Oct 26, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2022-10-26 5:00 PM

>> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday October 26. This is our work session and with our quorum present we will call the meeting to order at 5.04 p.m. Let the record show that Commissioner Cole is absent today. First item on our agenda is citizen comments on the consent agenda. Do we have anyone here wishing to speak on the consent agenda? Okay. That will move us to clarification of agenda items for tonight's meeting. We will start with the minutes from October 12. Any discussion on those questions? Okay. How about the consent agenda? This evening I believe we've got three items on there. A couple of final plots. So they're all final plans. Okay. That brings us then to 4A, our items for individual consideration. This one we did receive an email on that it is -- that recommendation has changed. I believe that's correct. I'm not sure. There's Mia. I'm sorry. You want to come up and just -- yeah, just give us that real quick. Just make sure everybody got that information. Okay. Thank you. Absolutely. All right. Good evening. That's not correct. That one. Good evening. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. This is a preliminary plat for Legends Ranch. Yes. And as of the sending out of this -- the backup for this, we have worked with the applicant to reach a recommendation of approval as they do now meet all the approval criteria. And so that is staff's recommendation. Notice this one is within our city's ETJ, but it is within a municipal utility district. And so that's why you're seeing this preliminary plat. And I'll take any questions that you have at this time. Great. Anybody have any questions for Mia? Okay. Thank you. Although the next item is yours, too. Tim, did you -- Commissioner Smith? No. Okay. I saw your hand go up. Yeah, if you want to just brief us on that one, I think that's an extension request, correct? Correct. Yeah, this is a preliminary plat for M380 addition. It is located at the northwest corner of East University and Moch Branch. And they have not yet met all of our criteria for approval. So we are recommended to denial, but we do not have an objection to the requested extension to November 16th. I'll take any questions that you have at this time. Okay. I don't see any, Mia. Thank you very much. I know Julie is not here for our meeting tonight. Is it Sean? No. Actually, I believe it's Angie. Angie is doing this one? The rail yard hand motion. [laughter] Yes. FB22024. Hello, Sean. They're still flipping the corner right there. Gotcha. Yeah. He did say earlier there, yeah, deciding who's Julie tonight. All right. There we are. Yes. Good evening, Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner, here to present FP22024A, which is the Lang Rail yard plant. That's funny. I've got it as B on our agenda. [laughter] Wow. It may be so. I think that was just probably from the last time we saw it, right? Most likely. Yeah. And staff is recommending approval subject to the following condition, which is that the civil engineering plan has a condition of approval on it, and that would need to be satisfied in order for this plat to be fully satisfied. And therefore, if this is approved with conditions, it would have to return to you all for final approval once that condition on the CEP is met. Okay. And I assume that when that comes back with no changes, it would just be on consent on whatever meeting that would be. Is that correct? Yes. That's correct. Okay. Great. Questions on this one? Commissioner McDade. Thank you, Chair, will the applicant be here tonight for this, do you know? Yes we do have an applicant representative. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes sir. Okay. Commissioner Villarreal. Do we know when the applicant was enabled to attend the community meeting on Monday? So that's outside this body for consideration of this particular item, but you might want to get with the applicant afterwards. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. That takes us to 4DV220007. And Angie is Julie. Thank you. Yes. Can you give me just one second? I have a separate presentation for the variance. Okay, Angie Manglera, Senior Planner. This is V220007. This is a variance request for Woodland Hills. This particular subdivision variance request is in regards to sections 8.32C3, subsection A and B. This is for the -- this is for access for a three-acre tract of land located in our Division 1 ETJ, north of Hartley Field Road and east of FM 428. The applicant is requesting subdivision variance to the access easement that serves the lot. You can see the parcel here in yellow. It does not have public frontage, and it is served by an existing 20-foot wide private access easement, which is a deviation from the DDC, which requires that access easements be public and that they be at least 24 feet in width. The purpose for the creation of this is for water supply. And so it's a preference that it remains private, and due to existing conditions, it is 20 feet rather than the required 24 feet. Understood. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Let's see. And that will take us to 4EFP 220027. Are you Julie again? Okay. Thank you. Yes. So this is the final plat associated with the subdivision variance that you just saw. This is for a three-acre tract of land in our Division 1 ETJ. It's generally located east of FM 428 and north of Hartley Field Road. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. All right. That will take us to our public hearings for this evening 5AZ 220016. So I'm not -- [laughter] Thank you, Angie. If you want to give us a rundown of that item, that would be great. Absolutely. Angie Manglars, Senior Planner. This is Z 220016, a rezoning request for Oak Vista. The purpose of this rezoning request is to rezone approximately 21 acres from PDR 7 to R6. The subject property is located at the terminus of Trailhead Lane and is located south of McKinney Street. The intended purpose of this request is to develop residential uses, particularly duplexes. It is consistent with our Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which calls for this area to be moderate residential, and complies with all criteria for approval. Just a quick note, part of the reason for this rezoning request is the PDR 7 was established prior to the adoption of the 2019 DDC and required that the site develop as multifamily townhomes and that the northern access portion only be used for emergency services. By removing the PD, it kind of eliminates the vagueness of the multifamily townhomes as that's not defined in the DDC. The duplex use is consistent with the intent of the current plan development zoning that you see before you today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. So what can you answer about the access point at this point? So it would not be, so they would be able to do whatever, right? They would be required to develop in accordance with the DDC, which requires the two points of access, and Karina can step in here if I'm wrong. As the plan development regulations were adopted, it required that the northern access be utilized only as emergency services, so potentially by removing that PD overlay, they're required to adhere with the DDC, which would further enhance the mobility in the area and the connectivity by requiring the two access points. Okay. Karina, do you have something to add to that, or thanks? Yeah, I just wanted to expand on this one. So while this was under review, this was something that we talked about extensively with the applicant. With the removal of the PD, if the zoning were to be approved, the emergency access through the church property would not be preferred given, you know, if a Sunday, there's emergency on a Sunday during, you know, at one o'clock, you know, at the end of the service, an emergency vehicle would not be able to reach, you know, emergency within the subdivision. So that was one of the considerations that we have. So we're still working through the access issues with them. Part of what we're requesting is that they, if you can see my mouse, provide secondary access by connecting to Mockingbird, since Mockingbird would eventually connect to existing Mockingbird on the north. So that would be their two points of access. There is duchess on the south that would need to be extended. So again, for the straight zoning, not necessary that they have that in place. They are working with adjacent property owners to get that connection, but they would have to ensure that they have that secondary access during the platting and civil engineering phases. Okay. Yeah. And the reason I'm asking is, you know, the overlay conditions were put in for a reason and I actually went back to refresh my memory of that meeting December 8th, 2018, and there was very much detailed discussion about how, didn't want northern connectivity dumping out onto McKinney, which is an inferior road still right now, as well as a lot of detailed discussion discussing trees and the saving of the many trees. So I'm struggling with this only because duplexes I get fits in the area with what we've got, but now we're taking away these conditions since it's a straight zoning case. So yeah, I don't want to speak for Angie, I know you're coming closer. Trees were one of the discussion issues on this one. Access was probably secondary to the tree preservation. So you're right. McKinney is a secondary arterial and what we didn't want was to have an access that didn't meet our spacing requirements for one. So if they were to propose an access through that church or even kind of in between these two properties here, that would not meet our spacing requirements. We would then have a, in Julie's words, I'm going to harness Julie, a jiggy jog from the development into Mockingbird. So those are some of the considerations that we're taking in now with the developer. So we're doing that on the backside, but since this is a straight zoning, we just wanted to be sure that we at least address what could happen or what should happen. But for the straight zoning, it's consistent with the comprehensive plans. Sure. Okay. Commissioner Smith, did I see your questions? The, uh, as with the, cause I remember that meeting as well, it went back to look at as well. The, when we put it, when we said multifamily within that, um, that PD restriction, there's specifically one to do duplexes, therefore it wouldn't fall within the multifamily restriction with on there. So if, you know, a, an approval to go through and to rezone the star six went through within the access questions couldn't be answered, then essentially this would then sit R six until access could be solved in some other form of fashion. Correct. Right. By going to straight zoning, um, are six, they're subject to all the requirements in the DDC. And if those can't be met at the time of planning or civil engineering, then they have to work through that through either internally or come through with a variance of some sort. Um, can you refresh me again on what you guys are saying on what you think access would be? I know this is a zoning case, so, but just because I think this does make a difference because this, this commission has went through in that PD, that PD that went through, um, was put in by members of this commission at that time. Like I remember that meeting being for myself quite a bit, a lot about access, uh, to McKinney. Um, I just want to re-hear what you're saying about what you think the connectivity issues would be. Sure. There's, there's of course the preferred, um, connections that staff is requesting from the applicant. And then there's alternative options that we would consider right now, um, in discussions with the applicant. And I'll let them speak to what, what they're thinking when during the public hearing, um, we had discussed, um, the preferred, you know, connection point would be to Mockingbird on the south. Um, given that again, there would be a future connection, um, right here once those properties begin to develop. Um, second was the option of using, uh, lane, which is, was it lane drive or it's, it's a private lane here, um, is extending their proposed roadway, um, up and then kind of curving it so that it would meet spacing requirements. That would be an option. Um, of course they would have to coordinate with the church as it's their property. Um, third would be, um, seeing if they're, they could make public improvements through, um, to, to McKinney using where the access would have been shown. Um, of course that would make significant changes to the church's property. Um, so again, that, that would be relied upon them to agree on that. And then, um, it's not within the zoning, but this portion here is part of the parent tract. Um, and that portion would be responsible for extending Dutchess to the west. Um, so there's again, no solidified plan. Um, it would still be incumbent on them to find the, the option that works best during the planning stages. There are options for connectivity. It's just a matter of timing what the applicant can, can do. Um, and I'm not sure if they're here today. I haven't personally met with him, but I'm sure the applicant will be here during the public hearing. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Perot. Thank you, chair. Um, good questions make me think of another one. Um, just for level setting, trying to remember, cause I did watch that hearing, but it was a couple of years ago when I watched it. Um, is there a riparian ESA or something on the southwest border of this property? And if so, would that preclude connectivity to the west or southwest given that we don't have a mobility plan road drawn through there? So the larger parent tract is, I think, um, I think it's about 27 acres, but it's this entire portion and this, you are correct. This is where the riparian ESA is situated. Um, as far as future development, what develops to the west of this site or as, as roads and mobility plan looks to expand this way, they'd be subject to any provisions within the DDC 7.4 and those regulations as they, um, regard ESA and development, what can and can't happen in that area. Okay. So not, not necessarily directly part of this case, but pretty close to it. Yeah. We're shuffling over here. I just wanted to add a point of clarification. So even though, um, this is part of the parent tract and there is ESA cutting through it, um, the DDC regulations allow a mobility plan to cut across an ESA, um, without penalty. So if they needed to extend Duchess to the west, they would be allowed to do that. Understand about Duchess. I'm just trying to think within the yellow inscribed area, um, they would have to cross that ESA in order to get to Duchess, right? Uh, not necessarily, um, I know, I don't think their concept plan was attached, but I believe they're intending to not cross the ESA and, um, uh, provide connectivity through trailhead. Um, so they would essentially be going around and not cutting across. Got it. Um, and then last question, can you refresh my memory? We've been through so many productive, um, code amendments, co-text amendments, and I'm not sure where the, uh, access requirements amendment is in that process as far as public hearings and adoption. Ron is here. I was going to say, I can speak to that. So we have not initiated a public hearing process on that. So we've got that teed up for, um, probably in the next month or two, right? So yeah. So we worked through it with DCRC, but we haven't, um, brought it forth to the planning and zoning commission yet. So. Okay. But it's relatively ready to do that. Correct. Yes. We got concurrence from DCRC to bring it forth. Okay. Any other questions? Um, did staff consider, um, trying to modify this request, um, in sticking with some of the overlay conditions that were put there? What I'm struggling with is, you know, PNZ at that time and council at that time, you know, had a lot of discussion and put a lot of the overlay in place, you know, for area protection and whatnot. And then this request comes in and it just basically just kind of pushes all of that to the side. And now we're just dealing with a straight zoning case again. And so again, while I understand R6 is not unreasonable here, we just remove any of those overlay conditions that were put in place, like access, like, um, tree, what the development was going to be density wise and what have you, so. So as, as part of our review with any project that comes in, you know, we're evaluating it based upon what's in place with respect to our development regulations. So, um, you're right, when that particular plan development district was done in response to that particular plan, we reviewed, um, the access situation at that time, you know, now we have a new proposal that's come forth, um, so we do review it. We look at the ordinance that was adopted previously and we know access is a challenge for this particular property, um, but we're comfortable with our development regulations that we have in place that provide for the two points of access being satisfied. Um, and so, you know, as, as part of our review of that, we rely upon our existing development standards that we have in place and in our technical criteria manual so that we're not, um, uh, so that, well, so that we are applying it consistently with any development projects that come through. But again, we, we know access has been a challenge with this particular property owner and talking with them on what would be better appropriate options for the access through this. So it's, it's, you know, that that's the nature of our conversation with them, but we're relying upon our existing adopted regulations because we've determined that those regulations are appropriate for development within the community. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Prout. Thank you, chair. I guess, um, if it's possible, I know we don't have Julie here, but maybe if there's some other team members who were around at the time, um, when this PD was established for the benefit of the, the commission members who weren't a part of that, if, if we could add just, just a real brief review of like, here was the timeline that this project started when it was considered for a PD, here's when the tree ordinance came in, here's when the code update came in, just so we can understand the, the ordering of that, if, if that would be cogent, not cogent, um, applicable. I'm looking at Hillary just to make sure that that's in scope. I mean, we, we can bring that information back. I don't know if we can pull that together in time for the public hearing this evening. So, I mean, if you feel that that's germane for you to make a decision on this, the, the date of the plan development district approval, let's see if Julie had that referenced. It was December 8th, 2018, I believe. 2018. So, um, so we had the, you know, we had the development code that was adopted in 2019. Um, we've done, I think some adjustments possibly to tree preservation since then, but tree preservation and ESA requirements were in place with the 2019 adoption. Yeah, I, I'm okay without it. I just, it sounds like there's some concerns. And so I was thinking through maybe if, if we can, uh, sorry, if we can remind ourselves when the tree ordinance was passed prior to the 2019 code, that may be, it may help. We've had tree preservation requirements, I believe under the 02 code, if memory serves me correctly. Yeah, the 2002 code did have tree preservation requirements. They were slightly different, um, but I believe the major difference would be the minimum 30% preservation under the 2002 code. There was some, the classifications were different for trees and then the minimum preservation was different. There was also a difference in how the mitigation fees were assessed. Um, so they were in place, there was a different way of applying it, but it was, um, applied to this development at the time of approval or it would have been, had they continued in this fashion. Sure. Okay. Right. Cause I would, it's fair to say right now our tree preservation requirements are much more restricted or more stringent. Yes. A better word than what they were under the 02 code. Um, cause I know we're working on another project and under 02 code and they were able to drop down to 12 and a half percent preservation. So right now with our projects today, we strongly recommend they achieve the 30% preservation because that's what's provided for in the code, but it does allow them to drop down to 20%. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And commissioner approved just for a little more background. So they didn't come in and requesting a PD, it moved to PD when we, you know, but it was a zoning change and to put certain restrictions in place, the approval was yes, we'll agree to what you want to rezone to, but we're going to put these overlay restrictions on it. So it would have been nice to see, because it was not a flippant discussion. I mean, it was detailed discussion at PNC, it was detailed discussion at city council. So it'd have been nice to know how this, you know, I'm not into just throwing aside good discussion and what, what council at that time wanted to see in this location. So I'm trying to understand exactly if we just do a straight zoning change here, how does that balance with what those conditions that were in place? And that's, that's what I'm struggling with. That's it. Anybody else? Okay. Thank, thank you both. That will move us to five B S two one zero zero zero six. And I believe Sean is up for that one. Thanks. Good evening. Hi. I'll just get my presentation pulled up here. Okay. So good evening chair and members of the commission, Sean Jacobson, associate planner here to present S 21 dash O O O six landmark multi-family. This is a request for a specific use permit for two multi-family developments on two tracks out of an overall 53.407 acre property. And just to, so that's clear. There is some part of the property that is not part of this S U P that those areas are being left vacant for future development, but it is all part of one property. So I tracked four to the north, 336 units are proposed on 14.09 acres. Track five, 324 units are proposed in 22.4 acres. And this is at that intersection of North Locust street and loop two 88 multi-family is permitted here. It's within the SC district suburban corridor, but it does require a specific use permit. Therefore it needs to meet our approval criteria for a specific use permit staff is recommending approval because this does align with our comprehensive plan and with our criteria for approval. Sorry. Obviously I do have a longer presentation, but happy to answer any questions you have now. And there are several conditions with this that you'll go over in detail in the, there are about four pages. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which I'm, I'm happy with because that's how we get the right development in there. Any questions for Sean on this item? I would just add, and I know commissioner Smith has stepped out for just a moment, but in light of our conversation that happened last week in the joint meeting with city council, I know there were some questions regarding about improvement or I'm sorry, not, not the joint meeting, but when we did our bootcamp on traffic impact analysis, I know commissioner Smith had requested some information with respect to improvements that are being proposed as part of the project as a recommendation of that. So Sean has that in much more detail as part of his presentation during the public hearing, but if there's any questions on that as well, happy to address it now. I do not see any. We will look forward to the presentation later. Okay. I think that concludes our agenda, so I will end our work session at 5 30 PM. We will meet in council chambers at six 30. Thanks. Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, October 26th, 2022. With a quorum present, I will call our meeting to order at six 30 PM and let the record show that commissioner Cole is absent from tonight's meeting. The first item on our agenda is the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next item our agenda is to a PZ 22243. That's the consider approval of our October 12th minutes. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve commissioner Villarreal second. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none. Would the board please. That motion carries six zero. Thank you. Next item of business is our consent agenda. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval of the consent agenda. Commissioner Anderson. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries six zero. That takes us to our items for individual consideration. Four A is our first item PP 220017. Invite Mia Hines up for presentation. Hi, Mia. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. Mia Hines, Associate Planner. So this item is a preliminary plan for Legends Ranch. At the time that this report -- I'm sorry, this property is located just north of East University in the city's ETJ within a municipal utility district. At the time that the report came out, staff was recommending denial. We have since worked with the applicant and are now recommending approval and you have that updated plat was sent to you. And so we are recommending approval and I will stand for any questions that you have at this time. Great. Thank you, Mia. Any questions? Thank you. I don't see any. Thank you, I don't see any. Commissioner Villareal. I move approval. Commissioner Anderson. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 6-0. Taking us to item 4B, PP-220024. That is Mia's once again. Thank you again, members of the commission, Mia Hines, associate planner. This item is a preliminary plat for M380 addition located at the northwest corner of East University Drive and Motch Branch. At this time, staff is recommending denial as the plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval. However, we do not have any objections to the requested extension which could be granted to November 16, 2022, and I will stand for any questions you have at this time. Thanks, Mia. I do not see any questions. Thank you much. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain November 16, 2022. Commissioner McDade. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of November 16. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to 4-C, FP-220024, and I believe Sean Jacobson is presenting. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Sean Jacobson, associate planner with the City of Denton Planning Department. Here to present FP-22-0024A. This is a proposed plat for the rail yard. At this time, staff is recommending approval of the plat subject to the condition that all conditions associated with the approval of the civil engineering plans for this final plat must be satisfied and the final plat must be updated if any changes to the civil engineering plans necessitate a change to the easement configuration on the final plat. So recommending approval with that condition, and that does require that this plat would need to return to the commission once those conditions are satisfied. So happy to stand for any questions. Very good, Sean. Any questions for Sean? Okay. Thank you very much. I do have one card to speak on this individual consideration item. It is Amy Bissett. Hi. Good evening, commissioners. I am going to speak to the question that Commissioner Villareal asked in the work session this afternoon about the neighborhood meeting that took place or was supposed to take place on Monday evening. I will frame it as it relates to the plat, because I do think that there's a conversation where this informs your decision related to the plat. If you look at the plat itself, there is a sewer easement that is indicated on the plat to be abandoned by separate instrument, and I just want to start by saying that that separate instrument is a city council consideration for approval. As it relates to the neighborhood meeting on Monday evening, I want to first sincerely apologize that there was no representation there by the developer or my client or myself. I was not made aware that the meeting was taking place until Tuesday morning when I received an email from the mayor asking why we weren't in attendance. My understanding is that the representative for the Southeast Denton Neighborhood Association was working directly with my client and had scheduled that, and they subsequently informed her that they needed to postpone or cancel. She had asked to make sure somebody show up anyway, and I think there was a miscommunication there. I just want you all to know that personally, if I had known that it was happening, whether I had been invited or not, I would have been there. Over the last two years, you all see me almost every meeting. Over the last two years, I have personally facilitated 27 neighborhood meetings. The core value of my business and me personally is authentic, collaborative neighborhood engagement and engagement with our community. I hold my clients accountable to that standard as well. I just want you all to know that my commitment going forward is that between now and when that sewer easement makes it to city council, I am committed to you that I will ensure that there is genuine collaborative engagement with the neighborhood, with the community, and that my client is responsive to the feedback that they receive. That sewer easement is probably a couple of months away, if I had to guess. It just takes time getting through the city attorney's office and real estate review. We are committed, I am personally committed to making sure that we do have meetings with the neighborhood and hear their feedback and concerns and incorporate those with the client moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. I think we do have one question. Commissioner Dade. Thank you, Chair. Speaking about the neighborhood, unless there's an emergency, they probably won't meet again until February. I just have quite a few of the neighborhood watching. Is there any way you could just give them a little update because I live in that neighborhood and we don't even have an idea of what's actually being built there. Yes, sir. Let me speak to the fact that they won't meet again until after the new year. Whenever I learned that we had missed the meeting, that was my biggest concern as well because I knew they meet monthly except for November and December. First I want to offer and did call Ms. Johnson and offer to her as well that at any point that any of the neighbors would like to speak with me individually or as a group, you can come to my office, you can call my cell phone and I will answer questions at any point in time. We would also be happy to host a neighborhood meeting, but I know you may not want to meet again until after the new year. As for the project itself, there are three phases and I don't have a site plan with me, but there is one that's going out by- Ms. Smith, I think we're going to maybe leave it there. I'm going to maybe defer to legal here because we could be getting off topic. What we are considering right today is the plat, so I don't know how much detailed discussion we want to get here on the project, so I will defer to you. Right. I think we're just on the bubble with posting. I appreciate your remarks and thank you for your remarks as well. I think it might make sense for this discussion to be taken offline. We will provide an update to the neighborhood immediately. Thank you. Yeah. That's perfect. Yeah. Being that Commissioner McDade is no so many there, maybe the two of you can get together away from the meeting, get him some information to disseminate and what have you. Absolutely. Okay. Appreciate you being here. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And you're good Commissioner McDade, you're still on the board. No, I'm sorry. No, you're good. Okay. Just wanted to make sure you didn't have another question. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve with staff conditions. Commissioner Anderson. Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of this plat with the conditions presented. Any discussion? Commissioner Villarreal. I just want to thank the applicant representative for your honesty and coming here and saying that today. With that being said, while I appreciate and understand staff's analysis, I do not believe this plat adequately minimizes the significant adverse financial impact to the properties immediately adjacent to itself as prescribed in DDC chapter 2.4.5.e.9 and I will be voting against it at this current time. Any other discussion? Okay, so our motion is a first and a second for approval of the plat with conditions. Okay. Let's vote on the board. Let's see that went away quick, but I think it was a four to vote, correct? Thank you. Okay. I'm running flashed off of mine. Thank you. Okay. That will move us to item 4D, V220007. I will invite Angie up for presentation. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission, Angie Mingler, Senior Planner. This is V220007, a variance request for Woodland Hills. This is a three-acre tract of land situated in our Division 1 ETJ, which is not subject to our zoning regulations, but is subject to the subdivision regulations in subchapter 8. This property is located generally east of FM 428 and north of Hartley Field Road. The purpose for the subdivision variance request is to seek deviation from sections 8.3.2(c)(3)(a) and (c)(3)(b) as it relates to the access easement that currently serves the site. The site does not have frontage on a public thoroughfare requiring an access easement to it. As it is today, the existing access easement is 20 feet in width, where our code requires 24 feet in width, and it is currently a private access easement where the code would require that to be a public access easement. This is associated with the final plat on the next agenda item. But a little bit about this. The purpose of the plat is to develop a water plant or well to service the neighborhood that is to the west of this area. The access easement was established by Separate Instrument in 2019, and as you see today on your screen is how it exists. So they're asking for deviations from the DDC as it relates to the minimum width, and they're also asking to keep that access easement private for security reasons of that well and water plant to be established. When looking at criteria for approval for a variance, it shall not be detrimental to public health or safety, it shall be due to existing circumstances and hardship, it shall not deviate or it shall not alter the provisions of the comprehensive plan or development code, and the conditions for which the request is being sought should not have been created by an act of the owner or of the commission subsequent of the creation of that requirement. And staff finds that this request is consistent with all of those criteria and is sporting this to you this evening with the recommendation of approval. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Excellent. Thank you, Angie. Any questions for Angie on this item? I do not see any. Thank you so much. Chair can entertain a motion or further discussion on this item. Commissioner Pruitt? I move approval. Commissioner Smith? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of this variance request. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. Motion carries 6-0. That will bring Angie back up for 4-E, FP-220027. Sorry. Technical difficulties. Okay. Angie Manglars, Senior Planner. This is FP-220027. This is the final plat for the Woodlands Hill lot to be created. It is approximately three acres located in our Division 1 ETJ. As the variance request was recommended for approval, staff is forwarding this plat to you tonight with the recommendation of approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I do not see any questions. Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Anderson? Second. We've got a first and a second for approval of this final plat. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote on the board, please. That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to our public hearing portion item for this evening, and our first item is 5AZ220016. This public hearing was open at our last meeting and has remained open, and I will invite Angie up for presentation of this item tonight. Good evening again, Angie Manglars, Senior Planner. This is Z220016, a rezoning request for Oak Vista. The subject property is located at the end of Trailhead Lane. It is located generally south of East McKinney Street. The purpose of this rezoning request is to rezone approximately 21 acres from PD7 to R6 to remove the following overlay conditions. Those conditions are that the development of the site is limited to a multi-family townhouse development use with a maximum density of six units per acre, and that the access to the north shall be utilized only as emergency access only. The purpose of this request is to rezone to R6 to develop residential duplexes; however, as with any straight zoning case, any use that is allowed within R6 could be permitted with a rezoning request. Staff did review this request against our general criteria for approval and finds that it is consistent with the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to develop as moderate residential. It is an extension of existing zoning to the northeast and south of the site. You have existing multi-family as well as duplex uses, and it is consistent with the surrounding development pattern in that area. The rezoning would remove the overlay conditions and would hold the development of the site subject to current DDC regulations rather than what the PD had required. So just to touch on this again, it was reviewed in accordance with our criteria for approval. Earlier we looked at how this relates to our Comprehensive Plan. The R6 Zoning District is consistent with the moderate residential future land use. It calls for a density of between 5 and 12 dwelling units per acre. If it were to develop as duplexes, you'd be looking at about 6 dwelling units per acre for the site. And it's generally consistent with the uses that you would find in the R6 Zoning District. In addition, the Denton Comprehensive Plan recognizes that with population expected to increase, providing housing in all locations at various price points is critical, and this would help facilitate that goal as well. This is a slide that kind of shows the comparison of what could be developed today with the PD overlay versus what R6 would call for. The main things that are being addressed with going to straight zoning would be the access. The PD today requires one full connection to Trailhead Lane, and then the overlay condition requires that the northern access to McKinney Street be utilized as emergency services only. Under straight zoning, R6, they would be subject to all provisions of the DDC, including section 8.3.2, which requires two points of vehicular access to the proposed subdivision. And then the uses, the PD overlay stipulates that the use of the site shall be limited to multifamily townhomes, which is not a use that's currently defined in our DDC, whereas the R6 straight zoning case would allow for any of those uses within R6 to be developed, which could include single-family detached, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, as well as fourplexes. Looking at the impacts to the surrounding property, this is the subject site here in R7. The rezoning to R6 would be consistent with the uses that you see surrounding it to the north, east, and south of the site. Any development that occurs on the site must be in accordance with all the development standards in the DDC. There are nearby roadway extensions. Access will need to be looked at closely with this site as they go through the plotting and civil engineering processes. Public outreach was conducted in accordance with the DDC and state law. At this time, there have been no responses in favor nor in opposition to the request. Staff has reviewed this case and is recommending approval. I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have, and the applicant is also here and available to answer any questions you may have of them. Great. Thank you, Angie. My screen is... There we go. Any questions for Angie at this time? Thank you. I do have one card, and it is from the applicant wishing to speak on this item, so I will invite Rod... I think it's Zellby, maybe? I was trying to say your last name. Is it Zellby? Zellby. Yeah. Okay. You don't want to take up a lot of your time. My name's Rod Zellky. I was ZPS engineer, and I'm just here to want you to know I was here and could answer any questions or address any concerns. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Do you have a person interested in developing as presented to us? I'm just curious. What is this? I don't want to make any commitments that I'm not sure of, but there's an Eagle Cove development that's a very similar development that's under construction right now, just the other side, just the end of Trailhead. So there's this kind of activity in the area, so we're optimistic about that. Very good. Okay. Thank you very much. You bet. Appreciate you being here. This is a public hearing. I do not have any other cards in front of me, but is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion. No? Yeah, well, Commissioner McTain. Okay, we've got a first for approval of this request. Commissioner Pruitt? I'll second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of this request. Any discussion? I'll just say a couple of words on this. I was involved still on the commission and when this request first came in and a lot has changed with our development code and staff has done a great job to answer my many questions that I had presented in work session so that I could feel comfortable changing this again. You know, we used zoning change overlays back in the day on purpose to, whether that be to instill neighborhood protection or maybe make sure we only have a certain type of a development and we're eliminating certain things from the code, but I think with the changes we've made to the DDC, to our tree preservation, I think that mitigates a lot of what the intent was with this first project request, so I appreciate staff for answering my many questions. So with that, we can go ahead and vote on the board. That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to our next public hearing item, 5B, S21-0006. I will invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. I'll just get my presentation up here. All right. Good evening. Sean Jacobson, Associate Planner with the Denton Planning Department here to present S21-0006, the landmark multifamily development. This is a request for a specific use permit for two multifamily developments on two tracks out of an overall 53.407 acre property that's in the suburban corridor district. The north track, track 4, is proposed for 336 units on 14.9 acres, and track 5, south tract, is proposed for 324 units, 22.4 acres. There are an additional three tracks that make up this property, which are not proposed for development as a part of this SUP. They're being kept vacant for future development, but they are included simply because there is some infrastructure that's necessary for this development that is on those, running through those lots, those tracks. Again, this is within the suburban corridor district, and so the use is permitted, but it does require that specific use permit, and therefore, we need to evaluate it against our criteria for an SUP. Staff is recommending approval with conditions, which we'll discuss later, because this is consistent with the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan. As you can see here, this is the site plan provided. There's two tracks, each with 12 three-story buildings proposed, as well as those three vacant tracks. Both have a number of amenities. Each track is proposed to have a clubhouse and pool, as well as extensive open space. Our minimum is 8%. This is providing above that on both tracks, with walking paths, benches, bike racks. There is a 2,000-plus-foot walking trail proposed through the DME easement on the side there, which will lead down and around a detention pond, which will be a wet pond with fountains, and one path will also lead by a sidewalk to the other fountain, which is gateway to the development. As you can see there, there is a kind of a central spine street that's been designed as a boulevard. We'll discuss that later, the access to that, but that's designed both to help with the interior vehicle circulation, but also to provide tree-lined pedestrian pathways. The parking is above 1.2 spaces per bedroom. Buildings do meet all of our architectural standards and they are designed, so we expect a higher standard of design when we're looking at a specific use permit. All of these are oriented either directly onto the street or onto shared open spaces or onto the trail, and those that are along the street or the boulevard actually do have direct sidewalk entrances, so you can walk right out on the sidewalk. As you can see here, the applicant's landscape plan, I've particularly highlighted the extensive green open space that will be around the edges of this. In addition, they're proposing landscape and tree canopy that exceeds the minimums. You can see there, it's an additional 20%, I'm sorry, 12% above the 20% required, and for tree canopy, it's at 42%, which again is 12% above what's required, extensive street trees. They're exceeding buffer requirements, so when we have easements in areas where buffers are required, the DDC allows you to not provide any additional buffer, but in this case, the applicant has provided canopy trees all along both of those areas between the development and the residential, as well as the institutional to the south, and preserving essentially all the existing trees except where an infrastructure connection goes in. Also providing just in general, additional trees throughout the open space areas. Access and walkability is crucial here. The applicant is constructing both Beale Street, so extending it up to that turnaround, as well as AME Street, so both tracks will have two points of access onto North Locust. In addition, each track will have at least two access points onto Beale Street, so you have multiple ways to get out of both developments. An important key here is when the neighborhood to the east was developed, Atlas Drive was stubbed out, and per our code, normally the requirement would be that that would be extended as a full neighborhood street. However, at the first neighborhood meeting, the residents expressed that they did not want to have that connection, so we worked with the developer and determined that that would be an emergency-only access point for vehicles, but pedestrian access was provided in a pedestrian access easement from Atlas through to Beale, so that there would be the opportunity, if there's that potential future commercial development, that neighborhood could still walk through in a public easement along that tree-lined boulevard area, so they would still have a pedestrian connection, but the neighborhood's concern about vehicular impact on them was addressed, so there's no way to drive from this development over into the adjacent neighborhood. So if you can see that red there, that is an emergency-only access point. In addition, I've marked in yellow areas where the applicant will be constructing traffic improvements, I'll discuss those more in our TIA discussion, but as you can see there, there's an area where a traffic signal will be constructed, where a turn lane is being provided, and where a traffic mitigation at AME, so there's a couple options, because that's subject to text.approval, they provided a number of options, but essentially the goal will be to make sure that there's no left out occurring on either side of that. In addition, pedestrian improvements provided, so sidewalks along North Locust Street, along Beale Street, which is being constructed, and a small portion along Hercules, which will be connected to the site via that walking trail. So overall, this does provide more robust mobility and walkability in this area, more options for connectivity here in line with the intent of our comprehensive plan. And along those lines, we do want to look at what the comprehensive plan says. So the primary future land use here is community mixed use, which is intended for a mix of use, is predominantly commercial, but also an opportunity for higher density and mixed housing types, when that can be provided while minimizing the impact on nearby single family residential. So this proposed multifamily would align with that use, it's providing that complementary residential use to encourage and support the development of future commercial at the corner, and it's also providing some of that higher density housing that we expect in an SC zoning district, while having that significant buffers, that 105 foot easement between the development and the neighborhood to the east, as well as the street and open space area between this development and the neighborhood to the south of Hercules. This is also in one of the center focus areas identified by the 2040 comprehensive plan where we expect that higher level of design, and it does comply with that. So using many of our urban design principles in the way that it's laid out, greater connectivity, higher open space, mobility options, and it also helps to achieve our goal of safer, more efficient movement of vehicles and bicycles and pedestrians, so by creating those neighborhood streets, more public paths, connections. Just a note here, we had asked for at least one pedestrian connection from Atlas to Beale, the developer opted to provide both a sidewalk and a path, so north and south connectivity there. Of course, one of the most important things to look at is that compatibility with the surrounding area, so this is an SC zoned area where we do expect those higher density uses. Surrounding there, you have the SC zoned vacant track, so on the northwest part of this site at the intersection there, as well as vacant SC zoned areas to the south in the church, residential to the east on the other side of that easement, and residential to the south. So you have a mixture of uses in this area, and the opportunity for increased commercial uses in this area, so this is an appropriate opportunity for multifamily, it's at the intersection of a primary arterial and a secondary arterial, it's in a place where that multifamily can be adjacent to residential, but nonetheless be buffered from it, it's not right on top of it, and it can help to provide support for a healthy mix of uses here, so supporting potential commercial development that would serve both the multifamily and the neighborhood as well at a key intersection. In terms of adequate public facilities, we want to first touch on traffic, it's an important thing here, we had a TIA done that looked at not only the impact of the multifamily, but also the potential impact of the future commercial, if and when that develops. So the TIA indicated that both North Locust and Eastbound Loop 288, so those two primary roadways next to this, would continue to operate at least a level of service D or better all the way through 2030, which was the horizon for the study, so that's not only the impact of the multifamily, the existing traffic and growth, but also if that commercial develops as well, that those roadway linkages would stick me at the level that we require. Most surrounding intersections were indicated to be at least a level of service D through 2030, for certain turning movements, there were some issues that needed to be addressed, I'll touch on those directly. At Locust and Beale, so the main entrance to this, there was a need for a traffic signal and the developer will be constructing that, one of the conditions will be that that will have to be constructed before anything is open on this site. Some of the left terms at Locust and 288 at certain times, this site would have an impact on that, not enough to require a traffic signal, but where this developer would need to pay the proportionate cost towards a future signal there. At Locust and Hercules, this site would have a limited impact, not enough for any mitigation to be required there. At Locust and AME, as discussed, there is a need for an improvement there, and so a number of options have been included in the plan subject to textile approval, but essentially a mitigation will have to be provided there to ensure that we're not having left out terms there to address the potential issues identified in the TIA. In addition, the future commercial development, when that comes in, they'll have to update the TIA, any contributions that are required of those uses will have to be assessed and provided at that time. So overall, the surrounding street linkages are expected to operate at an acceptable level, most terms are expected to be acceptable, and where not, mitigation is proposed where that's required. There is a park within a 16-minute walk. Water and sewer is provided and will be extended along Beale Street to serve both this development and the potential future commercial. There is 500-year floodplain on this site, which does not prevent development, but it does need to be addressed, and so the applicant is proposing two drainage ponds, and those will need to be designed to address both the drainage issues for this site and also to manage any drainage for the future commercial. So at times, civil engineering plan will be assessed for satisfying both of those. Public outreach was done. We did receive four responses in opposition, and I believe we provided you with those. So overall, staff does recommend approval with a number of conditions, and these essentially relate to locking in that site plan and landscape plan, but providing some staff flexibility as well as ensuring that all of the required infrastructure does need to be put in place while at the same time providing some flexibility for any necessary movements to those or minor changes to design in response to tech stock approvals. So with that, that is my presentation. The applicant is also here and has a presentation, and I'm happy to stand for any and all questions. Thank you, Sean. Any questions at this time for Sean? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Sean, and maybe this will be covered in the applicant's presentation, but do we have any details from the applicant yet on the type of pedestrian gate and whether that would allow bicycle circulation? And then the second question I would have, I think this would be more for staff, is that path that comes down south to the southeast corner of the lot there looks like it's about 120 feet maybe, basically the lot depth between that corner and the neighborhood street to the east of there. And sorry, I should have looked up that name, but just the street that goes north from Hercules there. That would be Redstone? Yes. Thank you. Are there any plans either in conjunction with this development or separate from that that the city has to connect that path to that sidewalk with a hundred feet of work? There are no set plans at this time. I know just from talking with transportation, they're just looking at potentially how they want to address the wideness of the street there. But it's certainly something we've discussed. It's also something we've discussed with parks, so certainly something can be looked at, but there are no plans in place at this time. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Shawn at this time? Okay. Thanks, Shawn. With that, I will invite Trey Jacobson. I assume no relation. Not as far as we know. He is the applicant. I will invite him up to the podium. Chair, thank you for just claiming any relationship. I was going to make that same comment. I'm Trey Jacobson. I am a land use consultant. I'm based out of San Antonio. Joining me today is Brian Bridgewater with Mann Heart Consulting. He's the civil engineer of the project. We do not have the architects here, but I did want to at least let you know that we have a strong group and team on the project. Oops. Here's if I can go back. So we represent Landmark Companies, which is a national development company. They are based out of Florida. They do work all over the nation. They do work all over Texas, and our companies do a lot of work with them in the Metroplex. They do high-quality market rate apartment projects, highly amenitized, and we're looking forward to working with them. And I can say I'm thrilled that we're actually here today. This has been an 18-month process by which we've gone through to get here, and it started in March of 2021. This is something that Shawn didn't really mention, but we actually reached out prior to any revealing of any kind of plans or intentions. We sent letters to everybody within 500 feet. We invited them to complete a survey, indicating what their concerns, thoughts, requests were for the property. We didn't get a lot of people to respond, but those who did were telling us they didn't want this to be a commercial area, and maybe they followed from the 2019 rezoning of the site that is fresh on their minds. They didn't want things that were going to negatively impact their neighborhood. They didn't want traffic on Hercules. They wanted it away from the neighborhood. And interestingly, somebody wanted walking trails and sidewalks to connect to the neighborhood. So we took that information. We worked on our initial site plan. We briefed the neighborhood in July of last year. And what we heard back generally was there was support for apartments over the intensity of the commercial uses that could go there. They wanted traffic toward Locust and away from their neighborhood. They were happy to hear that we were talking about traffic improvements, but there still was concerns. And what they did not want, and Sean mentioned this a second ago, was any kind of vehicular connection through the neighborhood. They were concerned. I think it's irrelevant, and it's true, is that if that access was there, that there would be cut-through traffic through their neighborhood. So this process was 18 months to complete. There were 10 plan resumables as we were going through this. I guess it's important to know that your staff works very hard to make sure that all of the details of these plans are rigidly adhered to, and they have done a great job. We have been forced to, at this point, do site plans, drainage plans, landscaping plans, utilities. We can tell you where the transformers are going to be on this project. And we've done two different traffic studies to get us to this point at considerable development expense, I might add. Now that we were able to go, we had a neighborhood update even as late as last week just to let everybody know what was going on. There are people that are opposed clearly to development around the area. There's a concern broadly about unresolved infrastructure issues writ large in the area. But generally there was support, continued support, for apartments versus commercial and how we were directing the traffic. And there was support making sure that Atlas Drive was for emergency access only. Now the current zoning, as was mentioned, was really a suburban commercial corridor, which is an intense, moderate to intense commercial office retail location, and it provides four-story buildings. So it's fairly intense. And you're familiar with the types of land uses, and that multifamily is permitted by specific use permit. And that really fundamentally frames the question for you today is do you want an entire 54 acres worth of intense moderate density retail commercial activity there, or is it better given some of the residential uses around it to actually incorporate some of the multifamily that is designed and meeting the standards here. So this is an intersection that everybody knows in Denton. It's University in North Locust. There's a Kroger there if you've shopped there. If you add up all the acreages within those two yellow boxes on both sides of the streets, that's just under 22 acres. This site is 54 acres. So it's a massive site. And so if you kept this as a suburban commercial and did not kind of mix it up with something, you're going to have a level of intensity for commercial activity that probably would overwhelm the area. And I think that's relevant to and reflects in some of the neighborhood comments that we got. Now, the final site plan was Sean. This is a colorized version of it. I want to stress this point. He didn't even mention acreage. There's still 17 acres of commercial zoned, available space for future development here, even after the site is developed. So it's not that you're going to not have a lot, none, but you're not going to have 54 acres. You're going to have a substantial amount. I know, again, we talked about this area here being no-build, but I also want to mention that in terms of distances, that DME easement is 110 feet across. So there's no construction, no building, anything in that DME easement. So it provides a natural development buffer against the single-family homes. Actually Sean covered all these aspects of the project and how it was designed, so I'll skip that. I will also mention that this is a phase development. So everything that's not in yellow is going to be developed in the first phase. Those are the requirements for the project, including all the infrastructure. Intersection improvements, road extension signals, all the sidewalks, all the drainage, all the amenities will be in phase one. And again, those will be sized and incorporated to even handle the commercial development later. This is how it breaks out, just for your information. The phase one is the area to the south, and with all that, DME easement has 64 percent open space for the first apartments. And the second phase will be delayed for a period of time in order to allow for the first phase to be built, lease up, and so there'll be some state, there'll be a transition there. If you, in the aggregate, there's only, this project's approximately 18 units to an acre of density when you put it all together. So let me stop there. We are available if you have any questions, or if you need us to respond to anything later on. So check. Thank you Mr. Jacobson. Any questions at this time for Commissioner Anderson? Thank you Chair. I do have a question. Yes. Lots one, two, three, you know, for commercial. Is that going to be, is that designated as, like, restaurants, retail, you know what that's going to be eventually? No. Not at this time. I mean, the sellers are retaining the ownership of it. Our client is not acquiring that. We've had to master plan that, I think, smartly at the staff's urging to understand what the impacts were. We, there's been some assumptions for traffic planning about some intensity. I can tell you the types of uses that were assumed and were like a grocery store, given its proximity to the residential uses, a couple of different strip centers, I think equating to about 55,000 square feet, a gas station, convenience store, and some standalone restaurants were the assumptions in the development planning, but are, is that what's going to happen? I have no idea. Okay. But your part of it is just the complex and stuff? That's right. Okay. That's both of those, combined apartment development is what we're talking about. Phase four and phase five. Okay. Any other questions at this time? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, chair. Do you think it's foreseeable within your, no, I see the site plan on the setback, the 100 foot setback that you guys have from the single family residential to the east. Do you think it's feasible to say that buffer, the buffer of trees along the back fence of all those will still be maintained by your project as you guys have it drawn out? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Prudt. Thank you, chair. I guess I'll direct my question to you. I think we heard about the fact that there would be some pedestrian access right next to that emergency gate. Would it be feasible for someone to bike through there and are any of the plans or ideas of that fleshed out to a certain specificity yet or is that just an idea? I believe that the intent of doing this is to actually build public right of way across the entirety. So from Redland that people on bikes or pedestrians can walk all the way through that is a public drive that's being built. I believe the control gates are really to, are like knocks box for emergency access, for limiting access to fire and emergency vehicles in there. I don't know that we have, do we have the design specified yet, but I mean my understanding is it's meant to limit vehicular traffic, not prevent bike or pedestrians. In fact, I believe the intention of the, through our design efforts, was to encourage that pedestrian bike connectivity. Okay. Yeah. And moreover, I should say that the gate is after the trails under the DME, it's on the private side of the DME. Understood. And it would be your property and your design for, not for the vehicular gate, but for the pass through of the pedestrian kind of walkway path. My concern really is that, I mean, we're putting 60 bicycle parking spaces in this complex and I really don't want any of them to think that they should get out on West, on Locust, on Locust there, where the speed limit's probably 55 and people are gonna probably go in 70. And so, what I don't want to happen is see this go up and there be, you know, a publicly accessible walkway, but where you have to, you know, open it and then hold this with your left toe while you hold your bag on your back and get your bike through there and fall over in the process. So I just didn't know if there was any specificity that we could have confidence that... I believe that the sidewalks are open and I'm not... I believe it's simply meant to be a vehicular emergency access gate. Okay. It should remain open for pedestrians or bikes that flow across it at all times. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Prue, I think Sean might have something he can add to that. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that with the design, the gate is really just there for the vehicles, the sidewalks go right...they start out, they go right on through. Any other questions at this moment for... I assume that you've read all the detailed conditions that staff put in there and they are acceptable, correct? We're very well aware of them. Yes. We are fully aware of them through the design process. And are okay with them? Yes, ma'am. Excellent. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Seeing no further questions for the applicant, I will move on to the next card that I have to speak and that would be Diana Orender. Come on up to the podium and state your name and address and your time will begin. Hi. Good evening. Thank you for letting us speak and actually Sean answered a lot of my questions, but I would just wanted to make a brief comment regarding that entire corridor because once you see another multifamily going in and there's already one under construction and one was just finished and now I live in the neighborhood just east of the one that includes Atlas and Redstone, so while I was not given the opportunity to comment on it earlier, in the phase, in the development, it still does affect me because I still have to deal with the traffic, I still have to deal with thousands and thousands and thousands of more cars and human beings being presented. So here are my written remarks. I have lived in Denton County since 1994 when I moved into my current home off of Stewart Road in 2007. It was just my neighborhood and the one that includes Atlas and Redstone. Our two neighborhoods were the farthest north and to still be inside the city limits of Denton, I know that things change. I've worked in local and county government for over 20 years. I know growing means we're doing something right and people want to be here, so I'm not against change at all. When I saw the signs for this development, I immediately had some questions. My first question was how are we going to deal with the extra traffic? I'm so glad that there were some traffic lights included in this plan. We are also concerned about the sidewalks and the bike lanes. I know we have bike lanes on the south side of Hercules Lane. I'm not sure there's a through bike lane on the north side or not. Also, Locust is a concern because it's not very well lit, there's no shoulder. The intersection of Hercules and Locust has become more dangerous lately just because of the ... Oh, I'm almost out of time. My main concern is the grocery store. We do not have any grocery stores on the north side of our town and hopefully they will use that additional commercial to give us a grocery store soon. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts and comments. Appreciate that. The next card I have to speak is Gabriella Muntazan. Hello. Hello. Good evening, y'all. My name is Gabby Mantacon. I'm a Detonative. As a child, I lived just off of Stewart Road and I now live off of Locust Street near this proposed development. I'd like to bring a few concerns to your attention tonight. The development looks beautiful. I love the green space and the flood mitigation included, but it's the surrounding areas that have given me cause for concern. The first is I want to second the unresolved infrastructure deficiency as outlined in the presentations. Locust is one lane each way with inconsistent turn lanes, lack of protection on the turns, incomplete sidewalks. They're on one side of the road. Then they're on the other. They're not connected. Poorly lit. That speed limit is a suggestion to most people coming into town. I'm concerned about the increased needs the development will place on that thoroughfare. I know it was just improved, but I don't know if that's enough to sustain this much more people coming into the area. The proposed development is located in a census tract that has already added 982 housing units over the past couple of years in 4.6 square miles. If the development were approved, that would increase it by 3,000 people in less than five years. My main concern for this development is that residents on the north side of Denton, where I've lived for 15 plus years, already reside in a food desert with poor access to fresh food and vegetables. We are a low income and low access to grocery stores. The census tract currently has a poverty level double the county average with a significant amount of residents more than a mile away from the nearest food store. There are actually only five grocery stores north of university, and most of them are on university itself. From Asbury Methodist Church, the shortest walk to a grocery store is 40 minutes, and you must walk because there are no bus stops north of Windsor, and even if you did make a dangerous walk from the church to Locust with those incomplete sidewalks, the bus stop located at Windsor and Elm doesn't connect to the DCTA routes that serve and access Kroger, Walmart, anything on university. In order to add multifamily housing to our city, we have to support our families with wise development. The Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan gives us those mobility outlines that I was happy to see addressed, but it also has a community health goal that promotes access to healthy foods by evaluating food access with each new development. I'm concerned the high development in this area is not going to align with Denton's vision for our community and citizens and all those kiddos moving in, and I'd like to request that the recommended actions would include tax incentives for the development of a grocery store in those additional tracks, so we're not just kind of in a Taco Bell and 7-Eleven situation like we are on the other side of Sherman. I'd really like to see more access to groceries on my side of town. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Any questions for the speaker? No? Okay. Thank you. Next card I have is Lauren Upchurch. Good evening. Hi there. I'll just state your name and address, your time will begin. Yes. I am a resident of the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed development. In fact, my house is three doors down from the dead end of Atlas Drive that is being proposed to be built out as a throughway for the two apartment complexes proposed by Landmark, and I am here in support of the proposed developments as my understanding is it's either apartments or commercial, and the thought of 54 acres, him showing us exactly how big 54 acres of commercial or office buildings or whatever, I definitely would like, especially me being able to see from my front yard what's going to be all the way down that street once it's opened up, I would much rather see an apartment complex than the back of an office building or what have you. I went to both neighborhood meetings that Trey hosted, and yes, I did speak out in regards to wanting the vehicle gate blocking off Atlas Drive. I do not want a bunch of traffic going through, well, especially down my street, like right in front of my house, so I do approve of what they are saying so far as far as that emergency gate and especially including the open access for pedestrians and bicycles, because I do have a dog. He has recently learned how to walk on a leash fine, and I would be happy to walk along some trails or if they have a nice tree line thing through the neighborhood, but I think it would also go both ways that once the commercial section of that large tract of land is developed that the apartment dwellers would not want my neighborhood going through there, clogging up their way on to get to the, well, hopefully grocery store as this previous speaker said, because yes, we do need a grocery store, but yeah, I think the way it's been laid out is highest and best use of the land as it is, and in my amateur opinion, for the immediate needs of the area as Denton grows, as DFW grows, and yes, we're on the north part, all we can do is move outward and we are that boundary right now, I understand that, and so that's all I've got for you, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, I don't have, I've got a white card here from Melvin Hasler. I don't know if you are here, I don't know that you wish to speak. You might have just filled it out, oh, Mr. Melvin, did you want to speak at all? You don't have to. Hello, sir. We've had this going in consideration and planning and all details looked at over a period of over two years now, and I feel like everything should be worked out to be satisfactory for the best use of this property, and I think it'll be very helpful to the city in many ways, so I really absolutely hope that this can be looked at in a positive manner from, you know, the way it's being presented. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I don't have any other cards in front of me, but this is a public hearing, and you are welcome to fill one out later if you want to come up to the podium to speak. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak who has not yet? Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for motion or a discussion. Before I get to your motion, I've just got a couple of questions myself that I need answered, if that's okay. Karina, this one might be for you. It has to do with Condition 9. I just want a little bit more clarity as we have subject to approval of TXDOT, and if you can share with me and everyone what that means. Karina Maldonado, Transportation Planner with Development Services. So I have to read the condition because I'm not familiar with the language. I know we had discussions internally, so just give me one second. It's really just the beginning of that comment. I'm sorry? It's really just the beginning of that condition where it says subject to TXDOT approval. I wonder if you could enlighten us on that. Yes. So this project is located adjacent to TXDOT facilities, so Locust Street is a TXDOT roadway. So when the development comes in for the next stage of approved, they would have to submit a TXDOT permit. So the signal that would go in, it has to be reviewed by staff and then reviewed and approved by TXDOT. So all improvements on the roadway, whether that's Loop 288 or Locust, they do have to go through that additional review process and application. So if TXDOT comes back and has additional comments, this condition is to allow some flexibility to where they're still providing the traffic signal, but they can make adjustments as required by TXDOT. And we can still input. I think it's super important that this is put in before any certificates of occupancy. So I just want to make sure that we can still hold to that even though we're waiting. It's really TXDOT who's going to kind of hold the card in that. I guess if I could add some to this, and Sean, you might be able to address this as well, but keep in mind because it is a TXDOT facility, they ultimately have final say on the timing associated with the installation of the traffic signal, and I believe the traffic impact analysis that was submitted supports the signal warranting TXDOT. That is correct. The traffic warrant analysis was done to determine that it would meet TXDOT's warrants. Before people are in it? Yeah. And the way that, and I did specifically write it with that intent that it had to be done before that move forward. Right. But as the analysis was done, it was done. Okay. Yes. And it meets approval without- The DIA did have a traffic warrant analysis, and it did indicate that it was needed for the development to occur. That is what I needed answered. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's see. Okay. I think that answers my questions. Commissioner Pritz. Thank you, Chair. I think this may be for Karina first. As I look at the map around here, and the properties to the south, the property north and south of Hercules there is already built out in a section where there's a small bridge over the drainage area and then there's a narrow roadway, and that's this section where the bike lanes on either side just kind of stop. Do you know if that section of Hercules is identified on our current CIP plan or the future one that we're developing? It's not currently on the CIP. I mean, there's a CIP plan for repaving. I believe it's planned. I'll have to go back and double check. I just had it open, but it escapes me. But there is a future side path identified for that portion of Hercules, so there will be an extension of bike facilities through that area. Okay. So if it gets on the future CIP plan, then that would be eligible for impact fee dollars and that sort of thing? Yeah. When the adjacent property comes in, so the one to the south, if that property comes in for development, they would be subject to right-of-way dedication and roadway improvements. Sure. I guess my question is, it sounds like right now Hercules, that section of Hercules is not on the CIP plan, so it would need an adjacent development activity in order to trigger that. But if it gets put on the CIP plan, then it could be a future city-initiated upgrade to that segment. Is that correct? Yes. And I can verify for you in a second if it is on the CIP right now. I had it open, but in a general sense, yes, it would be included. It's not important to verify. I think it's more important to make sure it gets on there in the future. And then maybe one question for Sean. Thank you. As I saw on the site plan with the three reserved parcels that are zoned SC right now, just to make sure I am remembering our code correctly, in SC zoning, are there any site design criteria that would speak to how those parcels would develop as they face or backside entry to the multifamily front doors that are so nicely lining that public street there on the north side? So, and it's a great question, our overall DDC standards speak to needing to orient to the street. They don't necessarily say which street you need to orient to, however, that is also something that as each site develops, as planners working through the development review process, we can work with those applicants to determine what makes the most sense for that area. We did also work with the design of the multifamily to ensure that there was some buffering along those rights of way in between, so that if it is not necessarily the best thing to look at, there is mitigation there. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Sean. Any other questions at this moment at staff? Okay. I will move to Commissioner Smith and his motion. Thank you, Chair. Make a motion to approve the staff conditions. Commissioner Anderson? I second. We have a first and a second for approval as presented by staff. Any discussion? I'll just say a couple of words that I appreciate the detailed conditions that were put on this. I know that was a lot of work for staff. I know it's a lot of work for the developer, and it will be going forward as you develop this property, but I think it's super important because it just shows that it was really good collaboration. I think between our city and between the neighborhood, and that's what this is all about in my opinion, so I hope you continue all that collaboration and outreach to the community as you move forward in the development. As someone said earlier, I think in their comments, I do think it's a great, highest and best use of this piece of this land. It works as a nice transition. I mean, you've got the nice buffer there anyway with the easement, and then this transition as we move to the west and for future commercial uses. I hear the frustration about the area with regard to traffic. We are at the mercy on so many of our roads with the state, and that is something that is difficult and challenging, but we have to, I mean, as we continue to develop, we'll get these improved one of these days. I know it. Thanks all of you for coming to speak and share your ideas. Love the incentive idea. Take that to city council. I would encourage you to, they have an open mic at every meeting. You can sign up to speak. I think we get that so often because we have a lot of food deserts in the city, so see if something maybe can get started, because that would be the level it would need to get started on is at city council, so I would absolutely encourage you. You're a great speaker, so that's a great place to use those words for sure. With that, if there's no further discussion, we'll go ahead and vote on the board. That motion carries 6-0, and that will take us to item 6, our planning and zoning commission project matrix, so I will turn that to Tina. Okay. Several things to report this evening. So with respect to the matrix, so we added to the matrix, Commissioner Smith or Vice Chairman Smith, your request regarding additional detail regarding the results of traffic impact analysis on future projects, so hopefully you found that beneficial this evening with the level of detail that we included for the agenda item this evening, particularly this most recent one. Also we have identified a second boot camp that we're going to do on transportation-related items, and so we have that programmed to be bringing that back here to you at a future work session date to help address some of that, but otherwise there's no other changes that have been made to the matrix unless there's anything that the commission's interested in adding this evening, and then I guess if you want to entertain it now, that's fine, and I've got a rundown on all the development activity that's happened at council as well, so I'll defer. Do you want comments right now on the matrix to have anything added, or do you want me to go through everything else? Yeah, go ahead and do that rundown like you usually do, that'd be great. Okay, perfect. So back on October 18th with city council, we had several items on the agenda. So there were three items that were related to an annexation that is pending, and I know the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't necessarily see the annexation portions of these requests, but you do see the corresponding zoning at such point in time when we get to that. So we had three items related to an annexation. One was with respect to a municipal services agreement. The other was the first reading on the ordinance and also a public hearing associated with it. So it's for a property that's located, it's about 83 acres of land, generally located on the north side of Barthol Road, approximately 1,300 feet west of Interstate I-35. So that property is currently going through annexation, and once they're completed with that, then the applicant presumably will come through with a follow-up zoning case related to that. We also had on the agenda that evening, the specific use permit for the equipment sales and rental use. This was on the north side of 380, about 250 feet east of Spring Valley Drive, if you recall, this was the U-Haul project that the commission has considered. The City Council did approve that. Also, let's see, that's annexation. We also had an item with respect to change in zoning and use classification from suburban quarter district to the MN district, as well as there was a sliver of land that was also zoned R3 and changed into mixed use. So this was the property that was predominantly on the north side of 380 between Nottingham Drive and Old North Road. If you recall, this rezoning request was to rezone it to MN, basically to help assist with providing the access for the multifamily development. If you recall, on the north side of 380, we have SC zoning, and then we have a strip, if you will, of MN zoning. The applicant was proposing to develop a multifamily development, which is allowed by Ryden MN, but they wanted to take the access from 380, and so they needed to rezone the frontage portion in order to be able to obtain their access. And then also, they were adding some additional multifamily units to the front. That was actually postponed indefinitely, and the direction to the applicant from council was that they work on coming forth, if they're still interested in developing the property, with the planned development district, because given so much of the discussion was regarding the use of the property as multifamily and how that may be developed, and then addressing some of the resident concerns that have been expressed. So I'm not sure what the applicant is going to do, whether or not they'll come back with a planned development district request, but again, that current zoning case was postponed indefinitely by council. Then we also had a change in zoning from, it looks like we had some rural residential, some residential R4 and mixed use neighborhood district to R6 that was on approximately 84 acres of land, located on the south side of East McKinney Street, at the intersection McKinney and Laney Circle. So this was, we refer to this as the Stella Hills Project, if you recall on that, and the Planning and Zoning Commission, I believe, unanimously recommend approval of that, but council did approve that item 7-0. There was quite a bit of discussion regarding just the overall access challenges within that area, and I know council had made comments, I have on my notes here, robust, TIA desired given the limited access in the two lane roads within the area. So it was a straight rezoning request at such point in time when they come in with a preliminary platform development, then we'll be working with the applicant to have them submit the appropriate traffic impact analysis and working through all of the access consideration issues, just, you know, similar like the zoning case you had this evening, just north of Dutchess Drive. Then we also had a couple of amendments to the debt and development code. So the first one was with respect to the multifamily dwelling use and MN dimensional district standards, if you recall, this was some amendments that worked its way through the development code review committee, for those of you that serve on that, and then it came forth to the Planning and Zoning Commission. So city council did approve those changes to the debt and development code, and I believe those actually go into effect on November 1st, if I'm researching correctly. And then we also had amendments proposed to our planned development district procedures within the DDC, and those were also approved by city council as well. So again, I believe that goes into effect on November 1st. So applicants will have the opportunity if they decide to pursue a plan development district, we now have better criteria that address whether or not it's an overlay plan development district versus the standard. So that was all the activity from October 18th. And then last night we did have, or excuse me, on the 25th, yeah, last night, we did have on council's agenda, an item that we've been working on for a while, and I know we had given a presentation back to the Planning and Zoning Commission probably earlier this summer about a municipal utility district policy that staff has been working on. And so the city council did approve that policy. We've been working with them, gosh, back in May we got direction on the goals and policy, the goals and objectives associated with that policy, and I shared that with the Planning and Zoning Commission shortly thereafter. And then we had another discussion with council where we presented the draft policy to them in September, and they were very pleased with what we had included within that and directed us to bring that back for adoption. So yesterday we did get that policy adopted, and if the commission is interested, I'm happy to share with you the policy and where we landed with respect to that, and kind of like similar to a boot camp presentation or give a briefing if that's something that you may be interested in. As you're well aware, if we have municipal utility districts that do develop within our ETJ area, and particularly we're seeing pressures on the city's west side for those types of developments. And if you recall, the whole goal and intent of that policy is really to get us a seat at the table and negotiate development agreements with developers of those particular types of developments. They're typically residential in nature, however they can have some commercial uses associated with them. But we now have a new policy in place that we believe better addresses the conditions within our ETJ and in our development goals for just development within our ETJ. Basically we want to enter into a development agreement so that they are developing those particular or constructing those developments in accordance with our design standards as provided for in the DDC. But again, if that's something, if the commission would like the full blown presentation on that and take a look at the policy, happy to share that with you, and we could do that in a work session format. So otherwise, let's see, I believe that's all I needed to, yes, that's all I had to report to the commission this evening, so happy to answer any questions you may have and receive any additional direction. Questions for Tina or adding anything to the matrix? The only thing I'm going to add is maybe not to the matrix, it's not really that, but more procedural going forward. So you know in the past we've been very overlay happy like we were with this one back in the day where we had to put all these conditions on a zoning case. So I would request if we have one like we did today, if we could absolutely include in the presentation what those overlay conditions were and how the new request, if staff is approving, recommending approval for the request, how those are met because, or maybe how changes in our code address them, but somehow so that they're addressed because they were there, that was always good intense discussion by PNZ and council with putting these conditions on and I don't want to just forget them if that development happens to not make like this one did. Just to make sure again the intent of those conditions are not just thrown away and still being considered because they were considered very much in detail at those meetings. So if we could just move that into our backup and I think it's a really important part of the analysis of when staff does it to be honest with you, if they were there in the first place I think staff needs to consider how a new request weighs out with those. Absolutely. We can do that. Thank you. Anything else? We'll move to concluding items. Commissioner Villarreal. I just want to remind everyone that early voting is open. You can vote tomorrow until next Friday, November 4th, any location in Denton County and nearest one will be Denton Civic Center right across the way. Excellent. Thank you. My only ones are we've got our great Day of the Dead festival coming up this weekend. So if you're going, be safe, have a great time. Happy Halloween. Thanks for being here everybody for your time and let's adjourn at 7.50 p.m. [ Silence ]