,659 --> 02:23:34,659
And then also we have, I believe it's.

2949
02:23:34,659 --> 02:23:37,659
Let me double check. I believe it's.

2950
02:23:37,659 --> 02:23:40,659
East Ridge edition.

2951
02:23:40,659 --> 02:23:45,659
Which came after all the states East Oaks edition.

2952
02:23:45,659 --> 02:23:50,659
So the that's the tracks to our south throughout our track.

2953
02:23:50,659 --> 02:23:53,870
We've got a small sliver that goes up to all the east west

2954
02:23:53,870 --> 02:23:54,659
section of all.

2955
02:23:54,659 --> 02:23:58,270
And then we've got the north south section of all on our

2956
02:23:58,270 --> 02:23:58,659
west.

2957
02:23:58,659 --> 02:24:03,520
As Shandrian mentioned the east west section is slated to

2958
02:24:03,520 --> 02:24:07,709
be a 65 foot right away, which is a collector section and

2959
02:24:07,709 --> 02:24:09,659
be 37 foot back to back.

2960
02:24:09,659 --> 02:24:13,659
And that does have sidewalks, future sidewalks.

2961
02:24:13,659 --> 02:24:18,129
The the existing section on Audre north south is currently

2962
02:24:18,129 --> 02:24:20,659
four lane undivided section.

2963
02:24:20,659 --> 02:24:24,530
So I believe that pavement with is somewhere between 45 to

2964
02:24:24,530 --> 02:24:28,379
49 feet back to back, which has two lanes in each direction

2965
02:24:28,379 --> 02:24:33,659
, which would generally be classified as a minor arterial.

2966
02:24:33,659 --> 02:24:36,659
Here is the current dent in zoning map.

2967
02:24:36,659 --> 02:24:40,370
As you can see, the site just to our north was recently

2968
02:24:40,370 --> 02:24:43,659
adopted in our six with overlay conditions.

2969
02:24:43,659 --> 02:24:47,120
We intend I have a concept plan I'll show you here in a

2970
02:24:47,120 --> 02:24:51,659
second, but we intend to develop single family residential.

2971
02:24:51,659 --> 02:24:55,659
So we are open to recommendation with overlay conditions.

2972
02:24:55,659 --> 02:24:58,870
So just want to make sure that you all are aware of that,

2973
02:24:58,870 --> 02:25:01,879
that we're not we were not intending to develop anything

2974
02:25:01,879 --> 02:25:03,659
other than single family.

2975
02:25:03,659 --> 02:25:06,659
So we want to make sure that you all are aware.

2976
02:25:06,659 --> 02:25:09,889
Here's the future land use plan, which shows our track and

2977
02:25:09,889 --> 02:25:13,389
all their surrounding tracks, which is moderate residential

2978
02:25:13,389 --> 02:25:15,659
, which is up to four units per acre.

2979
02:25:15,659 --> 02:25:17,659
And then here's our concept plan.

2980
02:25:17,659 --> 02:25:21,219
So what you're seeing is this tract is approximately 13

2981
02:25:21,219 --> 02:25:22,659
acres on the layout.

2982
02:25:22,659 --> 02:25:27,719
We're showing 56 residential lots because of the western

2983
02:25:27,719 --> 02:25:31,659
portion, the depth of the track on the western portion.

2984
02:25:31,659 --> 02:25:35,149
We've got really deep lots along there which provide

2985
02:25:35,149 --> 02:25:38,729
opportunity for tree preservation along the state's

2986
02:25:38,729 --> 02:25:39,659
boundary.

2987
02:25:39,659 --> 02:25:42,989
We also have flexibility in our plan to provide tree

2988
02:25:42,989 --> 02:25:46,739
preservation on the perimeter where it's where it's to the

2989
02:25:46,739 --> 02:25:49,659
south where there's the existing homes.

2990
02:25:49,659 --> 02:25:52,899
So there was a homeowners meeting in which the Brad Shelton

2991
02:25:52,899 --> 02:25:56,069
and one of the other engineers from our firm attended last

2992
02:25:56,069 --> 02:25:56,659
week.

2993
02:25:56,659 --> 02:25:59,379
There were comments and concerns that were brought up in

2994
02:25:59,379 --> 02:26:01,620
that and I'll try and address those within this

2995
02:26:01,620 --> 02:26:02,659
presentation.

2996
02:26:02,659 --> 02:26:07,120
But I did want to point out the Aldra State's plat when it

2997
02:26:07,120 --> 02:26:09,659
was plotted back in 84.

2998
02:26:09,659 --> 02:26:14,670
That is a plat of 54 lots on 12 acres, which is a four

2999
02:26:14,670 --> 02:26:16,659
point five density.

3000
02:26:16,659 --> 02:26:20,959
So when you look at the current zoning maps that show it's

3001
02:26:20,959 --> 02:26:25,659
in our four in actuality, it's slightly over in our four.

3002
02:26:25,659 --> 02:26:29,840
So our development with the 56 lots on 13 acres, that's

3003
02:26:29,840 --> 02:26:31,659
four point three units.

3004
02:26:31,659 --> 02:26:34,180
So it's actually when you look at the densities of the

3005
02:26:34,180 --> 02:26:38,110
adjacent plants in the area that that we're next to, we're

3006
02:26:38,110 --> 02:26:42,659
really in line with the with the existing conditions.

3007
02:26:42,659 --> 02:26:46,979
So some of the concerns that came up with the neighborhood

3008
02:26:46,979 --> 02:26:49,659
meeting was the was the traffic.

3009
02:26:49,659 --> 02:26:53,889
Main entry for this development would be on Alder Lane,

3010
02:26:53,889 --> 02:26:56,659
which is a four lane divided roadway.

3011
02:26:56,659 --> 02:26:59,870
Fifty six lots would be a very minimal impact to the

3012
02:26:59,870 --> 02:27:03,659
existing traffic percentage wise that's already there.

3013
02:27:03,659 --> 02:27:06,870
We would have two points of access to meet the fire code

3014
02:27:06,870 --> 02:27:09,909
requirements, a connection to Alder Lane and then a

3015
02:27:09,909 --> 02:27:11,659
connection to Latimore.

3016
02:27:11,659 --> 02:27:15,809
When Alder State's was developed, the city had foresight to

3017
02:27:15,809 --> 02:27:19,729
know that development is going to grow and they provided a

3018
02:27:19,729 --> 02:27:23,379
street stub to the to the undeveloped track so that when it

3019
02:27:23,379 --> 02:27:26,899
does develop, it would have connection for utility and for

3020
02:27:26,899 --> 02:27:28,659
for transportation purposes.

3021
02:27:28,659 --> 02:27:32,250
There was a concern about on street parking that was

3022
02:27:32,250 --> 02:27:34,659
mentioned in any development.

3023
02:27:34,659 --> 02:27:36,870
We're following the current standards as the city updates

3024
02:27:36,870 --> 02:27:37,659
their standards.

3025
02:27:37,659 --> 02:27:43,549
We follow those standards. The city does have off street

3026
02:27:43,549 --> 02:27:45,379
parking requirements of two off street parking spaces per

3027
02:27:45,379 --> 02:27:45,659
lot.

3028
02:27:45,659 --> 02:27:51,180
So the setback limits for the garage are stipulated such

3029
02:27:51,180 --> 02:27:56,579
that there's room for two vehicles in the parking in the

3030
02:27:56,579 --> 02:27:59,659
driveway for for each lot.

3031
02:27:59,659 --> 02:28:01,659
Street damage.

3032
02:28:01,659 --> 02:28:04,870
The that's always a concern when we go through the

3033
02:28:04,870 --> 02:28:07,659
development process and do the design.

3034
02:28:07,659 --> 02:28:10,870
There's pre construction meeting held with the city and the

3035
02:28:10,870 --> 02:28:13,770
city take notes of the conditions of the existing roadways

3036
02:28:13,770 --> 02:28:16,819
and the inspectors are constantly monitoring construction

3037
02:28:16,819 --> 02:28:19,899
looking at is that our construction that's causing damage

3038
02:28:19,899 --> 02:28:21,659
to the street or is it.

3039
02:28:21,659 --> 02:28:24,659
Is there something else or is there damage at all.

3040
02:28:24,659 --> 02:28:28,020
So that's that's one of the things that's looked at and

3041
02:28:28,020 --> 02:28:30,659
kind of governed through the process.

3042
02:28:30,659 --> 02:28:32,659
The contractor would be responsible. They're there.

3043
02:28:32,659 --> 02:28:34,659
There are three way contracts with the city.

3044
02:28:34,659 --> 02:28:38,379
They have responsibilities to the developer and to the city

3045
02:28:38,379 --> 02:28:41,760
if damage is called to remedy that that damage and in my

3046
02:28:41,760 --> 02:28:45,479
experience and projects where there's been any item that

3047
02:28:45,479 --> 02:28:49,280
hasn't been remedied to the city's satisfaction and the

3048
02:28:49,280 --> 02:28:51,659
city just withholds the final acceptance.

3049
02:28:51,659 --> 02:28:55,040
So we would not get a final acceptance letter until the

3050
02:28:55,040 --> 02:28:58,569
city is satisfied with the project the improvements the

3051
02:28:58,569 --> 02:29:02,319
public improvements and remediation of any damage that may

3052
02:29:02,319 --> 02:29:03,659
have occurred.

3053
02:29:03,659 --> 02:29:07,659
Tree removal concerns with the extra depth lots.

3054
02:29:07,659 --> 02:29:11,180
We are doing a layout such that we're preserving that

3055
02:29:11,180 --> 02:29:14,860
perimeter trees those so that the neighbors still have

3056
02:29:14,860 --> 02:29:18,659
those right there on the border with their property.

3057
02:29:18,659 --> 02:29:22,420
We are obligated to meet the city of Denton's ordinances

3058
02:29:22,420 --> 02:29:27,059
for tree removal, which currently requires over 20% of 20%

3059
02:29:27,059 --> 02:29:29,659
of the tree canopy to be preserved.

3060
02:29:29,659 --> 02:29:33,200
So we would be following those regulations and I think with

3061
02:29:33,200 --> 02:29:36,600
the plan that we've got, we would actually be exceeding

3062
02:29:36,600 --> 02:29:39,870
those regulations but as part of this, as this moves

3063
02:29:39,870 --> 02:29:43,319
forward we would do a tree survey with the preliminary plat

3064
02:29:43,319 --> 02:29:47,010
and quantify that density as I mentioned, what we're

3065
02:29:47,010 --> 02:29:47,659
proposing is a

3066
02:29:47,659 --> 02:29:53,659
is 56 units on 13 acres which is a 4.3 density.

3067
02:29:53,659 --> 02:29:58,250
I've shown you that the Alder states was 4.49 when it

3068
02:29:58,250 --> 02:30:03,629
developed East Oaks edition was 34 lots on 7.745 acres

3069
02:30:03,629 --> 02:30:08,659
which is 4.39. So we're actually just slightly under that.

3070
02:30:08,659 --> 02:30:12,530
We're, we're happy to do an overlay or if y'all are

3071
02:30:12,530 --> 02:30:17,260
inclined to recommend approval with an overlay condition of

3072
02:30:17,260 --> 02:30:22,079
single family use only with a density of no greater than 4.

3073
02:30:22,079 --> 02:30:26,440
3 or somewhere in that that area where we're perfectly

3074
02:30:26,440 --> 02:30:28,659
acceptable with that.

3075
02:30:28,659 --> 02:30:31,489
And there was another concern about decreased property

3076
02:30:31,489 --> 02:30:34,440
values. One of the things we did was get on Denton Central

3077
02:30:34,440 --> 02:30:37,479
Appraisal District and kind of look at some of the property

3078
02:30:37,479 --> 02:30:40,659
values in the area. And what we can tell you is that based

3079
02:30:40,659 --> 02:30:44,659
off of current market conditions land prices development

3080
02:30:44,659 --> 02:30:48,370
calls, all that's going to drive a proposed starting home

3081
02:30:48,370 --> 02:30:52,010
price point above the current home valuations that are in

3082
02:30:52,010 --> 02:30:55,479
the area. So, if anything, this develop would act

3083
02:30:55,479 --> 02:30:59,069
development would actually help increase the property

3084
02:30:59,069 --> 02:31:01,659
values because when development occurs, newer

3085
02:31:01,659 --> 02:31:06,549
development occurs in the area with higher valuations that

3086
02:31:06,549 --> 02:31:11,659
helps bring up the valuations of the adjacent properties.

3087
02:31:11,659 --> 02:31:14,750
So project benefits for the proposed density is in line

3088
02:31:14,750 --> 02:31:16,659
with the adjacent developments.

3089
02:31:16,659 --> 02:31:34,670
It meets a market need for size and style of housing. We

3090
02:31:34,670 --> 02:31:34,899
feel it's consistent with the Denton plan and that we're,

3091
02:31:34,899 --> 02:31:35,110
we're right at or just over the four units per acre, and it

3092
02:31:35,110 --> 02:31:35,350
's consistent with the, with the adjacent subdivisions and

3093
02:31:35,350 --> 02:31:37,360
consistent with the approved zoning of the track to the

3094
02:31:37,360 --> 02:31:39,659
north of us that was done recently.

3095
02:31:39,659 --> 02:31:42,989
It provides open space and trees we had a nice open space

3096
02:31:42,989 --> 02:31:46,479
park area, kind of in our north eastern corner that we were

3097
02:31:46,479 --> 02:31:49,920
adding so that we could kind of create a nice little pocket

3098
02:31:49,920 --> 02:31:51,659
park amenity in there.

3099
02:31:51,659 --> 02:31:56,129
And, you know, it was with the development will, you know,

3100
02:31:56,129 --> 02:31:59,459
meet that all the drainage ordinances the codes

3101
02:31:59,459 --> 02:32:03,620
requirements for that and provide a benefit as far as the,

3102
02:32:03,620 --> 02:32:07,760
the utility and drainage of the area. And really that's,

3103
02:32:07,760 --> 02:32:10,290
that's all my presentation I'll be happy to answer any

3104
02:32:10,290 --> 02:32:11,659
questions you may have got some questions

3105
02:32:11,659 --> 02:32:23,659
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Yes, sir. A

3106
02:32:23,659 --> 02:32:23,659
couple of questions for you. So 4.3 is the number of units

3107
02:32:23,659 --> 02:32:23,659
per acre that you have right now with 56.

3108
02:32:23,659 --> 02:32:27,530
So, you know, we have, we have the ability to to reduce

3109
02:32:27,530 --> 02:32:31,540
down from proposed or applied for zone. We can't do it for

3110
02:32:31,540 --> 02:32:36,149
yours. If you're 4.3, we can't we can't we suggest appear

3111
02:32:36,149 --> 02:32:40,090
as a commission we can't suggest say we shouldn't do in our

3112
02:32:40,090 --> 02:32:43,500
six we should do in our four instead, because you know, you

3113
02:32:43,500 --> 02:32:44,659
don't confine to in our four.

3114
02:32:44,659 --> 02:32:48,360
Because you have 4.3. Correct. Is there any way for you

3115
02:32:48,360 --> 02:32:51,739
during this conceptual stage to be able to reconfigure lots

3116
02:32:51,739 --> 02:32:54,870
to be able to fit to in our four zoning if we were to vote

3117
02:32:54,870 --> 02:32:55,659
that way.

3118
02:32:55,659 --> 02:33:04,049
I think we could I mean if basically we're saying is if we

3119
02:33:04,049 --> 02:33:11,930
go to in our four with a maximum of four, we would end up

3120
02:33:11,930 --> 02:33:18,729
having to take away for lots from the plan. That would,

3121
02:33:18,729 --> 02:33:19,059
what that would come down to. So it's my understanding and

3122
02:33:19,059 --> 02:33:19,309
I'm and correct me if I'm wrong, that you can make a

3123
02:33:19,309 --> 02:33:21,200
recommendation for in our six not to exceed 56 units on the

3124
02:33:21,200 --> 02:33:21,659
property.

3125
02:33:21,659 --> 02:33:24,399
You can write, you can, but there's been discussion and

3126
02:33:24,399 --> 02:33:27,299
work session before that, as we throw out overlays left and

3127
02:33:27,299 --> 02:33:30,049
right the problem with overlays is that if something were

3128
02:33:30,049 --> 02:33:32,659
to happen to this project and was to fall through.

3129
02:33:32,659 --> 02:33:37,459
There's no there's no clear designation as of right now,

3130
02:33:37,459 --> 02:33:42,629
whenever another developers looking for land that we've rez

3131
02:33:42,629 --> 02:33:47,360
oned with an overlay there's no clear designation on that

3132
02:33:47,360 --> 02:33:52,059
zoning of if an overlay exists unless they do digging and

3133
02:33:52,059 --> 02:33:59,659
so there could be a scenario where someone could purchase a

3134
02:33:59,659 --> 02:33:59,959
piece of land without knowing there's an overlay on it,

3135
02:33:59,959 --> 02:34:00,270
which is probably their fault for not doing due diligence

3136
02:34:00,270 --> 02:34:00,559
but right we want to avoid having hundreds of overlay

3137
02:34:00,559 --> 02:34:00,879
districts on every single new zoning property we do so just

3138
02:34:00,879 --> 02:34:01,139
to just a piece brought up there and I would say I would

3139
02:34:01,139 --> 02:34:01,659
want to consult my client.

3140
02:34:01,659 --> 02:34:05,819
But without answering. Yeah, because we're talking about,

3141
02:34:05,819 --> 02:34:08,989
you know, I think our preference would be if you are open

3142
02:34:08,989 --> 02:34:12,079
to the overlay with the maximum not to exceed, but if if

3143
02:34:12,079 --> 02:34:15,049
that's something you would like me to consult with my

3144
02:34:15,049 --> 02:34:18,659
client on I can do that and you can't shortlist we asked a

3145
02:34:18,659 --> 02:34:20,409
couple of questions so there's be public hearing later so

3146
02:34:20,409 --> 02:34:24,659
you can write very well do that come back afterwards.

3147
02:34:24,659 --> 02:34:28,430
The was the projected home value and the conceptual. I mean

3148
02:34:28,430 --> 02:34:32,069
just just looking at the development costs for this type of

3149
02:34:32,069 --> 02:34:35,719
development size lot I think we're projecting a starting

3150
02:34:35,719 --> 02:34:38,659
price in the 240 to 280 range.

3151
02:34:38,659 --> 02:34:42,209
I mean, we're still talking because we don't until we have

3152
02:34:42,209 --> 02:34:45,690
zoning to we kind of go through and do the preliminary plat

3153
02:34:45,690 --> 02:34:48,940
and kind of get more of the details defined it's hard to

3154
02:34:48,940 --> 02:34:52,420
dial in with a particular builder, but I would say that we

3155
02:34:52,420 --> 02:34:56,659
're looking at a starting price around the 240 and up to 280

3156
02:34:56,659 --> 02:34:58,659
and it could go up from there

3157
02:34:58,659 --> 02:35:02,360
and we're in the zoning processes not so right that it is

3158
02:35:02,360 --> 02:35:06,069
right sexual just wanted to know because he said it'd be

3159
02:35:06,069 --> 02:35:08,909
more than what's surrounding it. What's more right building

3160
02:35:08,909 --> 02:35:09,719
$500,000 houses there I don't think so right now and then

3161
02:35:09,719 --> 02:35:12,659
when I looked at the home values there looked like the home

3162
02:35:12,659 --> 02:35:16,659
values were in the lower 200,000 range.

3163
02:35:16,659 --> 02:35:20,579
So that just kind of gives you an idea is probably we're

3164
02:35:20,579 --> 02:35:25,229
probably talking 10 to 20% more is kind of where I would

3165
02:35:25,229 --> 02:35:29,430
estimate that at this point now question for you as well as

3166
02:35:29,430 --> 02:35:33,399
with the the lot north of you that a butts right there in

3167
02:35:33,399 --> 02:35:38,899
that corner behind the church that we that was voted in our

3168
02:35:38,899 --> 02:35:39,659
six.

3169
02:35:39,659 --> 02:35:42,870
So was there any discussion with that project and

3170
02:35:42,870 --> 02:35:46,209
collaborating in this time at all was at one point the app

3171
02:35:46,209 --> 02:35:49,649
you know my client looked to see if they had any interest

3172
02:35:49,649 --> 02:35:51,659
in selling that property.

3173
02:35:51,659 --> 02:35:56,149
I did at one time do a layout on that property and that

3174
02:35:56,149 --> 02:35:58,659
included that property.

3175
02:35:58,659 --> 02:36:03,010
There wasn't a deal to be had, I guess that developer had

3176
02:36:03,010 --> 02:36:07,600
planned to move forward with his development as a single

3177
02:36:07,600 --> 02:36:08,659
project.

3178
02:36:08,659 --> 02:36:13,129
You know we did look at hey if this property was able to be

3179
02:36:13,129 --> 02:36:17,260
tied to this tract as well how could we do a layout that

3180
02:36:17,260 --> 02:36:21,750
would maximize the topography and the site conditions

3181
02:36:21,750 --> 02:36:23,659
provide open space.

3182
02:36:23,659 --> 02:36:32,049
And, but from that point, since there was no willingness to

3183
02:36:32,049 --> 02:36:38,659
sell it really became two separate projects.

3184
02:36:38,659 --> 02:36:41,180
Commissioner Zell, thank you, Mr. Fletcher for your

3185
02:36:41,180 --> 02:36:43,780
presentation is actually really helpful to answer a lot of

3186
02:36:43,780 --> 02:36:44,659
my questions.

3187
02:36:44,659 --> 02:36:47,850
The only one I have left over from the presentation is, it

3188
02:36:47,850 --> 02:36:51,110
's my understanding that the address states lots are 50 to

3189
02:36:51,110 --> 02:36:54,530
60 feet wide on the frontage, how would your lots compared

3190
02:36:54,530 --> 02:36:57,750
to so I know like, so our lots are minimum lot frontage

3191
02:36:57,750 --> 02:36:59,659
would be 50 foot in width.

3192
02:36:59,659 --> 02:37:03,340
So they're they're comparable I mean when I pulled the Aud

3193
02:37:03,340 --> 02:37:07,370
ra plaid, there were, I think their lots were up to 60 foot

3194
02:37:07,370 --> 02:37:11,059
wide. It looked like the depth on most of their lots were

3195
02:37:11,059 --> 02:37:14,659
in the 116 foot 117 foot depth range.

3196
02:37:14,659 --> 02:37:18,110
So the majority of our lots especially on the western

3197
02:37:18,110 --> 02:37:22,379
portion of the track would be 135 and that range because of

3198
02:37:22,379 --> 02:37:26,250
the depth of the track because the residential street going

3199
02:37:26,250 --> 02:37:29,659
through there is in a 50 foot right of way.

3200
02:37:29,659 --> 02:37:33,059
It's a loaded street so you take the overall depth and take

3201
02:37:33,059 --> 02:37:36,829
the 50 foot out and essentially we're splitting it between

3202
02:37:36,829 --> 02:37:40,129
the two. One of the things we did on our, on our concept

3203
02:37:40,129 --> 02:37:43,370
plan is we try to put a curvilinear element to the street

3204
02:37:43,370 --> 02:37:45,799
so we didn't have a straight thoroughfare so it kind of

3205
02:37:45,799 --> 02:37:49,100
breaks up that that drive as you come into the, into the

3206
02:37:49,100 --> 02:37:50,659
subdivision but.

3207
02:37:50,659 --> 02:37:54,909
The lots would be a little bit narrower but they, the

3208
02:37:54,909 --> 02:37:59,659
majority of them would be on average quite a bit deeper.

3209
02:37:59,659 --> 02:38:01,659
Thank you.

3210
02:38:01,659 --> 02:38:04,180
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr pleasure for your

3211
02:38:04,180 --> 02:38:06,719
presentation I like the idea that you're going to leave

3212
02:38:06,719 --> 02:38:09,379
that one little stretch of land up there on the northeast

3213
02:38:09,379 --> 02:38:12,659
sexers wooded area maybe future Clark.

3214
02:38:12,659 --> 02:38:14,659
Right.

3215
02:38:14,659 --> 02:38:18,770
In your discussions with the community, the community

3216
02:38:18,770 --> 02:38:21,659
meeting had to go discuss setbacks.

3217
02:38:21,659 --> 02:38:25,709
I'm not sure I like said I wasn't able to attend that the

3218
02:38:25,709 --> 02:38:29,659
engineer I've got the engineer here with me that was.

3219
02:38:29,659 --> 02:38:32,659
Could we ask him. Yeah, absolutely.

3220
02:38:32,659 --> 02:38:37,659
Either Scott or Brad can come up.

3221
02:38:37,659 --> 02:38:43,399
And if we could, could you tell us how many people attended

3222
02:38:43,399 --> 02:38:44,659
the meeting.

3223
02:38:44,659 --> 02:38:47,659
Scott Pemburn, Kimmy horn.

3224
02:38:47,659 --> 02:38:51,659
5750 Genesis court Frisco, Texas.

3225
02:38:51,659 --> 02:38:58,659
So your last name again, Pemburn pain burn pain burn.

3226
02:38:58,659 --> 02:39:01,659
Okay, thank you.

3227
02:39:01,659 --> 02:39:06,659
Setbacks were discussed.

3228
02:39:06,659 --> 02:39:12,399
The setbacks were proposing or in in line with the zoning,

3229
02:39:12,399 --> 02:39:18,719
of course, we, we have, I think currently five foot set

3230
02:39:18,719 --> 02:39:20,659
backs on the side yards.

3231
02:39:20,659 --> 02:39:23,659
And I think, I think 10 foot setbacks in the front.

3232
02:39:23,659 --> 02:39:39,340
10 foot. The zoning ordinance and this is for all the

3233
02:39:39,340 --> 02:39:40,760
different zoning districts. So in our two has a 10 foot

3234
02:39:40,760 --> 02:39:40,969
side yard setback in our three, I believe has a six foot

3235
02:39:40,969 --> 02:39:41,180
side yard setback in our four is a five foot side yard set

3236
02:39:41,180 --> 02:39:41,659
back in our six is a four foot side yard setback.

3237
02:39:41,659 --> 02:39:44,870
When we do residential development, we never utilize the

3238
02:39:44,870 --> 02:39:47,879
four foot side yard setback when you have less than eight

3239
02:39:47,879 --> 02:39:51,049
feet or less than 10 feet between buildings, you have

3240
02:39:51,049 --> 02:39:54,299
certain fire code requirements that you then have to follow

3241
02:39:54,299 --> 02:39:57,659
which makes building construction more expensive.

3242
02:39:57,659 --> 02:40:01,260
With the, with the layout when we talk about a 50 foot lot

3243
02:40:01,260 --> 02:40:04,579
we have a 40 foot pad the builders really look for the

3244
02:40:04,579 --> 02:40:08,120
building pad, and they develop we we developed a lot around

3245
02:40:08,120 --> 02:40:11,659
the building pad so they've got 40 foot product.

3246
02:40:11,659 --> 02:40:15,530
We do a 50 foot lot five foot side yards 10 foot in between

3247
02:40:15,530 --> 02:40:18,989
buildings, the city standard setbacks if you look the city

3248
02:40:18,989 --> 02:40:22,479
has a minimum setback of 10 feet along the front yard a

3249
02:40:22,479 --> 02:40:25,659
minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet as well.

3250
02:40:25,659 --> 02:40:29,360
These lots the minimum depth of these lots are building

3251
02:40:29,360 --> 02:40:34,049
pads are going to be 40 by 75 with a minimum depth of 120

3252
02:40:34,049 --> 02:40:37,659
on on some of the lots that are further to the east.

3253
02:40:37,659 --> 02:40:41,729
You've got a 20 foot front yard setback 75 foot pad that

3254
02:40:41,729 --> 02:40:46,049
leaves a 25 foot rear yard. So the city does allow for 10

3255
02:40:46,049 --> 02:40:49,819
foot front yard setback but they require 20 feet for the

3256
02:40:49,819 --> 02:40:53,469
setback to the garage in order to account for those two off

3257
02:40:53,469 --> 02:40:55,659
street parking requirements.

3258
02:40:55,659 --> 02:40:58,020
Thank you that's what I was looking for you mentioned you

3259
02:40:58,020 --> 02:41:00,879
could get to two cars and driveway but I see how that's one

3260
02:41:00,879 --> 02:41:02,659
of the things like most.

3261
02:41:02,659 --> 02:41:05,180
That's one of the things that you really have to explain if

3262
02:41:05,180 --> 02:41:07,909
you're asking what by code what is the code minimum. Well

3263
02:41:07,909 --> 02:41:11,069
the code minimum front yard setback is 10 feet that's in

3264
02:41:11,069 --> 02:41:14,659
the development code, but it also has the requirement of 20

3265
02:41:14,659 --> 02:41:17,659
feet for from the property to the garage

3266
02:41:17,659 --> 02:41:20,870
where you get and we do all when we go through into our

3267
02:41:20,870 --> 02:41:24,389
grading plans and everything we set the whole building 20

3268
02:41:24,389 --> 02:41:27,870
foot back because it just when you start talking about

3269
02:41:27,870 --> 02:41:30,770
grading and drive slopes and all that it just it kind of

3270
02:41:30,770 --> 02:41:33,370
makes it more of a challenge when you get that close to the

3271
02:41:33,370 --> 02:41:33,659
street.

3272
02:41:33,659 --> 02:41:39,389
Okay, one more question for you but Scott how many people

3273
02:41:39,389 --> 02:41:42,659
attended the community meeting.

3274
02:41:42,659 --> 02:41:48,149
I'm in the neighborhood of 10 to 15. 1015. Okay, thank you.

3275
02:41:48,149 --> 02:41:51,049
One last question for you, Mr. Fletcher. Yes, sir. In your

3276
02:41:51,049 --> 02:41:54,549
presentation you talked about how you, the way your layout

3277
02:41:54,549 --> 02:41:58,149
was that you would minimize tree removal but when I look,

3278
02:41:58,149 --> 02:42:00,659
looking at the picture that new street that you're

3279
02:42:00,659 --> 02:42:03,889
going to connect to Audra runs right through a big patch of

3280
02:42:03,889 --> 02:42:07,120
trees and then you have houses on both sides. So, right

3281
02:42:07,120 --> 02:42:10,190
when we put this together I don't know if you can bring it

3282
02:42:10,190 --> 02:42:13,750
back up but when we put this together and did the layout we

3283
02:42:13,750 --> 02:42:17,659
realized that there's, once we do our tree survey, that

3284
02:42:17,659 --> 02:42:21,180
there's probably some opportunity to adjust the layout in

3285
02:42:21,180 --> 02:42:24,930
that area for additional tree preservation. We even talked

3286
02:42:24,930 --> 02:42:28,479
about maybe looking at doing a boulevard in there where the

3287
02:42:28,479 --> 02:42:31,870
street wraps around it if we have enough depth, so that we

3288
02:42:31,870 --> 02:42:33,659
can kind of create some nice

3289
02:42:33,659 --> 02:42:47,479
center median with three or four of the really nice large

3290
02:42:47,479 --> 02:42:51,819
trees in that. And that would be something once we have a

3291
02:42:51,819 --> 02:42:52,049
tree survey we would try because it adds value. I mean we

3292
02:42:52,049 --> 02:42:52,270
want to preserve the trees. Anything we can do to enhance

3293
02:42:52,270 --> 02:42:53,659
the look and feel of the neighborhood is going to make it

3294
02:42:53,659 --> 02:42:54,659
more desirable.

3295
02:42:54,659 --> 02:43:05,129
Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions for the

3296
02:43:05,129 --> 02:43:05,659
applicant? Thank you.

3297
02:43:05,659 --> 02:43:16,659
Next card I have is Brad Shelton.

3298
02:43:16,659 --> 02:43:22,760
Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Brad Shelton, 2925 Punch Club

3299
02:43:22,760 --> 02:43:25,950
Road here in Denton. I think Thomas has done very well at

3300
02:43:25,950 --> 02:43:28,260
doing the presentation and answering questions but I'm also

3301
02:43:28,260 --> 02:43:30,370
here to answer any further questions that you may have of

3302
02:43:30,370 --> 02:43:32,659
me on behalf of the applicant.

3303
02:43:32,659 --> 02:43:33,659
Commissioner Matt.

3304
02:43:33,659 --> 02:43:36,120
Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I meant to ask, he said he had

3305
02:43:36,120 --> 02:43:39,899
roughly 15 to 20 people there. Yes, sir. We got six letters

3306
02:43:39,899 --> 02:43:43,870
of opposition to this. What was the headcount on that at

3307
02:43:43,870 --> 02:43:45,659
the meeting? Did you seem to have a 50/50?

3308
02:43:45,659 --> 02:43:52,530
It was mixed. The biggest concerns, again, that night were

3309
02:43:52,530 --> 02:43:56,639
from the few was, of course, just not having anything

3310
02:43:56,639 --> 02:44:00,979
nearby their existing homes, which is usual. But the

3311
02:44:00,979 --> 02:44:03,659
biggest thing was was fire and the front yard setbacks.

3312
02:44:03,659 --> 02:44:07,659
They seem to be the two looming issues on there.

3313
02:44:07,659 --> 02:44:10,420
And again, we have to, by right, meet the Denton

3314
02:44:10,420 --> 02:44:13,440
Development Code. And so, through the planning and

3315
02:44:13,440 --> 02:44:16,719
engineering design phase, that will be taken care of and be

3316
02:44:16,719 --> 02:44:20,569
addressed. And in those meetings as well, the fire marshal

3317
02:44:20,569 --> 02:44:24,399
is there, planning staff, engineering staff are all within

3318
02:44:24,399 --> 02:44:28,270
those meetings. So we have to get input and design and go

3319
02:44:28,270 --> 02:44:30,659
from that point. Yes, sir.

3320
02:44:30,659 --> 02:44:33,870
Okay, thank you. Also, I believe the houses that are

3321
02:44:33,870 --> 02:44:36,389
currently on the way out of more that you're going to

3322
02:44:36,389 --> 02:44:38,909
connect with there. Yes, sir. And the ones you have but two

3323
02:44:38,909 --> 02:44:41,319
on the south side. Those are brick homes. So are y'all

3324
02:44:41,319 --> 02:44:43,659
going to be building brick homes too? Is it going to be?

3325
02:44:43,659 --> 02:44:47,120
We'll be some masonry to it. Yes, sir. And now how much

3326
02:44:47,120 --> 02:44:50,489
that again, we're very in the very preliminary stage of

3327
02:44:50,489 --> 02:44:54,479
this. So we, you know, we've identified a few builders, but

3328
02:44:54,479 --> 02:44:57,860
nobody that we can't really physically talk to them to once

3329
02:44:57,860 --> 02:45:01,659
we get through to the next further steps to be able to have

3330
02:45:01,659 --> 02:45:02,899
something in hand from engineering and stuff. But yes, you

3331
02:45:02,899 --> 02:45:04,659
know, they'll have masonry on them. Yes, sir.

3332
02:45:04,659 --> 02:45:11,909
They're not. Well, I'm concerned if we're going to consider

3333
02:45:11,909 --> 02:45:16,110
an overlay. Yes, sir. We may not. But blending in is

3334
02:45:16,110 --> 02:45:19,290
important, especially coming in on the flat or if you're

3335
02:45:19,290 --> 02:45:22,450
not blending in with those houses there, it's going to be

3336
02:45:22,450 --> 02:45:25,659
quite dramatic. Yes, sir. So just something to consider.

3337
02:45:25,659 --> 02:45:26,659
Yes, sir.

3338
02:45:26,659 --> 02:45:37,719
Thank you. I have a question. If we do consider an overlay,

3339
02:45:37,719 --> 02:45:41,370
the numbers that we got were a total of 56 lots and then to

3340
02:45:41,370 --> 02:45:44,840
restrict it to single family only those family detached

3341
02:45:44,840 --> 02:45:46,659
single family detached.

3342
02:45:46,659 --> 02:45:49,649
Correct. That's a difference in the wording. So I'm sure it

3343
02:45:49,649 --> 02:45:52,760
's detached. Okay. Those two conditions would be okay. It

3344
02:45:52,760 --> 02:45:55,540
wouldn't interfere with your project the way you currently

3345
02:45:55,540 --> 02:45:59,659
have it designed. Correct. Okay.

3346
02:45:59,659 --> 02:46:04,659
Any other questions for the applicant.

3347
02:46:04,659 --> 02:46:06,659
Thank you. Thank you, sir.

3348
02:46:06,659 --> 02:46:12,159
This is a public hearing. Anyone who weeks wishes to speak

3349
02:46:12,159 --> 02:46:16,809
on this item please come forward at this time. If you'll

3350
02:46:16,809 --> 02:46:17,559
give us your name and your address, and if you haven't

3351
02:46:17,559 --> 02:46:18,309
already filled out a card if you'll fill one out for us

3352
02:46:18,309 --> 02:46:22,659
before you leave this evening.

3353
02:46:22,659 --> 02:46:26,659
Sir.

3354
02:46:26,659 --> 02:46:31,409
Good evening. My name is Jerry Steger and I live at 2408

3355
02:46:31,409 --> 02:46:35,739
whispering Oaks, which is one of the streets, just south of

3356
02:46:35,739 --> 02:46:38,659
what this proposed project will be.

3357
02:46:38,659 --> 02:46:43,510
I appeared before you in December, speaking in opposition

3358
02:46:43,510 --> 02:46:48,450
of the Yale project. My reasoning for objecting to that was

3359
02:46:48,450 --> 02:46:53,209
that your planning and zoning committee recommended an NR

3360
02:46:53,209 --> 02:46:57,899
for for that. But for whatever reasons, or you were sold to

3361
02:46:57,899 --> 02:46:59,659
go NR six and that's what you did.

3362
02:46:59,659 --> 02:47:05,760
There's really three pieces of property, looking at this.

3363
02:47:05,760 --> 02:47:09,709
There's the Yale project. There's this project and then

3364
02:47:09,709 --> 02:47:11,639
there's the Johnson properties that are to the east, and

3365
02:47:11,639 --> 02:47:13,659
they follow Oak Valley, all the way north to Audra.

3366
02:47:13,659 --> 02:47:18,049
So there's really three pieces to this package. I don't

3367
02:47:18,049 --> 02:47:22,329
know that you're looking at all three but we as residents

3368
02:47:22,329 --> 02:47:27,079
are. We would we currently see Latimore being extended into

3369
02:47:27,079 --> 02:47:30,209
this proposed project area. And I'm thrilled that you're

3370
02:47:30,209 --> 02:47:34,659
planning and zoning recommended an NR for.

3371
02:47:34,659 --> 02:47:37,870
I would hate for the council to up serve that and change

3372
02:47:37,870 --> 02:47:41,090
that to an NR six. I attended the neighborhood meeting, a

3373
02:47:41,090 --> 02:47:44,250
week or so ago, and I was in opposition of that and I spoke

3374
02:47:44,250 --> 02:47:47,430
about that at the meeting and these were the things I only

3375
02:47:47,430 --> 02:47:51,319
can talk about the things that were presented there, but

3376
02:47:51,319 --> 02:47:52,659
bring me major concern.

3377
02:47:52,659 --> 02:47:56,780
Number one is this is a very high, high residential area

3378
02:47:56,780 --> 02:48:01,069
there. They're putting a lot of houses on a small piece of

3379
02:48:01,069 --> 02:48:05,370
property. What this looks like is Mac place Lee drive and

3380
02:48:05,370 --> 02:48:08,620
Mac drive. That's what this looks like at the meeting they

3381
02:48:08,620 --> 02:48:11,370
told us that these were 10 foot setbacks and I asked if

3382
02:48:11,370 --> 02:48:13,659
they were 10 foot setbacks for the driveway.

3383
02:48:13,659 --> 02:48:18,700
And they said yes. Now I drive an F 150 crew cab. It's 19

3384
02:48:18,700 --> 02:48:22,889
feet long, my truck would not fit in that driveway. But yet

3385
02:48:22,889 --> 02:48:25,659
the engineer tonight said that those are 20 foot setbacks.

3386
02:48:25,659 --> 02:48:29,340
So my truck would fit in that the concern that was echoed

3387
02:48:29,340 --> 02:48:34,219
that night was that how many vehicles does each family have

3388
02:48:34,219 --> 02:48:34,659
.

3389
02:48:34,659 --> 02:48:38,370
And if those are 10 foot driveways, only my Subaru will fit

3390
02:48:38,370 --> 02:48:41,809
in the driveway and maybe a smart car. But there's a lot of

3391
02:48:41,809 --> 02:48:45,020
people that drive our concern was that there'd be a huge

3392
02:48:45,020 --> 02:48:47,659
amount of vehicles parked on the street.

3393
02:48:47,659 --> 02:48:51,700
Not only that, but they told us that the streets are 27

3394
02:48:51,700 --> 02:48:52,659
feet wide.

3395
02:48:52,659 --> 02:48:56,379
And then they're going to have traffic calming devices in

3396
02:48:56,379 --> 02:49:00,219
there with a 50 foot lot and two side driveway two drive

3397
02:49:00,219 --> 02:49:03,590
ways. That's not a lot of room to park any off street

3398
02:49:03,590 --> 02:49:04,659
parking.

3399
02:49:04,659 --> 02:49:08,530
I too am concerned with emergency vehicles coming down that

3400
02:49:08,530 --> 02:49:11,899
and I would just hate to have anything happen that the

3401
02:49:11,899 --> 02:49:15,659
trucks to trucks park opposite each other on the road.

3402
02:49:15,659 --> 02:49:19,129
I don't believe would let an emergency vehicle through the

3403
02:49:19,129 --> 02:49:21,659
garbage trucks.

3404
02:49:21,659 --> 02:49:25,290
I would have trouble getting by two cars parked on our side

3405
02:49:25,290 --> 02:49:27,659
of the street on whispering Oaks.

3406
02:49:27,659 --> 02:49:30,659
Whispering Oaks is 29 and a half feet wide.

3407
02:49:30,659 --> 02:49:35,659
That's that's that's wide.

3408
02:49:35,659 --> 02:49:41,200
The other concern that we had was there's no sidewalks in

3409
02:49:41,200 --> 02:49:42,659
this project.

3410
02:49:42,659 --> 02:49:47,610
And that that the setback was just was just a major concern

3411
02:49:47,610 --> 02:49:52,870
, not only for numbers of vehicles, but also for safety

3412
02:49:52,870 --> 02:49:53,659
reasons.

3413
02:49:53,659 --> 02:49:57,209
So I'm I'm encouraged that the planning and zoning

3414
02:49:57,209 --> 02:50:01,020
committee recommended an NR for I would encourage the

3415
02:50:01,020 --> 02:50:05,840
council to accept that because we'll be back here again in

3416
02:50:05,840 --> 02:50:09,290
the not too distant future when Johnson properties wants to

3417
02:50:09,290 --> 02:50:11,659
come and approach the council.

3418
02:50:11,659 --> 02:50:13,879
So they already have a precedent of a six on the Yale

3419
02:50:13,879 --> 02:50:14,659
properties.

3420
02:50:14,659 --> 02:50:16,659
And then this would be a four.

3421
02:50:16,659 --> 02:50:18,659
I mean, I don't know if it's even possible.

3422
02:50:18,659 --> 02:50:20,659
Maybe the city attorney can help with that.

3423
02:50:20,659 --> 02:50:24,350
Is it possible for you to rescind your zoning in our six

3424
02:50:24,350 --> 02:50:27,659
for the Yale properties and go back to a four?

3425
02:50:27,659 --> 02:50:30,870
I'm afraid the precedent is being set here and it's going

3426
02:50:30,870 --> 02:50:32,659
to impact our neighborhood.

3427
02:50:32,659 --> 02:50:42,879
Oak Valley will run right straight up into Audra. And so it

3428
02:50:42,879 --> 02:50:44,250
directly impacts our traffic flow and the impact on our

3429
02:50:44,250 --> 02:50:44,659
neighborhood.

3430
02:50:44,659 --> 02:50:48,659
I'll pose your question to the city attorney.

3431
02:50:48,659 --> 02:50:52,940
But just just ensure just in brief, there is not a

3432
02:50:52,940 --> 02:50:57,860
mechanism to to rescind a zoning once approved by by city

3433
02:50:57,860 --> 02:50:59,659
by city council.

3434
02:50:59,659 --> 02:51:04,659
I have some other questions. Commissioner Rosal.

3435
02:51:04,659 --> 02:51:06,659
Thank you, Charles. Trying to do some quick math.

3436
02:51:06,659 --> 02:51:10,659
We called me Victor didn't take long enough.

3437
02:51:10,659 --> 02:51:12,659
We can skip you and come back.

3438
02:51:12,659 --> 02:51:13,659
No, we'll go.

3439
02:51:13,659 --> 02:51:14,659
Okay.

3440
02:51:14,659 --> 02:51:16,229
Mr. Stegarth, appreciate you being here and voicing your

3441
02:51:16,229 --> 02:51:16,659
concerns.

3442
02:51:16,659 --> 02:51:22,059
I unfortunately wasn't at the Yale Commission meeting to

3443
02:51:22,059 --> 02:51:25,659
talk to you if you spoke then or not.

3444
02:51:25,659 --> 02:51:30,430
If it went to an inner four, as we looked at that be 52

3445
02:51:30,430 --> 02:51:33,659
lots, they're proposing 56 lots.

3446
02:51:33,659 --> 02:51:37,709
Are you if I understand you correctly, you're OK with the

3447
02:51:37,709 --> 02:51:40,659
approval of 52 lots, but not the 56 lots.

3448
02:51:40,659 --> 02:51:43,659
Do I understand that correctly?

3449
02:51:43,659 --> 02:51:48,579
Help me understand the impact of an additional four lots in

3450
02:51:48,579 --> 02:51:49,659
the area.

3451
02:51:49,659 --> 02:51:50,659
That would be a significant change.

3452
02:51:50,659 --> 02:51:54,840
I'm trying to understand because it's a small percentage of

3453
02:51:54,840 --> 02:51:55,659
56.

3454
02:51:55,659 --> 02:51:56,659
We're looking at less than 10 percent.

3455
02:51:56,659 --> 02:51:59,989
Actually, I'm not qualified to argue that I would just

3456
02:51:59,989 --> 02:52:05,049
refer back to the planning and zoning committee lady that

3457
02:52:05,049 --> 02:52:09,659
was here last month and said they recommend a four.

3458
02:52:09,659 --> 02:52:13,149
So I was in favor of that because it's just consistent with

3459
02:52:13,149 --> 02:52:16,909
the area north of Audra and then the Yale and then this

3460
02:52:16,909 --> 02:52:19,659
proposed and then East Oaks.

3461
02:52:19,659 --> 02:52:21,659
And then the area south of us.

3462
02:52:21,659 --> 02:52:26,049
It's just a harmonious geographic section and it's not done

3463
02:52:26,049 --> 02:52:26,659
yet.

3464
02:52:26,659 --> 02:52:30,659
As I said, the Johnson properties will come up after this.

3465
02:52:30,659 --> 02:52:32,659
Thank you.

3466
02:52:32,659 --> 02:52:33,659
Commissioner Beck.

3467
02:52:33,659 --> 02:52:34,659
Thank you, Chair.

3468
02:52:34,659 --> 02:52:35,659
Thank you, Mr. Stegarth, for your presentation.

3469
02:52:35,659 --> 02:52:38,909
I appreciate you bringing up the Johnson properties, which

3470
02:52:38,909 --> 02:52:40,659
is to the east of everything.

3471
02:52:40,659 --> 02:52:41,659
That's correct.

3472
02:52:41,659 --> 02:52:42,659
And I was I was looking at that too.

3473
02:52:42,659 --> 02:52:43,659
And you're right.

3474
02:52:43,659 --> 02:52:44,659
There's going to be more development in there.

3475
02:52:44,659 --> 02:52:47,659
And so sitting the president's important.

3476
02:52:47,659 --> 02:52:49,659
Just one quick.

3477
02:52:49,659 --> 02:52:51,989
You mentioned that you didn't think there was any sidewalks

3478
02:52:51,989 --> 02:52:54,430
in this development, but believe Mr. Fletcher said there

3479
02:52:54,430 --> 02:52:54,659
was.

3480
02:52:54,659 --> 02:52:55,659
So is that right, Mr. Fletcher?

3481
02:52:55,659 --> 02:52:56,659
There will be.

3482
02:52:56,659 --> 02:52:57,659
OK.

3483
02:52:57,659 --> 02:52:58,659
OK.

3484
02:52:58,659 --> 02:52:59,659
OK.

3485
02:52:59,659 --> 02:53:02,680
So I got that from the neighborhood meeting when I asked

3486
02:53:02,680 --> 02:53:03,659
the question.

3487
02:53:03,659 --> 02:53:04,659
OK.

3488
02:53:04,659 --> 02:53:05,659
All right.

3489
02:53:05,659 --> 02:53:07,659
But that's good.

3490
02:53:07,659 --> 02:53:08,659
OK.

3491
02:53:08,659 --> 02:53:09,659
So you're OK.

3492
02:53:09,659 --> 02:53:10,659
Yeah.

3493
02:53:10,659 --> 02:53:11,659
OK.

3494
02:53:11,659 --> 02:53:12,659
Thank you, sir.

3495
02:53:12,659 --> 02:53:13,659
Commissioner Ellis.

3496
02:53:13,659 --> 02:53:14,659
Thank you, Chair.

3497
02:53:14,659 --> 02:53:15,659
Hi there.

3498
02:53:15,659 --> 02:53:17,659
So with with an N.R.

3499
02:53:17,659 --> 02:53:18,659
four or the N.R.

3500
02:53:18,659 --> 02:53:22,559
six overlay is that the applicant discussed with us is

3501
02:53:22,559 --> 02:53:25,659
really just a couple of lots different.

3502
02:53:25,659 --> 02:53:30,440
So is your concern more with the setback versus two extra

3503
02:53:30,440 --> 02:53:32,659
lots being developed?

3504
02:53:32,659 --> 02:53:34,659
Can you help us understand that?

3505
02:53:34,659 --> 02:53:37,420
And maybe that's where Commissioner Rosell was wanting

3506
02:53:37,420 --> 02:53:38,659
clarification as well.

3507
02:53:38,659 --> 02:53:39,659
Why an N.R.

3508
02:53:39,659 --> 02:53:42,139
four seems I know the neighborhood of Latimore and I know

3509
02:53:42,139 --> 02:53:44,659
the neighborhood of Whispering Oaks.

3510
02:53:44,659 --> 02:53:49,959
And those neighborhoods do not have the concentration of

3511
02:53:49,959 --> 02:53:53,659
short narrow lots and stacking them side

3512
02:53:53,659 --> 02:53:56,870
by side ten foot difference between the between the

3513
02:53:56,870 --> 02:53:57,659
properties.

3514
02:53:57,659 --> 02:53:59,659
It doesn't look like our neighborhood.

3515
02:53:59,659 --> 02:54:01,659
It doesn't look like the neighborhood north of us.

3516
02:54:01,659 --> 02:54:04,100
It doesn't look like our neighborhood doesn't look like

3517
02:54:04,100 --> 02:54:05,659
their neighborhood south of us.

3518
02:54:05,659 --> 02:54:09,760
So you see that there's a whole bunch of dominoes being

3519
02:54:09,760 --> 02:54:11,659
placed in these lots.

3520
02:54:11,659 --> 02:54:14,989
And it doesn't it doesn't look and I think that's what's

3521
02:54:14,989 --> 02:54:21,870
important to the planning and zoning and just the visual

3522
02:54:21,870 --> 02:54:23,659
concept of our neighborhoods.

3523
02:54:23,659 --> 02:54:27,659
And it it just looked like a bunch of dominoes.

3524
02:54:27,659 --> 02:54:29,659
It looked like they were all stacked in a row.

3525
02:54:29,659 --> 02:54:32,870
A number of our neighbors will have one or two backdoor

3526
02:54:32,870 --> 02:54:33,659
neighbors.

3527
02:54:33,659 --> 02:54:37,870
So it's just it's just not consistent with the property

3528
02:54:37,870 --> 02:54:38,659
lines.

3529
02:54:38,659 --> 02:54:48,659
The property lines are 70 by 120.

3530
02:54:48,659 --> 02:54:49,659
Thank you for your comments.

3531
02:54:49,659 --> 02:54:50,659
I don't see any other questions.

3532
02:54:50,659 --> 02:54:53,659
Thank you very much.

3533
02:54:53,659 --> 02:54:54,659
This is a public hearing.

3534
02:54:54,659 --> 02:55:11,500
Anyone who would like to speak please come forward this

3535
02:55:11,500 --> 02:55:12,659
time.

3536
02:55:12,659 --> 02:55:13,659
Yes. Good evening commissioners.

3537
02:55:13,659 --> 02:55:17,659
My name is David Zoltner and I live at twenty five one

3538
02:55:17,659 --> 02:55:21,659
temporary which is in the East Oaks subdivision which is

3539
02:55:21,659 --> 02:55:23,659
just south of this development.

3540
02:55:23,659 --> 02:55:28,120
Well first of all I find myself very much in agreement with

3541
02:55:28,120 --> 02:55:32,680
the staff analysis and all the conclusions that led to this

3542
02:55:32,680 --> 02:55:33,659
denial.

3543
02:55:33,659 --> 02:55:37,620
Now I've heard a lot of stuff tonight that's kind of

3544
02:55:37,620 --> 02:55:40,659
changing this to a certain degree.

3545
02:55:40,659 --> 02:55:46,659
Now I've heard the possibility of a of a 56 unit overlay.

3546
02:55:46,659 --> 02:55:50,940
But the big problem here just as Commissioner Ellis this is

3547
02:55:50,940 --> 02:55:58,659
all about the setbacks the N.R. six is obviously by right

3548
02:55:58,659 --> 02:56:01,659
going to allow this developer to use the 10 foot setback.

3549
02:56:01,659 --> 02:56:04,850
And the problem here is that the size of these homes during

3550
02:56:04,850 --> 02:56:07,450
this public meeting or the neighborhood meeting was

3551
02:56:07,450 --> 02:56:10,670
somewhere between fifteen hundred and twenty seven hundred

3552
02:56:10,670 --> 02:56:11,659
square feet.

3553
02:56:11,659 --> 02:56:14,870
Now twenty seven hundred square feet I'm assuming is

3554
02:56:14,870 --> 02:56:18,100
probably going to be a four bedroom home a four bedroom

3555
02:56:18,100 --> 02:56:21,659
home with two parking spaces in a 10 foot setback.

3556
02:56:21,659 --> 02:56:26,659
You are absolutely guaranteeing on street parking.

3557
02:56:26,659 --> 02:56:28,659
It's just going to happen.

3558
02:56:28,659 --> 02:56:33,670
Now the N.R. four helped me with the math here but the N.R.

3559
02:56:33,670 --> 02:56:36,659
four would allow up to four units.

3560
02:56:36,659 --> 02:56:41,979
So we're right at fifty two fifty three units. Now the

3561
02:56:41,979 --> 02:56:44,530
maximum by right on N.R. six would be seventy eight or

3562
02:56:44,530 --> 02:56:45,659
seventy nine homes.

3563
02:56:45,659 --> 02:56:50,329
Now OK if there's an overlay that's something to talk about

3564
02:56:50,329 --> 02:56:50,659
.

3565
02:56:50,659 --> 02:56:56,829
But my main concern is is the fact that that we're so close

3566
02:56:56,829 --> 02:57:02,469
and I heard tonight that this is an N.R. four waiting to

3567
02:57:02,469 --> 02:57:03,659
happen in my opinion.

3568
02:57:03,659 --> 02:57:08,000
Now if you can't recommend or change or have a developer

3569
02:57:08,000 --> 02:57:12,180
agree to an N.R. four you're within you're within two or

3570
02:57:12,180 --> 02:57:16,659
three units right now of this N.R. four.

3571
02:57:16,659 --> 02:57:20,239
And to make it consistent with that order as states now the

3572
02:57:20,239 --> 02:57:23,889
developer already mentioned he may be forced to give up one

3573
02:57:23,889 --> 02:57:27,659
or two of these lots for connector a tertiary connector.

3574
02:57:27,659 --> 02:57:31,659
So we're within two units of an N.R. four here.

3575
02:57:31,659 --> 02:57:35,350
Now I don't know if it's possible to do an N.R. four

3576
02:57:35,350 --> 02:57:37,659
variance for only two units.

3577
02:57:37,659 --> 02:57:40,989
I hope that's possible otherwise you just throw this thing

3578
02:57:40,989 --> 02:57:44,579
all the way open to N.R. six with all the pushback and all

3579
02:57:44,579 --> 02:57:47,870
the nonsense and all the setbacks and all the on street

3580
02:57:47,870 --> 02:57:48,659
parking.

3581
02:57:48,659 --> 02:57:57,659
So please I am opposing the the only N.R. six part of this.

3582
02:57:57,659 --> 02:58:00,629
I'm in actually in favor of the development I could easily

3583
02:58:00,629 --> 02:58:03,659
be convinced that this is an N.R. four.

3584
02:58:03,659 --> 02:58:07,979
But I agree completely with your staff analysis and I would

3585
02:58:07,979 --> 02:58:13,639
recommend denial of this N.R. six and hardly encourage you

3586
02:58:13,639 --> 02:58:18,069
to talk to this developer about either reducing just the

3587
02:58:18,069 --> 02:58:21,889
number of lots by one or two or three to where we can solve

3588
02:58:21,889 --> 02:58:25,020
this setback issue which is the number one problem in my

3589
02:58:25,020 --> 02:58:26,659
opinion that you're dealing with here.

3590
02:58:26,659 --> 02:58:30,659
You are guaranteeing on street.

3591
02:58:30,659 --> 02:58:34,659
It's it's you're going to have cars.

3592
02:58:34,659 --> 02:58:38,659
The problem is that these garages now become storage units.

3593
02:58:38,659 --> 02:58:41,889
And so you've you've got people moving into new homes just

3594
02:58:41,889 --> 02:58:45,180
south of me now in this summer oaks division they're moving

3595
02:58:45,180 --> 02:58:48,139
into a new house with a two car garage they fill it with

3596
02:58:48,139 --> 02:58:51,309
stuff and there's already four cars in the parking in the

3597
02:58:51,309 --> 02:58:52,659
street right now.

3598
02:58:52,659 --> 02:58:57,260
Do not allow a four bedroom house to be built 10 feet from

3599
02:58:57,260 --> 02:58:58,659
a curb please.

3600
02:58:58,659 --> 02:58:59,659
Thank you very much.

3601
02:58:59,659 --> 02:59:02,659
I have some questions for you Commissioner Roselle.

3602
02:59:02,659 --> 02:59:04,659
Thank you sir.

3603
02:59:04,659 --> 02:59:06,659
I appreciate you coming up and speaking.

3604
02:59:06,659 --> 02:59:09,209
I have a couple questions you said you live in a whispering

3605
02:59:09,209 --> 02:59:09,659
oaks.

3606
02:59:09,659 --> 02:59:12,659
I live on Timber Trail which is in that same East Oaks.

3607
02:59:12,659 --> 02:59:15,659
I'm two blocks I didn't receive a courtesy notice.

3608
02:59:15,659 --> 02:59:19,530
And is your street much like the other gentlemen's in which

3609
02:59:19,530 --> 02:59:23,069
the trash the trash compost truck is having a tough time

3610
02:59:23,069 --> 02:59:26,479
comes up your shoes are plenty of room on your street

3611
02:59:26,479 --> 02:59:30,659
currently for emergency services and utility vehicles.

3612
02:59:30,659 --> 02:59:33,879
Well, right our street is, you know, Timber Trail is an

3613
02:59:33,879 --> 02:59:37,090
older street is 20 years old it's wide and so do you have

3614
02:59:37,090 --> 02:59:39,659
on street parking in your neighborhood.

3615
02:59:39,659 --> 02:59:40,659
We have on street.

3616
02:59:40,659 --> 02:59:41,659
Correct.

3617
02:59:41,659 --> 02:59:44,870
Occasionally I mean yeah I mean visitors weekend football

3618
02:59:44,870 --> 02:59:45,659
game you bet.

3619
02:59:45,659 --> 02:59:47,659
Every now and then there's.

3620
02:59:47,659 --> 02:59:50,659
This is the difference between this visitor.

3621
02:59:50,659 --> 02:59:53,420
This visitor tally that you often see on these parking

3622
02:59:53,420 --> 02:59:55,659
discussions versus, you know, weekday.

3623
02:59:55,659 --> 02:59:59,569
So sure, I guess my point to be more direct is, you're

3624
02:59:59,569 --> 03:00:04,049
suggesting that if we move it to 52 lots there wouldn't be

3625
03:00:04,049 --> 03:00:06,659
any on street parking issues.

3626
03:00:06,659 --> 03:00:11,469
I'm suggesting if it was 52 lots under an NR for that that

3627
03:00:11,469 --> 03:00:15,659
20 foot setback would be mandatory by your.

3628
03:00:15,659 --> 03:00:21,079
And many of the new parking modifications that are going to

3629
03:00:21,079 --> 03:00:26,600
City Council, very soon will be designating for cars can be

3630
03:00:26,600 --> 03:00:30,659
parked in a driveway in a single family.

3631
03:00:30,659 --> 03:00:33,659
So you're creating a problem here.

3632
03:00:33,659 --> 03:00:37,620
Now this may be, you know, one of the last that sneaks in

3633
03:00:37,620 --> 03:00:41,659
under this new parking or the old parking but it's just you

3634
03:00:41,659 --> 03:00:43,659
're creating a problem.

3635
03:00:43,659 --> 03:00:46,120
It's my understanding from the developers presentation that

3636
03:00:46,120 --> 03:00:48,659
they are going to have a 20 foot setback on the driveway.

3637
03:00:48,659 --> 03:00:54,940
Well, that's again if if that becomes a separate condition

3638
03:00:54,940 --> 03:01:00,469
under an NR six if you want to make that a you know one of

3639
03:01:00,469 --> 03:01:06,389
his conditions, you know, but under the NR six, it doesn't

3640
03:01:06,389 --> 03:01:07,659
have to happen.

3641
03:01:07,659 --> 03:01:09,659
I'm personally not interested in making that a condition.

3642
03:01:09,659 --> 03:01:11,680
I'm just trying to understand your perspective on if it is

3643
03:01:11,680 --> 03:01:12,659
a 20 foot setback.

3644
03:01:12,659 --> 03:01:14,659
Do you feel that eliminates some of the off street parking?

3645
03:01:14,659 --> 03:01:15,659
Absolutely.

3646
03:01:15,659 --> 03:01:17,659
Okay, absolutely.

3647
03:01:17,659 --> 03:01:20,700
I don't think any single family residents in Denton, by the

3648
03:01:20,700 --> 03:01:23,659
way, should have any less than a 20 foot setback.

3649
03:01:23,659 --> 03:01:26,659
We've only had the 10 foot since 2002.

3650
03:01:26,659 --> 03:01:29,659
That was a big mistake we made about 15 years ago.

3651
03:01:29,659 --> 03:01:32,659
And I think we're about to fix that anyway.

3652
03:01:32,659 --> 03:01:35,870
Unless this is one of the last that sneaks in with these

3653
03:01:35,870 --> 03:01:38,659
little baby front yards and 10 foot driveways.

3654
03:01:38,659 --> 03:01:39,659
This is a big problem.

3655
03:01:39,659 --> 03:01:41,659
Sure. I understand.

3656
03:01:41,659 --> 03:01:43,659
Thank you.

3657
03:01:43,659 --> 03:01:44,659
Thank you.

3658
03:01:44,659 --> 03:01:47,659
Thank you, Chair.

3659
03:01:47,659 --> 03:01:48,659
He can have a seat.

3660
03:01:48,659 --> 03:01:49,659
It's fine there.

3661
03:01:49,659 --> 03:01:50,659
If you like.

3662
03:01:50,659 --> 03:01:51,659
No, it's OK.

3663
03:01:51,659 --> 03:01:54,270
In regards to in regards to I'm going to ask the applicant

3664
03:01:54,270 --> 03:01:57,649
here shortly about the wide difference in the reported

3665
03:01:57,649 --> 03:02:00,659
square footage for the proposed development.

3666
03:02:00,659 --> 03:02:01,659
Because you're right.

3667
03:02:01,659 --> 03:02:04,190
Fifteen hundred to twenty seven hundred square feet is that

3668
03:02:04,190 --> 03:02:05,659
's a pretty wide variance there.

3669
03:02:05,659 --> 03:02:06,659
That's a twelve hundred variance.

3670
03:02:06,659 --> 03:02:08,659
You can fit another house in that variance there.

3671
03:02:08,659 --> 03:02:11,659
So I'd like to know what what the exact is.

3672
03:02:11,659 --> 03:02:14,180
But I will tell you this that based off of the property

3673
03:02:14,180 --> 03:02:17,030
values surrounding that area about one hundred and twenty

3674
03:02:17,030 --> 03:02:20,120
hundred twenty five dollars per square foot seems like what

3675
03:02:20,120 --> 03:02:20,659
it's about.

3676
03:02:20,659 --> 03:02:23,510
The proposed estimate for value as well as the square

3677
03:02:23,510 --> 03:02:26,440
footage that area at one hundred twenty five dollars a

3678
03:02:26,440 --> 03:02:29,500
square foot valuation for the types of value of home they

3679
03:02:29,500 --> 03:02:30,659
're looking at.

3680
03:02:30,659 --> 03:02:34,799
You're looking between 18 and 20 and 18 and 2000 square

3681
03:02:34,799 --> 03:02:35,659
foot homes.

3682
03:02:35,659 --> 03:02:37,659
Eighteen hundred and two thousand square foot homes.

3683
03:02:37,659 --> 03:02:40,299
I think twenty seven hundred might be might be a little bit

3684
03:02:40,299 --> 03:02:41,659
high to be worried about.

3685
03:02:41,659 --> 03:02:44,870
So I'd actually like to ask that can come back up and

3686
03:02:44,870 --> 03:02:48,389
possibly explain why the neighborhood meeting there was a

3687
03:02:48,389 --> 03:02:51,879
wide wide variance and what their projected conceptual

3688
03:02:51,879 --> 03:02:53,659
square footage per home is.

3689
03:02:53,659 --> 03:02:54,659
I can't.

3690
03:02:54,659 --> 03:02:57,020
The twenty seven hundred was just information that got back

3691
03:02:57,020 --> 03:02:58,659
to me from the neighborhood meeting.

3692
03:02:58,659 --> 03:02:59,659
I was not there.

3693
03:02:59,659 --> 03:03:01,659
I heard that the twenty seven.

3694
03:03:01,659 --> 03:03:02,659
You're good.

3695
03:03:02,659 --> 03:03:04,659
Thank you.

3696
03:03:04,659 --> 03:03:07,659
Thank you.

3697
03:03:07,659 --> 03:03:10,209
So the as far as the square footage goes when you talk

3698
03:03:10,209 --> 03:03:13,090
about a variance between fifteen hundred and twenty seven

3699
03:03:13,090 --> 03:03:15,790
hundred you're talking about some buyers want a single

3700
03:03:15,790 --> 03:03:16,659
story home.

3701
03:03:16,659 --> 03:03:19,870
Those some some people want a two story home when you start

3702
03:03:19,870 --> 03:03:22,450
talking about a two story home you can get to twenty seven

3703
03:03:22,450 --> 03:03:25,659
hundred square feet very quickly just by going vertical.

3704
03:03:25,659 --> 03:03:29,100
Just to clarify one point on the driveway setback the city

3705
03:03:29,100 --> 03:03:32,469
of Denton when you talk about the front building line the

3706
03:03:32,469 --> 03:03:35,659
ten foot is for the front facade of the building.

3707
03:03:35,659 --> 03:03:37,659
It's not for the garage.

3708
03:03:37,659 --> 03:03:39,659
The garage setback is twenty feet.

3709
03:03:39,659 --> 03:03:43,920
So the driveway in any zoning district has to be twenty

3710
03:03:43,920 --> 03:03:44,659
feet.

3711
03:03:44,659 --> 03:03:46,659
We're perfectly okay.

3712
03:03:46,659 --> 03:03:49,739
Listening to the concerns from the residents what we'd like

3713
03:03:49,739 --> 03:03:51,659
to do we want to be good neighbors.

3714
03:03:51,659 --> 03:03:53,659
We want to be a good development coming in.

3715
03:03:53,659 --> 03:03:57,959
What I'd like to propose a request for consideration as we

3716
03:03:57,959 --> 03:04:02,100
would like to reduce the total number of lots from fifty

3717
03:04:02,100 --> 03:04:03,659
six to fifty four.

3718
03:04:03,659 --> 03:04:06,659
That's the two that the gentleman just mentioned.

3719
03:04:06,659 --> 03:04:10,040
We would like to institute a twenty foot building line so

3720
03:04:10,040 --> 03:04:13,440
that no building no portion of the building is going to be

3721
03:04:13,440 --> 03:04:15,659
between that ten and twenty feet.

3722
03:04:15,659 --> 03:04:19,209
So the building and the garage has to meet the minimum

3723
03:04:19,209 --> 03:04:23,149
twenty foot building setback in that the that the use would

3724
03:04:23,149 --> 03:04:25,659
only be single family detached.

3725
03:04:25,659 --> 03:04:30,239
So I think those three things hopefully provide some shows

3726
03:04:30,239 --> 03:04:34,690
the residents that we're we're trying to come in and bring

3727
03:04:34,690 --> 03:04:38,809
a good product a successful product and work with them and

3728
03:04:38,809 --> 03:04:39,659
hear their concerns.

3729
03:04:39,659 --> 03:04:42,120
Since I currently hold the floor I'll ask just for

3730
03:04:42,120 --> 03:04:45,069
clarification. So you're saying that fifty four lots of

3731
03:04:45,069 --> 03:04:47,659
twenty foot setback no duplexes no town homes.

3732
03:04:47,659 --> 03:04:49,659
That's correct. Thank you.

3733
03:04:49,659 --> 03:04:51,659
Okay.

3734
03:04:51,659 --> 03:04:54,229
Commissioner Sullivan and I know you had a question for

3735
03:04:54,229 --> 03:04:55,659
comment for the applicant.

3736
03:04:55,659 --> 03:04:56,659
Yes.

3737
03:04:56,659 --> 03:04:57,659
Okay.

3738
03:04:57,659 --> 03:05:02,920
I have a hard I guess I'm having a hard time understanding

3739
03:05:02,920 --> 03:05:07,920
as I'm looking at the regulations for in our four in our

3740
03:05:07,920 --> 03:05:14,010
six every dimension is identical from except for the lot

3741
03:05:14,010 --> 03:05:16,659
area and the front yard setback.

3742
03:05:16,659 --> 03:05:18,659
And you've addressed that.

3743
03:05:18,659 --> 03:05:21,659
That's the biggest concern for a lot of people.

3744
03:05:21,659 --> 03:05:26,500
Side yard is the same lot depth is the same lot width is

3745
03:05:26,500 --> 03:05:31,870
the same minimum side yard adjacent to the street minimum

3746
03:05:31,870 --> 03:05:37,139
rear yard maximum lot coverage virtually every number is

3747
03:05:37,139 --> 03:05:38,659
identical.

3748
03:05:38,659 --> 03:05:43,520
So I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the you

3749
03:05:43,520 --> 03:05:48,329
know the two lots that may or may not happen if in both in

3750
03:05:48,329 --> 03:05:54,010
our four in our six the lot width is 50 and the depth is 80

3751
03:05:54,010 --> 03:05:54,659
.

3752
03:05:54,659 --> 03:05:58,760
I don't understand how you get how you're getting more

3753
03:05:58,760 --> 03:05:59,659
houses.

3754
03:05:59,659 --> 03:06:01,659
If those have to be the same.

3755
03:06:01,659 --> 03:06:06,170
So those are all minimum dimensions. So when we look at

3756
03:06:06,170 --> 03:06:10,540
laying out a plan we lay out. So for instance, the builder

3757
03:06:10,540 --> 03:06:14,659
profile for this development is a 40 foot pad 75 foot deep

3758
03:06:14,659 --> 03:06:18,659
so we take those dimensions, the minimum side yards minimum

3759
03:06:18,659 --> 03:06:22,659
side yards on a corner, and we determine what our minimum

3760
03:06:22,659 --> 03:06:26,870
lot dimensions are so that 50 by 80 is a minimum within the

3761
03:06:26,870 --> 03:06:29,670
development code but a 50 by 80 wouldn't work for the

3762
03:06:29,670 --> 03:06:30,659
builder profile that we're looking at.

3763
03:06:30,659 --> 03:06:34,530
So when we lay out those lots we have a minimum lot size of

3764
03:06:34,530 --> 03:06:37,659
think our minimum is 50 by 120.

3765
03:06:37,659 --> 03:06:42,239
And our the majority of them are deeper than that. So, all

3766
03:06:42,239 --> 03:06:46,479
the layout that were proposed falls within that those allow

3767
03:06:46,479 --> 03:06:49,659
able dimensions that are within the code.

3768
03:06:49,659 --> 03:06:54,219
I understand that what you're going to be building is going

3769
03:06:54,219 --> 03:06:58,670
to be bigger than what's here. Right, but these are the

3770
03:06:58,670 --> 03:07:01,659
minimums and they're identical.

3771
03:07:01,659 --> 03:07:08,870
I'm having a hard time understanding where you're taking

3772
03:07:08,870 --> 03:07:15,780
out the two or squeezing in two extras when the lot sizes

3773
03:07:15,780 --> 03:07:22,059
all have to be the same for in our six or in our four in

3774
03:07:22,059 --> 03:07:23,959
our six. And so if, if the 20 foot of the 20 foot is the

3775
03:07:23,959 --> 03:07:24,329
only difference and you're willing to give a 20 foot set

3776
03:07:24,329 --> 03:07:26,659
back in our four seems like the perfect fit.

3777
03:07:26,659 --> 03:07:29,909
You don't have to do anything different because all the

3778
03:07:29,909 --> 03:07:33,520
dimensions are the same, except that 20 foot side and in

3779
03:07:33,520 --> 03:07:36,870
the economics of it when we talk about adding stuff to

3780
03:07:36,870 --> 03:07:39,989
serve future development for the track to the north or to

3781
03:07:39,989 --> 03:07:45,110
the east minute ads call so two lots doesn't sound like a

3782
03:07:45,110 --> 03:07:49,909
lot but that's two additional lots that the, you know that

3783
03:07:49,909 --> 03:07:53,780
the developer has to sell to the builder which is a very,

3784
03:07:53,780 --> 03:07:55,659
which can be very significant to the.

3785
03:07:55,659 --> 03:08:01,659
The finances of the project.

3786
03:08:01,659 --> 03:08:03,659
Okay.

3787
03:08:03,659 --> 03:08:07,530
I still understand where those two lots are coming from if

3788
03:08:07,530 --> 03:08:09,659
the lot sizes are identical.

3789
03:08:09,659 --> 03:08:10,659
What's the difference.

3790
03:08:10,659 --> 03:08:13,579
We've got the same amount of land right if we were those

3791
03:08:13,579 --> 03:08:16,639
two lots coming from are going to understand since we're

3792
03:08:16,639 --> 03:08:19,659
taking them away will either add to the open space.

3793
03:08:19,659 --> 03:08:24,129
The lots may be what I'm saying is why would you need to

3794
03:08:24,129 --> 03:08:28,069
take them away. If the minimum lot sizes for four and six

3795
03:08:28,069 --> 03:08:31,659
is 50 by 80, you're going to have bigger lots.

3796
03:08:31,659 --> 03:08:35,540
Right, right. We need the in our six with overlay so that

3797
03:08:35,540 --> 03:08:39,500
we can do more than 52. If we are straight in our four

3798
03:08:39,500 --> 03:08:43,469
zoning, all those other categories and concerns are allevi

3799
03:08:43,469 --> 03:08:46,799
ated but we can the maximum number of lots that we can

3800
03:08:46,799 --> 03:08:48,659
develop or 52, because the number of lots that we can do is

3801
03:08:48,659 --> 03:08:48,659
52.

3802
03:08:48,659 --> 03:08:51,870
Because the maximum density is four units per acre. So

3803
03:08:51,870 --> 03:08:55,809
basically the in our six zoning with the overlay condition

3804
03:08:55,809 --> 03:08:59,479
allows us to add two additional lots and provide a good

3805
03:08:59,479 --> 03:09:03,559
quality neighborhood with open space with a builder pad for

3806
03:09:03,559 --> 03:09:06,659
a product that is in line with this area.

3807
03:09:06,659 --> 03:09:10,069
So really the whole the whole ask there for versus in our

3808
03:09:10,069 --> 03:09:13,500
six versus in our four is just so that we can pick up those

3809
03:09:13,500 --> 03:09:17,010
and originally we were asking for four and in discussion

3810
03:09:17,010 --> 03:09:20,510
with the applicant. We're, we're saying that we'll, we'll

3811
03:09:20,510 --> 03:09:24,239
remove two of those four and go down to 54 is what is what

3812
03:09:24,239 --> 03:09:26,659
we're now proposing.

3813
03:09:26,659 --> 03:09:30,659
Okay, thank you.

3814
03:09:30,659 --> 03:09:36,659
Just for clarification while you're here.

3815
03:09:36,659 --> 03:09:47,649
The existing lots around there and what did you say the

3816
03:09:47,649 --> 03:10:01,809
density was on those, the arbor estates the density is 4.49

3817
03:10:01,809 --> 03:10:05,659
units per acre.

3818
03:10:05,659 --> 03:10:10,430
And armor states just just to kind of give you an idea that

3819
03:10:10,430 --> 03:10:15,340
their phase was 54 lots, so it's the same as what we're

3820
03:10:15,340 --> 03:10:20,659
requesting now, and it was on 12.021 acres.

3821
03:10:20,659 --> 03:10:35,690
And this is from the plat from the appraisal district. East

3822
03:10:35,690 --> 03:10:36,329
Oaks edition phase one was 34 lots on 7.745 acres, which is

3823
03:10:36,329 --> 03:10:36,659
a density of 4.39.

3824
03:10:36,659 --> 03:10:40,659
So those existing subdivisions aren't in our for either.

3825
03:10:40,659 --> 03:10:46,680
Well, so when those subdivisions were developed the the

3826
03:10:46,680 --> 03:10:51,649
zoning districts were different. When they brought all the

3827
03:10:51,649 --> 03:10:53,889
zoning districts up to try and conform they kind of looked

3828
03:10:53,889 --> 03:10:56,040
at where does that fit most closely to its single family

3829
03:10:56,040 --> 03:10:56,659
detached.

3830
03:10:56,659 --> 03:10:59,459
It fits an in our four closer than an in our six but it

3831
03:10:59,459 --> 03:11:02,709
doesn't meet all the requirements of an in our four zoning

3832
03:11:02,709 --> 03:11:03,659
district.

3833
03:11:03,659 --> 03:11:09,430
Correct. So those districts are fairly close to what you

3834
03:11:09,430 --> 03:11:12,479
all are asking for. When you really crunch the numbers and

3835
03:11:12,479 --> 03:11:13,659
do the density of the number of units over the acreage.

3836
03:11:13,659 --> 03:11:16,340
It's very similar to what you've asked for. That's correct

3837
03:11:16,340 --> 03:11:18,780
and I have the plat I mean the difference is our lots are a

3838
03:11:18,780 --> 03:11:21,399
little bit smaller but we're putting open space within the

3839
03:11:21,399 --> 03:11:24,719
development, whereas when that development when all your

3840
03:11:24,719 --> 03:11:25,659
states and these other developments

3841
03:11:25,659 --> 03:11:29,530
were done. There was no open space provided into the

3842
03:11:29,530 --> 03:11:30,659
development.

3843
03:11:30,659 --> 03:11:35,219
I understand. Thank you for the clarification Commissioner

3844
03:11:35,219 --> 03:11:37,989
Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Do you know the average front yard

3845
03:11:37,989 --> 03:11:41,659
setback on the adjacent lots that are developed.

3846
03:11:41,659 --> 03:11:44,870
I don't I just know that the city of didn't the didn't

3847
03:11:44,870 --> 03:11:47,760
development code and I don't know the standards that were

3848
03:11:47,760 --> 03:11:51,329
in place and 84 when that development first started, but it

3849
03:11:51,329 --> 03:11:54,750
appears that just looking from an aerial that it would be

3850
03:11:54,750 --> 03:11:56,659
consistent with to off street

3851
03:11:56,659 --> 03:12:00,299
parking spaces so I would assume that it's probably a

3852
03:12:00,299 --> 03:12:04,450
minimum of 20 feet setback for the for the driveway but I

3853
03:12:04,450 --> 03:12:08,659
don't have an exact answer for you.

3854
03:12:08,659 --> 03:12:12,280
So just noticing with the NR for it, it does have that

3855
03:12:12,280 --> 03:12:17,049
limitation that it would have to conform to the average of

3856
03:12:17,049 --> 03:12:20,659
the adjacent property setback.

3857
03:12:20,659 --> 03:12:24,659
I was curious. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. So, Sam the

3858
03:12:24,659 --> 03:12:30,120
adjacent developments been about 4.3 4.4 maybe 4.25. So you

3859
03:12:30,120 --> 03:12:35,100
reducing it down to a 45 lot on 13 acres would put you at,

3860
03:12:35,100 --> 03:12:39,659
sorry, 54 lot on 13 acres, not to do the math.

3861
03:12:39,659 --> 03:12:43,979
It's put you to 4.15 correct units per acre. So much less

3862
03:12:43,979 --> 03:12:47,709
than the surrounding current once the only difference is

3863
03:12:47,709 --> 03:12:51,190
going to be that and your conceptual plan would be that

3864
03:12:51,190 --> 03:12:55,659
that you have more open space that will constrict and make

3865
03:12:55,659 --> 03:12:55,659
it make those

3866
03:12:55,659 --> 03:12:59,409
lots smaller just because there is open space. That's right

3867
03:12:59,409 --> 03:13:02,479
and some of the lots may actually be larger in square

3868
03:13:02,479 --> 03:13:06,069
footage just because of the depth. So our minimum lot size

3869
03:13:06,069 --> 03:13:09,659
would be smaller than theirs, but we would have several

3870
03:13:09,659 --> 03:13:12,659
lots that may actually have more square footage

3871
03:13:12,659 --> 03:13:17,129
because of the depth. In regards to citizens concerned, the

3872
03:13:17,129 --> 03:13:21,479
more depth the better in this scenario. Correct. It puts

3873
03:13:21,479 --> 03:13:25,659
the houses further away from the existing development.

3874
03:13:25,659 --> 03:13:25,659
Thanks, sir.

3875
03:13:25,659 --> 03:13:28,659
I don't have any other questions at this time.

3876
03:13:28,659 --> 03:13:35,069
This is a public hearing, anybody who would like to speak,

3877
03:13:35,069 --> 03:13:38,659
please come forward at this time.

3878
03:13:38,659 --> 03:13:41,530
Well, they're right outside the door and after you speak,

3879
03:13:41,530 --> 03:13:44,659
it's not a problem. Just give us your name and address.

3880
03:13:44,659 --> 03:13:50,299
I have house on 2508 whispering oaks, just Jason to the

3881
03:13:50,299 --> 03:13:53,659
south of this proposed development.

3882
03:13:53,659 --> 03:14:00,889
The question I have is the developer, or rather for whoever

3883
03:14:00,889 --> 03:14:06,340
would give legal opinion, if you go for an NR6, but this

3884
03:14:06,340 --> 03:14:11,659
developer doesn't develop it, somebody else comes in.

3885
03:14:11,659 --> 03:14:18,840
And this overlay, as I heard you say, is included in the NR

3886
03:14:18,840 --> 03:14:26,659
6. What happens then? Can that overlay be taken away?

3887
03:14:26,659 --> 03:14:31,659
I'll let legal weigh in on that.

3888
03:14:31,659 --> 03:14:37,069
So just to kind of keep it really brief, it would run like

3889
03:14:37,069 --> 03:14:42,090
any other zoning. It attaches to the land. So the zoning

3890
03:14:42,090 --> 03:14:43,659
plus overlay district attaches to the land.

3891
03:14:43,659 --> 03:14:46,870
The only way to remove that would be to, as any other rez

3892
03:14:46,870 --> 03:14:49,950
oning, is to come back and get it rezoned again, including

3893
03:14:49,950 --> 03:14:50,659
the overlay district.

3894
03:14:50,659 --> 03:14:59,690
So in summary, if you make the NR6 with this 54 unit per

3895
03:14:59,690 --> 03:15:06,969
the area overlay, it would, if somebody else came in, one

3896
03:15:06,969 --> 03:15:12,659
develop in there, NR6 with duplexes two stories tall, they

3897
03:15:12,659 --> 03:15:16,659
wouldn't be able to without coming to the rezoning again.

3898
03:15:16,659 --> 03:15:22,299
Even though it's not changing the NR6 part, it would be

3899
03:15:22,299 --> 03:15:24,659
removing the other.

3900
03:15:24,659 --> 03:15:27,659
Okay. That's all I needed to know.

3901
03:15:27,659 --> 03:15:33,049
I think the NR4 is about where the density is. But I do

3902
03:15:33,049 --> 03:15:38,219
have a comment about the kind of home, now that I think

3903
03:15:38,219 --> 03:15:44,250
about it, that was brought up by, I think it was Mr. Smith,

3904
03:15:44,250 --> 03:15:47,659
about the kind of brick houses.

3905
03:15:47,659 --> 03:15:53,760
Mr. Beck. Okay. Kind of hard to keep track. Who says what?

3906
03:15:53,760 --> 03:15:59,280
But the houses along Whispering Oaks and Lattimore, which

3907
03:15:59,280 --> 03:16:05,430
are adjacent to this proposed addition, are all brick

3908
03:16:05,430 --> 03:16:11,659
houses in the front and sides, at minimum.

3909
03:16:11,659 --> 03:16:15,659
I can't speak about all the back sides.

3910
03:16:15,659 --> 03:16:24,049
My concern would be the amount of brick on the houses that

3911
03:16:24,049 --> 03:16:29,260
are being developed, just to keep it the same feel of the

3912
03:16:29,260 --> 03:16:30,659
neighborhood.

3913
03:16:30,659 --> 03:16:33,659
And I thank you.

3914
03:16:33,659 --> 03:16:37,659
Don't have any questions. Thank you for your comments, sir.

3915
03:16:37,659 --> 03:16:43,299
Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like

3916
03:16:43,299 --> 03:16:48,659
to speak on this item, please come forward at this time.

3917
03:16:48,659 --> 03:17:11,659
Please come to the mic and give us your name and address.

3918
03:17:11,659 --> 03:17:18,879
My name is Vernon Mamm. I live in 2224 Lattimore. My

3919
03:17:18,879 --> 03:17:22,659
concern is Lattimore is a dead end street.

3920
03:17:22,659 --> 03:17:28,930
Right now. Is that possible for it to be open all the way

3921
03:17:28,930 --> 03:17:32,659
through into new subdivision?

3922
03:17:32,659 --> 03:17:37,799
I'll ask a plan staff to come and address if it went on to

3923
03:17:37,799 --> 03:17:43,659
the property to the east. Is that what your question is?

3924
03:17:43,659 --> 03:17:48,000
That if it continued on to the east, rather than the way it

3925
03:17:48,000 --> 03:17:52,659
currently has been presented, if that's a possibility.

3926
03:17:52,659 --> 03:17:58,149
I like I said, I live on Lattimore and there's a ton of

3927
03:17:58,149 --> 03:18:02,659
young kids that plays out in the street.

3928
03:18:02,659 --> 03:18:12,239
They even come from down the drain, which is in two houses

3929
03:18:12,239 --> 03:18:21,670
up from me and there's kids came down this drain to play on

3930
03:18:21,670 --> 03:18:23,659
Lattimore.

3931
03:18:23,659 --> 03:18:31,530
And I'm just thinking that the traffic was if they go in

3932
03:18:31,530 --> 03:18:37,659
and open that straight up, the kids are going to have no

3933
03:18:37,659 --> 03:18:46,659
place to play other than in their backyard or whatever.

3934
03:18:46,659 --> 03:18:51,899
So that was my question and my concern. If they open up L

3935
03:18:51,899 --> 03:18:57,479
attimore, there's going to be some people that's going to

3936
03:18:57,479 --> 03:18:58,659
move out.

3937
03:18:58,659 --> 03:19:07,809
Okay. I'll ask staff to put the overhead up, I guess, of L

3938
03:19:07,809 --> 03:19:15,510
attimore and they can help walk through if that's a

3939
03:19:15,510 --> 03:19:22,659
possibility and how that might take place.

3940
03:19:22,659 --> 03:19:24,639
Okay, we're talking about this. I'm talking about this

3941
03:19:24,639 --> 03:19:26,659
street right there. That's Lattimore.

3942
03:19:26,659 --> 03:19:31,770
Okay. I believe what the city traffic engineer mentioned in

3943
03:19:31,770 --> 03:19:33,829
the work session was that there may be possibility to

3944
03:19:33,829 --> 03:19:37,719
extend this road, but we wouldn't know if that's needed

3945
03:19:37,719 --> 03:19:41,670
until we get to the site development phase of the project,

3946
03:19:41,670 --> 03:19:43,659
which is the next phase planning.

3947
03:19:43,659 --> 03:19:49,389
So it could be extended depending on what types of traffic,

3948
03:19:49,389 --> 03:19:54,930
what the traffic numbers look like and are not there. But

3949
03:19:54,930 --> 03:19:59,340
we wouldn't have that information until this site is more

3950
03:19:59,340 --> 03:20:03,659
fleshed out and we can analyze the plan at that point.

3951
03:20:03,659 --> 03:20:07,340
So the question would be then, we don't know whether it

3952
03:20:07,340 --> 03:20:11,209
could be possibly a street stub out for future connection

3953
03:20:11,209 --> 03:20:14,659
to it looks like the street was going to be Oak Valley.

3954
03:20:14,659 --> 03:20:19,670
Looks like a valley is the north south to the east right

3955
03:20:19,670 --> 03:20:27,659
there.

3956
03:20:27,659 --> 03:20:31,350
And when I looked at the mobility plan, there was in a, it

3957
03:20:31,350 --> 03:20:35,750
didn't come up as an extension. Okay. But again, based on

3958
03:20:35,750 --> 03:20:39,860
what comes out of the traffic impact analysis, it may or

3959
03:20:39,860 --> 03:20:41,659
may not be improved.

3960
03:20:41,659 --> 03:20:42,659
Okay.

3961
03:20:42,659 --> 03:20:46,280
Okay. I have a couple questions. I don't know if this for

3962
03:20:46,280 --> 03:20:48,659
staff, Commissioner Ellis.

3963
03:20:48,659 --> 03:20:50,659
Okay. Thank you, Chair.

3964
03:20:50,659 --> 03:20:52,659
Thank you, sir, for your comments.

3965
03:20:52,659 --> 03:20:56,559
I think the question is, is there a way to get the traffic

3966
03:20:56,559 --> 03:20:57,659
to the site?

3967
03:20:57,659 --> 03:20:59,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3968
03:20:59,659 --> 03:21:00,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3969
03:21:00,659 --> 03:21:01,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3970
03:21:01,659 --> 03:21:02,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3971
03:21:02,659 --> 03:21:03,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3972
03:21:03,659 --> 03:21:04,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3973
03:21:04,659 --> 03:21:05,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3974
03:21:05,659 --> 03:21:06,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3975
03:21:06,659 --> 03:21:07,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3976
03:21:07,659 --> 03:21:08,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3977
03:21:08,659 --> 03:21:09,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3978
03:21:09,659 --> 03:21:10,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3979
03:21:10,659 --> 03:21:11,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3980
03:21:11,659 --> 03:21:12,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3981
03:21:12,659 --> 03:21:13,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3982
03:21:13,659 --> 03:21:22,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3983
03:21:22,659 --> 03:21:23,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3984
03:21:23,659 --> 03:21:24,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3985
03:21:24,659 --> 03:21:25,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3986
03:21:25,659 --> 03:21:26,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3987
03:21:26,659 --> 03:21:27,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3988
03:21:27,659 --> 03:21:28,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3989
03:21:28,659 --> 03:21:29,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3990
03:21:29,659 --> 03:21:30,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3991
03:21:30,659 --> 03:21:31,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3992
03:21:31,659 --> 03:21:32,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3993
03:21:32,659 --> 03:21:33,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3994
03:21:33,659 --> 03:21:34,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3995
03:21:34,659 --> 03:21:35,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3996
03:21:35,659 --> 03:21:36,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3997
03:21:36,659 --> 03:21:37,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3998
03:21:37,659 --> 03:21:44,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

3999
03:21:44,659 --> 03:21:45,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4000
03:21:45,659 --> 03:21:46,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4001
03:21:46,659 --> 03:21:47,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4002
03:21:47,659 --> 03:21:48,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4003
03:21:48,659 --> 03:21:49,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4004
03:21:49,659 --> 03:21:50,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4005
03:21:50,659 --> 03:21:51,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4006
03:21:51,659 --> 03:21:52,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4007
03:21:52,659 --> 03:21:53,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4008
03:21:53,659 --> 03:21:54,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4009
03:21:54,659 --> 03:21:55,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4010
03:21:55,659 --> 03:21:56,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4011
03:21:56,659 --> 03:21:57,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4012
03:21:57,659 --> 03:21:58,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4013
03:21:58,659 --> 03:21:59,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4014
03:21:59,659 --> 03:22:21,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4015
03:22:21,659 --> 03:22:40,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4016
03:22:40,659 --> 03:23:05,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4017
03:23:05,659 --> 03:23:10,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4018
03:23:10,659 --> 03:23:11,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4019
03:23:11,659 --> 03:23:12,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4020
03:23:12,659 --> 03:23:13,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4021
03:23:13,659 --> 03:23:14,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4022
03:23:14,659 --> 03:23:15,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4023
03:23:15,659 --> 03:23:16,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4024
03:23:16,659 --> 03:23:17,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4025
03:23:17,659 --> 03:23:18,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4026
03:23:18,659 --> 03:23:19,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4027
03:23:19,659 --> 03:23:20,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4028
03:23:20,659 --> 03:23:21,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4029
03:23:21,659 --> 03:23:22,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4030
03:23:22,659 --> 03:23:23,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4031
03:23:23,659 --> 03:23:24,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4032
03:23:24,659 --> 03:23:25,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4033
03:23:25,659 --> 03:23:40,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4034
03:23:40,659 --> 03:23:44,430
So the northern most east west street doesn't become any

4035
03:23:44,430 --> 03:23:47,659
longer than what we've currently got shown.

4036
03:23:47,659 --> 03:23:48,659
So.

4037
03:23:48,659 --> 03:23:49,659
Continue if you had.

4038
03:23:49,659 --> 03:23:50,659
So.

4039
03:23:50,659 --> 03:23:51,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4040
03:23:51,659 --> 03:23:52,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4041
03:23:52,659 --> 03:23:53,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4042
03:23:53,659 --> 03:23:54,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4043
03:23:54,659 --> 03:23:55,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4044
03:23:55,659 --> 03:23:56,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4045
03:23:56,659 --> 03:23:57,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4046
03:23:57,659 --> 03:23:58,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4047
03:23:58,659 --> 03:23:59,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4048
03:23:59,659 --> 03:24:00,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4049
03:24:00,659 --> 03:24:01,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4050
03:24:01,659 --> 03:24:02,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4051
03:24:02,659 --> 03:24:03,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4052
03:24:03,659 --> 03:24:04,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4053
03:24:04,659 --> 03:24:05,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4054
03:24:05,659 --> 03:24:06,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4055
03:24:06,659 --> 03:24:07,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4056
03:24:07,659 --> 03:24:08,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4057
03:24:08,659 --> 03:24:09,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4058
03:24:09,659 --> 03:24:10,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4059
03:24:10,659 --> 03:24:29,659
I mean, I think that's a good question.

4060
03:24:29,659 --> 03:24:31,649
Typically what happens because we don't like to have those

4061
03:24:31,649 --> 03:24:31,659
dead end utilities.

4062
03:24:31,659 --> 03:24:33,700
Now, certainly with that, I mean, those utilities could

4063
03:24:33,700 --> 03:24:34,659
loop around to the north.

4064
03:24:34,659 --> 03:24:36,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4065
03:24:36,659 --> 03:24:40,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4066
03:24:40,659 --> 03:24:41,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4067
03:24:41,659 --> 03:24:42,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4068
03:24:42,659 --> 03:24:43,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4069
03:24:43,659 --> 03:24:44,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4070
03:24:44,659 --> 03:24:45,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4071
03:24:45,659 --> 03:24:46,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4072
03:24:46,659 --> 03:24:47,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4073
03:24:47,659 --> 03:24:48,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4074
03:24:48,659 --> 03:24:49,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4075
03:24:49,659 --> 03:24:50,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4076
03:24:50,659 --> 03:24:51,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4077
03:24:51,659 --> 03:24:52,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4078
03:24:52,659 --> 03:24:53,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4079
03:24:53,659 --> 03:24:54,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4080
03:24:54,659 --> 03:24:55,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4081
03:24:55,659 --> 03:25:14,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4082
03:25:14,659 --> 03:25:34,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4083
03:25:34,659 --> 03:25:55,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4084
03:25:55,659 --> 03:26:14,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4085
03:26:14,659 --> 03:26:29,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4086
03:26:29,659 --> 03:26:44,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4087
03:26:44,659 --> 03:26:59,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4088
03:26:59,659 --> 03:27:14,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4089
03:27:14,659 --> 03:27:29,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4090
03:27:29,659 --> 03:27:30,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4091
03:27:30,659 --> 03:27:31,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4092
03:27:31,659 --> 03:27:32,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4093
03:27:32,659 --> 03:27:33,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4094
03:27:33,659 --> 03:27:34,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4095
03:27:34,659 --> 03:27:35,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4096
03:27:35,659 --> 03:27:36,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4097
03:27:36,659 --> 03:27:37,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4098
03:27:37,659 --> 03:27:38,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4099
03:27:38,659 --> 03:27:39,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4100
03:27:39,659 --> 03:27:40,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4101
03:27:40,659 --> 03:27:41,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4102
03:27:41,659 --> 03:27:42,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4103
03:27:42,659 --> 03:27:43,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4104
03:27:43,659 --> 03:27:44,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4105
03:27:44,659 --> 03:27:45,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4106
03:27:45,659 --> 03:27:46,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4107
03:27:46,659 --> 03:27:47,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4108
03:27:47,659 --> 03:27:48,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4109
03:27:48,659 --> 03:27:49,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4110
03:27:49,659 --> 03:27:50,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4111
03:27:50,659 --> 03:27:51,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4112
03:27:51,659 --> 03:27:52,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4113
03:27:52,659 --> 03:27:53,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4114
03:27:53,659 --> 03:27:54,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4115
03:27:54,659 --> 03:27:55,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4116
03:27:55,659 --> 03:27:56,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4117
03:27:56,659 --> 03:27:57,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4118
03:27:57,659 --> 03:27:58,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4119
03:27:58,659 --> 03:27:59,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4120
03:27:59,659 --> 03:28:20,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4121
03:28:20,659 --> 03:28:39,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4122
03:28:39,659 --> 03:29:04,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4123
03:29:04,659 --> 03:29:27,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4124
03:29:27,659 --> 03:29:55,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4125
03:29:55,659 --> 03:29:58,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4126
03:29:58,659 --> 03:29:59,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4127
03:29:59,659 --> 03:30:00,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4128
03:30:00,659 --> 03:30:01,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4129
03:30:01,659 --> 03:30:02,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4130
03:30:02,659 --> 03:30:03,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4131
03:30:03,659 --> 03:30:04,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4132
03:30:04,659 --> 03:30:05,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4133
03:30:05,659 --> 03:30:06,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4134
03:30:06,659 --> 03:30:07,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4135
03:30:07,659 --> 03:30:08,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4136
03:30:08,659 --> 03:30:09,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4137
03:30:09,659 --> 03:30:10,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4138
03:30:10,659 --> 03:30:11,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4139
03:30:11,659 --> 03:30:12,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4140
03:30:12,659 --> 03:30:13,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4141
03:30:13,659 --> 03:30:32,659
I mean, there's other ways to engineer it.

4142
03:30:32,659 --> 03:30:34,379
So, all that being said, it seems as though, to the best of

4143
03:30:34,379 --> 03:30:35,379
my knowledge, this development

4144
03:30:35,379 --> 03:30:37,770
will align itself very well with the current development in

4145
03:30:37,770 --> 03:30:38,659
terms of density.

4146
03:30:38,659 --> 03:30:41,530
It's actually a less dense development than what's

4147
03:30:41,530 --> 03:30:42,659
currently there.

4148
03:30:42,659 --> 03:30:45,479
It seems like they're also taking into consideration to

4149
03:30:45,479 --> 03:30:47,860
ensure, through traffic measures and street

4150
03:30:47,860 --> 03:30:51,500
construction, to keep traffic down so that kids are safe to

4151
03:30:51,500 --> 03:30:53,299
move about, hopefully not

4152
03:30:53,299 --> 03:30:56,739
playing in the streets, but move about the streets safely.

4153
03:30:56,739 --> 03:30:58,950
And they'll have open space that hopefully can provide an

4154
03:30:58,950 --> 03:30:59,979
area for those kids that they

4155
03:30:59,979 --> 03:31:01,850
don't have to move out of the neighborhood, but they

4156
03:31:01,850 --> 03:31:03,180
actually have a new place that they

4157
03:31:03,180 --> 03:31:04,180
can play.

4158
03:31:04,180 --> 03:31:10,579
So, with that, I will move that this is approved.

4159
03:31:10,579 --> 03:31:11,579
How do I...

4160
03:31:11,579 --> 03:31:12,579
I'll clarify this.

4161
03:31:12,579 --> 03:31:15,459
This was recommended as a denial, correct?

4162
03:31:15,459 --> 03:31:18,020
So, my motion is to not...

4163
03:31:18,020 --> 03:31:19,979
Just change your motion.

4164
03:31:19,979 --> 03:31:20,979
Okay, perfect.

4165
03:31:20,979 --> 03:31:24,719
So, I move to approve this request as an NR6 with an

4166
03:31:24,719 --> 03:31:27,819
overlay condition that only single-family

4167
03:31:27,819 --> 03:31:35,459
detached buildings are built with a maximum of 54 lots.

4168
03:31:35,459 --> 03:31:37,459
Would you entertain a friendly amendment?

4169
03:31:37,459 --> 03:31:38,780
It depends.

4170
03:31:38,780 --> 03:31:42,819
Okay, I think the other condition that was requested was to

4171
03:31:42,819 --> 03:31:45,100
have the 20-foot front yard

4172
03:31:45,100 --> 03:31:46,100
setback.

4173
03:31:46,100 --> 03:31:50,850
Would you add that for a total of three conditions to your

4174
03:31:50,850 --> 03:31:53,659
suggested motion of approval?

4175
03:31:53,659 --> 03:31:56,540
Can that be added to the overlay, the build setback?

4176
03:31:56,540 --> 03:31:57,540
Okay.

4177
03:31:57,540 --> 03:32:01,090
Yes, I will entertain that amendment and require with this

4178
03:32:01,090 --> 03:32:03,620
motion an NR6 with only single-family

4179
03:32:03,620 --> 03:32:07,750
detached buildings constructed at a maximum of 54 lots and

4180
03:32:07,750 --> 03:32:10,420
a build line of 20-foot setback.

4181
03:32:10,420 --> 03:32:11,940
Yep, front yard.

4182
03:32:11,940 --> 03:32:13,739
Front yard.

4183
03:32:13,739 --> 03:32:14,739
Okay.

4184
03:32:14,739 --> 03:32:16,299
Commissioner Smith.

4185
03:32:16,299 --> 03:32:19,510
Being that the applicant has been extremely gracious in

4186
03:32:19,510 --> 03:32:21,059
making some compromise to be able

4187
03:32:21,059 --> 03:32:24,270
to do this and knowing now that even the existing

4188
03:32:24,270 --> 03:32:27,100
surrounding neighborhoods shouldn't even be

4189
03:32:27,100 --> 03:32:30,389
classified as NR4 with their density, this is going to be a

4190
03:32:30,389 --> 03:32:31,739
less dense area than the

4191
03:32:31,739 --> 03:32:34,500
surrounding areas based off the math and what it shows.

4192
03:32:34,500 --> 03:32:37,829
I think it'd be hard for us to, even though yes, we could

4193
03:32:37,829 --> 03:32:39,379
go and vote as an NR4.

4194
03:32:39,379 --> 03:32:43,409
I think it'd be incongruent as well as I was the one who

4195
03:32:43,409 --> 03:32:45,659
made the motion on the past on

4196
03:32:45,659 --> 03:32:49,549
the Yale project for the NR6 approval because of its

4197
03:32:49,549 --> 03:32:52,299
density being close to 4.2.

4198
03:32:52,299 --> 03:32:54,750
Going through and saying, "They have to buy by NR4, but

4199
03:32:54,750 --> 03:32:56,059
your neighbors just to the north

4200
03:32:56,059 --> 03:33:00,250
that get the NR6 plus the overlay," doesn't seem very congr

4201
03:33:00,250 --> 03:33:01,899
uent with that area.

4202
03:33:01,899 --> 03:33:05,780
So I will make a second motion, please.

4203
03:33:05,780 --> 03:33:06,780
Okay.

4204
03:33:06,780 --> 03:33:11,239
We have a first and a second for approval with the three

4205
03:33:11,239 --> 03:33:13,139
conditions stated.

4206
03:33:13,139 --> 03:33:14,139
Any further discussion?

4207
03:33:14,139 --> 03:33:15,139
Commissioner Beck.

4208
03:33:15,139 --> 03:33:16,139
Thank you, Chair.

4209
03:33:16,139 --> 03:33:19,350
Again, I'd like to thank everybody for coming down and

4210
03:33:19,350 --> 03:33:20,180
speaking out.

4211
03:33:20,180 --> 03:33:23,139
It's essential for us to make a good sound decision.

4212
03:33:23,139 --> 03:33:27,719
I'd like Commissioner Rosell, I too was opposed to the NR6,

4213
03:33:27,719 --> 03:33:30,260
but considering the concessions

4214
03:33:30,260 --> 03:33:32,950
that are made here, I think we have what both sides are

4215
03:33:32,950 --> 03:33:34,340
going to be happy with.

4216
03:33:34,340 --> 03:33:36,500
We've got the 20-foot setback.

4217
03:33:36,500 --> 03:33:41,540
We got the almost exact number of houses as an NR4 with the

4218
03:33:41,540 --> 03:33:43,979
overlay in there, and that

4219
03:33:43,979 --> 03:33:46,979
will be set in stone.

4220
03:33:46,979 --> 03:33:49,809
So the other consideration that we can't look at now

4221
03:33:49,809 --> 03:33:51,940
because this is the zoning thing, but

4222
03:33:51,940 --> 03:33:55,010
we can look at the design standards was the issue of what

4223
03:33:55,010 --> 03:33:56,579
the houses are going to look

4224
03:33:56,579 --> 03:33:58,500
like, and we can discuss that then.

4225
03:33:58,500 --> 03:34:01,709
Hopefully the developer will keep in mind what Mr. Potters

4226
03:34:01,709 --> 03:34:03,139
has said about BRIC, and

4227
03:34:03,139 --> 03:34:04,819
we'll deal with that at that time.

4228
03:34:04,819 --> 03:34:07,620
But again, I can go along with this motion myself.

4229
03:34:07,620 --> 03:34:09,379
Thank you.

4230
03:34:09,379 --> 03:34:10,379
Commissioner Sanchez.

4231
03:34:10,379 --> 03:34:15,379
Yeah, I think we've had a healthy discussion here tonight.

4232
03:34:15,379 --> 03:34:18,879
Listening to the developer and listening to the concerns of

4233
03:34:18,879 --> 03:34:20,579
the community, I think like

4234
03:34:20,579 --> 03:34:25,049
everybody else, I think they have met some of your concerns

4235
03:34:25,049 --> 03:34:27,139
, a lot of the concerns that

4236
03:34:27,139 --> 03:34:28,780
were brought forward.

4237
03:34:28,780 --> 03:34:32,420
And therefore, I think that personally I'll be voting for

4238
03:34:32,420 --> 03:34:34,299
it because I think because of

4239
03:34:34,299 --> 03:34:38,639
the overlays, that pretty much I think will satisfy a lot

4240
03:34:38,639 --> 03:34:41,180
of people that brought concerns

4241
03:34:41,180 --> 03:34:45,340
tonight.

4242
03:34:45,340 --> 03:34:46,340
Commissioner Sullivan.

4243
03:34:46,340 --> 03:34:50,780
Yes, thank you all for showing up.

4244
03:34:50,780 --> 03:34:55,250
I didn't hear a single voice about the number of homes

4245
03:34:55,250 --> 03:34:58,500
being built, but I did hear setbacks,

4246
03:34:58,500 --> 03:35:02,340
widths, depths, things of that nature.

4247
03:35:02,340 --> 03:35:05,750
And I think that if the applicant is willing to go along

4248
03:35:05,750 --> 03:35:07,739
with the conditions that were

4249
03:35:07,739 --> 03:35:13,260
put forth, where the setback is 20 feet, everything else is

4250
03:35:13,260 --> 03:35:16,299
what everybody I think has been, I

4251
03:35:16,299 --> 03:35:21,200
think, appeased to some degree that everybody's getting

4252
03:35:21,200 --> 03:35:24,420
what everybody wants and that nobody's

4253
03:35:24,420 --> 03:35:28,020
having to give up anything other than two houses.

4254
03:35:28,020 --> 03:35:29,020
Sorry.

4255
03:35:29,020 --> 03:35:33,559
But so I think at this point, I would be voting for it as

4256
03:35:33,559 --> 03:35:34,340
well.

4257
03:35:34,340 --> 03:35:35,340
Commissioner Ellis.

4258
03:35:35,340 --> 03:35:36,340
Thank you, Chair.

4259
03:35:36,340 --> 03:35:39,559
Not a whole lot more to add than was already said, other

4260
03:35:39,559 --> 03:35:41,540
than I will support it as well.

4261
03:35:41,540 --> 03:35:44,750
I think it's a good in-fill decision, especially with the

4262
03:35:44,750 --> 03:35:45,940
restrictions on it.

4263
03:35:45,940 --> 03:35:49,129
And as involved as you have been tonight, those of you who

4264
03:35:49,129 --> 03:35:51,219
live in the area, it's really important

4265
03:35:51,219 --> 03:35:52,219
that we hear you.

4266
03:35:52,219 --> 03:35:55,059
And please stay involved with the development.

4267
03:35:55,059 --> 03:35:58,020
Come and hear the platting.

4268
03:35:58,020 --> 03:36:01,409
It'll be presented in the going forwards, the preliminary

4269
03:36:01,409 --> 03:36:02,459
and the final.

4270
03:36:02,459 --> 03:36:05,379
Please stay tuned and pay attention to that.

4271
03:36:05,379 --> 03:36:07,540
And then after that, the site plan.

4272
03:36:07,540 --> 03:36:11,100
Thank you.

4273
03:36:11,100 --> 03:36:14,309
We have a first and a second for approval with three

4274
03:36:14,309 --> 03:36:16,020
conditions and seeing no further

4275
03:36:16,020 --> 03:36:30,780
discussion, I will call for a vote on the board.

4276
03:36:30,780 --> 03:36:31,780
Motion carries 7-0.

4277
03:36:31,780 --> 03:36:34,649
Good luck with your project and thank you to all the

4278
03:36:34,649 --> 03:36:36,299
neighbors for coming out.

4279
03:36:36,299 --> 03:36:39,510
I hope we were able to find a good compromise at work for

4280
03:36:39,510 --> 03:36:40,299
everyone.

4281
03:36:40,299 --> 03:36:44,459
So thank you all for coming out.

4282
03:36:44,459 --> 03:36:48,780
Again in our public hearing section, we have three other

4283
03:36:48,780 --> 03:36:51,180
items, item B, C and D that are

4284
03:36:51,180 --> 03:36:54,860
going to be renoticed and will not be heard tonight.

4285
03:36:54,860 --> 03:37:04,229
And with that said, that will move us to our project matrix

4286
03:37:04,229 --> 03:37:04,899
.

4287
03:37:04,899 --> 03:37:05,899
Commissioner Smith.

4288
03:37:05,899 --> 03:37:10,170
I mentioned it last time in regards to having talking about

4289
03:37:10,170 --> 03:37:12,979
changes to the code for neighborhood

4290
03:37:12,979 --> 03:37:13,979
meetings.

4291
03:37:13,979 --> 03:37:15,870
I thought I was going to get up on the matrix, but you

4292
03:37:15,870 --> 03:37:17,299
might have answered it last time.

4293
03:37:17,299 --> 03:37:19,969
Did you answer that last time that we're in the process of

4294
03:37:19,969 --> 03:37:21,299
including them in the code?

4295
03:37:21,299 --> 03:37:25,020
Yeah, we're looking at that as part of the DDC rewrite.

4296
03:37:25,020 --> 03:37:26,020
Got it.

4297
03:37:26,020 --> 03:37:27,020
Great.

4298
03:37:27,020 --> 03:37:28,020
Thank you.

4299
03:37:28,020 --> 03:37:30,459
So we'll be back when we get there.

4300
03:37:30,459 --> 03:37:31,459
Commissioner Beck.

4301
03:37:31,459 --> 03:37:32,459
Thanks, Chair.

4302
03:37:32,459 --> 03:37:34,760
I just need to go on record date because I've been

4303
03:37:34,760 --> 03:37:37,059
approached by people that share my concern

4304
03:37:37,059 --> 03:37:39,059
about the parking minimum thing.

4305
03:37:39,059 --> 03:37:42,950
So I know we talked about it last time and just want to

4306
03:37:42,950 --> 03:37:45,340
keep it in the purview of where

4307
03:37:45,340 --> 03:37:46,340
we're going.

4308
03:37:46,340 --> 03:37:49,559
I thought if it wasn't sent, I will make sure it's sent to

4309
03:37:49,559 --> 03:37:50,299
tomorrow.

4310
03:37:50,299 --> 03:37:52,549
In addition, actually to go back to the neighborhood

4311
03:37:52,549 --> 03:37:54,860
meetings, one thing that we're doing now is

4312
03:37:54,860 --> 03:37:58,579
what we will be doing within the next week.

4313
03:37:58,579 --> 03:38:01,969
When we prepare the notifications that go out to the 200

4314
03:38:01,969 --> 03:38:03,879
and 500, in the past we've

4315
03:38:03,879 --> 03:38:06,090
provided the list that the applicant has asked for for the

4316
03:38:06,090 --> 03:38:07,139
neighborhood meeting.

4317
03:38:07,139 --> 03:38:09,620
What we're going to be doing now is just giving that to

4318
03:38:09,620 --> 03:38:10,780
them right up front.

4319
03:38:10,780 --> 03:38:13,409
While we can't require it, we are going to be saying, you

4320
03:38:13,409 --> 03:38:14,819
know, we highly recommend a

4321
03:38:14,819 --> 03:38:15,819
neighborhood meeting.

4322
03:38:15,819 --> 03:38:17,579
Here's the list of everyone that's going to be getting it.

4323
03:38:17,579 --> 03:38:21,819
So they have it up front and they don't have to ask for it

4324
03:38:21,819 --> 03:38:22,819
later on.

4325
03:38:22,819 --> 03:38:23,819
Okay.

4326
03:38:23,819 --> 03:38:24,819
Commissioner Ellis.

4327
03:38:24,819 --> 03:38:26,819
Thank you, Chair.

4328
03:38:26,819 --> 03:38:30,379
Just a couple of bringing things up again.

4329
03:38:30,379 --> 03:38:33,569
With regard to the tree code, I do hope Deborah's right

4330
03:38:33,569 --> 03:38:35,540
that we are going to hear that soon.

4331
03:38:35,540 --> 03:38:39,030
I sit on a small area planning committee and the chatter

4332
03:38:39,030 --> 03:38:41,059
last week was that the whole thing

4333
03:38:41,059 --> 03:38:42,100
is dead.

4334
03:38:42,100 --> 03:38:46,569
So I would love to -- I assured them it wasn't, but I would

4335
03:38:46,569 --> 03:38:48,979
love something concrete to be

4336
03:38:48,979 --> 03:38:52,899
able to share with these people who are stating this.

4337
03:38:52,899 --> 03:38:56,059
I'll put it on the record.

4338
03:38:56,059 --> 03:39:00,979
The draft will be heard in a workshop at the next meeting.

4339
03:39:00,979 --> 03:39:03,040
And so similar to what we did with Deborah's item this

4340
03:39:03,040 --> 03:39:04,540
evening where we sort of staggered

4341
03:39:04,540 --> 03:39:07,799
the work session to go over the whole proposed and then

4342
03:39:07,799 --> 03:39:09,620
come back two weeks later.

4343
03:39:09,620 --> 03:39:11,829
That's exactly what we'll be doing with the tree code

4344
03:39:11,829 --> 03:39:12,340
update.

4345
03:39:12,340 --> 03:39:16,799
And so we're still looking at modifying some of the numbers

4346
03:39:16,799 --> 03:39:18,620
and making sure it's sort of

4347
03:39:18,620 --> 03:39:21,909
fair and equitable for everybody because it is a big jump,

4348
03:39:21,909 --> 03:39:23,579
some of the percentages.

4349
03:39:23,579 --> 03:39:26,799
And so we just want to make sure that as we move forward,

4350
03:39:26,799 --> 03:39:28,579
we've looked at all angles.

4351
03:39:28,579 --> 03:39:29,579
Excellent.

4352
03:39:29,579 --> 03:39:31,299
I have one more.

4353
03:39:31,299 --> 03:39:33,940
Just given our discussion at work session, could we maybe

4354
03:39:33,940 --> 03:39:35,219
have a little work session

4355
03:39:35,219 --> 03:39:38,709
on traffic impact fees and how they're collected and what

4356
03:39:38,709 --> 03:39:40,819
fund it sits in and who manages that

4357
03:39:40,819 --> 03:39:41,819
and how it's spent?

4358
03:39:41,819 --> 03:39:45,459
And that just seems to be coming up more and more.

4359
03:39:45,459 --> 03:39:46,459
Yes.

4360
03:39:46,459 --> 03:39:47,459
In fact, I mentioned it to Pre-Kim.

4361
03:39:47,459 --> 03:39:51,510
I said I think we need to come back and do a separate item

4362
03:39:51,510 --> 03:39:53,139
just on impact fee.

4363
03:39:53,139 --> 03:39:56,620
Anybody else?

4364
03:39:56,620 --> 03:39:59,620
Okay.

4365
03:39:59,620 --> 03:40:03,260
With that at 8.05, I will close our meeting tonight.

4366
03:40:03,260 --> 03:40:04,340
Thank you everyone for coming out.