WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.240 January 24th 2018 this meeting has been duly posted and we 00:00:05.240 --> 00:00:05.980 have a quorum 00:00:05.980 --> 00:00:10.750 present and I will call us to order at 405 our first order 00:00:10.750 --> 00:00:12.560 of business will be 00:00:12.560 --> 00:00:16.429 to go through and receive clarification of agenda items so 00:00:16.429 --> 00:00:18.120 does anybody have a 00:00:18.120 --> 00:00:22.640 question on the consent agenda? 00:00:25.839 --> 00:00:32.240 Nothing? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair you know I 00:00:32.240 --> 00:00:33.280 just had a quick 00:00:33.280 --> 00:00:37.359 question on 3A. 00:00:55.840 --> 00:01:05.209 Sorry Haley. You know it just talks about that sewer 00:01:05.209 --> 00:01:07.239 conventionally again in a note. 00:01:07.239 --> 00:01:11.230 I assume that it can be. Yes. And where it's located and 00:01:11.230 --> 00:01:12.040 that's gonna be taken 00:01:12.040 --> 00:01:15.250 off eventually. Yes ma'am with this being a preliminary 00:01:15.250 --> 00:01:16.439 plat sometimes those 00:01:16.439 --> 00:01:18.959 standard notes just get left on there but there will be 00:01:18.959 --> 00:01:19.920 sewer service to the 00:01:19.920 --> 00:01:22.689 site and that won't be on the final plot. Okay good deal 00:01:22.689 --> 00:01:24.280 thanks. 00:01:24.280 --> 00:01:28.439 Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Just I'm still a little 00:01:28.439 --> 00:01:30.019 foggy on E here the 00:01:30.019 --> 00:01:33.620 conveyance approval of the conveyance plan. What exactly 00:01:33.620 --> 00:01:36.040 are we doing here? 00:01:36.040 --> 00:01:41.680 This is a conveyance plot so it is being plotted just to 00:01:41.680 --> 00:01:43.760 reconfigure the lots for 00:01:43.760 --> 00:01:46.659 the sale of the property. The conveyance plot doesn't grant 00:01:46.659 --> 00:01:47.599 any development rights 00:01:47.599 --> 00:01:49.450 for anything at this time so it would still come back and 00:01:49.450 --> 00:01:50.200 be preliminary and 00:01:50.200 --> 00:01:53.469 final plotted. This is just moving some lot lines around 00:01:53.469 --> 00:01:54.519 for the sale of the 00:01:54.519 --> 00:01:58.049 property. So it's a solid lot now we're splitting it up? It 00:01:58.049 --> 00:01:59.599 was previously three 00:01:59.599 --> 00:02:01.969 lots we're just adjusting the boundary lines of them a 00:02:01.969 --> 00:02:03.079 little bit but you can 00:02:03.079 --> 00:02:06.840 see kind of in the gray area on there there's the original 00:02:06.840 --> 00:02:08.199 lot numbers. Okay. 00:02:08.199 --> 00:02:18.409 Got you. Okay thank you. Anybody else on consent agenda? 00:02:18.409 --> 00:02:22.039 Okay thank you Hayley. We only 00:02:22.039 --> 00:02:27.240 have one item on our public hearings tonight that will be 00:02:27.240 --> 00:02:29.360 item A. Shandrin if 00:02:29.360 --> 00:02:32.599 you want to walk us through this item? 00:02:34.360 --> 00:02:46.180 Good afternoon. It's good to see you guys. Yeah. So this is 00:02:46.180 --> 00:02:48.039 a rezoning request for 00:02:48.039 --> 00:02:53.360 property located on Audre Lane Z 1726. It's approximately 00:02:53.360 --> 00:02:55.039 13 acres and they are 00:02:55.039 --> 00:02:58.909 requesting to go from NR 2 which is a single-family 00:02:58.909 --> 00:03:00.479 residential district that 00:03:00.479 --> 00:03:04.659 allows up to two dwelling units per acre. They want to re 00:03:04.659 --> 00:03:06.240 zone to an NR 6 that 00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:09.610 allows some single primarily single-family use but also 00:03:09.610 --> 00:03:10.879 some duplex 00:03:10.879 --> 00:03:15.139 and townhome use with a maximum of six units per acre. The 00:03:15.139 --> 00:03:18.240 property is located 00:03:18.360 --> 00:03:23.849 just southeast of the Audre and Nottingham intersection. 00:03:23.849 --> 00:03:24.639 Audre Lane 00:03:24.639 --> 00:03:27.289 actually serves as the western boundary and also the 00:03:27.289 --> 00:03:28.520 northern boundary of the 00:03:28.520 --> 00:03:33.080 property. And just to give you some landmarks the Ditten 00:03:33.080 --> 00:03:35.520 Bible Church is 00:03:35.520 --> 00:03:40.560 here. Mingo Road goes diagonally through the map and then D 00:03:40.560 --> 00:03:41.599 itten Church of Christ 00:03:41.599 --> 00:03:48.050 is here. The site is primarily undeveloped although there 00:03:48.050 --> 00:03:48.439 are some 00:03:48.439 --> 00:03:57.539 limited agricultural uses and it has not been platted as of 00:03:57.539 --> 00:03:58.919 yet. Do you want me to 00:03:58.919 --> 00:04:03.039 go through the full presentation? 00:04:03.800 --> 00:04:07.360 Well we do the shortened version here because I know we 00:04:07.360 --> 00:04:08.280 have a number of other 00:04:08.280 --> 00:04:11.969 reports to be given and then we can certainly go through 00:04:11.969 --> 00:04:13.000 the full if we need 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:19.240 to it in there. Okay we can do that. So we look at two 00:04:19.240 --> 00:04:21.639 items, well two major criteria when we 00:04:21.639 --> 00:04:25.259 consider rezoning requests. One does it meet the future 00:04:25.259 --> 00:04:26.720 land use plan and then 00:04:26.720 --> 00:04:32.829 two will the site be adequately served by public utilities 00:04:32.829 --> 00:04:33.319 and public 00:04:33.319 --> 00:04:39.399 services? Are the roads sufficient? Is the wastewater water 00:04:39.399 --> 00:04:44.480 connections are they there and available? Public police 00:04:44.480 --> 00:04:45.920 fired EMS, what are the 00:04:45.920 --> 00:04:54.199 impacts on those? The first criteria that we assess is the 00:04:54.199 --> 00:04:59.839 compatibility with the comprehensive plan and primarily the 00:04:59.839 --> 00:05:00.759 future land use 00:05:00.759 --> 00:05:05.519 element of the comprehensive plan. And so for this area as 00:05:05.519 --> 00:05:07.000 you can tell from the 00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:11.209 insert, the area that the subject property is located 00:05:11.209 --> 00:05:11.800 within is 00:05:11.800 --> 00:05:15.220 primarily surrounded by what we classify as low density 00:05:15.220 --> 00:05:17.120 residential and the 00:05:17.120 --> 00:05:20.879 intent of low density residential is to promote single- 00:05:20.879 --> 00:05:22.439 family detached units 00:05:22.439 --> 00:05:26.699 that range from about one unit per acre up to a max of 00:05:26.699 --> 00:05:29.279 about four units per acre. 00:05:29.279 --> 00:05:33.629 And what we found when we looked at this request is that it 00:05:33.629 --> 00:05:35.319 the NR6 zoning in 00:05:35.319 --> 00:05:38.899 particular does not is not compatible with what we would 00:05:38.899 --> 00:05:39.920 classify as low 00:05:39.920 --> 00:05:44.389 density residential. What we typically see NR6 and what we 00:05:44.389 --> 00:05:45.319 would call the 00:05:45.319 --> 00:05:50.660 moderate residential category which we in that class we see 00:05:50.660 --> 00:05:52.040 the NR6 zoning 00:05:52.040 --> 00:05:56.060 and then we'll also get into the mixed use the NRMU and 00:05:56.060 --> 00:05:59.439 then the NRMU-12s. 00:05:59.439 --> 00:06:08.990 In this area we have most of the the construction is single 00:06:08.990 --> 00:06:10.160 -family detached. 00:06:10.160 --> 00:06:18.100 They are approximately 50 to 60 foot wide lots and really 00:06:18.100 --> 00:06:19.720 are consistent with 00:06:19.720 --> 00:06:24.519 what we intended for these areas for low density 00:06:24.519 --> 00:06:25.879 residential. 00:06:29.480 --> 00:06:33.350 So when a site does not is not compatible with the future 00:06:33.350 --> 00:06:36.319 land use plan there is 00:06:36.319 --> 00:06:40.939 some additional criteria that the DDC allows us to consider 00:06:40.939 --> 00:06:42.120 and one of that 00:06:42.120 --> 00:06:45.490 one of those is compatibility as we talked about with what 00:06:45.490 --> 00:06:46.519 's already on the 00:06:46.519 --> 00:06:50.769 ground as far as the construction type, the land use, the 00:06:50.769 --> 00:06:52.480 scale. We can look at 00:06:52.480 --> 00:06:52.480 those elements to see if the requested district would fit 00:06:52.480 --> 00:06:57.519 within what's 00:06:57.519 --> 00:07:08.639 already there. As far as those elements NR6 mostly meets 00:07:08.639 --> 00:07:09.519 those criteria 00:07:09.519 --> 00:07:13.620 where we get the discrepancies with the there's two land 00:07:13.620 --> 00:07:15.000 uses that would get 00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:19.600 introduced with this new zoning district townhomes and 00:07:19.600 --> 00:07:23.709 duplexes would be permitted with the NR6 outright and that 00:07:23.709 --> 00:07:24.920 is not consistent with 00:07:24.920 --> 00:07:30.189 what's already been constructed in this area. If you guys 00:07:30.189 --> 00:07:32.720 remember I think it was 00:07:32.720 --> 00:07:36.990 in December there was a case that came before you the Yale 00:07:36.990 --> 00:07:39.480 property right and 00:07:39.480 --> 00:07:43.120 that that request was basically identical to the one that's 00:07:43.120 --> 00:07:43.839 before you 00:07:43.839 --> 00:07:50.660 today and council did end up approving that as NR6 with the 00:07:50.660 --> 00:07:51.240 conditional 00:07:51.240 --> 00:07:56.670 overlay and so what essentially happened is that we the on 00:07:56.670 --> 00:07:58.519 its faces NR6 but 00:07:58.519 --> 00:08:03.199 with the conditions it's more of an NR4 product so they 00:08:03.199 --> 00:08:05.040 restricted the uses to 00:08:05.040 --> 00:08:08.470 single-family only and then they actually kept the number 00:08:08.470 --> 00:08:09.240 of dwelling 00:08:09.240 --> 00:08:12.449 units that would be constructed so to maintain consistency 00:08:12.449 --> 00:08:13.160 with the area. 00:08:13.160 --> 00:08:17.029 Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. In regards to that 00:08:17.029 --> 00:08:18.759 case that that one was 00:08:18.759 --> 00:08:21.550 something where the applicant was applying it was a little 00:08:21.550 --> 00:08:22.240 over four it 00:08:22.240 --> 00:08:25.069 was a little over four units per acre and that's why we had 00:08:25.069 --> 00:08:26.519 to go to NR6 and 00:08:26.519 --> 00:08:29.709 so I get what you're saying the council approved it do you 00:08:29.709 --> 00:08:30.560 have any idea what 00:08:30.560 --> 00:08:34.509 the applicant unit per acre actual number is I know it's 00:08:34.509 --> 00:08:35.480 over four it's 00:08:35.480 --> 00:08:38.720 why it's going to NR6. Well actually I spoke with the 00:08:38.720 --> 00:08:40.759 applicant for this case 00:08:40.759 --> 00:08:44.990 the Audra tract and he's coming in right at four units per 00:08:44.990 --> 00:08:47.960 acre so they they are 00:08:47.960 --> 00:08:52.289 I'm not quite clear on why they are requesting the NR6 I 00:08:52.289 --> 00:08:53.799 think it may have 00:08:53.799 --> 00:08:57.009 to do with the total lot counts that they are hoping to get 00:08:57.009 --> 00:08:57.840 out of the site 00:08:57.840 --> 00:09:01.059 but when I look at it I haven't identified any constraints 00:09:01.059 --> 00:09:01.679 like flood 00:09:01.679 --> 00:09:06.149 plain or ESA that would keep them from constructing the NR4 00:09:06.149 --> 00:09:07.799 even product on this 00:09:07.799 --> 00:09:10.679 site. Okay and then the what was the conditional overlay 00:09:10.679 --> 00:09:11.279 that was given by the 00:09:11.279 --> 00:09:15.120 city council? For the property to the north. The property 00:09:15.120 --> 00:09:17.000 to the north. And Haley if you can help me out but 00:09:17.000 --> 00:09:22.409 essentially it restricted the uses to only single-family 00:09:22.409 --> 00:09:24.360 detached construction 00:09:24.360 --> 00:09:33.379 right? Yes. And then it was they restricted the use single- 00:09:33.379 --> 00:09:35.039 family only and I can't 00:09:35.039 --> 00:09:41.759 remember it was like 4.6 or 4.8 units. They reduced or they 00:09:41.759 --> 00:09:42.720 limited the number 00:09:42.720 --> 00:09:45.159 of lots to what was shown on the conceptual site plan which 00:09:45.159 --> 00:09:45.720 was I believe 00:09:45.720 --> 00:09:53.190 about 35 lots total. Commissioner Bec. Thank you chair. 00:09:53.190 --> 00:09:55.120 Okay going to the point 00:09:55.120 --> 00:09:57.759 where there was an overlay before we got the city council 00:09:57.759 --> 00:09:58.360 we were under the 00:09:58.360 --> 00:10:02.080 impression that NR6 couldn't do an overlay so what happened 00:10:02.080 --> 00:10:02.919 at City 00:10:02.919 --> 00:10:07.679 Council? Does that apply now? Has that been a changed thing 00:10:07.679 --> 00:10:07.919 ? Victor's not answering my question first. 00:10:07.919 --> 00:10:13.139 And if I guess if you would if I could revisit that under 00:10:13.139 --> 00:10:14.039 my presentation I'll 00:10:14.039 --> 00:10:16.490 definitely answer that question. Okay. Or I can go into my 00:10:16.490 --> 00:10:17.559 presentation right now. 00:10:17.559 --> 00:10:20.169 Well just quick answer though is that overlay an option 00:10:20.169 --> 00:10:22.120 tonight? Yes. Okay. 00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:31.659 Please continue. Okay so getting back to the presentation 00:10:31.659 --> 00:10:32.240 we look at 00:10:32.240 --> 00:10:35.450 compatibility with what's already been constructed in the 00:10:35.450 --> 00:10:37.320 area. We look at 00:10:37.320 --> 00:10:42.389 available infrastructure that can serve the site. For this 00:10:42.389 --> 00:10:43.559 site there is 00:10:43.559 --> 00:10:48.879 available water and sewer along both segments of Audre Lane 00:10:48.879 --> 00:10:49.919 to the west and 00:10:49.919 --> 00:10:55.159 to the north. Obviously there will be extensions required 00:10:55.159 --> 00:10:56.120 in order for 00:10:56.120 --> 00:11:00.220 this site to be developed but that utility is available on 00:11:00.220 --> 00:11:00.720 those two 00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:06.659 right-of-ways. As far as the roadways that serve the site, 00:11:06.659 --> 00:11:07.980 Audre Lane on the 00:11:07.980 --> 00:11:11.950 west is currently an undivided two-lane road and the 00:11:11.950 --> 00:11:14.159 mobility plan actually costs 00:11:14.159 --> 00:11:18.080 for a four-lane divided with sidewalks and bike lanes and 00:11:18.080 --> 00:11:19.279 then for Audre Lane 00:11:19.279 --> 00:11:23.509 on the north it will be ultimate cross-section of about 65 00:11:23.509 --> 00:11:24.360 feet a right-of-way. 00:11:24.360 --> 00:11:28.519 And then right-of-way dedications, perimeter street 00:11:28.519 --> 00:11:29.320 improvements would all 00:11:29.320 --> 00:11:33.039 occur at the platting stage so we're not quite there yet. 00:11:33.039 --> 00:11:34.039 Once the site is 00:11:34.039 --> 00:11:42.679 more fleshed out we can make those assessments. And again 00:11:42.679 --> 00:11:44.559 no ESA. We didn't 00:11:44.559 --> 00:11:48.429 find any ESA, no floodplain issues. There is some tree 00:11:48.429 --> 00:11:49.639 canopy on the site as you 00:11:49.639 --> 00:11:54.440 can see just on the west side as you get close to Audre. 00:11:54.440 --> 00:11:55.600 Then some, I'm not sure 00:11:55.600 --> 00:11:58.370 what the condition of those trees are but the tree 00:11:58.370 --> 00:12:00.159 preservation and mitigation 00:12:00.159 --> 00:12:03.440 requirements will kick in once they get into site 00:12:03.440 --> 00:12:07.240 development. As required by the 00:12:07.240 --> 00:12:11.700 Texas Local Government Code we did public notifications. We 00:12:11.700 --> 00:12:12.759 sent 66 00:12:12.759 --> 00:12:17.960 letters to the adjacent property owners within 200 feet of 00:12:17.960 --> 00:12:18.080 the 00:12:18.080 --> 00:12:21.960 subject property. We received six letters in opposition. 00:12:21.960 --> 00:12:24.159 Those areas 00:12:24.159 --> 00:12:28.759 highlighted in red are the those properties that are 00:12:28.759 --> 00:12:30.080 opposed to the 00:12:30.080 --> 00:12:33.639 request and that comes that comes out to about 3% so we 00:12:33.639 --> 00:12:34.480 haven't triggered the 00:12:34.480 --> 00:12:40.950 supermajority at council yet. We sent 173 courtesy notices 00:12:40.950 --> 00:12:42.720 within 500 feet to 00:12:42.720 --> 00:12:45.929 property owners within 500 feet and then the applicant also 00:12:45.929 --> 00:12:46.559 held a neighborhood 00:12:46.559 --> 00:12:53.360 meeting last week. So in summary we are recommending denial 00:12:53.360 --> 00:12:54.120 for this request 00:12:54.120 --> 00:12:58.590 based on it's not consistent with the future land use plan. 00:12:58.590 --> 00:13:00.320 It's not compatible 00:13:00.320 --> 00:13:04.190 with the existing the surrounding properties and we feel 00:13:04.190 --> 00:13:05.399 that an NR3 00:13:05.399 --> 00:13:09.889 NR4 zoning is more appropriate. Now we did have some 00:13:09.889 --> 00:13:11.159 struggle with this 00:13:11.159 --> 00:13:13.679 recommendation given what happened with the case to the 00:13:13.679 --> 00:13:15.000 north and obviously if 00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:18.679 City Council chose to do an overlay similar to what they 00:13:18.679 --> 00:13:19.639 did with the yellow 00:13:19.639 --> 00:13:25.370 estate that would be more appropriate. Commissioner Beck. 00:13:25.370 --> 00:13:27.080 Thank you chair. 00:13:27.080 --> 00:13:31.269 Egress and ingress is going to be I'm assuming Lattimore is 00:13:31.269 --> 00:13:32.360 going to extend 00:13:32.360 --> 00:13:39.600 into the new area. This street here? Yes. I'm gonna 00:13:39.600 --> 00:13:41.320 actually defer to pre-tem to 00:13:41.320 --> 00:13:44.269 see if there's any requirements to extend that street. I 00:13:44.269 --> 00:13:45.139 was gonna say 00:13:45.139 --> 00:13:49.320 because if it does you're gonna have a dramatic shift from 00:13:49.320 --> 00:13:51.120 NR2 to NR6 and that's 00:13:51.120 --> 00:13:55.480 gonna look weird and I guess that other little vertical 00:13:55.480 --> 00:13:56.679 stretch there is that 00:13:56.679 --> 00:14:01.000 gonna be a road to? Good afternoon my name is pre-tem I'm 00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:02.200 the traffic engineer for 00:14:02.200 --> 00:14:05.919 the city. At this stage where it's really preliminary 00:14:05.919 --> 00:14:07.679 primarily some of the 00:14:07.679 --> 00:14:12.000 something like this comes on we require a traffic study and 00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:13.159 definitely it's an 00:14:13.159 --> 00:14:16.730 option to extend Lattimore it makes more sense to use Latt 00:14:16.730 --> 00:14:18.259 imore as a connection 00:14:18.259 --> 00:14:21.909 there but there will be some other connection points to the 00:14:21.909 --> 00:14:22.820 side the site 00:14:22.820 --> 00:14:26.779 is pretty large. You don't have any specifics right now? No 00:14:26.779 --> 00:14:27.720 specifics unless 00:14:27.720 --> 00:14:31.389 they have a number of units we can't really define what 00:14:31.389 --> 00:14:32.399 kind of traffic 00:14:32.399 --> 00:14:36.529 requirements they trigger. Okay but is there gonna be more 00:14:36.529 --> 00:14:38.000 than one entrance 00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:44.879 and exit? Yes. Okay thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank 00:14:44.879 --> 00:14:46.000 You Chair. 00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:51.730 Shandrin. Forgive me for my ignorance is there tree 00:14:51.730 --> 00:14:52.720 preservation differences 00:14:52.720 --> 00:14:59.509 between NR2 and NR6? Not necessarily. We have some 00:14:59.509 --> 00:15:00.799 landscape standards that vary 00:15:00.799 --> 00:15:03.559 based on zoning districts but the tree preservation 00:15:03.559 --> 00:15:05.000 requirements vary based on 00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:09.279 the type of tree, the size obviously. I'm more just worried 00:15:09.279 --> 00:15:10.799 about if there's 00:15:10.799 --> 00:15:13.279 citizens here tonight that are saying hey we don't want you 00:15:13.279 --> 00:15:14.480 to rezone it 00:15:14.480 --> 00:15:16.120 because we're afraid we're gonna lose all those beautiful 00:15:16.120 --> 00:15:16.799 trees that are backed 00:15:16.799 --> 00:15:19.009 up to our lots there. We want to make sure that the 00:15:19.009 --> 00:15:19.840 preservation that the 00:15:19.840 --> 00:15:22.710 current zoning isn't too much different or different at all 00:15:22.710 --> 00:15:24.879 than the proposed zoning. 00:15:24.879 --> 00:15:27.360 No the preservation requirements are based on the trees. 00:15:27.360 --> 00:15:28.000 And then along 00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:33.559 Audre there do we currently have that right away or is that 00:15:33.559 --> 00:15:33.799 gonna be 00:15:33.799 --> 00:15:37.440 captured the plotting process? Yes for the future mobility 00:15:37.440 --> 00:15:38.519 expansion I should say. 00:15:38.519 --> 00:15:41.879 For both sections of Audre both on the north and the west 00:15:41.879 --> 00:15:42.559 we will get 00:15:42.559 --> 00:15:47.070 dedications with the plats. We don't currently have the 00:15:47.070 --> 00:15:48.159 full right away. 00:15:48.159 --> 00:15:54.649 Exactly. So it'd be smart for us to try to. Well thank you. 00:15:54.649 --> 00:15:56.000 Commissioner Rossell. 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:00.519 Thank You Chair. I was actually absent at this previous 00:16:00.519 --> 00:16:02.840 northern meeting and so 00:16:02.840 --> 00:16:06.049 forgive my ignorance or memory on the minutes but is this 00:16:06.049 --> 00:16:07.399 the same applicant as 00:16:07.399 --> 00:16:10.850 the north property? No there are two different applicants 00:16:10.850 --> 00:16:11.639 two different owners. 00:16:11.639 --> 00:16:16.389 And so I know this is rezoning but there hasn't been any 00:16:16.389 --> 00:16:18.679 unified one neighborhood. 00:16:18.679 --> 00:16:22.070 It's gonna be two distinct developments. Yes we encourage 00:16:22.070 --> 00:16:23.000 them to work together 00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:26.039 in the beginning but throughout business reasons I guess 00:16:26.039 --> 00:16:26.879 they needed to do it 00:16:26.879 --> 00:16:30.620 separately. Okay and then the other question I have is I'm 00:16:30.620 --> 00:16:31.600 trying to 00:16:31.600 --> 00:16:33.850 understand the staff's perspective given council's 00:16:33.850 --> 00:16:35.919 consideration. So if we remove 00:16:35.919 --> 00:16:42.440 that if staff not okay are not recommending because of the 00:16:42.440 --> 00:16:43.360 uses in 00:16:43.360 --> 00:16:47.379 NR6 or because of the density of NR6? It's a bit of both 00:16:47.379 --> 00:16:50.080 and we don't have the 00:16:50.080 --> 00:16:52.850 City Council is and Victor will get into this in his 00:16:52.850 --> 00:16:54.440 presentation. The City 00:16:54.440 --> 00:16:58.309 Council has more discretion to do those types of actions 00:16:58.309 --> 00:17:00.080 than we do. The code 00:17:00.080 --> 00:17:03.330 doesn't give us the leeway to do that to add a conditional 00:17:03.330 --> 00:17:04.880 overlay as staff or to 00:17:04.880 --> 00:17:12.119 recommend that to you. Okay thanks. 00:17:14.799 --> 00:17:20.799 Commissioner Sanchez. Looking at this map I was looking at 00:17:20.799 --> 00:17:22.720 there's a lot of NR4 00:17:22.720 --> 00:17:27.319 surrounding that and then across across Audra there's NR6 00:17:27.319 --> 00:17:29.400 and then I guess just 00:17:29.400 --> 00:17:33.539 looking at that being that this is a pretty much vacant 00:17:33.539 --> 00:17:34.759 land this whole area 00:17:34.759 --> 00:17:39.960 is vacant. I was looking at NR6 and it basically says which 00:17:39.960 --> 00:17:41.240 these areas will be 00:17:41.240 --> 00:17:45.180 prominent feature of Denton's newest neighborhoods and so 00:17:45.180 --> 00:17:46.359 this is a new area 00:17:46.359 --> 00:17:51.039 most of the old areas around it are older neighborhoods so 00:17:51.039 --> 00:17:52.960 I guess my idea 00:17:52.960 --> 00:17:57.519 was you know NR6 is something that we're looking at develop 00:17:57.519 --> 00:17:58.640 within I would think 00:17:58.640 --> 00:18:04.599 because the city is in these open areas that are small that 00:18:04.599 --> 00:18:06.240 would be my my idea 00:18:06.240 --> 00:18:09.450 because we want to fill in and we also want to make best 00:18:09.450 --> 00:18:11.119 use of those areas so 00:18:11.119 --> 00:18:15.890 my I guess my question is why wouldn't you develop that 00:18:15.890 --> 00:18:17.799 well that yellow section 00:18:17.799 --> 00:18:21.240 right next to Audra I imagine that would be business at one 00:18:21.240 --> 00:18:23.400 point or over time 00:18:23.400 --> 00:18:25.970 that whole area is going to fill in because it's vacant 00:18:25.970 --> 00:18:27.559 right now is it 00:18:27.559 --> 00:18:32.619 going to be are we looking at NR4 over time because when 00:18:32.619 --> 00:18:34.000 was this I guess my 00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:39.730 question is when was the NR2 given you know if it was 10-15 00:18:39.730 --> 00:18:41.000 years ago things 00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:43.890 have changed quite a bit in that area over that time over 00:18:43.890 --> 00:18:44.880 that time period 00:18:44.880 --> 00:18:49.509 sure that's fair the NR2 if I'm if I'm correct was 00:18:49.509 --> 00:18:50.720 established when we did the 00:18:50.720 --> 00:18:54.400 city-wide rezoning and a lot of this area was developed 00:18:54.400 --> 00:18:55.839 prior to actually the 00:18:55.839 --> 00:18:59.519 DDC the current DDC that we have and so the what you see on 00:18:59.519 --> 00:19:01.519 the ground may not 00:19:01.519 --> 00:19:04.369 completely match what the current code is just because it 00:19:04.369 --> 00:19:06.039 was developed prior 00:19:06.039 --> 00:19:11.079 but that point you made about the infield is good typically 00:19:11.079 --> 00:19:12.279 we see the in 00:19:12.279 --> 00:19:17.119 our mixed-use districts and an NR6 as a we use it as a 00:19:17.119 --> 00:19:19.640 transition zoning between 00:19:19.640 --> 00:19:23.509 maybe commercial or higher density residential and lower 00:19:23.509 --> 00:19:23.920 density 00:19:23.920 --> 00:19:28.380 residential so a more appropriate place would be where you 00:19:28.380 --> 00:19:29.119 see it along 00:19:29.119 --> 00:19:34.759 Amingo Road that's a major arterial so you can see well we 00:19:34.759 --> 00:19:35.559 would encourage the 00:19:35.559 --> 00:19:42.990 NR6 the NRMU the NRMU-12s along this area but typically we 00:19:42.990 --> 00:19:43.599 wouldn't want to 00:19:43.599 --> 00:19:47.160 introduce that type of density in an established 00:19:47.160 --> 00:19:49.079 neighborhood even though 00:19:49.079 --> 00:19:53.960 like you're correct these are infield products but we still 00:19:53.960 --> 00:19:54.720 would want them to 00:19:54.720 --> 00:19:58.980 fit within and be compatible with what's already on the 00:19:58.980 --> 00:20:01.000 ground if that makes 00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:03.000 sense 00:20:11.720 --> 00:20:16.920 thanks Chandrian all the other items that we have in our 00:20:16.920 --> 00:20:18.759 public hearing 00:20:18.759 --> 00:20:21.980 tonight have been renoticed and we will not hear those so 00:20:21.980 --> 00:20:23.640 with that I'm gonna say 00:20:23.640 --> 00:20:27.970 that concludes our agenda that will go through in council 00:20:27.970 --> 00:20:29.400 chambers and so we 00:20:29.400 --> 00:20:35.509 will proceed to our work session reports and at this time I 00:20:35.509 --> 00:20:36.319 will turn it over to 00:20:36.319 --> 00:20:39.960 Victor Flores for his presentation on overlay districts 00:20:39.960 --> 00:20:42.799 well I believe I'm 00:20:42.799 --> 00:20:46.279 just guessing that my presentations be maybe fielded more 00:20:46.279 --> 00:20:47.720 by my by questions 00:20:47.720 --> 00:20:52.980 but I'll just kind of give briefly give a summary as was 00:20:52.980 --> 00:20:54.960 discussed City 00:20:54.960 --> 00:21:01.609 Commission the City Council approved an overlay district 00:21:01.609 --> 00:21:03.079 previously mentioned 00:21:03.079 --> 00:21:11.470 development legal was asked and has been asked to kind of 00:21:11.470 --> 00:21:13.079 review the standards 00:21:13.079 --> 00:21:17.220 for imposing overlay districts it's kind of it's just after 00:21:17.220 --> 00:21:18.640 reviewing case law 00:21:18.640 --> 00:21:25.230 and discussing amongst our team just the unified analysis 00:21:25.230 --> 00:21:26.519 of our department that 00:21:26.519 --> 00:21:31.269 the overlay districts are permitted and and that stems out 00:21:31.269 --> 00:21:32.640 just be very very 00:21:32.640 --> 00:21:37.910 basic and we can guess as far into the details as we want 00:21:37.910 --> 00:21:39.200 to go on with 00:21:39.200 --> 00:21:42.529 questions but it comes from the premise that the City 00:21:42.529 --> 00:21:44.000 Council is vested with 00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:51.289 authority to do all things related to zoning and so in 00:21:51.289 --> 00:21:52.720 other instances there 00:21:52.720 --> 00:21:58.279 are very prescribed overlay districts within the code that 00:21:58.279 --> 00:21:59.440 authority to create 00:21:59.440 --> 00:22:02.250 these overlay districts is within the authority of the City 00:22:02.250 --> 00:22:03.759 Council now the 00:22:03.759 --> 00:22:07.140 City Council has delegated a certain authority over to this 00:22:07.140 --> 00:22:08.799 Commission to 00:22:08.799 --> 00:22:14.029 make similar recommendations to them and so just based on 00:22:14.029 --> 00:22:16.119 on that premise alone 00:22:16.119 --> 00:22:19.559 it's our understanding joined with case law and another 00:22:19.559 --> 00:22:21.039 analysis that we've done 00:22:21.039 --> 00:22:24.609 the overlay districts are permitted and it would be printed 00:22:24.609 --> 00:22:25.680 permitted in the 00:22:25.680 --> 00:22:29.039 case that was just talked about before 00:22:38.799 --> 00:22:45.200 limited to what we can find on the permitted uses sheet 00:22:45.200 --> 00:22:47.240 then and saying okay we have the permitted 00:22:47.240 --> 00:22:50.450 uses sheet which includes everything from max lot size max 00:22:50.450 --> 00:22:51.839 building height the 00:22:51.839 --> 00:22:53.769 certain users for you know from you know on that like we 00:22:53.769 --> 00:22:54.799 just talked about in our 00:22:54.799 --> 00:22:58.009 sixes basically in our floor but added in there with townh 00:22:58.009 --> 00:22:59.640 omes and duplexes so 00:22:59.640 --> 00:23:03.769 this extent of what type of overlay we can create is adjust 00:23:03.769 --> 00:23:04.720 to the criteria 00:23:04.720 --> 00:23:09.799 that are listed within that within that permitted uses or 00:23:09.799 --> 00:23:11.200 where should we start 00:23:11.200 --> 00:23:13.089 looking for for resources if we're thinking that an overlay 00:23:13.089 --> 00:23:13.599 will be right 00:23:13.599 --> 00:23:17.099 in this scenario simple questions you answer yes just stay 00:23:17.099 --> 00:23:18.279 with them within 00:23:18.279 --> 00:23:22.559 those standards and if I can digress just a little bit to 00:23:22.559 --> 00:23:23.680 kind of maybe 00:23:23.680 --> 00:23:30.019 explain what was once the position or the communicated 00:23:30.019 --> 00:23:31.079 position to this 00:23:31.079 --> 00:23:34.309 commission that maybe overlay districts were not permitted 00:23:34.309 --> 00:23:35.400 don't know how far 00:23:35.400 --> 00:23:38.819 along that that stem back but I can only assume that it was 00:23:38.819 --> 00:23:41.119 a progression of a 00:23:41.119 --> 00:23:46.130 recommendation given out of caution in this sense is that 00:23:46.130 --> 00:23:47.359 when you're not 00:23:47.359 --> 00:23:49.970 dealing with overlay districts that are prescribed in the 00:23:49.970 --> 00:23:51.160 code it's just 00:23:51.160 --> 00:23:55.269 council's job to make those tough decisions on the fly what 00:23:55.269 --> 00:23:56.359 is or what is 00:23:56.359 --> 00:23:59.410 not within those standards correct yeah that's just I guess 00:23:59.410 --> 00:24:00.599 I get right we don't 00:24:00.599 --> 00:24:02.950 want to create I know we had a developer here a couple 00:24:02.950 --> 00:24:04.759 months back for a P&Z 00:24:04.759 --> 00:24:07.369 meeting that we ended up we were talking about creating 00:24:07.369 --> 00:24:08.440 overlay district on 00:24:08.440 --> 00:24:11.240 something along the future expansion 2499 and he was like 00:24:11.240 --> 00:24:11.759 you guys are 00:24:11.759 --> 00:24:15.680 essentially creating new zoning at the dais and so I get it 00:24:15.680 --> 00:24:17.119 but I just we don't 00:24:17.119 --> 00:24:20.720 want to know within what parameters should we be operating 00:24:20.720 --> 00:24:21.279 and then going 00:24:21.279 --> 00:24:25.039 back to to answer your question and it was a pretty short 00:24:25.039 --> 00:24:25.960 pretty short answer 00:24:25.960 --> 00:24:29.720 but yes you would stick within those standards and on top 00:24:29.720 --> 00:24:31.480 of that you would I 00:24:31.480 --> 00:24:36.549 would say the general rule just put plainly is you could 00:24:36.549 --> 00:24:38.000 not I use this 00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:41.210 example if the standards are to have a six foot fence 00:24:41.210 --> 00:24:43.559 around the property you 00:24:43.559 --> 00:24:46.950 would not be able to I guess override the council and say 00:24:46.950 --> 00:24:48.480 no we want a four 00:24:48.480 --> 00:24:51.019 foot fence which would be because you would be able to 00:24:51.019 --> 00:24:52.000 recommend something 00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:54.759 more restrictive an eight foot fence okay because that 00:24:54.759 --> 00:24:55.960 would still satisfy the 00:24:55.960 --> 00:24:59.720 purpose original intent purpose of those standards okay got 00:24:59.720 --> 00:25:00.640 it so nothing with a 00:25:00.640 --> 00:25:04.640 specific direction but more or less that you have like in 00:25:04.640 --> 00:25:05.920 this sense like a 00:25:05.920 --> 00:25:08.900 maximum right you can't like what would they do within our 00:25:08.900 --> 00:25:09.640 six they completely 00:25:09.640 --> 00:25:13.150 just removed two uses there I get what you're saying it's 00:25:13.150 --> 00:25:13.759 like hey everything 00:25:13.759 --> 00:25:17.630 in this zone needs to be four foot fences right setting say 00:25:17.630 --> 00:25:18.160 hey it has to 00:25:18.160 --> 00:25:21.029 be a parking additional parking yeah or cannot be over 00:25:21.029 --> 00:25:22.119 cannot be over this 00:25:22.119 --> 00:25:27.519 amount of feet and again I mean my job is to help you know 00:25:27.519 --> 00:25:28.559 keep everybody 00:25:28.559 --> 00:25:32.660 within within the rails and so again not fully 00:25:32.660 --> 00:25:35.960 understanding the reason why the 00:25:35.960 --> 00:25:39.180 recommendation of the past was given to to not allow 00:25:39.180 --> 00:25:40.759 overlay districts but I can 00:25:40.759 --> 00:25:44.900 assume it was out of caution to just for not to get beyond 00:25:44.900 --> 00:25:46.720 the standards but you 00:25:46.720 --> 00:25:49.470 can within the standards you can establish these overlay 00:25:49.470 --> 00:25:50.079 districts thank 00:25:50.079 --> 00:25:54.849 you commissioner Ellis thank you chair you may have kind of 00:25:54.849 --> 00:25:55.759 answered this 00:25:55.759 --> 00:26:00.109 already done I'm assuming you as a legal team had a change 00:26:00.109 --> 00:26:01.400 of heart on this 00:26:01.400 --> 00:26:03.980 overlay I was certainly someone very concerned after that 00:26:03.980 --> 00:26:05.400 meeting because we 00:26:05.400 --> 00:26:07.819 were told one thing and then council did exactly what we 00:26:07.819 --> 00:26:09.000 were told we couldn't do 00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:13.559 so I certainly voiced that concern and so did you just as a 00:26:13.559 --> 00:26:14.440 team have 00:26:14.440 --> 00:26:19.579 collectively get together and then just decide that this is 00:26:19.579 --> 00:26:21.480 something that can 00:26:21.480 --> 00:26:25.000 be recommended yes at this level and then above obviously 00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:26.079 for a final yes 00:26:26.079 --> 00:26:30.599 yeah we've discussed it from the city attorney down to 00:26:30.599 --> 00:26:32.799 other land use and real 00:26:32.799 --> 00:26:36.079 estate attorneys as well okay so it was just maybe an old 00:26:36.079 --> 00:26:37.279 something that was 00:26:37.279 --> 00:26:40.910 being used but right and again I don't think that there's 00:26:40.910 --> 00:26:42.279 been a variation or 00:26:42.279 --> 00:26:46.960 deviation from past but I think what what was maybe 00:26:46.960 --> 00:26:50.880 incrementally a movement 00:26:50.880 --> 00:26:56.109 towards a conservative side again in kind of creating these 00:26:56.109 --> 00:26:57.319 standards on 00:26:57.319 --> 00:27:01.190 overlay districts that may be outside of the original 00:27:01.190 --> 00:27:02.640 intent of the listed 00:27:02.640 --> 00:27:06.990 requirements maybe that's where it came from but in our 00:27:06.990 --> 00:27:08.079 discussions we definitely 00:27:08.079 --> 00:27:10.670 cross our t's and dotted our eyes and did some research and 00:27:10.670 --> 00:27:11.559 said yeah you know 00:27:11.559 --> 00:27:14.960 we're all on the same page here thank you 00:27:14.960 --> 00:27:19.059 Commissioner Sullivan thank you chair just to clarify 00:27:19.059 --> 00:27:20.160 Commissioner Smith's 00:27:20.160 --> 00:27:24.630 point the meeting that we had where we were negotiating 00:27:24.630 --> 00:27:26.119 with the developer 00:27:26.119 --> 00:27:28.529 that's something that we should not have been doing at that 00:27:28.529 --> 00:27:29.720 point in time or 00:27:29.720 --> 00:27:36.920 going forward or so again I would say on a case-by-case 00:27:36.920 --> 00:27:38.559 basis I'm not saying for 00:27:38.559 --> 00:27:44.400 me not to engage the developer but definitely I would not 00:27:44.400 --> 00:27:45.440 let me say this 00:27:45.440 --> 00:27:48.819 way to answer your question directly I would not engage a 00:27:48.819 --> 00:27:50.039 developer on 00:27:50.039 --> 00:27:53.599 standards that may not be prescribed already now if you're 00:27:53.599 --> 00:27:54.519 talking about 00:27:54.519 --> 00:27:59.839 standards and heightened requirements on the standards are 00:27:59.839 --> 00:28:02.279 already present it's 00:28:02.279 --> 00:28:04.920 possible if the council wanted to engage in a discussion 00:28:04.920 --> 00:28:05.980 like that that would be 00:28:05.980 --> 00:28:10.089 that'd be fine but to go beyond those I guess four corners 00:28:10.089 --> 00:28:11.319 of whatever is already 00:28:11.319 --> 00:28:15.920 written I would recommend against that thank you 00:28:15.920 --> 00:28:17.359 Commissioner Smith thank you 00:28:17.359 --> 00:28:19.990 sure so what he was you're specifically talking about 00:28:19.990 --> 00:28:20.960 Commissioner Sullivan was 00:28:20.960 --> 00:28:24.730 that we were we were saying you know hey there's a camera 00:28:24.730 --> 00:28:25.000 what it was but it was 00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:28.759 criteria of hey we're gonna remove we're gonna move bars 00:28:28.759 --> 00:28:30.400 and clubs out of 00:28:30.400 --> 00:28:35.410 permitted uses mr. developer is that okay with you is that 00:28:35.410 --> 00:28:35.680 type of 00:28:35.680 --> 00:28:39.589 dialogue allowed is that is that that's not gonna put us in 00:28:39.589 --> 00:28:41.200 any type of type of 00:28:41.200 --> 00:28:43.450 issues there for we're saying hey we're gonna move this is 00:28:43.450 --> 00:28:44.240 that okay with you 00:28:44.240 --> 00:28:46.519 and the developer says yes okay okay great then in my 00:28:46.519 --> 00:28:47.759 motion I'm gonna say 00:28:47.759 --> 00:28:51.089 motion to approve with conditions that these two things are 00:28:51.089 --> 00:28:52.519 removed I don't 00:28:52.519 --> 00:28:57.839 listen the dialogue isn't what's the issue the issue it's 00:28:57.839 --> 00:28:58.720 the requiring 00:28:58.720 --> 00:29:04.730 requiring of the applicant are purporting to to require of 00:29:04.730 --> 00:29:05.799 them to do 00:29:05.799 --> 00:29:09.359 X Y & Z when it's not prescribed in the code already 00:29:09.359 --> 00:29:11.400 against his own voluntary 00:29:11.400 --> 00:29:15.029 will again this is a recommending board so everything is 00:29:15.029 --> 00:29:16.359 recommended is is is 00:29:16.359 --> 00:29:21.200 final say so yeah is with the council but the dialogue 00:29:21.200 --> 00:29:23.319 itself is not the 00:29:23.319 --> 00:29:26.529 concern it's again requiring the applicant to do something 00:29:26.529 --> 00:29:26.880 outside of 00:29:26.880 --> 00:29:32.990 this albis code okay commissioner Roselle on a maybe a step 00:29:32.990 --> 00:29:34.160 back on a 00:29:34.160 --> 00:29:36.619 zoning case should we be talking about the developer at all 00:29:36.619 --> 00:29:37.680 about the use cases 00:29:37.680 --> 00:29:44.119 or what they might or might not build again it's not wrong 00:29:44.119 --> 00:29:45.039 to have that 00:29:45.039 --> 00:29:49.509 dialogue with a developer if it's one of ten things that 00:29:49.509 --> 00:29:51.400 you consider well I 00:29:51.400 --> 00:29:54.230 think that makes sense but in the situation which we're 00:29:54.230 --> 00:29:55.119 talking about a 00:29:55.119 --> 00:29:58.700 rezone and the developers requesting certain things and 00:29:58.700 --> 00:29:59.720 there so in this 00:29:59.720 --> 00:30:01.710 case the developers like yeah we won't put a bar there he 00:30:01.710 --> 00:30:03.400 gets that restricted 00:30:03.400 --> 00:30:06.769 that's now applied to the zone he could go sell the 00:30:06.769 --> 00:30:08.640 property and a new developer 00:30:08.640 --> 00:30:11.470 would be under the bounds that another developer negotiated 00:30:11.470 --> 00:30:11.960 with this 00:30:11.960 --> 00:30:15.170 commission so I'm wondering it's been my premise of the 00:30:15.170 --> 00:30:16.359 past two years that on 00:30:16.359 --> 00:30:22.259 zoning cases the purported or positioned actual build out 00:30:22.259 --> 00:30:23.279 shouldn't be informed 00:30:23.279 --> 00:30:26.119 and taking into consideration we should see if that zoning 00:30:26.119 --> 00:30:27.160 and that part of the 00:30:27.160 --> 00:30:30.369 land and that city is appropriate regardless of what the 00:30:30.369 --> 00:30:31.240 developer might 00:30:31.240 --> 00:30:33.630 be telling us that's going in there because they're not 00:30:33.630 --> 00:30:35.240 bound by that yes 00:30:35.240 --> 00:30:40.279 yeah you know you're definitely correct in in that scenario 00:30:40.279 --> 00:30:41.880 I guess I'm leaning 00:30:41.880 --> 00:30:47.660 more towards because your question is a question specific 00:30:47.660 --> 00:30:50.400 to use right right and 00:30:50.400 --> 00:30:53.829 obviously our code determines what uses can or cannot be in 00:30:53.829 --> 00:30:54.920 a certain area I 00:30:54.920 --> 00:31:01.359 think that would be lean lean or getting closer to the 00:31:01.359 --> 00:31:02.680 realm of not being within 00:31:02.680 --> 00:31:04.890 the standards that you're able to operate out of in 00:31:04.890 --> 00:31:05.519 establishing 00:31:05.519 --> 00:31:08.799 requirements of the overlay district 00:31:10.200 --> 00:31:13.700 Commissioner Smith to add on to I think Victor said their 00:31:13.700 --> 00:31:15.359 Commissioner Roselle's 00:31:15.359 --> 00:31:20.519 that in that specific case we could see that that that zone 00:31:20.519 --> 00:31:21.920 was going to be a 00:31:21.920 --> 00:31:27.069 budding neighborhoods there so it didn't really yes we 00:31:27.069 --> 00:31:28.240 discussed with the with 00:31:28.240 --> 00:31:30.450 the developer we agreed upon and that's a case-by-case 00:31:30.450 --> 00:31:31.319 basis we were talked about 00:31:31.319 --> 00:31:34.049 but in that specific case I could see that even then didn't 00:31:34.049 --> 00:31:34.839 matter what the 00:31:34.839 --> 00:31:37.200 developers projected use was going to be for it and then 00:31:37.200 --> 00:31:38.279 therefore hey you're not 00:31:38.279 --> 00:31:40.269 going to use it for this so we'll go ahead and remove it 00:31:40.269 --> 00:31:41.339 but more or less that 00:31:41.339 --> 00:31:44.119 we're gonna rezone it that use is there and we know it's a 00:31:44.119 --> 00:31:45.319 budding these these 00:31:45.319 --> 00:31:47.539 neighborhoods here so no matter what even if the developer 00:31:47.539 --> 00:31:48.200 does sell it off 00:31:48.200 --> 00:31:50.559 doesn't matter what the developer was going to do with it 00:31:50.559 --> 00:31:51.440 or whoever he sells 00:31:51.440 --> 00:31:53.799 it to is going to do with it we would never underneath no 00:31:53.799 --> 00:31:53.960 one's 00:31:53.960 --> 00:31:57.170 circumstances that under no developers direction will 00:31:57.170 --> 00:31:58.039 whoever want bars and 00:31:58.039 --> 00:32:02.000 restaurants they are right next those neighborhoods so and 00:32:02.000 --> 00:32:03.960 then yes and yes 00:32:03.960 --> 00:32:09.269 and then to highlight I believe the concerns are more 00:32:09.269 --> 00:32:12.440 attached to traffic to 00:32:12.440 --> 00:32:21.539 to dense to density and like hours of operation as compared 00:32:21.539 --> 00:32:22.599 to the specific 00:32:22.599 --> 00:32:27.839 use yeah mr. Roselle I appreciate the clarification I guess 00:32:27.839 --> 00:32:28.680 my concern is that 00:32:28.680 --> 00:32:31.470 there's always a temptation for myself and from past 00:32:31.470 --> 00:32:32.720 Commissioner this the 00:32:32.720 --> 00:32:36.940 Commission general to blur the lines between use and zoning 00:32:36.940 --> 00:32:38.119 and I think this 00:32:38.119 --> 00:32:42.259 quasi ability to zone on the fly is going to increase the 00:32:42.259 --> 00:32:43.400 temptation to 00:32:43.400 --> 00:32:47.319 engage in developers and negotiating how that land should 00:32:47.319 --> 00:32:49.079 be used and I'm bringing 00:32:49.079 --> 00:32:52.559 forth as a concern to this Commission as well as to the 00:32:52.559 --> 00:32:54.640 legal that I think 00:32:54.640 --> 00:32:58.339 there's been times in which on the dais we've said okay how 00:32:58.339 --> 00:32:58.680 are we gonna 00:32:58.680 --> 00:33:00.950 negotiate what's gonna be there what's not to be there and 00:33:00.950 --> 00:33:01.640 we come up with 00:33:01.640 --> 00:33:06.099 these really arduous motions right there and in the middle 00:33:06.099 --> 00:33:07.400 of discussion and I 00:33:07.400 --> 00:33:10.609 think that can be dangerous it sounds like that's permitted 00:33:10.609 --> 00:33:11.960 which is fine I'm 00:33:11.960 --> 00:33:15.170 just in voicing a concern that I had going forward about 00:33:15.170 --> 00:33:16.119 the use that this 00:33:16.119 --> 00:33:20.400 Commission takes in that I'd hope it's used with much 00:33:20.400 --> 00:33:22.119 discretion well no and I 00:33:22.119 --> 00:33:28.579 guess to my one of my very first comments was don't know I 00:33:28.579 --> 00:33:29.240 can't pin down 00:33:29.240 --> 00:33:34.519 necessarily where where in our history and advising this 00:33:34.519 --> 00:33:36.079 board the 00:33:36.079 --> 00:33:39.410 determination came down no you can't allow overlay 00:33:39.410 --> 00:33:41.279 districts but I'm fairly 00:33:41.279 --> 00:33:44.490 confident that it came out of caution as you were 00:33:44.490 --> 00:33:45.880 expressing you know the 00:33:45.880 --> 00:33:51.000 cautions concerns of us starting to regulate use you know 00:33:51.000 --> 00:33:52.480 overriding what 00:33:52.480 --> 00:33:57.589 was approved by council right to the code of ordinances but 00:33:57.589 --> 00:33:59.440 still I guess our 00:33:59.440 --> 00:34:02.390 point today in my in my report is that that option is on 00:34:02.390 --> 00:34:03.720 the table like you say 00:34:03.720 --> 00:34:07.410 but again you do want to use caution and I mean that's what 00:34:07.410 --> 00:34:09.000 I'm here for to kind 00:34:09.000 --> 00:34:12.869 of help you guys walk you guys through that when you think 00:34:12.869 --> 00:34:14.000 hey we're getting a 00:34:14.000 --> 00:34:19.920 little too close to use I'm gonna jump in and then history 00:34:19.920 --> 00:34:21.360 and Ron may be able 00:34:21.360 --> 00:34:25.679 to add some perspective to my recollection of the concern 00:34:25.679 --> 00:34:26.519 in the past 00:34:26.519 --> 00:34:30.869 about the overlay districts had to do with the ability to 00:34:30.869 --> 00:34:32.440 track them and keep 00:34:32.440 --> 00:34:36.929 up with them and so for example and I'll use myself this 00:34:36.929 --> 00:34:38.880 when I go online the 00:34:38.880 --> 00:34:41.710 city website and start searching parcels and looking at 00:34:41.710 --> 00:34:42.719 pieces and go that's 00:34:42.719 --> 00:34:46.110 zoned in our six and that's on in our four it doesn't show 00:34:46.110 --> 00:34:46.880 up that it has an 00:34:46.880 --> 00:34:51.510 overlay on it and so the only way you find out that it has 00:34:51.510 --> 00:34:53.440 a use restriction 00:34:53.440 --> 00:34:55.739 let's use that term since that's the example that we're 00:34:55.739 --> 00:34:56.679 putting out here that 00:34:56.679 --> 00:35:01.449 you can't have a bar there is until if you haven't done 00:35:01.449 --> 00:35:03.280 your homework you've 00:35:03.280 --> 00:35:05.849 already purchased it it sales it's in our six and you come 00:35:05.849 --> 00:35:06.559 in to put a bar 00:35:06.559 --> 00:35:10.039 there and oh three years ago it had a overlay restriction 00:35:10.039 --> 00:35:11.159 put on it that you 00:35:11.159 --> 00:35:14.599 can't have a bar there but it's owned to have a bar there 00:35:14.599 --> 00:35:16.719 and so I that's just 00:35:16.719 --> 00:35:21.239 the history that I recall as to why those were not 00:35:21.239 --> 00:35:23.320 encouraged and I would 00:35:23.320 --> 00:35:29.159 agree with Commissioner Roselle's opinion that in certain 00:35:29.159 --> 00:35:30.000 circumstances 00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:34.289 and more being the exception than the rule that we use 00:35:34.289 --> 00:35:35.960 these because it it 00:35:35.960 --> 00:35:42.320 will make a difficult housekeeping record-keeping process 00:35:42.320 --> 00:35:43.400 on every single 00:35:43.400 --> 00:35:47.099 track if it becomes that we're going to put overlays patch 00:35:47.099 --> 00:35:48.239 work on top of all 00:35:48.239 --> 00:35:51.510 these things limiting uses and all these other things just 00:35:51.510 --> 00:35:52.880 to shoehorn versus 00:35:52.880 --> 00:35:57.159 it's cleanly zoned and you can do anything that's allowed 00:35:57.159 --> 00:35:58.199 in the zoning 00:35:58.199 --> 00:36:02.860 use in that particular place and that's my recollection of 00:36:02.860 --> 00:36:04.280 why that was done 00:36:04.280 --> 00:36:07.039 that way and I would ask Ron if you've got anything you 00:36:07.039 --> 00:36:08.360 want to add to that as 00:36:08.360 --> 00:36:13.530 well for us from your many years of experience and recoll 00:36:13.530 --> 00:36:14.880 ection as well 00:36:14.880 --> 00:36:19.889 thank you chair members of the Commission we that's that's 00:36:19.889 --> 00:36:20.480 accurate 00:36:20.480 --> 00:36:24.579 we've identified 35 of these zoning districts that have 00:36:24.579 --> 00:36:25.440 overlays or 00:36:25.440 --> 00:36:29.460 conditions on them as part of our zoning map or zoning 00:36:29.460 --> 00:36:32.119 layers now so sure that 00:36:32.119 --> 00:36:35.690 will continue to grow maybe but currently we have 35 just 00:36:35.690 --> 00:36:36.159 to help 00:36:36.159 --> 00:36:40.199 illustrate what Commissioner Strange has discussed okay 00:36:40.199 --> 00:36:41.800 Commissioner Smith since 00:36:41.800 --> 00:36:44.039 we're talking about the ability that we have as 00:36:44.039 --> 00:36:46.440 commissioned to create them what 00:36:46.440 --> 00:36:49.659 is the process or ability to be able to remove them if 00:36:49.659 --> 00:36:51.239 there was something like 00:36:51.239 --> 00:36:54.920 Commissioner Roselle's bringing up it says we've rezoned it 00:36:54.920 --> 00:36:55.880 we've put an 00:36:55.880 --> 00:37:00.920 overlay on there and sold is there a process are we able to 00:37:00.920 --> 00:37:01.960 remove it or as 00:37:01.960 --> 00:37:07.030 soon as it's done said by us and the council also repeats 00:37:07.030 --> 00:37:08.760 it and proves it is 00:37:08.760 --> 00:37:14.210 it done and written in the history books what we not that 00:37:14.210 --> 00:37:16.079 it's done same process 00:37:16.079 --> 00:37:19.059 like a reason any other reason so just like it's gonna go 00:37:19.059 --> 00:37:20.079 from NR six NR six 00:37:20.079 --> 00:37:22.409 with overlay to NR six without overlay correct so that's be 00:37:22.409 --> 00:37:23.519 a holdover rezoned 00:37:23.519 --> 00:37:26.130 process so we wouldn't want to do it that's not that's not 00:37:26.130 --> 00:37:27.039 saying hey we got 00:37:27.039 --> 00:37:30.250 up we know hey if we come like it we can we can we can 00:37:30.250 --> 00:37:31.639 reverse it we don't want 00:37:31.639 --> 00:37:34.860 to do that that looks terrible but you just wanted to know 00:37:34.860 --> 00:37:36.360 and in the instance 00:37:36.360 --> 00:37:39.690 of sort of the last one you know the neighboring property 00:37:39.690 --> 00:37:40.920 we'll talk if you 00:37:40.920 --> 00:37:43.260 notice on the on the map that change it had it sort of had 00:37:43.260 --> 00:37:44.440 the cross hatches in 00:37:44.440 --> 00:37:47.719 it so that's where we're kind of to go back with the chair 00:37:47.719 --> 00:37:48.960 was was alluding to 00:37:48.960 --> 00:37:54.449 we're really trying to use the full capability of our the 00:37:54.449 --> 00:37:55.199 GIS that we have 00:37:55.199 --> 00:37:58.659 so making sure that that is documented and then in addition 00:37:58.659 --> 00:38:00.199 to that once these 00:38:00.199 --> 00:38:02.789 hopefully there's not you know if we want to have a hundred 00:38:02.789 --> 00:38:03.920 two hundred but as 00:38:03.920 --> 00:38:07.250 they you know as as we get more of them and even the 35 00:38:07.250 --> 00:38:08.800 that we have making sure 00:38:08.800 --> 00:38:12.010 that in our land management files to through track at our 00:38:12.010 --> 00:38:12.719 permitting 00:38:12.719 --> 00:38:16.829 software we're now in the process of almost complete 00:38:16.829 --> 00:38:17.719 updating so every 00:38:17.719 --> 00:38:20.429 property that's sort of encompassed within that that 00:38:20.429 --> 00:38:22.360 overlay it's now in the 00:38:22.360 --> 00:38:24.670 land management file so so we're starting to get it in 00:38:24.670 --> 00:38:25.559 different places 00:38:25.559 --> 00:38:29.039 so what happens is you're reviewing you might have 20 00:38:29.039 --> 00:38:30.320 permits reviewing a day 00:38:30.320 --> 00:38:34.199 and you may not know to look at the map or to know that 00:38:34.199 --> 00:38:36.000 this ordinance was passed 00:38:36.000 --> 00:38:38.880 so we're now putting it in a number of different places 00:38:38.880 --> 00:38:42.079 sort of stop stop gaps 00:38:42.719 --> 00:38:48.449 I think that'll give everybody we've got a couple hours 00:38:48.449 --> 00:38:49.679 before we go into our 00:38:49.679 --> 00:38:53.780 next session to mull this over and then we can see where we 00:38:53.780 --> 00:38:55.719 end up on our public 00:38:55.719 --> 00:39:00.500 hearing item any other questions Commissioner Ellis I have 00:39:00.500 --> 00:39:00.719 a question 00:39:00.719 --> 00:39:03.349 while we're discussing this because I do feel like 00:39:03.349 --> 00:39:04.920 sometimes this is a tool that's 00:39:04.920 --> 00:39:10.280 needed to be able to get a rezoning done for instance that 00:39:10.280 --> 00:39:11.360 particular tract of 00:39:11.360 --> 00:39:16.139 land we only wanted a set number of lots in there because 00:39:16.139 --> 00:39:17.480 the density can be 00:39:17.480 --> 00:39:20.690 scary if we just put it on there and you're right I mean a 00:39:20.690 --> 00:39:20.920 development 00:39:20.920 --> 00:39:24.920 doesn't go with the zoning change so there's always that 00:39:24.920 --> 00:39:26.280 you know risk that 00:39:26.280 --> 00:39:29.110 if we rezone it it's not going to be what we think because 00:39:29.110 --> 00:39:30.519 they've gone under 00:39:30.519 --> 00:39:32.969 or whatever sold the land and it becomes something else 00:39:32.969 --> 00:39:35.119 that we didn't want so I 00:39:35.119 --> 00:39:40.860 mean it is a tool that can be helpful to all the community 00:39:40.860 --> 00:39:42.800 the developer and 00:39:42.800 --> 00:39:46.429 whatnot so I guess I just wanted to throw that out there 00:39:46.429 --> 00:39:47.199 and hope that you 00:39:47.199 --> 00:39:53.199 see it perhaps as a tool that that is valuable at times 00:39:56.519 --> 00:40:00.500 can use if you if you don't land on whether you want to do 00:40:00.500 --> 00:40:02.400 conditional 00:40:02.400 --> 00:40:06.869 overlays tonight the other option is to approve a lesser 00:40:06.869 --> 00:40:08.039 zoning which is the nr 00:40:08.039 --> 00:40:11.369 4 and that still gets them to where they need to be just to 00:40:11.369 --> 00:40:14.639 keep that in in mind 00:40:15.880 --> 00:40:19.920 responded Commissioner Ellis I agree I think the big issue 00:40:19.920 --> 00:40:22.559 and maybe staff has 00:40:22.559 --> 00:40:25.750 addressed it has been the ability to track it and I think 00:40:25.750 --> 00:40:26.679 that's been one of 00:40:26.679 --> 00:40:29.179 the concerns and sounds like maybe with putting it in 00:40:29.179 --> 00:40:31.760 multiple places and being 00:40:31.760 --> 00:40:35.090 it beyond the GIS map and more readily available maybe it's 00:40:35.090 --> 00:40:35.719 not as big of an 00:40:35.719 --> 00:40:42.880 issue I know again in past now five and a half years and 00:40:42.880 --> 00:40:44.519 quickly getting towards 00:40:44.519 --> 00:40:48.679 the end of my tenure here but that's a long time in the 00:40:48.679 --> 00:40:50.840 technology world so the 00:40:50.840 --> 00:40:54.050 ability to track these has probably changed considerably 00:40:54.050 --> 00:40:55.360 from what it used 00:40:55.360 --> 00:40:59.389 to be and that was that was the main concern just again 00:40:59.389 --> 00:41:00.599 adding perspective 00:41:00.599 --> 00:41:05.059 not right or wrong just perspective as to why it wasn't an 00:41:05.059 --> 00:41:08.159 encouraged tool for us 00:41:08.159 --> 00:41:12.460 to use was the ability to track it and and be able to to 00:41:12.460 --> 00:41:13.519 produce it for 00:41:13.519 --> 00:41:16.889 publicly for people to be able to keep up with what was 00:41:16.889 --> 00:41:18.599 clean zoning and what 00:41:18.599 --> 00:41:24.159 may have an overlay on it and Commissioner Sanchez I had a 00:41:24.159 --> 00:41:24.639 question you 00:41:24.639 --> 00:41:28.400 said you could always approve a like in our four now we 00:41:28.400 --> 00:41:29.760 wouldn't do that without 00:41:29.760 --> 00:41:34.400 the request of the developer right actually you can if he 00:41:34.400 --> 00:41:36.400 agrees to accept 00:41:36.400 --> 00:41:39.610 the inner floor zoning you can do it without him having to 00:41:39.610 --> 00:41:40.039 amend the 00:41:40.039 --> 00:41:43.650 application so you can approve a less a more restrictive 00:41:43.650 --> 00:41:45.199 zoning but you can't go 00:41:45.199 --> 00:41:48.409 up without him he would have to amend the application if he 00:41:48.409 --> 00:41:49.039 wanted like an 00:41:49.039 --> 00:41:54.239 inner emu okay Commissioner Smith a chair so that's that's 00:41:54.239 --> 00:41:54.960 what this one our 00:41:54.960 --> 00:41:57.170 options were given the option five options approve 00:41:57.170 --> 00:41:58.039 submitted approved 00:41:58.039 --> 00:42:01.320 subject conditions deny postpone or table so that is an 00:42:01.320 --> 00:42:02.159 approve of subject 00:42:02.159 --> 00:42:05.369 to condition so that so our conditions we're saying are 00:42:05.369 --> 00:42:06.320 essentially this on a 00:42:06.320 --> 00:42:10.800 zoning on a zoning case our conditions are an overlay which 00:42:10.800 --> 00:42:11.440 we want to use 00:42:11.440 --> 00:42:16.659 sparingly or our conditions are to approve for a zoning 00:42:16.659 --> 00:42:18.199 that is a lesser 00:42:18.199 --> 00:42:22.679 nothing greater a lesser density yes okay what happens in 00:42:22.679 --> 00:42:23.280 that since we're 00:42:23.280 --> 00:42:25.969 talking about these overlays and this kind of discussion 00:42:25.969 --> 00:42:27.400 here what happens if 00:42:27.400 --> 00:42:33.130 this is a commercial I don't know there's like I say it's a 00:42:33.130 --> 00:42:35.280 NRM you in our 00:42:35.280 --> 00:42:38.760 emu or an MRE in our you 12 what can you do that as well 00:42:38.760 --> 00:42:39.280 does that make sense 00:42:39.280 --> 00:42:43.750 where there's okay go ahead yeah so if they came in with 00:42:43.750 --> 00:42:45.119 like an inner emu 12 00:42:45.119 --> 00:42:49.590 requests yeah we could we could approve an inner emu or a 00:42:49.590 --> 00:42:51.320 six or anything lower 00:42:51.320 --> 00:42:55.280 than that as long as they agree or amenable to the change 00:42:55.280 --> 00:42:56.079 but we couldn't 00:42:56.079 --> 00:43:00.639 go into yeah like a cg right I was trying to I was thinking 00:43:00.639 --> 00:43:01.920 more so within 00:43:01.920 --> 00:43:06.159 that same family of droning correct you want to stay within 00:43:06.159 --> 00:43:06.559 there in the 00:43:06.559 --> 00:43:09.900 residence but you can go it falls into the mixed uses there 00:43:09.900 --> 00:43:10.519 it's not just the 00:43:10.519 --> 00:43:13.730 end it's not just the the NR that's eminent to the mix 00:43:13.730 --> 00:43:14.739 right so but if they 00:43:14.739 --> 00:43:18.030 started it in the emu 12 they can go down we couldn't we 00:43:18.030 --> 00:43:18.800 still can't go up 00:43:18.800 --> 00:43:26.920 from 6 to 12 okay okay can't okay okay are there any other 00:43:26.920 --> 00:43:27.559 conditions we don't 00:43:27.559 --> 00:43:32.480 know about none that they want me to share on camera right 00:43:32.480 --> 00:43:34.360 now I used to be 00:43:34.360 --> 00:43:39.190 a consultant thank Victor's got one thing that's a tie up 00:43:39.190 --> 00:43:40.199 on here I think 00:43:40.199 --> 00:43:44.380 question was supposed to Shandrian as to whether staff and 00:43:44.380 --> 00:43:45.559 I forget who was 00:43:45.559 --> 00:43:49.119 whether staff could actually recommend conditions on the 00:43:49.119 --> 00:43:51.239 overlay district and 00:43:51.239 --> 00:43:55.530 just to support her is that staff isn't invested with 00:43:55.530 --> 00:43:57.079 authority to to to make 00:43:57.079 --> 00:44:02.519 those recommendations it's again going back to my previous 00:44:02.519 --> 00:44:03.920 comment was the 00:44:03.920 --> 00:44:06.750 authority the zone is within the city council city council 00:44:06.750 --> 00:44:07.639 has invested that 00:44:07.639 --> 00:44:10.250 delegated some of that authority to this to this board and 00:44:10.250 --> 00:44:11.239 so that's why those 00:44:11.239 --> 00:44:13.880 recommendations come from the board and not necessarily the 00:44:13.880 --> 00:44:14.679 staff staff just 00:44:14.679 --> 00:44:18.909 interprets the code as as it is and since what they have to 00:44:18.909 --> 00:44:20.039 recommend and 00:44:20.039 --> 00:44:24.500 then it's within the purview of this council to make those 00:44:24.500 --> 00:44:25.599 recommendations 00:44:25.599 --> 00:44:33.030 okay thank you a lot of good discussion and I'm sure we'll 00:44:33.030 --> 00:44:33.599 have some more on 00:44:33.599 --> 00:44:39.070 this a little later this evening we've got three more staff 00:44:39.070 --> 00:44:40.280 reports the next 00:44:40.280 --> 00:44:44.420 one we have is going to be drainage and transportation and 00:44:44.420 --> 00:44:46.579 I don't know if Chad 00:44:46.579 --> 00:44:49.639 drainage goes first 00:44:59.519 --> 00:45:03.389 good evening chair commissioners I'm Chad Allen I'm the 00:45:03.389 --> 00:45:04.719 deputy city engineer in 00:45:04.719 --> 00:45:07.599 charge of capital project delivery and today I'm going to 00:45:07.599 --> 00:45:08.360 talk about the 00:45:08.360 --> 00:45:11.570 currently ongoing updates to our drainage and 00:45:11.570 --> 00:45:12.679 transportation design 00:45:12.679 --> 00:45:16.610 criteria manuals forgive me if my throat cracks I had the 00:45:16.610 --> 00:45:18.039 flu last week I'm not 00:45:18.039 --> 00:45:25.780 contagious so we're asking you to provide comments if you 00:45:25.780 --> 00:45:26.400 have any and 00:45:26.400 --> 00:45:29.159 then also consider recommending approval of the updates to 00:45:29.159 --> 00:45:30.159 our drainage design 00:45:30.159 --> 00:45:33.659 criteria manual and our transportation design criteria 00:45:33.659 --> 00:45:35.519 manual so what are the 00:45:35.519 --> 00:45:38.460 design criteria manuals these are documents that we create 00:45:38.460 --> 00:45:39.119 and we upload 00:45:39.119 --> 00:45:42.989 to the city's website we distribute them to developers and 00:45:42.989 --> 00:45:43.840 consulting engineers 00:45:43.840 --> 00:45:47.579 and they include very technical engineering related details 00:45:47.579 --> 00:45:48.280 that allow 00:45:48.280 --> 00:45:51.130 engineers to implement our development code and to follow 00:45:51.130 --> 00:45:52.280 our development code 00:45:52.280 --> 00:45:55.070 our development code basically represents the official 00:45:55.070 --> 00:45:55.880 regulations of 00:45:55.880 --> 00:45:58.599 the city of Denton and variances from the development code 00:45:58.599 --> 00:45:59.440 require your 00:45:59.440 --> 00:46:03.159 approval but the design criteria are very specific 00:46:03.159 --> 00:46:04.280 engineering procedures and 00:46:04.280 --> 00:46:07.489 calculations and values and maps and diagrams that we 00:46:07.489 --> 00:46:08.480 provide that allow 00:46:08.480 --> 00:46:10.780 engineers and developers to meet the intent of the 00:46:10.780 --> 00:46:11.840 development code and 00:46:11.840 --> 00:46:15.050 variances from the design criteria can be approved at staff 00:46:15.050 --> 00:46:15.800 level for instance 00:46:15.800 --> 00:46:19.159 by the city engineer he can approve changes it's 00:46:19.159 --> 00:46:20.199 recommended that we review 00:46:20.199 --> 00:46:23.409 these documents annually and then maybe we perform a major 00:46:23.409 --> 00:46:24.440 update at least every 00:46:24.440 --> 00:46:27.130 five years and that's what we're doing right now so we're 00:46:27.130 --> 00:46:28.480 trying to update the 00:46:28.480 --> 00:46:33.550 design criteria manuals so the main goals of our update 00:46:33.550 --> 00:46:34.880 project are to 00:46:34.880 --> 00:46:38.099 reevaluate the current drainage and transportation design 00:46:38.099 --> 00:46:38.800 criteria and 00:46:38.800 --> 00:46:41.630 update them where appropriate to identify development 00:46:41.630 --> 00:46:42.599 issues that come up 00:46:42.599 --> 00:46:45.480 in DRC and try to find resolutions to those that we can put 00:46:45.480 --> 00:46:46.519 into the documents 00:46:46.519 --> 00:46:50.099 to clarify and consolidate the design criteria from the 00:46:50.099 --> 00:46:51.440 various sources and 00:46:51.440 --> 00:46:54.650 then to try to eliminate inconsistencies between the 00:46:54.650 --> 00:46:55.840 various documents like the 00:46:55.840 --> 00:46:59.079 development code the criteria manuals we're talking about 00:46:59.079 --> 00:46:59.840 we have a flood 00:46:59.840 --> 00:47:02.230 prevention and protection ordinance we have standard 00:47:02.230 --> 00:47:03.320 details we have various 00:47:03.320 --> 00:47:06.599 plans around the city like the downtown plan so we're 00:47:06.599 --> 00:47:07.840 hoping with this update we 00:47:07.840 --> 00:47:10.090 can eliminate any inconsistencies between all of those 00:47:10.090 --> 00:47:11.019 documents that we've 00:47:11.019 --> 00:47:14.230 identified in the past and then also we want to provide the 00:47:14.230 --> 00:47:14.920 development community 00:47:14.920 --> 00:47:19.269 an opportunity to have input into this process so a little 00:47:19.269 --> 00:47:20.320 bit of background 00:47:20.320 --> 00:47:23.550 about the update we started updating our manuals early last 00:47:23.550 --> 00:47:24.800 year we started 00:47:24.800 --> 00:47:27.389 updating the water and wastewater design criteria manual 00:47:27.389 --> 00:47:28.360 the drainage design 00:47:28.360 --> 00:47:30.820 criteria manual and the transportation design criteria 00:47:30.820 --> 00:47:31.880 manual we're doing this 00:47:31.880 --> 00:47:34.639 all at the same time that we're also updating the 00:47:34.639 --> 00:47:36.159 development code because we 00:47:36.159 --> 00:47:38.590 want to make sure all the documents work together and we 00:47:38.590 --> 00:47:39.639 want to eliminate any 00:47:39.639 --> 00:47:41.960 conflicts between all of those documents so we're updating 00:47:41.960 --> 00:47:42.719 the development code 00:47:42.719 --> 00:47:46.760 and these criteria manuals at the same time we updated the 00:47:46.760 --> 00:47:47.760 water and wastewater 00:47:47.760 --> 00:47:51.320 design criteria manual first and that update was completed 00:47:51.320 --> 00:47:52.519 last year in October 00:47:52.519 --> 00:47:56.219 it was adopted by City Council last year in October in 00:47:56.219 --> 00:47:58.159 August we selected a 00:47:58.159 --> 00:48:01.369 consultant T. Nolan Perkins to help us update the drainage 00:48:01.369 --> 00:48:01.599 and the 00:48:01.599 --> 00:48:05.610 transportation criteria manuals so the update process 00:48:05.610 --> 00:48:07.320 includes multiple staff 00:48:07.320 --> 00:48:10.079 workshops with us and our design consultant and our 00:48:10.079 --> 00:48:11.679 consultant there's 00:48:11.679 --> 00:48:14.199 also a review we've conducted a review of other local 00:48:14.199 --> 00:48:16.000 municipal requirements our 00:48:16.000 --> 00:48:19.210 consultant has met with certain staff with one-on-one 00:48:19.210 --> 00:48:20.599 discussions we're having 00:48:20.599 --> 00:48:24.289 two public comment sessions we're bringing it tonight for P 00:48:24.289 --> 00:48:24.500 &Z 00:48:24.500 --> 00:48:27.690 consideration we're having a couple of meetings next month 00:48:27.690 --> 00:48:28.820 with developers with 00:48:28.820 --> 00:48:31.460 a development community and then in the end we're gonna ask 00:48:31.460 --> 00:48:32.420 for the new updates 00:48:32.420 --> 00:48:37.079 to be adopted by City Council this whole process involves a 00:48:37.079 --> 00:48:37.679 lot of different 00:48:37.679 --> 00:48:41.309 stakeholders where we've met and had input from our DRC 00:48:41.309 --> 00:48:42.320 staff from our 00:48:42.320 --> 00:48:45.579 capital projects engineering folks floodplain administrator 00:48:45.579 --> 00:48:46.219 the traffic 00:48:46.219 --> 00:48:49.849 engineer this guy over here city engineer the drainage and 00:48:49.849 --> 00:48:51.320 traffic maintenance and 00:48:51.320 --> 00:48:54.900 operations staff our capital project inspectors our 00:48:54.900 --> 00:48:55.960 environmental services 00:48:55.960 --> 00:49:00.309 folks and also the local development community so here's 00:49:00.309 --> 00:49:01.360 here's what's 00:49:01.360 --> 00:49:04.170 happened so far this is what we've done so far in the 00:49:04.170 --> 00:49:05.920 process last September we 00:49:05.920 --> 00:49:09.420 hired T. Nolan Perkins to help us work on the manual in 00:49:09.420 --> 00:49:10.760 October they had their 00:49:10.760 --> 00:49:14.090 first workshop with city staff in November they submitted 00:49:14.090 --> 00:49:15.079 their first draft 00:49:15.079 --> 00:49:19.400 for our review we had two other workshops in December and 00:49:19.400 --> 00:49:20.199 then earlier 00:49:20.199 --> 00:49:22.289 this month they submitted their final draft that we were 00:49:22.289 --> 00:49:23.000 going to issue for 00:49:23.000 --> 00:49:27.800 public comment and for P&Z considerations so we posted the 00:49:27.800 --> 00:49:28.280 documents 00:49:28.280 --> 00:49:31.500 for public comment on January 4th and that's a 30-day 00:49:31.500 --> 00:49:32.679 comment period it ends 00:49:32.679 --> 00:49:36.559 on February 2nd we posted it on the City of Denton website 00:49:36.559 --> 00:49:38.559 we put notices here at 00:49:38.559 --> 00:49:42.510 City Hall and then we've distributed to the development 00:49:42.510 --> 00:49:43.199 community through our 00:49:43.199 --> 00:49:46.409 planning department and through the Denton County 00:49:46.409 --> 00:49:48.760 Development Alliance the 00:49:48.760 --> 00:49:51.969 remaining steps are to bring it before P&Z tonight and then 00:49:51.969 --> 00:49:52.619 we have two 00:49:52.619 --> 00:49:55.829 meetings scheduled with the development community in 00:49:55.829 --> 00:49:57.679 February we hope to have 00:49:57.679 --> 00:50:01.099 all the comments incorporated by February 19th and then the 00:50:01.099 --> 00:50:01.800 final draft 00:50:01.800 --> 00:50:05.780 completed by the end of February and then early in March we 00:50:05.780 --> 00:50:06.480 hope to have 00:50:06.480 --> 00:50:09.500 approval by council and then our schedule right now is for 00:50:09.500 --> 00:50:10.400 the updates to 00:50:10.400 --> 00:50:15.300 be published in their final format on March 9th so here are 00:50:15.300 --> 00:50:16.239 the specific 00:50:16.239 --> 00:50:18.920 changes that we're proposing for the drainage manual we 00:50:18.920 --> 00:50:19.960 changed the title to 00:50:19.960 --> 00:50:22.889 the storm water design criteria manual from the drainage 00:50:22.889 --> 00:50:24.119 design criteria manual 00:50:24.119 --> 00:50:27.789 we've moved a lot of really technical detailed engineering 00:50:27.789 --> 00:50:29.039 related items from 00:50:29.039 --> 00:50:31.250 the development code and we put them into the criteria 00:50:31.250 --> 00:50:32.199 manual that's where we 00:50:32.199 --> 00:50:35.800 think they belong so for instance we've moved very specific 00:50:35.800 --> 00:50:36.679 engineering related 00:50:36.679 --> 00:50:40.010 specific design criteria about design flood frequencies and 00:50:40.010 --> 00:50:40.840 street and storm 00:50:40.840 --> 00:50:44.059 drain design and easement widths around pipe systems and 00:50:44.059 --> 00:50:45.039 really detailed 00:50:45.039 --> 00:50:47.519 detention pond design items we moved all of those out of 00:50:47.519 --> 00:50:48.760 the development code and 00:50:48.760 --> 00:50:51.980 into the criteria manual we've added a decision chart 00:50:51.980 --> 00:50:53.400 related to floodplain 00:50:53.400 --> 00:50:56.179 fill requirements so that they're more easily understood we 00:50:56.179 --> 00:50:57.199 've added stream 00:50:57.199 --> 00:50:59.719 bank protection criteria because we're concerned about 00:50:59.719 --> 00:51:00.760 erosion of our streams 00:51:00.760 --> 00:51:05.059 and creeks we've made allowances for limited use of 00:51:05.059 --> 00:51:06.800 detention ponds for 00:51:06.800 --> 00:51:10.400 recreational structures like picnic tables and playground 00:51:10.400 --> 00:51:11.880 equipment in very 00:51:11.880 --> 00:51:15.809 certain areas in detention ponds we've clarified the limits 00:51:15.809 --> 00:51:16.800 on floodplain 00:51:16.800 --> 00:51:20.010 development to try to make them more clear and we've 00:51:20.010 --> 00:51:21.280 simplified our minimum 00:51:21.280 --> 00:51:23.489 finished floor elevation requirements and we move those to 00:51:23.489 --> 00:51:25.119 the development code 00:51:25.119 --> 00:51:28.489 what changes do we not make we didn't really make any major 00:51:28.489 --> 00:51:29.440 changes to storm 00:51:29.440 --> 00:51:32.309 water policy in the new manual we were just trying to 00:51:32.309 --> 00:51:33.480 clarify the existing 00:51:33.480 --> 00:51:36.809 policy we're trying to make it easier to understand we didn 00:51:36.809 --> 00:51:37.519 't change any of the 00:51:37.519 --> 00:51:41.059 design calculations we made no significant changes to flood 00:51:41.059 --> 00:51:41.440 plain 00:51:41.440 --> 00:51:45.309 criteria no changes to the channel design criteria we 00:51:45.309 --> 00:51:46.400 continue to reference 00:51:46.400 --> 00:51:50.440 and use the net clock net cog I swim manual and we made no 00:51:50.440 --> 00:51:51.599 changes to the our 00:51:51.599 --> 00:51:54.619 primary design storm event which is the fully developed 100 00:51:54.619 --> 00:51:56.039 year storm so I 00:51:56.039 --> 00:51:59.250 believe that's that's all I have to talk about the drainage 00:51:59.250 --> 00:52:00.079 manual and I can turn 00:52:00.079 --> 00:52:02.159 it over to pre town to talk about the transportation 00:52:02.159 --> 00:52:03.280 criteria manual right now 00:52:03.280 --> 00:52:07.150 sure go ahead commissioner Alice thank you chair I just a 00:52:07.150 --> 00:52:08.559 question does ice 00:52:08.559 --> 00:52:12.670 swim need to be in definitions in this manual does it need 00:52:12.670 --> 00:52:13.840 to be in definitions 00:52:13.840 --> 00:52:16.719 yeah I mean I know what ice one is because Debra shared 00:52:16.719 --> 00:52:17.360 that with us at a 00:52:17.360 --> 00:52:19.969 meeting before but does everyone does somebody coming from 00:52:19.969 --> 00:52:20.840 another area know 00:52:20.840 --> 00:52:24.260 what ice one is another community around here in the Metro 00:52:24.260 --> 00:52:24.840 plex they would 00:52:24.840 --> 00:52:27.389 probably but we can certainly add that to the definitions 00:52:27.389 --> 00:52:28.280 if it was a thought 00:52:28.280 --> 00:52:30.489 yeah I figured they would know it in the Metroplex but if 00:52:30.489 --> 00:52:31.320 they came from another 00:52:31.320 --> 00:52:34.530 state you know because I know some people isn't there an 00:52:34.530 --> 00:52:35.079 ice one that has 00:52:35.079 --> 00:52:38.599 to do with solid waste isn't that acronym used as well so I 00:52:38.599 --> 00:52:39.719 do not know 00:52:39.719 --> 00:52:42.590 but if it's confusing like that to you it is possible yeah 00:52:42.590 --> 00:52:43.920 that I had that maybe 00:52:43.920 --> 00:52:46.130 that just needs to be in the definition part of the manual 00:52:46.130 --> 00:52:46.960 we can certainly do 00:52:46.960 --> 00:52:52.440 that we'll do it I have a comment just to bring it I know 00:52:52.440 --> 00:52:54.159 this is always a 00:52:54.159 --> 00:52:58.440 an issue at least to us as builders is the ability to fence 00:52:58.440 --> 00:52:59.679 easements I know 00:52:59.679 --> 00:53:02.889 that that's still prohibited in the in the ordinance and I 00:53:02.889 --> 00:53:03.599 don't know if 00:53:03.599 --> 00:53:07.469 there's some flexibility that's been discussed several 00:53:07.469 --> 00:53:08.239 times if that's 00:53:08.239 --> 00:53:11.090 something that can be talked about over the next 30 days to 00:53:11.090 --> 00:53:11.800 see if there's 00:53:11.800 --> 00:53:16.579 instances where easements can be fence because we have many 00:53:16.579 --> 00:53:17.760 many lots that have 00:53:17.760 --> 00:53:21.440 drainage easements on them and it becomes a who takes care 00:53:21.440 --> 00:53:22.199 of it who 00:53:22.199 --> 00:53:25.469 maintains it and all those types of issues for the few 00:53:25.469 --> 00:53:26.820 times that they need 00:53:26.820 --> 00:53:30.539 to be accessed at whatever point that they are maybe there 00:53:30.539 --> 00:53:30.960 are some 00:53:30.960 --> 00:53:35.429 possibilities for releases to be signed if people want to 00:53:35.429 --> 00:53:36.840 fence them that the 00:53:36.840 --> 00:53:39.340 city has to come in there they're not responsible for 00:53:39.340 --> 00:53:40.519 putting the fences back 00:53:40.519 --> 00:53:43.159 up and people can use those easements and just want to 00:53:43.159 --> 00:53:44.559 bring that up or felt 00:53:44.559 --> 00:53:47.780 like it's an appropriate time to to bring that item before 00:53:47.780 --> 00:53:48.800 you that's this 00:53:48.800 --> 00:53:52.059 is definitely the appropriate time fences come up so many 00:53:52.059 --> 00:53:53.119 times you know 00:53:53.119 --> 00:53:56.519 fences and easements fences in flood plains we really want 00:53:56.519 --> 00:53:57.400 to fix the way 00:53:57.400 --> 00:53:59.949 fences are described in the new manuals it's one it was one 00:53:59.949 --> 00:54:00.840 of our major goals 00:54:00.840 --> 00:54:04.050 at the beginning is to clarify and clean up when fences are 00:54:04.050 --> 00:54:04.559 allowed if 00:54:04.559 --> 00:54:09.079 there's any areas where we can allow fence where maybe we 00:54:09.079 --> 00:54:10.360 didn't previously so 00:54:10.360 --> 00:54:13.199 we can definitely work on that harder we have changed the 00:54:13.199 --> 00:54:14.320 fence requirements in 00:54:14.320 --> 00:54:18.030 these manuals so yes please read that make comments on it 00:54:18.030 --> 00:54:19.320 during this comment 00:54:19.320 --> 00:54:22.849 period let us know your suggestions and after these updates 00:54:22.849 --> 00:54:24.119 occur we really want 00:54:24.119 --> 00:54:30.139 our fence regulations to be more clear so well if I'm miss 00:54:30.139 --> 00:54:33.920 read it in 3.9 be 1b 00:54:33.920 --> 00:54:39.179 says fences may not be placed okay so I think I think 00:54:39.179 --> 00:54:40.760 previously there was it 00:54:40.760 --> 00:54:42.969 was a little bit unclear about fences and we tried to make 00:54:42.969 --> 00:54:44.199 it more clear maybe 00:54:44.199 --> 00:54:47.139 it's too black and white now so go ahead and give us those 00:54:47.139 --> 00:54:48.599 that in those comments 00:54:48.599 --> 00:54:53.059 please okay well won't waste the Commission's time okay did 00:54:53.059 --> 00:54:53.599 we take the 00:54:53.599 --> 00:54:56.170 easy way out and just say no fences ever I think maybe we 00:54:56.170 --> 00:54:57.280 did that I think so 00:54:57.280 --> 00:55:01.150 okay Commissioner Ellis thank you I'm gonna piggyback on 00:55:01.150 --> 00:55:01.800 that because that was 00:55:01.800 --> 00:55:04.070 where some of my notes were two on three point nine because 00:55:04.070 --> 00:55:05.079 you've got it titled 00:55:05.079 --> 00:55:08.010 easements in fences except there's really nothing about 00:55:08.010 --> 00:55:08.840 fences in there 00:55:08.840 --> 00:55:13.170 other than they're not allowed so my I had a big question 00:55:13.170 --> 00:55:14.679 mark like I don't get 00:55:14.679 --> 00:55:16.920 the fences part because you definitely haven't spelled out 00:55:16.920 --> 00:55:18.360 where they're allowed 00:55:18.360 --> 00:55:23.239 you do say that except as specifically provided for below 00:55:23.239 --> 00:55:24.840 but then it says in 00:55:24.840 --> 00:55:28.460 the storm drain above ground they're not allowed and then 00:55:28.460 --> 00:55:29.420 you mentioned it one 00:55:29.420 --> 00:55:33.739 time in the closed systems but it's yeah fences needs to be 00:55:33.739 --> 00:55:34.840 explored if you're 00:55:34.840 --> 00:55:37.900 actually calling this chapter titled that it probably needs 00:55:37.900 --> 00:55:38.719 to be spelled out 00:55:38.719 --> 00:55:44.840 a little more specific okay absolutely Commissioner Beck 00:55:44.840 --> 00:55:50.239 I'm gonna try not get over my head on this but just for the 00:55:50.239 --> 00:55:51.800 record the DDC 00:55:51.800 --> 00:55:55.250 supersedes criteria manuals correct yes okay you mentioned 00:55:55.250 --> 00:55:55.960 you were taking things 00:55:55.960 --> 00:55:59.289 out of the DDC and put them in the criteria manual yes are 00:55:59.289 --> 00:56:00.119 we weakening the 00:56:00.119 --> 00:56:04.889 DDC no I don't think so the development code just says that 00:56:04.889 --> 00:56:06.159 the major overall 00:56:06.159 --> 00:56:10.030 policies and then the design criteria provides engineering 00:56:10.030 --> 00:56:11.039 data to help you 00:56:11.039 --> 00:56:14.920 implement those so no we haven't weakened the development 00:56:14.920 --> 00:56:15.519 code at all as 00:56:15.519 --> 00:56:19.010 part of this process that was not that was not the intent 00:56:19.010 --> 00:56:20.079 at all thank you 00:56:20.079 --> 00:56:23.289 does that have to do just a pony on with Commissioner Beck 00:56:23.289 --> 00:56:24.920 's comment the amount 00:56:24.920 --> 00:56:28.130 of time that goes between when we do updates to DDC versus 00:56:28.130 --> 00:56:28.659 when we do 00:56:28.659 --> 00:56:31.869 criteria manual updates so that we can keep it fresher and 00:56:31.869 --> 00:56:32.760 more relevant and 00:56:32.760 --> 00:56:35.599 changed it could have something to do with that it was 00:56:35.599 --> 00:56:36.599 really more about 00:56:36.599 --> 00:56:38.460 taking those really technical requirements out of the 00:56:38.460 --> 00:56:38.960 development 00:56:38.960 --> 00:56:42.239 code and putting them somewhere where maybe some 00:56:42.239 --> 00:56:44.360 engineering preference might 00:56:44.360 --> 00:56:47.300 have to come into account and so the city engineer can 00:56:47.300 --> 00:56:48.480 maybe on individual 00:56:48.480 --> 00:56:51.239 projects make decisions and not have to vary from the 00:56:51.239 --> 00:56:54.519 development code okay any 00:56:54.519 --> 00:56:59.119 other questions on drainage Chad thank you for your 00:56:59.119 --> 00:57:01.599 presentation 00:57:03.360 --> 00:57:09.050 all right as as I introduced earlier I'm pre-tem they smoke 00:57:09.050 --> 00:57:11.880 traffic engineer for 00:57:11.880 --> 00:57:14.670 the city I'll be presenting and talking about the 00:57:14.670 --> 00:57:16.280 significant change in the 00:57:16.280 --> 00:57:20.429 next five slides to the transportation criteria manual 00:57:20.429 --> 00:57:22.199 update and I really try 00:57:22.199 --> 00:57:25.889 to encompass the major changes there are some minor changes 00:57:25.889 --> 00:57:27.059 and it's all in the 00:57:27.059 --> 00:57:30.690 back of material the main thing I want to point out is we 00:57:30.690 --> 00:57:31.840 've completely 00:57:31.840 --> 00:57:35.260 reorganized the criteria manual the reason being it was 00:57:35.260 --> 00:57:36.400 really confusing 00:57:36.400 --> 00:57:39.610 cumbersome to follow sequencing was not great you have to 00:57:39.610 --> 00:57:40.599 go back and forth 00:57:40.599 --> 00:57:43.840 between sections of the existing manual so what we've done 00:57:43.840 --> 00:57:44.840 is made it made it 00:57:44.840 --> 00:57:50.139 more clear free-flowing step-by-step process to go from one 00:57:50.139 --> 00:57:51.159 point a to point 00:57:51.159 --> 00:57:54.860 B the major sections that were changed were street 00:57:54.860 --> 00:57:56.760 classification and geometric 00:57:56.760 --> 00:58:00.429 standards and then the traffic impact analysis requirements 00:58:00.429 --> 00:58:00.920 the way the 00:58:00.920 --> 00:58:04.250 guidelines are set for traffic impact analysis and lastly 00:58:04.250 --> 00:58:05.199 we've added the 00:58:05.199 --> 00:58:08.409 perimeter street guidelines as some of you might know that 00:58:08.409 --> 00:58:10.000 we've taken those to 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:13.610 City Council approved last October primarily what they were 00:58:13.610 --> 00:58:14.159 doing is 00:58:14.159 --> 00:58:18.750 clarifying what was mentioned in the roadway impact fee 00:58:18.750 --> 00:58:20.460 ordinance and how it 00:58:20.460 --> 00:58:23.150 related to the DDC that's the clarification that was 00:58:23.150 --> 00:58:23.840 included in the 00:58:23.840 --> 00:58:27.059 guidelines we all we did is take the whole section and 00:58:27.059 --> 00:58:28.320 implemented in the 00:58:28.320 --> 00:58:33.389 criteria manual street classification geometric standards 00:58:33.389 --> 00:58:34.199 what we try to do 00:58:34.199 --> 00:58:38.380 here is make it much more easier with the terminology with 00:58:38.380 --> 00:58:39.719 the type of street 00:58:39.719 --> 00:58:48.119 sections the we added a flexibility for design and which 00:58:48.119 --> 00:58:49.679 actually we're getting 00:58:49.679 --> 00:58:53.400 into the next step which is context-sensitive design 00:58:53.400 --> 00:58:54.800 options when 00:58:54.800 --> 00:58:57.809 we're looking at streets segments we wanted it to be more 00:58:57.809 --> 00:58:58.760 in line with what 00:58:58.760 --> 00:59:02.860 the land uses were next to it and as we head forward to 00:59:02.860 --> 00:59:04.360 making most of our 00:59:04.360 --> 00:59:08.340 streets complete streets which takes care of all the modes 00:59:08.340 --> 00:59:09.440 of transportation so 00:59:09.440 --> 00:59:14.619 all these different classifications that you look at were 00:59:14.619 --> 00:59:15.599 kind of clubbed up 00:59:15.599 --> 00:59:19.519 together to give more flexibility for neuro development 00:59:19.519 --> 00:59:20.800 when they're talking 00:59:20.800 --> 00:59:23.989 about what the cross sections and uses are and I'll explain 00:59:23.989 --> 00:59:24.880 a little bit in the 00:59:24.880 --> 00:59:29.239 next example I took an example for a two-lane collector 00:59:29.239 --> 00:59:31.000 initially we in the 00:59:31.000 --> 00:59:34.219 original design manual we only had one particular cross 00:59:34.219 --> 00:59:35.239 section that was 00:59:35.239 --> 00:59:38.449 brought out right now we're looking at different options we 00:59:38.449 --> 00:59:39.679 can actually within 00:59:39.679 --> 00:59:44.519 the cross section we can if there is a high parking area or 00:59:44.519 --> 00:59:46.159 a low parking area 00:59:46.159 --> 00:59:50.059 for example if it's a single-family development with larger 00:59:50.059 --> 00:59:50.760 lots they 00:59:50.760 --> 00:59:54.889 typically don't intend to use lesser on street parking when 00:59:54.889 --> 00:59:56.599 you get into newer 00:59:56.599 --> 01:00:00.860 subdivisions these they get more denser higher density f 01:00:00.860 --> 01:00:02.239 uses up a lot of street 01:00:02.239 --> 01:00:06.159 parking just because the way things are and more parking is 01:00:06.159 --> 01:00:07.639 required based on 01:00:07.639 --> 01:00:10.920 that we can fluctuate between or switch between these 01:00:10.920 --> 01:00:13.039 options so if you have 01:00:13.039 --> 01:00:15.670 higher parking demand you would require parking but if you 01:00:15.670 --> 01:00:16.559 don't then you can 01:00:16.559 --> 01:00:20.480 utilize that space for other modes of transportation make 01:00:20.480 --> 01:00:21.320 it more a bike 01:00:21.320 --> 01:00:25.039 friendly make it more transit friendly and then obviously 01:00:25.039 --> 01:00:26.320 the third option is 01:00:26.320 --> 01:00:31.159 medium so we added this whole flexible item it is context 01:00:31.159 --> 01:00:32.519 sensitive design and 01:00:32.519 --> 01:00:36.980 moving on to the next level which is actually financing and 01:00:36.980 --> 01:00:38.400 getting grant 01:00:38.400 --> 01:00:41.269 funding for some of these projects street project it makes 01:00:41.269 --> 01:00:42.039 it more easier 01:00:42.039 --> 01:00:45.250 if we have these alternatives and options built in that way 01:00:45.250 --> 01:00:46.199 we can go after 01:00:46.199 --> 01:00:48.969 funds that are specifically out there through the federal 01:00:48.969 --> 01:00:50.559 government for bikes 01:00:50.559 --> 01:00:54.010 and pedestrian improvement and transit improvement so that 01:00:54.010 --> 01:00:55.079 that's the line of 01:00:55.079 --> 01:00:58.150 thinking that we're thinking of traffic impact analysis 01:00:58.150 --> 01:00:59.119 that's the next section 01:00:59.119 --> 01:01:05.119 that we updated essentially developments are required to 01:01:05.119 --> 01:01:06.239 conduct traffic studies 01:01:06.239 --> 01:01:09.460 to look at what the impacts for the traffic's are and we've 01:01:09.460 --> 01:01:10.519 categorized them 01:01:10.519 --> 01:01:13.369 into smaller developments typically that generate less than 01:01:13.369 --> 01:01:14.679 500 trips are smaller 01:01:14.679 --> 01:01:18.179 they look into what the impacts are in the future when the 01:01:18.179 --> 01:01:19.199 development is 01:01:19.199 --> 01:01:22.940 complete but they will also look at five years out of that 01:01:22.940 --> 01:01:24.159 and see you know five 01:01:24.159 --> 01:01:28.079 years after the development is complete what are the 01:01:28.079 --> 01:01:28.920 impacts and what the 01:01:28.920 --> 01:01:32.130 implications are for larger developments it's slightly 01:01:32.130 --> 01:01:33.159 different they create a 01:01:33.159 --> 01:01:37.030 bigger impact bigger footprint developments that are 01:01:37.030 --> 01:01:38.119 typically more 01:01:38.119 --> 01:01:44.019 than 500 trips during the peak hours and for them we are 01:01:44.019 --> 01:01:45.199 not only looking at 01:01:45.199 --> 01:01:48.920 immediate future or even five years we're looking at a 20- 01:01:48.920 --> 01:01:50.039 year horizon and 01:01:50.039 --> 01:01:54.170 part of this is is a two-way thing we actually feel that 01:01:54.170 --> 01:01:55.679 the city needs to know 01:01:55.679 --> 01:01:59.659 what the timing should be on what when some of these major 01:01:59.659 --> 01:02:00.840 street improvements 01:02:00.840 --> 01:02:03.690 and the capital projects go in place so we as city want to 01:02:03.690 --> 01:02:04.719 know how that it's 01:02:04.719 --> 01:02:08.340 going to play at the same time we want to know what part 01:02:08.340 --> 01:02:10.360 development surrounding 01:02:10.360 --> 01:02:14.630 that area is going to play in as far as finance as well as 01:02:14.630 --> 01:02:16.119 other instruments 01:02:16.119 --> 01:02:18.639 into this whole thing so that's the reason of setting 01:02:18.639 --> 01:02:18.960 Commissioner Smith 01:02:18.960 --> 01:02:23.059 thank you chair those larger developments and the 20-year 01:02:23.059 --> 01:02:25.440 20-year 01:02:25.440 --> 01:02:28.280 right you guys are doing that review for you know long-term 01:02:28.280 --> 01:02:31.039 outlook what variables this is not 01:02:31.039 --> 01:02:33.119 this is not anything change the criteria it's more just 01:02:33.119 --> 01:02:33.920 from my own personal 01:02:33.920 --> 01:02:38.389 knowledge what variables are being used to calculate what 01:02:38.389 --> 01:02:40.519 of the TIA is going to show 20 years from now 01:02:40.519 --> 01:02:44.280 is it just projected population growth that's put out by 01:02:44.280 --> 01:02:48.320 you know so demographers what's going on here 01:02:48.320 --> 01:02:52.920 so what's happening is the city of Denton has a traffic 01:02:52.920 --> 01:02:58.880 model and by that I mean it is a future travel demand model 01:02:58.880 --> 01:03:02.119 similar to water or wastewater predictions they have their 01:03:02.119 --> 01:03:03.159 models 20 01:03:03.159 --> 01:03:05.909 years into future what's going to happen traffic has 01:03:05.909 --> 01:03:10.519 similar models it regionally cog has a regional model we 01:03:10.519 --> 01:03:14.239 took that model we intensified we modified changed it for 01:03:14.239 --> 01:03:18.079 the city so every few years every five to seven years 01:03:18.079 --> 01:03:21.960 a cog comes up with new data for the rest of the region 01:03:21.960 --> 01:03:25.519 based on their projections we will project based on working 01:03:25.519 --> 01:03:28.719 with planning we will change our land use internally and 01:03:28.719 --> 01:03:32.199 that model kit keeps on updating and we'll use that as the 01:03:32.199 --> 01:03:33.079 20-year horizon 01:03:33.079 --> 01:03:39.239 thank you commissioner Ellis thank you chair quick question 01:03:39.239 --> 01:03:43.360 when in the development process is the TIA discussion when 01:03:43.360 --> 01:03:46.679 does it start that's a good question I might have to look 01:03:46.679 --> 01:03:52.599 to planning for that answer it depends 01:03:54.440 --> 01:04:00.630 within the criteria manual there are some there are some 01:04:00.630 --> 01:04:04.119 bulleted items you know to go and to go back to that you 01:04:04.119 --> 01:04:06.079 know it's kind of brought up earlier about you know when 01:04:06.079 --> 01:04:08.320 there's a rezoning can we look you know should we should we 01:04:08.320 --> 01:04:12.280 be looking at this over the last couple meetings or you 01:04:12.280 --> 01:04:15.469 know we have pulled some items off off the agenda 01:04:15.469 --> 01:04:19.840 specifically requesting for a TIA as part of the zoning 01:04:19.840 --> 01:04:23.750 when we have some with the commercial it's much harder to 01:04:23.750 --> 01:04:23.960 predict 01:04:24.760 --> 01:04:27.530 because you have such a variety of uses in such a different 01:04:27.530 --> 01:04:30.730 trip generation rates with all the various land use 01:04:30.730 --> 01:04:34.159 categories in some instances it could even be be lower I 01:04:34.159 --> 01:04:37.849 guess residential it's pretty easy I mean we know if you're 01:04:37.849 --> 01:04:41.570 changing the zoning particularly for a property that annex 01:04:41.570 --> 01:04:44.960 ed into the city it's being assigned the RD5X they're 01:04:44.960 --> 01:04:48.610 essentially able to do you know depending on the the number 01:04:48.610 --> 01:04:52.250 a handful of single-family residential if you're going up 01:04:52.250 --> 01:04:53.880 all of a sudden now to 01:04:54.440 --> 01:04:59.440 to six units an acre and you're 900 acres, 01:04:59.920 --> 01:05:03.659 we know right off the bat what your maximum's gonna be. 01:05:03.659 --> 01:05:07.059 We have one, in an instant I'm gonna get into specifics 01:05:07.059 --> 01:05:10.619 of it, it's 950 units, residential units. 01:05:10.619 --> 01:05:13.219 We've asked them to provide us with TIA. 01:05:13.219 --> 01:05:16.460 And so we're starting now on some of these large projects 01:05:16.460 --> 01:05:19.900 to look at that as part of the rezoning. 01:05:19.900 --> 01:05:22.699 The SUPs, when we have a specific use, 01:05:22.699 --> 01:05:26.739 if it does trigger that, the 100 or 1,000, 01:05:26.739 --> 01:05:29.260 then we are now asking for a TIA. 01:05:29.260 --> 01:05:32.960 So when it comes in front of the commission, 01:05:32.960 --> 01:05:34.780 we as staff can make a better recommendation 01:05:34.780 --> 01:05:37.340 and you can make a much more informed decision. 01:05:37.340 --> 01:05:39.380 - Right, so in this manual it does spell out 01:05:39.380 --> 01:05:42.179 when one is needed, it just doesn't say 01:05:42.179 --> 01:05:43.800 at what point one is needed. 01:05:43.800 --> 01:05:48.539 So is there, are you using any kind of regular process now 01:05:48.539 --> 01:05:50.739 of when you're requesting one or? 01:05:50.739 --> 01:05:52.500 - We will be, very soon. 01:05:52.500 --> 01:05:56.300 Right now we do PDMs, we're looking to go really 01:05:56.300 --> 01:05:58.780 to more of a pre-application. 01:05:58.780 --> 01:06:01.820 So at that pre-application, before you formally submit, 01:06:01.820 --> 01:06:05.139 you will know that if a TIA is needed. 01:06:05.139 --> 01:06:08.019 So all of a sudden you're not six months into the process 01:06:08.019 --> 01:06:10.820 and then oh, by the way, we need a TIA. 01:06:10.820 --> 01:06:12.780 So we wanna get to a point where everything 01:06:12.780 --> 01:06:14.579 is laid out up front, so. 01:06:14.579 --> 01:06:15.699 - Yeah, and that I understand. 01:06:15.699 --> 01:06:18.820 So let's say, 'cause in here it even spells out 01:06:18.820 --> 01:06:21.059 when one definitely is needed. 01:06:21.059 --> 01:06:25.139 But is there a requirement for when it gets done, 01:06:25.139 --> 01:06:26.820 by when it gets done? 01:06:26.820 --> 01:06:28.340 - It would need to get, yeah, 01:06:28.340 --> 01:06:30.900 prior to going to any sort of public hearing. 01:06:32.139 --> 01:06:35.139 Meaning when will they submit it to the city? 01:06:35.139 --> 01:06:37.179 - Yeah, 'cause it's all part of the, 01:06:37.179 --> 01:06:38.739 I mean it's all part of the development process. 01:06:38.739 --> 01:06:41.219 - Really it needs to come with the application. 01:06:41.219 --> 01:06:42.340 - Okay. 01:06:42.340 --> 01:06:43.800 - With that formal submittal. 01:06:43.800 --> 01:06:45.699 - It needs to, but it doesn't necessarily. 01:06:45.699 --> 01:06:46.539 - Not now. - Okay. 01:06:46.539 --> 01:06:47.500 - Not now. (laughs) 01:06:47.500 --> 01:06:49.480 They do take some time. 01:06:51.579 --> 01:06:52.900 - Commissioner Sullivan. 01:06:52.900 --> 01:06:57.900 - I'm curious if all developers have a street impact fee 01:06:59.380 --> 01:07:03.460 that has to be paid, how's that determined 01:07:03.460 --> 01:07:08.380 if it's not, if there's no traffic impact analysis 01:07:08.380 --> 01:07:12.480 to determine how many cars are going in and out? 01:07:12.480 --> 01:07:14.820 I mean, how's that impact fee determined? 01:07:14.820 --> 01:07:19.019 And if there is a calculation that's involved, 01:07:19.019 --> 01:07:22.300 can't you work back from the calculation to say, 01:07:22.300 --> 01:07:25.739 here's what the impact to the neighborhood's gonna be? 01:07:27.659 --> 01:07:31.039 - So, I'll slightly touch on it. 01:07:31.039 --> 01:07:35.059 Yeah, the impact calculation does involve 01:07:35.059 --> 01:07:38.139 some of the trip generation aspects 01:07:38.139 --> 01:07:40.019 of how many trips are generated 01:07:40.019 --> 01:07:41.519 and how many trips we'll be using 01:07:41.519 --> 01:07:44.420 the overall transportation system. 01:07:44.420 --> 01:07:47.659 But what happens is when we looked at the big picture, 01:07:47.659 --> 01:07:50.260 the impact fee only looks at larger arterials 01:07:50.260 --> 01:07:52.179 and fixing them. 01:07:52.179 --> 01:07:55.099 As part of the development, when there are streets 01:07:55.099 --> 01:07:58.380 and collectors next to a particular development, 01:07:58.380 --> 01:08:00.780 those streets are not being looked at 01:08:00.780 --> 01:08:03.219 or considered in the traffic impact fee. 01:08:03.219 --> 01:08:04.739 So this is like a combination. 01:08:04.739 --> 01:08:07.079 When we do the traffic impact analysis, 01:08:07.079 --> 01:08:09.619 it will tell us what is being impacted 01:08:09.619 --> 01:08:11.059 by that particular development. 01:08:11.059 --> 01:08:16.060 So if the developer chooses to fix perimeter streets 01:08:16.340 --> 01:08:21.260 or with, and does any additional offsite improvements 01:08:21.260 --> 01:08:25.340 that gets credited towards the impact fee, they get credit. 01:08:26.100 --> 01:08:29.380 - So what I think I heard you say was, 01:08:29.380 --> 01:08:33.859 certain streets aren't impacted to the point 01:08:33.859 --> 01:08:36.460 to where impact fees are assessed, 01:08:36.460 --> 01:08:41.340 even though more cars are gonna be traveling on that street 01:08:41.340 --> 01:08:45.880 because they're not connected to a bigger street 01:08:45.880 --> 01:08:46.720 or something. 01:08:46.720 --> 01:08:51.720 I'm not, I mean, it's not logical. 01:08:53.140 --> 01:08:54.539 That's what I'm saying. 01:08:54.539 --> 01:08:56.260 - What I'm saying is the roadway impact fee 01:08:56.260 --> 01:08:59.699 was developed using a set of projects. 01:08:59.699 --> 01:09:02.899 They pre-identified all the major arterials 01:09:02.899 --> 01:09:05.020 and how they could be improved. 01:09:05.020 --> 01:09:08.220 And we can talk about roadway impact fee ordinance 01:09:08.220 --> 01:09:09.739 and the way it was set up. 01:09:09.739 --> 01:09:14.539 So the projects that are already outlined 01:09:14.539 --> 01:09:16.420 in that particular ordinance, 01:09:16.420 --> 01:09:19.739 what project the impact fee will be allocated. 01:09:19.739 --> 01:09:22.420 There are five different areas that were identified, 01:09:22.420 --> 01:09:25.100 A through E, and each area got allocated 01:09:25.100 --> 01:09:26.720 different types of projects. 01:09:26.720 --> 01:09:29.100 So the projects have already been identified 01:09:29.100 --> 01:09:32.659 for the impact fee to be used towards those projects. 01:09:32.659 --> 01:09:35.100 So if you're a little small subdivision, 01:09:35.100 --> 01:09:38.560 that has a small road, that roadway is not being considered 01:09:38.560 --> 01:09:42.079 in the impact fee, that's not under project 01:09:42.079 --> 01:09:43.180 under the impact fee. 01:09:43.979 --> 01:09:48.060 - So the impact fee doesn't apply to that street? 01:09:48.060 --> 01:09:49.899 - It does apply to the project. 01:09:49.899 --> 01:09:53.420 - Is money being collected based on that street, 01:09:53.420 --> 01:09:55.640 but it's not being used for that street? 01:09:57.000 --> 01:09:58.659 - It's a balancing act. 01:09:58.659 --> 01:10:02.420 It's being used towards that street, 01:10:02.420 --> 01:10:04.659 but there are also other needs that come 01:10:04.659 --> 01:10:07.579 before that street is required to be widened. 01:10:07.579 --> 01:10:09.920 Say for example, looking at a larger street, 01:10:09.920 --> 01:10:12.079 if the need is immediately improving 01:10:12.079 --> 01:10:14.699 the transportation network within the area 01:10:14.699 --> 01:10:17.739 where the project is, then we apply the fees to that 01:10:17.739 --> 01:10:21.260 to improve that and then we'll come up 01:10:21.260 --> 01:10:23.180 with a capital project that-- 01:10:23.180 --> 01:10:26.819 - So fees collected on a small street could be used 01:10:26.819 --> 01:10:28.939 on the south side of town, could be used 01:10:28.939 --> 01:10:29.779 on the north side of town. 01:10:29.779 --> 01:10:31.399 - That's why they have five areas. 01:10:31.399 --> 01:10:32.819 So they are divided into different-- 01:10:32.819 --> 01:10:37.100 - Okay, in area one, fees are collected 01:10:37.100 --> 01:10:39.420 because of the new development, 01:10:39.420 --> 01:10:43.220 but streets in zone five are being improved 01:10:43.220 --> 01:10:45.140 with the money collected from zone one. 01:10:45.140 --> 01:10:47.939 - No, you can only use them within the same zone. 01:10:47.939 --> 01:10:50.140 - Okay, all right, that's fine. 01:10:50.140 --> 01:10:52.420 That's what I was confused about. 01:10:52.420 --> 01:10:53.340 - Commissioner Beck. 01:10:53.340 --> 01:10:54.960 - Thank you, Chair. 01:10:54.960 --> 01:10:56.739 In that handout we got last week, 01:10:56.739 --> 01:11:00.819 it states that TIA is required if a development will, 01:11:00.819 --> 01:11:04.420 one, generate equal to or more than 100 peak hour trips, 01:11:04.420 --> 01:11:08.579 two, generate equal to or more than 1,000 01:11:08.579 --> 01:11:11.020 vehicle trips per day, and three, 01:11:11.020 --> 01:11:14.420 project the area to be developed, 01:11:14.420 --> 01:11:16.699 the area projected to be developed is equal to 01:11:16.699 --> 01:11:18.460 or more than 100 acres. 01:11:18.460 --> 01:11:21.220 Here's my question, and this kind of revolves around 01:11:21.220 --> 01:11:23.899 what we were dealing with on Ryan Road last week, 01:11:23.899 --> 01:11:26.739 or last time, where you've got more than one development 01:11:26.739 --> 01:11:27.800 that's gone on there. 01:11:28.819 --> 01:11:30.659 Is this required of each development, 01:11:30.659 --> 01:11:34.840 or is there a cumulative rate if each development impacts 01:11:34.840 --> 01:11:36.779 the same stretch of road? 01:11:36.779 --> 01:11:39.060 We brought up the fact that we had four different 01:11:39.060 --> 01:11:40.460 developments going on on Ryan Road, 01:11:40.460 --> 01:11:43.619 but if you're just doing a TIA for the individual 01:11:43.619 --> 01:11:45.939 development at the time, we're not really looking 01:11:45.939 --> 01:11:48.420 at the bigger picture because all those developments 01:11:48.420 --> 01:11:51.460 are gonna impact that particular stretch of road. 01:11:51.460 --> 01:11:52.720 Does that make sense? 01:11:52.720 --> 01:11:53.699 - It makes sense. - Okay. 01:11:53.699 --> 01:11:57.420 - To answer your question, it's a two-part answer. 01:11:57.420 --> 01:12:00.140 The first part, the TIA looks at the overall impact, 01:12:00.140 --> 01:12:02.079 so it identifies the impact. 01:12:02.079 --> 01:12:05.899 The roadway impact fee is collected irrespective 01:12:05.899 --> 01:12:10.220 of what is happening to the perimeter street. 01:12:10.220 --> 01:12:13.500 So the impact fee is collected for that particular zone, 01:12:13.500 --> 01:12:15.340 and at that time, they reassess, 01:12:15.340 --> 01:12:18.100 and if Ryan Road is an important street 01:12:18.100 --> 01:12:20.859 that needs to be updated, it will move up the list 01:12:20.859 --> 01:12:22.420 of the capital projects. 01:12:22.420 --> 01:12:24.899 Typically, when developments go in, 01:12:24.899 --> 01:12:27.899 they don't dedicate the entire sum that's required 01:12:27.899 --> 01:12:29.739 to develop that particular roadway, 01:12:29.739 --> 01:12:31.899 so then we have to come up with more funds 01:12:31.899 --> 01:12:34.100 to subsidize if we go move forward 01:12:34.100 --> 01:12:35.300 with that particular project. 01:12:35.300 --> 01:12:38.460 But funds are collected for impacts 01:12:38.460 --> 01:12:41.340 to the transportation network by those developers. 01:12:45.779 --> 01:12:46.819 - Commissioner Smith. 01:12:47.899 --> 01:12:49.739 Do we have a follow-up? 01:12:49.739 --> 01:12:51.020 Commissioner Beck, let me-- 01:12:51.020 --> 01:12:51.859 - That's okay. 01:12:51.859 --> 01:12:52.680 - You're sitting over there-- 01:12:52.680 --> 01:12:57.680 - Just so I'm clear, then there is a cumulative effect? 01:12:57.859 --> 01:12:58.939 That is what you're saying? 01:12:58.939 --> 01:12:59.899 - Yes. - Okay. 01:12:59.899 --> 01:13:01.000 - Right, thank you. 01:13:02.739 --> 01:13:04.420 - Commissioner Sanchez. 01:13:04.420 --> 01:13:07.060 I know this is pretty complicated stuff, 01:13:07.060 --> 01:13:10.659 and I know we can't talk to the public. 01:13:10.659 --> 01:13:12.460 You can't get into this whole thing, 01:13:12.460 --> 01:13:15.300 but is there something you all can do, 01:13:15.300 --> 01:13:18.539 because that's a big issue we get every two weeks. 01:13:18.539 --> 01:13:21.539 There's people complaining about the analysis 01:13:21.539 --> 01:13:24.060 and the traffic and stuff. 01:13:24.060 --> 01:13:27.060 Is there any kind of presentation that you all can do 01:13:28.579 --> 01:13:32.260 to explain to people, because we don't know, 01:13:32.260 --> 01:13:35.699 is explain to people this road is gonna be, 01:13:35.699 --> 01:13:37.779 that's all they wanna know. 01:13:37.779 --> 01:13:41.060 Is this road gonna be fixed within so many years? 01:13:41.060 --> 01:13:42.819 I think that's something we owe the public, 01:13:42.819 --> 01:13:44.420 especially when they come up here. 01:13:44.420 --> 01:13:45.939 They wanna know about the road. 01:13:45.939 --> 01:13:48.619 It's gonna impact, you're gonna put these many houses, 01:13:48.619 --> 01:13:50.100 traffic is gonna be jammed. 01:13:50.100 --> 01:13:51.260 That's what they care about. 01:13:51.260 --> 01:13:53.659 And I think this is where we have to be involved, 01:13:53.659 --> 01:13:55.319 or you all have to be involved, 01:13:55.319 --> 01:13:58.140 is spend some time at these meetings 01:13:58.140 --> 01:14:01.100 and talk to them about the traffic. 01:14:01.100 --> 01:14:03.500 Is it gonna be repaired in five years, 10 years, 01:14:03.500 --> 01:14:06.199 or whatever, because that's, I think, 01:14:06.199 --> 01:14:09.340 the biggest gist of what we get every two weeks. 01:14:09.340 --> 01:14:11.939 - To answer your question, this is where, 01:14:11.939 --> 01:14:13.420 and we've noticed the same thing, 01:14:13.420 --> 01:14:16.420 and the current transportation criteria manual 01:14:16.420 --> 01:14:19.279 does not lend itself towards that, 01:14:19.279 --> 01:14:20.699 and we're trying to fix it. 01:14:20.699 --> 01:14:23.579 So when the developments go in, 01:14:23.579 --> 01:14:26.979 currently we do not know what the impacts are 01:14:26.979 --> 01:14:28.979 10 years, 20 years in the future 01:14:28.979 --> 01:14:30.220 for that particular roadway, 01:14:30.220 --> 01:14:32.819 or when that roadway would be fixed. 01:14:32.819 --> 01:14:35.380 With this type of analysis, we'll find out, 01:14:35.380 --> 01:14:38.300 say 20 years from now, in 10 years, 01:14:38.300 --> 01:14:39.460 this road needs to be fixed, 01:14:39.460 --> 01:14:43.260 because it'll be to its capacity, it'll be congested, 01:14:43.260 --> 01:14:45.539 and at 10 year mark, we need to be ready 01:14:45.539 --> 01:14:48.020 with all the funds to fund this project. 01:14:48.020 --> 01:14:50.100 So that's the missing piece that's missing 01:14:50.100 --> 01:14:51.979 in the current code, and we're trying, 01:14:51.979 --> 01:14:53.380 or in the current criteria manual, 01:14:53.380 --> 01:14:57.420 and we're trying to, as projects move forward, 01:14:57.420 --> 01:15:01.220 make each project pay and understand and assess 01:15:01.220 --> 01:15:04.840 when their project will trigger those improvements. 01:15:07.100 --> 01:15:09.760 - I guess my only question, again, going back, 01:15:09.760 --> 01:15:12.279 is being able to talk to the public, 01:15:12.279 --> 01:15:16.380 and at least make them feel, when they leave the meeting, 01:15:16.380 --> 01:15:19.300 that they feel comfortable, rather than frustrated. 01:15:19.300 --> 01:15:21.800 We came and left with nothing. 01:15:21.800 --> 01:15:24.060 That's all I want, is somebody talk to them a little bit. 01:15:24.060 --> 01:15:27.640 This is how we do it, and-- 01:15:27.640 --> 01:15:30.899 - Yeah, we can definitely do that. 01:15:32.260 --> 01:15:33.100 - Commissioner Smith. 01:15:33.100 --> 01:15:33.920 - Thank you, Chair. 01:15:33.920 --> 01:15:36.380 I think what Commissioner Beck was mentioning earlier 01:15:36.380 --> 01:15:41.380 was the fear of having a numerous development 01:15:42.739 --> 01:15:45.420 that are being developed on the exact same road, 01:15:45.420 --> 01:15:48.500 all happening in some sort of concurrent time, 01:15:48.500 --> 01:15:52.619 that not, you know, if there's one development being done, 01:15:52.619 --> 01:15:54.460 and it doesn't meet that hundred, 01:15:54.460 --> 01:15:57.140 or it doesn't meet that thousand trip limit, 01:15:57.140 --> 01:15:58.619 it not triggering. 01:15:58.619 --> 01:15:59.939 Not triggering for that one, 01:15:59.939 --> 01:16:01.899 and then maybe it doesn't trigger for the next development, 01:16:01.899 --> 01:16:04.060 and then the third development doesn't trigger. 01:16:04.060 --> 01:16:07.380 So the fear that I have, and what I wanna know is, 01:16:07.380 --> 01:16:11.220 at what point in time do we, as a commission, 01:16:11.220 --> 01:16:13.739 does council approve development, 01:16:13.739 --> 01:16:16.220 and whether it's the final plotting and everything else, 01:16:16.220 --> 01:16:17.779 and the city's giving the okay, 01:16:17.779 --> 01:16:20.060 at what point in time does, even though it's not built, 01:16:20.060 --> 01:16:22.899 even though there's not houses there yet, 01:16:22.899 --> 01:16:26.460 but it's approved, at what time does that consideration, 01:16:26.460 --> 01:16:28.899 is that being taken into the TIA? 01:16:28.899 --> 01:16:30.260 Does that question make sense? 01:16:30.260 --> 01:16:33.380 - Yeah, I mean, that consideration will be taken 01:16:33.380 --> 01:16:34.899 into the new TIAs. 01:16:34.899 --> 01:16:37.260 It will project traffic in the future. 01:16:37.260 --> 01:16:39.260 - Even though it develops not there, it'll take it into-- 01:16:39.260 --> 01:16:42.220 - It'll take, so it will be a cumulative effect. 01:16:42.220 --> 01:16:43.859 We talked about the traffic model. 01:16:43.859 --> 01:16:46.500 Traffic model will update that information and say, 01:16:46.500 --> 01:16:49.699 this area or this particular parcel has been approved, 01:16:49.699 --> 01:16:52.180 or plotted for 100 units. 01:16:52.180 --> 01:16:53.899 That will already be in the system 01:16:53.899 --> 01:16:55.180 before the next one goes in. 01:16:55.180 --> 01:16:56.739 - Perfect, awesome, thank you. 01:16:58.100 --> 01:17:00.460 - Well, I'm gonna chime in, 'cause I know I've had 01:17:00.460 --> 01:17:04.859 on the matrix for quite some time to have this discussion, 01:17:04.859 --> 01:17:07.819 and to actually, to Commissioner Sanchez's point, 01:17:07.819 --> 01:17:11.779 to go beyond the actual criteria manual, 01:17:11.779 --> 01:17:14.619 and actually get into whose responsibility it is 01:17:14.619 --> 01:17:16.060 to do these things. 01:17:16.060 --> 01:17:19.979 I think, from my perspective, being in the development 01:17:19.979 --> 01:17:22.939 business, a lot of things get skipped over 01:17:22.939 --> 01:17:26.579 as to what a developer does and provides, 01:17:26.579 --> 01:17:29.739 versus what's not being taken care of. 01:17:29.739 --> 01:17:33.659 The developer, just for the sake of the commission 01:17:33.659 --> 01:17:36.899 and for the discussion, puts in all the streets, 01:17:36.899 --> 01:17:39.539 all the utilities at their expense, 01:17:39.539 --> 01:17:42.100 and then at the end of the development, 01:17:42.100 --> 01:17:44.939 and the final acceptance, gives it to the city, 01:17:44.939 --> 01:17:48.340 and now the city takes and owns those utilities 01:17:48.340 --> 01:17:51.260 and those streets that are put into the city standards. 01:17:51.260 --> 01:17:54.460 So they've paid for, sometimes, millions of dollars 01:17:54.460 --> 01:17:57.260 of improvements on their particular property, 01:17:57.260 --> 01:18:00.020 and then we have people that come before us 01:18:00.020 --> 01:18:01.739 in this commission wanting to know 01:18:01.739 --> 01:18:03.140 what the developer's gonna pay for, 01:18:03.140 --> 01:18:06.300 for the street out that's up front or down the street, 01:18:06.300 --> 01:18:08.899 and they've already done millions of dollars, possibly, 01:18:08.899 --> 01:18:11.460 of improvements on their piece of property, 01:18:11.460 --> 01:18:14.020 and then paying, since we're talking about houses, 01:18:14.020 --> 01:18:16.979 a $2,000 per house traffic impact fee 01:18:16.979 --> 01:18:20.180 that goes into the fund to be spent in the area 01:18:20.180 --> 01:18:22.659 that their subdivision or development is 01:18:22.659 --> 01:18:26.899 to pay for roads outside of their property to be improved. 01:18:26.899 --> 01:18:30.020 Am I stating that correctly, how the process works 01:18:30.020 --> 01:18:31.899 for everybody here? 01:18:31.899 --> 01:18:34.899 - So it's a yes and no. 01:18:34.899 --> 01:18:36.420 - Okay, correct, please. 01:18:36.420 --> 01:18:38.939 - There is something called a perimeter street improvement 01:18:38.939 --> 01:18:41.619 that is directly next to the development, 01:18:41.619 --> 01:18:44.779 so that would provide direct access to developments 01:18:44.779 --> 01:18:47.659 in the immediate vicinity of the development. 01:18:47.659 --> 01:18:50.859 Everything should be updated and upgraded, 01:18:50.859 --> 01:18:55.420 and that will count towards your traffic impact credit. 01:18:55.420 --> 01:18:58.100 And yes, the remaining part of money that's remaining 01:18:58.100 --> 01:19:01.100 will update whatever's feeding the major streets 01:19:01.100 --> 01:19:03.380 into the development, so yes and no. 01:19:03.380 --> 01:19:05.260 - Yeah, I skipped a little extra piece 01:19:05.260 --> 01:19:07.180 about the perimeter street paving, 01:19:07.180 --> 01:19:11.060 but yes, I understand that principle as well. 01:19:11.060 --> 01:19:13.380 I was assuming if there aren't any perimeter street 01:19:13.380 --> 01:19:15.260 improvements that are required, 01:19:15.260 --> 01:19:17.300 they pay the $2,000 to the city. 01:19:17.300 --> 01:19:19.979 The city decides whether they take the money 01:19:19.979 --> 01:19:22.180 and spend it somewhere else in the zone, 01:19:22.180 --> 01:19:24.659 or in lieu of taking the $2,000 01:19:24.659 --> 01:19:27.659 requiring the developer to make those 01:19:27.659 --> 01:19:30.060 perimeter street improvements right there 01:19:30.060 --> 01:19:32.420 alongside their property before they accept the 01:19:32.420 --> 01:19:33.539 improvements. 01:19:33.539 --> 01:19:35.460 - Right, I think the thing is, 01:19:36.539 --> 01:19:38.500 the city, when they're looking at this money, 01:19:38.500 --> 01:19:39.819 we're looking at a big picture. 01:19:39.819 --> 01:19:42.659 We're looking at what these streets are feeding into, 01:19:42.659 --> 01:19:45.579 what are the major routes, where congestion is. 01:19:45.579 --> 01:19:47.619 So the way the capital projects are planned 01:19:47.619 --> 01:19:51.779 in a particular zone is the area of maximum congestion 01:19:51.779 --> 01:19:55.100 gets the first look, and then move on so on and so forth, 01:19:55.100 --> 01:19:58.420 until it gets to a point where you're not actually 01:19:58.420 --> 01:20:01.460 seeing development go up to the congestion, 01:20:01.460 --> 01:20:04.180 not the congestion level, but the capacity level, 01:20:04.180 --> 01:20:06.779 then those streets don't get pulled in 01:20:06.779 --> 01:20:08.220 or rank higher and higher. 01:20:08.220 --> 01:20:13.020 So yes, it's a process, and yeah, 01:20:13.020 --> 01:20:15.420 the fund is flexible to move around 01:20:15.420 --> 01:20:17.859 within a particular zone, not between zones. 01:20:17.859 --> 01:20:19.220 - Commissioner Sullivan. 01:20:19.220 --> 01:20:20.060 - Thank you. 01:20:20.060 --> 01:20:23.720 Here, for example, Ryan Road, we talked about two weeks ago 01:20:23.720 --> 01:20:23.939 . 01:20:25.260 --> 01:20:27.380 The new development, I don't know what the other ones 01:20:27.380 --> 01:20:29.340 have paid, the new development's gonna be paying 01:20:29.340 --> 01:20:32.140 a million dollars into the street impact fee. 01:20:33.739 --> 01:20:36.539 We don't know where that's gonna be spent on Ryan Road. 01:20:36.539 --> 01:20:39.619 Meanwhile, all the streets of Thistle Hill, 01:20:39.619 --> 01:20:42.420 all the streets of Ryan Ranch that have been there 01:20:42.420 --> 01:20:46.460 for 10 years or so, got brand new asphalt 01:20:46.460 --> 01:20:48.319 in the last year and a half. 01:20:48.319 --> 01:20:52.420 Meanwhile, Ryan Road is still the two-lane, 01:20:52.420 --> 01:20:56.739 bumpy, dangerous street that it has been 01:20:56.739 --> 01:20:58.739 for the last 10 years. 01:20:58.739 --> 01:21:03.739 Now, am I to believe that there is a plan 20 years from now 01:21:05.340 --> 01:21:10.340 to sign the Ryan Road in 10, 15, 20 years 01:21:11.060 --> 01:21:13.859 after all the development's been put up 01:21:13.859 --> 01:21:18.220 and after it becomes potholes all along up and down 01:21:18.220 --> 01:21:22.300 the street, finally, some subdivision that goes in 01:21:22.300 --> 01:21:25.939 north or south of the area is gonna then be paying 01:21:25.939 --> 01:21:27.000 for Ryan Road? 01:21:28.300 --> 01:21:29.979 - No, that's not the answer. 01:21:29.979 --> 01:21:31.020 - Okay. 01:21:31.020 --> 01:21:34.460 - So what will happen is the roadway impact fee 01:21:34.460 --> 01:21:37.460 is collected from all the developers that went in. 01:21:37.460 --> 01:21:40.020 Now, what happens is the city goes in and assesses 01:21:40.020 --> 01:21:43.060 is Ryan Road at capacity, which it's pretty close 01:21:43.060 --> 01:21:47.060 to getting there, then we use that as planning 01:21:47.060 --> 01:21:49.420 for our next big capital project. 01:21:49.420 --> 01:21:51.979 And obviously, the funds that are collected 01:21:51.979 --> 01:21:54.859 from all these developers are not enough 01:21:54.859 --> 01:21:56.699 to fix Ryan Road from one end to the other. 01:21:56.699 --> 01:22:00.659 From 2181 to 1830, it's not possible to do the whole road 01:22:00.659 --> 01:22:02.560 with just the impact fees. 01:22:02.560 --> 01:22:05.220 So what happens is then the city decides 01:22:05.220 --> 01:22:06.939 that this is a big capital project, 01:22:06.939 --> 01:22:10.659 we go for other funds to balance what we got 01:22:10.659 --> 01:22:12.220 from the developer and fix the road. 01:22:12.220 --> 01:22:14.420 So we've identified other streets. 01:22:14.420 --> 01:22:18.079 Hickory Creek is under construction soon. 01:22:18.079 --> 01:22:20.000 I don't know, maybe Chad can elaborate. 01:22:20.000 --> 01:22:21.859 But we have identified some of these projects 01:22:21.859 --> 01:22:22.979 that are going in. 01:22:22.979 --> 01:22:24.819 And yes, Ryan Road is on the list. 01:22:24.819 --> 01:22:29.319 We'll definitely look at it in our next round for the bond. 01:22:32.460 --> 01:22:35.579 - I'm gonna change subjects and bring up something else. 01:22:35.579 --> 01:22:37.460 - I have some more slides if we can. 01:22:37.460 --> 01:22:38.300 - You do? 01:22:38.300 --> 01:22:40.260 Okay, I thought you were done. 01:22:40.260 --> 01:22:43.060 You continue and then I'll ask this question at the end 01:22:43.060 --> 01:22:44.460 if you don't address it. 01:22:44.460 --> 01:22:45.300 - All right. 01:22:46.279 --> 01:22:48.439 So that's the last slide, by the way. 01:22:49.539 --> 01:22:51.939 We've just simplified the criteria manual. 01:22:51.939 --> 01:22:55.220 We've reduced the number of pages, reduced the confusion. 01:22:55.220 --> 01:22:58.100 We added some missing information. 01:22:58.100 --> 01:23:00.460 And then we've removed redundant information. 01:23:00.460 --> 01:23:03.300 There was information that was in multiple locations, 01:23:03.300 --> 01:23:04.899 standard plans and stuff like that. 01:23:04.899 --> 01:23:06.380 So we've removed that. 01:23:06.380 --> 01:23:09.220 So that's the end. 01:23:09.220 --> 01:23:11.500 And this is my recommendation. 01:23:11.500 --> 01:23:13.180 - Commissioner Ellis. 01:23:13.180 --> 01:23:14.420 - Thank you, Chair. 01:23:14.420 --> 01:23:17.060 Just a question on the removal of appendix B. 01:23:17.060 --> 01:23:19.079 Did that kind of go away altogether 01:23:19.079 --> 01:23:21.340 or was that somehow incorporated? 01:23:21.340 --> 01:23:25.119 I didn't quite notice how that fit into the new manual. 01:23:25.119 --> 01:23:28.220 - So the downtown plan is actually, 01:23:28.220 --> 01:23:30.939 those are suggestions by, and maybe planning 01:23:30.939 --> 01:23:32.340 can help me answer that question, 01:23:32.340 --> 01:23:35.380 but the plan was a planning level document 01:23:35.380 --> 01:23:39.020 and suggestions of how context sensitive 01:23:39.020 --> 01:23:40.420 design could be implemented. 01:23:40.420 --> 01:23:43.020 But what we did is we actually took the concept 01:23:43.020 --> 01:23:45.979 and we've implemented in our actual design process. 01:23:45.979 --> 01:23:49.020 So we don't need to have those particular cross sections 01:23:49.020 --> 01:23:51.699 in place because we were much more flexible upfront. 01:23:51.699 --> 01:23:53.739 We've completely removed them. 01:23:53.739 --> 01:23:54.699 It becomes confusing. 01:23:58.020 --> 01:23:59.380 - Commissioner Beck. 01:23:59.380 --> 01:24:02.500 - I have a real easy softball question for you. 01:24:02.500 --> 01:24:04.220 Just a general question here. 01:24:04.220 --> 01:24:08.939 Are all residential streets bike friendly, 01:24:08.939 --> 01:24:11.539 were they're equal to cars or not? 01:24:11.539 --> 01:24:14.899 Or does it have to be a certain collector street to be? 01:24:14.899 --> 01:24:18.619 'Cause unless it's marked, it's not clear whether bikes 01:24:18.619 --> 01:24:22.500 have the same equal standing as an automobile. 01:24:22.500 --> 01:24:25.359 - Per law, bikes have the equal right to drive 01:24:25.359 --> 01:24:26.859 in the middle of a residential street. 01:24:26.859 --> 01:24:31.859 - Yes, and use the driving lane as a full lane. 01:24:32.699 --> 01:24:34.420 - Okay, thank you. 01:24:38.060 --> 01:24:39.500 - I'll ask my question again. 01:24:41.020 --> 01:24:46.020 As we continue to increase the standards for our streets, 01:24:46.180 --> 01:24:51.180 is there a place where we cross good stewardship of money 01:24:51.239 --> 01:24:52.779 of what's underneath the street? 01:24:52.779 --> 01:24:57.779 So the pipe, sewer, water, storm has a 30 year life, 01:24:58.779 --> 01:25:03.340 and yet we're continuing to make going from six inch 01:25:03.340 --> 01:25:07.899 subgrade, seven inch, eight inch, continuing to build 01:25:07.899 --> 01:25:08.340 longer 01:25:08.659 --> 01:25:13.060 and more expensive roads, life, to try to increase 01:25:13.060 --> 01:25:16.579 the lifespan of them, but what's underneath them doesn't. 01:25:16.579 --> 01:25:18.680 And then we're spending and not being good stewards 01:25:18.680 --> 01:25:20.500 of the money that we have, we're putting a road in 01:25:20.500 --> 01:25:22.899 and we're gonna have to come cut it up and tear it up 01:25:22.899 --> 01:25:25.140 to repair the piping underneath it. 01:25:25.140 --> 01:25:27.500 - Just to clarify for everyone, you're talking about 01:25:27.500 --> 01:25:30.739 the cross section, how deep the road is and the thickness 01:25:30.739 --> 01:25:31.539 is. 01:25:31.539 --> 01:25:34.539 Yeah, we have, and this is a new thing that we're trying 01:25:34.539 --> 01:25:36.979 to do, is we've introduced some kind of flexibility 01:25:36.979 --> 01:25:39.300 and it's in different, it's in the standard plans, 01:25:39.300 --> 01:25:44.300 but what is happening is if there is, if the developer 01:25:44.579 --> 01:25:48.439 feels or his engineer feels that there can be a smaller 01:25:48.439 --> 01:25:52.380 section, it depends on the soil conditions. 01:25:52.380 --> 01:25:55.859 So if a geotechnical report is presented to the city 01:25:55.859 --> 01:25:58.979 that outlines under these soil conditions, 01:25:58.979 --> 01:26:00.920 you don't need this pavement thickness, 01:26:00.920 --> 01:26:02.779 if we go with a smaller pavement thickness, 01:26:02.779 --> 01:26:04.460 it'll still sustain it. 01:26:04.460 --> 01:26:07.439 So there are certain options that are being added 01:26:07.439 --> 01:26:10.460 and that's where the flexibility comes into play. 01:26:10.460 --> 01:26:15.460 And I'm not the person really to talk to, but if anyone, 01:26:16.260 --> 01:26:19.300 I think the city engineer can help with that. 01:26:19.300 --> 01:26:21.659 - But it's the developer's responsibility to do that 01:26:21.659 --> 01:26:26.060 rather than city coming and saying in this particular area 01:26:26.060 --> 01:26:29.819 instead of requiring eight inch subgrade, eight inch paving 01:26:29.819 --> 01:26:29.899 , 01:26:30.779 --> 01:26:33.899 everything else is six and six and was put in 20 years ago 01:26:33.899 --> 01:26:35.420 and that's good enough. 01:26:35.420 --> 01:26:37.859 It's a developer's responsibility to do that. 01:26:38.979 --> 01:26:42.100 - Correct, it is the developer's responsibility to put in, 01:26:42.100 --> 01:26:45.619 to do the geotechnical study, but the way the city looks 01:26:45.619 --> 01:26:48.829 at it, there are different regions with different soil 01:26:48.829 --> 01:26:48.979 forms 01:26:48.979 --> 01:26:52.300 and it's really hard for us to have 15 different sections. 01:26:52.300 --> 01:26:54.659 So we'd come up with the conservative section 01:26:54.659 --> 01:26:58.140 and if the engineers feel that there's a soil 01:26:58.140 --> 01:27:01.859 that can sustain the smaller section, we're open to that. 01:27:01.859 --> 01:27:02.699 - Okay. 01:27:04.479 --> 01:27:05.979 Sure, please come up to the mic. 01:27:09.739 --> 01:27:12.260 - I'm Ron Harris with Tignall and Perkins. 01:27:12.260 --> 01:27:16.300 To answer that question, actually the utilities 01:27:16.300 --> 01:27:19.020 are about the same design life. 01:27:20.060 --> 01:27:23.460 A water sewer is gonna last between 20 and 40 years 01:27:23.460 --> 01:27:27.340 if you look in the criteria manual. 01:27:27.340 --> 01:27:31.619 The asphalt sections are designed for 20 years, 01:27:31.619 --> 01:27:34.340 the concrete sections are designed for 40 years. 01:27:34.340 --> 01:27:36.899 So they're pretty comparable. 01:27:37.859 --> 01:27:39.199 - Okay, great, thank you. 01:27:42.020 --> 01:27:45.220 So finally, the slide, we recommend approval 01:27:45.220 --> 01:27:48.539 of the updated criteria manuals, both the stormwater design 01:27:48.539 --> 01:27:49.520 and transportation. 01:27:53.060 --> 01:27:56.539 - So we'll go to public comment now for the next 30 days 01:27:56.539 --> 01:27:59.420 and then this will come back for recommendation to us 01:27:59.420 --> 01:28:02.619 or does it move on to city council just so we understand 01:28:02.619 --> 01:28:03.460 the process? - I think the public 01:28:03.460 --> 01:28:04.819 comment period started January 3rd 01:28:04.819 --> 01:28:06.460 and we're currently in it. 01:28:06.460 --> 01:28:10.100 We will have some developer meetings and outreach 01:28:10.100 --> 01:28:12.579 with the developers to get their feedbacks 01:28:12.579 --> 01:28:15.619 and then after that, we'll come back. 01:28:15.619 --> 01:28:17.859 - And then we'll make recommendation to council? 01:28:17.859 --> 01:28:19.979 - Yes. - Okay, great. 01:28:19.979 --> 01:28:20.819 - Correct, Ted? 01:28:26.020 --> 01:28:28.779 - Just process, just kind of for everybody. 01:28:28.779 --> 01:28:30.819 - I'm sorry, I'm looking at the remaining steps 01:28:30.819 --> 01:28:32.819 and I don't see it coming back to PNZ again. 01:28:32.819 --> 01:28:34.520 I'm not sure if that's true or not 01:28:34.520 --> 01:28:36.859 so I can definitely look into that. 01:28:36.859 --> 01:28:39.899 - If I recall from previous presentations, 01:28:39.899 --> 01:28:42.060 if there are changes or comments that may come back 01:28:42.060 --> 01:28:44.460 and if there aren't, then I think it may be it moves on. 01:28:44.460 --> 01:28:45.699 - Okay, that makes sense. 01:28:45.699 --> 01:28:48.859 - I think that's what we did when we had it for utilities, 01:28:48.859 --> 01:28:50.220 I think, possibly. 01:28:50.220 --> 01:28:52.899 - Okay. - Anyway, okay. 01:28:52.899 --> 01:28:55.220 Any other questions for staff on these, 01:28:55.220 --> 01:28:56.659 either one of these two items? 01:28:58.819 --> 01:28:59.880 Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. 01:28:59.880 --> 01:29:01.939 Just real quick, any of our comments today, 01:29:01.939 --> 01:29:04.460 do you need us to email them separately to you 01:29:04.460 --> 01:29:08.779 or with whatever we discussed at this work session? 01:29:08.779 --> 01:29:10.539 Do you need that in a separate email 01:29:10.539 --> 01:29:12.600 or does the meeting suffice? 01:29:12.600 --> 01:29:13.539 - The meeting is good. 01:29:13.539 --> 01:29:15.380 We've taken notes, we understand what comments 01:29:15.380 --> 01:29:16.739 were made during this meeting. 01:29:16.739 --> 01:29:18.859 If you have any additional comments afterward, 01:29:18.859 --> 01:29:21.819 we would be happy to have those in an email format. 01:29:21.819 --> 01:29:24.220 You can contact me, Chad Allen, 01:29:24.220 --> 01:29:27.220 but yes, we've received your comments today 01:29:27.220 --> 01:29:28.420 that you've given us at this meeting. 01:29:28.420 --> 01:29:30.100 - Okay, thank you. 01:29:30.100 --> 01:29:31.619 - Great, okay. 01:29:31.619 --> 01:29:33.180 Thank you, great presentation. 01:29:34.140 --> 01:29:35.180 - Do you want to drop? 01:29:38.779 --> 01:29:39.619 - Sure. 01:29:42.979 --> 01:29:44.340 - Deborah, before you get started, 01:29:44.340 --> 01:29:45.300 how long do you need? 01:29:45.300 --> 01:29:48.819 Do we want a break and get food or go ahead and then-- 01:29:48.819 --> 01:29:52.380 - You can break and eat and I will present what you eat. 01:29:52.380 --> 01:29:53.220 - Okay. 01:29:53.220 --> 01:29:56.340 (laughing) 01:29:56.340 --> 01:29:58.100 - Oh no, I will give you a chance. 01:29:58.100 --> 01:29:58.939 - Okay. 01:29:58.939 --> 01:30:01.220 - And of course, you can always email me. 01:30:01.220 --> 01:30:04.859 - All right, at 5.37, I'll call a recess 01:30:04.859 --> 01:30:07.300 and we'll take a break and we'll get some food 01:30:07.300 --> 01:30:08.859 and we'll reconvene. 01:30:08.859 --> 01:30:11.199 (murmuring) 01:30:13.420 --> 01:30:14.779 Good evening and welcome back 01:30:14.779 --> 01:30:17.380 to the City of Denton work session. 01:30:17.380 --> 01:30:20.060 I will call us back into order at, 01:30:21.020 --> 01:30:23.979 it's like 5.48. 01:30:30.100 --> 01:30:31.100 - Good evening. 01:30:31.100 --> 01:30:32.380 My name is Deborah Viera. 01:30:32.380 --> 01:30:35.460 I'm with the Environmental Services Department 01:30:35.460 --> 01:30:39.420 and we are going to discuss the changes 01:30:39.420 --> 01:30:41.659 or proposed revisions to sub-chapter 17 01:30:41.659 --> 01:30:43.260 of the Denton Development Code 01:30:43.260 --> 01:30:45.239 addressed in environmentally sensitive areas, 01:30:45.239 --> 01:30:46.939 also known as the ESAs. 01:30:49.460 --> 01:30:53.739 Some of you have got some training from me, 01:30:53.739 --> 01:30:56.460 have heard me before about environmental sensitive areas. 01:30:56.460 --> 01:30:59.579 Some of you are new to the board. 01:30:59.579 --> 01:31:03.899 So I'm going to do a 101 in 30 seconds. 01:31:03.899 --> 01:31:07.699 But let me put an offer out there for the commission. 01:31:07.699 --> 01:31:11.220 If you are interested in getting any training session 01:31:11.220 --> 01:31:13.300 about environmentally sensitive area, 01:31:13.300 --> 01:31:16.960 a staff is available to do that in the near future. 01:31:16.960 --> 01:31:19.100 Just let us know and we will scale something 01:31:19.100 --> 01:31:22.739 so in that way, all the new commissioners 01:31:22.739 --> 01:31:25.779 could get up to speed of what ESAs are and so on. 01:31:27.020 --> 01:31:31.579 So basically, the City of Denton provide special protection 01:31:31.579 --> 01:31:34.140 to four type of environmental sensitive areas. 01:31:34.140 --> 01:31:35.979 Those are floodplains, riparian buffers, 01:31:35.979 --> 01:31:37.979 water-related habitats and upland. 01:31:37.979 --> 01:31:41.420 Some of these ESAs or type of ESAs, 01:31:41.420 --> 01:31:43.979 because they are dependent on the presence of water, 01:31:43.979 --> 01:31:47.380 they co-locate or they are nested inside each other. 01:31:47.380 --> 01:31:49.560 When it comes down to floodplains, 01:31:49.560 --> 01:31:52.140 the city makes two distinctions. 01:31:52.140 --> 01:31:55.560 We identify those that are defined as a developed 01:31:55.560 --> 01:31:58.779 or that means that they have been heavily modified, 01:31:58.779 --> 01:32:02.619 disturbed and there's no habitat out there to protect. 01:32:02.619 --> 01:32:05.539 And then we have the undeveloped floodplains, 01:32:05.539 --> 01:32:09.060 which are those who are more in a natural state. 01:32:11.859 --> 01:32:16.680 In general, the ESAs provide six functions. 01:32:16.680 --> 01:32:20.500 It is provide habitat, wildlife live in them, 01:32:20.500 --> 01:32:24.159 serve as a conduit of plants, nutrients, 01:32:25.180 --> 01:32:29.020 wildlife move from point A through point B through the ESAs 01:32:29.020 --> 01:32:29.020 . 01:32:29.020 --> 01:32:32.460 They act as a barrier, they filter pollutants, 01:32:32.460 --> 01:32:35.939 they serve as a source for resources 01:32:35.939 --> 01:32:39.460 and serve as a sink and sequestration area for pollutants. 01:32:39.460 --> 01:32:41.939 So those are the ecological functions 01:32:41.939 --> 01:32:44.340 that those environmental sensitive areas provide. 01:32:48.699 --> 01:32:52.699 But ESAs have also an added value to us. 01:32:52.699 --> 01:32:56.220 First, by the city having regulations 01:32:56.220 --> 01:32:58.579 that protects those areas helps the city 01:32:58.579 --> 01:33:01.380 with the TCEQ phase two municipal separate storm 01:33:01.380 --> 01:33:03.579 source system or MS4 permit. 01:33:03.579 --> 01:33:07.859 That permit is issued by TCEQ on a five year cycle. 01:33:07.859 --> 01:33:11.140 So every five years we get a new permit 01:33:11.140 --> 01:33:13.659 that we have to submit through TCEQ. 01:33:13.659 --> 01:33:17.420 Having those special regulations that protects those areas 01:33:17.420 --> 01:33:21.420 allow us to actually meet the goals and objective 01:33:21.420 --> 01:33:23.460 of the permit for the city. 01:33:23.460 --> 01:33:28.460 The TCEQ construction general permit also is able to be met 01:33:29.939 --> 01:33:33.659 in some aspects by the protection of ESAs. 01:33:35.100 --> 01:33:39.739 Important and related to the previous discussion 01:33:39.739 --> 01:33:44.180 about drainage, having ESAs identified on a map 01:33:44.180 --> 01:33:47.579 and having protections of those areas have helped the city 01:33:47.579 --> 01:33:50.260 with the National Floodplain Insurance Program. 01:33:50.260 --> 01:33:55.260 Those are the floodplain management regulations 01:33:55.420 --> 01:33:59.529 that we have in place to protect properties during rain 01:33:59.529 --> 01:34:00.420 events. 01:34:01.539 --> 01:34:06.539 The higher we rate on the program, 01:34:09.899 --> 01:34:14.140 that means that translate into actually savings 01:34:14.140 --> 01:34:16.140 to homeowners and property owners 01:34:16.140 --> 01:34:17.859 who are in the floodplain who needs 01:34:17.859 --> 01:34:20.300 to get floodplain insurance. 01:34:20.300 --> 01:34:23.460 So put us in a better position, 01:34:23.460 --> 01:34:25.340 in a better rate system for them 01:34:25.340 --> 01:34:30.340 and we can actually pass those savings to the policy owners 01:34:30.340 --> 01:34:30.340 . 01:34:33.340 --> 01:34:37.619 And it help us with the integrated storm water management 01:34:37.619 --> 01:34:39.979 I-Swim City designation. 01:34:39.979 --> 01:34:43.380 We got that designation I believe in 2016 01:34:43.380 --> 01:34:46.699 and currently we are ranked silver level 01:34:46.699 --> 01:34:50.460 on the ranking system for I-Swim. 01:34:52.979 --> 01:34:55.060 Why we need to revise 17? 01:34:55.060 --> 01:34:59.220 Well, the entire debt and development code 01:34:59.220 --> 01:35:04.220 and criteria manual have been going through some changes 01:35:04.300 --> 01:35:06.380 throughout the past 15 years. 01:35:06.380 --> 01:35:08.500 17 have never been revised. 01:35:09.500 --> 01:35:14.500 So there are inconsistencies with other regulations 01:35:14.819 --> 01:35:18.420 when we started back in 2002, everything dovetail. 01:35:18.420 --> 01:35:20.460 But as changes have been made, 01:35:20.460 --> 01:35:24.819 then those inconsistencies have been created. 01:35:24.819 --> 01:35:27.739 So we have to kind of go back and try to see 01:35:27.739 --> 01:35:32.739 that all the regulations were 17 01:35:34.100 --> 01:35:36.819 and other regulations apply, they do. 01:35:39.659 --> 01:35:44.300 The development community have indicated to us 01:35:44.300 --> 01:35:48.819 that the wording of that sub-chapter could be improved. 01:35:48.819 --> 01:35:52.180 Some of the phrasing could be improved. 01:35:52.180 --> 01:35:57.180 There are aspects of 17 that they lack clarity. 01:35:57.699 --> 01:36:01.340 So additional language will actually help understand 01:36:01.340 --> 01:36:03.699 what the city is trying to attain. 01:36:04.619 --> 01:36:07.739 There are some policies that were established 01:36:07.739 --> 01:36:12.020 when the DDC was adopted and sub-chapter 17 was created 01:36:12.020 --> 01:36:16.140 that even though the policy was created, 01:36:16.140 --> 01:36:18.180 there was no how to do. 01:36:18.180 --> 01:36:20.819 So in this process, we were looking 01:36:20.819 --> 01:36:23.220 into those instances as well. 01:36:23.220 --> 01:36:25.939 And evaluation of the existing policies. 01:36:25.939 --> 01:36:27.380 Which policies are working? 01:36:27.380 --> 01:36:28.739 Which one are not? 01:36:28.739 --> 01:36:30.699 Which one we have to just tweak? 01:36:30.699 --> 01:36:33.180 Which one we have to revamp completely? 01:36:33.180 --> 01:36:35.500 And new policies. 01:36:36.420 --> 01:36:41.140 We are 15, almost 16 years after that, 01:36:41.140 --> 01:36:43.100 should we consider new policies as well. 01:36:43.100 --> 01:36:45.979 So those are the reasons why 17 01:36:45.979 --> 01:36:48.739 have been brought up for revision. 01:36:49.779 --> 01:36:54.539 So anything that is related to environmental issues 01:36:54.539 --> 01:36:57.100 is better through the Committee on the Environment. 01:36:57.100 --> 01:36:59.460 The Committee on the Environment 01:36:59.460 --> 01:37:01.500 is a sub-committee of city council 01:37:01.500 --> 01:37:03.500 composed by three council members. 01:37:06.060 --> 01:37:11.060 In June of 2016, we went to the COE 01:37:11.300 --> 01:37:16.300 and we presented our request for starting revising 17. 01:37:16.500 --> 01:37:18.739 They gave us the green light to do it. 01:37:18.739 --> 01:37:21.539 It took us 13 months with them. 01:37:21.539 --> 01:37:24.699 Just keep in mind, this committee only meets once a month 01:37:24.699 --> 01:37:26.619 and they have a long agenda. 01:37:26.619 --> 01:37:29.979 So we were kind of taking small pieces at a time 01:37:29.979 --> 01:37:32.380 and took us that long. 01:37:33.859 --> 01:37:36.779 All the code revisions were classified in four types. 01:37:36.779 --> 01:37:40.020 Corrections, those are the typos, the grammatical errors, 01:37:40.020 --> 01:37:41.739 the acronyms and things like that. 01:37:41.739 --> 01:37:43.180 Those are the easy fixes. 01:37:43.180 --> 01:37:45.539 Then code language clarifications 01:37:45.539 --> 01:37:47.340 and code language additions. 01:37:47.340 --> 01:37:51.420 Clarifications are if we can improve the phrasing 01:37:51.420 --> 01:37:55.420 or we can add something to make that more clear. 01:37:55.420 --> 01:37:58.460 Code language addition is those are instances 01:37:58.460 --> 01:38:00.100 that the policy were there. 01:38:00.100 --> 01:38:02.460 We were not changing the policy 01:38:02.460 --> 01:38:05.979 but we are providing language to give better guidance 01:38:05.979 --> 01:38:09.260 to the development community about that policy. 01:38:09.260 --> 01:38:10.739 And policy changes. 01:38:15.619 --> 01:38:18.859 The language that are being proposed 01:38:18.859 --> 01:38:21.960 have been vetted through the public as well. 01:38:23.060 --> 01:38:27.539 We have posted all the red lines and clean versions 01:38:27.539 --> 01:38:30.699 through the development code of the web page. 01:38:30.699 --> 01:38:35.140 Notices to all project docs applicants were sent via email 01:38:35.140 --> 01:38:38.539 so we did a blast email out. 01:38:39.420 --> 01:38:43.020 Some of you may have got notices. 01:38:43.020 --> 01:38:45.939 We did a presentation as a part of the DDC update 01:38:45.939 --> 01:38:49.779 open house meetings with Clarion twice. 01:38:49.779 --> 01:38:53.420 And we have solicited input from local 01:38:53.420 --> 01:38:55.779 and out of town developers and consultants. 01:38:56.659 --> 01:38:58.340 We're still receiving those. 01:38:58.340 --> 01:39:02.380 As of yesterday at 5 p.m. I got a new batch of comments. 01:39:02.380 --> 01:39:05.619 So the compilation that I provided to you 01:39:05.619 --> 01:39:09.340 is a work in progress, those new comments 01:39:09.340 --> 01:39:10.899 will be added to it. 01:39:10.899 --> 01:39:14.619 My goal is that when we go to public hearing 01:39:14.619 --> 01:39:19.539 we hopefully have the whole compilation finished. 01:39:19.539 --> 01:39:22.500 And also there will be a column where I'm going to provide 01:39:22.500 --> 01:39:24.899 some explanation of how those issues 01:39:24.899 --> 01:39:26.539 have been addressed already. 01:39:30.359 --> 01:39:34.979 So when we start changing 17 we also have to make sure 01:39:34.979 --> 01:39:39.979 that the connections to the rest of the DDC 01:39:40.500 --> 01:39:42.979 are valid or needs to be modified. 01:39:42.979 --> 01:39:47.380 So this is the list of changes outside 17 01:39:47.380 --> 01:39:51.060 that will have to take in place for the proposed changes 01:39:51.060 --> 01:39:54.420 to actually have a dovetailing with them. 01:39:54.420 --> 01:39:58.020 So we will have to go and change the final plot checklist. 01:39:58.020 --> 01:40:03.020 This is just something that could be done administratively. 01:40:03.420 --> 01:40:08.420 Change, I'm sorry, staff review procedure detail on 3.7 01:40:09.220 --> 01:40:13.220 will have to be revised and add that additional language. 01:40:13.220 --> 01:40:16.100 And you will see where the proposed changes 01:40:16.100 --> 01:40:19.199 will tie to those as we move through the slides. 01:40:20.539 --> 01:40:24.699 The staff review procedure on 3.7D 01:40:24.699 --> 01:40:26.819 will have to also be amended 01:40:26.819 --> 01:40:30.420 with the following language in green. 01:40:30.420 --> 01:40:32.300 The drainage criteria manual, 01:40:32.300 --> 01:40:34.420 we already made the changes 01:40:34.420 --> 01:40:37.939 and it is just removing coastal Bermuda, 01:40:37.939 --> 01:40:42.220 adding the word native and make it plural on grasses. 01:40:42.220 --> 01:40:44.600 That's the extent that needs to be done. 01:40:45.739 --> 01:40:49.979 We have to change the alternative ESA plan checklist. 01:40:49.979 --> 01:40:53.460 That's something that we will do administratively. 01:40:54.340 --> 01:40:57.779 We will be creating a new ESA criterion manual. 01:40:57.779 --> 01:41:01.100 We will touch bases later during the presentation. 01:41:01.100 --> 01:41:04.659 And we will have to update the ESA map. 01:41:06.659 --> 01:41:09.720 So let's start, let's see how far I can get. 01:41:09.720 --> 01:41:12.699 So what I have done, I picked the top, 01:41:12.699 --> 01:41:15.220 I believe seven or eight substantial changes 01:41:15.220 --> 01:41:18.060 to be discussed and we will go through it. 01:41:18.060 --> 01:41:22.100 However, if you want to go line by line, 01:41:22.100 --> 01:41:24.100 staff is ready to do that. 01:41:24.100 --> 01:41:27.340 Just let me know what will be your preference. 01:41:28.260 --> 01:41:30.640 So am I going with the motor suspension? 01:41:31.739 --> 01:41:34.020 - Let's go with your presentation 01:41:34.020 --> 01:41:36.300 and if we need to get into more detail, we will. 01:41:36.300 --> 01:41:40.619 - Okay, so first we want to increase 01:41:40.619 --> 01:41:45.619 and expand the credits given when ESAs are preserved. 01:41:47.739 --> 01:41:49.859 Currently in Italian you will see 01:41:49.859 --> 01:41:51.699 where the current language is. 01:41:51.699 --> 01:41:56.260 It's pretty much, if you preserve ESAs 01:41:56.260 --> 01:42:00.300 and this is mostly trees, 01:42:00.300 --> 01:42:04.100 you can get credit under the landscape 01:42:04.100 --> 01:42:06.140 tree canopy requirements. 01:42:06.140 --> 01:42:10.340 So let's say that you leave one area intact, 01:42:10.340 --> 01:42:15.340 which is ESA, happens to be within your parking lot. 01:42:15.619 --> 01:42:19.020 Then you can use that natural area 01:42:19.020 --> 01:42:22.300 to count towards your landscape requirements and so on. 01:42:22.300 --> 01:42:24.260 Especially oblong habitat. 01:42:24.260 --> 01:42:27.640 Oblong habitat we're dealing with post-ogues 01:42:27.640 --> 01:42:32.180 and they're quite sensitive for modification in hydrology. 01:42:32.180 --> 01:42:35.939 So the chances that a post-ogue will do well 01:42:35.939 --> 01:42:39.460 close to a parking lot is not that great. 01:42:39.460 --> 01:42:43.340 So we kind of try to revamp the amount of credit 01:42:43.340 --> 01:42:44.880 that we are given. 01:42:44.880 --> 01:42:48.100 We understand that trees are expensive, 01:42:48.100 --> 01:42:50.779 but a landscape is expensive. 01:42:50.779 --> 01:42:54.500 And if you have to leave an area natural 01:42:54.500 --> 01:42:56.579 plus you have to provide more landscape 01:42:56.579 --> 01:42:58.180 that adds to it. 01:42:58.180 --> 01:43:03.180 So we went through it and we took the draft 01:43:04.060 --> 01:43:07.939 of the tree code and looked into that. 01:43:07.939 --> 01:43:11.020 And the language that you will see here 01:43:11.020 --> 01:43:14.739 really dovetails with the draft of the tree code. 01:43:14.739 --> 01:43:18.020 I believe the tree code will be presented to you 01:43:18.020 --> 01:43:22.220 probably maybe in two or four weeks or so. 01:43:22.220 --> 01:43:24.819 So it is a good timing that you will be seeing 01:43:24.819 --> 01:43:28.579 the revisions to the ESA and then following 01:43:28.579 --> 01:43:29.979 will be the tree code as well. 01:43:29.979 --> 01:43:33.340 So there's some close connection between the two. 01:43:33.340 --> 01:43:37.260 So first one square foot of tree canopy 01:43:37.260 --> 01:43:39.020 will be given for every square foot 01:43:39.020 --> 01:43:42.439 of preserved ESA tree canopy, one to one. 01:43:42.439 --> 01:43:45.539 So let's say that you need to preserve 30% 01:43:45.539 --> 01:43:47.939 of your tree canopy on site. 01:43:49.180 --> 01:43:54.180 If you happen to have ESAs and those ESAs have trees on it 01:43:54.180 --> 01:43:57.779 then those trees can count toward that 30% that you have. 01:43:57.779 --> 01:44:02.060 So that save you and help developers. 01:44:02.060 --> 01:44:05.420 Two square feet of landscape crap will be given 01:44:05.420 --> 01:44:08.260 for every square foot of preserved ESA tree canopy. 01:44:08.260 --> 01:44:12.840 So on the landscape section of it, you will be two to one. 01:44:13.779 --> 01:44:18.779 And no, that sits in between two ecoregions. 01:44:19.100 --> 01:44:22.140 You have the Easter cross timber on the west side, 01:44:22.140 --> 01:44:25.380 you have the grasses on the west side of town. 01:44:25.380 --> 01:44:29.020 So that's one of the reasons the western side of town 01:44:29.020 --> 01:44:30.699 is more grass oriented. 01:44:30.699 --> 01:44:33.060 So and we believe that there's merits 01:44:33.060 --> 01:44:35.899 and those ecosystems should be preserved. 01:44:35.899 --> 01:44:39.739 So we are proposing one square foot of landscape care 01:44:39.739 --> 01:44:41.199 will be given for every square foot 01:44:41.199 --> 01:44:43.239 of no wooded preserved area. 01:44:43.239 --> 01:44:48.239 And that is to respond to the natural condition of that 01:44:51.859 --> 01:44:55.300 location where the western part of town is more grass 01:44:55.300 --> 01:44:55.800 driven. 01:44:57.779 --> 01:44:59.500 - Commissioner Sanchez. 01:44:59.500 --> 01:45:03.369 - When you say grasses, are you talking about native 01:45:03.369 --> 01:45:04.260 grasses? 01:45:04.260 --> 01:45:05.779 - Yes, yes. 01:45:05.779 --> 01:45:07.380 Yeah, correct. 01:45:07.380 --> 01:45:09.060 - Okay, just not any grasses. 01:45:09.060 --> 01:45:10.460 They have to be the native. 01:45:10.460 --> 01:45:14.100 - Yeah, well for example, if you have riparian buffers, 01:45:14.100 --> 01:45:17.479 they might be dominated by grasses instead of trees. 01:45:17.479 --> 01:45:20.180 So if you are protecting the riparian buffer 01:45:20.180 --> 01:45:23.020 which has grasses on it, then you could take, 01:45:23.020 --> 01:45:27.539 you can use that towards your landscape credits. 01:45:27.539 --> 01:45:30.779 So right now, the code is more shifted 01:45:30.779 --> 01:45:34.420 toward giving credits for trees 01:45:34.420 --> 01:45:38.060 and we kind of forget all the type of vegetation. 01:45:38.060 --> 01:45:41.220 - I guess I'm just, a lot of those areas can be 01:45:42.779 --> 01:45:46.819 dominated by grasses but not necessarily native grasses. 01:45:46.819 --> 01:45:50.500 So you have to look at the species, it's important 01:45:50.500 --> 01:45:52.100 that it's a native grass. 01:45:52.100 --> 01:45:56.159 - Yeah, well when we go out and the riparian buffer, 01:45:57.859 --> 01:46:02.859 I will tell you that it is common to find exotic species 01:46:02.859 --> 01:46:05.840 mixed into the entire vegetation. 01:46:07.060 --> 01:46:10.819 But when we do a isophyll assessment, 01:46:10.819 --> 01:46:14.260 one of the things that we look into it 01:46:14.260 --> 01:46:17.020 is the species present, okay? 01:46:17.020 --> 01:46:21.060 And that rates the whole, helps on the rating 01:46:21.060 --> 01:46:22.939 of the habitat itself. 01:46:22.939 --> 01:46:26.260 If it is good, you will see that there will be more 01:46:26.260 --> 01:46:30.300 native plant species present that exotic, 01:46:30.300 --> 01:46:33.260 the present exotic reduces the ranking and so on. 01:46:33.260 --> 01:46:38.260 So all that is already built into the process. 01:46:38.619 --> 01:46:41.100 We are keeping the same language about the Parkland 01:46:41.100 --> 01:46:46.100 dedication that was on the original statement 01:46:46.100 --> 01:46:48.020 as well as the drainage standards. 01:46:48.020 --> 01:46:49.100 - Commissioner Ellis. 01:46:49.100 --> 01:46:49.939 - Thank you, Chair. 01:46:49.939 --> 01:46:53.260 Teppera, with the credits on one, does the developer 01:46:53.260 --> 01:46:57.020 then choose between A and B with regard to that one? 01:46:57.020 --> 01:46:58.859 Or do they get A and B? 01:46:58.859 --> 01:47:03.859 - Well, I will say, as written, they will get A and B. 01:47:10.779 --> 01:47:13.779 Is that something that you would like to change? 01:47:14.979 --> 01:47:16.100 Okay. 01:47:16.100 --> 01:47:17.579 - No, I was hoping they wouldn't have to choose. 01:47:17.579 --> 01:47:18.939 I was hoping they'd get both of those. 01:47:18.939 --> 01:47:20.020 Okay, thanks. 01:47:20.020 --> 01:47:21.859 - So, yes. 01:47:23.859 --> 01:47:25.699 - Before you move on with that slide, 01:47:26.819 --> 01:47:28.739 since you brought up that we're gonna be seeing 01:47:28.739 --> 01:47:33.739 the tree code in a few weeks, how do the credits given here 01:47:34.960 --> 01:47:38.819 compared to what's gonna be in mitigation, 01:47:38.819 --> 01:47:42.619 'cause in the past it's been one to two or one to four, 01:47:42.619 --> 01:47:44.579 and one of my concerns has always been 01:47:44.579 --> 01:47:47.699 if we really wanna preserve, why don't we encourage it 01:47:47.699 --> 01:47:50.340 more rather than one to one make it one to four, 01:47:50.340 --> 01:47:51.659 if we really wanna encourage them to preserve. 01:47:51.659 --> 01:47:53.979 - Well, actually, this would be, 01:47:53.979 --> 01:47:56.340 this mimics what the tree code has. 01:47:56.340 --> 01:47:59.739 And the tree code also is moving into, 01:47:59.739 --> 01:48:02.619 DBH and things like that, they are moving into 01:48:04.619 --> 01:48:05.979 square foot of tree canopy. 01:48:05.979 --> 01:48:09.619 So, when Haywood comes and explain the details 01:48:09.619 --> 01:48:14.619 of the changes, that would be one interesting point to make 01:48:14.619 --> 01:48:14.619 . 01:48:14.899 --> 01:48:18.020 But yeah, me and Haywood have been working on this. 01:48:18.020 --> 01:48:20.939 So, what you are saying is dovetails 01:48:20.939 --> 01:48:23.220 with what Haywood is working on. 01:48:23.220 --> 01:48:24.619 - I think that's good, if there's now gonna be 01:48:24.619 --> 01:48:27.899 some consistency because there hasn't been in the past. 01:48:27.899 --> 01:48:29.500 - Yes. - Okay, great. 01:48:29.500 --> 01:48:31.460 Looking forward to that. 01:48:31.460 --> 01:48:34.420 - The second substantial changes will be to establish 01:48:34.420 --> 01:48:36.100 an appeal process for ESA staff 01:48:36.100 --> 01:48:37.420 field assessment determination. 01:48:37.420 --> 01:48:40.500 And this is why on my two slides back 01:48:40.500 --> 01:48:45.380 when I was all that language in green, this is why. 01:48:45.380 --> 01:48:49.380 Right now, the ESA staff field determination, 01:48:49.380 --> 01:48:51.180 there's no appeal process for it. 01:48:51.180 --> 01:48:55.220 Okay, we have been lucky in 15 years 01:48:55.220 --> 01:48:57.220 that we have not been challenged. 01:48:57.220 --> 01:49:00.020 But it's a deficiency on 17. 01:49:00.020 --> 01:49:03.500 So, we are adding that appeal process 01:49:03.500 --> 01:49:05.140 and that will be given through 01:49:05.140 --> 01:49:07.220 the zoning board of adjustments. 01:49:08.300 --> 01:49:12.659 So, we will provide new language on 17 01:49:12.659 --> 01:49:15.699 and new language on 3.7. 01:49:18.899 --> 01:49:21.659 The designation on the depiction of developed 01:49:21.659 --> 01:49:23.939 and undeveloped floodplain habitants. 01:49:23.939 --> 01:49:27.100 And this is where the major change is. 01:49:27.100 --> 01:49:29.539 So, I'm going to slow down a little 01:49:29.539 --> 01:49:33.659 so in that way you can catch up with me. 01:49:33.659 --> 01:49:36.260 The city of them make distinctions 01:49:36.260 --> 01:49:38.539 between developed and undeveloped floodplain. 01:49:38.539 --> 01:49:42.260 In black and italics, you will see the current definition 01:49:42.260 --> 01:49:45.420 of what a developed floodplain it is. 01:49:45.420 --> 01:49:48.380 So, what we did, we changed, 01:49:48.380 --> 01:49:52.260 or we updated how the 100 year floodplain 01:49:52.260 --> 01:49:53.180 is now being called. 01:49:53.180 --> 01:49:56.979 FEMA now calls it a 1% annual chance floodplain. 01:49:56.979 --> 01:50:01.979 Why? Because the 100 year floodplain designation 01:50:02.579 --> 01:50:05.260 promotes a false sense of security 01:50:05.260 --> 01:50:08.939 that that type of flooding only happens 100 year 01:50:08.939 --> 01:50:11.539 when in reality is in every single year 01:50:11.539 --> 01:50:15.060 you have one chance for that type of rain event 01:50:15.060 --> 01:50:16.500 and floods to happen. 01:50:16.500 --> 01:50:18.579 So, we're kind of updating 01:50:18.579 --> 01:50:21.020 and making be consistent with FEMA. 01:50:22.060 --> 01:50:26.819 And we added language like for which the natural stream 01:50:26.819 --> 01:50:30.859 has been redesigned and no longer characteristic 01:50:30.859 --> 01:50:34.060 of natural channel and or its floodplain 01:50:34.060 --> 01:50:36.140 have been significantly modified, 01:50:36.140 --> 01:50:39.180 graded, filled and otherwise disturbed. 01:50:39.180 --> 01:50:41.779 The proposed definition is an improvement 01:50:41.779 --> 01:50:43.939 of what the current definition is. 01:50:43.939 --> 01:50:45.859 It give a little bit of more guidance. 01:50:48.539 --> 01:50:50.659 The definition of undeveloped floodplain 01:50:50.659 --> 01:50:52.420 pretty much to stay the same what we did, 01:50:52.420 --> 01:50:55.220 we just changed the term 100 year floodplain 01:50:55.220 --> 01:50:57.899 for FEMA on percent annual chance floodplain 01:50:57.899 --> 01:50:59.020 but stays the same. 01:51:01.579 --> 01:51:04.899 So, let's step back and take a little bit 01:51:04.899 --> 01:51:07.420 of background information. 01:51:08.619 --> 01:51:11.300 The floodplain ESAs are defined 01:51:11.300 --> 01:51:13.340 by what FEMA calls the 1%. 01:51:13.340 --> 01:51:17.899 We follow the same boundaries. 01:51:17.899 --> 01:51:22.340 FEMA firms, which are the FEMA maps, 01:51:22.340 --> 01:51:25.859 came into existence as a way to provide 01:51:25.859 --> 01:51:30.220 a national standard with a regional discrimination. 01:51:30.220 --> 01:51:32.420 And they choose that the 100 year flood 01:51:32.420 --> 01:51:36.380 was the item by which that floodplain boundary 01:51:36.380 --> 01:51:37.539 will be established. 01:51:39.140 --> 01:51:40.300 - Commissioner Beck. 01:51:40.300 --> 01:51:41.300 - Thank you, Chair. 01:51:43.180 --> 01:51:46.579 This FEMA plan, has it been updated recently 01:51:46.579 --> 01:51:48.100 or where is it? 01:51:48.100 --> 01:51:50.859 - The last time that got updated was, I believe, 01:51:50.859 --> 01:51:55.659 in 2011, they did, 2011? 01:51:55.659 --> 01:51:56.859 Yes. 01:51:56.859 --> 01:52:00.260 They pretty much redo all the firms for the city. 01:52:00.260 --> 01:52:03.300 But taking, just be aware that every time 01:52:03.300 --> 01:52:06.939 that a development modifies the floodplain, 01:52:06.939 --> 01:52:10.100 either through reclamation or through a better mapping 01:52:10.100 --> 01:52:14.140 of the floodplain, those updates are also incorporated 01:52:14.140 --> 01:52:17.100 into those firms, okay? 01:52:17.100 --> 01:52:20.380 And now FEMA before, for those changes to reflect 01:52:20.380 --> 01:52:23.020 on the firms, used to take years. 01:52:23.020 --> 01:52:26.100 Now they are, I think, within weeks, like six weeks, 01:52:26.100 --> 01:52:28.619 they actually provide that new information 01:52:28.619 --> 01:52:30.500 on their website, okay? 01:52:30.500 --> 01:52:35.500 So, because FEMA maps are constantly changing 01:52:35.699 --> 01:52:40.699 and updating, so the ESA floodplain goes with it, okay? 01:52:40.979 --> 01:52:43.779 - Okay, great, thanks. 01:52:43.779 --> 01:52:47.500 - And the purpose of the floodplain, of those firms, 01:52:47.500 --> 01:52:50.100 are not based on ecological considerations, 01:52:50.100 --> 01:52:53.500 are based on flood insurance purposes, okay? 01:52:56.220 --> 01:53:00.220 So, why using FEMA maps to establish 01:53:00.220 --> 01:53:02.939 our floodplain ESA maps? 01:53:02.939 --> 01:53:06.300 It is not a perfect match, I will give you that, 01:53:06.300 --> 01:53:07.300 but it's a good fit. 01:53:08.220 --> 01:53:10.819 Floodplain delineation are based on risk, 01:53:10.819 --> 01:53:12.819 no habitat boundaries. 01:53:12.819 --> 01:53:14.899 Uncertainty with unstudied floodplain, 01:53:14.899 --> 01:53:17.500 we have plenty of those in the city of Denton, 01:53:17.500 --> 01:53:20.779 and they don't follow ECA regions. 01:53:20.779 --> 01:53:25.420 But the good side of it is that when we, 01:53:25.420 --> 01:53:27.460 when development happens, and they happen 01:53:27.460 --> 01:53:29.819 to have a floodplain, they will have, 01:53:29.819 --> 01:53:33.100 they will dedicate that area as a drainage easement. 01:53:33.100 --> 01:53:35.500 So that area will be set apart, 01:53:35.500 --> 01:53:37.180 and development will be excellent, 01:53:37.180 --> 01:53:38.939 or very limited development could happen 01:53:38.939 --> 01:53:41.180 on those drainage areas. 01:53:41.180 --> 01:53:43.659 ESA level playing field reduces the chances 01:53:43.659 --> 01:53:45.579 for taking claims. 01:53:45.579 --> 01:53:48.819 The developers are already providing that drainage 01:53:48.819 --> 01:53:52.300 to meet subchapter 19 of the Denton Development Code. 01:53:52.300 --> 01:53:57.100 So, in some extent, we are not taking more 01:53:57.100 --> 01:54:00.659 than what the developer would be required 01:54:00.659 --> 01:54:03.699 to meet for subchapter 19. 01:54:04.779 --> 01:54:09.260 And everybody knows FEMA and their FEMA floodplain maps. 01:54:09.260 --> 01:54:13.539 So, it is something that developers, designers, 01:54:13.539 --> 01:54:15.260 engineers understand. 01:54:16.100 --> 01:54:20.859 So, I'm going to give you a snapshot of developed 01:54:20.859 --> 01:54:24.420 and undeveloped floodplain maps in the city of Denton. 01:54:24.420 --> 01:54:26.180 The two maps are the same. 01:54:26.180 --> 01:54:28.140 The two maps is the same scale. 01:54:28.140 --> 01:54:30.619 One is just showing the aerial. 01:54:30.619 --> 01:54:37.140 The other one is showing the ESA layer superimposed 01:54:37.140 --> 01:54:38.979 on that floodplain. 01:54:38.979 --> 01:54:43.619 The hot pink is the developed floodplain. 01:54:43.619 --> 01:54:48.140 The teal color is the undeveloped floodplain. 01:54:48.140 --> 01:54:49.819 And I'm going to step out. 01:54:49.819 --> 01:54:53.539 If you see, especially in this area, you will agree 01:54:53.539 --> 01:54:57.340 that that floodplain looks quite natural. 01:54:57.340 --> 01:54:59.560 The stream still meandering. 01:54:59.560 --> 01:55:02.760 The vegetation seems to be thick and healthy. 01:55:02.760 --> 01:55:09.539 Why do we have the changes from undeveloped to developed 01:55:09.539 --> 01:55:13.819 to undeveloped to developed to undeveloped again? 01:55:13.819 --> 01:55:15.779 So, those are inconsistencies 01:55:15.779 --> 01:55:20.460 that the floodplain ESA layer has right now. 01:55:20.460 --> 01:55:26.420 Okay? Remember, the ESA map was created back in 1999, 01:55:26.420 --> 01:55:27.579 roughly. 01:55:27.579 --> 01:55:32.500 When the Denton Development Cone was first adopted in 1999, 01:55:32.500 --> 01:55:36.579 the city started working on the implementation of the DDC, 01:55:36.579 --> 01:55:41.500 which got adopted roughly two years and a half later. 01:55:41.500 --> 01:55:43.220 In the in-between, the city came 01:55:43.220 --> 01:55:45.260 out with something called interim regulations. 01:55:45.260 --> 01:55:47.859 Some of you might be familiar with that term. 01:55:47.859 --> 01:55:51.260 And some of the provisions that we currently have 01:55:51.260 --> 01:55:54.020 on '17 made it to that point. 01:55:54.020 --> 01:55:56.579 So, we had the ESA map. 01:55:56.579 --> 01:56:02.380 So, we are 15, 16 years after many 01:56:02.380 --> 01:56:06.899 of those areas are still intact while we are designating 01:56:06.899 --> 01:56:07.460 areas 01:56:07.460 --> 01:56:09.020 as a developed floodplain 01:56:09.020 --> 01:56:13.779 where no development have happened in those areas. 01:56:13.779 --> 01:56:16.739 And this is a situation 01:56:16.739 --> 01:56:19.420 that you can see throughout the entire city. 01:56:19.420 --> 01:56:22.779 That's another example of those situations. 01:56:22.779 --> 01:56:26.439 But they are more common or found more common 01:56:26.439 --> 01:56:28.859 on the west part of town. 01:56:28.859 --> 01:56:36.939 If I am a developer and or I am a property owner and I have 01:56:36.939 --> 01:56:40.060 undeveloped floodplain under this map 01:56:40.060 --> 01:56:44.020 and my next door neighbor comes and he happens 01:56:44.020 --> 01:56:46.779 to have the developed designation, 01:56:46.779 --> 01:56:51.420 I will complain why the inconsistencies. 01:56:51.420 --> 01:56:55.699 Why is he not required to provide all the additional 01:56:55.699 --> 01:56:59.859 requirements when I am required to provide all those? 01:56:59.859 --> 01:57:03.869 So, we have to go back and from a quality standpoint just 01:57:03.869 --> 01:57:04.420 trying 01:57:04.420 --> 01:57:07.979 to make everybody consistent. 01:57:07.979 --> 01:57:13.460 This is another example of what we have. 01:57:13.460 --> 01:57:19.739 So, we are proposing to change how developed 01:57:19.739 --> 01:57:23.699 and undeveloped are currently shown on the ESA map. 01:57:23.699 --> 01:57:25.899 We are not getting rid of the designation. 01:57:25.899 --> 01:57:29.979 We are just trying to change how they are depicted 01:57:29.979 --> 01:57:33.619 on the ESA map. 01:57:33.619 --> 01:57:35.699 Firms are updated on a regular basis. 01:57:35.699 --> 01:57:37.020 We cover that. 01:57:37.020 --> 01:57:44.619 So, that makes that layer to be a very influx. 01:57:44.619 --> 01:57:47.739 And standards should be applied based on site conditions 01:57:47.739 --> 01:57:50.420 where development is about to happen and not based 01:57:50.420 --> 01:57:52.539 on an outdated map. 01:57:54.380 --> 01:57:56.739 So, what are the substantial changes? 01:57:56.739 --> 01:57:59.340 Upon-- we are proposing or they see-- 01:57:59.340 --> 01:58:01.739 actually the COE is proposing 01:58:01.739 --> 01:58:04.060 that we make the following changes. 01:58:04.060 --> 01:58:06.899 Upon field verification areas designated 01:58:06.899 --> 01:58:10.899 as FEMA 1% annual chance floodplain will be classified 01:58:10.899 --> 01:58:13.859 according to the existing condition as developed 01:58:13.859 --> 01:58:15.500 or undeveloped floodplain. 01:58:15.500 --> 01:58:19.180 Meaning that if there is a development application 01:58:19.180 --> 01:58:23.340 submitted, we will tell that the applicant, 01:58:23.340 --> 01:58:26.899 you have a floodplain ESA. 01:58:26.899 --> 01:58:29.100 Let us go to your site and determine 01:58:29.100 --> 01:58:31.340 if it is developed or undeveloped. 01:58:31.340 --> 01:58:33.979 And see based on the field verification, 01:58:33.979 --> 01:58:38.220 these are the set of standards that apply to you. 01:58:40.819 --> 01:58:44.689 Developed floodplain standards, what we add to those 01:58:44.689 --> 01:58:45.260 standards, 01:58:45.260 --> 01:58:49.060 what I did, I took the original language. 01:58:49.060 --> 01:58:52.779 It was previously in a paragraph form. 01:58:52.779 --> 01:58:54.579 I broke it down in numbers. 01:58:54.579 --> 01:58:57.140 And the only thing changes that we are-- 01:58:57.140 --> 01:59:01.460 the only thing new that we are proposing is item number two 01:59:01.460 --> 01:59:01.460 , 01:59:01.460 --> 01:59:04.460 which has just two clarification that says 01:59:04.460 --> 01:59:07.420 that if you have a developed floodplain 01:59:07.420 --> 01:59:11.220 but you could still have a healthy repair 01:59:11.220 --> 01:59:13.699 and buffer going through it. 01:59:13.699 --> 01:59:17.260 And you will still be able-- and you are still required 01:59:17.260 --> 01:59:21.460 to provide protection to the repair and buffer even though 01:59:21.460 --> 01:59:21.659 it 01:59:21.659 --> 01:59:25.380 is nested or inside of a developed floodplain. 01:59:25.380 --> 01:59:31.699 That's a point of-- that many people have complaining 01:59:31.699 --> 01:59:34.020 because it's not very clear right now 01:59:34.020 --> 01:59:35.020 in the development code. 01:59:35.020 --> 01:59:37.020 So this is just a clarification for it. 01:59:40.779 --> 01:59:45.500 You might remember the Ryan Meadows development 01:59:45.500 --> 01:59:48.779 where they had to go through an alternative ESA plan 01:59:48.779 --> 01:59:52.180 because they were required to extend Cricdale as a part 01:59:52.180 --> 01:59:53.859 of the thoroughfare plan. 01:59:53.859 --> 01:59:57.729 Because this-- the-- because staff didn't have the 01:59:57.729 --> 01:59:58.340 authority 01:59:58.340 --> 02:00:01.100 to approve that, they had to go through an alternative ESA 02:00:01.100 --> 02:00:01.619 plan 02:00:01.619 --> 02:00:04.539 and that is additional time that they have to spend. 02:00:04.539 --> 02:00:09.819 So we have taken-- we have listened 02:00:09.819 --> 02:00:11.300 to the development community. 02:00:11.300 --> 02:00:14.180 And now what we are do-- what we are proposing is 02:00:14.180 --> 02:00:17.260 for those roadways that are identified 02:00:17.260 --> 02:00:21.819 in the thoroughfare plan to be extended through ESAs, 02:00:21.819 --> 02:00:25.859 they will not have to go through an alternative ESA to do 02:00:25.859 --> 02:00:26.340 so. 02:00:26.340 --> 02:00:29.539 And we made it consistent that this is not only 02:00:29.539 --> 02:00:36.060 within the floodplain but if there's water related habitat 02:00:36.060 --> 02:00:39.100 or repair and buffer nested inside 02:00:39.100 --> 02:00:45.420 that will also be impacted, all those disturbance will be 02:00:45.420 --> 02:00:48.859 exempted from going through an alternative ESA plan. 02:00:48.859 --> 02:00:51.819 As long as the areas that are impacted are restored, 02:00:51.819 --> 02:00:55.739 rehabilitated, stabilized and so on. 02:00:55.739 --> 02:00:58.819 And that would be approved at staff level. 02:01:03.300 --> 02:01:08.220 This is the-- related to the exemption roadway identified 02:01:08.220 --> 02:01:13.460 for a repair and buffer. 02:01:13.460 --> 02:01:18.539 So substantial changes on-- okay. 02:01:18.539 --> 02:01:19.939 Upland habitat. 02:01:19.939 --> 02:01:23.819 Up to now, upland-- preservation of upland habitat was only 02:01:23.819 --> 02:01:24.539 required 02:01:24.539 --> 02:01:29.859 for residential uses, single family, multi-family, 2F. 02:01:29.859 --> 02:01:34.210 Okay. Now the committee on the environment thinks and 02:01:34.210 --> 02:01:34.779 consider 02:01:34.779 --> 02:01:38.060 that we are losing a lot of tree canopy due 02:01:38.060 --> 02:01:41.020 to non-residential development that happens 02:01:41.020 --> 02:01:44.979 to have upland habitat within the premises. 02:01:44.979 --> 02:01:49.100 So they are proposing that non-residential development 02:01:49.100 --> 02:01:52.779 to preserve 30% of the upland. 02:01:52.779 --> 02:01:55.260 Before it was non, now it's 30%. 02:01:55.260 --> 02:02:00.619 But this is the 30% that you will hear Haywood in couple 02:02:00.619 --> 02:02:02.340 of weeks to talk about it. 02:02:02.340 --> 02:02:07.100 So let's say that you are a non-residential development. 02:02:07.100 --> 02:02:10.539 You happen to have upland habitat. 02:02:10.539 --> 02:02:15.470 You will also be required to tree coat preservation or 02:02:15.470 --> 02:02:16.619 mitigation. 02:02:16.619 --> 02:02:20.779 So if you are preserving the 30% of the upland, 02:02:20.779 --> 02:02:23.899 you will be meeting the tree coat with it. 02:02:23.899 --> 02:02:28.020 So you will not be paying additional entry 02:02:28.020 --> 02:02:31.539 into the tree fund and you will not be having 02:02:31.539 --> 02:02:34.579 to replant trees on site. 02:02:34.579 --> 02:02:40.500 Okay. So at this point, I'm going to stop here 02:02:40.500 --> 02:02:47.180 and I'm proposing that the next time that we meet, 02:02:47.180 --> 02:02:51.899 that we will continue our presentation. 02:02:51.899 --> 02:02:58.899 >> Okay. Do I have questions so far? 02:02:58.899 --> 02:03:03.899 >> So please, some of you have already emailed me questions 02:03:03.899 --> 02:03:03.899 . 02:03:03.899 --> 02:03:07.659 But if you have any questions, comments from now to the 02:03:07.659 --> 02:03:08.500 next time, 02:03:08.500 --> 02:03:11.979 please feel free to email those to me and I can prepare a 02:03:11.979 --> 02:03:12.460 response 02:03:12.460 --> 02:03:13.979 for all of you. 02:03:13.979 --> 02:03:15.300 >> Commissioner Schmitt. 02:03:15.300 --> 02:03:16.220 >> Thank you, Chair. 02:03:16.220 --> 02:03:18.470 I'm going to ask this question to you but actually, Chair 02:03:18.470 --> 02:03:18.779 Strange, 02:03:18.779 --> 02:03:20.060 if you could answer it. 02:03:20.060 --> 02:03:22.140 On the 30% requirement that you just mentioned 02:03:22.140 --> 02:03:24.899 on the non-residential development, 02:03:24.899 --> 02:03:27.180 what type of cost are you going to see to non-residential 02:03:27.180 --> 02:03:28.340 developers 02:03:28.340 --> 02:03:30.899 by having that requirement now in place? 02:03:30.899 --> 02:03:32.460 I think it's a good requirement but what kind 02:03:32.460 --> 02:03:33.819 of new costs would they have? 02:03:33.819 --> 02:03:37.659 Since there is no requirement that now that added 02:03:37.659 --> 02:03:40.220 on there, how is that going to impact them financially? 02:03:40.220 --> 02:03:44.420 >> Well, it goes back how you cite your development, okay. 02:03:44.420 --> 02:03:53.239 So if the upland habitat is -- and again, you pick and 02:03:53.239 --> 02:03:54.619 choose which portion 02:03:54.619 --> 02:03:57.619 of the upland habitat you preserve, okay. 02:03:57.619 --> 02:03:58.500 >> Okay. 02:03:58.500 --> 02:04:03.659 >> We recommend that you pick areas of preservation 02:04:03.659 --> 02:04:12.050 that are continuations of other tree areas on the adjacent 02:04:12.050 --> 02:04:12.779 parcels to you 02:04:12.779 --> 02:04:16.000 because in that way you prevent fragmentation of the 02:04:16.000 --> 02:04:17.140 habitat, okay. 02:04:17.140 --> 02:04:20.380 However, you pick and choose which portion 02:04:20.380 --> 02:04:24.579 of the upland you preserve as long as the 30%. 02:04:24.579 --> 02:04:26.739 Yes, there will be -- that means that you -- 02:04:26.739 --> 02:04:31.340 if you have a standard site plan, for example, that you use 02:04:31.340 --> 02:04:33.020 in all the locations 02:04:33.020 --> 02:04:36.649 and you end up having to modify that standard, that would 02:04:36.649 --> 02:04:37.500 probably come 02:04:37.500 --> 02:04:41.619 to an expense having to alter those site plans. 02:04:41.619 --> 02:04:46.520 At the same time, if that 30% will count towards your tree 02:04:46.520 --> 02:04:47.699 preservation, 02:04:47.699 --> 02:04:52.979 then otherwise so there is some cost saving or at least not 02:04:52.979 --> 02:04:55.579 duplication of cost. 02:04:55.579 --> 02:04:58.789 >> I'm going to make one statement here regarding upland 02:04:58.789 --> 02:04:59.220 habitat. 02:04:59.220 --> 02:05:02.340 It's got to be at least 10 acres before it qualifies. 02:05:02.340 --> 02:05:04.550 So we're not talking about individual trees that are 02:05:04.550 --> 02:05:05.460 sitting up there that are -- 02:05:05.460 --> 02:05:05.899 >> Okay. 02:05:05.899 --> 02:05:09.380 >> It's got to be a 10 acre stand. 02:05:09.380 --> 02:05:12.659 >> So upland habitat is not all tree stands. 02:05:12.659 --> 02:05:15.739 It has to meet a criteria and that's a good point, that 02:05:15.739 --> 02:05:18.500 have to be 10 acres total 02:05:18.500 --> 02:05:22.680 and it has to have a specific species present, post-ogues 02:05:22.680 --> 02:05:24.140 and blackjacks. 02:05:24.140 --> 02:05:27.670 Those are the typical flag species that we'll use for 02:05:27.670 --> 02:05:30.380 eastern cross timber forest. 02:05:30.380 --> 02:05:34.840 So it's not every single tree stand is the one identified 02:05:34.840 --> 02:05:36.779 as an upland habitat. 02:05:36.779 --> 02:05:38.500 Yes. 02:05:38.500 --> 02:05:39.619 >> I was just going to say -- 02:05:39.619 --> 02:05:40.819 >> Commissioner Sanchez. 02:05:40.819 --> 02:05:41.619 >> Oh, I'm sorry. 02:05:41.619 --> 02:05:45.760 The define -- making -- you know, having definitions when 02:05:45.760 --> 02:05:46.220 you're talking 02:05:46.220 --> 02:05:50.909 about the different types of habitats is define what you're 02:05:50.909 --> 02:05:52.699 actually talking about 02:05:52.699 --> 02:05:55.460 because when I was looking through this, I was kind of 02:05:55.460 --> 02:05:56.060 questioning, 02:05:56.060 --> 02:05:59.930 what does she actually mean by upland habitat and, you know 02:05:59.930 --> 02:06:00.060 , 02:06:00.060 --> 02:06:05.319 define what it is and if you're updating this because 02:06:05.319 --> 02:06:07.340 anybody that starts reading 02:06:07.340 --> 02:06:08.460 through this is going to be hard. 02:06:08.460 --> 02:06:10.460 Well, I don't know what she's really talking about. 02:06:10.460 --> 02:06:14.619 You have to define your -- those terms. 02:06:14.619 --> 02:06:16.579 You know, does it make sense? 02:06:16.579 --> 02:06:17.300 >> Yes. 02:06:17.300 --> 02:06:18.619 >> Okay. 02:06:18.619 --> 02:06:26.729 >> Okay. I just want to say thank you for the change on the 02:06:26.729 --> 02:06:27.300 mobility plan 02:06:27.300 --> 02:06:30.970 because I actually had a note on my card from the matrix, a 02:06:30.970 --> 02:06:33.979 comment back from 10/26/16, 02:06:33.979 --> 02:06:36.659 Commissioner Roselle and I from that exact example. 02:06:36.659 --> 02:06:40.529 So thank you for keeping up with that and incorporating 02:06:40.529 --> 02:06:41.939 that into our ESA. 02:06:41.939 --> 02:06:44.060 So we look forward to continuing. 02:06:44.060 --> 02:06:46.420 Will you be back next time or -- 02:06:46.420 --> 02:06:46.939 >> Correct. 02:06:46.939 --> 02:06:50.829 We are planning to actually go as a public hearing item in 02:06:50.829 --> 02:06:52.579 two weeks from now. 02:06:52.579 --> 02:06:56.680 What we are planning is just to have a continuing our work 02:06:56.680 --> 02:06:57.619 session. 02:06:57.619 --> 02:07:00.810 If you have any comments, email those to me, any questions 02:07:00.810 --> 02:07:01.699 so in that way, 02:07:01.699 --> 02:07:05.689 I can provide those either responses ahead of time or 02:07:05.689 --> 02:07:06.939 during the meeting 02:07:06.939 --> 02:07:09.100 and hopefully we can complete. 02:07:09.100 --> 02:07:12.800 If you have any questions that might not be related to 02:07:12.800 --> 02:07:14.619 those substantial changes, 02:07:14.619 --> 02:07:18.869 let me know, staff will be available to go line by line if 02:07:18.869 --> 02:07:20.060 necessary. 02:07:20.060 --> 02:07:20.739 >> Great. 02:07:20.739 --> 02:07:21.579 >> Thank you. 02:07:21.579 --> 02:07:24.020 >> Thank you. 02:07:24.020 --> 02:07:29.149 And at 625, I will close our work session and we'll recon 02:07:29.149 --> 02:07:32.300 vene at 630 in council chambers. 02:07:32.300 --> 02:07:38.979 >> Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning 02:07:38.979 --> 02:07:44.380 and Zoning Commission meeting for January the 24th, 2018. 02:07:44.380 --> 02:07:47.819 This meeting has been duly posted and we do have a quorum 02:07:47.819 --> 02:07:49.300 present and I will call us 02:07:49.300 --> 02:07:51.819 to order at 632. 02:07:51.819 --> 02:07:54.100 Our first order of business will be to stand and give the 02:07:54.100 --> 02:07:56.619 pledge to the US and the Texas flag. 02:07:56.619 --> 02:08:15.619 [ Inaudible Remark ] 02:08:15.619 --> 02:08:43.300 >> Our next order of business will be to consider approval 02:08:43.300 --> 02:08:44.220 of our Planning 02:08:44.220 --> 02:08:47.380 and Zoning Commission minutes. 02:08:47.380 --> 02:08:50.130 Does anybody have any changes or could we have a motion 02:08:50.130 --> 02:08:52.819 with both sets of minutes? 02:08:52.819 --> 02:08:55.060 Commissioner Ellis. 02:08:55.060 --> 02:08:57.329 >> Chair, can we do them separate because I need to recuse 02:08:57.329 --> 02:08:58.100 on one of them. 02:08:58.100 --> 02:08:59.420 >> Sure. 02:08:59.420 --> 02:09:01.020 >> Okay, Commissioner Smith. 02:09:01.020 --> 02:09:02.220 >> Do we have a vote on them separately? 02:09:02.220 --> 02:09:03.020 >> Separately. 02:09:03.020 --> 02:09:04.260 Let's take a motion separately. 02:09:04.260 --> 02:09:06.380 >> Okay. 02:09:06.380 --> 02:09:07.859 >> Do you mind with the dates? 02:09:07.859 --> 02:09:09.500 >> You are, you have four. 02:09:09.500 --> 02:09:11.899 >> December 13th. 02:09:11.899 --> 02:09:14.859 >> Motion to approve the minutes for December 13th, 2017. 02:09:14.859 --> 02:09:16.300 >> Okay. Commissioner Beck. 02:09:16.300 --> 02:09:17.020 >> Second. 02:09:17.020 --> 02:09:20.229 >> Okay. We have a first and a second for the minutes of 02:09:20.229 --> 02:09:21.739 December 13th. 02:09:21.739 --> 02:09:25.460 Any questions or comments? 02:09:25.460 --> 02:09:28.180 Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. 02:09:28.180 --> 02:09:34.779 [ Pause ] 02:09:34.779 --> 02:09:37.579 The motion is going to carry 7-0. 02:09:37.579 --> 02:09:41.260 Commissioner Smith. 02:09:41.260 --> 02:09:44.060 >> Motion to approve the minutes for January 10th, 2018. 02:09:44.060 --> 02:09:46.859 >> Okay. Commissioner Sullivan. 02:09:46.859 --> 02:09:47.659 >> Second that motion. 02:09:47.659 --> 02:09:50.869 >> Okay. We have a first and a second for approval of our 02:09:50.869 --> 02:09:53.420 minutes for January 10th, 2018. 02:09:53.420 --> 02:09:58.260 Any questions or comments? 02:09:58.260 --> 02:10:01.060 Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. 02:10:01.060 --> 02:10:19.340 [ Pause ] 02:10:19.340 --> 02:10:24.060 That motion is going to carry 5-0 with two recuse. 02:10:24.060 --> 02:10:31.420 That will move us on to our consent agenda. 02:10:31.420 --> 02:10:32.779 Commissioner Rossell. 02:10:32.779 --> 02:10:34.979 >> I motion to approve the consent agenda. 02:10:34.979 --> 02:10:41.659 >> Okay. 02:10:41.659 --> 02:10:42.739 Commissioner Ellis. 02:10:42.739 --> 02:10:43.180 >> Thank you, Chair. 02:10:43.180 --> 02:10:43.979 Second. 02:10:43.979 --> 02:10:48.010 >> Okay. We have a first and a second for approval of the 02:10:48.010 --> 02:10:48.899 consent agenda. 02:10:48.899 --> 02:10:53.100 Any comments or questions? 02:10:53.100 --> 02:10:55.899 Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board. 02:10:55.899 --> 02:11:00.899 [ Pause ] 02:11:00.899 --> 02:11:03.500 The motion will carry 7-0. 02:11:03.500 --> 02:11:08.819 [ Pause ] 02:11:08.819 --> 02:11:12.560 That will move us to our public hearings section this 02:11:12.560 --> 02:11:13.220 evening. 02:11:13.220 --> 02:11:16.060 And just as an announcement to those, if you haven't 02:11:16.060 --> 02:11:21.500 noticed on your agenda, if you're here for item B, C, or D, 02:11:21.500 --> 02:11:23.699 all of those items will not be heard tonight. 02:11:23.699 --> 02:11:26.619 The only item we'll be hearing is item 4A. 02:11:26.619 --> 02:11:31.079 And at that time, at this time, I'm going to open the 02:11:31.079 --> 02:11:36.739 public hearing for Z17-0026B. 02:11:36.739 --> 02:11:39.939 And I will call on Shandrian for presentation. 02:11:39.939 --> 02:11:41.020 >> Good evening. 02:11:41.020 --> 02:11:44.229 I'm Shandrian Jarvis with the Development Services 02:11:44.229 --> 02:11:45.020 Department. 02:11:45.020 --> 02:11:49.789 The next item, Z17-26, is a rezoning request for a property 02:11:49.789 --> 02:11:53.180 located on the east side of the city 02:11:53.180 --> 02:11:57.739 near the Audre and Nottingham Lane intersection. 02:11:57.739 --> 02:12:03.189 The request is to rezone approximately 13 acres from a 02:12:03.189 --> 02:12:06.060 neighborhood residential 2 zoning district, 02:12:06.060 --> 02:12:09.649 which is basically a single family detached that allows a 02:12:09.649 --> 02:12:12.460 maximum of two dwelling units per acre. 02:12:12.460 --> 02:12:15.670 And the applicant is requesting to go to a neighborhood 02:12:15.670 --> 02:12:16.260 residential 6, 02:12:16.260 --> 02:12:20.510 which allows single family town homes and duplexes at a 02:12:20.510 --> 02:12:23.859 maximum of six dwelling units per acre. 02:12:23.859 --> 02:12:29.880 Just to give you some landmarks, this Mingo Road, there we 02:12:29.880 --> 02:12:32.420 go, Mingo Road is here. 02:12:32.420 --> 02:12:35.140 The Denton Bible Church is to the north. 02:12:35.140 --> 02:12:37.619 The Denton Church of Christ is here. 02:12:37.619 --> 02:12:41.489 Audre Lane serves as the western boundary of the tract, and 02:12:41.489 --> 02:12:43.100 then the north, on the north, 02:12:43.100 --> 02:12:46.180 there's also an extension of Audre. 02:12:46.180 --> 02:12:51.460 The plot, the lot is currently undeveloped primarily. 02:12:51.460 --> 02:12:55.180 There are some limited agricultural uses, and it has not 02:12:55.180 --> 02:12:56.380 been plotted. 02:12:58.819 --> 02:13:04.550 When we analyze zoning and rezoning requests, we have two 02:13:04.550 --> 02:13:07.500 basic criteria that serve as a guide. 02:13:07.500 --> 02:13:10.710 And we have two specific criteria that are in effect 02:13:10.710 --> 02:13:12.180 according to the DDC. 02:13:12.180 --> 02:13:16.279 The first one is, does the request meet the intent of the 02:13:16.279 --> 02:13:18.100 Future Land Use Plan, 02:13:18.100 --> 02:13:21.340 which is an element of the comprehensive plan? 02:13:21.340 --> 02:13:25.579 And then two, if we do approve or recommend approval for 02:13:25.579 --> 02:13:26.539 the request, 02:13:26.539 --> 02:13:29.750 would there be adequate provision of roadways, 02:13:29.750 --> 02:13:34.300 transportation, water, sewer, and then public services, 02:13:34.300 --> 02:13:37.739 and then the parks, so we look at those things. 02:13:40.340 --> 02:13:45.100 The first item that we considered was the consistency with 02:13:45.100 --> 02:13:48.539 the Future Land Use Plan. 02:13:48.539 --> 02:13:52.649 This area, the subject property, is classified as low 02:13:52.649 --> 02:13:56.739 density residential, the light yellow on the map. 02:13:56.739 --> 02:14:02.060 Low density is intended to promote single-family detached 02:14:02.060 --> 02:14:06.239 units that range in a density of one unit per acre all the 02:14:06.239 --> 02:14:07.140 way up to four. 02:14:11.140 --> 02:14:13.750 Well, let me go ahead and describe what else is going on in 02:14:13.750 --> 02:14:15.260 the area. 02:14:15.260 --> 02:14:19.359 As you get closer to Mingo Road, which is a primary arter 02:14:19.359 --> 02:14:22.340 ial, you'll see a mix of some commercial. 02:14:22.340 --> 02:14:27.630 You'll see moderate residential land use classification 02:14:27.630 --> 02:14:30.060 here, some commercial just to the north, 02:14:30.060 --> 02:14:33.270 and as you go further out, some employment center 02:14:33.270 --> 02:14:33.859 industrial. 02:14:33.859 --> 02:14:37.569 And those, that is what you would typically find along a 02:14:37.569 --> 02:14:40.739 major street, those more intense uses. 02:14:40.739 --> 02:14:45.710 And then we have those moderate residential uses that would 02:14:45.710 --> 02:14:47.460 then transition to the low density 02:14:47.460 --> 02:14:51.260 as you get farther away from the main streets. 02:14:51.260 --> 02:14:55.130 So when we looked at this request, we found that it did 02:14:55.130 --> 02:14:57.460 meet the Future Land Use Map. 02:14:57.460 --> 02:15:03.260 NR6, as I stated before, promotes a higher density than 02:15:03.260 --> 02:15:09.260 what we currently see in this area of the city. 02:15:09.260 --> 02:15:12.470 And it also would introduce some uses that are not 02:15:12.470 --> 02:15:14.380 compatible with this area. 02:15:14.380 --> 02:15:18.659 Currently, the main product there is single-family, well, 02:15:18.659 --> 02:15:20.859 primarily is single-family detached, 02:15:20.859 --> 02:15:25.260 and the zoning's range from NR2 up to an NR4. 02:15:25.260 --> 02:15:28.789 And most of the lots are about, are either somewhere 02:15:28.789 --> 02:15:32.260 between 40 and 50 and 60 feet wide. 02:15:34.859 --> 02:15:38.960 So when a request doesn't meet the Future Land Use Plan, 02:15:38.960 --> 02:15:43.460 the DDC directs us to consider some other items 02:15:43.460 --> 02:15:48.579 or some other elements as we analyze the request. 02:15:48.579 --> 02:15:52.050 We start with compatibility, again, with the existing 02:15:52.050 --> 02:15:55.460 character and what's already built in that area. 02:15:55.460 --> 02:15:59.359 Compatibility in terms of building scale, the land use, and 02:15:59.359 --> 02:16:00.859 construction type. 02:16:00.859 --> 02:16:05.609 We look at that. We compare what is there with what's being 02:16:05.609 --> 02:16:06.859 requested. 02:16:06.859 --> 02:16:10.420 We also look at any potential impacts to the public 02:16:10.420 --> 02:16:13.659 infrastructure, such as the roadways, the water, 02:16:13.659 --> 02:16:17.529 the wastewater, sewer, and then again, the public services, 02:16:17.529 --> 02:16:20.659 police, fire, EMS, and schools, and parks. 02:16:20.659 --> 02:16:23.659 We also look at the environmental impacts. 02:16:23.659 --> 02:16:27.270 Would there be any, if there's any environmentally 02:16:27.270 --> 02:16:30.659 sensitive areas, what would be the impact to that? 02:16:30.659 --> 02:16:34.190 If there's existing tree canopy on the site, what would be 02:16:34.190 --> 02:16:35.659 the impact to those? 02:16:35.659 --> 02:16:37.659 And then erosion control. 02:16:37.659 --> 02:16:41.969 So things like that are what we consider as we look at 02:16:41.969 --> 02:16:43.659 these requests. 02:16:43.659 --> 02:16:48.780 And then the code also gives us a catch-all, anything, any 02:16:48.780 --> 02:16:51.659 other compelling reason for the request, basically. 02:16:51.659 --> 02:16:56.659 So that's left up to your imagination. 02:16:56.659 --> 02:17:01.700 So when we look at compatibility, again, the surrounding 02:17:01.700 --> 02:17:04.659 zones range from NR2 to NR4. 02:17:04.659 --> 02:17:10.540 If you remember, maybe in December, this track to the north 02:17:10.540 --> 02:17:14.340 , immediately to the north, was brought to you for 02:17:14.340 --> 02:17:15.659 consideration. 02:17:15.659 --> 02:17:19.680 The applicant was requesting an NR6 zoning, basically 02:17:19.680 --> 02:17:22.659 identical to what we're here for today. 02:17:22.659 --> 02:17:26.850 City Council actually approved the zoning with the 02:17:26.850 --> 02:17:32.030 conditional overlay that restricted the uses on the 02:17:32.030 --> 02:17:33.659 property to just single family. 02:17:33.659 --> 02:17:43.879 And then it put a cap on the number of units that could be 02:17:43.879 --> 02:17:46.659 developed. 02:17:46.659 --> 02:17:50.139 So when we look at what available infrastructure is in the 02:17:50.139 --> 02:17:54.659 area, along Audre Lane on the western border of the track, 02:17:54.659 --> 02:18:01.020 there is water and wastewater available, and then also 02:18:01.020 --> 02:18:05.909 along the north edge, it's available for extensions into 02:18:05.909 --> 02:18:06.659 this property. 02:18:06.659 --> 02:18:12.659 And those would be required when they get ready to develop. 02:18:12.659 --> 02:18:17.350 The western segment of Audre is currently a two-lane, und 02:18:17.350 --> 02:18:18.659 ivided road. 02:18:18.659 --> 02:18:22.979 The city's mobility plan identifies it to be, when it's 02:18:22.979 --> 02:18:26.760 finally improved, it'll be a four-lane divided with 02:18:26.760 --> 02:18:28.659 sidewalks and bike lanes. 02:18:28.659 --> 02:18:33.719 And the segment to the north is ultimately planned to be a 02:18:33.719 --> 02:18:36.659 65-foot right-of-way. 02:18:36.659 --> 02:18:41.659 The street width is going to be less than that. 02:18:41.659 --> 02:18:44.920 And I believe that's going to also include sidewalks on 02:18:44.920 --> 02:18:46.659 both sides of the street. 02:18:46.659 --> 02:18:50.100 The right-of-way dedications and the perimeter street 02:18:50.100 --> 02:18:53.549 improvements associated with this site will be assessed at 02:18:53.549 --> 02:18:54.659 the platting stage. 02:18:54.659 --> 02:19:02.659 We wouldn't do it here at zoning. Just a note. 02:19:02.659 --> 02:19:06.620 So looking at the environmental aspects, we didn't find any 02:19:06.620 --> 02:19:07.659 ESA on site. 02:19:07.659 --> 02:19:13.659 There's no floodplain. On the western section of the track, 02:19:13.659 --> 02:19:14.659 there is some tree canopy, 02:19:14.659 --> 02:19:22.379 which would trigger our tree preservation and mitigation if 02:19:22.379 --> 02:19:23.659 needed. 02:19:23.659 --> 02:19:27.530 So as required by the Texas Local Government Code, we sent 02:19:27.530 --> 02:19:33.350 out 66 letters to property owners within 200 feet of the 02:19:33.350 --> 02:19:34.659 subject property. 02:19:34.659 --> 02:19:41.559 We received to date six letters in opposition, and these 02:19:41.559 --> 02:19:49.200 areas highlighted in red show the feedback that we received 02:19:49.200 --> 02:19:52.659 from those owners within that 200 feet boundary. 02:19:52.659 --> 02:19:58.389 We also issued 173 courtesy notices for the 500-foot buffer 02:19:58.389 --> 02:20:02.870 , which is that blue line. And then the applicant held a 02:20:02.870 --> 02:20:05.659 neighborhood meeting last week. 02:20:05.659 --> 02:20:10.610 So in summary, NR6 is not consistent with the Future Land 02:20:10.610 --> 02:20:11.659 Use Plan. 02:20:11.659 --> 02:20:15.569 It's incompatible with the surrounding property in terms of 02:20:15.569 --> 02:20:17.659 permitted density and uses. 02:20:17.659 --> 02:20:22.829 And then we feel as staff that the site is more suitable to 02:20:22.829 --> 02:20:25.659 an NR4 or NR3 district. 02:20:25.659 --> 02:20:29.760 So we are recommending denial. And that concludes my 02:20:29.760 --> 02:20:32.930 presentation. I can answer questions and the applicant is 02:20:32.930 --> 02:20:33.659 also here. 02:20:33.659 --> 02:20:35.659 I have a question. Commissioner Beck. 02:20:35.659 --> 02:20:38.659 Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Shandrin, for the presentation. 02:20:38.659 --> 02:20:43.899 Could you tell us what the on-street parking requirements 02:20:43.899 --> 02:20:49.260 or allowances are for both NR2 and NR6 and what are those 02:20:49.260 --> 02:20:52.659 for each, if they're different? 02:20:52.659 --> 02:20:55.659 I'm going to. 02:20:55.659 --> 02:20:56.659 No. 02:20:56.659 --> 02:21:01.420 I don't have that information with me per se, but generally 02:21:01.420 --> 02:21:06.000 any unstriped street is open for on-street parking unless 02:21:06.000 --> 02:21:09.659 there's a sign that says it's not allowed. 02:21:09.659 --> 02:21:12.659 So they could be parking on both sides of the street. 02:21:12.659 --> 02:21:15.850 Unless there's a, unless it's striped or there's a sign 02:21:15.850 --> 02:21:16.659 prohibiting it. 02:21:16.659 --> 02:21:20.040 And if that's the case, does that allow for fire trucks to 02:21:20.040 --> 02:21:21.659 make it through there? 02:21:21.659 --> 02:21:26.120 What we, the feedback we received is that our smallest 02:21:26.120 --> 02:21:30.739 street cross section does not facilitate the fire truck if 02:21:30.739 --> 02:21:32.659 there is parking on both sides of the street. 02:21:32.659 --> 02:21:36.780 And I know the city is currently looking at that to make 02:21:36.780 --> 02:21:40.620 some changes so that at least we can get a fire truck 02:21:40.620 --> 02:21:41.659 through. 02:21:41.659 --> 02:21:45.059 It may look like, it may end up that we allow parking on 02:21:45.059 --> 02:21:48.190 one side of the street or we just widen the section 02:21:48.190 --> 02:21:51.659 altogether, but that hasn't been finalized yet. 02:21:51.659 --> 02:21:55.659 Okay. Thank you. 02:21:55.659 --> 02:21:57.670 Mr. I just wanted to add to that. If you recall from the 02:21:57.670 --> 02:22:00.540 work sessions, the new transportation criteria manual had 02:22:00.540 --> 02:22:01.659 those new sections. 02:22:01.659 --> 02:22:05.659 So the widths for residential streets have been widened. 02:22:05.659 --> 02:22:08.250 And so it kind of goes back to that context sensitive 02:22:08.250 --> 02:22:09.659 corridor, if you will. 02:22:09.659 --> 02:22:12.870 So they, there, I think there were three options where they 02:22:12.870 --> 02:22:15.760 could choose whether or not they would be on street parking 02:22:15.760 --> 02:22:16.659 or bike lane. 02:22:16.659 --> 02:22:19.350 That would be looked at. Obviously those would be adopted 02:22:19.350 --> 02:22:21.659 prior to this property going through platting. 02:22:21.659 --> 02:22:24.090 So they would be subject to that new, that new criteria 02:22:24.090 --> 02:22:24.659 manual. 02:22:24.659 --> 02:22:26.659 Great. Thanks, Richard. 02:22:26.659 --> 02:22:29.659 Okay. 02:22:29.659 --> 02:22:34.659 Any other questions for staff? 02:22:34.659 --> 02:22:35.659 Commissioner Ellis. 02:22:35.659 --> 02:22:37.659 Sorry. Thank you, Chair. 02:22:37.659 --> 02:22:41.530 Okay. So on that note, but zoning does not change a 02:22:41.530 --> 02:22:42.659 residential street with. 02:22:42.659 --> 02:22:43.659 No. 02:22:43.659 --> 02:22:50.659 Okay. Just want to make that clarification. Thank you. 02:22:50.659 --> 02:22:54.659 I have two cards wishing to speak. 02:22:54.659 --> 02:23:02.659 First card will be Thomas Fletcher. 02:23:02.659 --> 02:23:07.809 Good evening. Thomas Fletcher, Kim Lee Horn. I'm the 02:23:07.809 --> 02:23:09.489 engineer for the applicant 5750 Genesis court Frisco, Texas 02:23:09.489 --> 02:23:09.659 . 02:23:09.659 --> 02:23:18.659 I've got a quick presentation for you all. 02:23:18.659 --> 02:23:23.129 Okay. This which scene on the screen is the aerial of the 02:23:23.129 --> 02:23:24.659 site to the south. 02:23:24.659 --> 02:23:28.319 We have all dress states, which we abut on our south 02:23:28.319 --> 02:23:29.659 property line. 02:23:29.659 --> 02:23:34.659 And then also we have, I believe it's. 02:23:34.659 --> 02:23:37.659 Let me double check. I believe it's. 02:23:37.659 --> 02:23:40.659 East Ridge edition. 02:23:40.659 --> 02:23:45.659 Which came after all the states East Oaks edition. 02:23:45.659 --> 02:23:50.659 So the that's the tracks to our south throughout our track. 02:23:50.659 --> 02:23:53.870 We've got a small sliver that goes up to all the east west 02:23:53.870 --> 02:23:54.659 section of all. 02:23:54.659 --> 02:23:58.270 And then we've got the north south section of all on our 02:23:58.270 --> 02:23:58.659 west. 02:23:58.659 --> 02:24:03.520 As Shandrian mentioned the east west section is slated to 02:24:03.520 --> 02:24:07.709 be a 65 foot right away, which is a collector section and 02:24:07.709 --> 02:24:09.659 be 37 foot back to back. 02:24:09.659 --> 02:24:13.659 And that does have sidewalks, future sidewalks. 02:24:13.659 --> 02:24:18.129 The the existing section on Audre north south is currently 02:24:18.129 --> 02:24:20.659 four lane undivided section. 02:24:20.659 --> 02:24:24.530 So I believe that pavement with is somewhere between 45 to 02:24:24.530 --> 02:24:28.379 49 feet back to back, which has two lanes in each direction 02:24:28.379 --> 02:24:33.659 , which would generally be classified as a minor arterial. 02:24:33.659 --> 02:24:36.659 Here is the current dent in zoning map. 02:24:36.659 --> 02:24:40.370 As you can see, the site just to our north was recently 02:24:40.370 --> 02:24:43.659 adopted in our six with overlay conditions. 02:24:43.659 --> 02:24:47.120 We intend I have a concept plan I'll show you here in a 02:24:47.120 --> 02:24:51.659 second, but we intend to develop single family residential. 02:24:51.659 --> 02:24:55.659 So we are open to recommendation with overlay conditions. 02:24:55.659 --> 02:24:58.870 So just want to make sure that you all are aware of that, 02:24:58.870 --> 02:25:01.879 that we're not we were not intending to develop anything 02:25:01.879 --> 02:25:03.659 other than single family. 02:25:03.659 --> 02:25:06.659 So we want to make sure that you all are aware. 02:25:06.659 --> 02:25:09.889 Here's the future land use plan, which shows our track and 02:25:09.889 --> 02:25:13.389 all their surrounding tracks, which is moderate residential 02:25:13.389 --> 02:25:15.659 , which is up to four units per acre. 02:25:15.659 --> 02:25:17.659 And then here's our concept plan. 02:25:17.659 --> 02:25:21.219 So what you're seeing is this tract is approximately 13 02:25:21.219 --> 02:25:22.659 acres on the layout. 02:25:22.659 --> 02:25:27.719 We're showing 56 residential lots because of the western 02:25:27.719 --> 02:25:31.659 portion, the depth of the track on the western portion. 02:25:31.659 --> 02:25:35.149 We've got really deep lots along there which provide 02:25:35.149 --> 02:25:38.729 opportunity for tree preservation along the state's 02:25:38.729 --> 02:25:39.659 boundary. 02:25:39.659 --> 02:25:42.989 We also have flexibility in our plan to provide tree 02:25:42.989 --> 02:25:46.739 preservation on the perimeter where it's where it's to the 02:25:46.739 --> 02:25:49.659 south where there's the existing homes. 02:25:49.659 --> 02:25:52.899 So there was a homeowners meeting in which the Brad Shelton 02:25:52.899 --> 02:25:56.069 and one of the other engineers from our firm attended last 02:25:56.069 --> 02:25:56.659 week. 02:25:56.659 --> 02:25:59.379 There were comments and concerns that were brought up in 02:25:59.379 --> 02:26:01.620 that and I'll try and address those within this 02:26:01.620 --> 02:26:02.659 presentation. 02:26:02.659 --> 02:26:07.120 But I did want to point out the Aldra State's plat when it 02:26:07.120 --> 02:26:09.659 was plotted back in 84. 02:26:09.659 --> 02:26:14.670 That is a plat of 54 lots on 12 acres, which is a four 02:26:14.670 --> 02:26:16.659 point five density. 02:26:16.659 --> 02:26:20.959 So when you look at the current zoning maps that show it's 02:26:20.959 --> 02:26:25.659 in our four in actuality, it's slightly over in our four. 02:26:25.659 --> 02:26:29.840 So our development with the 56 lots on 13 acres, that's 02:26:29.840 --> 02:26:31.659 four point three units. 02:26:31.659 --> 02:26:34.180 So it's actually when you look at the densities of the 02:26:34.180 --> 02:26:38.110 adjacent plants in the area that that we're next to, we're 02:26:38.110 --> 02:26:42.659 really in line with the with the existing conditions. 02:26:42.659 --> 02:26:46.979 So some of the concerns that came up with the neighborhood 02:26:46.979 --> 02:26:49.659 meeting was the was the traffic. 02:26:49.659 --> 02:26:53.889 Main entry for this development would be on Alder Lane, 02:26:53.889 --> 02:26:56.659 which is a four lane divided roadway. 02:26:56.659 --> 02:26:59.870 Fifty six lots would be a very minimal impact to the 02:26:59.870 --> 02:27:03.659 existing traffic percentage wise that's already there. 02:27:03.659 --> 02:27:06.870 We would have two points of access to meet the fire code 02:27:06.870 --> 02:27:09.909 requirements, a connection to Alder Lane and then a 02:27:09.909 --> 02:27:11.659 connection to Latimore. 02:27:11.659 --> 02:27:15.809 When Alder State's was developed, the city had foresight to 02:27:15.809 --> 02:27:19.729 know that development is going to grow and they provided a 02:27:19.729 --> 02:27:23.379 street stub to the to the undeveloped track so that when it 02:27:23.379 --> 02:27:26.899 does develop, it would have connection for utility and for 02:27:26.899 --> 02:27:28.659 for transportation purposes. 02:27:28.659 --> 02:27:32.250 There was a concern about on street parking that was 02:27:32.250 --> 02:27:34.659 mentioned in any development. 02:27:34.659 --> 02:27:36.870 We're following the current standards as the city updates 02:27:36.870 --> 02:27:37.659 their standards. 02:27:37.659 --> 02:27:43.549 We follow those standards. The city does have off street 02:27:43.549 --> 02:27:45.379 parking requirements of two off street parking spaces per 02:27:45.379 --> 02:27:45.659 lot. 02:27:45.659 --> 02:27:51.180 So the setback limits for the garage are stipulated such 02:27:51.180 --> 02:27:56.579 that there's room for two vehicles in the parking in the 02:27:56.579 --> 02:27:59.659 driveway for for each lot. 02:27:59.659 --> 02:28:01.659 Street damage. 02:28:01.659 --> 02:28:04.870 The that's always a concern when we go through the 02:28:04.870 --> 02:28:07.659 development process and do the design. 02:28:07.659 --> 02:28:10.870 There's pre construction meeting held with the city and the 02:28:10.870 --> 02:28:13.770 city take notes of the conditions of the existing roadways 02:28:13.770 --> 02:28:16.819 and the inspectors are constantly monitoring construction 02:28:16.819 --> 02:28:19.899 looking at is that our construction that's causing damage 02:28:19.899 --> 02:28:21.659 to the street or is it. 02:28:21.659 --> 02:28:24.659 Is there something else or is there damage at all. 02:28:24.659 --> 02:28:28.020 So that's that's one of the things that's looked at and 02:28:28.020 --> 02:28:30.659 kind of governed through the process. 02:28:30.659 --> 02:28:32.659 The contractor would be responsible. They're there. 02:28:32.659 --> 02:28:34.659 There are three way contracts with the city. 02:28:34.659 --> 02:28:38.379 They have responsibilities to the developer and to the city 02:28:38.379 --> 02:28:41.760 if damage is called to remedy that that damage and in my 02:28:41.760 --> 02:28:45.479 experience and projects where there's been any item that 02:28:45.479 --> 02:28:49.280 hasn't been remedied to the city's satisfaction and the 02:28:49.280 --> 02:28:51.659 city just withholds the final acceptance. 02:28:51.659 --> 02:28:55.040 So we would not get a final acceptance letter until the 02:28:55.040 --> 02:28:58.569 city is satisfied with the project the improvements the 02:28:58.569 --> 02:29:02.319 public improvements and remediation of any damage that may 02:29:02.319 --> 02:29:03.659 have occurred. 02:29:03.659 --> 02:29:07.659 Tree removal concerns with the extra depth lots. 02:29:07.659 --> 02:29:11.180 We are doing a layout such that we're preserving that 02:29:11.180 --> 02:29:14.860 perimeter trees those so that the neighbors still have 02:29:14.860 --> 02:29:18.659 those right there on the border with their property. 02:29:18.659 --> 02:29:22.420 We are obligated to meet the city of Denton's ordinances 02:29:22.420 --> 02:29:27.059 for tree removal, which currently requires over 20% of 20% 02:29:27.059 --> 02:29:29.659 of the tree canopy to be preserved. 02:29:29.659 --> 02:29:33.200 So we would be following those regulations and I think with 02:29:33.200 --> 02:29:36.600 the plan that we've got, we would actually be exceeding 02:29:36.600 --> 02:29:39.870 those regulations but as part of this, as this moves 02:29:39.870 --> 02:29:43.319 forward we would do a tree survey with the preliminary plat 02:29:43.319 --> 02:29:47.010 and quantify that density as I mentioned, what we're 02:29:47.010 --> 02:29:47.659 proposing is a 02:29:47.659 --> 02:29:53.659 is 56 units on 13 acres which is a 4.3 density. 02:29:53.659 --> 02:29:58.250 I've shown you that the Alder states was 4.49 when it 02:29:58.250 --> 02:30:03.629 developed East Oaks edition was 34 lots on 7.745 acres 02:30:03.629 --> 02:30:08.659 which is 4.39. So we're actually just slightly under that. 02:30:08.659 --> 02:30:12.530 We're, we're happy to do an overlay or if y'all are 02:30:12.530 --> 02:30:17.260 inclined to recommend approval with an overlay condition of 02:30:17.260 --> 02:30:22.079 single family use only with a density of no greater than 4. 02:30:22.079 --> 02:30:26.440 3 or somewhere in that that area where we're perfectly 02:30:26.440 --> 02:30:28.659 acceptable with that. 02:30:28.659 --> 02:30:31.489 And there was another concern about decreased property 02:30:31.489 --> 02:30:34.440 values. One of the things we did was get on Denton Central 02:30:34.440 --> 02:30:37.479 Appraisal District and kind of look at some of the property 02:30:37.479 --> 02:30:40.659 values in the area. And what we can tell you is that based 02:30:40.659 --> 02:30:44.659 off of current market conditions land prices development 02:30:44.659 --> 02:30:48.370 calls, all that's going to drive a proposed starting home 02:30:48.370 --> 02:30:52.010 price point above the current home valuations that are in 02:30:52.010 --> 02:30:55.479 the area. So, if anything, this develop would act 02:30:55.479 --> 02:30:59.069 development would actually help increase the property 02:30:59.069 --> 02:31:01.659 values because when development occurs, newer 02:31:01.659 --> 02:31:06.549 development occurs in the area with higher valuations that 02:31:06.549 --> 02:31:11.659 helps bring up the valuations of the adjacent properties. 02:31:11.659 --> 02:31:14.750 So project benefits for the proposed density is in line 02:31:14.750 --> 02:31:16.659 with the adjacent developments. 02:31:16.659 --> 02:31:34.670 It meets a market need for size and style of housing. We 02:31:34.670 --> 02:31:34.899 feel it's consistent with the Denton plan and that we're, 02:31:34.899 --> 02:31:35.110 we're right at or just over the four units per acre, and it 02:31:35.110 --> 02:31:35.350 's consistent with the, with the adjacent subdivisions and 02:31:35.350 --> 02:31:37.360 consistent with the approved zoning of the track to the 02:31:37.360 --> 02:31:39.659 north of us that was done recently. 02:31:39.659 --> 02:31:42.989 It provides open space and trees we had a nice open space 02:31:42.989 --> 02:31:46.479 park area, kind of in our north eastern corner that we were 02:31:46.479 --> 02:31:49.920 adding so that we could kind of create a nice little pocket 02:31:49.920 --> 02:31:51.659 park amenity in there. 02:31:51.659 --> 02:31:56.129 And, you know, it was with the development will, you know, 02:31:56.129 --> 02:31:59.459 meet that all the drainage ordinances the codes 02:31:59.459 --> 02:32:03.620 requirements for that and provide a benefit as far as the, 02:32:03.620 --> 02:32:07.760 the utility and drainage of the area. And really that's, 02:32:07.760 --> 02:32:10.290 that's all my presentation I'll be happy to answer any 02:32:10.290 --> 02:32:11.659 questions you may have got some questions 02:32:11.659 --> 02:32:23.659 Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Yes, sir. A 02:32:23.659 --> 02:32:23.659 couple of questions for you. So 4.3 is the number of units 02:32:23.659 --> 02:32:23.659 per acre that you have right now with 56. 02:32:23.659 --> 02:32:27.530 So, you know, we have, we have the ability to to reduce 02:32:27.530 --> 02:32:31.540 down from proposed or applied for zone. We can't do it for 02:32:31.540 --> 02:32:36.149 yours. If you're 4.3, we can't we can't we suggest appear 02:32:36.149 --> 02:32:40.090 as a commission we can't suggest say we shouldn't do in our 02:32:40.090 --> 02:32:43.500 six we should do in our four instead, because you know, you 02:32:43.500 --> 02:32:44.659 don't confine to in our four. 02:32:44.659 --> 02:32:48.360 Because you have 4.3. Correct. Is there any way for you 02:32:48.360 --> 02:32:51.739 during this conceptual stage to be able to reconfigure lots 02:32:51.739 --> 02:32:54.870 to be able to fit to in our four zoning if we were to vote 02:32:54.870 --> 02:32:55.659 that way. 02:32:55.659 --> 02:33:04.049 I think we could I mean if basically we're saying is if we 02:33:04.049 --> 02:33:11.930 go to in our four with a maximum of four, we would end up 02:33:11.930 --> 02:33:18.729 having to take away for lots from the plan. That would, 02:33:18.729 --> 02:33:19.059 what that would come down to. So it's my understanding and 02:33:19.059 --> 02:33:19.309 I'm and correct me if I'm wrong, that you can make a 02:33:19.309 --> 02:33:21.200 recommendation for in our six not to exceed 56 units on the 02:33:21.200 --> 02:33:21.659 property. 02:33:21.659 --> 02:33:24.399 You can write, you can, but there's been discussion and 02:33:24.399 --> 02:33:27.299 work session before that, as we throw out overlays left and 02:33:27.299 --> 02:33:30.049 right the problem with overlays is that if something were 02:33:30.049 --> 02:33:32.659 to happen to this project and was to fall through. 02:33:32.659 --> 02:33:37.459 There's no there's no clear designation as of right now, 02:33:37.459 --> 02:33:42.629 whenever another developers looking for land that we've rez 02:33:42.629 --> 02:33:47.360 oned with an overlay there's no clear designation on that 02:33:47.360 --> 02:33:52.059 zoning of if an overlay exists unless they do digging and 02:33:52.059 --> 02:33:59.659 so there could be a scenario where someone could purchase a 02:33:59.659 --> 02:33:59.959 piece of land without knowing there's an overlay on it, 02:33:59.959 --> 02:34:00.270 which is probably their fault for not doing due diligence 02:34:00.270 --> 02:34:00.559 but right we want to avoid having hundreds of overlay 02:34:00.559 --> 02:34:00.879 districts on every single new zoning property we do so just 02:34:00.879 --> 02:34:01.139 to just a piece brought up there and I would say I would 02:34:01.139 --> 02:34:01.659 want to consult my client. 02:34:01.659 --> 02:34:05.819 But without answering. Yeah, because we're talking about, 02:34:05.819 --> 02:34:08.989 you know, I think our preference would be if you are open 02:34:08.989 --> 02:34:12.079 to the overlay with the maximum not to exceed, but if if 02:34:12.079 --> 02:34:15.049 that's something you would like me to consult with my 02:34:15.049 --> 02:34:18.659 client on I can do that and you can't shortlist we asked a 02:34:18.659 --> 02:34:20.409 couple of questions so there's be public hearing later so 02:34:20.409 --> 02:34:24.659 you can write very well do that come back afterwards. 02:34:24.659 --> 02:34:28.430 The was the projected home value and the conceptual. I mean 02:34:28.430 --> 02:34:32.069 just just looking at the development costs for this type of 02:34:32.069 --> 02:34:35.719 development size lot I think we're projecting a starting 02:34:35.719 --> 02:34:38.659 price in the 240 to 280 range. 02:34:38.659 --> 02:34:42.209 I mean, we're still talking because we don't until we have 02:34:42.209 --> 02:34:45.690 zoning to we kind of go through and do the preliminary plat 02:34:45.690 --> 02:34:48.940 and kind of get more of the details defined it's hard to 02:34:48.940 --> 02:34:52.420 dial in with a particular builder, but I would say that we 02:34:52.420 --> 02:34:56.659 're looking at a starting price around the 240 and up to 280 02:34:56.659 --> 02:34:58.659 and it could go up from there 02:34:58.659 --> 02:35:02.360 and we're in the zoning processes not so right that it is 02:35:02.360 --> 02:35:06.069 right sexual just wanted to know because he said it'd be 02:35:06.069 --> 02:35:08.909 more than what's surrounding it. What's more right building 02:35:08.909 --> 02:35:09.719 $500,000 houses there I don't think so right now and then 02:35:09.719 --> 02:35:12.659 when I looked at the home values there looked like the home 02:35:12.659 --> 02:35:16.659 values were in the lower 200,000 range. 02:35:16.659 --> 02:35:20.579 So that just kind of gives you an idea is probably we're 02:35:20.579 --> 02:35:25.229 probably talking 10 to 20% more is kind of where I would 02:35:25.229 --> 02:35:29.430 estimate that at this point now question for you as well as 02:35:29.430 --> 02:35:33.399 with the the lot north of you that a butts right there in 02:35:33.399 --> 02:35:38.899 that corner behind the church that we that was voted in our 02:35:38.899 --> 02:35:39.659 six. 02:35:39.659 --> 02:35:42.870 So was there any discussion with that project and 02:35:42.870 --> 02:35:46.209 collaborating in this time at all was at one point the app 02:35:46.209 --> 02:35:49.649 you know my client looked to see if they had any interest 02:35:49.649 --> 02:35:51.659 in selling that property. 02:35:51.659 --> 02:35:56.149 I did at one time do a layout on that property and that 02:35:56.149 --> 02:35:58.659 included that property. 02:35:58.659 --> 02:36:03.010 There wasn't a deal to be had, I guess that developer had 02:36:03.010 --> 02:36:07.600 planned to move forward with his development as a single 02:36:07.600 --> 02:36:08.659 project. 02:36:08.659 --> 02:36:13.129 You know we did look at hey if this property was able to be 02:36:13.129 --> 02:36:17.260 tied to this tract as well how could we do a layout that 02:36:17.260 --> 02:36:21.750 would maximize the topography and the site conditions 02:36:21.750 --> 02:36:23.659 provide open space. 02:36:23.659 --> 02:36:32.049 And, but from that point, since there was no willingness to 02:36:32.049 --> 02:36:38.659 sell it really became two separate projects. 02:36:38.659 --> 02:36:41.180 Commissioner Zell, thank you, Mr. Fletcher for your 02:36:41.180 --> 02:36:43.780 presentation is actually really helpful to answer a lot of 02:36:43.780 --> 02:36:44.659 my questions. 02:36:44.659 --> 02:36:47.850 The only one I have left over from the presentation is, it 02:36:47.850 --> 02:36:51.110 's my understanding that the address states lots are 50 to 02:36:51.110 --> 02:36:54.530 60 feet wide on the frontage, how would your lots compared 02:36:54.530 --> 02:36:57.750 to so I know like, so our lots are minimum lot frontage 02:36:57.750 --> 02:36:59.659 would be 50 foot in width. 02:36:59.659 --> 02:37:03.340 So they're they're comparable I mean when I pulled the Aud 02:37:03.340 --> 02:37:07.370 ra plaid, there were, I think their lots were up to 60 foot 02:37:07.370 --> 02:37:11.059 wide. It looked like the depth on most of their lots were 02:37:11.059 --> 02:37:14.659 in the 116 foot 117 foot depth range. 02:37:14.659 --> 02:37:18.110 So the majority of our lots especially on the western 02:37:18.110 --> 02:37:22.379 portion of the track would be 135 and that range because of 02:37:22.379 --> 02:37:26.250 the depth of the track because the residential street going 02:37:26.250 --> 02:37:29.659 through there is in a 50 foot right of way. 02:37:29.659 --> 02:37:33.059 It's a loaded street so you take the overall depth and take 02:37:33.059 --> 02:37:36.829 the 50 foot out and essentially we're splitting it between 02:37:36.829 --> 02:37:40.129 the two. One of the things we did on our, on our concept 02:37:40.129 --> 02:37:43.370 plan is we try to put a curvilinear element to the street 02:37:43.370 --> 02:37:45.799 so we didn't have a straight thoroughfare so it kind of 02:37:45.799 --> 02:37:49.100 breaks up that that drive as you come into the, into the 02:37:49.100 --> 02:37:50.659 subdivision but. 02:37:50.659 --> 02:37:54.909 The lots would be a little bit narrower but they, the 02:37:54.909 --> 02:37:59.659 majority of them would be on average quite a bit deeper. 02:37:59.659 --> 02:38:01.659 Thank you. 02:38:01.659 --> 02:38:04.180 Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr pleasure for your 02:38:04.180 --> 02:38:06.719 presentation I like the idea that you're going to leave 02:38:06.719 --> 02:38:09.379 that one little stretch of land up there on the northeast 02:38:09.379 --> 02:38:12.659 sexers wooded area maybe future Clark. 02:38:12.659 --> 02:38:14.659 Right. 02:38:14.659 --> 02:38:18.770 In your discussions with the community, the community 02:38:18.770 --> 02:38:21.659 meeting had to go discuss setbacks. 02:38:21.659 --> 02:38:25.709 I'm not sure I like said I wasn't able to attend that the 02:38:25.709 --> 02:38:29.659 engineer I've got the engineer here with me that was. 02:38:29.659 --> 02:38:32.659 Could we ask him. Yeah, absolutely. 02:38:32.659 --> 02:38:37.659 Either Scott or Brad can come up. 02:38:37.659 --> 02:38:43.399 And if we could, could you tell us how many people attended 02:38:43.399 --> 02:38:44.659 the meeting. 02:38:44.659 --> 02:38:47.659 Scott Pemburn, Kimmy horn. 02:38:47.659 --> 02:38:51.659 5750 Genesis court Frisco, Texas. 02:38:51.659 --> 02:38:58.659 So your last name again, Pemburn pain burn pain burn. 02:38:58.659 --> 02:39:01.659 Okay, thank you. 02:39:01.659 --> 02:39:06.659 Setbacks were discussed. 02:39:06.659 --> 02:39:12.399 The setbacks were proposing or in in line with the zoning, 02:39:12.399 --> 02:39:18.719 of course, we, we have, I think currently five foot set 02:39:18.719 --> 02:39:20.659 backs on the side yards. 02:39:20.659 --> 02:39:23.659 And I think, I think 10 foot setbacks in the front. 02:39:23.659 --> 02:39:39.340 10 foot. The zoning ordinance and this is for all the 02:39:39.340 --> 02:39:40.760 different zoning districts. So in our two has a 10 foot 02:39:40.760 --> 02:39:40.969 side yard setback in our three, I believe has a six foot 02:39:40.969 --> 02:39:41.180 side yard setback in our four is a five foot side yard set 02:39:41.180 --> 02:39:41.659 back in our six is a four foot side yard setback. 02:39:41.659 --> 02:39:44.870 When we do residential development, we never utilize the 02:39:44.870 --> 02:39:47.879 four foot side yard setback when you have less than eight 02:39:47.879 --> 02:39:51.049 feet or less than 10 feet between buildings, you have 02:39:51.049 --> 02:39:54.299 certain fire code requirements that you then have to follow 02:39:54.299 --> 02:39:57.659 which makes building construction more expensive. 02:39:57.659 --> 02:40:01.260 With the, with the layout when we talk about a 50 foot lot 02:40:01.260 --> 02:40:04.579 we have a 40 foot pad the builders really look for the 02:40:04.579 --> 02:40:08.120 building pad, and they develop we we developed a lot around 02:40:08.120 --> 02:40:11.659 the building pad so they've got 40 foot product. 02:40:11.659 --> 02:40:15.530 We do a 50 foot lot five foot side yards 10 foot in between 02:40:15.530 --> 02:40:18.989 buildings, the city standard setbacks if you look the city 02:40:18.989 --> 02:40:22.479 has a minimum setback of 10 feet along the front yard a 02:40:22.479 --> 02:40:25.659 minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet as well. 02:40:25.659 --> 02:40:29.360 These lots the minimum depth of these lots are building 02:40:29.360 --> 02:40:34.049 pads are going to be 40 by 75 with a minimum depth of 120 02:40:34.049 --> 02:40:37.659 on on some of the lots that are further to the east. 02:40:37.659 --> 02:40:41.729 You've got a 20 foot front yard setback 75 foot pad that 02:40:41.729 --> 02:40:46.049 leaves a 25 foot rear yard. So the city does allow for 10 02:40:46.049 --> 02:40:49.819 foot front yard setback but they require 20 feet for the 02:40:49.819 --> 02:40:53.469 setback to the garage in order to account for those two off 02:40:53.469 --> 02:40:55.659 street parking requirements. 02:40:55.659 --> 02:40:58.020 Thank you that's what I was looking for you mentioned you 02:40:58.020 --> 02:41:00.879 could get to two cars and driveway but I see how that's one 02:41:00.879 --> 02:41:02.659 of the things like most. 02:41:02.659 --> 02:41:05.180 That's one of the things that you really have to explain if 02:41:05.180 --> 02:41:07.909 you're asking what by code what is the code minimum. Well 02:41:07.909 --> 02:41:11.069 the code minimum front yard setback is 10 feet that's in 02:41:11.069 --> 02:41:14.659 the development code, but it also has the requirement of 20 02:41:14.659 --> 02:41:17.659 feet for from the property to the garage 02:41:17.659 --> 02:41:20.870 where you get and we do all when we go through into our 02:41:20.870 --> 02:41:24.389 grading plans and everything we set the whole building 20 02:41:24.389 --> 02:41:27.870 foot back because it just when you start talking about 02:41:27.870 --> 02:41:30.770 grading and drive slopes and all that it just it kind of 02:41:30.770 --> 02:41:33.370 makes it more of a challenge when you get that close to the 02:41:33.370 --> 02:41:33.659 street. 02:41:33.659 --> 02:41:39.389 Okay, one more question for you but Scott how many people 02:41:39.389 --> 02:41:42.659 attended the community meeting. 02:41:42.659 --> 02:41:48.149 I'm in the neighborhood of 10 to 15. 1015. Okay, thank you. 02:41:48.149 --> 02:41:51.049 One last question for you, Mr. Fletcher. Yes, sir. In your 02:41:51.049 --> 02:41:54.549 presentation you talked about how you, the way your layout 02:41:54.549 --> 02:41:58.149 was that you would minimize tree removal but when I look, 02:41:58.149 --> 02:42:00.659 looking at the picture that new street that you're 02:42:00.659 --> 02:42:03.889 going to connect to Audra runs right through a big patch of 02:42:03.889 --> 02:42:07.120 trees and then you have houses on both sides. So, right 02:42:07.120 --> 02:42:10.190 when we put this together I don't know if you can bring it 02:42:10.190 --> 02:42:13.750 back up but when we put this together and did the layout we 02:42:13.750 --> 02:42:17.659 realized that there's, once we do our tree survey, that 02:42:17.659 --> 02:42:21.180 there's probably some opportunity to adjust the layout in 02:42:21.180 --> 02:42:24.930 that area for additional tree preservation. We even talked 02:42:24.930 --> 02:42:28.479 about maybe looking at doing a boulevard in there where the 02:42:28.479 --> 02:42:31.870 street wraps around it if we have enough depth, so that we 02:42:31.870 --> 02:42:33.659 can kind of create some nice 02:42:33.659 --> 02:42:47.479 center median with three or four of the really nice large 02:42:47.479 --> 02:42:51.819 trees in that. And that would be something once we have a 02:42:51.819 --> 02:42:52.049 tree survey we would try because it adds value. I mean we 02:42:52.049 --> 02:42:52.270 want to preserve the trees. Anything we can do to enhance 02:42:52.270 --> 02:42:53.659 the look and feel of the neighborhood is going to make it 02:42:53.659 --> 02:42:54.659 more desirable. 02:42:54.659 --> 02:43:05.129 Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions for the 02:43:05.129 --> 02:43:05.659 applicant? Thank you. 02:43:05.659 --> 02:43:16.659 Next card I have is Brad Shelton. 02:43:16.659 --> 02:43:22.760 Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Brad Shelton, 2925 Punch Club 02:43:22.760 --> 02:43:25.950 Road here in Denton. I think Thomas has done very well at 02:43:25.950 --> 02:43:28.260 doing the presentation and answering questions but I'm also 02:43:28.260 --> 02:43:30.370 here to answer any further questions that you may have of 02:43:30.370 --> 02:43:32.659 me on behalf of the applicant. 02:43:32.659 --> 02:43:33.659 Commissioner Matt. 02:43:33.659 --> 02:43:36.120 Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I meant to ask, he said he had 02:43:36.120 --> 02:43:39.899 roughly 15 to 20 people there. Yes, sir. We got six letters 02:43:39.899 --> 02:43:43.870 of opposition to this. What was the headcount on that at 02:43:43.870 --> 02:43:45.659 the meeting? Did you seem to have a 50/50? 02:43:45.659 --> 02:43:52.530 It was mixed. The biggest concerns, again, that night were 02:43:52.530 --> 02:43:56.639 from the few was, of course, just not having anything 02:43:56.639 --> 02:44:00.979 nearby their existing homes, which is usual. But the 02:44:00.979 --> 02:44:03.659 biggest thing was was fire and the front yard setbacks. 02:44:03.659 --> 02:44:07.659 They seem to be the two looming issues on there. 02:44:07.659 --> 02:44:10.420 And again, we have to, by right, meet the Denton 02:44:10.420 --> 02:44:13.440 Development Code. And so, through the planning and 02:44:13.440 --> 02:44:16.719 engineering design phase, that will be taken care of and be 02:44:16.719 --> 02:44:20.569 addressed. And in those meetings as well, the fire marshal 02:44:20.569 --> 02:44:24.399 is there, planning staff, engineering staff are all within 02:44:24.399 --> 02:44:28.270 those meetings. So we have to get input and design and go 02:44:28.270 --> 02:44:30.659 from that point. Yes, sir. 02:44:30.659 --> 02:44:33.870 Okay, thank you. Also, I believe the houses that are 02:44:33.870 --> 02:44:36.389 currently on the way out of more that you're going to 02:44:36.389 --> 02:44:38.909 connect with there. Yes, sir. And the ones you have but two 02:44:38.909 --> 02:44:41.319 on the south side. Those are brick homes. So are y'all 02:44:41.319 --> 02:44:43.659 going to be building brick homes too? Is it going to be? 02:44:43.659 --> 02:44:47.120 We'll be some masonry to it. Yes, sir. And now how much 02:44:47.120 --> 02:44:50.489 that again, we're very in the very preliminary stage of 02:44:50.489 --> 02:44:54.479 this. So we, you know, we've identified a few builders, but 02:44:54.479 --> 02:44:57.860 nobody that we can't really physically talk to them to once 02:44:57.860 --> 02:45:01.659 we get through to the next further steps to be able to have 02:45:01.659 --> 02:45:02.899 something in hand from engineering and stuff. But yes, you 02:45:02.899 --> 02:45:04.659 know, they'll have masonry on them. Yes, sir. 02:45:04.659 --> 02:45:11.909 They're not. Well, I'm concerned if we're going to consider 02:45:11.909 --> 02:45:16.110 an overlay. Yes, sir. We may not. But blending in is 02:45:16.110 --> 02:45:19.290 important, especially coming in on the flat or if you're 02:45:19.290 --> 02:45:22.450 not blending in with those houses there, it's going to be 02:45:22.450 --> 02:45:25.659 quite dramatic. Yes, sir. So just something to consider. 02:45:25.659 --> 02:45:26.659 Yes, sir. 02:45:26.659 --> 02:45:37.719 Thank you. I have a question. If we do consider an overlay, 02:45:37.719 --> 02:45:41.370 the numbers that we got were a total of 56 lots and then to 02:45:41.370 --> 02:45:44.840 restrict it to single family only those family detached 02:45:44.840 --> 02:45:46.659 single family detached. 02:45:46.659 --> 02:45:49.649 Correct. That's a difference in the wording. So I'm sure it 02:45:49.649 --> 02:45:52.760 's detached. Okay. Those two conditions would be okay. It 02:45:52.760 --> 02:45:55.540 wouldn't interfere with your project the way you currently 02:45:55.540 --> 02:45:59.659 have it designed. Correct. Okay. 02:45:59.659 --> 02:46:04.659 Any other questions for the applicant. 02:46:04.659 --> 02:46:06.659 Thank you. Thank you, sir. 02:46:06.659 --> 02:46:12.159 This is a public hearing. Anyone who weeks wishes to speak 02:46:12.159 --> 02:46:16.809 on this item please come forward at this time. If you'll 02:46:16.809 --> 02:46:17.559 give us your name and your address, and if you haven't 02:46:17.559 --> 02:46:18.309 already filled out a card if you'll fill one out for us 02:46:18.309 --> 02:46:22.659 before you leave this evening. 02:46:22.659 --> 02:46:26.659 Sir. 02:46:26.659 --> 02:46:31.409 Good evening. My name is Jerry Steger and I live at 2408 02:46:31.409 --> 02:46:35.739 whispering Oaks, which is one of the streets, just south of 02:46:35.739 --> 02:46:38.659 what this proposed project will be. 02:46:38.659 --> 02:46:43.510 I appeared before you in December, speaking in opposition 02:46:43.510 --> 02:46:48.450 of the Yale project. My reasoning for objecting to that was 02:46:48.450 --> 02:46:53.209 that your planning and zoning committee recommended an NR 02:46:53.209 --> 02:46:57.899 for for that. But for whatever reasons, or you were sold to 02:46:57.899 --> 02:46:59.659 go NR six and that's what you did. 02:46:59.659 --> 02:47:05.760 There's really three pieces of property, looking at this. 02:47:05.760 --> 02:47:09.709 There's the Yale project. There's this project and then 02:47:09.709 --> 02:47:11.639 there's the Johnson properties that are to the east, and 02:47:11.639 --> 02:47:13.659 they follow Oak Valley, all the way north to Audra. 02:47:13.659 --> 02:47:18.049 So there's really three pieces to this package. I don't 02:47:18.049 --> 02:47:22.329 know that you're looking at all three but we as residents 02:47:22.329 --> 02:47:27.079 are. We would we currently see Latimore being extended into 02:47:27.079 --> 02:47:30.209 this proposed project area. And I'm thrilled that you're 02:47:30.209 --> 02:47:34.659 planning and zoning recommended an NR for. 02:47:34.659 --> 02:47:37.870 I would hate for the council to up serve that and change 02:47:37.870 --> 02:47:41.090 that to an NR six. I attended the neighborhood meeting, a 02:47:41.090 --> 02:47:44.250 week or so ago, and I was in opposition of that and I spoke 02:47:44.250 --> 02:47:47.430 about that at the meeting and these were the things I only 02:47:47.430 --> 02:47:51.319 can talk about the things that were presented there, but 02:47:51.319 --> 02:47:52.659 bring me major concern. 02:47:52.659 --> 02:47:56.780 Number one is this is a very high, high residential area 02:47:56.780 --> 02:48:01.069 there. They're putting a lot of houses on a small piece of 02:48:01.069 --> 02:48:05.370 property. What this looks like is Mac place Lee drive and 02:48:05.370 --> 02:48:08.620 Mac drive. That's what this looks like at the meeting they 02:48:08.620 --> 02:48:11.370 told us that these were 10 foot setbacks and I asked if 02:48:11.370 --> 02:48:13.659 they were 10 foot setbacks for the driveway. 02:48:13.659 --> 02:48:18.700 And they said yes. Now I drive an F 150 crew cab. It's 19 02:48:18.700 --> 02:48:22.889 feet long, my truck would not fit in that driveway. But yet 02:48:22.889 --> 02:48:25.659 the engineer tonight said that those are 20 foot setbacks. 02:48:25.659 --> 02:48:29.340 So my truck would fit in that the concern that was echoed 02:48:29.340 --> 02:48:34.219 that night was that how many vehicles does each family have 02:48:34.219 --> 02:48:34.659 . 02:48:34.659 --> 02:48:38.370 And if those are 10 foot driveways, only my Subaru will fit 02:48:38.370 --> 02:48:41.809 in the driveway and maybe a smart car. But there's a lot of 02:48:41.809 --> 02:48:45.020 people that drive our concern was that there'd be a huge 02:48:45.020 --> 02:48:47.659 amount of vehicles parked on the street. 02:48:47.659 --> 02:48:51.700 Not only that, but they told us that the streets are 27 02:48:51.700 --> 02:48:52.659 feet wide. 02:48:52.659 --> 02:48:56.379 And then they're going to have traffic calming devices in 02:48:56.379 --> 02:49:00.219 there with a 50 foot lot and two side driveway two drive 02:49:00.219 --> 02:49:03.590 ways. That's not a lot of room to park any off street 02:49:03.590 --> 02:49:04.659 parking. 02:49:04.659 --> 02:49:08.530 I too am concerned with emergency vehicles coming down that 02:49:08.530 --> 02:49:11.899 and I would just hate to have anything happen that the 02:49:11.899 --> 02:49:15.659 trucks to trucks park opposite each other on the road. 02:49:15.659 --> 02:49:19.129 I don't believe would let an emergency vehicle through the 02:49:19.129 --> 02:49:21.659 garbage trucks. 02:49:21.659 --> 02:49:25.290 I would have trouble getting by two cars parked on our side 02:49:25.290 --> 02:49:27.659 of the street on whispering Oaks. 02:49:27.659 --> 02:49:30.659 Whispering Oaks is 29 and a half feet wide. 02:49:30.659 --> 02:49:35.659 That's that's that's wide. 02:49:35.659 --> 02:49:41.200 The other concern that we had was there's no sidewalks in 02:49:41.200 --> 02:49:42.659 this project. 02:49:42.659 --> 02:49:47.610 And that that the setback was just was just a major concern 02:49:47.610 --> 02:49:52.870 , not only for numbers of vehicles, but also for safety 02:49:52.870 --> 02:49:53.659 reasons. 02:49:53.659 --> 02:49:57.209 So I'm I'm encouraged that the planning and zoning 02:49:57.209 --> 02:50:01.020 committee recommended an NR for I would encourage the 02:50:01.020 --> 02:50:05.840 council to accept that because we'll be back here again in 02:50:05.840 --> 02:50:09.290 the not too distant future when Johnson properties wants to 02:50:09.290 --> 02:50:11.659 come and approach the council. 02:50:11.659 --> 02:50:13.879 So they already have a precedent of a six on the Yale 02:50:13.879 --> 02:50:14.659 properties. 02:50:14.659 --> 02:50:16.659 And then this would be a four. 02:50:16.659 --> 02:50:18.659 I mean, I don't know if it's even possible. 02:50:18.659 --> 02:50:20.659 Maybe the city attorney can help with that. 02:50:20.659 --> 02:50:24.350 Is it possible for you to rescind your zoning in our six 02:50:24.350 --> 02:50:27.659 for the Yale properties and go back to a four? 02:50:27.659 --> 02:50:30.870 I'm afraid the precedent is being set here and it's going 02:50:30.870 --> 02:50:32.659 to impact our neighborhood. 02:50:32.659 --> 02:50:42.879 Oak Valley will run right straight up into Audra. And so it 02:50:42.879 --> 02:50:44.250 directly impacts our traffic flow and the impact on our 02:50:44.250 --> 02:50:44.659 neighborhood. 02:50:44.659 --> 02:50:48.659 I'll pose your question to the city attorney. 02:50:48.659 --> 02:50:52.940 But just just ensure just in brief, there is not a 02:50:52.940 --> 02:50:57.860 mechanism to to rescind a zoning once approved by by city 02:50:57.860 --> 02:50:59.659 by city council. 02:50:59.659 --> 02:51:04.659 I have some other questions. Commissioner Rosal. 02:51:04.659 --> 02:51:06.659 Thank you, Charles. Trying to do some quick math. 02:51:06.659 --> 02:51:10.659 We called me Victor didn't take long enough. 02:51:10.659 --> 02:51:12.659 We can skip you and come back. 02:51:12.659 --> 02:51:13.659 No, we'll go. 02:51:13.659 --> 02:51:14.659 Okay. 02:51:14.659 --> 02:51:16.229 Mr. Stegarth, appreciate you being here and voicing your 02:51:16.229 --> 02:51:16.659 concerns. 02:51:16.659 --> 02:51:22.059 I unfortunately wasn't at the Yale Commission meeting to 02:51:22.059 --> 02:51:25.659 talk to you if you spoke then or not. 02:51:25.659 --> 02:51:30.430 If it went to an inner four, as we looked at that be 52 02:51:30.430 --> 02:51:33.659 lots, they're proposing 56 lots. 02:51:33.659 --> 02:51:37.709 Are you if I understand you correctly, you're OK with the 02:51:37.709 --> 02:51:40.659 approval of 52 lots, but not the 56 lots. 02:51:40.659 --> 02:51:43.659 Do I understand that correctly? 02:51:43.659 --> 02:51:48.579 Help me understand the impact of an additional four lots in 02:51:48.579 --> 02:51:49.659 the area. 02:51:49.659 --> 02:51:50.659 That would be a significant change. 02:51:50.659 --> 02:51:54.840 I'm trying to understand because it's a small percentage of 02:51:54.840 --> 02:51:55.659 56. 02:51:55.659 --> 02:51:56.659 We're looking at less than 10 percent. 02:51:56.659 --> 02:51:59.989 Actually, I'm not qualified to argue that I would just 02:51:59.989 --> 02:52:05.049 refer back to the planning and zoning committee lady that 02:52:05.049 --> 02:52:09.659 was here last month and said they recommend a four. 02:52:09.659 --> 02:52:13.149 So I was in favor of that because it's just consistent with 02:52:13.149 --> 02:52:16.909 the area north of Audra and then the Yale and then this 02:52:16.909 --> 02:52:19.659 proposed and then East Oaks. 02:52:19.659 --> 02:52:21.659 And then the area south of us. 02:52:21.659 --> 02:52:26.049 It's just a harmonious geographic section and it's not done 02:52:26.049 --> 02:52:26.659 yet. 02:52:26.659 --> 02:52:30.659 As I said, the Johnson properties will come up after this. 02:52:30.659 --> 02:52:32.659 Thank you. 02:52:32.659 --> 02:52:33.659 Commissioner Beck. 02:52:33.659 --> 02:52:34.659 Thank you, Chair. 02:52:34.659 --> 02:52:35.659 Thank you, Mr. Stegarth, for your presentation. 02:52:35.659 --> 02:52:38.909 I appreciate you bringing up the Johnson properties, which 02:52:38.909 --> 02:52:40.659 is to the east of everything. 02:52:40.659 --> 02:52:41.659 That's correct. 02:52:41.659 --> 02:52:42.659 And I was I was looking at that too. 02:52:42.659 --> 02:52:43.659 And you're right. 02:52:43.659 --> 02:52:44.659 There's going to be more development in there. 02:52:44.659 --> 02:52:47.659 And so sitting the president's important. 02:52:47.659 --> 02:52:49.659 Just one quick. 02:52:49.659 --> 02:52:51.989 You mentioned that you didn't think there was any sidewalks 02:52:51.989 --> 02:52:54.430 in this development, but believe Mr. Fletcher said there 02:52:54.430 --> 02:52:54.659 was. 02:52:54.659 --> 02:52:55.659 So is that right, Mr. Fletcher? 02:52:55.659 --> 02:52:56.659 There will be. 02:52:56.659 --> 02:52:57.659 OK. 02:52:57.659 --> 02:52:58.659 OK. 02:52:58.659 --> 02:52:59.659 OK. 02:52:59.659 --> 02:53:02.680 So I got that from the neighborhood meeting when I asked 02:53:02.680 --> 02:53:03.659 the question. 02:53:03.659 --> 02:53:04.659 OK. 02:53:04.659 --> 02:53:05.659 All right. 02:53:05.659 --> 02:53:07.659 But that's good. 02:53:07.659 --> 02:53:08.659 OK. 02:53:08.659 --> 02:53:09.659 So you're OK. 02:53:09.659 --> 02:53:10.659 Yeah. 02:53:10.659 --> 02:53:11.659 OK. 02:53:11.659 --> 02:53:12.659 Thank you, sir. 02:53:12.659 --> 02:53:13.659 Commissioner Ellis. 02:53:13.659 --> 02:53:14.659 Thank you, Chair. 02:53:14.659 --> 02:53:15.659 Hi there. 02:53:15.659 --> 02:53:17.659 So with with an N.R. 02:53:17.659 --> 02:53:18.659 four or the N.R. 02:53:18.659 --> 02:53:22.559 six overlay is that the applicant discussed with us is 02:53:22.559 --> 02:53:25.659 really just a couple of lots different. 02:53:25.659 --> 02:53:30.440 So is your concern more with the setback versus two extra 02:53:30.440 --> 02:53:32.659 lots being developed? 02:53:32.659 --> 02:53:34.659 Can you help us understand that? 02:53:34.659 --> 02:53:37.420 And maybe that's where Commissioner Rosell was wanting 02:53:37.420 --> 02:53:38.659 clarification as well. 02:53:38.659 --> 02:53:39.659 Why an N.R. 02:53:39.659 --> 02:53:42.139 four seems I know the neighborhood of Latimore and I know 02:53:42.139 --> 02:53:44.659 the neighborhood of Whispering Oaks. 02:53:44.659 --> 02:53:49.959 And those neighborhoods do not have the concentration of 02:53:49.959 --> 02:53:53.659 short narrow lots and stacking them side 02:53:53.659 --> 02:53:56.870 by side ten foot difference between the between the 02:53:56.870 --> 02:53:57.659 properties. 02:53:57.659 --> 02:53:59.659 It doesn't look like our neighborhood. 02:53:59.659 --> 02:54:01.659 It doesn't look like the neighborhood north of us. 02:54:01.659 --> 02:54:04.100 It doesn't look like our neighborhood doesn't look like 02:54:04.100 --> 02:54:05.659 their neighborhood south of us. 02:54:05.659 --> 02:54:09.760 So you see that there's a whole bunch of dominoes being 02:54:09.760 --> 02:54:11.659 placed in these lots. 02:54:11.659 --> 02:54:14.989 And it doesn't it doesn't look and I think that's what's 02:54:14.989 --> 02:54:21.870 important to the planning and zoning and just the visual 02:54:21.870 --> 02:54:23.659 concept of our neighborhoods. 02:54:23.659 --> 02:54:27.659 And it it just looked like a bunch of dominoes. 02:54:27.659 --> 02:54:29.659 It looked like they were all stacked in a row. 02:54:29.659 --> 02:54:32.870 A number of our neighbors will have one or two backdoor 02:54:32.870 --> 02:54:33.659 neighbors. 02:54:33.659 --> 02:54:37.870 So it's just it's just not consistent with the property 02:54:37.870 --> 02:54:38.659 lines. 02:54:38.659 --> 02:54:48.659 The property lines are 70 by 120. 02:54:48.659 --> 02:54:49.659 Thank you for your comments. 02:54:49.659 --> 02:54:50.659 I don't see any other questions. 02:54:50.659 --> 02:54:53.659 Thank you very much. 02:54:53.659 --> 02:54:54.659 This is a public hearing. 02:54:54.659 --> 02:55:11.500 Anyone who would like to speak please come forward this 02:55:11.500 --> 02:55:12.659 time. 02:55:12.659 --> 02:55:13.659 Yes. Good evening commissioners. 02:55:13.659 --> 02:55:17.659 My name is David Zoltner and I live at twenty five one 02:55:17.659 --> 02:55:21.659 temporary which is in the East Oaks subdivision which is 02:55:21.659 --> 02:55:23.659 just south of this development. 02:55:23.659 --> 02:55:28.120 Well first of all I find myself very much in agreement with 02:55:28.120 --> 02:55:32.680 the staff analysis and all the conclusions that led to this 02:55:32.680 --> 02:55:33.659 denial. 02:55:33.659 --> 02:55:37.620 Now I've heard a lot of stuff tonight that's kind of 02:55:37.620 --> 02:55:40.659 changing this to a certain degree. 02:55:40.659 --> 02:55:46.659 Now I've heard the possibility of a of a 56 unit overlay. 02:55:46.659 --> 02:55:50.940 But the big problem here just as Commissioner Ellis this is 02:55:50.940 --> 02:55:58.659 all about the setbacks the N.R. six is obviously by right 02:55:58.659 --> 02:56:01.659 going to allow this developer to use the 10 foot setback. 02:56:01.659 --> 02:56:04.850 And the problem here is that the size of these homes during 02:56:04.850 --> 02:56:07.450 this public meeting or the neighborhood meeting was 02:56:07.450 --> 02:56:10.670 somewhere between fifteen hundred and twenty seven hundred 02:56:10.670 --> 02:56:11.659 square feet. 02:56:11.659 --> 02:56:14.870 Now twenty seven hundred square feet I'm assuming is 02:56:14.870 --> 02:56:18.100 probably going to be a four bedroom home a four bedroom 02:56:18.100 --> 02:56:21.659 home with two parking spaces in a 10 foot setback. 02:56:21.659 --> 02:56:26.659 You are absolutely guaranteeing on street parking. 02:56:26.659 --> 02:56:28.659 It's just going to happen. 02:56:28.659 --> 02:56:33.670 Now the N.R. four helped me with the math here but the N.R. 02:56:33.670 --> 02:56:36.659 four would allow up to four units. 02:56:36.659 --> 02:56:41.979 So we're right at fifty two fifty three units. Now the 02:56:41.979 --> 02:56:44.530 maximum by right on N.R. six would be seventy eight or 02:56:44.530 --> 02:56:45.659 seventy nine homes. 02:56:45.659 --> 02:56:50.329 Now OK if there's an overlay that's something to talk about 02:56:50.329 --> 02:56:50.659 . 02:56:50.659 --> 02:56:56.829 But my main concern is is the fact that that we're so close 02:56:56.829 --> 02:57:02.469 and I heard tonight that this is an N.R. four waiting to 02:57:02.469 --> 02:57:03.659 happen in my opinion. 02:57:03.659 --> 02:57:08.000 Now if you can't recommend or change or have a developer 02:57:08.000 --> 02:57:12.180 agree to an N.R. four you're within you're within two or 02:57:12.180 --> 02:57:16.659 three units right now of this N.R. four. 02:57:16.659 --> 02:57:20.239 And to make it consistent with that order as states now the 02:57:20.239 --> 02:57:23.889 developer already mentioned he may be forced to give up one 02:57:23.889 --> 02:57:27.659 or two of these lots for connector a tertiary connector. 02:57:27.659 --> 02:57:31.659 So we're within two units of an N.R. four here. 02:57:31.659 --> 02:57:35.350 Now I don't know if it's possible to do an N.R. four 02:57:35.350 --> 02:57:37.659 variance for only two units. 02:57:37.659 --> 02:57:40.989 I hope that's possible otherwise you just throw this thing 02:57:40.989 --> 02:57:44.579 all the way open to N.R. six with all the pushback and all 02:57:44.579 --> 02:57:47.870 the nonsense and all the setbacks and all the on street 02:57:47.870 --> 02:57:48.659 parking. 02:57:48.659 --> 02:57:57.659 So please I am opposing the the only N.R. six part of this. 02:57:57.659 --> 02:58:00.629 I'm in actually in favor of the development I could easily 02:58:00.629 --> 02:58:03.659 be convinced that this is an N.R. four. 02:58:03.659 --> 02:58:07.979 But I agree completely with your staff analysis and I would 02:58:07.979 --> 02:58:13.639 recommend denial of this N.R. six and hardly encourage you 02:58:13.639 --> 02:58:18.069 to talk to this developer about either reducing just the 02:58:18.069 --> 02:58:21.889 number of lots by one or two or three to where we can solve 02:58:21.889 --> 02:58:25.020 this setback issue which is the number one problem in my 02:58:25.020 --> 02:58:26.659 opinion that you're dealing with here. 02:58:26.659 --> 02:58:30.659 You are guaranteeing on street. 02:58:30.659 --> 02:58:34.659 It's it's you're going to have cars. 02:58:34.659 --> 02:58:38.659 The problem is that these garages now become storage units. 02:58:38.659 --> 02:58:41.889 And so you've you've got people moving into new homes just 02:58:41.889 --> 02:58:45.180 south of me now in this summer oaks division they're moving 02:58:45.180 --> 02:58:48.139 into a new house with a two car garage they fill it with 02:58:48.139 --> 02:58:51.309 stuff and there's already four cars in the parking in the 02:58:51.309 --> 02:58:52.659 street right now. 02:58:52.659 --> 02:58:57.260 Do not allow a four bedroom house to be built 10 feet from 02:58:57.260 --> 02:58:58.659 a curb please. 02:58:58.659 --> 02:58:59.659 Thank you very much. 02:58:59.659 --> 02:59:02.659 I have some questions for you Commissioner Roselle. 02:59:02.659 --> 02:59:04.659 Thank you sir. 02:59:04.659 --> 02:59:06.659 I appreciate you coming up and speaking. 02:59:06.659 --> 02:59:09.209 I have a couple questions you said you live in a whispering 02:59:09.209 --> 02:59:09.659 oaks. 02:59:09.659 --> 02:59:12.659 I live on Timber Trail which is in that same East Oaks. 02:59:12.659 --> 02:59:15.659 I'm two blocks I didn't receive a courtesy notice. 02:59:15.659 --> 02:59:19.530 And is your street much like the other gentlemen's in which 02:59:19.530 --> 02:59:23.069 the trash the trash compost truck is having a tough time 02:59:23.069 --> 02:59:26.479 comes up your shoes are plenty of room on your street 02:59:26.479 --> 02:59:30.659 currently for emergency services and utility vehicles. 02:59:30.659 --> 02:59:33.879 Well, right our street is, you know, Timber Trail is an 02:59:33.879 --> 02:59:37.090 older street is 20 years old it's wide and so do you have 02:59:37.090 --> 02:59:39.659 on street parking in your neighborhood. 02:59:39.659 --> 02:59:40.659 We have on street. 02:59:40.659 --> 02:59:41.659 Correct. 02:59:41.659 --> 02:59:44.870 Occasionally I mean yeah I mean visitors weekend football 02:59:44.870 --> 02:59:45.659 game you bet. 02:59:45.659 --> 02:59:47.659 Every now and then there's. 02:59:47.659 --> 02:59:50.659 This is the difference between this visitor. 02:59:50.659 --> 02:59:53.420 This visitor tally that you often see on these parking 02:59:53.420 --> 02:59:55.659 discussions versus, you know, weekday. 02:59:55.659 --> 02:59:59.569 So sure, I guess my point to be more direct is, you're 02:59:59.569 --> 03:00:04.049 suggesting that if we move it to 52 lots there wouldn't be 03:00:04.049 --> 03:00:06.659 any on street parking issues. 03:00:06.659 --> 03:00:11.469 I'm suggesting if it was 52 lots under an NR for that that 03:00:11.469 --> 03:00:15.659 20 foot setback would be mandatory by your. 03:00:15.659 --> 03:00:21.079 And many of the new parking modifications that are going to 03:00:21.079 --> 03:00:26.600 City Council, very soon will be designating for cars can be 03:00:26.600 --> 03:00:30.659 parked in a driveway in a single family. 03:00:30.659 --> 03:00:33.659 So you're creating a problem here. 03:00:33.659 --> 03:00:37.620 Now this may be, you know, one of the last that sneaks in 03:00:37.620 --> 03:00:41.659 under this new parking or the old parking but it's just you 03:00:41.659 --> 03:00:43.659 're creating a problem. 03:00:43.659 --> 03:00:46.120 It's my understanding from the developers presentation that 03:00:46.120 --> 03:00:48.659 they are going to have a 20 foot setback on the driveway. 03:00:48.659 --> 03:00:54.940 Well, that's again if if that becomes a separate condition 03:00:54.940 --> 03:01:00.469 under an NR six if you want to make that a you know one of 03:01:00.469 --> 03:01:06.389 his conditions, you know, but under the NR six, it doesn't 03:01:06.389 --> 03:01:07.659 have to happen. 03:01:07.659 --> 03:01:09.659 I'm personally not interested in making that a condition. 03:01:09.659 --> 03:01:11.680 I'm just trying to understand your perspective on if it is 03:01:11.680 --> 03:01:12.659 a 20 foot setback. 03:01:12.659 --> 03:01:14.659 Do you feel that eliminates some of the off street parking? 03:01:14.659 --> 03:01:15.659 Absolutely. 03:01:15.659 --> 03:01:17.659 Okay, absolutely. 03:01:17.659 --> 03:01:20.700 I don't think any single family residents in Denton, by the 03:01:20.700 --> 03:01:23.659 way, should have any less than a 20 foot setback. 03:01:23.659 --> 03:01:26.659 We've only had the 10 foot since 2002. 03:01:26.659 --> 03:01:29.659 That was a big mistake we made about 15 years ago. 03:01:29.659 --> 03:01:32.659 And I think we're about to fix that anyway. 03:01:32.659 --> 03:01:35.870 Unless this is one of the last that sneaks in with these 03:01:35.870 --> 03:01:38.659 little baby front yards and 10 foot driveways. 03:01:38.659 --> 03:01:39.659 This is a big problem. 03:01:39.659 --> 03:01:41.659 Sure. I understand. 03:01:41.659 --> 03:01:43.659 Thank you. 03:01:43.659 --> 03:01:44.659 Thank you. 03:01:44.659 --> 03:01:47.659 Thank you, Chair. 03:01:47.659 --> 03:01:48.659 He can have a seat. 03:01:48.659 --> 03:01:49.659 It's fine there. 03:01:49.659 --> 03:01:50.659 If you like. 03:01:50.659 --> 03:01:51.659 No, it's OK. 03:01:51.659 --> 03:01:54.270 In regards to in regards to I'm going to ask the applicant 03:01:54.270 --> 03:01:57.649 here shortly about the wide difference in the reported 03:01:57.649 --> 03:02:00.659 square footage for the proposed development. 03:02:00.659 --> 03:02:01.659 Because you're right. 03:02:01.659 --> 03:02:04.190 Fifteen hundred to twenty seven hundred square feet is that 03:02:04.190 --> 03:02:05.659 's a pretty wide variance there. 03:02:05.659 --> 03:02:06.659 That's a twelve hundred variance. 03:02:06.659 --> 03:02:08.659 You can fit another house in that variance there. 03:02:08.659 --> 03:02:11.659 So I'd like to know what what the exact is. 03:02:11.659 --> 03:02:14.180 But I will tell you this that based off of the property 03:02:14.180 --> 03:02:17.030 values surrounding that area about one hundred and twenty 03:02:17.030 --> 03:02:20.120 hundred twenty five dollars per square foot seems like what 03:02:20.120 --> 03:02:20.659 it's about. 03:02:20.659 --> 03:02:23.510 The proposed estimate for value as well as the square 03:02:23.510 --> 03:02:26.440 footage that area at one hundred twenty five dollars a 03:02:26.440 --> 03:02:29.500 square foot valuation for the types of value of home they 03:02:29.500 --> 03:02:30.659 're looking at. 03:02:30.659 --> 03:02:34.799 You're looking between 18 and 20 and 18 and 2000 square 03:02:34.799 --> 03:02:35.659 foot homes. 03:02:35.659 --> 03:02:37.659 Eighteen hundred and two thousand square foot homes. 03:02:37.659 --> 03:02:40.299 I think twenty seven hundred might be might be a little bit 03:02:40.299 --> 03:02:41.659 high to be worried about. 03:02:41.659 --> 03:02:44.870 So I'd actually like to ask that can come back up and 03:02:44.870 --> 03:02:48.389 possibly explain why the neighborhood meeting there was a 03:02:48.389 --> 03:02:51.879 wide wide variance and what their projected conceptual 03:02:51.879 --> 03:02:53.659 square footage per home is. 03:02:53.659 --> 03:02:54.659 I can't. 03:02:54.659 --> 03:02:57.020 The twenty seven hundred was just information that got back 03:02:57.020 --> 03:02:58.659 to me from the neighborhood meeting. 03:02:58.659 --> 03:02:59.659 I was not there. 03:02:59.659 --> 03:03:01.659 I heard that the twenty seven. 03:03:01.659 --> 03:03:02.659 You're good. 03:03:02.659 --> 03:03:04.659 Thank you. 03:03:04.659 --> 03:03:07.659 Thank you. 03:03:07.659 --> 03:03:10.209 So the as far as the square footage goes when you talk 03:03:10.209 --> 03:03:13.090 about a variance between fifteen hundred and twenty seven 03:03:13.090 --> 03:03:15.790 hundred you're talking about some buyers want a single 03:03:15.790 --> 03:03:16.659 story home. 03:03:16.659 --> 03:03:19.870 Those some some people want a two story home when you start 03:03:19.870 --> 03:03:22.450 talking about a two story home you can get to twenty seven 03:03:22.450 --> 03:03:25.659 hundred square feet very quickly just by going vertical. 03:03:25.659 --> 03:03:29.100 Just to clarify one point on the driveway setback the city 03:03:29.100 --> 03:03:32.469 of Denton when you talk about the front building line the 03:03:32.469 --> 03:03:35.659 ten foot is for the front facade of the building. 03:03:35.659 --> 03:03:37.659 It's not for the garage. 03:03:37.659 --> 03:03:39.659 The garage setback is twenty feet. 03:03:39.659 --> 03:03:43.920 So the driveway in any zoning district has to be twenty 03:03:43.920 --> 03:03:44.659 feet. 03:03:44.659 --> 03:03:46.659 We're perfectly okay. 03:03:46.659 --> 03:03:49.739 Listening to the concerns from the residents what we'd like 03:03:49.739 --> 03:03:51.659 to do we want to be good neighbors. 03:03:51.659 --> 03:03:53.659 We want to be a good development coming in. 03:03:53.659 --> 03:03:57.959 What I'd like to propose a request for consideration as we 03:03:57.959 --> 03:04:02.100 would like to reduce the total number of lots from fifty 03:04:02.100 --> 03:04:03.659 six to fifty four. 03:04:03.659 --> 03:04:06.659 That's the two that the gentleman just mentioned. 03:04:06.659 --> 03:04:10.040 We would like to institute a twenty foot building line so 03:04:10.040 --> 03:04:13.440 that no building no portion of the building is going to be 03:04:13.440 --> 03:04:15.659 between that ten and twenty feet. 03:04:15.659 --> 03:04:19.209 So the building and the garage has to meet the minimum 03:04:19.209 --> 03:04:23.149 twenty foot building setback in that the that the use would 03:04:23.149 --> 03:04:25.659 only be single family detached. 03:04:25.659 --> 03:04:30.239 So I think those three things hopefully provide some shows 03:04:30.239 --> 03:04:34.690 the residents that we're we're trying to come in and bring 03:04:34.690 --> 03:04:38.809 a good product a successful product and work with them and 03:04:38.809 --> 03:04:39.659 hear their concerns. 03:04:39.659 --> 03:04:42.120 Since I currently hold the floor I'll ask just for 03:04:42.120 --> 03:04:45.069 clarification. So you're saying that fifty four lots of 03:04:45.069 --> 03:04:47.659 twenty foot setback no duplexes no town homes. 03:04:47.659 --> 03:04:49.659 That's correct. Thank you. 03:04:49.659 --> 03:04:51.659 Okay. 03:04:51.659 --> 03:04:54.229 Commissioner Sullivan and I know you had a question for 03:04:54.229 --> 03:04:55.659 comment for the applicant. 03:04:55.659 --> 03:04:56.659 Yes. 03:04:56.659 --> 03:04:57.659 Okay. 03:04:57.659 --> 03:05:02.920 I have a hard I guess I'm having a hard time understanding 03:05:02.920 --> 03:05:07.920 as I'm looking at the regulations for in our four in our 03:05:07.920 --> 03:05:14.010 six every dimension is identical from except for the lot 03:05:14.010 --> 03:05:16.659 area and the front yard setback. 03:05:16.659 --> 03:05:18.659 And you've addressed that. 03:05:18.659 --> 03:05:21.659 That's the biggest concern for a lot of people. 03:05:21.659 --> 03:05:26.500 Side yard is the same lot depth is the same lot width is 03:05:26.500 --> 03:05:31.870 the same minimum side yard adjacent to the street minimum 03:05:31.870 --> 03:05:37.139 rear yard maximum lot coverage virtually every number is 03:05:37.139 --> 03:05:38.659 identical. 03:05:38.659 --> 03:05:43.520 So I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the you 03:05:43.520 --> 03:05:48.329 know the two lots that may or may not happen if in both in 03:05:48.329 --> 03:05:54.010 our four in our six the lot width is 50 and the depth is 80 03:05:54.010 --> 03:05:54.659 . 03:05:54.659 --> 03:05:58.760 I don't understand how you get how you're getting more 03:05:58.760 --> 03:05:59.659 houses. 03:05:59.659 --> 03:06:01.659 If those have to be the same. 03:06:01.659 --> 03:06:06.170 So those are all minimum dimensions. So when we look at 03:06:06.170 --> 03:06:10.540 laying out a plan we lay out. So for instance, the builder 03:06:10.540 --> 03:06:14.659 profile for this development is a 40 foot pad 75 foot deep 03:06:14.659 --> 03:06:18.659 so we take those dimensions, the minimum side yards minimum 03:06:18.659 --> 03:06:22.659 side yards on a corner, and we determine what our minimum 03:06:22.659 --> 03:06:26.870 lot dimensions are so that 50 by 80 is a minimum within the 03:06:26.870 --> 03:06:29.670 development code but a 50 by 80 wouldn't work for the 03:06:29.670 --> 03:06:30.659 builder profile that we're looking at. 03:06:30.659 --> 03:06:34.530 So when we lay out those lots we have a minimum lot size of 03:06:34.530 --> 03:06:37.659 think our minimum is 50 by 120. 03:06:37.659 --> 03:06:42.239 And our the majority of them are deeper than that. So, all 03:06:42.239 --> 03:06:46.479 the layout that were proposed falls within that those allow 03:06:46.479 --> 03:06:49.659 able dimensions that are within the code. 03:06:49.659 --> 03:06:54.219 I understand that what you're going to be building is going 03:06:54.219 --> 03:06:58.670 to be bigger than what's here. Right, but these are the 03:06:58.670 --> 03:07:01.659 minimums and they're identical. 03:07:01.659 --> 03:07:08.870 I'm having a hard time understanding where you're taking 03:07:08.870 --> 03:07:15.780 out the two or squeezing in two extras when the lot sizes 03:07:15.780 --> 03:07:22.059 all have to be the same for in our six or in our four in 03:07:22.059 --> 03:07:23.959 our six. And so if, if the 20 foot of the 20 foot is the 03:07:23.959 --> 03:07:24.329 only difference and you're willing to give a 20 foot set 03:07:24.329 --> 03:07:26.659 back in our four seems like the perfect fit. 03:07:26.659 --> 03:07:29.909 You don't have to do anything different because all the 03:07:29.909 --> 03:07:33.520 dimensions are the same, except that 20 foot side and in 03:07:33.520 --> 03:07:36.870 the economics of it when we talk about adding stuff to 03:07:36.870 --> 03:07:39.989 serve future development for the track to the north or to 03:07:39.989 --> 03:07:45.110 the east minute ads call so two lots doesn't sound like a 03:07:45.110 --> 03:07:49.909 lot but that's two additional lots that the, you know that 03:07:49.909 --> 03:07:53.780 the developer has to sell to the builder which is a very, 03:07:53.780 --> 03:07:55.659 which can be very significant to the. 03:07:55.659 --> 03:08:01.659 The finances of the project. 03:08:01.659 --> 03:08:03.659 Okay. 03:08:03.659 --> 03:08:07.530 I still understand where those two lots are coming from if 03:08:07.530 --> 03:08:09.659 the lot sizes are identical. 03:08:09.659 --> 03:08:10.659 What's the difference. 03:08:10.659 --> 03:08:13.579 We've got the same amount of land right if we were those 03:08:13.579 --> 03:08:16.639 two lots coming from are going to understand since we're 03:08:16.639 --> 03:08:19.659 taking them away will either add to the open space. 03:08:19.659 --> 03:08:24.129 The lots may be what I'm saying is why would you need to 03:08:24.129 --> 03:08:28.069 take them away. If the minimum lot sizes for four and six 03:08:28.069 --> 03:08:31.659 is 50 by 80, you're going to have bigger lots. 03:08:31.659 --> 03:08:35.540 Right, right. We need the in our six with overlay so that 03:08:35.540 --> 03:08:39.500 we can do more than 52. If we are straight in our four 03:08:39.500 --> 03:08:43.469 zoning, all those other categories and concerns are allevi 03:08:43.469 --> 03:08:46.799 ated but we can the maximum number of lots that we can 03:08:46.799 --> 03:08:48.659 develop or 52, because the number of lots that we can do is 03:08:48.659 --> 03:08:48.659 52. 03:08:48.659 --> 03:08:51.870 Because the maximum density is four units per acre. So 03:08:51.870 --> 03:08:55.809 basically the in our six zoning with the overlay condition 03:08:55.809 --> 03:08:59.479 allows us to add two additional lots and provide a good 03:08:59.479 --> 03:09:03.559 quality neighborhood with open space with a builder pad for 03:09:03.559 --> 03:09:06.659 a product that is in line with this area. 03:09:06.659 --> 03:09:10.069 So really the whole the whole ask there for versus in our 03:09:10.069 --> 03:09:13.500 six versus in our four is just so that we can pick up those 03:09:13.500 --> 03:09:17.010 and originally we were asking for four and in discussion 03:09:17.010 --> 03:09:20.510 with the applicant. We're, we're saying that we'll, we'll 03:09:20.510 --> 03:09:24.239 remove two of those four and go down to 54 is what is what 03:09:24.239 --> 03:09:26.659 we're now proposing. 03:09:26.659 --> 03:09:30.659 Okay, thank you. 03:09:30.659 --> 03:09:36.659 Just for clarification while you're here. 03:09:36.659 --> 03:09:47.649 The existing lots around there and what did you say the 03:09:47.649 --> 03:10:01.809 density was on those, the arbor estates the density is 4.49 03:10:01.809 --> 03:10:05.659 units per acre. 03:10:05.659 --> 03:10:10.430 And armor states just just to kind of give you an idea that 03:10:10.430 --> 03:10:15.340 their phase was 54 lots, so it's the same as what we're 03:10:15.340 --> 03:10:20.659 requesting now, and it was on 12.021 acres. 03:10:20.659 --> 03:10:35.690 And this is from the plat from the appraisal district. East 03:10:35.690 --> 03:10:36.329 Oaks edition phase one was 34 lots on 7.745 acres, which is 03:10:36.329 --> 03:10:36.659 a density of 4.39. 03:10:36.659 --> 03:10:40.659 So those existing subdivisions aren't in our for either. 03:10:40.659 --> 03:10:46.680 Well, so when those subdivisions were developed the the 03:10:46.680 --> 03:10:51.649 zoning districts were different. When they brought all the 03:10:51.649 --> 03:10:53.889 zoning districts up to try and conform they kind of looked 03:10:53.889 --> 03:10:56.040 at where does that fit most closely to its single family 03:10:56.040 --> 03:10:56.659 detached. 03:10:56.659 --> 03:10:59.459 It fits an in our four closer than an in our six but it 03:10:59.459 --> 03:11:02.709 doesn't meet all the requirements of an in our four zoning 03:11:02.709 --> 03:11:03.659 district. 03:11:03.659 --> 03:11:09.430 Correct. So those districts are fairly close to what you 03:11:09.430 --> 03:11:12.479 all are asking for. When you really crunch the numbers and 03:11:12.479 --> 03:11:13.659 do the density of the number of units over the acreage. 03:11:13.659 --> 03:11:16.340 It's very similar to what you've asked for. That's correct 03:11:16.340 --> 03:11:18.780 and I have the plat I mean the difference is our lots are a 03:11:18.780 --> 03:11:21.399 little bit smaller but we're putting open space within the 03:11:21.399 --> 03:11:24.719 development, whereas when that development when all your 03:11:24.719 --> 03:11:25.659 states and these other developments 03:11:25.659 --> 03:11:29.530 were done. There was no open space provided into the 03:11:29.530 --> 03:11:30.659 development. 03:11:30.659 --> 03:11:35.219 I understand. Thank you for the clarification Commissioner 03:11:35.219 --> 03:11:37.989 Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Do you know the average front yard 03:11:37.989 --> 03:11:41.659 setback on the adjacent lots that are developed. 03:11:41.659 --> 03:11:44.870 I don't I just know that the city of didn't the didn't 03:11:44.870 --> 03:11:47.760 development code and I don't know the standards that were 03:11:47.760 --> 03:11:51.329 in place and 84 when that development first started, but it 03:11:51.329 --> 03:11:54.750 appears that just looking from an aerial that it would be 03:11:54.750 --> 03:11:56.659 consistent with to off street 03:11:56.659 --> 03:12:00.299 parking spaces so I would assume that it's probably a 03:12:00.299 --> 03:12:04.450 minimum of 20 feet setback for the for the driveway but I 03:12:04.450 --> 03:12:08.659 don't have an exact answer for you. 03:12:08.659 --> 03:12:12.280 So just noticing with the NR for it, it does have that 03:12:12.280 --> 03:12:17.049 limitation that it would have to conform to the average of 03:12:17.049 --> 03:12:20.659 the adjacent property setback. 03:12:20.659 --> 03:12:24.659 I was curious. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. So, Sam the 03:12:24.659 --> 03:12:30.120 adjacent developments been about 4.3 4.4 maybe 4.25. So you 03:12:30.120 --> 03:12:35.100 reducing it down to a 45 lot on 13 acres would put you at, 03:12:35.100 --> 03:12:39.659 sorry, 54 lot on 13 acres, not to do the math. 03:12:39.659 --> 03:12:43.979 It's put you to 4.15 correct units per acre. So much less 03:12:43.979 --> 03:12:47.709 than the surrounding current once the only difference is 03:12:47.709 --> 03:12:51.190 going to be that and your conceptual plan would be that 03:12:51.190 --> 03:12:55.659 that you have more open space that will constrict and make 03:12:55.659 --> 03:12:55.659 it make those 03:12:55.659 --> 03:12:59.409 lots smaller just because there is open space. That's right 03:12:59.409 --> 03:13:02.479 and some of the lots may actually be larger in square 03:13:02.479 --> 03:13:06.069 footage just because of the depth. So our minimum lot size 03:13:06.069 --> 03:13:09.659 would be smaller than theirs, but we would have several 03:13:09.659 --> 03:13:12.659 lots that may actually have more square footage 03:13:12.659 --> 03:13:17.129 because of the depth. In regards to citizens concerned, the 03:13:17.129 --> 03:13:21.479 more depth the better in this scenario. Correct. It puts 03:13:21.479 --> 03:13:25.659 the houses further away from the existing development. 03:13:25.659 --> 03:13:25.659 Thanks, sir. 03:13:25.659 --> 03:13:28.659 I don't have any other questions at this time. 03:13:28.659 --> 03:13:35.069 This is a public hearing, anybody who would like to speak, 03:13:35.069 --> 03:13:38.659 please come forward at this time. 03:13:38.659 --> 03:13:41.530 Well, they're right outside the door and after you speak, 03:13:41.530 --> 03:13:44.659 it's not a problem. Just give us your name and address. 03:13:44.659 --> 03:13:50.299 I have house on 2508 whispering oaks, just Jason to the 03:13:50.299 --> 03:13:53.659 south of this proposed development. 03:13:53.659 --> 03:14:00.889 The question I have is the developer, or rather for whoever 03:14:00.889 --> 03:14:06.340 would give legal opinion, if you go for an NR6, but this 03:14:06.340 --> 03:14:11.659 developer doesn't develop it, somebody else comes in. 03:14:11.659 --> 03:14:18.840 And this overlay, as I heard you say, is included in the NR 03:14:18.840 --> 03:14:26.659 6. What happens then? Can that overlay be taken away? 03:14:26.659 --> 03:14:31.659 I'll let legal weigh in on that. 03:14:31.659 --> 03:14:37.069 So just to kind of keep it really brief, it would run like 03:14:37.069 --> 03:14:42.090 any other zoning. It attaches to the land. So the zoning 03:14:42.090 --> 03:14:43.659 plus overlay district attaches to the land. 03:14:43.659 --> 03:14:46.870 The only way to remove that would be to, as any other rez 03:14:46.870 --> 03:14:49.950 oning, is to come back and get it rezoned again, including 03:14:49.950 --> 03:14:50.659 the overlay district. 03:14:50.659 --> 03:14:59.690 So in summary, if you make the NR6 with this 54 unit per 03:14:59.690 --> 03:15:06.969 the area overlay, it would, if somebody else came in, one 03:15:06.969 --> 03:15:12.659 develop in there, NR6 with duplexes two stories tall, they 03:15:12.659 --> 03:15:16.659 wouldn't be able to without coming to the rezoning again. 03:15:16.659 --> 03:15:22.299 Even though it's not changing the NR6 part, it would be 03:15:22.299 --> 03:15:24.659 removing the other. 03:15:24.659 --> 03:15:27.659 Okay. That's all I needed to know. 03:15:27.659 --> 03:15:33.049 I think the NR4 is about where the density is. But I do 03:15:33.049 --> 03:15:38.219 have a comment about the kind of home, now that I think 03:15:38.219 --> 03:15:44.250 about it, that was brought up by, I think it was Mr. Smith, 03:15:44.250 --> 03:15:47.659 about the kind of brick houses. 03:15:47.659 --> 03:15:53.760 Mr. Beck. Okay. Kind of hard to keep track. Who says what? 03:15:53.760 --> 03:15:59.280 But the houses along Whispering Oaks and Lattimore, which 03:15:59.280 --> 03:16:05.430 are adjacent to this proposed addition, are all brick 03:16:05.430 --> 03:16:11.659 houses in the front and sides, at minimum. 03:16:11.659 --> 03:16:15.659 I can't speak about all the back sides. 03:16:15.659 --> 03:16:24.049 My concern would be the amount of brick on the houses that 03:16:24.049 --> 03:16:29.260 are being developed, just to keep it the same feel of the 03:16:29.260 --> 03:16:30.659 neighborhood. 03:16:30.659 --> 03:16:33.659 And I thank you. 03:16:33.659 --> 03:16:37.659 Don't have any questions. Thank you for your comments, sir. 03:16:37.659 --> 03:16:43.299 Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like 03:16:43.299 --> 03:16:48.659 to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. 03:16:48.659 --> 03:17:11.659 Please come to the mic and give us your name and address. 03:17:11.659 --> 03:17:18.879 My name is Vernon Mamm. I live in 2224 Lattimore. My 03:17:18.879 --> 03:17:22.659 concern is Lattimore is a dead end street. 03:17:22.659 --> 03:17:28.930 Right now. Is that possible for it to be open all the way 03:17:28.930 --> 03:17:32.659 through into new subdivision? 03:17:32.659 --> 03:17:37.799 I'll ask a plan staff to come and address if it went on to 03:17:37.799 --> 03:17:43.659 the property to the east. Is that what your question is? 03:17:43.659 --> 03:17:48.000 That if it continued on to the east, rather than the way it 03:17:48.000 --> 03:17:52.659 currently has been presented, if that's a possibility. 03:17:52.659 --> 03:17:58.149 I like I said, I live on Lattimore and there's a ton of 03:17:58.149 --> 03:18:02.659 young kids that plays out in the street. 03:18:02.659 --> 03:18:12.239 They even come from down the drain, which is in two houses 03:18:12.239 --> 03:18:21.670 up from me and there's kids came down this drain to play on 03:18:21.670 --> 03:18:23.659 Lattimore. 03:18:23.659 --> 03:18:31.530 And I'm just thinking that the traffic was if they go in 03:18:31.530 --> 03:18:37.659 and open that straight up, the kids are going to have no 03:18:37.659 --> 03:18:46.659 place to play other than in their backyard or whatever. 03:18:46.659 --> 03:18:51.899 So that was my question and my concern. If they open up L 03:18:51.899 --> 03:18:57.479 attimore, there's going to be some people that's going to 03:18:57.479 --> 03:18:58.659 move out. 03:18:58.659 --> 03:19:07.809 Okay. I'll ask staff to put the overhead up, I guess, of L 03:19:07.809 --> 03:19:15.510 attimore and they can help walk through if that's a 03:19:15.510 --> 03:19:22.659 possibility and how that might take place. 03:19:22.659 --> 03:19:24.639 Okay, we're talking about this. I'm talking about this 03:19:24.639 --> 03:19:26.659 street right there. That's Lattimore. 03:19:26.659 --> 03:19:31.770 Okay. I believe what the city traffic engineer mentioned in 03:19:31.770 --> 03:19:33.829 the work session was that there may be possibility to 03:19:33.829 --> 03:19:37.719 extend this road, but we wouldn't know if that's needed 03:19:37.719 --> 03:19:41.670 until we get to the site development phase of the project, 03:19:41.670 --> 03:19:43.659 which is the next phase planning. 03:19:43.659 --> 03:19:49.389 So it could be extended depending on what types of traffic, 03:19:49.389 --> 03:19:54.930 what the traffic numbers look like and are not there. But 03:19:54.930 --> 03:19:59.340 we wouldn't have that information until this site is more 03:19:59.340 --> 03:20:03.659 fleshed out and we can analyze the plan at that point. 03:20:03.659 --> 03:20:07.340 So the question would be then, we don't know whether it 03:20:07.340 --> 03:20:11.209 could be possibly a street stub out for future connection 03:20:11.209 --> 03:20:14.659 to it looks like the street was going to be Oak Valley. 03:20:14.659 --> 03:20:19.670 Looks like a valley is the north south to the east right 03:20:19.670 --> 03:20:27.659 there. 03:20:27.659 --> 03:20:31.350 And when I looked at the mobility plan, there was in a, it 03:20:31.350 --> 03:20:35.750 didn't come up as an extension. Okay. But again, based on 03:20:35.750 --> 03:20:39.860 what comes out of the traffic impact analysis, it may or 03:20:39.860 --> 03:20:41.659 may not be improved. 03:20:41.659 --> 03:20:42.659 Okay. 03:20:42.659 --> 03:20:46.280 Okay. I have a couple questions. I don't know if this for 03:20:46.280 --> 03:20:48.659 staff, Commissioner Ellis. 03:20:48.659 --> 03:20:50.659 Okay. Thank you, Chair. 03:20:50.659 --> 03:20:52.659 Thank you, sir, for your comments. 03:20:52.659 --> 03:20:56.559 I think the question is, is there a way to get the traffic 03:20:56.559 --> 03:20:57.659 to the site? 03:20:57.659 --> 03:20:59.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:20:59.659 --> 03:21:00.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:00.659 --> 03:21:01.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:01.659 --> 03:21:02.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:02.659 --> 03:21:03.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:03.659 --> 03:21:04.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:04.659 --> 03:21:05.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:05.659 --> 03:21:06.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:06.659 --> 03:21:07.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:07.659 --> 03:21:08.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:08.659 --> 03:21:09.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:09.659 --> 03:21:10.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:10.659 --> 03:21:11.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:11.659 --> 03:21:12.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:12.659 --> 03:21:13.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:13.659 --> 03:21:22.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:22.659 --> 03:21:23.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:23.659 --> 03:21:24.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:24.659 --> 03:21:25.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:25.659 --> 03:21:26.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:26.659 --> 03:21:27.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:27.659 --> 03:21:28.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:28.659 --> 03:21:29.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:29.659 --> 03:21:30.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:30.659 --> 03:21:31.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:31.659 --> 03:21:32.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:32.659 --> 03:21:33.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:33.659 --> 03:21:34.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:34.659 --> 03:21:35.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:35.659 --> 03:21:36.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:36.659 --> 03:21:37.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:37.659 --> 03:21:44.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:44.659 --> 03:21:45.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:45.659 --> 03:21:46.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:46.659 --> 03:21:47.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:47.659 --> 03:21:48.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:48.659 --> 03:21:49.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:49.659 --> 03:21:50.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:50.659 --> 03:21:51.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:51.659 --> 03:21:52.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:52.659 --> 03:21:53.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:53.659 --> 03:21:54.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:54.659 --> 03:21:55.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:55.659 --> 03:21:56.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:56.659 --> 03:21:57.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:57.659 --> 03:21:58.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:58.659 --> 03:21:59.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:21:59.659 --> 03:22:21.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:22:21.659 --> 03:22:40.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:22:40.659 --> 03:23:05.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:05.659 --> 03:23:10.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:10.659 --> 03:23:11.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:11.659 --> 03:23:12.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:12.659 --> 03:23:13.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:13.659 --> 03:23:14.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:14.659 --> 03:23:15.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:15.659 --> 03:23:16.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:16.659 --> 03:23:17.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:17.659 --> 03:23:18.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:18.659 --> 03:23:19.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:19.659 --> 03:23:20.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:20.659 --> 03:23:21.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:21.659 --> 03:23:22.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:22.659 --> 03:23:23.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:23.659 --> 03:23:24.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:24.659 --> 03:23:25.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:25.659 --> 03:23:40.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:40.659 --> 03:23:44.430 So the northern most east west street doesn't become any 03:23:44.430 --> 03:23:47.659 longer than what we've currently got shown. 03:23:47.659 --> 03:23:48.659 So. 03:23:48.659 --> 03:23:49.659 Continue if you had. 03:23:49.659 --> 03:23:50.659 So. 03:23:50.659 --> 03:23:51.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:51.659 --> 03:23:52.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:52.659 --> 03:23:53.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:53.659 --> 03:23:54.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:54.659 --> 03:23:55.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:55.659 --> 03:23:56.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:56.659 --> 03:23:57.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:57.659 --> 03:23:58.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:58.659 --> 03:23:59.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:23:59.659 --> 03:24:00.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:00.659 --> 03:24:01.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:01.659 --> 03:24:02.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:02.659 --> 03:24:03.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:03.659 --> 03:24:04.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:04.659 --> 03:24:05.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:05.659 --> 03:24:06.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:06.659 --> 03:24:07.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:07.659 --> 03:24:08.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:08.659 --> 03:24:09.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:09.659 --> 03:24:10.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:10.659 --> 03:24:29.659 I mean, I think that's a good question. 03:24:29.659 --> 03:24:31.649 Typically what happens because we don't like to have those 03:24:31.649 --> 03:24:31.659 dead end utilities. 03:24:31.659 --> 03:24:33.700 Now, certainly with that, I mean, those utilities could 03:24:33.700 --> 03:24:34.659 loop around to the north. 03:24:34.659 --> 03:24:36.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:36.659 --> 03:24:40.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:40.659 --> 03:24:41.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:41.659 --> 03:24:42.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:42.659 --> 03:24:43.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:43.659 --> 03:24:44.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:44.659 --> 03:24:45.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:45.659 --> 03:24:46.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:46.659 --> 03:24:47.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:47.659 --> 03:24:48.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:48.659 --> 03:24:49.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:49.659 --> 03:24:50.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:50.659 --> 03:24:51.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:51.659 --> 03:24:52.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:52.659 --> 03:24:53.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:53.659 --> 03:24:54.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:54.659 --> 03:24:55.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:24:55.659 --> 03:25:14.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:25:14.659 --> 03:25:34.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:25:34.659 --> 03:25:55.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:25:55.659 --> 03:26:14.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:26:14.659 --> 03:26:29.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:26:29.659 --> 03:26:44.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:26:44.659 --> 03:26:59.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:26:59.659 --> 03:27:14.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:14.659 --> 03:27:29.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:29.659 --> 03:27:30.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:30.659 --> 03:27:31.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:31.659 --> 03:27:32.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:32.659 --> 03:27:33.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:33.659 --> 03:27:34.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:34.659 --> 03:27:35.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:35.659 --> 03:27:36.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:36.659 --> 03:27:37.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:37.659 --> 03:27:38.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:38.659 --> 03:27:39.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:39.659 --> 03:27:40.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:40.659 --> 03:27:41.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:41.659 --> 03:27:42.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:42.659 --> 03:27:43.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:43.659 --> 03:27:44.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:44.659 --> 03:27:45.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:45.659 --> 03:27:46.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:46.659 --> 03:27:47.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:47.659 --> 03:27:48.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:48.659 --> 03:27:49.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:49.659 --> 03:27:50.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:50.659 --> 03:27:51.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:51.659 --> 03:27:52.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:52.659 --> 03:27:53.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:53.659 --> 03:27:54.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:54.659 --> 03:27:55.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:55.659 --> 03:27:56.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:56.659 --> 03:27:57.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:57.659 --> 03:27:58.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:58.659 --> 03:27:59.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:27:59.659 --> 03:28:20.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:28:20.659 --> 03:28:39.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:28:39.659 --> 03:29:04.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:29:04.659 --> 03:29:27.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:29:27.659 --> 03:29:55.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:29:55.659 --> 03:29:58.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:29:58.659 --> 03:29:59.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:29:59.659 --> 03:30:00.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:00.659 --> 03:30:01.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:01.659 --> 03:30:02.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:02.659 --> 03:30:03.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:03.659 --> 03:30:04.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:04.659 --> 03:30:05.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:05.659 --> 03:30:06.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:06.659 --> 03:30:07.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:07.659 --> 03:30:08.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:08.659 --> 03:30:09.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:09.659 --> 03:30:10.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:10.659 --> 03:30:11.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:11.659 --> 03:30:12.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:12.659 --> 03:30:13.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:13.659 --> 03:30:32.659 I mean, there's other ways to engineer it. 03:30:32.659 --> 03:30:34.379 So, all that being said, it seems as though, to the best of 03:30:34.379 --> 03:30:35.379 my knowledge, this development 03:30:35.379 --> 03:30:37.770 will align itself very well with the current development in 03:30:37.770 --> 03:30:38.659 terms of density. 03:30:38.659 --> 03:30:41.530 It's actually a less dense development than what's 03:30:41.530 --> 03:30:42.659 currently there. 03:30:42.659 --> 03:30:45.479 It seems like they're also taking into consideration to 03:30:45.479 --> 03:30:47.860 ensure, through traffic measures and street 03:30:47.860 --> 03:30:51.500 construction, to keep traffic down so that kids are safe to 03:30:51.500 --> 03:30:53.299 move about, hopefully not 03:30:53.299 --> 03:30:56.739 playing in the streets, but move about the streets safely. 03:30:56.739 --> 03:30:58.950 And they'll have open space that hopefully can provide an 03:30:58.950 --> 03:30:59.979 area for those kids that they 03:30:59.979 --> 03:31:01.850 don't have to move out of the neighborhood, but they 03:31:01.850 --> 03:31:03.180 actually have a new place that they 03:31:03.180 --> 03:31:04.180 can play. 03:31:04.180 --> 03:31:10.579 So, with that, I will move that this is approved. 03:31:10.579 --> 03:31:11.579 How do I... 03:31:11.579 --> 03:31:12.579 I'll clarify this. 03:31:12.579 --> 03:31:15.459 This was recommended as a denial, correct? 03:31:15.459 --> 03:31:18.020 So, my motion is to not... 03:31:18.020 --> 03:31:19.979 Just change your motion. 03:31:19.979 --> 03:31:20.979 Okay, perfect. 03:31:20.979 --> 03:31:24.719 So, I move to approve this request as an NR6 with an 03:31:24.719 --> 03:31:27.819 overlay condition that only single-family 03:31:27.819 --> 03:31:35.459 detached buildings are built with a maximum of 54 lots. 03:31:35.459 --> 03:31:37.459 Would you entertain a friendly amendment? 03:31:37.459 --> 03:31:38.780 It depends. 03:31:38.780 --> 03:31:42.819 Okay, I think the other condition that was requested was to 03:31:42.819 --> 03:31:45.100 have the 20-foot front yard 03:31:45.100 --> 03:31:46.100 setback. 03:31:46.100 --> 03:31:50.850 Would you add that for a total of three conditions to your 03:31:50.850 --> 03:31:53.659 suggested motion of approval? 03:31:53.659 --> 03:31:56.540 Can that be added to the overlay, the build setback? 03:31:56.540 --> 03:31:57.540 Okay. 03:31:57.540 --> 03:32:01.090 Yes, I will entertain that amendment and require with this 03:32:01.090 --> 03:32:03.620 motion an NR6 with only single-family 03:32:03.620 --> 03:32:07.750 detached buildings constructed at a maximum of 54 lots and 03:32:07.750 --> 03:32:10.420 a build line of 20-foot setback. 03:32:10.420 --> 03:32:11.940 Yep, front yard. 03:32:11.940 --> 03:32:13.739 Front yard. 03:32:13.739 --> 03:32:14.739 Okay. 03:32:14.739 --> 03:32:16.299 Commissioner Smith. 03:32:16.299 --> 03:32:19.510 Being that the applicant has been extremely gracious in 03:32:19.510 --> 03:32:21.059 making some compromise to be able 03:32:21.059 --> 03:32:24.270 to do this and knowing now that even the existing 03:32:24.270 --> 03:32:27.100 surrounding neighborhoods shouldn't even be 03:32:27.100 --> 03:32:30.389 classified as NR4 with their density, this is going to be a 03:32:30.389 --> 03:32:31.739 less dense area than the 03:32:31.739 --> 03:32:34.500 surrounding areas based off the math and what it shows. 03:32:34.500 --> 03:32:37.829 I think it'd be hard for us to, even though yes, we could 03:32:37.829 --> 03:32:39.379 go and vote as an NR4. 03:32:39.379 --> 03:32:43.409 I think it'd be incongruent as well as I was the one who 03:32:43.409 --> 03:32:45.659 made the motion on the past on 03:32:45.659 --> 03:32:49.549 the Yale project for the NR6 approval because of its 03:32:49.549 --> 03:32:52.299 density being close to 4.2. 03:32:52.299 --> 03:32:54.750 Going through and saying, "They have to buy by NR4, but 03:32:54.750 --> 03:32:56.059 your neighbors just to the north 03:32:56.059 --> 03:33:00.250 that get the NR6 plus the overlay," doesn't seem very congr 03:33:00.250 --> 03:33:01.899 uent with that area. 03:33:01.899 --> 03:33:05.780 So I will make a second motion, please. 03:33:05.780 --> 03:33:06.780 Okay. 03:33:06.780 --> 03:33:11.239 We have a first and a second for approval with the three 03:33:11.239 --> 03:33:13.139 conditions stated. 03:33:13.139 --> 03:33:14.139 Any further discussion? 03:33:14.139 --> 03:33:15.139 Commissioner Beck. 03:33:15.139 --> 03:33:16.139 Thank you, Chair. 03:33:16.139 --> 03:33:19.350 Again, I'd like to thank everybody for coming down and 03:33:19.350 --> 03:33:20.180 speaking out. 03:33:20.180 --> 03:33:23.139 It's essential for us to make a good sound decision. 03:33:23.139 --> 03:33:27.719 I'd like Commissioner Rosell, I too was opposed to the NR6, 03:33:27.719 --> 03:33:30.260 but considering the concessions 03:33:30.260 --> 03:33:32.950 that are made here, I think we have what both sides are 03:33:32.950 --> 03:33:34.340 going to be happy with. 03:33:34.340 --> 03:33:36.500 We've got the 20-foot setback. 03:33:36.500 --> 03:33:41.540 We got the almost exact number of houses as an NR4 with the 03:33:41.540 --> 03:33:43.979 overlay in there, and that 03:33:43.979 --> 03:33:46.979 will be set in stone. 03:33:46.979 --> 03:33:49.809 So the other consideration that we can't look at now 03:33:49.809 --> 03:33:51.940 because this is the zoning thing, but 03:33:51.940 --> 03:33:55.010 we can look at the design standards was the issue of what 03:33:55.010 --> 03:33:56.579 the houses are going to look 03:33:56.579 --> 03:33:58.500 like, and we can discuss that then. 03:33:58.500 --> 03:34:01.709 Hopefully the developer will keep in mind what Mr. Potters 03:34:01.709 --> 03:34:03.139 has said about BRIC, and 03:34:03.139 --> 03:34:04.819 we'll deal with that at that time. 03:34:04.819 --> 03:34:07.620 But again, I can go along with this motion myself. 03:34:07.620 --> 03:34:09.379 Thank you. 03:34:09.379 --> 03:34:10.379 Commissioner Sanchez. 03:34:10.379 --> 03:34:15.379 Yeah, I think we've had a healthy discussion here tonight. 03:34:15.379 --> 03:34:18.879 Listening to the developer and listening to the concerns of 03:34:18.879 --> 03:34:20.579 the community, I think like 03:34:20.579 --> 03:34:25.049 everybody else, I think they have met some of your concerns 03:34:25.049 --> 03:34:27.139 , a lot of the concerns that 03:34:27.139 --> 03:34:28.780 were brought forward. 03:34:28.780 --> 03:34:32.420 And therefore, I think that personally I'll be voting for 03:34:32.420 --> 03:34:34.299 it because I think because of 03:34:34.299 --> 03:34:38.639 the overlays, that pretty much I think will satisfy a lot 03:34:38.639 --> 03:34:41.180 of people that brought concerns 03:34:41.180 --> 03:34:45.340 tonight. 03:34:45.340 --> 03:34:46.340 Commissioner Sullivan. 03:34:46.340 --> 03:34:50.780 Yes, thank you all for showing up. 03:34:50.780 --> 03:34:55.250 I didn't hear a single voice about the number of homes 03:34:55.250 --> 03:34:58.500 being built, but I did hear setbacks, 03:34:58.500 --> 03:35:02.340 widths, depths, things of that nature. 03:35:02.340 --> 03:35:05.750 And I think that if the applicant is willing to go along 03:35:05.750 --> 03:35:07.739 with the conditions that were 03:35:07.739 --> 03:35:13.260 put forth, where the setback is 20 feet, everything else is 03:35:13.260 --> 03:35:16.299 what everybody I think has been, I 03:35:16.299 --> 03:35:21.200 think, appeased to some degree that everybody's getting 03:35:21.200 --> 03:35:24.420 what everybody wants and that nobody's 03:35:24.420 --> 03:35:28.020 having to give up anything other than two houses. 03:35:28.020 --> 03:35:29.020 Sorry. 03:35:29.020 --> 03:35:33.559 But so I think at this point, I would be voting for it as 03:35:33.559 --> 03:35:34.340 well. 03:35:34.340 --> 03:35:35.340 Commissioner Ellis. 03:35:35.340 --> 03:35:36.340 Thank you, Chair. 03:35:36.340 --> 03:35:39.559 Not a whole lot more to add than was already said, other 03:35:39.559 --> 03:35:41.540 than I will support it as well. 03:35:41.540 --> 03:35:44.750 I think it's a good in-fill decision, especially with the 03:35:44.750 --> 03:35:45.940 restrictions on it. 03:35:45.940 --> 03:35:49.129 And as involved as you have been tonight, those of you who 03:35:49.129 --> 03:35:51.219 live in the area, it's really important 03:35:51.219 --> 03:35:52.219 that we hear you. 03:35:52.219 --> 03:35:55.059 And please stay involved with the development. 03:35:55.059 --> 03:35:58.020 Come and hear the platting. 03:35:58.020 --> 03:36:01.409 It'll be presented in the going forwards, the preliminary 03:36:01.409 --> 03:36:02.459 and the final. 03:36:02.459 --> 03:36:05.379 Please stay tuned and pay attention to that. 03:36:05.379 --> 03:36:07.540 And then after that, the site plan. 03:36:07.540 --> 03:36:11.100 Thank you. 03:36:11.100 --> 03:36:14.309 We have a first and a second for approval with three 03:36:14.309 --> 03:36:16.020 conditions and seeing no further 03:36:16.020 --> 03:36:30.780 discussion, I will call for a vote on the board. 03:36:30.780 --> 03:36:31.780 Motion carries 7-0. 03:36:31.780 --> 03:36:34.649 Good luck with your project and thank you to all the 03:36:34.649 --> 03:36:36.299 neighbors for coming out. 03:36:36.299 --> 03:36:39.510 I hope we were able to find a good compromise at work for 03:36:39.510 --> 03:36:40.299 everyone. 03:36:40.299 --> 03:36:44.459 So thank you all for coming out. 03:36:44.459 --> 03:36:48.780 Again in our public hearing section, we have three other 03:36:48.780 --> 03:36:51.180 items, item B, C and D that are 03:36:51.180 --> 03:36:54.860 going to be renoticed and will not be heard tonight. 03:36:54.860 --> 03:37:04.229 And with that said, that will move us to our project matrix 03:37:04.229 --> 03:37:04.899 . 03:37:04.899 --> 03:37:05.899 Commissioner Smith. 03:37:05.899 --> 03:37:10.170 I mentioned it last time in regards to having talking about 03:37:10.170 --> 03:37:12.979 changes to the code for neighborhood 03:37:12.979 --> 03:37:13.979 meetings. 03:37:13.979 --> 03:37:15.870 I thought I was going to get up on the matrix, but you 03:37:15.870 --> 03:37:17.299 might have answered it last time. 03:37:17.299 --> 03:37:19.969 Did you answer that last time that we're in the process of 03:37:19.969 --> 03:37:21.299 including them in the code? 03:37:21.299 --> 03:37:25.020 Yeah, we're looking at that as part of the DDC rewrite. 03:37:25.020 --> 03:37:26.020 Got it. 03:37:26.020 --> 03:37:27.020 Great. 03:37:27.020 --> 03:37:28.020 Thank you. 03:37:28.020 --> 03:37:30.459 So we'll be back when we get there. 03:37:30.459 --> 03:37:31.459 Commissioner Beck. 03:37:31.459 --> 03:37:32.459 Thanks, Chair. 03:37:32.459 --> 03:37:34.760 I just need to go on record date because I've been 03:37:34.760 --> 03:37:37.059 approached by people that share my concern 03:37:37.059 --> 03:37:39.059 about the parking minimum thing. 03:37:39.059 --> 03:37:42.950 So I know we talked about it last time and just want to 03:37:42.950 --> 03:37:45.340 keep it in the purview of where 03:37:45.340 --> 03:37:46.340 we're going. 03:37:46.340 --> 03:37:49.559 I thought if it wasn't sent, I will make sure it's sent to 03:37:49.559 --> 03:37:50.299 tomorrow. 03:37:50.299 --> 03:37:52.549 In addition, actually to go back to the neighborhood 03:37:52.549 --> 03:37:54.860 meetings, one thing that we're doing now is 03:37:54.860 --> 03:37:58.579 what we will be doing within the next week. 03:37:58.579 --> 03:38:01.969 When we prepare the notifications that go out to the 200 03:38:01.969 --> 03:38:03.879 and 500, in the past we've 03:38:03.879 --> 03:38:06.090 provided the list that the applicant has asked for for the 03:38:06.090 --> 03:38:07.139 neighborhood meeting. 03:38:07.139 --> 03:38:09.620 What we're going to be doing now is just giving that to 03:38:09.620 --> 03:38:10.780 them right up front. 03:38:10.780 --> 03:38:13.409 While we can't require it, we are going to be saying, you 03:38:13.409 --> 03:38:14.819 know, we highly recommend a 03:38:14.819 --> 03:38:15.819 neighborhood meeting. 03:38:15.819 --> 03:38:17.579 Here's the list of everyone that's going to be getting it. 03:38:17.579 --> 03:38:21.819 So they have it up front and they don't have to ask for it 03:38:21.819 --> 03:38:22.819 later on. 03:38:22.819 --> 03:38:23.819 Okay. 03:38:23.819 --> 03:38:24.819 Commissioner Ellis. 03:38:24.819 --> 03:38:26.819 Thank you, Chair. 03:38:26.819 --> 03:38:30.379 Just a couple of bringing things up again. 03:38:30.379 --> 03:38:33.569 With regard to the tree code, I do hope Deborah's right 03:38:33.569 --> 03:38:35.540 that we are going to hear that soon. 03:38:35.540 --> 03:38:39.030 I sit on a small area planning committee and the chatter 03:38:39.030 --> 03:38:41.059 last week was that the whole thing 03:38:41.059 --> 03:38:42.100 is dead. 03:38:42.100 --> 03:38:46.569 So I would love to -- I assured them it wasn't, but I would 03:38:46.569 --> 03:38:48.979 love something concrete to be 03:38:48.979 --> 03:38:52.899 able to share with these people who are stating this. 03:38:52.899 --> 03:38:56.059 I'll put it on the record. 03:38:56.059 --> 03:39:00.979 The draft will be heard in a workshop at the next meeting. 03:39:00.979 --> 03:39:03.040 And so similar to what we did with Deborah's item this 03:39:03.040 --> 03:39:04.540 evening where we sort of staggered 03:39:04.540 --> 03:39:07.799 the work session to go over the whole proposed and then 03:39:07.799 --> 03:39:09.620 come back two weeks later. 03:39:09.620 --> 03:39:11.829 That's exactly what we'll be doing with the tree code 03:39:11.829 --> 03:39:12.340 update. 03:39:12.340 --> 03:39:16.799 And so we're still looking at modifying some of the numbers 03:39:16.799 --> 03:39:18.620 and making sure it's sort of 03:39:18.620 --> 03:39:21.909 fair and equitable for everybody because it is a big jump, 03:39:21.909 --> 03:39:23.579 some of the percentages. 03:39:23.579 --> 03:39:26.799 And so we just want to make sure that as we move forward, 03:39:26.799 --> 03:39:28.579 we've looked at all angles. 03:39:28.579 --> 03:39:29.579 Excellent. 03:39:29.579 --> 03:39:31.299 I have one more. 03:39:31.299 --> 03:39:33.940 Just given our discussion at work session, could we maybe 03:39:33.940 --> 03:39:35.219 have a little work session 03:39:35.219 --> 03:39:38.709 on traffic impact fees and how they're collected and what 03:39:38.709 --> 03:39:40.819 fund it sits in and who manages that 03:39:40.819 --> 03:39:41.819 and how it's spent? 03:39:41.819 --> 03:39:45.459 And that just seems to be coming up more and more. 03:39:45.459 --> 03:39:46.459 Yes. 03:39:46.459 --> 03:39:47.459 In fact, I mentioned it to Pre-Kim. 03:39:47.459 --> 03:39:51.510 I said I think we need to come back and do a separate item 03:39:51.510 --> 03:39:53.139 just on impact fee. 03:39:53.139 --> 03:39:56.620 Anybody else? 03:39:56.620 --> 03:39:59.620 Okay. 03:39:59.620 --> 03:40:03.260 With that at 8.05, I will close our meeting tonight. 03:40:03.260 --> 03:40:04.340 Thank you everyone for coming out.