WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.960 Good evening and thank you for holding a little bit. 00:00:10.960 --> 00:00:16.160 We run a little behind but welcome to the plan and zoning work session meeting for November 00:00:16.160 --> 00:00:17.160 14th. 00:00:17.160 --> 00:00:23.040 We'll open the work session at 415 and work through the agenda. 00:00:23.040 --> 00:00:26.480 First I'll ask if there's any clarification to the agenda from Richard that we need to 00:00:26.480 --> 00:00:28.480 go over or highlight. 00:00:28.480 --> 00:00:30.800 Perfect. 00:00:30.800 --> 00:00:33.920 So first up we'll go to the consent agenda item. 00:00:33.920 --> 00:00:36.160 There's four items, nope, three items there. 00:00:36.160 --> 00:00:39.200 Is there any questions on any of those items that we need to bring up? 00:00:39.200 --> 00:00:40.200 Commissioner Beck. 00:00:40.200 --> 00:00:41.200 Thank you, Chair. 00:00:41.200 --> 00:00:47.320 I do have one quick question about the FP-1805. 00:00:47.320 --> 00:00:54.840 Can I invite Haley up? 00:00:54.840 --> 00:00:58.040 Looking at, and you don't need to bring anything up, looking at the Google map there, there's 00:00:58.040 --> 00:00:59.600 a big old natural water tank. 00:00:59.600 --> 00:01:04.080 Is that, is that gone away or is that still there and if it's still there are they working 00:01:04.080 --> 00:01:05.080 around it? 00:01:05.080 --> 00:01:07.480 Are you referring to the pond that's on the property? 00:01:07.480 --> 00:01:08.480 Yes. 00:01:08.480 --> 00:01:14.840 That, the existing pond is slightly off site from where this project is, but it is kind 00:01:14.840 --> 00:01:19.760 of being worked around for this project and another one and will be modified as they develop 00:01:19.760 --> 00:01:23.400 when they'll be providing onsite detention to kind of replace that existing pond. 00:01:23.400 --> 00:01:26.280 Okay, okay, but they're going to be building around it. 00:01:26.280 --> 00:01:27.280 Yes, that's correct. 00:01:27.280 --> 00:01:28.280 Thanks. 00:01:28.280 --> 00:01:29.280 Thanks, Haley. 00:01:29.280 --> 00:01:32.560 Is there any other questions about the consent agenda? 00:01:32.560 --> 00:01:37.940 I think we're good. 00:01:37.940 --> 00:01:41.200 With that, we'll go to individual consideration, which is the calendar. 00:01:41.200 --> 00:01:42.200 We can talk about it briefly. 00:01:42.200 --> 00:01:49.360 Is there any dates or any concerns from anyone regarding the calendar? 00:01:49.360 --> 00:01:54.320 Yes, Commissioner Ellis, sorry. 00:01:54.320 --> 00:01:56.280 Thank you, Chair. 00:01:56.280 --> 00:01:57.280 Just an observation. 00:01:57.280 --> 00:01:59.240 We only have one meeting scheduled in July. 00:01:59.240 --> 00:02:00.240 Typically we have two. 00:02:00.240 --> 00:02:04.240 Is that, was that on purpose? 00:02:04.240 --> 00:02:13.100 Is that okay? 00:02:13.100 --> 00:02:18.360 It was just with the holidays lining it up and then adjusting every other, so it was 00:02:18.360 --> 00:02:22.240 almost going to play out that it was going to happen at one month or we were going to 00:02:22.240 --> 00:02:28.040 have almost back-to-back meetings as we, you know, and so we just kind of kept it at kind 00:02:28.040 --> 00:02:30.080 of with the normal schedule. 00:02:30.080 --> 00:02:31.960 Okay, because it looked like it worked okay before. 00:02:31.960 --> 00:02:35.080 It's just, it must be on the back end then of the calendar. 00:02:35.080 --> 00:02:36.080 If I recall correctly. 00:02:36.080 --> 00:02:37.080 Okay. 00:02:37.080 --> 00:02:38.080 Just curious. 00:02:38.080 --> 00:02:39.080 Mr. Beck. 00:02:39.080 --> 00:02:40.080 Thank you, Chair. 00:02:40.080 --> 00:02:43.760 I'm just curious why we went from the second and fourth Wednesday to the first and third 00:02:43.760 --> 00:02:52.760 Wednesday, too. 00:02:52.760 --> 00:02:53.760 Silence. 00:02:53.760 --> 00:02:56.560 You know, when we first joined it was the first and third and then it switched to the 00:02:56.560 --> 00:02:59.600 second and fourth and now it's, I think, back. 00:02:59.600 --> 00:03:03.800 It's been a while, but is that what it's going to be now, first and third Wednesday? 00:03:03.800 --> 00:03:04.800 Evidently. 00:03:04.800 --> 00:03:05.800 Yeah, that's what we are. 00:03:05.800 --> 00:03:06.800 Unless you want to. 00:03:06.800 --> 00:03:07.800 Okay. 00:03:07.800 --> 00:03:08.800 Looking at the council schedule. 00:03:08.800 --> 00:03:09.800 It appears to be. 00:03:09.800 --> 00:03:10.800 There wasn't any particular reason why we... 00:03:10.800 --> 00:03:11.800 Okay. 00:03:11.800 --> 00:03:17.360 I wonder if council changed something because we usually meet with council or the Wednesday 00:03:17.360 --> 00:03:18.360 after council. 00:03:18.360 --> 00:03:19.360 Okay. 00:03:19.360 --> 00:03:20.360 Commissioner Ellis. 00:03:20.360 --> 00:03:21.360 Thank you. 00:03:21.360 --> 00:03:24.480 Actually, it looks like it jumps throughout, depending on the month. 00:03:24.480 --> 00:03:25.480 Pardon me? 00:03:25.480 --> 00:03:26.480 It looks like it jumps. 00:03:26.480 --> 00:03:28.880 I mean, you got second and fourth, you know. 00:03:28.880 --> 00:03:29.880 Because of the holidays. 00:03:29.880 --> 00:03:30.880 Yeah. 00:03:30.880 --> 00:03:31.880 You got to work around that. 00:03:31.880 --> 00:03:32.880 Yeah. 00:03:32.880 --> 00:03:33.880 I know spring break gets us in there. 00:03:33.880 --> 00:03:34.880 Probably some holidays, so. 00:03:34.880 --> 00:03:38.240 I was looking at May and I thought, okay, it's spring break, but then it continued on 00:03:38.240 --> 00:03:39.240 after that. 00:03:39.240 --> 00:03:40.240 Yeah. 00:03:40.240 --> 00:03:41.240 January because it was the day after. 00:03:41.240 --> 00:03:42.240 Yeah. 00:03:42.240 --> 00:03:43.240 And I think that date had already been set. 00:03:43.240 --> 00:03:49.040 And then it was essentially first and third with the exception of July. 00:03:49.040 --> 00:03:54.760 I thought you guys were just trying to throw me off. 00:03:54.760 --> 00:03:58.360 I've got to adjust to this now. 00:03:58.360 --> 00:03:59.760 All right. 00:03:59.760 --> 00:04:00.760 Thanks. 00:04:00.760 --> 00:04:01.760 Perfect. 00:04:01.760 --> 00:04:09.720 We'll consider the vote in public session, so if anything comes up between now and then, 00:04:09.720 --> 00:04:13.940 we'll certainly make sure that I think Commissioner Smith will be here to weigh in if that needs 00:04:13.940 --> 00:04:16.000 to be discussed further. 00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:22.200 Moving on to public hearing, item A, that has been postponed once again. 00:04:22.200 --> 00:04:26.200 So we hope to hear that later this month. 00:04:26.200 --> 00:04:30.880 Same with B, that's been withdrawn completely. 00:04:30.880 --> 00:04:36.920 And then that'll move us to items C and then subsequently D. But the first one would be 00:04:36.920 --> 00:04:42.440 the zoning 180022 and Ron can take it away. 00:04:42.440 --> 00:04:43.440 Great. 00:04:43.440 --> 00:04:47.040 Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. 00:04:47.040 --> 00:04:53.680 Hold this up real quick. 00:04:53.680 --> 00:05:02.800 This is the rezoning requests for a property located just south of Mingo, west of Mockingbird, 00:05:02.800 --> 00:05:05.320 as shown on this exhibit, this slide. 00:05:05.320 --> 00:05:12.320 The request is to go from a zoning district of NRMU 12 to NRMU. 00:05:12.320 --> 00:05:18.400 The proposed zoning change is to allow for more density. 00:05:18.400 --> 00:05:26.120 Back earlier this year, there was a submittal for a specific use permit, which staff reviewed. 00:05:26.120 --> 00:05:31.360 Looking at the site plan, it was determined that the density would not fit or would not 00:05:31.360 --> 00:05:38.880 be allowed under the NRMU 12, therefore the applicant has requested a zoning change to 00:05:38.880 --> 00:05:39.880 NRMU. 00:05:39.880 --> 00:05:45.720 The site is approximately 9.91 acres, and again, the general location is just south 00:05:45.720 --> 00:05:53.720 of Mingo and east, I'm sorry, west of Mockingbird. 00:05:53.720 --> 00:06:01.280 Looking at the future land use designation of the area, you see that there is moderate 00:06:01.280 --> 00:06:08.160 residential along this swath of area, south of the railroad tracks. 00:06:08.160 --> 00:06:15.840 You've got community mixed use to the north, and to the south of the area is N residential, 00:06:15.840 --> 00:06:19.800 low residential, right here. 00:06:19.800 --> 00:06:27.160 The intent for moderate residential is for four to 12 dwelling units per acre, small detached 00:06:27.160 --> 00:06:28.160 houses. 00:06:28.160 --> 00:06:32.680 Small homes and multi-family are permitted, but at a lower density. 00:06:32.680 --> 00:06:38.680 The idea here is to maintain the scale and orientation of the area. 00:06:38.680 --> 00:06:45.960 It serves as a transition to zoning from low to moderate to a little bit more intense uses, 00:06:45.960 --> 00:06:54.640 so that's the intent as far as the future land use designation is presented. 00:06:54.640 --> 00:07:01.400 So this slide here illustrates the comparison between what is existing NRMU 12 and what 00:07:01.400 --> 00:07:09.320 it will be if it was to be approved, which is NRMU, so just a mapping slide that shows 00:07:09.320 --> 00:07:12.280 the difference. 00:07:12.280 --> 00:07:16.840 As you all know, there are two criteria in which the Planning Zoning Commission uses 00:07:16.840 --> 00:07:22.400 per the development code that the proposed rezoning conforms with the future land use 00:07:22.400 --> 00:07:28.080 element of the Den Plan 2030. 00:07:28.080 --> 00:07:34.720 There is an analysis in your backup that kind of covers the intent, again, of the future 00:07:34.720 --> 00:07:38.280 land use element, specifically the moderate residential. 00:07:38.280 --> 00:07:46.240 In addition, the zoning change request also should be reviewed against its ability or 00:07:46.240 --> 00:07:53.760 the zoning ability to facilitate the adequate provision for infrastructure such as transportation, 00:07:53.760 --> 00:08:01.720 water, sewer, schools, and other public requirements and convenience. 00:08:01.720 --> 00:08:08.320 So we further, as the two criteria state, we looked at the future land use element and, 00:08:08.320 --> 00:08:10.160 again, residential moderate. 00:08:10.160 --> 00:08:17.040 We discussed earlier, four to 12 dwelling units, low-rise multifamilies are permitted, 00:08:17.040 --> 00:08:22.120 and again, the idea there is to complement the surrounding area, primarily in planning 00:08:22.120 --> 00:08:31.160 terms is a way of providing a transition or buffer to more intense uses. 00:08:31.160 --> 00:08:37.340 In cases where the land use or the zoning does not fit the future land use designation 00:08:37.340 --> 00:08:44.720 such as moderate residential, staff has the ability to look at a criteria of what do we 00:08:44.720 --> 00:08:49.320 look at, and this is a list of what we look at. 00:08:49.320 --> 00:08:55.440 In some instances, it was clear that it would not fit within the future land use designation 00:08:55.440 --> 00:08:56.440 of moderate residential. 00:08:56.440 --> 00:09:00.800 I'm not going to go through all of this, but this, again, is a list that we looked into 00:09:00.800 --> 00:09:07.320 when we considered proposing a recommendation. 00:09:07.320 --> 00:09:12.780 For the analysis, we also looked at off-street compatibility. 00:09:12.780 --> 00:09:18.360 One of the things that we want to make sure is that this zoning district would be compatible 00:09:18.360 --> 00:09:22.820 with the surrounding area and the uses that go with that zoning district. 00:09:22.820 --> 00:09:29.320 So again, to orient you to the area, if you already know it, Mingo to the north, you've 00:09:29.320 --> 00:09:35.400 got University to the further northeast, Loop 288 is to the east here, and then Audre is 00:09:35.400 --> 00:09:42.760 the main street to the south, Mockingbird follows this line in this general area here. 00:09:42.760 --> 00:09:48.160 We've got a number of residential subdivisions in the area, Bel Air North directly south, 00:09:48.160 --> 00:09:53.720 Oak Ridge east of the property, further east is Audre Heights, further south is the East 00:09:53.720 --> 00:09:56.760 Hampton Village subdivision. 00:09:56.760 --> 00:10:04.360 Also to the west, we have the Shiloh Fields, and then Woodlands of Denton, which is a multifamily 00:10:04.360 --> 00:10:08.880 development to the west, further west. 00:10:08.880 --> 00:10:14.000 I concentrated this analysis or this review based just south of the railroad, just because 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:18.800 the railroad north is a little bit more intense, what we're trying to do is see how it's compatible 00:10:18.800 --> 00:10:19.800 to the south. 00:10:19.800 --> 00:10:27.360 And so that's why you see the names of these subdivisions just primarily to the south. 00:10:27.360 --> 00:10:34.320 Understanding that the proposal is for multifamily and the rezoning is for NRMU, I pulled in 00:10:34.320 --> 00:10:41.000 information for the Woodlands of Denton, this was a rezoning back in 2012. 00:10:41.000 --> 00:10:50.840 It was approved from NR6 and NRMU 12 to NRMU, it's currently zoned NRMU. 00:10:50.840 --> 00:10:55.320 Along with that was a specific use permit, which was approved with conditions following 00:10:55.320 --> 00:10:58.000 that in February of 2013. 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:02.920 Again, the subdivision, or I'm sorry, the multifamily development, as you can see, is 00:11:02.920 --> 00:11:11.640 two to three stories, it's approximately 19.87 acres, and their general density is around 00:11:11.640 --> 00:11:15.200 15.9 dwelling units per acre. 00:11:15.200 --> 00:11:21.200 Just to give you some context of what's in the area, again, that's the Woodlands of Denton 00:11:21.200 --> 00:11:22.840 to the west. 00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:29.640 Outside of that, all of the areas to the south and east are primarily single family, approximately 00:11:29.640 --> 00:11:37.560 four, maybe four and a half dwelling units per acre. 00:11:37.560 --> 00:11:44.840 Mobility-wise, the area is shown here, is bordered to the east with a collector, which 00:11:44.840 --> 00:11:51.440 is Mockingbird, Lane to the north is Mingo, and then further north is Old North as it 00:11:51.440 --> 00:11:55.760 turns, and then University shown here in red. 00:11:55.760 --> 00:12:01.880 It's important to note that all of the streets that surround this property or abut this property 00:12:01.880 --> 00:12:08.320 are not to its roadway classification, which is Mockingbird is a collector. 00:12:08.320 --> 00:12:15.760 It doesn't qualify as a collector right now because of the condition, it's a two-lane 00:12:15.760 --> 00:12:18.640 collector is a little bit more wider. 00:12:18.640 --> 00:12:26.240 The secondary arterial, which is Mingo Road, as you all know, it's still a two-lane, two-divided 00:12:26.240 --> 00:12:27.240 roadway. 00:12:27.240 --> 00:12:33.700 It will probably be a modified arterial because of the railroad, but again, it's not built 00:12:33.700 --> 00:12:39.600 to what it's currently classified as. 00:12:39.600 --> 00:12:44.200 So we further took an analysis of the area. 00:12:44.200 --> 00:12:49.680 Traffic infrastructure improvements, this is typically done through platting, but we 00:12:49.680 --> 00:12:56.160 did some analysis, and there is adequate services in the area as far as water and sewer. 00:12:56.160 --> 00:13:02.280 Transportation, we asked the applicant to prepare a TIA in order to provide answers 00:13:02.280 --> 00:13:07.920 as to what impacts this proposed development would be, or this zoning would be, and the 00:13:07.920 --> 00:13:16.320 traffic mitigations that were identified by our traffic engineers to meet the need for 00:13:16.320 --> 00:13:23.640 the area and not to create more impacts as far as level of services have been met, and 00:13:23.640 --> 00:13:28.600 they, being the applicants, have incorporated those mitigation measures as part of their 00:13:28.600 --> 00:13:35.260 site plan, and you have a copy of their site plan and their landscape plan. 00:13:35.260 --> 00:13:41.880 The other things that we looked at, of course, when you're going from an NRMU 12 to an NRMU 00:13:41.880 --> 00:13:49.200 zoning district is the permitted uses, and of course, with NRMU, they're going to have, 00:13:49.200 --> 00:13:57.880 if approved, more uses permitted, more intense uses, and these are just examples, bless you. 00:13:57.880 --> 00:14:04.000 Bars, drive-through facilities, hotels, quick vehicle services, restaurants, bakeries, all 00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:08.280 of which is not permitted currently in the NRMU 12. 00:14:08.280 --> 00:14:16.480 Similarly, general regulations, the NRMU has a little bit more regulations that are not 00:14:16.480 --> 00:14:23.680 as restrictive as the NRMU 12, as you can imagine, in terms of maximum density. 00:14:23.680 --> 00:14:30.300 The density for NRMU 12 is 12, the density for NRMU is 30. 00:14:30.300 --> 00:14:36.080 Maximum lot coverage, I believe it's 65, and its NRMU is 80. 00:14:36.080 --> 00:14:43.960 Maximum height is 40, and NRMU is 65. 00:14:43.960 --> 00:14:47.280 We kind of went over this briefly already. 00:14:47.280 --> 00:14:52.520 It's staff's determination that the proposed zoning is not consistent or does not conform 00:14:52.520 --> 00:14:57.360 with the future land use element in terms of dwelling use per acre. 00:14:57.360 --> 00:15:06.160 They are proposing 26.7, where the moderate residential in our comp plan states 4 to 12, 00:15:06.160 --> 00:15:11.740 thereby creating an outlet scale or character to the surrounding area. 00:15:11.740 --> 00:15:19.840 There was a neighborhood meeting that the applicant held on October 30th. 00:15:19.840 --> 00:15:20.840 There was not many people there. 00:15:20.840 --> 00:15:21.840 There was one person there. 00:15:21.840 --> 00:15:23.280 I attended the meeting. 00:15:23.280 --> 00:15:28.720 You have a summary of the meeting notes that was provided by the applicant. 00:15:28.720 --> 00:15:30.860 It's consistent. 00:15:30.860 --> 00:15:37.240 We the consultants presented to this one member of the community and answered all their questions, 00:15:37.240 --> 00:15:38.240 all his questions. 00:15:38.240 --> 00:15:39.240 >> Commissioner Smith. 00:15:39.240 --> 00:15:40.240 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:15:40.240 --> 00:15:42.320 I saw that there was only one person there. 00:15:42.320 --> 00:15:48.200 Did you talk to the one who was there and did -- what was the -- it was obviously sent 00:15:48.200 --> 00:15:49.200 out. 00:15:49.200 --> 00:15:50.200 It was over 500 feet. 00:15:50.200 --> 00:15:54.340 Did he say when he got notification of it, why was it so poorly attended? 00:15:54.340 --> 00:15:55.340 Could you get an idea? 00:15:55.340 --> 00:15:58.040 Was there poor timing on the notification of it? 00:15:58.040 --> 00:16:00.120 Was it not very clearly worded? 00:16:00.120 --> 00:16:02.400 Did anybody say anything about that? 00:16:02.400 --> 00:16:08.000 >> I didn't ask him directly, but I've received phone calls since this was published. 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:13.880 And the response that I received was that they received and they weren't prepared to 00:16:13.880 --> 00:16:14.880 attend. 00:16:14.880 --> 00:16:21.120 And so either it was poor timing and/or maybe they just weren't available. 00:16:21.120 --> 00:16:25.400 I was obviously shocked when I walked in and there was just one person. 00:16:25.400 --> 00:16:28.080 Actually I was there before that one person. 00:16:28.080 --> 00:16:31.920 But you know, folks, you know, are busy. 00:16:31.920 --> 00:16:34.880 But other than that, I believe they were notified in time. 00:16:34.880 --> 00:16:39.500 I know that the applicant did try hard to set up the meeting and I don't think it was 00:16:39.500 --> 00:16:40.500 poorly notified. 00:16:40.500 --> 00:16:42.880 I think it was just -- people are just busy. 00:16:42.880 --> 00:16:45.200 They were also maybe trick-or-treating. 00:16:45.200 --> 00:16:48.240 >> Just one more, I'm sorry. 00:16:48.240 --> 00:16:52.160 The notification, you know, it did go into, you know, the apartments across the way. 00:16:52.160 --> 00:16:55.800 And you know, mainly we're -- I guess we're probably going to hear from citizens tonight 00:16:55.800 --> 00:16:58.240 that are in the neighborhood that are just to the south of it. 00:16:58.240 --> 00:17:02.380 But since it was only sent to property owners, I'm assuming that the residents of the tenants 00:17:02.380 --> 00:17:04.880 of the apartments across the way didn't. 00:17:04.880 --> 00:17:05.880 >> Which apartments were you talking about? 00:17:05.880 --> 00:17:07.760 >> It's -- I think they're called Village East. 00:17:07.760 --> 00:17:08.760 They're right there. 00:17:08.760 --> 00:17:09.760 Right there. 00:17:09.760 --> 00:17:10.760 You go right across the street. 00:17:10.760 --> 00:17:13.380 >> Yes, they were also. 00:17:13.380 --> 00:17:16.080 >> The property owners got the notification. 00:17:16.080 --> 00:17:17.080 >> Not the residents. 00:17:17.080 --> 00:17:18.080 Correct. 00:17:18.080 --> 00:17:19.520 >> The property owner probably doesn't live there. 00:17:19.520 --> 00:17:20.520 >> Sorry. 00:17:20.520 --> 00:17:23.360 I was like, I don't remember typing Village East because it was to the north. 00:17:23.360 --> 00:17:24.360 >> No, no, yeah. 00:17:24.360 --> 00:17:25.360 Just to note that part. 00:17:25.360 --> 00:17:26.360 >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:17:26.360 --> 00:17:27.360 >> Right there. 00:17:27.360 --> 00:17:28.360 All right. 00:17:28.360 --> 00:17:29.360 Well, thank you. 00:17:29.360 --> 00:17:30.360 I appreciate it. 00:17:30.360 --> 00:17:31.360 >> Commissioner Pernetta. 00:17:31.360 --> 00:17:32.360 >> No. 00:17:32.360 --> 00:17:33.360 My point was kind of what you're about to say. 00:17:33.360 --> 00:17:34.360 I mean, I am noticing that this went out. 00:17:34.360 --> 00:17:36.480 We had only one person attend. 00:17:36.480 --> 00:17:41.560 This kind of butts up against several houses that I would assume have, you know, families 00:17:41.560 --> 00:17:46.320 living in there and this seems to be timed exactly when everybody would be taking their 00:17:46.320 --> 00:17:47.320 kids trick-or-treating. 00:17:47.320 --> 00:17:54.040 >> Well, I think it was maybe in the notice or the meeting note, it said November -- October 00:17:54.040 --> 00:18:00.200 31st, but it was actually the Tuesday, October 30th. 00:18:00.200 --> 00:18:01.640 So it was not during Halloween. 00:18:01.640 --> 00:18:05.160 I know that because I was trick-or-treating. 00:18:05.160 --> 00:18:06.160 >> You personally? 00:18:06.160 --> 00:18:07.160 >> Me personally. 00:18:07.160 --> 00:18:08.160 >> Thank you for clarifying. 00:18:08.160 --> 00:18:09.160 >> Commissioner Beck. 00:18:09.160 --> 00:18:16.360 >> On the back of that, where is the courtyard, Mary, located at? 00:18:16.360 --> 00:18:20.760 Is that the one over on my ropes? 00:18:20.760 --> 00:18:22.760 >> By Brinker and I-35. 00:18:22.760 --> 00:18:23.760 >> Okay. 00:18:23.760 --> 00:18:27.760 >> Which is about ten minutes away from here. 00:18:27.760 --> 00:18:28.760 >> Okay. 00:18:28.760 --> 00:18:35.840 Yeah, the location probably wasn't ideal either, but -- okay, thanks. 00:18:35.840 --> 00:18:40.680 >> As part of the notification requirements for a public hearing, the newspaper notice 00:18:40.680 --> 00:18:42.200 was published. 00:18:42.200 --> 00:18:49.160 There were 24 notices sent to property owners within 200 feet, 86 to residents within 500 00:18:49.160 --> 00:18:51.040 feet of the subject site. 00:18:51.040 --> 00:18:57.120 As you can see, two posted signs were posted by the applicant. 00:18:57.120 --> 00:19:02.480 As of this afternoon, we did receive a lot of comments, emails, phone calls, emails that 00:19:02.480 --> 00:19:04.880 you have in front of you. 00:19:04.880 --> 00:19:11.440 However, our GIS folks, what they did was review the actual addresses and determined 00:19:11.440 --> 00:19:17.520 that only two were within the 200 foot, and that only represents 2%. 00:19:17.520 --> 00:19:24.560 The map here shows some of the responses that we receive, and they are outside of that 200 00:19:24.560 --> 00:19:29.360 foot, therefore, they're not counted under the 200 foot buffer. 00:19:29.360 --> 00:19:36.000 So, again, helps illustrate the one house here is in opposition, Kent and then over 00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:43.800 here, Brian Cooley, I believe, also is in opposition. 00:19:43.800 --> 00:19:47.920 Staff recommends denial of the zoning change requests based on the three considerations, 00:19:47.920 --> 00:19:53.040 and that is the density and scale, the more intense uses permitted or allowed under the 00:19:53.040 --> 00:19:59.400 NRMU, and then the more, less restrictive general regulations that is afforded under 00:19:59.400 --> 00:20:01.960 the NRMU zoning district. 00:20:01.960 --> 00:20:02.960 That completes my presentation. 00:20:02.960 --> 00:20:04.280 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 00:20:04.280 --> 00:20:08.160 >> Yeah, before I go to Commissioner Smith, just as a point of order, tonight, unlike 00:20:08.160 --> 00:20:14.200 two weeks ago, what we'll be doing is taking the zoning and SUP as two separate, so citizens 00:20:14.200 --> 00:20:18.960 will be able to hear the presentation for zoning, they'll speak on that zoning, and 00:20:18.960 --> 00:20:22.920 then we'll vote, and then we'll have the SUP come up, and then they'll have the opportunity 00:20:22.920 --> 00:20:29.240 to re-speak, so we'll bifurcate those two out, so Ron will provide one presentation 00:20:29.240 --> 00:20:34.480 in part A and then part B, just as a way of knowing what's going to go on in the public 00:20:34.480 --> 00:20:35.480 hearing. 00:20:35.480 --> 00:20:36.480 Commissioner Smith. 00:20:36.480 --> 00:20:37.480 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:20:37.480 --> 00:20:40.460 I guess something to add on to that, just to, I guess, as commissioners, we know what happened, 00:20:40.460 --> 00:20:44.640 you know, two weeks ago was a long meeting, I think that was a lot of interaction with 00:20:44.640 --> 00:20:47.720 every single citizen who came and brought things, I guess, maybe just a point if I can 00:20:47.720 --> 00:20:52.320 make a recommendation, a reminder that maybe just let everyone talk, and then we'll slowly, 00:20:52.320 --> 00:20:56.380 I guess, do the same thing we did last time, we just collect questions for applicant, collect 00:20:56.380 --> 00:21:01.760 questions for city staff, and then ask them all at the very end so we don't bog things 00:21:01.760 --> 00:21:06.080 down with people coming back and forth, but the question I had for Ron was, as you guys 00:21:06.080 --> 00:21:10.760 were working through with the applicant, and he's looking at this project and he's bringing 00:21:10.760 --> 00:21:14.560 it to you guys, he's working with the planning department, I mean, you guys are making a 00:21:14.560 --> 00:21:17.240 denial, and so I always like to ask whenever you guys do recommend a denial, because it 00:21:17.240 --> 00:21:20.680 is rare, but you guys are obviously telling me at this point in time, like, you're going 00:21:20.680 --> 00:21:24.960 to have a really hard time with this project, right, and you're giving the applicant. 00:21:24.960 --> 00:21:29.600 Well, we had some hard time thinking about the recommendation, we take it very seriously, 00:21:29.600 --> 00:21:34.600 and so it was really towards the end, you know, when we were considering our recommendations, 00:21:34.600 --> 00:21:40.160 and we just could not get past the more than 12 units per acre, and as you can see, they 00:21:40.160 --> 00:21:44.360 did a lot of work with regards to the traffic and a lot of the site planning, which we did 00:21:44.360 --> 00:21:52.760 work on, but I think opening it up to 30 units per acre was just something that we felt we 00:21:52.760 --> 00:21:54.360 need to recommend a denial. 00:21:54.360 --> 00:21:55.360 Okay. 00:21:55.360 --> 00:21:56.360 Yeah. 00:21:56.360 --> 00:21:57.360 All right, thank you. 00:21:57.360 --> 00:21:58.360 Commissioner Beck. 00:21:58.360 --> 00:21:59.360 Thank you, Chair. 00:21:59.360 --> 00:22:04.200 Would I be right in assuming that if we don't pass the zone change, we don't need to vote 00:22:04.200 --> 00:22:05.200 on an SUP? 00:22:05.200 --> 00:22:09.320 We'd still vote on an SUP, because we have to provide a recommendation to Council. 00:22:09.320 --> 00:22:14.440 I think that the vote of the SUP would be kind of a de facto vote, but it'd still be 00:22:14.440 --> 00:22:17.200 opportunity to be heard, and we'll vote on it. 00:22:17.200 --> 00:22:18.200 Okay. 00:22:18.200 --> 00:22:19.200 Thanks. 00:22:19.200 --> 00:22:20.200 Yeah. 00:22:20.200 --> 00:22:25.200 Any other questions for the zoning portion of this? 00:22:25.200 --> 00:22:26.200 Perfect. 00:22:26.200 --> 00:22:28.360 We'll get into the SUP portion. 00:22:28.360 --> 00:22:29.360 Okay. 00:22:29.360 --> 00:22:33.120 So the SUP, same location, we haven't moved. 00:22:33.120 --> 00:22:39.000 The purpose of the specific use permit is to allow for a multifamily dwelling use. 00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:48.280 The applicant is proposing approximately 267 dwelling units on the 9.91 acres. 00:22:48.280 --> 00:22:56.400 That will consist of 11 three-story buildings, a clubhouse, a pool, and 488 associated parking 00:22:56.400 --> 00:23:03.400 spaces, again, complying with the parking requirements that we have in place. 00:23:03.400 --> 00:23:09.800 This is a preliminary site plan of the multifamily. 00:23:09.800 --> 00:23:15.460 You've got the clubhouse and pool north along the railroad tracks. 00:23:15.460 --> 00:23:17.680 This is Mockingbird. 00:23:17.680 --> 00:23:25.080 They'll have three accesses, one right in only on the northern portion, and then there'll 00:23:25.080 --> 00:23:32.920 be one right in, right out, as well as a left turn, and then also a second or third access 00:23:32.920 --> 00:23:34.000 further south. 00:23:34.000 --> 00:23:40.480 As you can see, a lot of what's being proposed is improvements along Mockingbird to help 00:23:40.480 --> 00:23:46.840 alleviate some of the traffic that this proposed multifamily will produce. 00:23:46.840 --> 00:23:53.960 The 11 buildings you see here are shown throughout the site with the parking. 00:23:53.960 --> 00:23:54.960 Commissioner Beck. 00:23:54.960 --> 00:23:55.960 I'm sorry, Ron. 00:23:55.960 --> 00:23:56.960 Thanks, Chair. 00:23:56.960 --> 00:23:59.080 You said where was the third entrance? 00:23:59.080 --> 00:24:00.440 So here's one entrance up here. 00:24:00.440 --> 00:24:01.440 Right. 00:24:01.440 --> 00:24:02.440 And then here's one here. 00:24:02.440 --> 00:24:03.440 Right. 00:24:03.440 --> 00:24:04.440 And then down here. 00:24:04.440 --> 00:24:05.440 Further south. 00:24:05.440 --> 00:24:06.440 Oh, okay. 00:24:06.440 --> 00:24:07.440 What street is it? 00:24:07.440 --> 00:24:08.440 Or is that just an entrance? 00:24:08.440 --> 00:24:09.440 That's all along Mockingbird. 00:24:09.440 --> 00:24:10.440 All three along Mockingbird. 00:24:10.440 --> 00:24:13.320 Is that a streetcar, or is that just an entrance into the development? 00:24:13.320 --> 00:24:15.280 That's just an entrance into the development. 00:24:15.280 --> 00:24:16.280 Okay. 00:24:16.280 --> 00:24:17.280 I didn't catch that on the plan. 00:24:17.280 --> 00:24:20.480 And then just a budding that is the single-family residential. 00:24:20.480 --> 00:24:21.480 Right. 00:24:21.480 --> 00:24:22.480 Thanks. 00:24:22.480 --> 00:24:24.600 In addition, it's really hard to see. 00:24:24.600 --> 00:24:26.880 You have a copy of the landscape plan in front of you. 00:24:26.880 --> 00:24:29.120 I apologize for the quality. 00:24:29.120 --> 00:24:30.600 This is the landscape plan. 00:24:30.600 --> 00:24:36.560 Again, they will meet the required landscape requirements, street canopy, and also buffering 00:24:36.560 --> 00:24:41.440 requirements as shown here. 00:24:41.440 --> 00:24:47.520 This is an elevation of what this development will look like from Mockingbird. 00:24:47.520 --> 00:24:48.520 A portion of it. 00:24:48.520 --> 00:24:49.520 Not all of it. 00:24:49.520 --> 00:24:51.880 But you see the pool house or the clubhouse. 00:24:51.880 --> 00:24:59.760 And then this is what will be seen again from Mockingbird. 00:24:59.760 --> 00:25:06.440 Criteria for approval for a specific use permit is specified under subchapter six, which is 00:25:06.440 --> 00:25:12.020 our specific use permit, as well as what is proposed, or I'm sorry, what is the purpose 00:25:12.020 --> 00:25:15.680 and intent of the dam plan 2030. 00:25:15.680 --> 00:25:21.600 Primarily the section 3564 criteria approval talks about conformance to all standards, 00:25:21.600 --> 00:25:26.280 as well as compatible with the surrounding area. 00:25:26.280 --> 00:25:28.180 We already talked about the surrounding area. 00:25:28.180 --> 00:25:30.440 We don't need to go into that. 00:25:30.440 --> 00:25:35.920 You can see that there's mainly single family to the south and southeast. 00:25:35.920 --> 00:25:38.460 There is a multi-family to the west. 00:25:38.460 --> 00:25:45.720 And we talked already about its density and its proposal or project. 00:25:45.720 --> 00:25:48.960 Staff prepared a similar analysis. 00:25:48.960 --> 00:25:55.040 That analysis is in your backup, but I just want to just highlight some of the high factors 00:25:55.040 --> 00:25:59.640 in our decision of determining the recommendation. 00:25:59.640 --> 00:26:04.480 We look at the future land use element, how it fits within the character of the area. 00:26:04.480 --> 00:26:07.840 Does it provide adequate capacity for public infrastructure? 00:26:07.840 --> 00:26:16.480 Again, the TIA, which in all instances with any rezoning that has a lot of traffic demand, 00:26:16.480 --> 00:26:19.960 we always want to make sure we have a traffic impact analysis. 00:26:19.960 --> 00:26:27.000 And then, of course, with the SGP, how can it be improved through the preliminary site 00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:34.320 plan and landscape plan, all of which is reviewed with regards to the list that you see here. 00:26:34.320 --> 00:26:41.080 Again, similarly, we noticed this or they held a meeting to not just talk about the 00:26:41.080 --> 00:26:45.580 zoning, but to also talk about the specific use permit, and there was just one person 00:26:45.580 --> 00:26:47.840 in attendance. 00:26:47.840 --> 00:26:51.440 We noticed this together, similar results. 00:26:51.440 --> 00:26:57.720 We only had two in opposition within the 200-foot buffer area. 00:26:57.720 --> 00:27:05.960 Staff is recommending denial, again, based on the density and scale of the subject multifamily 00:27:05.960 --> 00:27:06.960 proposed development. 00:27:06.960 --> 00:27:09.280 And that concludes my presentation. 00:27:09.280 --> 00:27:10.280 -Kris, you're back. 00:27:10.280 --> 00:27:11.280 -Thank you, Chair. 00:27:11.280 --> 00:27:15.560 Clear front again for me, what they're planning on doing for traffic mitigation, got that 00:27:15.560 --> 00:27:20.340 right turn-only lane up near the railroad tracks. 00:27:20.340 --> 00:27:22.760 Was there something about what they were going to do to Mockingbird? 00:27:22.760 --> 00:27:24.760 Is there going to be a... 00:27:24.760 --> 00:27:25.760 -Yeah. 00:27:25.760 --> 00:27:26.760 Center left turn lane. 00:27:26.760 --> 00:27:27.760 Yes, I apologize. 00:27:27.760 --> 00:27:28.760 I did not mention that. 00:27:28.760 --> 00:27:29.760 -Okay. 00:27:29.760 --> 00:27:30.760 It's a lane. 00:27:30.760 --> 00:27:31.760 It's not going to be... 00:27:31.760 --> 00:27:32.760 -It's not going to be... 00:27:32.760 --> 00:27:33.760 -Raised. 00:27:33.760 --> 00:27:34.760 -Correct. 00:27:34.760 --> 00:27:35.760 -Okay. 00:27:35.760 --> 00:27:36.760 -It's going to be a center lane along Mockingbird. 00:27:36.760 --> 00:27:43.440 And my understanding is that it's just going to start from here all the way to where their 00:27:43.440 --> 00:27:44.440 property ends. 00:27:44.440 --> 00:27:45.440 -Okay. 00:27:45.440 --> 00:27:46.440 So it's not going to be a transition... 00:27:46.440 --> 00:27:47.440 -Not back up there at Audra? 00:27:47.440 --> 00:27:48.440 -No. 00:27:48.440 --> 00:27:49.440 That is not the direction. 00:27:49.440 --> 00:27:50.440 -Okay. 00:27:50.440 --> 00:27:51.440 Thank you. 00:27:51.440 --> 00:27:52.440 -Any other questions? 00:27:52.440 --> 00:27:53.440 Thanks, Ron. 00:27:53.440 --> 00:27:54.440 -Thank you. 00:27:54.440 --> 00:28:02.560 -Chief, I just wanted to maybe clarify the point earlier. 00:28:02.560 --> 00:28:08.520 If the zoning case, if it is a denial to city council, they could still vote to approve 00:28:08.520 --> 00:28:09.520 it. 00:28:09.520 --> 00:28:11.540 And if that's the case, they would still need the SGP recommendation. 00:28:11.540 --> 00:28:13.760 So that's why we need to keep the vote. 00:28:13.760 --> 00:28:16.720 -Thank you for that clarification. 00:28:16.720 --> 00:28:20.600 -Next up is item E, S18-8C. 00:28:20.600 --> 00:28:27.600 I'll invite Haley up to present. 00:28:27.600 --> 00:28:32.720 -All right. 00:28:32.720 --> 00:28:36.320 Good evening. 00:28:36.320 --> 00:28:41.360 This is case S18-8, the Windsor Drive Apartments. 00:28:41.360 --> 00:28:45.340 So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation 00:28:45.340 --> 00:28:51.520 to city council regarding a specific use permit request to allow a multifamily use on a site 00:28:51.520 --> 00:28:55.720 that is approximately 31 acres located at the intersection of Windsor Drive and the 00:28:55.720 --> 00:28:59.800 I-35 service road. 00:28:59.800 --> 00:29:03.360 Looking at the zoning on the property, it is our neighborhood residential mixed use 00:29:03.360 --> 00:29:04.360 district. 00:29:04.360 --> 00:29:10.240 Within this district, multifamily is permitted either with an, actually with an SUP and with 00:29:10.240 --> 00:29:14.320 limitation four, both of those are concurrent in this district. 00:29:14.320 --> 00:29:18.920 Limitation four requires, as you're probably familiar with, that you either have an SUP 00:29:18.920 --> 00:29:23.320 or be part of some sort of prior approval or a mixed use development. 00:29:23.320 --> 00:29:27.920 So in this case, the ultimate goal is for a mixed use development, but they aren't necessarily 00:29:27.920 --> 00:29:30.240 meeting the timing requirement of that. 00:29:30.240 --> 00:29:33.120 They want the multifamily to come first and then the commercial. 00:29:33.120 --> 00:29:39.360 So the SUP is required regardless in this instance. 00:29:39.360 --> 00:29:44.160 As Ron just mentioned for an SUP or criteria for approval is essentially a compatibility 00:29:44.160 --> 00:29:48.280 analysis between the surrounding properties and the requested use. 00:29:48.280 --> 00:29:52.520 So Recharge was looking at things such as would this impede development of surrounding 00:29:52.520 --> 00:29:53.520 properties? 00:29:53.520 --> 00:29:55.440 Would it, will it have adequate parking? 00:29:55.440 --> 00:29:57.160 Will it generate any traffic issues? 00:29:57.160 --> 00:30:01.560 Are there any nuisances that need to be prevented on the site? 00:30:01.560 --> 00:30:05.480 And then is there adequate compatibility in terms of buffering and as well as architectural 00:30:05.480 --> 00:30:08.880 compatibility? 00:30:08.880 --> 00:30:13.040 With this site, one of those initial pieces that we needed to look at in terms of compatibility 00:30:13.040 --> 00:30:17.080 are the fact that there are two gas wells on the eastern adjoining property. 00:30:17.080 --> 00:30:21.420 I've indicated the two sites here, you can see there's one well at each site. 00:30:21.420 --> 00:30:26.040 The light purple color on the map is the boundaries of an existing gas well plot. 00:30:26.040 --> 00:30:30.320 So when these wells were originally drilled back in the early 2000s, the operator plotted 00:30:30.320 --> 00:30:34.220 the property at that time for gas well development. 00:30:34.220 --> 00:30:39.200 So when surface development seeks to occur within a gas well plot, we look at whether 00:30:39.200 --> 00:30:43.900 the operator has provided their consent for a surface development plot to be within the 00:30:43.900 --> 00:30:45.840 boundaries of their gas well plot. 00:30:45.840 --> 00:30:50.160 And then we also look at things like buffering and setbacks that are required by the code. 00:30:50.160 --> 00:30:56.060 And we'll get into those a little bit more closely when we look at the site plan. 00:30:56.060 --> 00:30:59.720 So this is the proposed site plan for the multifamily part of the development. 00:30:59.720 --> 00:31:04.240 You can see that multifamilies intended to cover just under 17 acres of the site out 00:31:04.240 --> 00:31:05.800 of the total 31. 00:31:05.800 --> 00:31:09.360 So as I mentioned, they do intend for commercial development at some point along the frontage 00:31:09.360 --> 00:31:10.360 road. 00:31:10.360 --> 00:31:12.480 They're just not quite there yet. 00:31:12.480 --> 00:31:18.020 The site as it's proposed would have a total of 336 dwelling units, a mix of one, two and 00:31:18.020 --> 00:31:19.840 three bedroom units. 00:31:19.840 --> 00:31:24.080 That would put them at a density of approximately 20.5 units per acre. 00:31:24.080 --> 00:31:27.920 NRMU permits up to 30, so they're well within that. 00:31:27.920 --> 00:31:31.440 You can see on the site there's a total of 16 buildings shown. 00:31:31.440 --> 00:31:39.000 Each of those are a maximum of three stories, and it's just over 300,000 square feet total. 00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:40.640 They are providing adequate parking. 00:31:40.640 --> 00:31:42.500 They're meeting the surface parking requirements. 00:31:42.500 --> 00:31:45.680 Some of the parking is provided in garages on the site. 00:31:45.680 --> 00:31:49.240 And you can see there would be two primary access points, one from the frontage road, 00:31:49.240 --> 00:31:52.480 and then another access point down here on Windsor. 00:31:52.480 --> 00:31:54.400 And I mentioned earlier the gas well setbacks. 00:31:54.400 --> 00:31:59.680 So these red outlines that you see on the map are the proposed setbacks that the surface 00:31:59.680 --> 00:32:02.360 developer and the gas well operator have agreed to. 00:32:02.360 --> 00:32:03.360 Mr. Beck. 00:32:03.360 --> 00:32:06.360 Thank you, Chair. 00:32:06.360 --> 00:32:14.280 That one well, I guess it's number two, the reverse setback is 250 feet if development 00:32:14.280 --> 00:32:16.840 comes in after the well's there, right? 00:32:16.840 --> 00:32:17.840 Correct. 00:32:17.840 --> 00:32:20.600 Your circle on that looks like it's covering some houses there. 00:32:20.600 --> 00:32:22.040 What's going on there? 00:32:22.040 --> 00:32:23.040 That's correct. 00:32:23.040 --> 00:32:26.640 So the gas well was originally platted in 2003. 00:32:26.640 --> 00:32:28.680 At that time there were not reverse setbacks. 00:32:28.680 --> 00:32:34.880 So when these homes came in shortly after that in 2004, 2005, there were no reverse 00:32:34.880 --> 00:32:37.080 setbacks that could be imposed on those houses at that time. 00:32:37.080 --> 00:32:39.280 So they had to go up to 2003 requirements. 00:32:39.280 --> 00:32:40.280 Correct. 00:32:40.280 --> 00:32:41.280 Yeah. 00:32:41.280 --> 00:32:44.920 All of this well predates our existing code that has the 250 foot reverse setback. 00:32:44.920 --> 00:32:45.920 Okay. 00:32:45.920 --> 00:32:46.920 Then I guess is it well number one? 00:32:46.920 --> 00:32:48.920 When was that? 00:32:48.920 --> 00:32:51.600 Both of these gas wells came in at the same time in 2003. 00:32:51.600 --> 00:32:52.600 Okay. 00:32:52.600 --> 00:33:01.400 Haley, I would have expected well one to also have a circular diameter. 00:33:01.400 --> 00:33:03.760 Can you tell me why it just straightens out? 00:33:03.760 --> 00:33:04.760 Correct. 00:33:04.760 --> 00:33:10.400 So what you see, if the mouse would work, this is the existing pad site. 00:33:10.400 --> 00:33:14.280 I mentioned that in your backup that the developer and the gas well operator have been through 00:33:14.280 --> 00:33:17.380 extensive negotiations over the past year on this. 00:33:17.380 --> 00:33:21.480 The operator hopes that someday they could maybe expand that site and add additional 00:33:21.480 --> 00:33:22.720 wells to it. 00:33:22.720 --> 00:33:28.840 So the developer in this case agreed to honor the boundaries of the maximum pad site that 00:33:28.840 --> 00:33:31.640 they could ever put there if they get that approved. 00:33:31.640 --> 00:33:34.960 So what you see here, this red line is, and it's kind of cut off here. 00:33:34.960 --> 00:33:39.080 This would be their hoped for future boundary of that pad site. 00:33:39.080 --> 00:33:44.440 So they drew their 250 foot reverse setback from that ultimate goal that the gas well 00:33:44.440 --> 00:33:45.440 operator has. 00:33:45.440 --> 00:33:49.640 So from the meantime, they're well over 300 feet away from the existing pad site, which 00:33:49.640 --> 00:33:54.400 is just this little gravel area that you could see here. 00:33:54.400 --> 00:33:57.400 I got you. 00:33:57.400 --> 00:34:00.480 Thank you. 00:34:00.480 --> 00:34:05.920 So moving on to look at their landscape plan, the plan as they have it drawn shows approximately 00:34:05.920 --> 00:34:08.880 50% lot coverage, 50% landscaping on the site. 00:34:08.880 --> 00:34:13.360 So they're well within the 80% lot coverage maximum for NRMU. 00:34:13.360 --> 00:34:17.360 You can see here they are intending to provide adequate buffers on all sides. 00:34:17.360 --> 00:34:23.200 In particular, there is a type D buffer requirement here where they adjoin the gas well sites. 00:34:23.200 --> 00:34:31.080 So that's required to be 30 feet wide with eight trees and 20 shrubs per 100 linear feet. 00:34:31.080 --> 00:34:36.060 Their plans do indicate that they intend to follow our code provision to seek an alternative 00:34:36.060 --> 00:34:37.200 buffer from the director. 00:34:37.200 --> 00:34:42.760 They would like to, instead of just that landscaping, install a fence and a combination of trees 00:34:42.760 --> 00:34:49.200 in this area, so that's something that you all can certainly weigh in on, but it is something 00:34:49.200 --> 00:34:54.000 that the code allows the director to approve when they go through the full site plan process. 00:34:54.000 --> 00:34:58.920 As you can see here, they would have adequate internal landscaping providing the required 00:34:58.920 --> 00:35:02.800 parking lot trees as well as street trees along their internal street system. 00:35:02.800 --> 00:35:06.040 And they do also intend to provide open space amenities throughout this area. 00:35:06.040 --> 00:35:12.440 They indicated that could be picnic areas, grills, and sports facilities. 00:35:12.440 --> 00:35:16.720 These are some sample elevations that have been provided to you, kind of a neutral color 00:35:16.720 --> 00:35:21.880 palette with a mixture of stucco and other masonry materials such as hardy board and 00:35:21.880 --> 00:35:22.880 hardy plank. 00:35:22.880 --> 00:35:25.920 Just another example of some of the elevations. 00:35:25.920 --> 00:35:31.280 There were several more included in your backup that are very similar in style. 00:35:31.280 --> 00:35:35.520 So the future land use for this area is business innovation. 00:35:35.520 --> 00:35:41.920 Within that area, we look for a mixture of office and employment type uses as well as 00:35:41.920 --> 00:35:44.480 supporting commercial and residential uses. 00:35:44.480 --> 00:35:48.640 As you can see here, this area is kind of a transition between the larger business innovation 00:35:48.640 --> 00:35:54.520 area west of 35 and the low density residential and moderate residential that we see existing 00:35:54.520 --> 00:35:57.640 and intended on the eastern side of 35. 00:35:57.640 --> 00:36:03.040 So this site is kind of in a transitional zone and NRMU would fit well within that, or NRMU 00:36:03.040 --> 00:36:06.760 does fit well within that, and the multifamily use would kind of provide that transition 00:36:06.760 --> 00:36:11.280 from perhaps more intensive industrial uses on one side of the highway to commercial along 00:36:11.280 --> 00:36:16.880 the frontage road and then into those single family homes. 00:36:16.880 --> 00:36:22.000 Some of the other analysis that we did for the site, we did note that it doesn't immediately 00:36:22.000 --> 00:36:25.440 adjoin single family, so the buffers that they're providing are more intensive than 00:36:25.440 --> 00:36:29.880 what would be required if this were to back up immediately to those single family uses 00:36:29.880 --> 00:36:32.200 because of the gas wells there. 00:36:32.200 --> 00:36:37.240 The multifamily use is unlikely to generate any nuisances in terms of odors, fumes, noise 00:36:37.240 --> 00:36:39.160 or glare on the neighboring property. 00:36:39.160 --> 00:36:43.400 They are providing adequate parking and access and then the scale of development is well 00:36:43.400 --> 00:36:46.920 within what we would expect to see in NRMU and actually what they've proposed is less 00:36:46.920 --> 00:36:53.040 intensive than the maximum that could be built on the site. 00:36:53.040 --> 00:36:56.520 Notification was sent out in all of the required forms for this project. 00:36:56.520 --> 00:36:59.440 I received no written opposition to date. 00:36:59.440 --> 00:37:02.700 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting back in September. 00:37:02.700 --> 00:37:06.780 There were approximately 20 people at that meeting I attended and there was some general 00:37:06.780 --> 00:37:10.840 discussion of the type of product that would be built there and the future plans for commercial 00:37:10.840 --> 00:37:19.960 development on the site, but overall no significant concerns were expressed at that time. 00:37:19.960 --> 00:37:25.900 So outlined here as well as in your backup are kind of the requirements of this SUP based 00:37:25.900 --> 00:37:28.600 on that site plan as submitted. 00:37:28.600 --> 00:37:32.840 We thought it important in working with legal that we memorialize the details of that site 00:37:32.840 --> 00:37:37.000 plan in the SUP ordinance itself so that those are part of the text and the requirements 00:37:37.000 --> 00:37:38.560 of the SUP moving forward. 00:37:38.560 --> 00:37:43.720 So you can see here we called out things such as the maximum acreage of the site being 17 00:37:43.720 --> 00:37:50.080 out of the 31 acres, 16 buildings being indicated with the building footprint of just over 100,000 00:37:50.080 --> 00:37:57.680 square feet, the 336 dwelling units with the density approximately 20.48, the required 00:37:57.680 --> 00:38:03.400 number of parking spaces should be no less than the 629, they do have 632 as I mentioned 00:38:03.400 --> 00:38:08.160 but some of those are within garages so they don't count against that maximum under our 00:38:08.160 --> 00:38:09.160 code. 00:38:09.160 --> 00:38:14.360 The lot coverage of 49% landscape area, 51% as well as calling out the required type D 00:38:14.360 --> 00:38:16.640 buffer for the gas wells. 00:38:16.640 --> 00:38:21.960 And then the sample elevations, because those are just a sample and the applicant may deviate 00:38:21.960 --> 00:38:26.260 somewhat from those or seek to, we wanted to leave them some flexibility there but generally 00:38:26.260 --> 00:38:31.120 meet the color palette and materials that were presented. 00:38:31.120 --> 00:38:37.120 So with that, staff's recommendation is for approval of this SUP with four conditions. 00:38:37.120 --> 00:38:41.180 The first being that the council ultimately recognize that driveway access locations from 00:38:41.180 --> 00:38:44.800 state highways have to be approved by TxDOT so as they go through this process they will 00:38:44.800 --> 00:38:51.300 be seeking a TxDOT permit so we felt it important to call it here that any access locations 00:38:51.300 --> 00:38:55.960 from the I-35 frontage road that must be altered in response to changing TxDOT requirements 00:38:55.960 --> 00:39:00.320 during the permitting process could be administratively approved by staff providing that they still 00:39:00.320 --> 00:39:05.200 comply with all components of the DDC and our criteria manuals and all remaining elements 00:39:05.200 --> 00:39:08.240 of the site plan are satisfied. 00:39:08.240 --> 00:39:12.560 The second condition being that landscaping on the attached plan does reflect an intent 00:39:12.560 --> 00:39:17.000 to meet all of the DDC requirements for parking street trees as well as minimum landscaping 00:39:17.000 --> 00:39:22.800 canopy areas and buffers with administrative approval sought for an alternative buffer. 00:39:22.800 --> 00:39:26.260 We would request that minor alterations to those depicted locations of those individual 00:39:26.260 --> 00:39:31.800 trees be allowed to be approved by staff provided that their final landscaping complies with 00:39:31.800 --> 00:39:36.600 the attached site plan in terms of buffers and open space. 00:39:36.600 --> 00:39:40.720 The third criteria is in reference to the Gaswell Agreement that I mentioned. 00:39:40.720 --> 00:39:44.480 That agreement has been drawn up, assigned by both parties and reviewed by our legal 00:39:44.480 --> 00:39:49.560 department so we request that the agreement entered into and executed by these two parties 00:39:49.560 --> 00:39:55.360 that sets forth the setback shown on this plan must be filed in the records of Denton 00:39:55.360 --> 00:40:00.680 County prior to the approval of the plat for the subject property which is typical when 00:40:00.680 --> 00:40:04.000 we have a gas well plat and a surface plat that would be running concurrently at that 00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:05.840 point in time. 00:40:05.840 --> 00:40:10.840 And then finally, notwithstanding the limited approvals authorized in these conditions, 00:40:10.840 --> 00:40:14.680 the city would reserve the rights to require that the SUP go back before council for any 00:40:14.680 --> 00:40:15.680 larger modifications. 00:40:15.680 --> 00:40:19.160 With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. 00:40:19.160 --> 00:40:21.080 Commissioner Ellis. 00:40:21.080 --> 00:40:22.080 Thank you, Chair. 00:40:22.080 --> 00:40:26.280 Haley, back one slide when you've got your staff recommendation for what's going to 00:40:26.280 --> 00:40:27.280 be embedded in there. 00:40:27.280 --> 00:40:32.280 In our backup, it mentions something about staff's ability to increase, decrease 5%. 00:40:32.280 --> 00:40:34.880 I did not see that on your slide. 00:40:34.880 --> 00:40:35.880 Correct. 00:40:35.880 --> 00:40:36.880 Do you want to elaborate on that? 00:40:36.880 --> 00:40:38.440 Yeah, I just noticed that as you mentioned it. 00:40:38.440 --> 00:40:40.080 Yeah, that is correct. 00:40:40.080 --> 00:40:45.760 In working with legal, we did try to work some flexibility into these requirements that 00:40:45.760 --> 00:40:51.760 would allow a 5% increase or decrease from any of these numbers. 00:40:51.760 --> 00:40:55.440 You may be familiar with in the past with SUPs, we've kind of been more flexible and 00:40:55.440 --> 00:41:01.160 allowed them to generally comply with the site plan and kind of left it at that. 00:41:01.160 --> 00:41:04.640 Like I said, in speaking with legal over the past couple of SUPs, we've been trying to 00:41:04.640 --> 00:41:08.960 work in more specifics so that there's some guarantee for you all in council that what 00:41:08.960 --> 00:41:11.520 you see is what you'll get when it's built. 00:41:11.520 --> 00:41:15.280 But because this is kind of preliminary and they haven't gone through the full site engineering, 00:41:15.280 --> 00:41:20.000 we thought that 5% buffer would be adequate to allow for some minor deviations as they 00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:21.980 engineer and design the site fully. 00:41:21.980 --> 00:41:24.960 So that is still something that's being written into it? 00:41:24.960 --> 00:41:25.960 Correct. 00:41:25.960 --> 00:41:28.880 And I noticed here that is actually mentioned here in the first sentence on this slide, but 00:41:28.880 --> 00:41:30.160 it is in your backup as well. 00:41:30.160 --> 00:41:31.560 I did not see that. 00:41:31.560 --> 00:41:32.560 Okay. 00:41:32.560 --> 00:41:40.880 There's a lot of text on the side. 00:41:40.880 --> 00:41:41.880 Fisher back. 00:41:41.880 --> 00:41:42.880 Thank you, Chair. 00:41:42.880 --> 00:41:47.000 While we're on this page, and then I want to flip to the next one, one of the concerns 00:41:47.000 --> 00:41:53.200 I had is, do we have something locked in place that assures us we're going to have a mixture 00:41:53.200 --> 00:41:55.400 of apartments and commercial? 00:41:55.400 --> 00:42:00.000 And it seems like number one saying that they can't build any more apartments beyond the 00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:01.000 17 acres. 00:42:01.000 --> 00:42:02.000 Is that correct? 00:42:02.000 --> 00:42:03.000 Is that going to? 00:42:03.000 --> 00:42:04.000 Correct. 00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:09.520 So the remaining part of the 31 acres pretty much has to be commercial then, right? 00:42:09.520 --> 00:42:13.800 Yeah, the NRMU district would permit a variety of commercial uses that would be typical along 00:42:13.800 --> 00:42:17.600 the highways of hotels, restaurants, offices. 00:42:17.600 --> 00:42:21.480 But with this, the multifamily would be limited to no more than 17 acres. 00:42:21.480 --> 00:42:25.400 They couldn't change that on down the road if they want reconsideration? 00:42:25.400 --> 00:42:28.520 They would have to apply for a new SUP or to amend this SUP. 00:42:28.520 --> 00:42:29.520 Okay. 00:42:29.520 --> 00:42:35.640 Now, and because this is all NRMU as part of the mixed youth, what kind of separation 00:42:35.640 --> 00:42:41.120 or barriers are going to be between the commercial and the apartments? 00:42:41.120 --> 00:42:44.600 It's not distinct like it's a residential neighborhood in commercial. 00:42:44.600 --> 00:42:45.600 This is all NRMU. 00:42:45.600 --> 00:42:47.600 Is there going to be some? 00:42:47.600 --> 00:42:48.600 Correct. 00:42:48.600 --> 00:42:52.400 So as you see on their site plan, their intent is to have this kind of access drive that 00:42:52.400 --> 00:42:54.440 would be separating the two. 00:42:54.440 --> 00:42:58.960 They do show some buffering in between there that would be typical between multifamily and 00:42:58.960 --> 00:42:59.960 commercial. 00:42:59.960 --> 00:43:00.960 Okay. 00:43:00.960 --> 00:43:03.640 But it would be integrated in the sense that they would all kind of share these common access 00:43:03.640 --> 00:43:07.840 points on the freeway in this kind of central courtyard element as they have it intended. 00:43:07.840 --> 00:43:08.840 Okay. 00:43:08.840 --> 00:43:11.760 Go back to your recommendation page. 00:43:11.760 --> 00:43:14.680 This one? 00:43:14.680 --> 00:43:15.680 Number one. 00:43:15.680 --> 00:43:22.600 I was under the impression, and it sounds like this number one dispute set, that if 00:43:22.600 --> 00:43:29.960 you had a residential development on a primary arterial and it also accessed like a collector 00:43:29.960 --> 00:43:34.560 road that any ingress and egress would not be on the primary arterial. 00:43:34.560 --> 00:43:38.480 It would have to be accessed through the collector yet. 00:43:38.480 --> 00:43:42.720 This seems to indicate that there's going to be a means of ingress and egress off the 00:43:42.720 --> 00:43:43.720 frontage road. 00:43:43.720 --> 00:43:44.720 Yes. 00:43:44.720 --> 00:43:45.720 So you are correct in that. 00:43:45.720 --> 00:43:50.200 The code does require that if you have adequate access, you take it off of the lesser roadway. 00:43:50.200 --> 00:43:53.360 But we also have the competing interest of the fire code needing two points of remote 00:43:53.360 --> 00:43:58.360 access for developments of this size, and there's no way for them to reasonably attain 00:43:58.360 --> 00:44:00.440 those two points of access off of Windsor. 00:44:00.440 --> 00:44:03.200 So access off of the textile road is expected as well. 00:44:03.200 --> 00:44:06.400 And just one last thing since you mentioned fire exit. 00:44:06.400 --> 00:44:14.400 The road currently to the wells, is that an easy access for the fire department first 00:44:14.400 --> 00:44:15.400 responders? 00:44:15.400 --> 00:44:18.480 We had that blow up there back in 2015, I think. 00:44:18.480 --> 00:44:24.960 Is there going to be a problem accessing those wells in the event we have another? 00:44:24.960 --> 00:44:31.580 So currently the gas well access road runs, if you're on the frontage road, you go right 00:44:31.580 --> 00:44:34.480 past Windsor and then have to make an immediate turn into the gas well side. 00:44:34.480 --> 00:44:38.160 It's just north of Windsor, actually within what would be the future Windsor right of 00:44:38.160 --> 00:44:40.200 way when this property plathes. 00:44:40.200 --> 00:44:46.080 So that point of access has been renegotiated to be moved over here so that it will be provided 00:44:46.080 --> 00:44:50.260 further down on Windsor, and it'll actually be a more direct shot for the fire department 00:44:50.260 --> 00:44:54.000 trying to get to those wells in the future because currently they have a long gravel 00:44:54.000 --> 00:44:56.000 road here kind of crosses a creek. 00:44:56.000 --> 00:44:59.280 I've been out there, there's usually cows standing in the middle of it when you're trying 00:44:59.280 --> 00:45:00.680 to drive down it. 00:45:00.680 --> 00:45:03.960 So this will be a more direct means of access to those gas well sides. 00:45:03.960 --> 00:45:07.360 And it'll what remain an impervious road? 00:45:07.360 --> 00:45:08.360 It has to be all weather access. 00:45:08.360 --> 00:45:12.440 So it can be gravel, but it does have to be an all weather surface that can accommodate 00:45:12.440 --> 00:45:13.440 a fire truck. 00:45:13.440 --> 00:45:14.440 Okay. 00:45:14.440 --> 00:45:18.600 Isn't there another access up north of this development where they can come in that way 00:45:18.600 --> 00:45:19.600 too? 00:45:19.600 --> 00:45:22.560 Currently there is only one means of access to both pad sides. 00:45:22.560 --> 00:45:27.720 So at the southern end there, it's right here just north of the yellow line, this winding 00:45:27.720 --> 00:45:30.320 gravel road is the means of access to both well sides. 00:45:30.320 --> 00:45:31.320 Okay. 00:45:31.320 --> 00:45:40.280 And if you can, again, the concern for a more developed road, what are the plans for Windsor? 00:45:40.280 --> 00:45:46.080 I know there was a problem with that one stretch of land where a property owner wasn't willing 00:45:46.080 --> 00:45:47.080 at the time. 00:45:47.080 --> 00:45:50.900 Has that conflict been resolved then is the expansion of Windsor? 00:45:50.900 --> 00:45:57.400 It hasn't been fully resolved in conversations with the applicant and internal staff. 00:45:57.400 --> 00:46:01.080 The intent is to get this entire stretch of Windsor constructed at one point in time. 00:46:01.080 --> 00:46:06.520 So the city will be talking to that landowner as necessary to see what we can do there as 00:46:06.520 --> 00:46:11.360 the surface developers also indicated that they will initiate some of those conversations 00:46:11.360 --> 00:46:14.720 as well as being willing to drop those plans all at one time so that we have a complete 00:46:14.720 --> 00:46:20.680 section for Windsor, at least from this point onward where it is existing divided roadway 00:46:20.680 --> 00:46:22.280 to continue that to the frontage road. 00:46:22.280 --> 00:46:26.400 But conceivably that could get tied up for a while. 00:46:26.400 --> 00:46:27.400 Potentially. 00:46:27.400 --> 00:46:28.400 Okay. 00:46:28.400 --> 00:46:29.400 Thank you. 00:46:29.400 --> 00:46:32.480 Any other questions for Haley? 00:46:32.480 --> 00:46:33.480 Christopher? 00:46:33.480 --> 00:46:34.480 Yes. 00:46:34.480 --> 00:46:40.080 So having a look at the preliminary site plan and everything, if we could go back to the 00:46:40.080 --> 00:46:42.840 slide, I think a couple back. 00:46:42.840 --> 00:46:44.880 The site plan slide? 00:46:44.880 --> 00:46:45.880 Yes. 00:46:45.880 --> 00:46:46.880 Okay. 00:46:46.880 --> 00:46:53.840 So looking at I guess that's what well one over there where we have the flat line. 00:46:53.840 --> 00:47:00.640 And knowing -- so we have reverse setback for like 250 feet, right, for Wells. 00:47:00.640 --> 00:47:03.880 And I know we're not supposed to have any dwellings right in that. 00:47:03.880 --> 00:47:08.920 Those apartment buildings look like they are almost exactly at 250 feet. 00:47:08.920 --> 00:47:12.040 Is that -- are they pretty much right up against that? 00:47:12.040 --> 00:47:13.040 Yes. 00:47:13.040 --> 00:47:18.200 The apartments are intended -- they will have to be 250 feet between the closest exterior 00:47:18.200 --> 00:47:21.440 point of the building and the pad site boundary. 00:47:21.440 --> 00:47:26.020 So for the time being that will be well over 250 feet. 00:47:26.020 --> 00:47:32.240 This 250 would still have to be met when and if this operator seeks to expand the site 00:47:32.240 --> 00:47:35.080 to these ultimate boundaries that they would hope to attain. 00:47:35.080 --> 00:47:36.080 Okay. 00:47:36.080 --> 00:47:39.560 But this being the existing site, they are well over 250 feet. 00:47:39.560 --> 00:47:40.560 Okay. 00:47:40.560 --> 00:47:44.160 But the red line is where they were talking about they would ostensibly want to -- 00:47:44.160 --> 00:47:45.160 Correct. 00:47:45.160 --> 00:47:46.160 Yes. 00:47:46.160 --> 00:47:50.480 So at the time, assuming this gets built prior to the well site being expanded, they will 00:47:50.480 --> 00:47:53.280 be held to that 250 foot boundary. 00:47:53.280 --> 00:47:57.040 It is specifically called out in this agreement that they will be filing with the county as 00:47:57.040 --> 00:47:58.040 well. 00:47:58.040 --> 00:48:02.120 So both parties are aware that no matter what, 250 feet has to exist between the building 00:48:02.120 --> 00:48:03.120 and the well site. 00:48:03.120 --> 00:48:04.120 Okay. 00:48:04.120 --> 00:48:07.200 And the understanding based on what you're saying is that that's most likely of when 00:48:07.200 --> 00:48:10.080 as opposed to an if. 00:48:10.080 --> 00:48:12.280 The operator said they intend to seek that. 00:48:12.280 --> 00:48:17.840 They would have -- it would be a long process for them because of the existing setbacks 00:48:17.840 --> 00:48:21.480 between here and these existing homes, they would have to seek waivers from all of these 00:48:21.480 --> 00:48:28.400 adjoining property owners that are within the 500 foot setback from the site that currently 00:48:28.400 --> 00:48:32.120 would have to be there under the current code as well as they would have to seek a watershed 00:48:32.120 --> 00:48:34.600 protection permit which would require a specific use permit. 00:48:34.600 --> 00:48:35.600 Okay. 00:48:35.600 --> 00:48:36.600 It would be a multi-step process. 00:48:36.600 --> 00:48:39.480 So it's a when, and if, I would say. 00:48:39.480 --> 00:48:43.920 So and my question on this, Richard, I don't know if you would know this or who. 00:48:43.920 --> 00:48:49.400 So I know the question of distance on setbacks has been something that's come up recently 00:48:49.400 --> 00:48:52.520 in city council meetings. 00:48:52.520 --> 00:48:57.960 As the parent of a child with asthma, you know, I'm always concerned about these things. 00:48:57.960 --> 00:49:03.680 What obligations do the developers have to people who would possibly be renting these 00:49:03.680 --> 00:49:09.640 properties that are butted right up against that order to basically let them know that 00:49:09.640 --> 00:49:14.680 there may or may not be these kinds of issues that might affect health? 00:49:14.680 --> 00:49:17.920 I can speak to that if you'd like. 00:49:17.920 --> 00:49:21.600 The current code requires the setbacks be met. 00:49:21.600 --> 00:49:25.480 In addition to that for residential plats, there are certain notices that have to be 00:49:25.480 --> 00:49:28.680 put on the plat as well as filed with the county. 00:49:28.680 --> 00:49:33.640 With this being a rental property, it's tricky to say that those residents would ever 00:49:33.640 --> 00:49:38.760 see those notifications because they would be affecting people buying the property. 00:49:38.760 --> 00:49:42.320 As you mentioned, council is interested in perhaps creating some sort of annual notification 00:49:42.320 --> 00:49:46.920 that would go out to all residents, so it could be targeted towards renters as well. 00:49:46.920 --> 00:49:52.720 But currently, there is no obligation that our code would require for them to notify 00:49:52.720 --> 00:49:55.240 future residents. 00:49:55.240 --> 00:49:56.240 For rental property. 00:49:56.240 --> 00:49:57.240 Okay. 00:49:57.240 --> 00:49:58.240 Thank you. 00:49:58.240 --> 00:49:59.240 Commissioner Beck. 00:49:59.240 --> 00:50:00.240 Thank you, Chair. 00:50:00.240 --> 00:50:07.800 One last clarification, I'll probably address this on down the road, but correct me on this 00:50:07.800 --> 00:50:08.800 if I'm wrong. 00:50:08.800 --> 00:50:17.520 But according to ordinance 210-181, a protected use is any dwelling, church, hospital, pre-kinder. 00:50:17.520 --> 00:50:21.600 Dwelling is, would an apartment be considered a dwelling? 00:50:21.600 --> 00:50:22.600 Correct. 00:50:22.600 --> 00:50:23.600 Okay. 00:50:23.600 --> 00:50:24.600 Thank you. 00:50:24.600 --> 00:50:25.600 Commissioner Smith. 00:50:25.600 --> 00:50:26.600 Thank you, Chair. 00:50:26.600 --> 00:50:29.480 So the applicant is a religious institution. 00:50:29.480 --> 00:50:33.840 Do you happen to have any reason why the religious institution is seeking to build a multifamily 00:50:33.840 --> 00:50:36.000 and then eventually commercial mixed use? 00:50:36.000 --> 00:50:39.360 So the current owner of the property is a religious institution. 00:50:39.360 --> 00:50:43.200 It's my understanding they are in the process of selling this to a group called dimension 00:50:43.200 --> 00:50:46.840 companies that would be the ultimate developer of the site. 00:50:46.840 --> 00:50:47.840 Okay. 00:50:47.840 --> 00:50:55.480 So is the applicant themselves, is the religious institution, is the eventual developer also 00:50:55.480 --> 00:50:59.040 going to be here tonight then, I'm assuming, to answer questions, or is that? 00:50:59.040 --> 00:51:00.040 Correct. 00:51:00.040 --> 00:51:02.920 So the owner is the glory of Zion group that's referenced in your backup. 00:51:02.920 --> 00:51:06.160 Allison Engineering was actually the applicant, so they are here tonight as well as their 00:51:06.160 --> 00:51:07.480 client who would be the developer. 00:51:07.480 --> 00:51:08.480 Got it. 00:51:08.480 --> 00:51:09.480 That's what I was. 00:51:09.480 --> 00:51:10.480 Correct. 00:51:10.480 --> 00:51:11.480 That's right. 00:51:11.480 --> 00:51:12.480 Thank you. 00:51:12.480 --> 00:51:13.480 Yeah. 00:51:13.480 --> 00:51:14.480 Many players, but. 00:51:14.480 --> 00:51:17.480 I do not see any other questions. 00:51:17.480 --> 00:51:19.120 Thanks, Haley. 00:51:19.120 --> 00:51:25.720 Next up and to conclude the public hearing is the discussion regarding the proposed revision 00:51:25.720 --> 00:51:31.320 of the DDC, specifically updating the planning and zoning commission operational procedures 00:51:31.320 --> 00:51:36.600 for voting, and Julie, you have updated language, I presume. 00:51:36.600 --> 00:51:37.600 I do. 00:51:37.600 --> 00:51:38.600 All right. 00:51:38.600 --> 00:51:39.600 Good evening. 00:51:39.600 --> 00:51:48.120 I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city, and I am presenting DCA 18.5 to you, which 00:51:48.120 --> 00:51:51.560 is the procedure for tie votes. 00:51:51.560 --> 00:51:56.920 We talked about this at the last meeting, but we'll just go over what we talked about 00:51:56.920 --> 00:51:59.760 last time briefly, and then we'll talk about the revisions. 00:51:59.760 --> 00:52:04.740 So the request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to council 00:52:04.740 --> 00:52:11.680 regarding a text amendment to the development code to update the planning and zoning procedures 00:52:11.680 --> 00:52:14.560 as they relate to tie votes. 00:52:14.560 --> 00:52:18.900 So just a little bit of background, as you're all aware, there was a recent rezoning case 00:52:18.900 --> 00:52:24.580 that resulted in a tie vote of three to three, and in those instances, the city council rules 00:52:24.580 --> 00:52:29.520 of procedure applied to all boards and commissions, and it would apply to the planning and zoning 00:52:29.520 --> 00:52:35.760 commission, and that is in the code of ordinances that if there is a tie vote, that item would 00:52:35.760 --> 00:52:44.340 automatically be placed upon the subsequent meeting until a majority decision is made, 00:52:44.340 --> 00:52:48.000 and that happened in the planning and zoning commission where that item went to the next 00:52:48.000 --> 00:52:50.160 meeting and several meetings. 00:52:50.160 --> 00:52:56.800 However, due to a recusal, the planning and zoning commission could not come to a majority 00:52:56.800 --> 00:52:57.800 decision. 00:52:57.800 --> 00:53:00.080 So that case was essentially in limbo. 00:53:00.080 --> 00:53:01.080 It couldn't move forward. 00:53:01.080 --> 00:53:02.080 It couldn't move backward. 00:53:02.080 --> 00:53:06.400 It was kind of stuck. 00:53:06.400 --> 00:53:13.520 So based upon that, the council had a work session in September, and at that work session, 00:53:13.520 --> 00:53:17.720 four options were presented to them about how they wanted to address this issue. 00:53:17.720 --> 00:53:19.800 First was to take no action. 00:53:19.800 --> 00:53:23.440 Second was to remove the tie vote provision for all boards and commissions, and that would 00:53:23.440 --> 00:53:27.640 be to update or to amend the code of ordinances. 00:53:27.640 --> 00:53:31.840 The third option would be to remove the tie vote for all boards and commissions excluding 00:53:31.840 --> 00:53:38.080 the city council, and then the fourth one would be to just amend the planning and zoning 00:53:38.080 --> 00:53:44.720 commission rules to address the tie vote, and that was the most limited option that 00:53:44.720 --> 00:53:53.160 they had, and that was the decision they ultimately made, was to amend the DDC to address only 00:53:53.160 --> 00:53:57.400 the planning and zoning commission and allow cases to move forward as a denial. 00:53:57.400 --> 00:54:04.200 Now, as you're aware, when a recommendation of denial is made by the planning and zoning 00:54:04.200 --> 00:54:09.600 commission, it typically then requires a supermajority to approve it at city council. 00:54:09.600 --> 00:54:16.280 However, in this instance, council directed staff to remove that supermajority requirement 00:54:16.280 --> 00:54:22.120 since there wasn't a majority opinion from the planning and zoning commission. 00:54:22.120 --> 00:54:28.400 So council had a discussion about it at that work session and proposed that tie vote provision 00:54:28.400 --> 00:54:34.140 would remove that supermajority requirement. 00:54:34.140 --> 00:54:39.440 So then we got to October 24th when we presented this to planning and zoning commission, and 00:54:39.440 --> 00:54:45.320 we brought forward that language that any motion resulting in a tie vote would be deemed 00:54:45.320 --> 00:54:50.280 as a denial recommendation, would move forward to city council for a final decision, but 00:54:50.280 --> 00:54:52.600 it would remove that supermajority requirement. 00:54:52.600 --> 00:54:57.800 However, after our discussion with planning and zoning commission, y'all directed staff 00:54:57.800 --> 00:55:03.680 that y'all felt like that that was too broad, that really it should be looking at only cases 00:55:03.680 --> 00:55:13.080 with recusal or long-term absence, and that maybe that was maybe not targeted enough language. 00:55:13.080 --> 00:55:17.880 So based upon that feedback, staff went back and we revised the language and we talked 00:55:17.880 --> 00:55:24.720 to legal, and our first stab at it was to craft the language to kind of define what 00:55:24.720 --> 00:55:30.960 is a long-term absence, and then also add in that recusal language. 00:55:30.960 --> 00:55:35.200 And as we kind of went through the thought exercises and how that would play out in real 00:55:35.200 --> 00:55:41.600 life, we realized that it was that long-term absence was so vague, it was really hard to 00:55:41.600 --> 00:55:46.880 determine, and then what if a PNZ member was out for three meetings and then they came 00:55:46.880 --> 00:55:51.320 back, but then another PNZ member was out, and it got where we were kind of back in the 00:55:51.320 --> 00:55:53.920 same spot, and we couldn't really nail that down. 00:55:53.920 --> 00:56:04.120 So we looked at a change that would apply to zoning cases, to specific use permits, 00:56:04.120 --> 00:56:09.840 to special exceptions, alternative ESAs, zoning text amendments, and then criteria manual 00:56:09.840 --> 00:56:17.720 amendments where they're needed a little more scrutiny that PNZ needed to weigh in on it. 00:56:17.720 --> 00:56:22.440 The language we also looked at was not applicable, though, to final plots. 00:56:22.440 --> 00:56:25.440 Those things that the PNZ decides. 00:56:25.440 --> 00:56:33.640 So and our final language came up with the process where if there are six voting members, 00:56:33.640 --> 00:56:40.160 so if somebody is-- we only have six members voting on any case, and there's a tie vote, 00:56:40.160 --> 00:56:41.960 that would just be scheduled for the next meeting. 00:56:41.960 --> 00:56:46.280 It would automatically go to the next meeting, regardless of why we have six voting members, 00:56:46.280 --> 00:56:49.860 whether there's a recusal or somebody's out. 00:56:49.860 --> 00:56:54.600 At that next meeting, if there's only six members and there's a tie vote, it would just 00:56:54.600 --> 00:56:56.060 go to city council. 00:56:56.060 --> 00:57:01.000 Now it could-- it would allow you all to still-- if you felt like you wanted to have another 00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:07.040 stab at it, that you could table the item, you could vote to table the item so that it 00:57:07.040 --> 00:57:13.600 could delay that vote further, but this kind of focused more on the process of the voting 00:57:13.600 --> 00:57:17.540 and less as to why somebody would be out. 00:57:17.540 --> 00:57:22.800 So regardless, if there is a tie vote, it would go to PNZ twice before it would go to 00:57:22.800 --> 00:57:24.680 city council. 00:57:24.680 --> 00:57:29.560 So the final language, and I know it's long, but we'll go over it and it's in your backup. 00:57:29.560 --> 00:57:34.560 There was one change to that language after talking with legal today. 00:57:34.560 --> 00:57:41.020 The original language in your backup referenced a qualified commissioner. 00:57:41.020 --> 00:57:43.720 That was changed to voting commissioner. 00:57:43.720 --> 00:57:47.100 So we thought that was a little more clear language. 00:57:47.100 --> 00:57:52.600 So that-- the proposal is after closing the public hearing, should a majority of voting 00:57:52.600 --> 00:57:57.760 commissioners fail to recommend either approval or denial of a proposed amendment or approval 00:57:57.760 --> 00:58:03.280 of a modified amendment, staff is directed to place the matter for vote on the next available 00:58:03.280 --> 00:58:09.920 planning and zoning commission meeting-- commission agenda as an item for individual consideration. 00:58:09.920 --> 00:58:15.200 A second failure of a majority of voting commissioners to recommend either approval or denial of 00:58:15.200 --> 00:58:20.840 a proposed amendment or approval of a modified amendment shall be deemed a recommendation 00:58:20.840 --> 00:58:23.240 to deny approval of any amendment. 00:58:23.240 --> 00:58:28.840 Such failure is not subject to the requirements for that super majority in city code section 00:58:28.840 --> 00:58:35.440 2-29 and shall not require the 3/4 vote of all members of the city council qualified 00:58:35.440 --> 00:58:36.440 to vote. 00:58:36.440 --> 00:58:38.600 So we felt like that kind of tightened it up. 00:58:38.600 --> 00:58:43.160 It still gave a little more opportunity for PNZ to fully weigh in on it. 00:58:43.160 --> 00:58:45.280 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:58:45.280 --> 00:58:47.440 I'll just finish your thought now. 00:58:47.440 --> 00:58:48.440 >> No, that's all right. 00:58:48.440 --> 00:58:49.440 No, go ahead. 00:58:49.440 --> 00:58:50.440 >> Okay. 00:58:50.440 --> 00:58:54.000 The-- first of all, it comes back as an individual consideration. 00:58:54.000 --> 00:58:58.320 So while it was originally a public hearing, it comes back as an individual consideration. 00:58:58.320 --> 00:59:03.920 And so why was that process is-- yeah, what was the thought process behind that? 00:59:03.920 --> 00:59:04.920 Maybe I'll answer that question. 00:59:04.920 --> 00:59:05.920 >> That is a great question. 00:59:05.920 --> 00:59:06.920 >> I know. 00:59:06.920 --> 00:59:07.920 Thank you, Julie. 00:59:07.920 --> 00:59:08.920 >> Typically, once you have-- 00:59:08.920 --> 00:59:09.920 >> I'll get my cookie now. 00:59:09.920 --> 00:59:15.760 >> Typically, once you have voted or not typically, always, once you-- when you vote, the public 00:59:15.760 --> 00:59:17.360 hearing is closed. 00:59:17.360 --> 00:59:22.340 So once the public hearing is closed, it can't be reopened for that item unless it is re-noticed. 00:59:22.340 --> 00:59:24.000 >> Got it. 00:59:24.000 --> 00:59:27.000 >> So that's why it would then come back as an individual consideration. 00:59:27.000 --> 00:59:30.360 >> And public still has-- I guess it's up to the chair's discretion, but public still 00:59:30.360 --> 00:59:35.640 has usually the ability to speak publicly on individual considerations, usually. 00:59:35.640 --> 00:59:38.160 >> I think it would-- 00:59:38.160 --> 00:59:44.520 >> That's up to the chair, certainly, but there's no legal requirement to have a second 00:59:44.520 --> 00:59:46.760 public hearing for this. 00:59:46.760 --> 00:59:52.880 The legal requirement satisfied with the first public hearing, and at that point, once you've 00:59:52.880 --> 01:00:00.520 closed the public hearing and taken a vote on it, it risks muddying the waters to reopen 01:00:00.520 --> 01:00:01.520 at that point. 01:00:01.520 --> 01:00:02.520 >> Sure. 01:00:02.520 --> 01:00:03.520 No, of course. 01:00:03.520 --> 01:00:04.520 Second question. 01:00:04.520 --> 01:00:09.640 If you go back a couple slides to the applicable-- there you go, I guess, back up, I mean one. 01:00:09.640 --> 01:00:11.360 The applicable versus non-applicable. 01:00:11.360 --> 01:00:18.120 So in the event that of, you know, we're dealing with an ADP and there's a tie vote, this proposed 01:00:18.120 --> 01:00:24.000 change would mean the non-applicable, so it reverts back to the original tie vote regulations, 01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:28.200 which is that it's still catches us in limbo for forever then? 01:00:28.200 --> 01:00:29.200 >> Yes. 01:00:29.200 --> 01:00:32.160 And that was something we actually talked about today. 01:00:32.160 --> 01:00:35.280 But yes, that would be-- 01:00:35.280 --> 01:00:37.880 >> I guess two things. 01:00:37.880 --> 01:00:43.920 One, how do we get around that, but we'll come back to that one, but two, why do those 01:00:43.920 --> 01:00:44.920 become not applicable? 01:00:44.920 --> 01:00:48.440 I think you mentioned it, but just expand upon it for me. 01:00:48.440 --> 01:00:55.680 >> I think this was due to-- it really was in response to that one case, and city council's 01:00:55.680 --> 01:01:03.320 discussion on the item was based upon how do these cases that are stuck in limbo go 01:01:03.320 --> 01:01:06.840 to the next level for a final decision? 01:01:06.840 --> 01:01:17.680 So that was the idea behind that targeted fix for it, that these are items that would 01:01:17.680 --> 01:01:21.160 go on into city council for final decision. 01:01:21.160 --> 01:01:28.440 So legal may want to weigh in on how we would address those items that are a final decision 01:01:28.440 --> 01:01:34.880 within P&Z, but this was really to target those items that the P&Z was a recommending 01:01:34.880 --> 01:01:39.240 body and not the decision-making body, if that makes sense. 01:01:39.240 --> 01:01:45.400 >> I think that's very well stated that in those situations where P&Z is the final decision 01:01:45.400 --> 01:01:48.080 body, there's nothing council could do about it anyway. 01:01:48.080 --> 01:01:49.080 >> Yeah. 01:01:49.080 --> 01:01:55.680 >> So what would be the resolution then if it is a perpetual tie at that point? 01:01:55.680 --> 01:01:58.400 >> That's up to P&Z to make through that resolution. 01:01:58.400 --> 01:02:03.840 If P&Z is going to have to solve that issue. 01:02:03.840 --> 01:02:10.840 >> That's a 0.1% of our already 0.1% problem, so we don't-- we'll wait and cross that bridge 01:02:10.840 --> 01:02:11.840 when we get there. 01:02:11.840 --> 01:02:14.040 We'll let the future P&Z come across it. 01:02:14.040 --> 01:02:19.040 Hopefully, I think your P&Z is not us. 01:02:19.040 --> 01:02:25.000 >> Oh, Commissioner Ellis. 01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:26.280 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:02:26.280 --> 01:02:29.160 Thank you for working on this and re-wording this, you guys. 01:02:29.160 --> 01:02:32.000 It's-- makes much more sense. 01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:35.480 It's fixing the problem that's actually the problem and not rewriting something that we 01:02:35.480 --> 01:02:36.480 already have code for. 01:02:36.480 --> 01:02:40.320 So thanks for taking the time to re-look at it, I appreciate it. 01:02:40.320 --> 01:02:41.320 >> Thank you. 01:02:41.320 --> 01:02:47.600 Based upon that and also our discussion at the last meeting, we just-- some of the considerations 01:02:47.600 --> 01:02:51.280 we looked at in crafting this language is we wanted to maintain the integrity of the 01:02:51.280 --> 01:02:55.160 public hearing process and I think we heard that from this group and that's something 01:02:55.160 --> 01:02:59.840 that's really important with any public hearing item. 01:02:59.840 --> 01:03:04.800 This revised language does allow this body to-- an additional opportunity to reach a 01:03:04.800 --> 01:03:05.800 decision. 01:03:05.800 --> 01:03:11.160 But then finally, we want to make sure that there is a clear path for not only applicants 01:03:11.160 --> 01:03:17.720 but for residents who would have a concern or stakeholder, that they would be able to 01:03:17.720 --> 01:03:20.640 make plans and know when a final decision would be made. 01:03:20.640 --> 01:03:26.360 You know, if a case is in limbo, you know, if you-- that they would have to keep coming 01:03:26.360 --> 01:03:31.800 to P&Z possibly for several meetings and then who knows to city council. 01:03:31.800 --> 01:03:37.520 So this just allows some real certainty within the process. 01:03:37.520 --> 01:03:41.520 And then as we still discussed last time, the intent of this is to prevent projects 01:03:41.520 --> 01:03:45.040 from being left in an indeterminate state. 01:03:45.040 --> 01:03:52.040 That we still left that item in there to remove that super majority requirement since it wasn't 01:03:52.040 --> 01:03:54.400 a majority decision by P&Z. 01:03:54.400 --> 01:04:00.200 But as always, we make sure that council is informed of the matters that are discussed 01:04:00.200 --> 01:04:06.320 during planning and zoning so that they can consider that as they make their decisions. 01:04:06.320 --> 01:04:13.480 So based upon the considerations, staff recommends approval of this request and it was placed 01:04:13.480 --> 01:04:16.360 in the newspaper for that notification. 01:04:16.360 --> 01:04:20.160 So I'll stand for any questions. 01:04:20.160 --> 01:04:21.160 I do not see any. 01:04:21.160 --> 01:04:22.640 Thanks, Julie, for working on that. 01:04:22.640 --> 01:04:23.640 Thank you. 01:04:23.640 --> 01:04:24.640 Sure. 01:04:24.640 --> 01:04:25.640 That's the end of our agenda. 01:04:25.640 --> 01:04:32.440 So we have some work session reports and I think we were flipping the order to have-- 01:04:32.440 --> 01:04:38.160 Preet Sim have plenty of time for his presentation, so we're actually going to invite Preet Sim 01:04:38.160 --> 01:04:39.160 up first. 01:04:39.160 --> 01:04:42.480 Sorry for the short notice on that one. 01:04:42.480 --> 01:04:49.440 But if you'd lead us, then we'll, as time permits, get an update on the DDC code update. 01:04:49.440 --> 01:04:56.320 He's-- yeah, if time permits, we'll get to the DDC update. 01:04:56.320 --> 01:04:57.520 Yeah, sorry. 01:04:57.520 --> 01:04:59.120 Good evening. 01:04:59.120 --> 01:05:02.160 My name is Preet Sim Deshmukh, traffic engineer for the city. 01:05:02.160 --> 01:05:09.720 Let me pull up my presentation, it's somewhere on the desktop. 01:05:09.720 --> 01:05:18.160 All right, so initially it was a short and sweet presentation until I had to talk to 01:05:18.160 --> 01:05:22.280 Richard and he said, "No, that's not what they want to hear." 01:05:22.280 --> 01:05:25.640 So let's start with something familiar. 01:05:25.640 --> 01:05:30.000 This is criteria manual update. 01:05:30.000 --> 01:05:35.880 I was here a few months ago about the traffic and transportation criteria manual update. 01:05:35.880 --> 01:05:41.160 I'm starting at this point because I wanted to show what we've already done as far as 01:05:41.160 --> 01:05:44.040 addressing some of the issues related to traffic. 01:05:44.040 --> 01:05:49.400 We've already tightened up our guidelines, making sure that we have a set of rules that 01:05:49.400 --> 01:05:55.640 they follow if you're-- for example, if you're generating anywhere between 100 and 500 trips, 01:05:55.640 --> 01:06:00.280 you look at five years after the opening year, not just what's happening tomorrow if I put 01:06:00.280 --> 01:06:02.040 the units down on the ground. 01:06:02.040 --> 01:06:08.240 So that was first thing to look at 0.5 to a mile radius and look at a bigger picture. 01:06:08.240 --> 01:06:13.120 If you're more than 500 trips, which some of these developments are, then you look at 01:06:13.120 --> 01:06:16.520 20 years in the future, not just when things are coming in. 01:06:16.520 --> 01:06:22.200 So these are the things that we already put in place that we're looking at and one of 01:06:22.200 --> 01:06:27.280 the things here also is when they're going for zoning cases, they bring up and they look 01:06:27.280 --> 01:06:28.720 at traffic impact analysis. 01:06:28.720 --> 01:06:34.120 That's something that staff has started asking for, implementing, making sure that you have 01:06:34.120 --> 01:06:38.720 a better picture of what's happening to make that decision is the zoning right or wrong 01:06:38.720 --> 01:06:44.680 or what kind of intensity does-- what kind of traffic demand does this intensity create. 01:06:44.680 --> 01:06:47.600 So that's the first step. 01:06:47.600 --> 01:06:52.540 Our long-term is develop different master plans, starting with the master thoroughfare 01:06:52.540 --> 01:06:56.440 plan, bicycle, pedestrian, and the overall mobility plan. 01:06:56.440 --> 01:07:01.960 Right now, the plan we have, the land use information that went in the background. 01:07:01.960 --> 01:07:06.520 So typically what happens is the land use is hand-in-hand with transportation circulation 01:07:06.520 --> 01:07:10.680 network and one has to feed off of the other. 01:07:10.680 --> 01:07:16.640 If the land use is not right, then the amount of capacity or the demand that's generated 01:07:16.640 --> 01:07:21.120 is pretty low and the network doesn't come out right for the transportation system. 01:07:21.120 --> 01:07:25.960 So what we found out, the original-- the previous mobility plan, some of the assumptions that 01:07:25.960 --> 01:07:31.760 went back in the land use especially the green field area which is pretty much on the fringes 01:07:31.760 --> 01:07:39.400 north and then southern side too, that was not really updated, that was not thought through. 01:07:39.400 --> 01:07:43.480 It was the, oh yeah, these green fields are going to remain green fields for the next 01:07:43.480 --> 01:07:45.520 5, 10, 15, 20 years. 01:07:45.520 --> 01:07:48.440 So we'll come back whenever they get developed. 01:07:48.440 --> 01:07:53.020 So moving forward and we've been working close with-- engineering has been working close 01:07:53.020 --> 01:07:58.920 with planning to understand, OK, this is really happening right now. 01:07:58.920 --> 01:08:05.520 There are parcels and there are different areas that are developing at a much faster 01:08:05.520 --> 01:08:06.840 place, pace. 01:08:06.840 --> 01:08:14.020 So what we do-- what do we want to do and we have started to form an interim step in 01:08:14.020 --> 01:08:19.000 between, these master plans most likely will be ready by the end of next year. 01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:23.200 So what do we do from now until the end of next year? 01:08:23.200 --> 01:08:28.160 We've focused on a couple of areas that seem to be started gaining a lot of attention, 01:08:28.160 --> 01:08:31.120 a lot of new development coming in that area. 01:08:31.120 --> 01:08:37.360 So if you look at this area, this is FM 428 Sherman, that comes into the city. 01:08:37.360 --> 01:08:40.760 This is that loop 288 interchange at the bottom. 01:08:40.760 --> 01:08:46.120 We've seen a lot of development in this particular area, south of loop as well as just north. 01:08:46.120 --> 01:08:49.600 There are big parcels that are coming off of 428. 01:08:49.600 --> 01:08:53.640 So what we did is in interim, let's start studying this. 01:08:53.640 --> 01:08:58.480 Look at the demand, look at the land uses, get some better assumptions at the background 01:08:58.480 --> 01:08:59.480 land uses. 01:08:59.480 --> 01:09:07.480 What is-- what are we looking at when these PDM-- parcels coming for PDM or any discussion 01:09:07.480 --> 01:09:12.000 about oh, we want to develop this type of land use, so we set out on planning, got the 01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:18.960 basic assumptions done, so updated land uses, developed the transportation network and currently 01:09:18.960 --> 01:09:22.000 we're awaiting the report which is due this week. 01:09:22.000 --> 01:09:27.400 So we'll get a report that identifies what our needs transportation-wise and then it 01:09:27.400 --> 01:09:31.400 also incorporates some of the densities that are already coming in. 01:09:31.400 --> 01:09:35.320 People are coming-- developers are coming in with some densities and that's the background 01:09:35.320 --> 01:09:37.600 assumption that went in there. 01:09:37.600 --> 01:09:44.720 The other area is-- this is a pretty large area but this is something between hops and-- 01:09:44.720 --> 01:09:49.160 this is 1830 Country Club and then FM 2181. 01:09:49.160 --> 01:09:54.680 This is one of the other booming areas in the cities outside with a lot of construction 01:09:54.680 --> 01:09:56.040 associated with it. 01:09:56.040 --> 01:10:01.000 Teasley's under construction, there are other roads that are under construction in this 01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:04.080 area but it's developing pretty fast. 01:10:04.080 --> 01:10:07.120 Some of these subdivisions are already in place. 01:10:07.120 --> 01:10:11.960 So we're having to do a lot of catch up in this particular area but we're studying this. 01:10:11.960 --> 01:10:14.280 This is next on our list. 01:10:14.280 --> 01:10:19.300 The boundary of this area would be hops and Hickory Creek to the south and then Country 01:10:19.300 --> 01:10:21.060 Club and 2181. 01:10:21.060 --> 01:10:25.160 So what we're going to do is go through the same exercise, understand what is already 01:10:25.160 --> 01:10:29.920 been built, what's coming in and how does this traffic impact. 01:10:29.920 --> 01:10:36.160 In line with this since this area is already half sort of, I would say about 30%, 40% developed 01:10:36.160 --> 01:10:39.680 a lot of developments are coming in at a much faster pace. 01:10:39.680 --> 01:10:46.000 We've already started looking at can we trigger some of the design components for Ryan Road. 01:10:46.000 --> 01:10:53.440 So we've already engaged a firm to start the design of Ryan Road as a four-lane divided. 01:10:53.440 --> 01:10:59.760 So we're trying to get ahead of the curve and trying to address some of these needs. 01:10:59.760 --> 01:11:04.160 So these are two-- these are the interim steps that we're taking. 01:11:04.160 --> 01:11:12.400 So this is the main thing that Richard wanted me to talk about is roadway impact fees. 01:11:12.400 --> 01:11:13.800 What are we doing with it? 01:11:13.800 --> 01:11:19.360 The purpose is to partially or fully fund some of these transportation projects. 01:11:19.360 --> 01:11:25.840 And just wanted to give you more of a 30,000 foot level view, not getting into details 01:11:25.840 --> 01:11:29.920 how exactly every number is calculated, but just an idea. 01:11:29.920 --> 01:11:39.560 So when this fee was proposed, city was divided into about five blocks, you can see ABCD. 01:11:39.560 --> 01:11:45.160 And over 150 transportation projects were identified. 01:11:45.160 --> 01:11:47.320 I can get to the next slide. 01:11:47.320 --> 01:11:54.560 You can see these are different areas starting here with area A. You can see all this red 01:11:54.560 --> 01:11:58.400 is all those are transportation projects that were identified. 01:11:58.400 --> 01:12:01.120 Some of them require widening, some of them are brand new streets. 01:12:01.120 --> 01:12:05.840 So it's more of what kind of arterial network do we need. 01:12:05.840 --> 01:12:10.660 And once these were identified, the total cost for construction was identified. 01:12:10.660 --> 01:12:16.600 And then based on that cost, it was tied down to how much development we have, what kind 01:12:16.600 --> 01:12:19.120 of land use we have in this whole area. 01:12:19.120 --> 01:12:25.440 And then every area has a maximum accessible fee associated with it. 01:12:25.440 --> 01:12:29.440 Just based on the size of the area, the amount of infrastructure needed in the area, and 01:12:29.440 --> 01:12:32.520 then the amount of development that's coming in the area. 01:12:32.520 --> 01:12:36.360 So just to give you a quick overview. 01:12:36.360 --> 01:12:39.200 And then how are these fees calculated? 01:12:39.200 --> 01:12:40.200 This is a sample. 01:12:40.200 --> 01:12:44.000 I have one for residential and one for commercial. 01:12:44.000 --> 01:12:49.000 I don't want to go through all the details, but quickly the maximum accessible for area 01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:53.320 A is $2,200 for a single family dwelling unit. 01:12:53.320 --> 01:12:59.480 And then this is a vehicle mile per -- this is a constant that was developed by the consultant. 01:12:59.480 --> 01:13:05.880 So all you do is multiply the number of units times that number times this vehicle mile. 01:13:05.880 --> 01:13:11.640 There you have a maximum accessible impact fee per household. 01:13:11.640 --> 01:13:17.440 Another calculation for commercial or say for home improvement stores, same thing. 01:13:17.440 --> 01:13:19.880 There's a number here. 01:13:19.880 --> 01:13:23.560 For service area, maximum accessible is $1,945. 01:13:23.560 --> 01:13:28.800 And then say $125,000 square foot of home improvement store is going in. 01:13:28.800 --> 01:13:31.320 So that's their fee. 01:13:31.320 --> 01:13:36.120 So that's a very simplified version of how the calculation is based. 01:13:36.120 --> 01:13:37.840 >> Commissioner Ellis. 01:13:37.840 --> 01:13:39.720 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:13:39.720 --> 01:13:40.720 Excuse me. 01:13:40.720 --> 01:13:45.720 So does each service area have its own calculation, its own equation? 01:13:45.720 --> 01:13:49.880 >> Each service area has its own maximum accessible fee. 01:13:49.880 --> 01:13:56.760 So the way it was defined, if I have 10 projects in one area and it's going to cost me $100,000, 01:13:56.760 --> 01:14:02.600 and there are 50,000 homes remaining in that area, that's how it was split. 01:14:02.600 --> 01:14:07.040 For each area, there's a unique -- there's a transportation requirement or need. 01:14:07.040 --> 01:14:09.640 And then how much is remaining that development will support. 01:14:09.640 --> 01:14:11.080 So that's the calculation. 01:14:11.080 --> 01:14:13.280 That's the background information that went in. 01:14:13.280 --> 01:14:14.280 >> Right. 01:14:14.280 --> 01:14:16.560 So is that number always changing then? 01:14:16.560 --> 01:14:17.920 >> It's different for each area. 01:14:17.920 --> 01:14:19.720 So each area has its unique number. 01:14:19.720 --> 01:14:20.720 >> Right. 01:14:20.720 --> 01:14:21.720 And it's constant though. 01:14:21.720 --> 01:14:22.720 >> It's constant. 01:14:22.720 --> 01:14:23.720 >> In the service area. 01:14:23.720 --> 01:14:24.720 >> In the service area. 01:14:24.720 --> 01:14:25.720 >> Okay. 01:14:25.720 --> 01:14:26.720 >> Correct. 01:14:26.720 --> 01:14:30.320 >> And how often is that fee updated per service area? 01:14:30.320 --> 01:14:33.040 >> It hasn't been since 2015. 01:14:33.040 --> 01:14:39.320 And we are looking at this whole equation and looking at the whole impact fee based on the 01:14:39.320 --> 01:14:41.200 new master thoroughfare plan. 01:14:41.200 --> 01:14:42.920 So some of the elements would change. 01:14:42.920 --> 01:14:46.680 It was based on the original master thoroughfare plan or mobility plan. 01:14:46.680 --> 01:14:49.960 So yes, we'll go back and reassess once we get there. 01:14:49.960 --> 01:14:50.960 >> Gotcha. 01:14:50.960 --> 01:14:51.960 Commissioner Smith. 01:14:51.960 --> 01:14:56.680 >> Traditionally, do we see it being -- is that the impact fee a significant amount towards 01:14:56.680 --> 01:15:00.200 the project and towards the development of the roads in that area? 01:15:00.200 --> 01:15:06.240 Is it a lion's share of the subsidy or is it only a small piece of what's needed to 01:15:06.240 --> 01:15:09.600 -- what are we traditionally seeing as a city? 01:15:09.600 --> 01:15:14.400 10,780 per unit making that big of an impact or is it a -- 01:15:14.400 --> 01:15:20.520 >> So as I understand it, and I don't quote me on this, but I think the calculation had 01:15:20.520 --> 01:15:26.400 come up to $4,000 to $5,000 a dwelling unit when it was first presented that that was 01:15:26.400 --> 01:15:32.680 the requirement for fixing all the infrastructure in the area. 01:15:32.680 --> 01:15:36.560 When it was presented to council, I think they settled down with the 2,200 number. 01:15:36.560 --> 01:15:39.280 So we're already half ways there, so 50%. 01:15:39.280 --> 01:15:44.200 And then given the inflation and construction costs, I would peg the inflation as about 01:15:44.200 --> 01:15:47.520 a percent a month in the DFW Metroplex. 01:15:47.520 --> 01:15:51.320 So it's about 12% a year inflating. 01:15:51.320 --> 01:15:53.600 So from 2015, it's about three years now. 01:15:53.600 --> 01:15:55.640 >> And that's a compounding effect too. 01:15:55.640 --> 01:15:56.640 >> Exactly. 01:15:56.640 --> 01:15:57.800 So right now, we're really holding -- 01:15:57.800 --> 01:16:03.520 >> So really that impact fees will subsidize maybe roughly 20, 25% of the cost right now. 01:16:03.520 --> 01:16:04.520 >> Right. 01:16:04.520 --> 01:16:05.520 Around that number. 01:16:05.520 --> 01:16:09.880 >> How do we compare to other cities of our size? 01:16:09.880 --> 01:16:17.440 >> I think the number is fairly close, but cities of the -- other cities are also finding 01:16:17.440 --> 01:16:18.440 sources like us. 01:16:18.440 --> 01:16:23.340 We're really hunting down for funding through cog. 01:16:23.340 --> 01:16:30.520 Most of our bigger projects is partially bond money, but Bonnie Brahe has a lot of cog funding. 01:16:30.520 --> 01:16:35.400 Most of our large projects we're pretty much trying to get external funding. 01:16:35.400 --> 01:16:37.400 >> Okay. 01:16:37.400 --> 01:16:40.280 >> Commissioner Beck? 01:16:40.280 --> 01:16:44.920 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:16:44.920 --> 01:16:50.360 Of the 150 transportation projects, are they prioritized? 01:16:50.360 --> 01:16:52.360 >> They are not prioritized in the area. 01:16:52.360 --> 01:16:58.080 So typically what happens is so these are the projects, and they're just numbered and 01:16:58.080 --> 01:17:02.000 a value is assigned, okay, this much is going to take to build it. 01:17:02.000 --> 01:17:09.080 They are not prioritized, but the way it prioritizes, depending on, for example, Ryan Road, depending 01:17:09.080 --> 01:17:14.400 on the amount of development that's happening and taking access off of that particular street, 01:17:14.400 --> 01:17:19.920 that has risen in priority as compared to Hobson or any other parallel streets in that 01:17:19.920 --> 01:17:20.920 particular zone. 01:17:20.920 --> 01:17:27.360 >> Well, surely we don't have construction crews working simultaneously on 150 projects 01:17:27.360 --> 01:17:28.360 right now, do we? 01:17:28.360 --> 01:17:29.360 >> No. 01:17:29.360 --> 01:17:30.360 >> Okay. 01:17:30.360 --> 01:17:31.360 >> No, no. 01:17:31.360 --> 01:17:32.360 This is just a list. 01:17:32.360 --> 01:17:33.360 This is -- 01:17:33.360 --> 01:17:34.360 >> Okay. 01:17:34.360 --> 01:17:35.360 So what do we roughly have? 01:17:35.360 --> 01:17:39.840 Six or seven crews working on some of these projects around the city? 01:17:39.840 --> 01:17:42.760 >> So that's getting into the CIP projects. 01:17:42.760 --> 01:17:49.440 I don't know exactly how many number of crews we have, but we are currently most likely every 01:17:49.440 --> 01:17:55.120 two to three months spilling out about $30 million worth of projects, CIP projects. 01:17:55.120 --> 01:18:00.440 And that could range not just transportation, but drainage and water and sewer and combined, 01:18:00.440 --> 01:18:01.440 but -- 01:18:01.440 --> 01:18:02.440 >> Throughout the city. 01:18:02.440 --> 01:18:03.440 >> Throughout the city. 01:18:03.440 --> 01:18:04.440 >> Okay. 01:18:04.440 --> 01:18:07.080 >> And there are a lot of street bond funded projects still going in. 01:18:07.080 --> 01:18:13.000 So I did presenting yesterday at the mobility committee and you could see that map, maybe 01:18:13.000 --> 01:18:16.800 I have that map, but that shows how many projects are going on in the city. 01:18:16.800 --> 01:18:19.200 Let me see if I can find it. 01:18:19.200 --> 01:18:24.160 >> This kind of information is online on our website, right, the city's website? 01:18:24.160 --> 01:18:25.160 >> Similar to that. 01:18:25.160 --> 01:18:26.160 >> Okay. 01:18:26.160 --> 01:18:27.160 >> But let me -- 01:18:27.160 --> 01:18:30.160 >> How difficult would it be to find? 01:18:30.160 --> 01:18:33.240 What kind of maze would I have to go through to get there? 01:18:33.240 --> 01:18:35.960 >> No, we are trying to make it much more simpler. 01:18:35.960 --> 01:18:41.400 That's what we presented the mobility committee is we're trying to put that map online. 01:18:41.400 --> 01:18:45.560 There are several different software systems that track it for streets and other departments. 01:18:45.560 --> 01:18:48.480 We have to just combine them and bring under one platform. 01:18:48.480 --> 01:18:50.720 That's what we're trying to work with. 01:18:50.720 --> 01:18:51.720 >> Okay. 01:18:51.720 --> 01:18:52.720 Thank you. 01:18:52.720 --> 01:18:56.360 >> Do you have one more slide left? 01:18:56.360 --> 01:18:57.360 Did we catch the short or -- 01:18:57.360 --> 01:19:00.360 >> Yeah, I think that was just questions. 01:19:00.360 --> 01:19:01.360 >> Okay. 01:19:01.360 --> 01:19:02.360 >> Any questions? 01:19:02.360 --> 01:19:03.360 >> Jumped you. 01:19:03.360 --> 01:19:14.040 >> So on that last -- you had the A, B, C. So what are the hot areas right now? 01:19:14.040 --> 01:19:15.040 Is it -- 01:19:15.040 --> 01:19:16.040 >> It's -- 01:19:16.040 --> 01:19:17.040 >> D and B, right? 01:19:17.040 --> 01:19:19.000 >> It's area D and B, correct. 01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:20.000 >> Okay. 01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:21.000 So that's going to be right now. 01:19:21.000 --> 01:19:22.000 >> Absolutely. 01:19:22.000 --> 01:19:23.000 Those are our focus areas currently. 01:19:23.000 --> 01:19:24.000 >> The cruiser is going to be -- 01:19:24.000 --> 01:19:25.000 >> Correct. 01:19:25.000 --> 01:19:26.000 >> The construction is going to be. 01:19:26.000 --> 01:19:27.000 >> Okay. 01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:31.760 >> So we are working on -- particularly focusing on this Sherman and this area and then particularly 01:19:31.760 --> 01:19:36.320 focusing in this area between Hobson and Hickory Creek. 01:19:36.320 --> 01:19:37.720 So those are two. 01:19:37.720 --> 01:19:44.400 Ryan, I know it's under -- yeah, we've already started design on the home. 01:19:44.400 --> 01:19:47.320 >> Any other questions for Preetam? 01:19:47.320 --> 01:19:48.660 Christopher Ellis. 01:19:48.660 --> 01:19:49.660 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:19:49.660 --> 01:19:55.800 While we've got you here, you mentioned that the TIA is being done. 01:19:55.800 --> 01:19:56.800 Okay. 01:19:56.800 --> 01:19:59.320 So tell me, who is doing these studies? 01:19:59.320 --> 01:20:00.320 >> A consultant. 01:20:00.320 --> 01:20:01.320 >> Is it -- 01:20:01.320 --> 01:20:02.320 >> Developers hire. 01:20:02.320 --> 01:20:03.320 >> Right. 01:20:03.320 --> 01:20:06.200 Do they hire whoever they want? 01:20:06.200 --> 01:20:07.200 >> Typically, yes. 01:20:07.200 --> 01:20:10.760 There are just a handful of firms out there for traffic engineering. 01:20:10.760 --> 01:20:11.760 >> That does it. 01:20:11.760 --> 01:20:12.760 Okay. 01:20:12.760 --> 01:20:13.760 And is everybody using the same criteria? 01:20:13.760 --> 01:20:14.760 >> Yes. 01:20:14.760 --> 01:20:16.520 It's the transportation criteria manual. 01:20:16.520 --> 01:20:17.520 >> Okay. 01:20:17.520 --> 01:20:19.640 >> So they're following the manual. 01:20:19.640 --> 01:20:20.640 Everything lays it out. 01:20:20.640 --> 01:20:21.640 This is what we want to see. 01:20:21.640 --> 01:20:24.440 This is what we're looking for. 01:20:24.440 --> 01:20:30.640 And if you don't provide it, we're going to have comments and reject it at some point. 01:20:30.640 --> 01:20:31.640 >> Okay. 01:20:31.640 --> 01:20:33.680 Thank you. 01:20:33.680 --> 01:20:35.680 >> Fantastic. 01:20:35.680 --> 01:20:41.280 So at this time, before Ron presents, then we're going to break and get some food. 01:20:41.280 --> 01:20:53.440 So we'll pause the work session at 535, and reconvene at 545. 01:20:53.440 --> 01:20:56.040 Thank you, and welcome back to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session. 01:20:56.040 --> 01:20:59.120 It is 550. 01:20:59.120 --> 01:21:01.600 I'll invite Ron for presentation. 01:21:01.600 --> 01:21:08.680 >> Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. 01:21:08.680 --> 01:21:13.760 Matt's presentation is just to give you all an update of where we are on the Denton Development 01:21:13.760 --> 01:21:14.760 Code update. 01:21:14.760 --> 01:21:18.400 I know it's been some time since we first met. 01:21:18.400 --> 01:21:25.360 Earlier this year, the staff and the DCRC Development Code Review Committee has been 01:21:25.360 --> 01:21:30.880 meeting almost weekly to go over this document. 01:21:30.880 --> 01:21:33.560 It's obviously an important document. 01:21:33.560 --> 01:21:39.100 Just to remind the commission and those that are viewing, three members of the Planning 01:21:39.100 --> 01:21:41.680 and Zoning Commission serve on that DCRC. 01:21:41.680 --> 01:21:45.520 Margie, Andrew, and Larry serve on that commission. 01:21:45.520 --> 01:21:46.520 >> Kind of. 01:21:46.520 --> 01:21:47.520 >> Kind of. 01:21:47.520 --> 01:21:48.520 Sort of. 01:21:48.520 --> 01:21:51.720 >> It's like two and a half members. 01:21:51.720 --> 01:21:57.080 >> So the agenda, real quickly, is to just -- why are we doing this? 01:21:57.080 --> 01:21:58.560 Where we are? 01:21:58.560 --> 01:22:02.280 What has the DCRC been discussing? 01:22:02.280 --> 01:22:06.680 Going to go over the subchapters that we're proposing and then notification in the draft 01:22:06.680 --> 01:22:11.120 zoning map, which is a big component of the DCRC update, and then what our next steps 01:22:11.120 --> 01:22:12.800 are. 01:22:12.800 --> 01:22:20.080 So the purpose really is to be consistent with the Dent Plan 2030, have responsible 01:22:20.080 --> 01:22:22.480 and quality development. 01:22:22.480 --> 01:22:28.440 There are common themes throughout the update, and that is be more customer-friendly, build 01:22:28.440 --> 01:22:32.800 a stronger foundation, and be consistent with Texas Local Government Code, but also to look 01:22:32.800 --> 01:22:39.760 at our neighborhoods and make sure that we protect them as well. 01:22:39.760 --> 01:22:45.400 So the status is we started this effort back in June through November 2017. 01:22:45.400 --> 01:22:50.000 We started meeting with the DCRC earlier this year, March, to be exact, and continue to 01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:51.380 meet with them. 01:22:51.380 --> 01:22:57.240 We've held public open houses when we first published our public draft. 01:22:57.240 --> 01:23:04.800 During that, we've held numerous stakeholder meetings with the Development Committee, neighborhood 01:23:04.800 --> 01:23:11.960 meetings, Sedna, Deena, and some other neighborhoods, continued to meet with other stakeholders, 01:23:11.960 --> 01:23:16.280 and attended a lot of the community market over the summer just to get, again, the word 01:23:16.280 --> 01:23:18.160 out on the DDC update. 01:23:18.160 --> 01:23:21.760 So a lot of stuff going on. 01:23:21.760 --> 01:23:28.520 The DCRC, as you can imagine, has been busy looking at the code and focusing on the following 01:23:28.520 --> 01:23:33.640 here, and I won't go through all of this, but from allowed land uses all the way down 01:23:33.640 --> 01:23:38.360 to the zoning map, and I think we're getting to a point where they're getting comfortable 01:23:38.360 --> 01:23:39.920 with what they're seeing. 01:23:39.920 --> 01:23:42.520 We have a meeting again this Friday. 01:23:42.520 --> 01:23:44.080 We hope that we get more comments. 01:23:44.080 --> 01:23:48.160 What we'll do is then take those comments and provide it to our consultants, who will 01:23:48.160 --> 01:23:52.480 then redraft a new version of the updated draft. 01:23:52.480 --> 01:24:01.440 So a lot of what is being reviewed is, again, listed here, and there's a lot between the 01:24:01.440 --> 01:24:04.680 two that I mentioned. 01:24:04.680 --> 01:24:11.240 The big part of the update is really looking at how we can make our Dunn Development Code 01:24:11.240 --> 01:24:16.280 more user-friendly, and one of the efforts there is to reduce the number of subchapters 01:24:16.280 --> 01:24:25.440 where there are similar ideas or purposes, and we're combining them into one or two 01:24:25.440 --> 01:24:26.440 subchapters. 01:24:26.440 --> 01:24:31.200 Our current Denton Development Code has 24 subchapters. 01:24:31.200 --> 01:24:36.800 We're looking at narrowing that down to eight, and the eight that you see here represent 01:24:36.800 --> 01:24:38.000 those eight. 01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:46.000 From general provisions, which is your administrative and general understanding of the code, non-conforming 01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:48.800 is under that chapter. 01:24:48.800 --> 01:24:51.680 Next one is administration procedures. 01:24:51.680 --> 01:24:56.120 Zoning district is where we lay out the new zoning districts. 01:24:56.120 --> 01:24:59.200 That again is associated with the zoning map. 01:24:59.200 --> 01:25:01.080 Overlay districts and historic districts. 01:25:01.080 --> 01:25:06.200 That is primarily a carryover from what is currently subchapter seven. 01:25:06.200 --> 01:25:09.080 It will be part of this number four. 01:25:09.080 --> 01:25:14.800 Use regulations, identify the land uses, the allowed land uses, where they're permitted, 01:25:14.800 --> 01:25:19.720 and if they're required, a specific use permit or other design standards. 01:25:19.720 --> 01:25:20.720 Development standards. 01:25:20.720 --> 01:25:25.440 That's probably the biggest one, because that includes most of what we have now as separate 01:25:25.440 --> 01:25:31.640 subchapters are going to be funneled into one development standard chapter. 01:25:31.640 --> 01:25:37.240 And then subchapter seven, as shown here, is our subdivision, which deals with platting 01:25:37.240 --> 01:25:42.440 and other dedication and other requirements for public improvements. 01:25:42.440 --> 01:25:46.440 And then lastly, there's the subchapter eight, which is our definition. 01:25:46.440 --> 01:25:51.760 So that is also an important subchapter, because it houses all of our definitions. 01:25:51.760 --> 01:25:57.800 And when we look at what does this mean, we go to that subchapter. 01:25:57.800 --> 01:26:02.240 I wanted to share this slide just to show you where we are. 01:26:02.240 --> 01:26:07.760 The one here on your left is the future land use designation. 01:26:07.760 --> 01:26:14.680 As you heard earlier, one of them is residential moderate, four to 12 dwelling units. 01:26:14.680 --> 01:26:15.720 So what does that mean? 01:26:15.720 --> 01:26:22.760 And just going across the column here, that's roughly between NR4 and NR6, and that's what 01:26:22.760 --> 01:26:26.400 should be in that general vicinity or general area. 01:26:26.400 --> 01:26:31.600 What we're proposing is we're continuing those zoning districts you see here and just renaming 01:26:31.600 --> 01:26:36.400 them where they are currently in R1. 01:26:36.400 --> 01:26:40.000 It would simply be R1 and so on and so forth. 01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:44.480 But there are examples where we're going to be consolidating a number of zoning districts 01:26:44.480 --> 01:26:48.060 that you see here under the downtown compatibility area. 01:26:48.060 --> 01:26:55.840 Your DR1, DR2, RCR1, and RCR2, we are proposing that it be R7 rather than have all these other 01:26:55.840 --> 01:26:56.840 zoning districts. 01:26:56.840 --> 01:27:02.520 And you see that under the DCN and DCG, also with the RCCN and RCCD. 01:27:02.520 --> 01:27:09.600 So the number of zoning district we have currently about 28 plus. 01:27:09.600 --> 01:27:15.080 We are proposing close to about 14 or 15 zoning districts. 01:27:15.080 --> 01:27:21.080 A big part of the update is the opportunity for the development community to consider 01:27:21.080 --> 01:27:24.120 or the city that is PDs. 01:27:24.120 --> 01:27:31.840 Now those that aren't familiar back in prior to 2002, we used to offer PDs. 01:27:31.840 --> 01:27:33.800 Since then we have not. 01:27:33.800 --> 01:27:34.800 That's something coming back. 01:27:34.800 --> 01:27:42.120 And I think that is a key tool that we will see as we see development come in. 01:27:42.120 --> 01:27:47.160 Specifically, say in the rezoning, if they can't meet the zoning requirements and rather 01:27:47.160 --> 01:27:52.680 than rezone the property, maybe an opportunity there is to do a PD where you can get a little 01:27:52.680 --> 01:27:57.960 bit more specific and get the development standards that really is needed. 01:27:57.960 --> 01:28:04.240 For both the city's perspective as well as the development's perspective. 01:28:04.240 --> 01:28:05.560 So we talked about the zoning map. 01:28:05.560 --> 01:28:09.840 Again, this is going to be one of those big efforts that we will be pushing along with 01:28:09.840 --> 01:28:12.000 the DDC code. 01:28:12.000 --> 01:28:25.040 We have reached out to over 30,000 people with postcards, and we are going to be doing 01:28:25.040 --> 01:28:29.520 that again in the next coming months, and then when we get to the public hearing, we 01:28:29.520 --> 01:28:36.560 are going to be noticing same property owners, but through a mailing letter so that they 01:28:36.560 --> 01:28:42.080 are notified in advance of a public hearing or of the public hearing. 01:28:42.080 --> 01:28:48.840 All this information that I have discussed in draft form is available through our website, 01:28:48.840 --> 01:28:53.000 which is dencode2030.com. 01:28:53.000 --> 01:28:59.360 In addition to mailing postcards, we have done all we can through social media, press 01:28:59.360 --> 01:29:04.480 releases, newspaper, and again, there is going to be another big push as we get closer to 01:29:04.480 --> 01:29:07.720 the final draft. 01:29:07.720 --> 01:29:15.080 We have the website, again, I mentioned earlier, has all the drafts as well as the zoning map 01:29:15.080 --> 01:29:16.080 link. 01:29:16.080 --> 01:29:20.400 So someone that wants to know what their current zoning is and what their proposed zoning is, 01:29:20.400 --> 01:29:25.840 they can find that out and find out what has changed or will change if and when this code 01:29:25.840 --> 01:29:29.560 gets updated and this map gets updated. 01:29:29.560 --> 01:29:32.320 So we are doing that as well. 01:29:32.320 --> 01:29:36.360 Hopefully they are able to review it, and if they have any comments, we welcome and 01:29:36.360 --> 01:29:41.080 we encourage that they submit a comment card, either hard copy, which we have available, 01:29:41.080 --> 01:29:44.160 or through the website. 01:29:44.160 --> 01:29:47.320 So what is coming up next? 01:29:47.320 --> 01:29:53.400 The consolidated draft, which is all of the stuff that we have heard to date from citizens, 01:29:53.400 --> 01:29:58.800 from certain departments, but the DCRC and from you all as well, we are going to combine 01:29:58.800 --> 01:30:03.760 all of that, present this to our consultants, they are going to take all of that comment, 01:30:03.760 --> 01:30:07.760 those comments, and draft a consolidated draft. 01:30:07.760 --> 01:30:13.200 On December 12th is the publish date of when we will publish that online. 01:30:13.200 --> 01:30:18.840 In addition, we will also publish a new zoning map that reflects some of the changes that 01:30:18.840 --> 01:30:21.720 were provided to us as direction. 01:30:21.720 --> 01:30:23.240 Commissioner Beck. 01:30:23.240 --> 01:30:25.120 Thank you, Chair. 01:30:25.120 --> 01:30:29.440 At December 12th, the date is certain, because it seemed like at our last meeting, we came 01:30:29.440 --> 01:30:33.160 to conclusion, hey, we may have some more work to do here. 01:30:33.160 --> 01:30:34.160 Correct. 01:30:34.160 --> 01:30:40.400 The original, this is change, this has been updated, Larry, we had proposed late November. 01:30:40.400 --> 01:30:46.240 We know that the DCRC still has some comments and questions, so we've pushed that back to 01:30:46.240 --> 01:30:47.240 December 12th. 01:30:47.240 --> 01:30:49.560 So that's the date to date. 01:30:49.560 --> 01:30:50.560 Okay. 01:30:50.560 --> 01:30:51.560 It's not locked in. 01:30:51.560 --> 01:30:56.880 It's not, but we want to get this going and get it to the public hearing. 01:30:56.880 --> 01:31:00.960 I hope it is, too, to be honest with you, but I just wanted to check on that. 01:31:00.960 --> 01:31:01.960 Thank you. 01:31:01.960 --> 01:31:08.440 So once that's published, we are going to also follow that up with a work session with 01:31:08.440 --> 01:31:13.600 City Council on December 18th, that's obviously a Tuesday. 01:31:13.600 --> 01:31:18.880 The consultants will be here in town, and we would like to have a work session with 01:31:18.880 --> 01:31:22.680 the Planning Zoning Commission, the whole Planning Zoning Commission. 01:31:22.680 --> 01:31:33.980 So the 19th is what we are proposing, it is a Wednesday, and we're looking for your input. 01:31:33.980 --> 01:31:39.160 We can do it now, or we can continue with the presentation, but December 19th, if we 01:31:39.160 --> 01:31:43.680 can have a work session, a special called work session with the Planning Zoning Commission, 01:31:43.680 --> 01:31:48.960 we would like that to share with you what we have as far as a consolidated draft, and 01:31:48.960 --> 01:31:55.320 again, our consultants will be here so that they can provide their input or their expertise 01:31:55.320 --> 01:31:56.320 as well. 01:31:56.320 --> 01:32:02.780 And we'll come back to that at the end of this presentation so we can figure what time 01:32:02.780 --> 01:32:05.720 or if that's even a possibility. 01:32:05.720 --> 01:32:09.440 Stakeholder meetings we talked about, public open houses will be coming forward, and then 01:32:09.440 --> 01:32:15.080 we hope by late February, early March, we will be at public hearings with the Planning 01:32:15.080 --> 01:32:18.480 Zoning Commission and City Council. 01:32:18.480 --> 01:32:19.840 I'm going to go through these slides. 01:32:19.840 --> 01:32:24.680 This is just to show you that we've been meeting with a number of different stakeholders. 01:32:24.680 --> 01:32:31.720 As you can see, the DCRC has been meeting at minimum weekly. 01:32:31.720 --> 01:32:35.360 We're currently here on November 14th. 01:32:35.360 --> 01:32:43.600 We've got some public outreach efforts following that, but December 19th is when we would like 01:32:43.600 --> 01:32:48.560 to have a special called meeting with the Planning Zoning Commission. 01:32:48.560 --> 01:32:52.800 So I think that concludes my presentation. 01:32:52.800 --> 01:32:55.480 Any discussion or comments? 01:32:55.480 --> 01:32:56.480 - Chris, you're back. 01:32:56.480 --> 01:33:00.280 - Go back to the slide that showed the difference between the old zoning districts and the new. 01:33:00.280 --> 01:33:01.280 - Sure. 01:33:01.280 --> 01:33:02.840 - I had one question. 01:33:02.840 --> 01:33:08.520 We got a zone in there that, where'd it go? 01:33:08.520 --> 01:33:09.520 - Which one? 01:33:09.520 --> 01:33:10.520 - No, go. 01:33:10.520 --> 01:33:11.520 There was one where it was various. 01:33:11.520 --> 01:33:12.520 - There it is. 01:33:12.520 --> 01:33:13.520 - It's right in the middle. 01:33:13.520 --> 01:33:14.520 - Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 01:33:14.520 --> 01:33:15.520 Okay. 01:33:15.520 --> 01:33:19.200 We didn't really, I don't remember us touching too much on that in our subcommittee meeting, 01:33:19.200 --> 01:33:21.440 and you've got various down there in Neighborhood University. 01:33:21.440 --> 01:33:23.520 Can you elaborate on that a little bit more? 01:33:23.520 --> 01:33:29.920 - Yeah, because those have so many different zoning districts currently in the, say, the 01:33:29.920 --> 01:33:32.560 neighborhood compatibility year around the university. 01:33:32.560 --> 01:33:37.400 It's got DCG, it's got some NR4s, that sort of thing. 01:33:37.400 --> 01:33:42.760 We have to look at the map in various means that it could be an MN, it could be an R7, 01:33:42.760 --> 01:33:46.200 it could be any of the zoning districts that fits that area. 01:33:46.200 --> 01:33:47.960 - So we're not locked into a new... 01:33:47.960 --> 01:33:55.320 - No, no, this is just a first step into trying to get to a zoning map that's workable. 01:33:55.320 --> 01:34:02.640 - And these would probably be areas that right now aren't necessarily zoned on the way or 01:34:02.640 --> 01:34:04.520 the other, or no? 01:34:04.520 --> 01:34:08.920 - They will, I mean, every parcel in the city will have a zoning district. 01:34:08.920 --> 01:34:09.920 - Okay. 01:34:09.920 --> 01:34:10.920 - Yeah. 01:34:10.920 --> 01:34:11.920 - Okay. 01:34:11.920 --> 01:34:14.200 - There's, if I clarify, there's not a zoning called variant. 01:34:14.200 --> 01:34:18.520 - No, no, it's just, it could be a number of different zoning districts. 01:34:18.520 --> 01:34:22.600 - Do you have any examples of these kind of areas now? 01:34:22.600 --> 01:34:28.840 - NR6, for example, could be within that neighborhood university compatibility, it's just not a 01:34:28.840 --> 01:34:29.840 clean alignment. 01:34:29.840 --> 01:34:30.840 - Okay. 01:34:30.840 --> 01:34:33.720 - Not as clean as, say, on the south side of town. 01:34:33.720 --> 01:34:34.720 - Okay. 01:34:34.720 --> 01:34:37.520 - So that's a quick update. 01:34:37.520 --> 01:34:41.440 We're working towards a consolidated draft. 01:34:41.440 --> 01:34:47.880 You guys will see that hopefully on November, I'm sorry, December 19th. 01:34:47.880 --> 01:34:52.400 - To that point, Ron, is there any initial, if anyone has a calendar, is there any initial 01:34:52.400 --> 01:34:56.520 issue of getting a quorum for the 19th? 01:34:56.520 --> 01:34:57.520 Time to be determined? 01:34:57.520 --> 01:34:59.040 - That is up to y'all. 01:34:59.040 --> 01:35:04.600 Our consultants are here Tuesday and Wednesday, and so any time during Wednesday, share. 01:35:04.600 --> 01:35:10.000 - Too early, too early, Commissioner. 01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:11.000 - Morning's preferable. 01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:12.600 I know I can do that. 01:35:12.600 --> 01:35:13.600 It's not easy. 01:35:13.600 --> 01:35:14.600 - Yeah, rub it in. 01:35:14.600 --> 01:35:15.600 - Yeah. 01:35:15.600 --> 01:35:16.600 No, no, no, no, no. 01:35:16.600 --> 01:35:18.280 But I mean, just for my... 01:35:18.280 --> 01:35:21.760 - When's convenient for you, Commissioner Beck, we'll work around here. 01:35:21.760 --> 01:35:27.840 - I would prefer mornings, 'cause I started lagging about one, two hours. 01:35:27.840 --> 01:35:29.640 No, I just... 01:35:29.640 --> 01:35:30.640 - We can work out a time later. 01:35:30.640 --> 01:35:32.840 I just want to make sure that if there's any travel or... 01:35:32.840 --> 01:35:33.840 - Yes, and... 01:35:33.840 --> 01:35:37.640 - It's my dad's birthday, and it's mine or something, okay? 01:35:37.640 --> 01:35:38.640 - Okay. 01:35:38.640 --> 01:35:42.400 - We can, through Kathy, we can reach out and get it, if there's actually something 01:35:42.400 --> 01:35:48.640 that wasn't provided earlier, and if we had known, we would've said something, but we'll 01:35:48.640 --> 01:35:49.640 follow up. 01:35:49.640 --> 01:35:55.800 Again, keep December 19th sort of open, and we'll reach out and find a time, preferably 01:35:55.800 --> 01:35:58.480 two hours, hour and a half to two hours. 01:35:58.480 --> 01:35:59.480 - Okay. 01:35:59.480 --> 01:36:00.480 - Commissioner Smith? 01:36:00.480 --> 01:36:03.480 - We do have a planning and zoning on the 12th, correct? 01:36:03.480 --> 01:36:04.480 - Yeah. 01:36:04.480 --> 01:36:05.480 - We have scheduled it on the 12th. 01:36:05.480 --> 01:36:06.480 - Correct. 01:36:06.480 --> 01:36:07.480 - And then we don't have anything else again until the... 01:36:07.480 --> 01:36:08.480 - The next... 01:36:08.480 --> 01:36:09.480 - Nine, basically. 01:36:09.480 --> 01:36:10.480 - Right. 01:36:10.480 --> 01:36:11.480 - Yeah. 01:36:11.480 --> 01:36:12.480 - So... 01:36:12.480 --> 01:36:13.480 - Okay. 01:36:13.480 --> 01:36:14.480 - All right. 01:36:14.480 --> 01:36:15.480 - Cool. 01:36:15.480 --> 01:36:16.480 - Okay. 01:36:16.480 --> 01:36:17.480 - Thank you. 01:36:17.480 --> 01:36:18.480 - Thank you. 01:36:18.480 --> 01:36:19.480 - That brings us to the conclusion of our work session. 01:36:19.480 --> 01:36:26.440 We'll close work session at 6.05, and we'll reconvene at 6.30 in the work session room 01:36:26.440 --> 01:36:30.160 for the public hearing. 01:36:30.160 --> 01:36:33.600 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 01:36:33.600 --> 01:36:35.660 for November 14th. 01:36:35.660 --> 01:36:40.000 We'll open the public meeting at 6.34. 01:36:40.000 --> 01:36:43.400 The first order of business is stand and give the Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas 01:36:43.400 --> 01:36:44.400 flag. 01:36:44.400 --> 01:36:53.360 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for 01:36:53.360 --> 01:37:02.400 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 01:37:02.400 --> 01:37:16.840 On our Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible. 01:37:16.840 --> 01:37:21.560 - Next item on the agenda is consider approval of the planning and zoning minutes for October 01:37:21.560 --> 01:37:22.560 24th. 01:37:22.560 --> 01:37:25.560 Commissioner Ellis. 01:37:25.560 --> 01:37:28.560 - I move approval of those minutes. 01:37:28.560 --> 01:37:29.760 - Thank you. 01:37:29.760 --> 01:37:30.760 We have a first. 01:37:30.760 --> 01:37:31.760 Commissioner Pernetta. 01:37:31.760 --> 01:37:32.760 - I second. 01:37:32.760 --> 01:37:33.760 - We have a first and a second. 01:37:33.760 --> 01:37:34.760 Any discussion? 01:37:34.760 --> 01:37:38.440 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote by show of hands. 01:37:38.440 --> 01:37:41.440 All in favor? 01:37:41.440 --> 01:37:43.120 All opposed? 01:37:43.120 --> 01:37:46.560 Motion carries 6-0. 01:37:46.560 --> 01:37:48.360 Next agenda item is the Consent Agenda. 01:37:48.360 --> 01:37:52.100 The Chair will entertain discussion for a motion. 01:37:52.100 --> 01:37:53.100 Commissioner Beck. 01:37:53.100 --> 01:37:55.680 - I move we approve Consent Agenda. 01:37:55.680 --> 01:37:56.680 - Commissioner Smith. 01:37:56.680 --> 01:37:57.680 - I second that motion. 01:37:57.680 --> 01:37:59.160 - We have a first and a second. 01:37:59.160 --> 01:38:00.160 Any discussion? 01:38:00.160 --> 01:38:01.160 Seeing none. 01:38:01.160 --> 01:38:02.160 Any discussion? 01:38:02.160 --> 01:38:03.160 Seeing none. 01:38:03.160 --> 01:38:04.160 I'll call for a vote by show of hands. 01:38:04.160 --> 01:38:05.160 All in favor? 01:38:05.160 --> 01:38:07.480 All opposed? 01:38:07.480 --> 01:38:10.680 Motion carries 6-0. 01:38:10.680 --> 01:38:13.480 Next item is our one item for individual consideration. 01:38:13.480 --> 01:38:19.440 It's the consideration of the 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Calendar. 01:38:19.440 --> 01:38:20.680 We had talked about this in work session. 01:38:20.680 --> 01:38:23.600 Commissioner Smith, do you have an opportunity to see if there's any conflicts? 01:38:23.600 --> 01:38:25.200 - There are none. 01:38:25.200 --> 01:38:26.200 - Okay. 01:38:26.200 --> 01:38:29.880 Any discussion on the calendar for 2019? 01:38:29.880 --> 01:38:34.960 - The Chair will consider a motion. 01:38:34.960 --> 01:38:35.960 Commissioner Ellis. 01:38:35.960 --> 01:38:38.920 - I move approval of 2019 P&Z Calendar. 01:38:38.920 --> 01:38:39.920 - Perfect. 01:38:39.920 --> 01:38:40.920 Commissioner Burnett. 01:38:40.920 --> 01:38:41.920 - I second the motion to approve. 01:38:41.920 --> 01:38:44.240 - We have a first and a second. 01:38:44.240 --> 01:38:45.240 Any discussion? 01:38:45.240 --> 01:38:48.080 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote by show of hands. 01:38:48.080 --> 01:38:49.680 All in favor? 01:38:49.680 --> 01:38:51.400 All opposed? 01:38:51.400 --> 01:38:56.280 Motion carries 6-0. 01:38:56.280 --> 01:39:04.160 As a point of order, the public hearing item 5A has been moved to the November 28th meeting. 01:39:04.160 --> 01:39:06.000 It will not be heard tonight. 01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:11.040 As well as item 5B, that has been withdrawn from the agenda. 01:39:11.040 --> 01:39:17.400 So that brings us to item 5C, Z18-0022. 01:39:17.400 --> 01:39:36.640 I'll open the public hearing and call Ron for a presentation. 01:39:36.640 --> 01:39:39.400 - Thank you, Chair, members of the commission, members of staff. 01:39:39.400 --> 01:39:46.800 This item for you for consideration this evening is for a zoning change request from NRMU-12 01:39:46.800 --> 01:39:49.880 to NRMU Zoning District. 01:39:49.880 --> 01:39:57.440 The purpose of the zoning change is to allow for more density. 01:39:57.440 --> 01:40:03.240 Prior to the zoning request application, there was a specific use permit application. 01:40:03.240 --> 01:40:07.920 Through the review of the site plan as part of that specific use permit, it was determined 01:40:07.920 --> 01:40:13.120 that the proposed number of dwelling units would not comply with the NRMU-12 maximum 01:40:13.120 --> 01:40:14.120 density. 01:40:14.120 --> 01:40:19.160 Therefore, the applicant submitted this rezoning request, again, going from NRMU-12, which 01:40:19.160 --> 01:40:24.800 is 12 units per acre, to NRMU, which allows up to 30 units per acre. 01:40:24.800 --> 01:40:30.600 The property is approximately 9.91 acres, generally located west of Mockingbird and 01:40:30.600 --> 01:40:35.160 south of Mingo Road, as shown on this slide. 01:40:35.160 --> 01:40:43.160 The future land use designation for this property is designated as moderate density, which is 01:40:43.160 --> 01:40:49.080 described as four to 12 dwelling units per acre, where you would see single-family detached 01:40:49.080 --> 01:40:54.280 housing, low-rise multi-family dwellings, and town homes. 01:40:54.280 --> 01:41:00.640 The idea is to maintain the scale and orientation of the building, similarly with the surrounding 01:41:00.640 --> 01:41:01.880 area. 01:41:01.880 --> 01:41:08.600 It also serves as a transitional zoning district, where you see low density to the south, and 01:41:08.600 --> 01:41:13.200 you get a little higher as far as intensity as you get past the moderate density into 01:41:13.200 --> 01:41:20.200 the community mixed-use designation. 01:41:20.200 --> 01:41:25.280 This slide here illustrates what is being proposed, starting off with the existing. 01:41:25.280 --> 01:41:28.680 Again, the zoning is NRMU-12. 01:41:28.680 --> 01:41:38.160 The applicant is requesting a NRMU zoning district, and that's shown here. 01:41:38.160 --> 01:41:42.620 Part of the staff's analysis is looking at the criteria for approval. 01:41:42.620 --> 01:41:47.300 There are two main criteria, and that is that the proposed rezoning conforms with the future 01:41:47.300 --> 01:41:52.640 land use element of the Den Plan, as well as that the proposed rezoning facilitates 01:41:52.640 --> 01:41:58.520 the adequate public infrastructure in terms of transportation, water, wastewater, school 01:41:58.520 --> 01:42:01.840 parks, and other public requirements. 01:42:01.840 --> 01:42:09.520 Further, the staff looked at the future land use element, and again, the future land use 01:42:09.520 --> 01:42:15.280 designation for this area is residential moderate, which again, is described 4 to 12 dwelling 01:42:15.280 --> 01:42:17.280 units per acre. 01:42:17.280 --> 01:42:21.680 Said it earlier, low-rise multi-family is permitted with 10 town homes. 01:42:21.680 --> 01:42:32.320 Again, the intent is that this area is developed in scale and style with the surrounding area. 01:42:32.320 --> 01:42:38.080 In cases where the proposed zoning does not fit or match the future land use, staff has 01:42:38.080 --> 01:42:43.480 the ability to review a number of criteria for approval. 01:42:43.480 --> 01:42:48.680 The list that you see here are some of what we look at, and based on our analysis, we 01:42:48.680 --> 01:42:53.360 have determined that, based on the density, it does not meet this criteria. 01:42:53.360 --> 01:43:01.760 Therefore, it is still being considered not conforming with the future land use designation. 01:43:01.760 --> 01:43:06.320 For our purposes, we also looked at what was in the surrounding area, again, to address 01:43:06.320 --> 01:43:08.700 the compatibility matter. 01:43:08.700 --> 01:43:14.280 The site shown here in red is where we are. 01:43:14.280 --> 01:43:19.760 For your orientation, Mingo is just to the north, University is further northeast, Loop 01:43:19.760 --> 01:43:28.560 288 is to the east, and Audra to the south, Nottingham is to the west. 01:43:28.560 --> 01:43:30.560 We looked at what's currently on the ground. 01:43:30.560 --> 01:43:36.240 We've got a number of single-family residential, the Bel Air North addition directly south, 01:43:36.240 --> 01:43:40.840 the Oak Ridge Estates immediately to the east, Audra Heights as well. 01:43:40.840 --> 01:43:48.040 We've got East Hampton village further south, Shiloh Fields directly west, and Woodlands 01:43:48.040 --> 01:43:57.440 of Denton, an apartment complex, a newer apartment complex that was constructed after 2013. 01:43:57.440 --> 01:44:03.720 Just to give the commission and the audience some information on the Woodlands, again, 01:44:03.720 --> 01:44:09.880 it is a multi-family dwelling unit development, approximately 19.87 is dedicated for the multi-family 01:44:09.880 --> 01:44:11.400 dwelling. 01:44:11.400 --> 01:44:17.560 You can see based on this photo that it's two to three stories tall in certain areas, 01:44:17.560 --> 01:44:19.040 there's three stories. 01:44:19.040 --> 01:44:26.680 The density calculated for this area as proposed is 15.9 dwelling units per acre. 01:44:26.680 --> 01:44:36.640 Back in 2012, there was a rezoning to zone this property from NR6 and NRMU 12 to NRMU. 01:44:36.640 --> 01:44:42.880 Apologize, they're all-- also associated with that was a specific use permit approved 01:44:42.880 --> 01:44:49.440 in 2013 with conditions that was to allow for the multi-family use. 01:44:49.440 --> 01:44:52.640 Staff also looked at the mobility of the area. 01:44:52.640 --> 01:45:00.760 We have the site here to the east is Mockingbird, it is classified as a collector, to the north 01:45:00.760 --> 01:45:07.440 is Mingo, it is classified as a arterial, secondary arterial. 01:45:07.440 --> 01:45:15.160 As of today, both roads are not built to the roadway classification as proposed. 01:45:15.160 --> 01:45:25.480 They are both two-lane, two-way roadways and not, again, built to the roadway classification. 01:45:25.480 --> 01:45:31.200 Staff also looked at other things, again, associated with the criteria, public infrastructure. 01:45:31.200 --> 01:45:38.540 We looked at some of the requirements staff did and they will meet the transportation. 01:45:38.540 --> 01:45:44.000 There are water and wastewater services in the area, so they will meet those public requirements. 01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:51.780 A TIA was done for this particular site and the traffic mitigation measures that was identified 01:45:51.780 --> 01:45:57.720 and reviewed and approved by staff has been incorporated by the applicants as part of 01:45:57.720 --> 01:46:00.560 their proposal. 01:46:00.560 --> 01:46:05.360 One of the things that staff also looked at is the permitted uses. 01:46:05.360 --> 01:46:13.400 Under the NRMU, there are more intense uses that are being-- that will be, if approved, 01:46:13.400 --> 01:46:14.400 permitted. 01:46:14.400 --> 01:46:20.800 Drive-through facilities, hotels, quick vehicle services, restaurant and so on would be permitted 01:46:20.800 --> 01:46:26.720 in the NRMU, but are not currently permitted in the NRMU-12. 01:46:26.720 --> 01:46:35.200 Also general regulations, the NRMU would allow more than the NRMU-12 in terms of building 01:46:35.200 --> 01:46:39.280 height, where in the NRMU, it's 40. 01:46:39.280 --> 01:46:45.360 The NRMU will allow up to 65 feet. 01:46:45.360 --> 01:46:53.880 Again, going over, just making sure we address the future land use element, it does not conform. 01:46:53.880 --> 01:46:57.360 Staff determination is that it does not conform with the future land use element in terms 01:46:57.360 --> 01:46:59.040 of dwelling units. 01:46:59.040 --> 01:47:07.040 The proposed project is proposing 26.7 dwelling units per acre, which is out of scale and 01:47:07.040 --> 01:47:11.000 not in character with the surrounding area. 01:47:11.000 --> 01:47:17.760 There was a neighborhood meeting held on October 30th at the Courtyard Marriott, where the 01:47:17.760 --> 01:47:22.840 property owners within-- property owners and residents within 500 feet were notified of 01:47:22.840 --> 01:47:27.840 this neighborhood meeting, and one person was in attendance. 01:47:27.840 --> 01:47:33.400 Two notices were published-- I'm sorry, two signs were posted by the applicant. 01:47:33.400 --> 01:47:38.480 Newspaper notices was also published in the dinner record chronicle on October 28th. 01:47:38.480 --> 01:47:45.560 24 notices were sent to property owners, and 86 courtesy notices were sent to property 01:47:45.560 --> 01:47:49.440 residents within 500 feet. 01:47:49.440 --> 01:47:55.800 As of this afternoon-- and I know that we've received more comments or more notices. 01:47:55.800 --> 01:48:01.560 We've received, again, only as of this afternoon, two in opposition, and that you see here in 01:48:01.560 --> 01:48:08.400 this map or this illustration, the two that we have are from-- I can't read the address, 01:48:08.400 --> 01:48:14.120 but it looks like it's Brian Coakley, and then another property first named Kent. 01:48:14.120 --> 01:48:22.600 So that represents 2% of the property within 200 feet of the buffer of the site. 01:48:22.600 --> 01:48:30.660 With the analysis and with the review of staff is recommending denial under the following 01:48:30.660 --> 01:48:38.120 consideration that the density is not in conformance with the Den Plan 2030, that the NRMU will 01:48:38.120 --> 01:48:43.760 allow for more intense uses, and that the general regulations under the NRMU is less 01:48:43.760 --> 01:48:48.600 restrictive than compared to the NRMU-12. 01:48:48.600 --> 01:48:50.680 That concludes my presentation on the zoning. 01:48:50.680 --> 01:48:52.720 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 01:48:52.720 --> 01:48:56.720 Commissioner Smith was first, and we'll get to the rest. 01:48:56.720 --> 01:48:57.720 Thank you, Chair. 01:48:57.720 --> 01:49:04.080 Can you go back to the Woodlands slide, the wood bridge, whatever it was called? 01:49:04.080 --> 01:49:06.120 What was the conditions that are on the SUP? 01:49:06.120 --> 01:49:07.880 Do you have to remember? 01:49:07.880 --> 01:49:08.880 What was SUP? 01:49:08.880 --> 01:49:09.880 SUP. 01:49:09.880 --> 01:49:14.640 I think you said, "What's up?" 01:49:14.640 --> 01:49:17.320 What's up, Brian, how are you? 01:49:17.320 --> 01:49:31.920 There were one, two, three, nine, plus four ESA conditions, let me correct that, six. 01:49:31.920 --> 01:49:35.000 So over 13 conditions, 12 conditions. 01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:40.040 And it was mainly protecting ESA and some of those problems, removing permitted uses, 01:49:40.040 --> 01:49:43.200 those kinds of things, and limiting height at some point. 01:49:43.200 --> 01:49:47.320 So if the commission would like, I can go over those conditions? 01:49:47.320 --> 01:49:48.320 No. 01:49:48.320 --> 01:49:52.360 I just wanted a general idea of what type of... 01:49:52.360 --> 01:49:57.040 There was a project that was in the area that was approved, but it had conditions on it. 01:49:57.040 --> 01:50:00.200 If for some reason we did want to approve it, we'd like to know what those conditions 01:50:00.200 --> 01:50:01.200 were, I guess. 01:50:01.200 --> 01:50:02.200 Sure. 01:50:02.200 --> 01:50:03.200 See if we can make it somewhat... 01:50:03.200 --> 01:50:04.200 Right. 01:50:04.200 --> 01:50:12.880 So there's nine SUP conditions and then there were also six conditions related to ESA. 01:50:12.880 --> 01:50:13.880 Okay. 01:50:13.880 --> 01:50:14.880 Thank you. 01:50:14.880 --> 01:50:17.560 Commissioner Fernetta, I believe you were next. 01:50:17.560 --> 01:50:27.920 And relative to this slide, so if I'm not mistaken, this complex is actually right on 01:50:27.920 --> 01:50:31.000 like, what, Audra, where it turns into Nottingham, right? 01:50:31.000 --> 01:50:32.000 Correct. 01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:33.000 Okay. 01:50:33.000 --> 01:50:39.200 So comparing the impact that this proposal would have versus that one, my understanding 01:50:39.200 --> 01:50:43.680 is like the Audra and Nottingham section over there is what, four lanes? 01:50:43.680 --> 01:50:49.400 There's additional lanes and Mockingbird's only two, is that correct? 01:50:49.400 --> 01:50:50.400 I believe so. 01:50:50.400 --> 01:50:52.240 I mean, I drove there earlier this week. 01:50:52.240 --> 01:50:57.280 I don't remember the number of lanes, but it was a little wider than, say, Mockingbird. 01:50:57.280 --> 01:50:58.280 Okay. 01:50:58.280 --> 01:51:02.360 So technically, they're similar properties, the impact on traffic in the area would probably 01:51:02.360 --> 01:51:07.040 be significantly higher on the new one in Mockingbird than that one would have been, 01:51:07.040 --> 01:51:08.040 correct? 01:51:08.040 --> 01:51:09.040 Right. 01:51:09.040 --> 01:51:13.300 And I just want to just state that there was a TIA done and the mitigation measures that 01:51:13.300 --> 01:51:15.880 were requested have been provided by the applicant. 01:51:15.880 --> 01:51:16.880 Okay. 01:51:16.880 --> 01:51:17.880 All right. 01:51:17.880 --> 01:51:18.880 Thank you. 01:51:18.880 --> 01:51:19.880 Commissioner Beck. 01:51:19.880 --> 01:51:26.180 Thank you, Chair. 01:51:26.180 --> 01:51:32.880 To get to the 20% of people opposed to this, I've got 14 letters of opposition. 01:51:32.880 --> 01:51:36.200 Would that put them over the 20% that would require a supermajority? 01:51:36.200 --> 01:51:41.560 It would only be from property owners that are within the 200 foot buffer, correct? 01:51:41.560 --> 01:51:42.560 Okay. 01:51:42.560 --> 01:51:47.760 And we've kind of shown it here where some of the responses that we receive may have 01:51:47.760 --> 01:51:54.000 come from folks within 500 or did come from property owners within 500 feet, but they 01:51:54.000 --> 01:51:57.120 would not be counted towards that 20%. 01:51:57.120 --> 01:51:58.120 Okay. 01:51:58.120 --> 01:51:59.120 Thank you. 01:51:59.120 --> 01:52:00.120 Yes or no? 01:52:00.120 --> 01:52:03.600 Can you just maybe give a little clarification for the audience? 01:52:03.600 --> 01:52:07.760 They may not understand the 200 feet and 20% and what that means. 01:52:07.760 --> 01:52:08.760 Sure. 01:52:08.760 --> 01:52:12.920 The notices that were sent out to property owners within 200 feet, they are given the 01:52:12.920 --> 01:52:18.440 opportunity to provide their response in favor, in neutral, or in opposition. 01:52:18.440 --> 01:52:27.560 If there are 20% of the land area within this 200 foot buffer, the City Council will have 01:52:27.560 --> 01:52:36.240 to vote, need a supermajority, a six vote in order to pass or approve this zoning request. 01:52:36.240 --> 01:52:37.240 Thank you, Ron. 01:52:37.240 --> 01:52:38.240 Commissioner Smith. 01:52:38.240 --> 01:52:39.240 Thank you, Chair. 01:52:39.240 --> 01:52:44.080 I don't think it looked, I don't know if you've done the calculation, but just the homes along 01:52:44.080 --> 01:52:50.160 the southern edge there, that probably doesn't equate to 20%, I'm assuming, just from the 01:52:50.160 --> 01:52:52.200 way the property is designed, I don't think it-- 01:52:52.200 --> 01:52:56.400 Yeah, I haven't looked at it, but it could be close. 01:52:56.400 --> 01:52:59.160 Just those who didn't write in, but we do have folks who come up and they say they were 01:52:59.160 --> 01:53:02.400 in opposition when we start getting the calculation and everything else. 01:53:02.400 --> 01:53:05.320 Those properties there, just make sure that we don't ever hit it. 01:53:05.320 --> 01:53:08.360 People who didn't write it in but brought in blue cards or brought in yellow cards and 01:53:08.360 --> 01:53:10.960 is there in opposition, but it'll make sure we're calculating and have to make sure if 01:53:10.960 --> 01:53:11.960 we hit it. 01:53:11.960 --> 01:53:12.960 Right. 01:53:12.960 --> 01:53:17.240 And then when we get to City Council, we'll be able to calculate all of those comments 01:53:17.240 --> 01:53:20.240 that we've received tonight. 01:53:20.240 --> 01:53:21.240 Any other questions? 01:53:21.240 --> 01:53:24.920 We'll have an opportunity for the public to speak if you have a card, you can certainly 01:53:24.920 --> 01:53:25.920 complete that. 01:53:25.920 --> 01:53:27.960 Is there any other questions for Ron? 01:53:27.960 --> 01:53:28.960 No. 01:53:28.960 --> 01:53:29.960 Perfect. 01:53:29.960 --> 01:53:33.400 The applicant is here and they have a presentation as well. 01:53:33.400 --> 01:53:34.400 Perfect. 01:53:34.400 --> 01:53:35.400 That's the next one up. 01:53:35.400 --> 01:53:39.140 This is a public hearing for anyone, individuals who want to speak or ask questions. 01:53:39.140 --> 01:53:42.580 You may do so by filling out a card and we'll go through them one by one, but the first 01:53:42.580 --> 01:53:49.400 individual I'd like to call is Alena Tuley. 01:53:49.400 --> 01:53:50.400 Way off. 01:53:50.400 --> 01:53:51.400 I apologize. 01:53:51.400 --> 01:53:52.400 Okay. 01:53:52.400 --> 01:53:54.320 Certainly you have the floor. 01:53:54.320 --> 01:53:58.480 As the applicant, you're given 10 minutes. 01:53:58.480 --> 01:54:01.560 Okay. 01:54:01.560 --> 01:54:04.680 So like Ron explained, well, I guess my name is Alena Tuley. 01:54:04.680 --> 01:54:06.480 I'm the applicant on this request. 01:54:06.480 --> 01:54:11.560 My address for the record is 4821 Merlot Avenue, Grapevine, Texas. 01:54:11.560 --> 01:54:18.220 As Ron explained to you earlier, we are requesting to rezone approximately 10 acres from NMRU 01:54:18.220 --> 01:54:20.900 12 to NMRU. 01:54:20.900 --> 01:54:25.760 The main difference between those two districts are the density that it allows. 01:54:25.760 --> 01:54:28.080 Current zoning is 12 units to the acre. 01:54:28.080 --> 01:54:32.200 The zoning we are requesting is 30 units to the acre. 01:54:32.200 --> 01:54:37.160 With the site plan that has been provided to you this evening, we are currently showing 01:54:37.160 --> 01:54:40.240 27 units to the acre. 01:54:40.240 --> 01:54:45.440 Given staff's recommendation, we would like to table the request this evening. 01:54:45.440 --> 01:54:49.360 But we have come before you this evening because we'd like to have an open dialogue, kind of 01:54:49.360 --> 01:54:52.520 figure out what is that halfway point. 01:54:52.520 --> 01:54:58.440 We don't need 30 units to the acre, but also to make this project financially feasible, 01:54:58.440 --> 01:55:00.680 we do need more than 12. 01:55:00.680 --> 01:55:06.840 So we would like to discuss where that middle ground might be and also some additional site 01:55:06.840 --> 01:55:13.720 enhancements that we can provide on the property to make this a more acceptable product for 01:55:13.720 --> 01:55:17.200 staff and the commission. 01:55:17.200 --> 01:55:22.080 So when we first submitted this zoning request, one of the things we evaluated is we looked 01:55:22.080 --> 01:55:28.260 at the zoning in this area comprehensively, including the area to the north of Mingo Road. 01:55:28.260 --> 01:55:32.840 As you could tell, you have your more intense non-residential land uses to the north, and 01:55:32.840 --> 01:55:36.760 then it goes down to single family, which is just south of us. 01:55:36.760 --> 01:55:40.760 When we first considered this zoning request, we thought that it would be a compatible zoning 01:55:40.760 --> 01:55:45.040 district because it would provide an additional buffer to the single family houses to the 01:55:45.040 --> 01:55:50.280 south, and it would provide an additional buffer from the railroad to the single family 01:55:50.280 --> 01:55:55.760 houses to the south, and we thought it would be an appropriate transition from the commercial 01:55:55.760 --> 01:56:02.720 north of Mingo down to the low density residential. 01:56:02.720 --> 01:56:07.480 As you can tell, this is what it would look like if the zoning was accepted. 01:56:07.480 --> 01:56:11.760 We have an understanding that staff is a little bit concerned with the density that we have 01:56:11.760 --> 01:56:14.760 now, which is 27 units of the acre. 01:56:14.760 --> 01:56:19.280 So one of the alternative options that we want to propose this evening is maybe considering 01:56:19.280 --> 01:56:21.280 an overlay. 01:56:21.280 --> 01:56:26.800 With that overlay, we could limit that density to whatever the commission finds is more appropriate 01:56:26.800 --> 01:56:28.940 for this area. 01:56:28.940 --> 01:56:35.600 With that overlay, we could also exclude those non-residential land uses that are allowed 01:56:35.600 --> 01:56:38.720 by NMRU that are not desirable. 01:56:38.720 --> 01:56:42.440 And then as well, if there are any additional site enhancements that you would see would 01:56:42.440 --> 01:56:47.800 improve the quality of this product, we are also willing to consider those. 01:56:47.800 --> 01:56:53.120 So Mikesh Parna is the developer on this project, and he's going to step up in just a little 01:56:53.120 --> 01:56:59.440 bit and kind of tell you why we need that extra density and kind of go through some 01:56:59.440 --> 01:57:04.560 of the factors that we are taking consideration that require that extra multifamily density. 01:57:04.560 --> 01:57:10.640 But before I do so, it's easy to kind of disregard some of the site enhancements that we have 01:57:10.640 --> 01:57:12.400 now on the site. 01:57:12.400 --> 01:57:18.280 So in the blue line, that is a six-foot screening wall. 01:57:18.280 --> 01:57:21.040 And then in the blue, those are landscape buffers. 01:57:21.040 --> 01:57:24.160 So to the north and the south, you have a 10-foot landscape buffer. 01:57:24.160 --> 01:57:26.960 On the west, you have a 15-foot landscape buffer. 01:57:26.960 --> 01:57:30.080 In those buffers, you have bushes. 01:57:30.080 --> 01:57:37.960 In addition to that, we were very careful in picking the plant materials. 01:57:37.960 --> 01:57:40.460 We did choose to provide eastern red cedars. 01:57:40.460 --> 01:57:45.240 For those of you who are not familiar with those, there's a picture of them right there. 01:57:45.240 --> 01:57:52.560 They grow to be taller than six feet, sometimes up to 12, really more than that. 01:57:52.560 --> 01:57:58.280 But they have a lot of foliage, and they provide a really great screening and buffering. 01:57:58.280 --> 01:58:03.400 So that's going to be provided every 30 feet along the perimeter of the property. 01:58:03.400 --> 01:58:07.240 This is an example of an eastern red cedar that we've done for another project here in 01:58:07.240 --> 01:58:09.080 the DFW area. 01:58:09.080 --> 01:58:10.080 This is six feet. 01:58:10.080 --> 01:58:14.080 What we are proposing is eight feet, so it's going to be even taller than that. 01:58:14.080 --> 01:58:18.300 So I wanted to just take the opportunity to just point those two items out, because I 01:58:18.300 --> 01:58:23.920 think those really do help further screen and buffer and mitigate the impacts of the 01:58:23.920 --> 01:58:29.360 multi-family land uses or multi-family from the surrounding land uses. 01:58:29.360 --> 01:58:32.920 And also just one more item, I don't know if you had noticed this on the site plan, 01:58:32.920 --> 01:58:37.980 we also have a 40-foot building setback on the south of us from the single family. 01:58:37.980 --> 01:58:41.920 So it's going to provide a little bit of distance there from the single family. 01:58:41.920 --> 01:58:47.020 And our building height is being restricted to 40 feet, which is currently what is required 01:58:47.020 --> 01:58:50.200 by NMRU 12. 01:58:50.200 --> 01:58:55.820 So at this time, I'm going to let Mikesh kind of walk through some of the points of why we 01:58:55.820 --> 01:58:58.920 are requesting that higher density. 01:58:58.920 --> 01:59:03.200 Before you leave, if we can ask questions now, it might be helpful than going back and 01:59:03.200 --> 01:59:04.200 forth. 01:59:04.200 --> 01:59:05.200 Okay. 01:59:05.200 --> 01:59:09.800 And I would encourage the commission at this point to try to gain facts, but not open any 01:59:09.800 --> 01:59:10.800 negotiations. 01:59:10.800 --> 01:59:15.440 I think it's prudent to listen to public feedback and help us inform any discussion that we 01:59:15.440 --> 01:59:16.640 might have with the applicant. 01:59:16.640 --> 01:59:21.380 So if this is fact-finding, I think it's a good time, but if we're opening negotiations, 01:59:21.380 --> 01:59:23.480 let's hold off on that right now. 01:59:23.480 --> 01:59:24.480 With that said, Commissioner Smith. 01:59:24.480 --> 01:59:25.480 Thank you. 01:59:25.480 --> 01:59:29.920 I'm not sure if you, as the engineer, the one who was in charge of the notification 01:59:29.920 --> 01:59:31.920 to the residents, was that you or was that? 01:59:31.920 --> 01:59:32.920 Yes. 01:59:32.920 --> 01:59:33.920 That was us. 01:59:33.920 --> 01:59:34.920 Okay. 01:59:34.920 --> 01:59:35.920 When was that? 01:59:35.920 --> 01:59:36.920 When were those sent? 01:59:36.920 --> 01:59:37.920 Those were sent and were postmarked on the 22nd. 01:59:37.920 --> 01:59:38.920 22nd. 01:59:38.920 --> 01:59:39.920 Okay. 01:59:39.920 --> 01:59:40.920 So that was it. 01:59:40.920 --> 01:59:41.920 Okay. 01:59:41.920 --> 01:59:42.920 Great. 01:59:42.920 --> 01:59:47.880 And then you said at the very, very beginning of this, you said you were seeking a table. 01:59:47.880 --> 01:59:49.920 You're not seeking approval tonight. 01:59:49.920 --> 01:59:51.680 You're seeking a table. 01:59:51.680 --> 01:59:52.680 Yes. 01:59:52.680 --> 01:59:53.680 Okay. 01:59:53.680 --> 01:59:58.720 If they were to be given a table, would it be come back as an item of consideration or 01:59:58.720 --> 01:59:59.980 would it come out as a public hearing? 01:59:59.980 --> 02:00:00.980 It would be re-noticed. 02:00:00.980 --> 02:00:01.980 Re-noticed. 02:00:01.980 --> 02:00:02.980 Yeah. 02:00:02.980 --> 02:00:09.880 My understanding is that the staff would be re-noticing it, in which case, you know, you 02:00:09.880 --> 02:00:11.520 would have a public hearing at that time. 02:00:11.520 --> 02:00:16.520 Now, certainly, there are a number of people came out to be heard tonight and they could 02:00:16.520 --> 02:00:21.680 be heard, but you could really do both if you wanted to. 02:00:21.680 --> 02:00:24.760 You could leave the public hearing open and re-notice it. 02:00:24.760 --> 02:00:26.320 There's certainly nothing wrong with that either. 02:00:26.320 --> 02:00:29.320 I just wanted to make clarification. 02:00:29.320 --> 02:00:30.320 Okay. 02:00:30.320 --> 02:00:31.320 Thank you. 02:00:31.320 --> 02:00:32.320 Mr. Pernetta? 02:00:32.320 --> 02:00:37.560 Yeah, and I just wanted to clarify because, as the Chair mentioned, this wouldn't really 02:00:37.560 --> 02:00:39.800 normally be an appropriate setting for negotiations. 02:00:39.800 --> 02:00:48.920 I just wanted to ask, knowing that the initial recommendation was a denial and knowing that 02:00:48.920 --> 02:00:52.280 you're trying to find middle ground, I was wondering if you had already engaged with 02:00:52.280 --> 02:00:58.680 the city staff in terms of what they deemed maybe a sweet spot number for an overlay. 02:00:58.680 --> 02:00:59.680 Yeah. 02:00:59.680 --> 02:01:04.480 I think I'll let Mikesh kind of speak to that a little bit more, but since we have submitted 02:01:04.480 --> 02:01:12.000 this application, we've worked extensively with staff on the TIA, revising the site as 02:01:12.000 --> 02:01:24.680 necessary to bring it up to the city standards and satisfy all of staff's comments. 02:01:24.680 --> 02:01:30.640 Staff's recommendation, we found out about it as the staff report was issued. 02:01:30.640 --> 02:01:34.080 I think there's a lot of things that they take into consideration as well before they 02:01:34.080 --> 02:01:41.920 formulate that recommendation, so since the time we submitted until now, we've just been 02:01:41.920 --> 02:01:47.320 working very hard to try to address all those comments and mitigate all those impacts as 02:01:47.320 --> 02:01:48.320 much as possible. 02:01:48.320 --> 02:01:49.320 Okay. 02:01:49.320 --> 02:01:50.320 Thank you. 02:01:50.320 --> 02:01:55.800 I don't see other questions at this time, so we can have your engineer. 02:01:55.800 --> 02:01:56.800 Okay. 02:01:56.800 --> 02:02:05.320 Did you just state your name and address for the record? 02:02:05.320 --> 02:02:07.280 Sure. 02:02:07.280 --> 02:02:10.520 Hello, commission. 02:02:10.520 --> 02:02:12.400 My name is Mikesh Parna. 02:02:12.400 --> 02:02:23.760 My address is 5811 Carey Drive, Frisco, Texas, and I'm here to, again, as our Ileana staff 02:02:23.760 --> 02:02:27.480 from engineering has mentioned, we would like to table the case today. 02:02:27.480 --> 02:02:36.960 The real intent behind coming here today is to just understand the situation and want 02:02:36.960 --> 02:02:40.000 to make sure that we are all in a happy mode. 02:02:40.000 --> 02:02:47.040 I don't want to go and do any extreme on any side for anything or any property that we 02:02:47.040 --> 02:02:48.040 have. 02:02:48.040 --> 02:02:57.280 So, addressing back to your question, Matt, since the time we got the denial, that was 02:02:57.280 --> 02:03:02.400 Friday evening, I believe, when we got the report, that was when we realized that it 02:03:02.400 --> 02:03:04.440 is a denial. 02:03:04.440 --> 02:03:10.360 On Monday, we had a conversation, and the city staff has been excellent and very helpful 02:03:10.360 --> 02:03:12.520 in understanding all aspects of the project. 02:03:12.520 --> 02:03:14.880 This is our first project we are doing in Denton. 02:03:14.880 --> 02:03:21.240 We are done in other cities, Frisco, Mckinney, Carrollton, all over, but it has been very, 02:03:21.240 --> 02:03:25.080 very good ride in the last six months we have been working with them. 02:03:25.080 --> 02:03:32.360 So we have submitted another proposal where we have reduced the density, but obviously 02:03:32.360 --> 02:03:34.280 this was within a day. 02:03:34.280 --> 02:03:37.120 So Monday we had the discussion, Tuesday we submitted it. 02:03:37.120 --> 02:03:40.280 So not enough time for them to review and submit feedback today. 02:03:40.280 --> 02:03:44.160 That is where we are on that thing. 02:03:44.160 --> 02:03:50.840 So just to step back over here, I would like to just mention where we came from. 02:03:50.840 --> 02:03:55.920 When we came to Denton, what was our thought process, and when we saw this property. 02:03:55.920 --> 02:04:03.200 We saw this property back in December 2017, it's almost a year now. 02:04:03.200 --> 02:04:09.720 And we looked at the zoning, we looked at the surroundings of the property, and we saw 02:04:09.720 --> 02:04:20.680 very clearly, if I can go back, the existing zoning around it. 02:04:20.680 --> 02:04:22.040 So I don't have that. 02:04:22.040 --> 02:04:25.880 But when we drove around the property, and we drove around the entire neighborhood, we 02:04:25.880 --> 02:04:32.160 saw homes, we saw commercial, we saw the, I think there is a roof master on the west 02:04:32.160 --> 02:04:33.160 side of the property. 02:04:33.160 --> 02:04:38.000 There is a railroad, and then there is the apartments on the north side of the property, 02:04:38.000 --> 02:04:44.080 and then there is a big tech commercial on the east side of the property. 02:04:44.080 --> 02:04:48.600 And when we looked at this property, the reason why we selected this property was because 02:04:48.600 --> 02:04:53.400 it was a, we thought, at least it was a very good transition. 02:04:53.400 --> 02:04:56.460 And this property has three sides. 02:04:56.460 --> 02:05:02.580 One side is the railroad, and then the other side is the commercial, the roof master. 02:05:02.580 --> 02:05:08.040 And then on the south, you have the drainage cement, which is a big buffer between any 02:05:08.040 --> 02:05:11.240 of the south properties, the residential. 02:05:11.240 --> 02:05:15.160 And we thought, when we look at it, and when you look at the transition of the zoning, 02:05:15.160 --> 02:05:18.480 it has low density, moderate, and you have high. 02:05:18.480 --> 02:05:25.700 And when we looked at the future land use back in spring of this year, we thought it 02:05:25.700 --> 02:05:30.960 was going to be NRMU, I know it's draft, there are a lot of discussions around it. 02:05:30.960 --> 02:05:36.200 And that was the reason why we thought, this is perfect, this is the best use of the land 02:05:36.200 --> 02:05:37.200 we can get over there. 02:05:37.200 --> 02:05:42.320 We are not disturbing the homes in the south, and we are not asking for very high density 02:05:42.320 --> 02:05:43.320 NRMU. 02:05:43.320 --> 02:05:51.240 But then we realized, the zoning is NRMU 12, and there is nothing in between from 12. 02:05:51.240 --> 02:05:53.440 The next zoning up is 30. 02:05:53.440 --> 02:05:54.440 We don't need 30. 02:05:54.440 --> 02:06:01.480 We are looking for, because of the construction cost, and we are adding a significant amount 02:06:01.480 --> 02:06:07.080 of mockingbird road, expansion, turn lanes, widening path, diesel lanes, three driveways 02:06:07.080 --> 02:06:11.080 to enter into the property to mitigate the traffic. 02:06:11.080 --> 02:06:16.360 So looking at all those costs and for the project feasibility, we thought this is the 02:06:16.360 --> 02:06:20.120 number of units that you will need to be above. 02:06:20.120 --> 02:06:27.320 That was the part of the reason why we requested 20, 27 per acre. 02:06:27.320 --> 02:06:30.680 That is the average between both the lots over there. 02:06:30.680 --> 02:06:35.280 So we thought, okay, if we are going to increase the density, it's going to hurt someone, 02:06:35.280 --> 02:06:36.280 right? 02:06:36.280 --> 02:06:40.000 Either the traffic or the residents on some, so we said, let's do a TIA report, right? 02:06:40.000 --> 02:06:43.360 Let's do a complete traffic analysis report of the location. 02:06:43.360 --> 02:06:44.360 And that was done. 02:06:44.360 --> 02:06:45.360 It was submitted. 02:06:45.360 --> 02:06:46.360 It was reviewed. 02:06:46.360 --> 02:06:47.360 We got the feedback. 02:06:47.360 --> 02:06:53.480 There were a couple of suggestions to make the north driveway either close it or keep 02:06:53.480 --> 02:06:56.640 it one way, which is only turn only so people don't have to see left. 02:06:56.640 --> 02:06:58.000 We said, okay, that's fine. 02:06:58.000 --> 02:06:59.000 We have three driveways. 02:06:59.000 --> 02:07:03.920 We can make the other two as in and out, and the top one only as turn in. 02:07:03.920 --> 02:07:08.240 So a lot of changes were made, good feedback from the city traffic engineer. 02:07:08.240 --> 02:07:09.920 All those changes were made. 02:07:09.920 --> 02:07:12.600 And then we thought, okay, let's listen to the neighborhood, right? 02:07:12.600 --> 02:07:14.400 Let's go and have a neighborhood meeting. 02:07:14.400 --> 02:07:18.160 Let's listen to what they have, what we can do in advance. 02:07:18.160 --> 02:07:26.880 We had, I think one, we had one person show up and he was in favor of the project at that 02:07:26.880 --> 02:07:27.880 point of time. 02:07:27.880 --> 02:07:30.200 So we said, okay, let's go to the PNZ. 02:07:30.200 --> 02:07:32.400 And that's when we said, okay, we are ready to go to the PNZ. 02:07:32.400 --> 02:07:35.520 We think, we thought we had done our homework. 02:07:35.520 --> 02:07:43.440 And then we got this on Friday and we thought, okay, let's step back here, right? 02:07:43.440 --> 02:07:49.320 So that's the reason why we came today, to really get everyone's feedback here. 02:07:49.320 --> 02:07:53.560 And I would like to table the case, as Ileana mentioned. 02:07:53.560 --> 02:07:59.720 Just get the feedback on where we need to be in terms of the project, in terms of making 02:07:59.720 --> 02:08:03.800 the best use of the land, and in terms of doing the best thing for the neighborhood 02:08:03.800 --> 02:08:05.240 over here. 02:08:05.240 --> 02:08:06.240 That's our intent. 02:08:06.240 --> 02:08:08.680 That's all I have to say. 02:08:08.680 --> 02:08:13.640 In regards to what Ileana mentioned, what we would like to propose from since Friday, 02:08:13.640 --> 02:08:19.000 that we have had the discussions, we would like to go back and is it, do you have the 02:08:19.000 --> 02:08:20.000 site plan here? 02:08:20.000 --> 02:08:21.000 Yeah. 02:08:21.000 --> 02:08:32.000 So we are proposing to remove, yeah, so we are proposing to remove this building over 02:08:32.000 --> 02:08:35.000 here and also this building over here. 02:08:35.000 --> 02:08:39.440 So this one building, this one space will be open space, this one space will be open 02:08:39.440 --> 02:08:40.440 space. 02:08:40.440 --> 02:08:45.240 And I think we are potentially looking at another building, maybe also we could remove 02:08:45.240 --> 02:08:46.240 one of these. 02:08:46.240 --> 02:08:47.240 If you could talk into the mic. 02:08:47.240 --> 02:08:48.240 We are broadcasting. 02:08:48.240 --> 02:08:49.240 Oh, sorry. 02:08:49.240 --> 02:08:50.240 Yeah. 02:08:50.240 --> 02:08:51.240 It's okay. 02:08:51.240 --> 02:08:55.320 So what we are proposing is to remove this building over here on the entrance side and 02:08:55.320 --> 02:08:57.920 also this building over here on the entrance side. 02:08:57.920 --> 02:09:00.560 And potentially one more building, which we don't know which one. 02:09:00.560 --> 02:09:02.680 So we are going to remove three buildings from here. 02:09:02.680 --> 02:09:08.800 So that reduces, that brings down the lot coverage to less than 50 percentage, I believe 02:09:08.800 --> 02:09:15.120 roughly less than 50 percentage, which is well within our NRMU 12 limits. 02:09:15.120 --> 02:09:19.040 It also, we are going to restrict with the overlay suggestion that we received from the 02:09:19.040 --> 02:09:23.040 city, which I believe that is exactly what I was looking for, right? 02:09:23.040 --> 02:09:24.040 We don't want 30. 02:09:24.040 --> 02:09:26.160 So why am I asking for 30, right? 02:09:26.160 --> 02:09:31.000 I think the overlay and the PD gives us that restriction to put on ourselves to say we 02:09:31.000 --> 02:09:33.200 don't need to go about it. 02:09:33.200 --> 02:09:37.200 So I think that covers the building height, 40, I think we are currently at 40, we plan 02:09:37.200 --> 02:09:38.200 to stay at 40. 02:09:38.200 --> 02:09:43.520 We don't have any intention to go above beyond, we are right now at less than 50 percentage 02:09:43.520 --> 02:09:45.000 for lot coverage. 02:09:45.000 --> 02:09:49.640 So then the only other reason left on the denial is the density, right? 02:09:49.640 --> 02:09:55.000 So we are bringing that density down to close to around less than 20 units per acre. 02:09:55.000 --> 02:09:58.420 Yeah, it will be somewhere between it into 20 acres. 02:09:58.420 --> 02:10:02.360 So that's all I have to say right now. 02:10:02.360 --> 02:10:07.280 Thank you very much, do we have any questions? 02:10:07.280 --> 02:10:16.440 I'm sorry, so that was about 18 to 20, is what you said you were tabling right now, 02:10:16.440 --> 02:10:18.840 but hoping to come back in the future for? 02:10:18.840 --> 02:10:19.840 Correct, yeah. 02:10:19.840 --> 02:10:22.840 Thank you. 02:10:22.840 --> 02:10:26.840 I don't see any other questions, I appreciate you being here for the presentation. 02:10:26.840 --> 02:10:27.840 Thank you, Commissioner. 02:10:27.840 --> 02:10:33.800 This is a public hearing and so anyone who is wanting to speak on this item can certainly 02:10:33.800 --> 02:10:34.800 do so. 02:10:34.800 --> 02:10:40.320 Just for clarification, the applicant has requested the commission to consider tabling 02:10:40.320 --> 02:10:41.320 this item. 02:10:41.320 --> 02:10:47.760 If that was to be approved, then they would come back to planning and zoning and we would 02:10:47.760 --> 02:10:53.240 have the same process again, probably in a different room, but it would be able to be 02:10:53.240 --> 02:10:55.480 providing you another opportunity to speak. 02:10:55.480 --> 02:10:59.920 So tonight is a public hearing, it is open, happy to have any and all speak tonight. 02:10:59.920 --> 02:11:06.560 If a table request is approved for the negotiations to continue, this process will happen again 02:11:06.560 --> 02:11:12.400 either on November 28th or December 12th, I imagine if we're going to do it this year. 02:11:12.400 --> 02:11:16.560 With that said, I only have one card to speak, I have several other cards to read in the 02:11:16.560 --> 02:11:21.000 record of an opposition, but I only have one person to speak and that's Nancy Carson, is 02:11:21.000 --> 02:11:22.000 she here? 02:11:22.000 --> 02:11:24.320 Are you still wishing to speak? 02:11:24.320 --> 02:11:25.320 Yes. 02:11:25.320 --> 02:11:40.400 Would you certainly come to the podium? 02:11:40.400 --> 02:11:44.200 And when you get to the microphone, you can just state your name and address for the record 02:11:44.200 --> 02:11:47.520 and you'll be provided three minutes to speak. 02:11:47.520 --> 02:11:52.280 Is there any way I can put up pictures on the screen? 02:11:52.280 --> 02:11:54.120 I do not believe so in this room. 02:11:54.120 --> 02:11:56.560 Okay, I brought some, I thought we could do that. 02:11:56.560 --> 02:12:00.160 Unfortunately, we don't have that option tonight. 02:12:00.160 --> 02:12:03.560 If you would like to pass them around, we'd be happy to take a look at them if that would 02:12:03.560 --> 02:12:04.560 be helpful. 02:12:04.560 --> 02:12:05.560 Okay. 02:12:05.560 --> 02:12:09.840 Well, I'll just start off with showing what we've sort of looked at already. 02:12:09.840 --> 02:12:14.840 And I want to point out that all of these buildings are three stories. 02:12:14.840 --> 02:12:21.560 Personally, I'm not interested in compromising with this situation. 02:12:21.560 --> 02:12:25.160 I think we should stick to our guns. 02:12:25.160 --> 02:12:32.320 Honestly, I think 12 units per acre is too many and if we're going to negotiate, we should 02:12:32.320 --> 02:12:38.040 negotiate down. 02:12:38.040 --> 02:12:46.000 There's a number of reasons for that. 02:12:46.000 --> 02:12:55.800 I'm going to show you some apartments and how we are really overloaded in apartments. 02:12:55.800 --> 02:13:12.880 This is Audra, this is Mockingbird, this is McKinney and this is Mingo. 02:13:12.880 --> 02:13:17.160 And all of those roads in red are two lanes. 02:13:17.160 --> 02:13:21.840 We don't have any place to put traffic out there. 02:13:21.840 --> 02:13:27.360 These are two lanes and I don't expect that the city is going to come out and make them 02:13:27.360 --> 02:13:29.320 larger. 02:13:29.320 --> 02:13:39.240 But in this one approximately square mile, these are the apartments that we have and 02:13:39.240 --> 02:13:52.720 I've numbered them up to 13 and there are a total of 2068 units in a square mile and 02:13:52.720 --> 02:14:00.460 that doesn't count some that are already approved that aren't built. 02:14:00.460 --> 02:14:06.600 So we are overpopulated already in apartments. 02:14:06.600 --> 02:14:12.160 Here I'm showing you a map that we've looked at, but this is their 10 acres they're talking 02:14:12.160 --> 02:14:13.160 about. 02:14:13.160 --> 02:14:19.360 Okay, I duplicated that and put it here on Bel Air North where I live. 02:14:19.360 --> 02:14:23.900 And Bel Air North is pretty much like the other neighborhoods around. 02:14:23.900 --> 02:14:32.880 And so I'm estimating as close as I can that here in Bel Air North we have 25 acres. 02:14:32.880 --> 02:14:37.880 You know how many houses we have on those 25 acres? 02:14:37.880 --> 02:14:41.240 127. 02:14:41.240 --> 02:14:50.160 Do you know what it's going to look like when they put this 10 acres here of 267? 02:14:50.160 --> 02:14:53.120 Picture that. 02:14:53.120 --> 02:14:56.640 These are apartments that are going up now. 02:14:56.640 --> 02:15:01.400 These are three stories over on McKinney and you look at all the different units. 02:15:01.400 --> 02:15:03.040 These are townhouses. 02:15:03.040 --> 02:15:07.120 They just opened up the first of October. 02:15:07.120 --> 02:15:09.360 These are building built. 02:15:09.360 --> 02:15:11.840 Just slews and slews. 02:15:11.840 --> 02:15:22.320 If you go down to McKinney, you'll see tons of apartments. 02:15:22.320 --> 02:15:30.560 These are duplexes over in our area. 02:15:30.560 --> 02:15:37.400 Can you see how unattractive they are? 02:15:37.400 --> 02:15:43.440 Here is what renters do a lot of times. 02:15:43.440 --> 02:15:50.040 And so to overload us with that, and here's another picture of what some renters did, 02:15:50.040 --> 02:15:56.520 to overload us with that degrades our neighborhoods. 02:15:56.520 --> 02:15:58.200 Did that mean that my time is up? 02:15:58.200 --> 02:15:59.200 Okay. 02:15:59.200 --> 02:16:04.880 I just want to say one thing about schools and families and children. 02:16:04.880 --> 02:16:13.160 The school that these children in that area would go to is 1.3 miles from the area. 02:16:13.160 --> 02:16:17.560 And there are no buses. 02:16:17.560 --> 02:16:22.040 The middle school is 3 miles, .4. 02:16:22.040 --> 02:16:24.440 I don't know if they have a bus. 02:16:24.440 --> 02:16:29.600 The high school is over 2 miles and they do have a bus. 02:16:29.600 --> 02:16:31.280 But there are a lot of things. 02:16:31.280 --> 02:16:37.560 I could talk to you for 30 minutes, but I'll wait until my next turn. 02:16:37.560 --> 02:16:40.240 Well, I certainly appreciate you being here in your presentation. 02:16:40.240 --> 02:16:41.640 Commissioner Beck has a question for you. 02:16:41.640 --> 02:16:42.720 Hey, Ms. Carson. 02:16:42.720 --> 02:16:44.760 Thank you for your presentation. 02:16:44.760 --> 02:16:48.840 And I think a lot of us empathize with you and everybody else here about a higher density 02:16:48.840 --> 02:16:49.840 development there. 02:16:49.840 --> 02:16:58.680 But just for the record, by right, as it stands zone now as NRMU 12, the 40-foot height is 02:16:58.680 --> 02:16:59.680 loud. 02:16:59.680 --> 02:17:04.640 And that's what they're suggesting, which would give you still three stories if they 02:17:04.640 --> 02:17:07.640 stayed with the NRMU 12. 02:17:07.640 --> 02:17:12.840 There was one other point I wanted to make. 02:17:12.840 --> 02:17:17.160 Well, yeah, 12 units. 02:17:17.160 --> 02:17:22.000 I guess the other point I wanted to make, and it's kind of a little empathetic towards 02:17:22.000 --> 02:17:24.160 the owner of the property. 02:17:24.160 --> 02:17:28.200 This area isn't going to be developed with a housing development, not that close to the 02:17:28.200 --> 02:17:29.200 railroad track. 02:17:29.200 --> 02:17:33.400 It more than likely has been taken off many people's lists. 02:17:33.400 --> 02:17:42.320 So a development that would allow up to 12 units per acre would be still a good transition. 02:17:42.320 --> 02:17:49.480 But to the point that there's an NRMU across the street, I think doesn't necessarily beg 02:17:49.480 --> 02:17:53.840 the question that it should allow one on the other side of it because mingle and the railroad 02:17:53.840 --> 02:17:59.600 track serve as a good buffer and distinguishing point, and it shouldn't be brought across anymore. 02:17:59.600 --> 02:18:03.840 But just for the record, by right, they wouldn't even have to come to us. 02:18:03.840 --> 02:18:07.200 They could go ahead and build apartments 12 units per acre. 02:18:07.200 --> 02:18:09.280 I'm not really objecting to that. 02:18:09.280 --> 02:18:13.800 My comment was because they want to negotiate down to 27. 02:18:13.800 --> 02:18:16.580 What a joke. 02:18:16.580 --> 02:18:19.400 Also here I wanted to show you this. 02:18:19.400 --> 02:18:27.360 This is between their property and the houses on Stockton. 02:18:27.360 --> 02:18:37.800 This is a 42, I measured it yesterday, a 42 foot concrete drainage ditch. 02:18:37.800 --> 02:18:40.360 That closes them in completely. 02:18:40.360 --> 02:18:45.880 And here is where the water goes under Mockingbird there. 02:18:45.880 --> 02:18:52.880 There's a lot more things that we have time to talk about that are really against that 02:18:52.880 --> 02:18:58.040 property doing more density than it's already zoned for. 02:18:58.040 --> 02:18:59.040 >> Okay. 02:18:59.040 --> 02:19:00.040 >> Commissioner Granada, do you have a question? 02:19:00.040 --> 02:19:04.480 >> No, I just wanted to make the distinction, I believe the last thing that we heard was 02:19:04.480 --> 02:19:11.680 that it wasn't 27 units per acre, it's more like 18, which should knock off about 80 units 02:19:11.680 --> 02:19:12.680 altogether. 02:19:12.680 --> 02:19:13.680 >> I think we should stick with 12. 02:19:13.680 --> 02:19:21.760 That's what our people here want, and why do we have to give up something we already 02:19:21.760 --> 02:19:22.760 have? 02:19:22.760 --> 02:19:28.120 >> I'm not saying you have to, I just wanted to clarify that point for the record. 02:19:28.120 --> 02:19:32.660 Thank you. 02:19:32.660 --> 02:19:33.920 >> This is a public hearing. 02:19:33.920 --> 02:19:37.000 I don't have any other requests to speak. 02:19:37.000 --> 02:19:42.560 Is there anyone in the room for an overflow, I'm not sure who is in the building. 02:19:42.560 --> 02:19:46.120 If I wish to speak, you're more than welcome to do so. 02:19:46.120 --> 02:19:52.200 All righty, can you just walk up to the podium, sir? 02:19:52.200 --> 02:19:59.720 And if you could state your name and address for the record. 02:19:59.720 --> 02:20:02.680 >> Stephen Johnson at 1412 Briarwood. 02:20:02.680 --> 02:20:08.000 I had one question earlier when you were showing the 200 foot notification area. 02:20:08.000 --> 02:20:13.000 For Stockton street, does it reach the city right away on the south side or the south 02:20:13.000 --> 02:20:14.000 boundary? 02:20:14.000 --> 02:20:16.760 Or does it touch any of those properties? 02:20:16.760 --> 02:20:22.800 And what requirement is there, if it barely touches the property, do they have standing 02:20:22.800 --> 02:20:28.080 within the 200 foot notification or does it have to have a certain percentage of the property 02:20:28.080 --> 02:20:29.080 within that? 02:20:29.080 --> 02:20:33.120 >> If the 200 foot boundary hits the property, they would be notified, but their opposition 02:20:33.120 --> 02:20:37.760 would be measured by the square footage of their property within the 200. 02:20:37.760 --> 02:20:41.280 So if they get noticed that the entire property doesn't count towards that supermajority, 02:20:41.280 --> 02:20:45.960 it would just be the sliver or portion that falls within. 02:20:45.960 --> 02:20:53.680 >> And then are there, I assume that in the planning that's gone on prior to the meeting 02:20:53.680 --> 02:21:03.200 here, is any detention required or necessary for the storm water drainage on this property? 02:21:03.200 --> 02:21:07.360 >> It wasn't covered in the work session as this is just the zoning case. 02:21:07.360 --> 02:21:11.320 When we look at detention, it would be through the engineering process later down kind of 02:21:11.320 --> 02:21:13.920 the trail of progress. 02:21:13.920 --> 02:21:17.920 Any construction of the property would have to meet any of those drainage requirements 02:21:17.920 --> 02:21:21.880 that the city would have by code. 02:21:21.880 --> 02:21:27.880 >> And then I heard mention that the improvements to Mockingbird, I assume the developer would 02:21:27.880 --> 02:21:33.320 be required to make those in conformance with the future collector needs of that street, 02:21:33.320 --> 02:21:39.400 but what is the projected improvements for Mockingbird further south? 02:21:39.400 --> 02:21:40.400 How long? 02:21:40.400 --> 02:21:45.960 Because there's still a lot of cars coming north to get to Mingor University and if you 02:21:45.960 --> 02:21:50.480 got just this one section of Mockingbird that's improved with this development, it may not 02:21:50.480 --> 02:21:53.480 be enough. 02:21:53.480 --> 02:21:57.200 >> Timeline or resource to provide? 02:21:57.200 --> 02:22:00.760 >> On the full length of Mockingbird at this time, no. 02:22:00.760 --> 02:22:06.040 Only because it's still unsure whether or not the zoning would be approved. 02:22:06.040 --> 02:22:09.560 As Ron had mentioned, there was a TIA that was complete. 02:22:09.560 --> 02:22:17.160 I don't recall that it called for full improvement along Mockingbird other than the perimeter 02:22:17.160 --> 02:22:22.800 of their property, but right now, there's nothing planned in the near future. 02:22:22.800 --> 02:22:27.800 >> Traffic volume would still be there with just a small section of Mockingbird improved. 02:22:27.800 --> 02:22:35.980 And those are some of the questions I had, and I guess I'm within the 500 foot notification 02:22:35.980 --> 02:22:41.360 area and I am in opposition to the increased density, but I would hope that some of those 02:22:41.360 --> 02:22:42.720 issues could be addressed. 02:22:42.720 --> 02:22:43.720 >> Absolutely. 02:22:43.720 --> 02:22:45.880 We appreciate you being here. 02:22:45.880 --> 02:22:51.100 And for what it's worth, for you and the rest of the audience, regardless of what happens 02:22:51.100 --> 02:22:55.800 at the commission, we are a recommending body to city council, so there will be another 02:22:55.800 --> 02:23:01.000 opportunity to speak for or against this when or if it gets to the city council, so you'll 02:23:01.000 --> 02:23:07.800 have hopefully multiple opportunities to express your concerns and find remedies to those, 02:23:07.800 --> 02:23:08.800 hopefully. 02:23:08.800 --> 02:23:09.800 >> Thank you. 02:23:09.800 --> 02:23:11.560 >> Can I speak? 02:23:11.560 --> 02:23:12.560 >> Absolutely. 02:23:12.560 --> 02:23:22.400 >> If you get us, when he gets the mic, say your name and address. 02:23:22.400 --> 02:23:23.400 >> Good evening. 02:23:23.400 --> 02:23:29.440 My name is Linda Godoy, and I live at 3001 Oakshire Street, which is at the corner at 02:23:29.440 --> 02:23:31.320 Mockingbird. 02:23:31.320 --> 02:23:36.440 I am a homeowner within the 500 square foot radius. 02:23:36.440 --> 02:23:41.920 I'm also a parent of two children who attend Alexander Elementary School, which is not 02:23:41.920 --> 02:23:44.000 walking distance. 02:23:44.000 --> 02:23:49.040 You cannot imagine the car line in the morning for us trying to get our kids dropped off. 02:23:49.040 --> 02:23:52.960 Alexander Elementary School is a title one school. 02:23:52.960 --> 02:23:56.080 It is already very taxed. 02:23:56.080 --> 02:24:01.880 I'm worried about the additional strain on our schools, not to mention the rest of the 02:24:01.880 --> 02:24:03.680 infrastructure. 02:24:03.680 --> 02:24:09.720 Mockingbird does flood when we have rain, despite that improvement on Cooper Creek. 02:24:09.720 --> 02:24:16.200 Part of that parcel of land at the proposed project is zoned floodplain, even though it 02:24:16.200 --> 02:24:18.360 is close to Cooper Creek. 02:24:18.360 --> 02:24:21.760 So I am also worried about that. 02:24:21.760 --> 02:24:28.800 My subdivision has one entrance and one exit, and that's in front of my house. 02:24:28.800 --> 02:24:33.600 If traffic backs up on Mockingbird, we wouldn't be able to evacuate. 02:24:33.600 --> 02:24:38.280 So let's say something happens at Feral Glass, let's say something happens on the railroad 02:24:38.280 --> 02:24:39.280 tracks. 02:24:39.280 --> 02:24:40.280 What if a train derails? 02:24:40.280 --> 02:24:41.440 Or how about when? 02:24:41.440 --> 02:24:43.200 Not if, when? 02:24:43.200 --> 02:24:46.160 You know, I worry about those things. 02:24:46.160 --> 02:24:55.400 So I am in opposition of having any higher density than what is currently zoned for those 02:24:55.400 --> 02:24:56.400 reasons. 02:24:56.400 --> 02:24:59.560 I can tell you that people park on the street. 02:24:59.560 --> 02:25:01.560 Our streets are narrow. 02:25:01.560 --> 02:25:06.480 I've seen times when I didn't think a fire truck or an ambulance was going to make it 02:25:06.480 --> 02:25:11.280 down my street to respond to an emergency because cars were parked on either side of 02:25:11.280 --> 02:25:13.560 the street. 02:25:13.560 --> 02:25:19.520 I just cannot see our community building up any more than it already has. 02:25:19.520 --> 02:25:24.720 I feel like our quality of life in Denton has diminished because of the building that 02:25:24.720 --> 02:25:26.200 we're doing. 02:25:26.200 --> 02:25:30.080 I would love to see that parcel be a park. 02:25:30.080 --> 02:25:33.680 You know, my kids have no shared space to play in. 02:25:33.680 --> 02:25:36.600 We don't have a sense of community. 02:25:36.600 --> 02:25:38.480 We have a bedroom community. 02:25:38.480 --> 02:25:40.800 We have homes that we commute to. 02:25:40.800 --> 02:25:44.320 We don't have a place to come together and be neighbors. 02:25:44.320 --> 02:25:47.680 We don't have a way to beautify Denton in that neighborhood. 02:25:47.680 --> 02:25:51.800 I literally feel like I'm on the wrong side of the tracks. 02:25:51.800 --> 02:25:53.920 So thank you for hearing me out. 02:25:53.920 --> 02:25:54.920 Of course. 02:25:54.920 --> 02:25:55.920 Thanks for being here. 02:25:55.920 --> 02:25:56.920 Thank you. 02:25:56.920 --> 02:25:58.480 Any questions? 02:25:58.480 --> 02:26:04.600 Thank you very much. 02:26:04.600 --> 02:26:07.800 So I have several cards that I'm going to read into the record. 02:26:07.800 --> 02:26:08.800 These are individuals. 02:26:08.800 --> 02:26:15.760 The following individuals have selected an opposition position for the item wishing not 02:26:15.760 --> 02:26:18.080 to speak. 02:26:18.080 --> 02:26:19.080 It's unclear. 02:26:19.080 --> 02:26:24.880 There's some that are marked for this agenda item and some for the next. 02:26:24.880 --> 02:26:29.080 So I'm going to read them all for this agenda item, because they're tied. 02:26:29.080 --> 02:26:34.160 There are a couple that are specific to the SUP, which is a different item. 02:26:34.160 --> 02:26:39.200 So I'll do my best to partition these out, I think. 02:26:39.200 --> 02:26:41.120 Kathy Smith is an opposition. 02:26:41.120 --> 02:26:44.120 Hudson and Sandra Williams, opposition. 02:26:44.120 --> 02:26:47.120 Sharon Stewart, opposition. 02:26:47.120 --> 02:26:51.680 Ellen Reichl, thank you, opposition. 02:26:51.680 --> 02:26:54.120 Brian Hurt, opposition. 02:26:54.120 --> 02:26:57.320 Michelle Hurt, opposition. 02:26:57.320 --> 02:26:59.680 Linda just spoke. 02:26:59.680 --> 02:27:01.720 And Judy DeLay, opposition. 02:27:01.720 --> 02:27:07.160 Steven Johnson, opposition. 02:27:07.160 --> 02:27:15.920 With the cards and oppositions, we also submitted a petition of neighbors that have come out 02:27:15.920 --> 02:27:17.560 in opposition for this. 02:27:17.560 --> 02:27:20.520 Rather than reading this into the record, I want to note that there's 38 signatures 02:27:20.520 --> 02:27:23.420 on the petition and opposition. 02:27:23.420 --> 02:27:29.560 This will be forwarded to city council for their records to review. 02:27:29.560 --> 02:27:33.520 Also these addresses will be looked at and looking at the 20%. 02:27:33.520 --> 02:27:39.080 City will go through every address on here and map them out. 02:27:39.080 --> 02:27:48.800 Okay, additionally, we have seven response forms in opposition and nine total emails 02:27:48.800 --> 02:27:54.760 in opposition, all of which will go into the record as such, the ones that I've stated 02:27:54.760 --> 02:27:58.240 and the ones submitted in writing plus the petition. 02:27:58.240 --> 02:28:01.320 Again, this is a public hearing. 02:28:01.320 --> 02:28:05.800 If there's anyone wishing to speak, you're more than welcome to do so. 02:28:05.800 --> 02:28:10.720 We'd love to hear from you if you want to. 02:28:10.720 --> 02:28:12.080 Okay. 02:28:12.080 --> 02:28:18.160 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and we will turn this over to discussion questions 02:28:18.160 --> 02:28:21.800 and motion on the dice. 02:28:21.800 --> 02:28:22.800 >> Thank you, chair. 02:28:22.800 --> 02:28:28.240 I just want to thank everybody for being here tonight and speaking up. 02:28:28.240 --> 02:28:32.560 If we decide to table this, we may see you back here and discuss this again. 02:28:32.560 --> 02:28:40.600 My personal view at this time is that anything above NRMU 12 is really too much. 02:28:40.600 --> 02:28:49.240 I understand the property owner's concern that for it to pay off well, you may need 02:28:49.240 --> 02:28:55.880 something a little bit more dense, but I'm not sure that an NRMU is the good transition 02:28:55.880 --> 02:29:00.560 that you say it is because mainly of the traffic issue, if nothing else, we've got two roads 02:29:00.560 --> 02:29:04.360 here that simply won't handle much more than they already do. 02:29:04.360 --> 02:29:09.760 I just live across the way off Old North Road, so I'm up and down that area plenty and I 02:29:09.760 --> 02:29:13.200 can see that it's tough to handle and this would add to it. 02:29:13.200 --> 02:29:20.360 So for what it's worth down the road, you know, if you're looking for a sweet spot 02:29:20.360 --> 02:29:27.960 between NRMU 12 and the NRMU, I'm going to have a hard time with that personally myself. 02:29:27.960 --> 02:29:37.240 Just to share that with you now, unless I think even, you know, if somebody does come 02:29:37.240 --> 02:29:43.880 forward with say a multifamily unit for this, it still requires an SUP and I'd probably 02:29:43.880 --> 02:29:47.880 even want to put a few limitations on that, just considering the nature of the roads right 02:29:47.880 --> 02:29:50.920 now and the fact that it does back up to this area. 02:29:50.920 --> 02:29:52.600 I think the idea of a park is a good idea. 02:29:52.600 --> 02:29:57.720 I wish we could get the city involved in that, but that's always easier said than done, but 02:29:57.720 --> 02:30:02.160 I think that would probably be a good place to have something like that, an open green 02:30:02.160 --> 02:30:05.440 space for the people that live in that neighborhood. 02:30:05.440 --> 02:30:11.480 I just wanted to say that for her. 02:30:11.480 --> 02:30:15.320 Yeah, Commissioner Ellis. 02:30:15.320 --> 02:30:16.320 Thank you, Chair. 02:30:16.320 --> 02:30:17.960 I'll just say a few comments too. 02:30:17.960 --> 02:30:21.720 I mean, clearly infrastructure is a problem in this area, namely the roads. 02:30:21.720 --> 02:30:29.080 I mean, this is an intensely populated area of our city with some future approved projects 02:30:29.080 --> 02:30:30.760 already in the area. 02:30:30.760 --> 02:30:33.520 The roads are terribly inferior. 02:30:33.520 --> 02:30:37.600 It would be very difficult for me to get on board to support any kind of zoning change 02:30:37.600 --> 02:30:42.880 that would intensify the density there. 02:30:42.880 --> 02:30:46.120 So I'll weigh in on my opinion on this matter. 02:30:46.120 --> 02:30:50.240 It seems before us we either have the approval or denial or table. 02:30:50.240 --> 02:30:57.760 I am of the mindset to provide the applicant an opportunity to be creative. 02:30:57.760 --> 02:31:01.960 Maybe should they come back at 13 and it's all two stories and looks like garden homes 02:31:01.960 --> 02:31:03.520 and it is above the 12. 02:31:03.520 --> 02:31:06.960 I'm not sure what potentially could happen from this. 02:31:06.960 --> 02:31:10.880 I think by tabling it, it gives the conversation some room. 02:31:10.880 --> 02:31:13.640 They've had an opportunity to listen to the citizen feedback. 02:31:13.640 --> 02:31:18.480 The overwhelming opposition hopefully is communicating a message to them. 02:31:18.480 --> 02:31:20.680 But maybe they come back and say, you know what, we'll just do the SUP. 02:31:20.680 --> 02:31:21.680 We don't need to rezone. 02:31:21.680 --> 02:31:26.240 We just need the SUP and we can have that conversation then, but I generally historically 02:31:26.240 --> 02:31:30.280 on this commission have been in favor of applicants asking for a table just to give them the 02:31:30.280 --> 02:31:32.920 opportunity to see what can be created. 02:31:32.920 --> 02:31:38.480 I certainly understand the perspective of the citizens as well as fellow commissioners 02:31:38.480 --> 02:31:41.760 on density and infrastructure and everything else. 02:31:41.760 --> 02:31:46.680 My inclination would be to see a motion and support a motion to table this item. 02:31:46.680 --> 02:31:49.360 >> Thank you, chair. 02:31:49.360 --> 02:31:51.560 And I would support a motion to table as well. 02:31:51.560 --> 02:31:57.560 I was giving my opinion so when the applicant does come back, which I will gladly listen 02:31:57.560 --> 02:32:01.400 and look at another presentation, but I definitely wanted my feedback heard there. 02:32:01.400 --> 02:32:05.800 But I would support a table. 02:32:05.800 --> 02:32:08.440 >> If I have not done so already, the public hearing is closed. 02:32:08.440 --> 02:32:10.400 I think I did. 02:32:10.400 --> 02:32:12.360 Oh, Commissioner Fernanda. 02:32:12.360 --> 02:32:13.360 I'm sorry. 02:32:13.360 --> 02:32:15.720 >> And I'll second that motion to table. 02:32:15.720 --> 02:32:16.720 >> Clarification. 02:32:16.720 --> 02:32:19.360 Commissioner Ellis, did you make the motion? 02:32:19.360 --> 02:32:20.360 >> I did not at this time. 02:32:20.360 --> 02:32:21.360 >> I'm sorry. 02:32:21.360 --> 02:32:22.360 >> That's okay. 02:32:22.360 --> 02:32:24.000 >> Do you want to make a motion or? 02:32:24.000 --> 02:32:26.080 >> I will make a motion to table. 02:32:26.080 --> 02:32:27.080 >> Okay. 02:32:27.080 --> 02:32:31.000 To table it, we have to a date uncertain or to a date certain. 02:32:31.000 --> 02:32:36.360 I'll turn to the city about timeline if the 28th is possible or the 12th is more realistic 02:32:36.360 --> 02:32:40.960 or should we do uncertain? 02:32:40.960 --> 02:32:41.960 >> Perhaps uncertain. 02:32:41.960 --> 02:32:48.400 It probably at this point would be more prudent to advertise to make sure that folks are aware 02:32:48.400 --> 02:32:50.240 of when that's back. 02:32:50.240 --> 02:32:54.560 Also give us some time to look at it because obviously whatever's reduced, you know, there's 02:32:54.560 --> 02:33:00.120 always a cause and effect with the SGP, so I suspect if it is tabled, that SGP would 02:33:00.120 --> 02:33:05.800 sort of automatically tie on to that, so you'll be looking at a different request as well 02:33:05.800 --> 02:33:07.080 as associated with that. 02:33:07.080 --> 02:33:10.080 >> Commissioner Pernanda, are you okay with tabling this to a date uncertain? 02:33:10.080 --> 02:33:12.120 >> Yes, to a date uncertain. 02:33:12.120 --> 02:33:13.120 >> Commissioner Beck. 02:33:13.120 --> 02:33:15.240 >> And I'll second that motion. 02:33:15.240 --> 02:33:20.920 I would like to add to that between now and the time that we meet again on this that another 02:33:20.920 --> 02:33:27.040 neighborhood meeting be held at a time that's convenient for everybody and perhaps a venue 02:33:27.040 --> 02:33:33.720 that's a little bit closer, if that's possible, where all these concerns can be heard and 02:33:33.720 --> 02:33:39.000 help you make a decision that might make us think otherwise, okay? 02:33:39.000 --> 02:33:40.000 So I second that motion. 02:33:40.000 --> 02:33:42.000 >> We have a first and a second. 02:33:42.000 --> 02:33:46.960 Do we have any discussion on the motion? 02:33:46.960 --> 02:33:50.720 Seeing none, we'll call for a vote by show of hands for the motion to table this to a 02:33:50.720 --> 02:33:51.820 date uncertain. 02:33:51.820 --> 02:33:54.120 All in favor? 02:33:54.120 --> 02:33:55.520 All against? 02:33:55.520 --> 02:34:00.520 Motion carries 6-0. 02:34:00.520 --> 02:34:07.280 So now we're in this odd spot of hearing a presentation for an SUP tied to a zoning case 02:34:07.280 --> 02:34:11.240 that's been postponed or tabled. 02:34:11.240 --> 02:34:16.400 I guess I'll turn it over to Ron for presentation, and then we will go through this. 02:34:16.400 --> 02:34:21.320 >> Yeah, I might want to just have an abbreviated. 02:34:21.320 --> 02:34:27.120 >> Ron, could you provide us a brief of your presentation? 02:34:27.120 --> 02:34:28.120 >> Yes, will do. 02:34:28.120 --> 02:34:29.120 Got the message. 02:34:29.120 --> 02:34:35.200 This SUP- >> I just want to make sure I open the public 02:34:35.200 --> 02:34:37.280 hearing for this agenda item. 02:34:37.280 --> 02:34:38.280 >> Okay. 02:34:38.280 --> 02:34:39.280 >> Sorry. 02:34:39.280 --> 02:34:42.960 >> This SUP request is the same site that we just heard. 02:34:42.960 --> 02:34:51.840 It's to allow for a multi-family use, approximately 267 dwellings per acre on the subject site. 02:34:51.840 --> 02:34:57.480 Here is the proposed site plan, as we heard earlier, it will most likely change, as well 02:34:57.480 --> 02:35:03.640 as the landscape plan, elevations as proposed. 02:35:03.640 --> 02:35:08.960 Staff went through the approval criteria as shown here, conformance with all standards 02:35:08.960 --> 02:35:12.120 and compatible with surrounding area. 02:35:12.120 --> 02:35:14.920 We've already discussed compatibility. 02:35:14.920 --> 02:35:20.720 We did a full analysis of the specific use permit, covered all of these that you see 02:35:20.720 --> 02:35:29.420 up here, neighborhood meeting was held, notices were presented as required. 02:35:29.420 --> 02:35:35.880 Staff recommends denial of the subject SUP, primarily due to the density of the proposed 02:35:35.880 --> 02:35:36.880 development. 02:35:36.880 --> 02:35:42.840 Any questions for Ron? 02:35:42.840 --> 02:35:45.000 Thank you, Ron, for the presentation. 02:35:45.000 --> 02:35:46.000 This is a public hearing. 02:35:46.000 --> 02:35:50.480 I have cards of individuals not wishing to speak. 02:35:50.480 --> 02:35:55.040 Again, this is a public hearing, so we welcome anyone wishing to speak. 02:35:55.040 --> 02:35:56.040 Perfect. 02:35:56.040 --> 02:35:59.800 You're more than welcome to go to the podium. 02:35:59.800 --> 02:36:00.800 You're up. 02:36:00.800 --> 02:36:08.440 Again, if you could speak your name and address for the record. 02:36:08.440 --> 02:36:11.360 Steven Johnson, 1412 Briarwood. 02:36:11.360 --> 02:36:20.280 In terms of negotiations upcoming and any sort of neighborhood meeting that the developer 02:36:20.280 --> 02:36:27.120 may want to have, and I'm not sure if I missed the last one or the first one, rather, when 02:36:27.120 --> 02:36:33.340 we received the notice, it was in an unmarked envelope, if I remember correctly, and just 02:36:33.340 --> 02:36:34.560 looked like a piece of junk mail. 02:36:34.560 --> 02:36:39.320 So I don't know if there was a return address on the envelope that you sent to property 02:36:39.320 --> 02:36:44.640 owners, and if that could be, maybe even referring to Mockingbird multifamily, which would draw 02:36:44.640 --> 02:36:50.320 attention, and I don't know if at that meeting, if you had any site elevation plans of what 02:36:50.320 --> 02:36:54.920 type of architecture you were proposing, that would be helpful. 02:36:54.920 --> 02:37:02.320 Things like that, and I guess that was the main suggestions I had for upcoming meetings. 02:37:02.320 --> 02:37:03.320 Absolutely. 02:37:03.320 --> 02:37:06.880 And as much as the applicant's willing, I would encourage a sidebar conversation to 02:37:06.880 --> 02:37:11.040 make sure they have your contact information and make sure you all can align to have that 02:37:11.040 --> 02:37:12.040 discussion. 02:37:12.040 --> 02:37:13.040 All right. 02:37:13.040 --> 02:37:14.040 Thank you. 02:37:14.040 --> 02:37:15.040 Thank you. 02:37:15.040 --> 02:37:18.040 Anyone else wishing to speak? 02:37:18.040 --> 02:37:19.040 Yes, ma'am. 02:37:19.040 --> 02:37:20.040 I still have more. 02:37:20.040 --> 02:37:21.840 You're more than welcome to come down. 02:37:21.840 --> 02:37:29.240 I'll give you another three minutes. 02:37:29.240 --> 02:37:42.560 I want to talk about a safety issue, and that's there on Mockingbird where it comes into- 02:37:42.560 --> 02:37:45.760 Hey, Senator, if you could just say your name and address for the record. 02:37:45.760 --> 02:37:46.760 Oh, I'm sorry. 02:37:46.760 --> 02:37:47.760 Yeah, it's fine. 02:37:47.760 --> 02:37:48.760 Nancy Cores. 02:37:48.760 --> 02:37:49.760 Senate 2908, Oakshire. 02:37:49.760 --> 02:37:50.760 Thank you. 02:37:50.760 --> 02:37:59.560 I'd like to talk about a safety issue that we have with this situation, and it's not 02:37:59.560 --> 02:38:08.000 really to do with consideration of what goes on the property, although it would make a 02:38:08.000 --> 02:38:12.600 difference because of the additional traffic. 02:38:12.600 --> 02:38:27.440 And that is where Mockingbird comes down and Mingo goes across here and Old North goes 02:38:27.440 --> 02:38:29.340 down here. 02:38:29.340 --> 02:38:33.040 Have any of y'all ever made that intersection? 02:38:33.040 --> 02:38:36.460 It's very complicated. 02:38:36.460 --> 02:38:44.960 And I made my little pink rectangles about the size of cars, so what I think they would 02:38:44.960 --> 02:38:50.040 be, so I'm trying to show a situation here. 02:38:50.040 --> 02:38:56.080 In fact, when I have someone come into my house that's never came before, I never let 02:38:56.080 --> 02:38:57.080 them go that way. 02:38:57.080 --> 02:39:00.000 I always direct them a different way. 02:39:00.000 --> 02:39:11.160 I said, "There's a quicker way, but you don't want to go there." 02:39:11.160 --> 02:39:21.880 Now I've just got 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 little cars here. 02:39:21.880 --> 02:39:32.040 I was crossing the railroad tracks there in front of the wood lawns, wood lakes, apartments. 02:39:32.040 --> 02:39:41.000 And I was the 11th car waiting on the train to get past. 02:39:41.000 --> 02:39:47.160 And before the train passed, there were about 16 cars, best I could count. 02:39:47.160 --> 02:39:50.480 Okay, and that's a four-lane road there. 02:39:50.480 --> 02:39:56.080 So there was two lanes with 16 cars and I'm waiting on the train to get by. 02:39:56.080 --> 02:40:00.000 I couldn't see how many cars on the other side because you can't see the other side 02:40:00.000 --> 02:40:11.840 of the train, but I think we'll have a real problem here when we don't have this situation 02:40:11.840 --> 02:40:20.920 with 8 cars, but we've got all of this mess here and a lot more cars. 02:40:20.920 --> 02:40:29.840 A couple years ago, before they -- when we were discussing the woodlands, I did a study 02:40:29.840 --> 02:40:32.680 on the trains there. 02:40:32.680 --> 02:40:38.400 I stayed up 24 hours so I could count every train that came through. 02:40:38.400 --> 02:40:42.720 And there is approximately -- because they're not consistent, the same number every day 02:40:42.720 --> 02:40:47.520 -- 25 to 30 trains a day. 02:40:47.520 --> 02:40:50.080 They are extremely loud. 02:40:50.080 --> 02:40:54.520 And I'm about a half a mile from the tracks myself. 02:40:54.520 --> 02:41:03.280 I don't think I could stand to live right next to them. 02:41:03.280 --> 02:41:05.320 So I'll just stop there. 02:41:05.320 --> 02:41:14.080 Thank you again for your thoughtful presentation. 02:41:14.080 --> 02:41:21.720 We do have cards that's noted this agenda item or both, so I want to read these into 02:41:21.720 --> 02:41:26.680 the record in opposition. 02:41:26.680 --> 02:41:28.200 Forgive me if I've mispronounced anything. 02:41:28.200 --> 02:41:37.320 Linda Godoy, who spoke on the previous item, Brian Hurtz, Michelle Hurtz, Judy Delay, 02:41:37.320 --> 02:41:43.280 Stephen Johnson, and Ellen Reifel. 02:41:43.280 --> 02:41:44.280 This is a public hearing. 02:41:44.280 --> 02:41:51.560 If there's anyone who wishes to speak, we're welcome to do so. 02:41:51.560 --> 02:41:55.720 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn it to the dais for discussion, motion, 02:41:55.720 --> 02:41:56.720 or questions. 02:41:56.720 --> 02:42:03.160 I'll make a motion to table, but before I complete that, I'd say that I felt my comments 02:42:03.160 --> 02:42:06.360 were probably best waited until here. 02:42:06.360 --> 02:42:11.280 Make a recommendation to the applicant that we find some way that this doesn't need a 02:42:11.280 --> 02:42:14.520 zoning change, but just an SCP. 02:42:14.520 --> 02:42:20.760 I think I've always been in support, and my voting record will reflect that the city of 02:42:20.760 --> 02:42:25.000 Denton and Denton County in general is growing, and there's nothing we can do about it other 02:42:25.000 --> 02:42:27.000 than accommodate. 02:42:27.000 --> 02:42:32.720 It doesn't mean we have to necessarily go overboard, but multi-family developments are 02:42:32.720 --> 02:42:33.720 going to have to happen. 02:42:33.720 --> 02:42:39.040 We're going to be growing in the city, that's just what happens. 02:42:39.040 --> 02:42:41.120 Multi-family development is going to have to happen somewhere, this is already zoned 02:42:41.120 --> 02:42:42.120 for it. 02:42:42.120 --> 02:42:45.120 I think that it possibly could be a good spot for it. 02:42:45.120 --> 02:42:50.200 There definitely are some huge concerns about the traffic, and especially, I guess it's 02:42:50.200 --> 02:42:54.880 called Alexander now, when I grew up in Denton ISD, it was called Lee, but someone said Alexander 02:42:54.880 --> 02:43:02.840 Elementary, so what happened to Lee, but I know what happened to Lee. 02:43:02.840 --> 02:43:10.480 That being a Title I school as it is, adding a big 267 unit development would be extremely 02:43:10.480 --> 02:43:16.080 detrimental to the teachers and the facility down that way, as well as those who live in 02:43:16.080 --> 02:43:17.080 the neighborhood. 02:43:17.080 --> 02:43:22.360 I do want to see a motion to table, make a motion to table, and extremely encourage the 02:43:22.360 --> 02:43:27.200 applicant to find some way to make this profitable for you, but to play within the parameters 02:43:27.200 --> 02:43:28.200 of 12 units an acre. 02:43:28.200 --> 02:43:29.200 That would be my recommendation. 02:43:29.200 --> 02:43:34.960 If I see anything more than that, I might be flexible two or three units above it, but 02:43:34.960 --> 02:43:40.160 even an 18 to 20 unit an acre, I'm probably going to vote to deny. 02:43:40.160 --> 02:43:41.600 We have a first. 02:43:41.600 --> 02:43:43.320 Commissioner Cole? 02:43:43.320 --> 02:43:45.000 I second. 02:43:45.000 --> 02:43:46.760 We have a first and a second. 02:43:46.760 --> 02:43:47.760 Any discussion? 02:43:47.760 --> 02:43:50.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:43:50.280 --> 02:43:51.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:43:51.280 --> 02:43:52.280 And you're okay with that motion? 02:43:52.280 --> 02:43:53.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:43:53.280 --> 02:43:54.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:43:54.280 --> 02:43:55.280 And you're okay with that motion? 02:43:55.280 --> 02:43:56.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:43:56.280 --> 02:43:57.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:43:57.280 --> 02:43:58.280 And you're okay with that motion? 02:43:58.280 --> 02:43:59.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:43:59.280 --> 02:44:00.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:44:00.280 --> 02:44:01.280 And you're okay with that motion? 02:44:01.280 --> 02:44:02.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:44:02.280 --> 02:44:03.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:44:03.280 --> 02:44:04.280 And you're okay with that motion? 02:44:04.280 --> 02:44:05.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:44:05.280 --> 02:44:06.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:44:06.280 --> 02:44:07.280 And you're okay with that motion? 02:44:07.280 --> 02:44:08.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:44:08.280 --> 02:44:09.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:44:09.280 --> 02:44:10.280 And you're okay with that motion? 02:44:10.280 --> 02:44:11.280 I'll just clarify my motion to table for date on certain. 02:44:11.280 --> 02:44:12.280 Perfect, thank you. 02:44:12.280 --> 02:44:31.280 And you're okay with that motion to table for date on certain. 02:44:31.280 --> 02:44:44.280 And you're okay with that motion to table for date on certain. 02:44:44.280 --> 02:44:45.280 All right, good evening. 02:44:45.280 --> 02:44:48.280 This is case S 18 eight for the Windsor drive apartments. 02:44:48.280 --> 02:44:53.280 The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation 02:44:53.280 --> 02:44:58.020 to city council regarding a request for a specific use permit to allow a multifamily 02:44:58.020 --> 02:45:02.560 use on a parcel that you can see outlined in yellow on the map, which is approximately 02:45:02.560 --> 02:45:10.680 31 acres in total located on the north side of Windsor drive along the I 35 frontage road. 02:45:10.680 --> 02:45:15.320 This particular property is zoned in our MU that's neighborhood residential mixed use 02:45:15.320 --> 02:45:21.240 within this district multifamily is permitted with an SUV required as well as with the stipulations 02:45:21.240 --> 02:45:26.240 of limitation for limitation for says that multifamily is only permitted either with 02:45:26.240 --> 02:45:31.640 a specific use permit as part of a mixed use development or as part of a preexisting approval 02:45:31.640 --> 02:45:36.140 such as for a master plan community or a small area plan. 02:45:36.140 --> 02:45:40.640 In this particular instance, although they do intend to ultimately have a mixed use development, 02:45:40.640 --> 02:45:43.560 they are seeking to develop the multifamily portion first. 02:45:43.560 --> 02:45:49.520 So the SUP is really the only of those criteria that would fit in this situation. 02:45:49.520 --> 02:45:53.680 With a specific use permit, there are multiple criteria for approval that are outlined in 02:45:53.680 --> 02:45:59.360 your backup and in full, but the generality there is that you're looking for compatibility 02:45:59.360 --> 02:46:02.360 between the proposed use and surrounding property. 02:46:02.360 --> 02:46:08.080 There's multiple means of compatibility such as the SUP or the use that's proposed not impeding 02:46:08.080 --> 02:46:12.360 orderly development on surrounding property that it have adequate parking and access and 02:46:12.360 --> 02:46:17.720 not generate any traffic issues that there is adequate nuisance prevention in place and 02:46:17.720 --> 02:46:22.560 that adequate landscaping, screening, buffering, as well as general compatibility in terms 02:46:22.560 --> 02:46:25.860 of scale and architecture. 02:46:25.860 --> 02:46:29.440 One of the key features of this site that affects that compatibility is the fact that 02:46:29.440 --> 02:46:32.880 there are two gas wells present on the adjacent property. 02:46:32.880 --> 02:46:34.600 You can see those indicated here on the map. 02:46:34.600 --> 02:46:38.240 We have the pain number two and pain number one wells. 02:46:38.240 --> 02:46:42.320 You'll notice the light purple color and that is the boundaries of an existing gas well 02:46:42.320 --> 02:46:43.980 plat. 02:46:43.980 --> 02:46:48.600 So one of the features that comes into play on this site is that with this gas well plat 02:46:48.600 --> 02:46:53.960 covering the property, for this property to be plotted and developed concurrently with 02:46:53.960 --> 02:46:57.600 that gas well plat, they did have to negotiate with the operator and work with them to get 02:46:57.600 --> 02:47:01.640 kind of their consent, if you will, to let the property be plotted and developed concurrent 02:47:01.640 --> 02:47:04.160 with that existing gas well plat. 02:47:04.160 --> 02:47:07.800 So as indicated in your backup, there have been extensive negotiations with the surface 02:47:07.800 --> 02:47:11.760 developer and that gas well operator over the past year and the site plan that you'll 02:47:11.760 --> 02:47:17.360 see tonight reflects the terms that they've come to agree upon. 02:47:17.360 --> 02:47:22.320 So looking at that site plan, you can see, as I mentioned here, the multifamily use is 02:47:22.320 --> 02:47:25.720 only on about 17 out of those 31 acres. 02:47:25.720 --> 02:47:31.600 This plan reflects 336 units, a mixture of one, two and three bedroom apartments. 02:47:31.600 --> 02:47:35.480 There is a density with this plan of about 20.5 dwelling units per acre. 02:47:35.480 --> 02:47:39.800 NRMU would allow up to 30, so they're well within that parameter. 02:47:39.800 --> 02:47:42.640 The plan that you see here has a total of 16 buildings. 02:47:42.640 --> 02:47:47.200 The maximum height on those would be three stories and that is a total of just over 300,000 02:47:47.200 --> 02:47:50.200 square feet of buildings shown on the plan. 02:47:50.200 --> 02:47:55.920 They are proposing a total of 632 parking spaces, which meets and exceeds our requirement. 02:47:55.920 --> 02:48:00.640 The spaces that are in excess of the required 629 are within garages, so those are allowed 02:48:00.640 --> 02:48:03.000 per our parking code. 02:48:03.000 --> 02:48:07.400 This plan reflects two points of access, one from the I-35 frontage road, one from Windsor 02:48:07.400 --> 02:48:11.880 Drive, you can see here on the south, and then as I mentioned, this plan also reflects 02:48:11.880 --> 02:48:15.520 the terms of that negotiation that they have with the gas well operator. 02:48:15.520 --> 02:48:20.960 So our code requires a 250 foot reverse setback from the boundary of the pad site to a protected 02:48:20.960 --> 02:48:25.080 use structure, which in this case would be the multi-family buildings. 02:48:25.080 --> 02:48:30.120 Here with the southern well site, you can see that full 250 foot radius, and part of 02:48:30.120 --> 02:48:34.480 their agreement was that the operator, due to their limited space on that southern site, 02:48:34.480 --> 02:48:39.000 didn't want anything within that 250 feet, so you'll notice there's no parking or any 02:48:39.000 --> 02:48:42.700 development planned within that radius. 02:48:42.700 --> 02:48:47.240 For the northern site, this smaller outline you see here is roughly the existing pad site 02:48:47.240 --> 02:48:48.240 boundaries. 02:48:48.240 --> 02:48:54.200 Normally, the 250 foot reverse setback would be measured from there, but the operator indicated 02:48:54.200 --> 02:48:58.480 that they would like to someday be able to expand that site, so you'll see here kind 02:48:58.480 --> 02:49:02.800 of the boundaries of what would ultimately be their expanded site if they're able to 02:49:02.800 --> 02:49:06.800 get through the numerous hurdles that would be in place for them to do so. 02:49:06.800 --> 02:49:11.840 And part of the agreement was that the reverse setback be measured from that proposed pad 02:49:11.840 --> 02:49:14.500 site boundary rather than the existing boundary. 02:49:14.500 --> 02:49:20.480 So for today, we would have well over 250 feet between the building and the pad site, 02:49:20.480 --> 02:49:24.080 but if and when the operator is able to expand, they would still be able to meet that reverse 02:49:24.080 --> 02:49:27.920 setback requirement. 02:49:27.920 --> 02:49:31.280 We wait until the end of the presentation for questions. 02:49:31.280 --> 02:49:33.280 All right. 02:49:33.280 --> 02:49:41.000 Looking at the landscape plan, what you see here for this site is roughly 50/50, lot coverage 02:49:41.000 --> 02:49:46.640 being well below the 80% maximum landscape area while exceeding the 20% minimum. 02:49:46.640 --> 02:49:50.560 One of the key features is the type D buffer that is required between the multifamily use 02:49:50.560 --> 02:49:55.160 and the gas well use, which is considered industrial per our code. 02:49:55.160 --> 02:49:59.960 So this by code would be a 30 foot wide area with eight trees and 20 shrubs per 100 linear 02:49:59.960 --> 02:50:01.120 feet. 02:50:01.120 --> 02:50:05.620 The applicant is seeking an alternative buffer, which is allowed by our code to be approved 02:50:05.620 --> 02:50:08.800 by the director if it meets or exceeds the requirements. 02:50:08.800 --> 02:50:13.840 And what they would propose is at least a six foot high opaque fence with trees along 02:50:13.840 --> 02:50:15.320 that. 02:50:15.320 --> 02:50:19.880 So that is something that unless you all choose to weigh in and provide some specific guidelines 02:50:19.880 --> 02:50:24.480 there, the director could look at approving that with their full site plan submittal. 02:50:24.480 --> 02:50:27.520 Internal to the site, you'll see numerous trees reflected on the plan. 02:50:27.520 --> 02:50:31.200 They have expressed an intent to meet all of the requirements for parking lot landscaping 02:50:31.200 --> 02:50:34.560 and street trees even along their internal streets. 02:50:34.560 --> 02:50:38.600 And then they've also indicated that intent to provide open space per our code that could 02:50:38.600 --> 02:50:44.640 include things such as picnic areas, grills, or sports facilities in a dog park. 02:50:44.640 --> 02:50:46.440 These are some sample building elevations. 02:50:46.440 --> 02:50:49.720 There were numerous provided that were included in your backup, so I just picked a couple 02:50:49.720 --> 02:50:50.720 of those examples. 02:50:50.720 --> 02:50:55.560 But you can see generally a neutral color palette, earth tones and gray tones with masonry 02:50:55.560 --> 02:50:59.800 materials that would include hardy board and stucco. 02:50:59.800 --> 02:51:02.880 Again just another example. 02:51:02.880 --> 02:51:06.440 So part of our additional analysis here was looking at our future land use map. 02:51:06.440 --> 02:51:09.760 So this area is designated for business innovation. 02:51:09.760 --> 02:51:14.400 And you can see on the map here that the business innovation area is primarily located on the 02:51:14.400 --> 02:51:19.200 west side of I-35, but it does kind of transition over the highway. 02:51:19.200 --> 02:51:24.360 And then you very quickly get into low intensity residential development there. 02:51:24.360 --> 02:51:28.840 So this site is kind of located in that transitional zone where we would look to see perhaps not 02:51:28.840 --> 02:51:32.640 the employment center districts that would fit well within there, but some of the transitional 02:51:32.640 --> 02:51:35.800 districts such as our regional and neighborhood mixed use districts. 02:51:35.800 --> 02:51:39.720 So NRMU fits comfortably in there and provides that transition where we could have offices 02:51:39.720 --> 02:51:44.840 or higher density residential that would transition from industrial uses and office complexes 02:51:44.840 --> 02:51:46.640 into single family. 02:51:46.640 --> 02:51:50.680 So this proposal would fit well within that. 02:51:50.680 --> 02:51:55.600 Some additional analysis, we did consider that this site doesn't directly join single 02:51:55.600 --> 02:51:59.920 family, so there would be not only their required landscape buffer, but also still this vacant 02:51:59.920 --> 02:52:04.040 property left in between them in the nearest single family homes, but the applicant is 02:52:04.040 --> 02:52:07.760 proposing to meet our buffering requirements there. 02:52:07.760 --> 02:52:12.080 The multi-family use would be unlikely to generate any substantial nuisances in terms 02:52:12.080 --> 02:52:16.680 of odor, fumes, noise and glare, and they are proposing to provide adequate parking 02:52:16.680 --> 02:52:21.200 and access to the site to alleviate any traffic concerns there. 02:52:21.200 --> 02:52:27.720 And the scale of development is also well within the parameters of NRMU. 02:52:27.720 --> 02:52:30.960 Notification was published regarding this request as well as sent to adjoining property 02:52:30.960 --> 02:52:31.960 owners. 02:52:31.960 --> 02:52:34.560 I've received no written opposition to date. 02:52:34.560 --> 02:52:38.160 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting in September and had approximately 20 people 02:52:38.160 --> 02:52:45.000 in attendance at that time, and that full list of attendees was provided in your backup. 02:52:45.000 --> 02:52:49.800 So as part of the ordinance for this SUP, staff is choosing to memorialize what was 02:52:49.800 --> 02:52:52.480 reflected on the site plan. 02:52:52.480 --> 02:52:57.720 So staff is enumerating the details of the site plan and also indicating with that that 02:52:57.720 --> 02:53:02.160 we would request the ability to approve increases or decreases to any of these numbers of less 02:53:02.160 --> 02:53:04.160 than or equal to 5%. 02:53:04.160 --> 02:53:09.080 So those numbers and details would include that the multi-family be limited to a maximum 02:53:09.080 --> 02:53:14.560 of 17 out of the total 31 acres on site, that it would be limited to the 16 buildings as 02:53:14.560 --> 02:53:22.840 indicated with a footprint at around 112 square feet, or 112,000 square feet, my apologies, 02:53:22.840 --> 02:53:29.400 that their 336 parking spaces be provided as specified, or I'm sorry, 336 dwelling units, 02:53:29.400 --> 02:53:32.320 density of 20.5 dwelling units per acre. 02:53:32.320 --> 02:53:37.600 With that 629 parking spaces, which would meet our code's requirement, they do specify 02:53:37.600 --> 02:53:39.480 632, as I mentioned. 02:53:39.480 --> 02:53:42.760 The difference there are not provided impervious as you'd be used to seeing because they're 02:53:42.760 --> 02:53:45.240 within garage spaces. 02:53:45.240 --> 02:53:50.360 The site plan also reflects 49% lot coverage, 51% landscape area that we would memorialize 02:53:50.360 --> 02:53:55.320 here, that does include the required type D buffer to the industrial use adjoining the 02:53:55.320 --> 02:53:56.320 site. 02:53:56.320 --> 02:53:59.640 And as I indicated, we would request that the director be able to consider and approve 02:53:59.640 --> 02:54:03.280 alternative buffers that meet the code requirements. 02:54:03.280 --> 02:54:07.760 And then finally, because those building elevations were kind of conceptual and just ideas of what 02:54:07.760 --> 02:54:11.560 they might like to do on site, rather than holding them specifically to that, we request 02:54:11.560 --> 02:54:15.760 that they be allowed to just meet the general facades that were provided there in terms 02:54:15.760 --> 02:54:20.780 of color palette being earth and gray tone, and then the materials being similar to what's 02:54:20.780 --> 02:54:25.560 provided with the stucco and hardy board materials. 02:54:25.560 --> 02:54:30.640 So with that, along with those requirements, staff does have four recommended conditions 02:54:30.640 --> 02:54:31.640 with our approval. 02:54:31.640 --> 02:54:35.960 The first being that the City Council recognize that driveway access locations from state 02:54:35.960 --> 02:54:40.760 highways must be approved by TxDOT, that alternative location or that alterations in 02:54:40.760 --> 02:54:45.920 the configuration of I-35 are currently under planning as they look at expanding the highway. 02:54:45.920 --> 02:54:50.640 So any driveway access locations from northbound I-35 frontage road which must be altered in 02:54:50.640 --> 02:54:55.100 response to those changing TxDOT requirements throughout the permitting process could be 02:54:55.100 --> 02:54:59.240 approved administratively by staff, provided that the alterations comply with the DDC, 02:54:59.240 --> 02:55:04.120 our criteria manuals, and that the site plan elements be satisfied. 02:55:04.120 --> 02:55:08.040 Second condition would be that landscaping in the attached plan reflects an intent to 02:55:08.040 --> 02:55:12.920 comply with all DDC requirements for parking street trees, minimum landscape areas, and 02:55:12.920 --> 02:55:17.520 compatibility buffers, with allowing for the administrative approval of that alternative 02:55:17.520 --> 02:55:19.480 type D buffer. 02:55:19.480 --> 02:55:23.340 Minor alterations to the locations of the individual planting shown on that plan could 02:55:23.340 --> 02:55:27.560 be approved by staff, provided that final landscaping complies with the site plan in 02:55:27.560 --> 02:55:31.840 terms of all of the buffer and open space locations. 02:55:31.840 --> 02:55:34.740 Third is in reference to the gas well agreement that I mentioned earlier. 02:55:34.740 --> 02:55:39.200 So that agreement that was entered into and executed by both parties that sets forth these 02:55:39.200 --> 02:55:44.640 250 foot reverse setbacks as shown must be filed in the records of Denton County prior 02:55:44.640 --> 02:55:48.520 to approval of a plat for the subject property, and a note on the plat shall reference this 02:55:48.520 --> 02:55:51.480 agreement and the setbacks as shown. 02:55:51.480 --> 02:55:55.480 And then finally, notwithstanding the limited administrative approval we requested in these 02:55:55.480 --> 02:55:59.360 conditions that the city would reserve the right to require approval by ordinance of 02:55:59.360 --> 02:56:02.560 any amendments to the SUP or the plans. 02:56:02.560 --> 02:56:05.400 And with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions. 02:56:05.400 --> 02:56:06.780 Commissioner back. 02:56:06.780 --> 02:56:11.400 Thank you, Chair, just if you know, and if not, maybe the developer tell me what is the 02:56:11.400 --> 02:56:15.960 current setback distance now for that northern most well number one I think it is from the 02:56:15.960 --> 02:56:22.360 proposed protected use building that will come into play. 02:56:22.360 --> 02:56:27.640 I don't have the exact number handy, I believe, Mr. Allison would have that I want to say 02:56:27.640 --> 02:56:34.360 it's in the ballpark of 300 to 350 feet, okay, okay, all right, get him to confirm that. 02:56:34.360 --> 02:56:35.360 Yeah, certainly. 02:56:35.360 --> 02:56:36.360 Thanks. 02:56:36.360 --> 02:56:37.360 Commissioner Burnetto. 02:56:37.360 --> 02:56:46.360 Yeah, so with regard to hang number two, you know, I see the 250 foot, you know, radius 02:56:46.360 --> 02:56:56.560 and, you know, per code, we have no habitable structures there. 02:56:56.560 --> 02:57:02.160 I guess the question is, I see the note in there that there's no parking improvements 02:57:02.160 --> 02:57:09.440 or other flat work that were allowed in that per the well owner, is that correct? 02:57:09.440 --> 02:57:10.440 Correct. 02:57:10.440 --> 02:57:14.840 For the southern site, because the operator is very constrained there with the existing 02:57:14.840 --> 02:57:19.880 single family homes on one side, they negotiated with the developer to allow them more space 02:57:19.880 --> 02:57:24.000 if and when they may need to get in there and do workovers, so they requested that nothing 02:57:24.000 --> 02:57:27.160 be within that 250 foot buffer on the southern well. 02:57:27.160 --> 02:57:31.760 And that would be to accommodate future construction work, blah, blah, blah. 02:57:31.760 --> 02:57:35.320 To my knowledge, they have no plans of ever expanding that site, it'd be very unlikely 02:57:35.320 --> 02:57:39.520 that they'd ever be able to, so that would just be for workovers or something similar 02:57:39.520 --> 02:57:40.520 on the existing well. 02:57:40.520 --> 02:57:41.520 All right, thank you. 02:57:41.520 --> 02:57:42.520 Commissioner Smith. 02:57:42.520 --> 02:57:43.520 Thank you, Chair. 02:57:43.520 --> 02:57:51.080 That will continue on whenever they come back for the commercial uses, whatever that is, 02:57:51.080 --> 02:57:55.920 a couple years, that 250 buffer will dip down on there, and so the exact same thing will 02:57:55.920 --> 02:57:56.920 be there. 02:57:56.920 --> 02:58:00.240 Then they won't be able to use commercial uses in that same section as well, Haley? 02:58:00.240 --> 02:58:05.160 I don't believe their agreement at this time speaks to the future commercial development. 02:58:05.160 --> 02:58:09.240 It would depend on the use, rather, or the city code would require that 250 foot reverse 02:58:09.240 --> 02:58:10.520 setback. 02:58:10.520 --> 02:58:14.760 That's typically only to things such as residential uses, schools, public parks. 02:58:14.760 --> 02:58:17.600 So the commercial can go all the way into the 250. 02:58:17.600 --> 02:58:18.600 Our code would allow it. 02:58:18.600 --> 02:58:23.440 Now, I'm not sure if there may be some future negotiation with the operator to allow that 02:58:23.440 --> 02:58:25.800 continued empty space around their well site. 02:58:25.800 --> 02:58:30.600 When you say nothing, does that mean it's also going to block off access to that area? 02:58:30.600 --> 02:58:38.920 If it's a green space, do citizens still have the ability to go there if they're staying 02:58:38.920 --> 02:58:40.640 there, residents? 02:58:40.640 --> 02:58:44.240 It's my understanding that they wanted no additional landscaping in that area, no fencing 02:58:44.240 --> 02:58:48.060 or anything of that nature that would restrict them being able to move equipment in and out 02:58:48.060 --> 02:58:49.060 in that area. 02:58:49.060 --> 02:58:52.140 So it wouldn't restrict anybody from going in, but also wouldn't restrict anybody from 02:58:52.140 --> 02:58:53.140 going out there. 02:58:53.140 --> 02:58:54.140 Correct. 02:58:54.140 --> 02:58:56.040 Yeah, it would just be kind of a vacant green space. 02:58:56.040 --> 02:58:57.040 Be there. 02:58:57.040 --> 02:58:58.040 Yeah. 02:58:58.040 --> 02:58:59.040 Thank you. 02:58:59.040 --> 02:59:00.040 Mr. Beck? 02:59:00.040 --> 02:59:01.040 Thank you, Chair. 02:59:01.040 --> 02:59:02.040 I think you answered that. 02:59:02.040 --> 02:59:07.480 So that tight D buffer won't come down into that little stretch right there, is that correct? 02:59:07.480 --> 02:59:08.680 And I'll let Lee verify. 02:59:08.680 --> 02:59:10.160 I don't believe it will. 02:59:10.160 --> 02:59:14.680 This plan reflects that, but I think the agreement was that there be no trees or additional landscaping 02:59:14.680 --> 02:59:15.680 in there. 02:59:15.680 --> 02:59:16.680 Okay. 02:59:16.680 --> 02:59:17.680 Thanks. 02:59:17.680 --> 02:59:18.680 Any other questions? 02:59:18.680 --> 02:59:19.680 Yep. 02:59:19.680 --> 02:59:20.680 Commissioner Smith? 02:59:20.680 --> 02:59:21.680 Thank you, Chair. 02:59:21.680 --> 02:59:26.960 The tight D buffer, it's just shrubs, it's not walls, nothing else like that? 02:59:26.960 --> 02:59:31.320 What they've proposed is a six-foot opaque fence of some sort as well as trees. 02:59:31.320 --> 02:59:34.120 What does that mean by, like a brick? 02:59:34.120 --> 02:59:36.160 It could be wood masonry or something like that. 02:59:36.160 --> 02:59:37.160 I'm slow. 02:59:37.160 --> 02:59:38.640 It's in late. 02:59:38.640 --> 02:59:43.880 Haley, I do not see any other questions for you. 02:59:43.880 --> 02:59:47.000 Thank you for your presentation. 02:59:47.000 --> 02:59:48.160 This is a public hearing. 02:59:48.160 --> 02:59:51.720 I believe I opened it. 02:59:51.720 --> 02:59:55.160 So anyone who wishes to speak on this item may certainly do so, but at this time, I'll 02:59:55.160 --> 03:00:01.020 invite Lee Allison for presentation. 03:00:01.020 --> 03:00:04.960 And Lee, you have another speaker here, so are you wanting your 20 minutes? 03:00:04.960 --> 03:00:11.240 I hope not, but let's don't negotiate that one tonight. 03:00:11.240 --> 03:00:13.280 The floor is yours. 03:00:13.280 --> 03:00:14.280 I'll try and go quickly. 03:00:14.280 --> 03:00:15.280 Good evening. 03:00:15.280 --> 03:00:20.160 I'm Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group, 2415 North Elm Street, Denton, Texas, with 03:00:20.160 --> 03:00:24.040 me this evening is a developer, Tom Neary. 03:00:24.040 --> 03:00:27.560 I'll go through some of this quickly. 03:00:27.560 --> 03:00:33.800 The purpose of a specific use permit is to demonstrate that the DDC is being observed, 03:00:33.800 --> 03:00:37.240 and that's where we developed this concept plan, was under those kind of conditions and 03:00:37.240 --> 03:00:39.280 that thought. 03:00:39.280 --> 03:00:43.520 And it's to coordinate with neighbors regarding concerns or issues so the possibility of maybe 03:00:43.520 --> 03:00:47.640 adding some restrictions based upon what they came up with and our interest in working with 03:00:47.640 --> 03:00:49.760 them and negotiating. 03:00:49.760 --> 03:00:53.600 We developed it under that intention. 03:00:53.600 --> 03:00:58.360 When we first submitted this, it was supposed to come to P&Z in September, however, I did 03:00:58.360 --> 03:01:04.600 not get the signs out on time, so we had to continue it for a little while. 03:01:04.600 --> 03:01:06.560 That's all my fault. 03:01:06.560 --> 03:01:10.800 Then we came back, and the eve before, we had been working on this agreement with the 03:01:10.800 --> 03:01:15.760 Gaswell operator, and then it was determined instead of being a plat on plat issue, it 03:01:15.760 --> 03:01:19.800 was going to be a plat on zoning issue, and we had to have that agreement signed before 03:01:19.800 --> 03:01:24.760 we could go forward with the zoning, even though we were negotiating it at the time, 03:01:24.760 --> 03:01:28.000 instead of bringing forward platting, which we normally would do. 03:01:28.000 --> 03:01:33.960 So it got continued again, this time to a time uncertain, and that allowed for a re-notification, 03:01:33.960 --> 03:01:35.300 which was fine. 03:01:35.300 --> 03:01:40.040 And then last Wednesday we found out, instead of just simply demonstrating that the DDC is 03:01:40.040 --> 03:01:44.920 being observed, there was going to be limitations put upon us based upon the site plan. 03:01:44.920 --> 03:01:49.400 If we had known that, we had done the site plan a little bit different, but we did work 03:01:49.400 --> 03:01:53.640 that with the neighbors, we presented it to the neighborhood meeting in this way, and 03:01:53.640 --> 03:01:58.480 we are going to propose an applicant recommendation. 03:01:58.480 --> 03:02:05.520 The staff had presented six items to be added to it as far as limitations. 03:02:05.520 --> 03:02:10.280 We are going to ask instead of a maximum of 16 buildings as we have shown with a 5% plus 03:02:10.280 --> 03:02:13.840 or minus, we have a maximum of 20 buildings. 03:02:13.840 --> 03:02:18.400 We are also going to ask that we have a maximum density of 24 units per acre. 03:02:18.400 --> 03:02:22.320 We're showing around 20, the code allows 30. 03:02:22.320 --> 03:02:26.720 We certainly realize there needs to be some limitation on what we do here based on our 03:02:26.720 --> 03:02:28.240 meetings with the neighbors. 03:02:28.240 --> 03:02:32.160 We're also asking that the parking shall meet the code, garage spacious will count toward 03:02:32.160 --> 03:02:35.640 about provided as normally required. 03:02:35.640 --> 03:02:42.800 The maximum block coverage of 65%, we're at 50%, 49, 50% right now, the code allows 80. 03:02:42.800 --> 03:02:46.960 We'd like to just set it at 65, give us some flexibility as we work through all the design 03:02:46.960 --> 03:02:49.200 issues and possibilities. 03:02:49.200 --> 03:02:55.200 A minimum landscape area of 35% inclusive of landscape recreational amenities. 03:02:55.200 --> 03:03:00.320 A basketball court may be concrete, but instead of being grass, we want that to count towards 03:03:00.320 --> 03:03:04.680 the landscaping requirement, not towards a paving requirement. 03:03:04.680 --> 03:03:08.200 Building elevation shall reasonably conform to the examples and shall comply with the 03:03:08.200 --> 03:03:14.080 DDC, essentially the same thing as what staff had recommended there, and that no change 03:03:14.080 --> 03:03:17.920 to the recommended conditions, there were four or five conditions that were put on this 03:03:17.920 --> 03:03:24.560 as well as the staff limitations on density and other things. 03:03:24.560 --> 03:03:34.800 As far as the neighbors, adjacent residential developments are there, they're a little bit 03:03:34.800 --> 03:03:39.720 away from us, there's some separation, there's some vacant property around us, Interstate 03:03:39.720 --> 03:03:44.320 35, gas well site, platted gas well. 03:03:44.320 --> 03:03:50.520 Neighborhood concerns, completion of Windsor Drive, that was discussed during the workshop. 03:03:50.520 --> 03:03:55.520 Basically we have responsibilities for that portion of Windsor Drive adjacent to our site. 03:03:55.520 --> 03:04:03.360 I do not anticipate that area not being constructed by us and doing roadway impact fees, but there's 03:04:03.360 --> 03:04:07.440 a little piece right next to us that needs to be filled in and there's another section 03:04:07.440 --> 03:04:08.680 over the way. 03:04:08.680 --> 03:04:12.200 We have expressed with the neighborhood, we would present that to the city, we'll work 03:04:12.200 --> 03:04:17.120 with the city staff, if we can design it as we go along and of course get it built at 03:04:17.120 --> 03:04:22.200 the same time in cooperation with the city, we would be more glad to do that. 03:04:22.200 --> 03:04:26.200 There's some drainage behind the lots on the west end of the West Glen addition. 03:04:26.200 --> 03:04:30.040 Of course we'll be looking at that all over again, that drainage was done by subdivision 03:04:30.040 --> 03:04:32.680 to the south and extended through there. 03:04:32.680 --> 03:04:34.040 Here's the Windsor Drive concerns. 03:04:34.040 --> 03:04:38.760 The red is what we're going to build, the yellow is in front of the gas well access, 03:04:38.760 --> 03:04:41.760 we think it would be good to go ahead and fill that in, at least connect this all the 03:04:41.760 --> 03:04:46.120 way through, and if it could be worked out to connect that so you would have the divided 03:04:46.120 --> 03:04:50.720 four lanes all the way from Bonnie Bray to 35. 03:04:50.720 --> 03:04:54.400 We're in favor of it, but that's not all under our control. 03:04:54.400 --> 03:04:59.040 Oops, anyway, I already said that. 03:04:59.040 --> 03:05:03.560 Gas well operator concerns, reverse setbacks. 03:05:03.560 --> 03:05:08.560 Future well development, the gas well operator would like to revise the wells on number two, 03:05:08.560 --> 03:05:12.960 number one, gas well number one, they might abandon it in the future, but it's still there 03:05:12.960 --> 03:05:16.120 for the time being. 03:05:16.120 --> 03:05:19.000 We get reverse setbacks, pain number one is to the north. 03:05:19.000 --> 03:05:23.040 It's existing 333 feet to the property line. 03:05:23.040 --> 03:05:30.360 Our building's another 100 feet behind that, so we're 433 feet today from the current pain 03:05:30.360 --> 03:05:33.200 number one to the buildings. 03:05:33.200 --> 03:05:35.880 That was the question I believe you asked earlier. 03:05:35.880 --> 03:05:39.720 There it is, 433 feet to the habitable structure. 03:05:39.720 --> 03:05:44.600 Pain number two to the south, it's existing 110 feet to the property line. 03:05:44.600 --> 03:05:52.960 We propose 250 feet to the multifamily property, 300 feet to habitable structures, and also 03:05:52.960 --> 03:05:57.600 within that pain number two as mentioned, we're agreeing to do absolutely nothing. 03:05:57.600 --> 03:06:01.600 It does apply to the commercial property as well as the multifamily. 03:06:01.600 --> 03:06:05.880 There's no way, according to that agreement, that any improvements can be done. 03:06:05.880 --> 03:06:09.240 We are hoping that someday they'll abandon that well. 03:06:09.240 --> 03:06:14.240 Another reason for that is not just for their equipment to get in for working or whatever, 03:06:14.240 --> 03:06:16.080 it's for emergency vehicles. 03:06:16.080 --> 03:06:19.840 Many of you may be aware of the fire that was there in the past. 03:06:19.840 --> 03:06:23.960 You want to be able to get in there and get around the well and work on it or do whatever 03:06:23.960 --> 03:06:26.520 is needed with emergency vehicles. 03:06:26.520 --> 03:06:30.720 Future well development, again, pain number one to the north. 03:06:30.720 --> 03:06:38.600 We've agreed not to oppose a 250 foot reverse setback, so when they come in for an application 03:06:38.600 --> 03:06:42.680 to revise their gas well plat, we're not going to oppose it. 03:06:42.680 --> 03:06:44.160 We're not pre-approving anything. 03:06:44.160 --> 03:06:46.320 P&Z is not pre-improving anything. 03:06:46.320 --> 03:06:48.360 City Council is not pre-approving. 03:06:48.360 --> 03:06:50.440 They have to go through the process. 03:06:50.440 --> 03:06:55.680 They have an existing gas well plat that has very specific gas well locations on it, and 03:06:55.680 --> 03:06:59.200 they're going to have to come back to P&Z and City Council to get those adjusted if 03:06:59.200 --> 03:07:04.920 they want to revise their pads as they've indicated to us they wanted to. 03:07:04.920 --> 03:07:11.440 Pain number two to the south, no improvements within the 250 feet area needed for possible 03:07:11.440 --> 03:07:13.160 emergency vehicles. 03:07:13.160 --> 03:07:18.240 On this slide, as was pointed out earlier, you can see the existing pad site. 03:07:18.240 --> 03:07:19.800 There's their future pad site. 03:07:19.800 --> 03:07:26.160 There's the 250 from the future, and there's their pain number two and the 250 from it. 03:07:26.160 --> 03:07:33.160 That's where the property line is that we're 333 feet away from the existing well. 03:07:33.160 --> 03:07:34.840 That's the existing pad site line. 03:07:34.840 --> 03:07:36.860 There's the 333. 03:07:36.860 --> 03:07:39.980 There's the proposed reverse setback lines. 03:07:39.980 --> 03:07:42.840 There's the 433 feet. 03:07:42.840 --> 03:07:47.680 There's the future pad site line, and there's the 250 feet that we've agreed to be from, 03:07:47.680 --> 03:07:50.520 assuming they are awarded the future pad site line. 03:07:50.520 --> 03:07:52.720 We don't know they're going to get it. 03:07:52.720 --> 03:07:56.120 And there's the existing pad site, and there's the 250 feet. 03:07:56.120 --> 03:07:58.920 100 feet there. 03:07:58.920 --> 03:08:04.240 Then landscape considerations, type B buffers required next to an industrial site. 03:08:04.240 --> 03:08:09.040 However, we're not the offending party, but as the offended party, we get the burden of 03:08:09.040 --> 03:08:12.200 giving our land and building the landscape buffer. 03:08:12.200 --> 03:08:17.320 So that's why we're asking for some director alternative buffer approval in there. 03:08:17.320 --> 03:08:21.360 Putting in an opaque fence with a type D does not require. 03:08:21.360 --> 03:08:25.720 So why do we want to put shrubs on our side of the fence to protect us from the view from 03:08:25.720 --> 03:08:26.720 the gas well? 03:08:26.720 --> 03:08:29.400 Anyway, we just need a little relief there. 03:08:29.400 --> 03:08:31.800 The gas well is the intense use. 03:08:31.800 --> 03:08:35.240 Buffers should be optional for the less intense use. 03:08:35.240 --> 03:08:37.480 Landscape proposal required. 03:08:37.480 --> 03:08:40.760 Type D, we want to modify it, as mentioned earlier. 03:08:40.760 --> 03:08:43.320 We want one tree per 40 linear feet. 03:08:43.320 --> 03:08:45.520 We're proposing one per 40. 03:08:45.520 --> 03:08:47.640 20 shrubs, no shrubs. 03:08:47.640 --> 03:08:51.960 We're putting up an opaque fence, so why do we need to put shrubs there? 03:08:51.960 --> 03:08:55.360 As far as the requirement, doesn't mean we won't put any, but we don't want to be required 03:08:55.360 --> 03:08:56.360 to. 03:08:56.360 --> 03:09:01.400 A 30-foot buffer, we're giving a 30-foot buffer, but on the south end it narrows down 03:09:01.400 --> 03:09:05.000 some just because of some encroachment restraints. 03:09:05.000 --> 03:09:06.000 No fence. 03:09:06.000 --> 03:09:09.800 We're putting up a wooden fence with metal post. 03:09:09.800 --> 03:09:13.640 Continued requires 40% canopy. 03:09:13.640 --> 03:09:19.840 We're asking that 100% of the canopy in that buffer be counted towards our site canopy. 03:09:19.840 --> 03:09:25.080 Since we're putting up a buffer, we're having to put one up to protect ourselves from somebody 03:09:25.080 --> 03:09:29.400 who should be putting up a buffer to protect us. 03:09:29.400 --> 03:09:32.960 So buffer, we go back to the site plan. 03:09:32.960 --> 03:09:39.240 We got our 30-foot buffer, then we still got that 70 feet of parking lot with parking lot 03:09:39.240 --> 03:09:42.360 trees and street trees before we get to the buildings. 03:09:42.360 --> 03:09:47.160 We've already got a bunch of buffer there in addition to the 30-foot that's being provided. 03:09:47.160 --> 03:09:52.440 Not only that, we feel like we are a buffer to the neighbors from the higher intensity 03:09:52.440 --> 03:09:55.120 that could go on the commercial property. 03:09:55.120 --> 03:09:59.840 Another one of the anomalies of the current code is here we are asking for an SUP for 03:09:59.840 --> 03:10:04.160 apartments in the zoning district that allows us to put hotels up by right. 03:10:04.160 --> 03:10:06.400 We don't have to come here for hotels. 03:10:06.400 --> 03:10:10.920 That normally doesn't come into play, but with this location and the changes to 35, 03:10:10.920 --> 03:10:16.200 we're already getting inquiries from hotel companies that want to put up in there. 03:10:16.200 --> 03:10:22.160 Additional buffer street trees, administrative, we're asking for the director's approval. 03:10:22.160 --> 03:10:29.520 You can kind of see here, there's the opaque fence, multi-use open space, 25% plus landscape 03:10:29.520 --> 03:10:32.760 area, 340 total trees shown. 03:10:32.760 --> 03:10:36.400 We actually tried to show the number of trees, if we do 3-inch diameter trees, we're going 03:10:36.400 --> 03:10:38.880 to have to plant on this site. 03:10:38.880 --> 03:10:41.640 We're actually concerned if we can grow grass under them. 03:10:41.640 --> 03:10:48.760 226 large trees, 116 medium trees, and 105 buffer trees that only counted 40% of our 03:10:48.760 --> 03:10:50.720 canopy cover. 03:10:50.720 --> 03:10:56.000 IPD buffers due to the gas well industrial use, we're having to protect ourselves from 03:10:56.000 --> 03:10:58.800 them instead of them providing a buffer for us. 03:10:58.800 --> 03:11:02.640 We are asking for that alternate landscape buffer, but only on the side between us and 03:11:02.640 --> 03:11:04.800 the wells, not in the other areas. 03:11:04.800 --> 03:11:10.080 Gas wells, the offender, parking lot trees, et cetera, provide additional buffer and requires 03:11:10.080 --> 03:11:12.400 director's approval. 03:11:12.400 --> 03:11:13.560 This is the entry road. 03:11:13.560 --> 03:11:19.240 The black line is the road from the frontage road over to the wells. 03:11:19.240 --> 03:11:23.720 We're looking at getting rid of this piece, hopefully get all that built, and then their 03:11:23.720 --> 03:11:29.400 entry would be at this point, so that would -- right now, their existing gas well enters 03:11:29.400 --> 03:11:35.560 right in the middle of where that future part of Windsor needs to go. 03:11:35.560 --> 03:11:41.640 This is what I presented earlier in summary of what our recommendations are, and I'm available 03:11:41.640 --> 03:11:42.640 for questions. 03:11:42.640 --> 03:11:46.080 Sorry for the length of time, but appreciate your indulgence. 03:11:46.080 --> 03:11:47.080 >> Super helpful. 03:11:47.080 --> 03:11:49.520 >> Thank you, Chair. 03:11:49.520 --> 03:11:54.520 Can you go back, Lee, to your recommendations for a second? 03:11:54.520 --> 03:11:56.560 So staff recommendation was 16. 03:11:56.560 --> 03:11:58.840 You want a max of 16 buildings. 03:11:58.840 --> 03:11:59.840 You want a max of 20. 03:11:59.840 --> 03:12:03.880 I'm just restating it just for the record to make sure everyone is clear. 03:12:03.880 --> 03:12:07.240 Staff recommendation was 20.488 units per acre. 03:12:07.240 --> 03:12:11.440 You're requesting 24 units per acre. 03:12:11.440 --> 03:12:16.840 Question about the garages was that I could not tell from staff -- or I guess -- you want 03:12:16.840 --> 03:12:20.880 -- you want the garage spaces to count towards the total amount maximum, is what you're asking 03:12:20.880 --> 03:12:21.880 correct? 03:12:21.880 --> 03:12:22.880 >> They already do anyway. 03:12:22.880 --> 03:12:23.880 >> Yeah, that's what I thought. 03:12:23.880 --> 03:12:27.840 >> But because there was a comment like that on the staff recommendation, we put a counter 03:12:27.840 --> 03:12:28.840 comment. 03:12:28.840 --> 03:12:31.080 >> I just want to make sure you're clear. 03:12:31.080 --> 03:12:36.640 Staff right now is saying that they want max lot coverage of 49%, max landscape 51%. 03:12:36.640 --> 03:12:42.800 You're wanting 65% lot coverage, 35% landscape, and you want -- they want all recreational 03:12:42.800 --> 03:12:45.680 amenities and landscape amenities to count towards that 35%. 03:12:45.680 --> 03:12:46.680 >> Yes. 03:12:46.680 --> 03:12:48.240 >> As right now they do. 03:12:48.240 --> 03:12:50.040 So -- and then keep that. 03:12:50.040 --> 03:12:56.080 So your last statement is the no change, the recommended conditions. 03:12:56.080 --> 03:12:57.080 There is -- there is change. 03:12:57.080 --> 03:13:01.160 That's what the -- I guess that's -- >> You'd have to go -- I don't have the staff 03:13:01.160 --> 03:13:02.160 report in front of me. 03:13:02.160 --> 03:13:03.160 >> Sure. 03:13:03.160 --> 03:13:04.160 >> But there's one section. 03:13:04.160 --> 03:13:07.240 Actually on their slides -- >> I'm talking about the second section of 03:13:07.240 --> 03:13:08.240 the text dot. 03:13:08.240 --> 03:13:10.040 >> Yeah, there's conditions and recommendations. 03:13:10.040 --> 03:13:11.040 >> Okay. 03:13:11.040 --> 03:13:12.040 Gotcha. 03:13:12.040 --> 03:13:13.040 That works. 03:13:13.040 --> 03:13:14.040 Yeah. 03:13:14.040 --> 03:13:15.040 >> The staff presentation slides said site plan requirements. 03:13:15.040 --> 03:13:18.040 >> You're changing the conditions -- >> The site plan requirements. 03:13:18.040 --> 03:13:19.040 >> Okay. 03:13:19.040 --> 03:13:20.040 Understood. 03:13:20.040 --> 03:13:21.040 >> Yeah. 03:13:21.040 --> 03:13:23.080 >> These are a lot of -- a lot of big changes to what the staff recommended. 03:13:23.080 --> 03:13:26.440 Could you -- you said it quickly early in the very beginning. 03:13:26.440 --> 03:13:30.840 Could you remind me or maybe flush it out a little bit more why the big changes from 03:13:30.840 --> 03:13:35.500 what staff recommendations were, why that's needed for this project? 03:13:35.500 --> 03:13:40.920 >> Because staff had not made such recommendations until a week ago today. 03:13:40.920 --> 03:13:41.920 >> Okay. 03:13:41.920 --> 03:13:46.960 >> They were under the understanding that for an SUP, we just needed to demonstrate 03:13:46.960 --> 03:13:51.960 that we meet the zoning restrictions for that zoning category and that we've worked well 03:13:51.960 --> 03:13:56.940 with the neighbors to address their concerns, et cetera. 03:13:56.940 --> 03:14:02.040 So we had a concept plan and we showed that, hey, if we're going to meet it at 50%, you 03:14:02.040 --> 03:14:04.460 know, we'd easily meet the 80. 03:14:04.460 --> 03:14:05.840 And now we don't have any flexibility. 03:14:05.840 --> 03:14:10.840 We could probably use something a little tighter than these, but I just haven't -- if I had 03:14:10.840 --> 03:14:15.440 to come to P&Z with a concept plan before, I'd have probably pushed these limits knowing 03:14:15.440 --> 03:14:19.960 that, hey, we could easily come under them instead of bringing in a concept plan that 03:14:19.960 --> 03:14:24.200 showed closely what this current apartment builder intends to do. 03:14:24.200 --> 03:14:28.560 And we've done limitations like this on SUPs in the past in the city, so I don't think 03:14:28.560 --> 03:14:29.560 it's unusual or unprecedented. 03:14:29.560 --> 03:14:33.280 >> Just wanted to hear the thought process behind it. 03:14:33.280 --> 03:14:34.280 Last thing. 03:14:34.280 --> 03:14:38.520 >> And I didn't have time to -- I couldn't continue again because of negotiations and 03:14:38.520 --> 03:14:39.520 contracts. 03:14:39.520 --> 03:14:42.360 >> It's only a couple of times you've continued. 03:14:42.360 --> 03:14:47.280 Two or three months in that big of a deal, right? 03:14:47.280 --> 03:14:49.280 >> No, no. 03:14:49.280 --> 03:14:54.000 >> The site plan that has been shown to us in the staff presentation, to your presentation, 03:14:54.000 --> 03:15:01.160 that is at 16 buildings, that's at 20.48 units, so that site plan, the conceptual plan, I 03:15:01.160 --> 03:15:06.160 shouldn't say site plan, the conceptual plan is not conforming to your own personal recommendations 03:15:06.160 --> 03:15:07.160 as of right now. 03:15:07.160 --> 03:15:08.160 >> No. 03:15:08.160 --> 03:15:14.760 >> What staff did is we came up with a concept plan to show how we'd meet it in this current 03:15:14.760 --> 03:15:16.760 apartment developer, Wolf Corporation. 03:15:16.760 --> 03:15:18.800 That was the plan they came up with. 03:15:18.800 --> 03:15:23.440 And I think that with a plus or minus 5% they can probably live with, but this has been 03:15:23.440 --> 03:15:29.000 gone on so long, they're not obligated under contract anymore, and we needed a little flexibility 03:15:29.000 --> 03:15:31.600 to work with others if we needed to. 03:15:31.600 --> 03:15:37.120 And what staff did was took a concept plan we prepared and put limitations based on it 03:15:37.120 --> 03:15:43.160 instead of coming to us and asking us what kind of flexibility do we need to put limitations 03:15:43.160 --> 03:15:44.160 on this site. 03:15:44.160 --> 03:15:49.320 And I mean we're, again, we're looking, the code says nothing about the number of buildings, 03:15:49.320 --> 03:15:50.320 we're working at the 20. 03:15:50.320 --> 03:15:56.120 The code says 30 units break or 24 is what we're suggesting. 03:15:56.120 --> 03:16:00.920 The code says 80% coverage, we're suggesting a max of 65. 03:16:00.920 --> 03:16:05.200 We expect to have some give and take here, and we're trying to give some, but not so 03:16:05.200 --> 03:16:07.240 tightly that we can't wiggle. 03:16:07.240 --> 03:16:11.760 Can I ask Haley a question? 03:16:11.760 --> 03:16:25.160 Are these type of recommendations, is this asking a lot for the project? 03:16:25.160 --> 03:16:29.680 I won't put you on the spot, but I mean these recommendations, if we were to take the applicant's 03:16:29.680 --> 03:16:34.920 recommendations and improve it, would that be giving too much leeway to the project without 03:16:34.920 --> 03:16:38.880 really giving some parameters for someone to make sure they don't go too crazy with, 03:16:38.880 --> 03:16:43.280 someone else, some other developer in there that takes it and runs it in a direction that 03:16:43.280 --> 03:16:44.280 could be dangerous? 03:16:44.280 --> 03:16:45.280 Certainly. 03:16:45.280 --> 03:16:46.280 I would say it's not unreasonable. 03:16:46.280 --> 03:16:49.920 I mean everything he's requested is within the zoning limitation. 03:16:49.920 --> 03:16:56.000 The intent with kind of memorializing all of the concept plan details in the ordinance 03:16:56.000 --> 03:16:57.880 was originally purely for legibility purposes. 03:16:57.880 --> 03:17:01.760 I don't know if you've looked at any of our ordinances, but by the time you take a 24 03:17:01.760 --> 03:17:06.960 36 and shrink it and then duplicate it for 20 years, no one can tell what's on it. 03:17:06.960 --> 03:17:11.040 So the intent was to memorialize those details, but allow a limited amount of flexibility 03:17:11.040 --> 03:17:14.960 based on what council has been comfortable with in the past in allowing variations on 03:17:14.960 --> 03:17:20.360 a site plan, because the code does require a plan be attached to the SUP. 03:17:20.360 --> 03:17:25.560 So the intent was just to memorialize the details as presented, but then allow a little 03:17:25.560 --> 03:17:26.560 bit of wiggle room. 03:17:26.560 --> 03:17:33.320 So I wouldn't say that this is too far beyond the scope of what we could be comfortable 03:17:33.320 --> 03:17:34.320 with. 03:17:34.320 --> 03:17:36.360 There's just not a plan that supports these details at this time. 03:17:36.360 --> 03:17:40.240 And that brings up one thing, and I'm sorry, commissioners for dominating the conversation 03:17:40.240 --> 03:17:46.960 here, but I guess the only thing that's missing then from your recommendations applicant would 03:17:46.960 --> 03:17:50.760 be the facade requirements. 03:17:50.760 --> 03:17:55.280 That's one thing that I know that you wanted to memorialize was the earth tones, gray tone 03:17:55.280 --> 03:17:59.320 color palette, all those kinds of things with those. 03:17:59.320 --> 03:18:03.640 Our last bullet here, the building elevations is intended to say essentially the same thing 03:18:03.640 --> 03:18:04.640 as that. 03:18:04.640 --> 03:18:10.140 So building elevations and the facade, okay, gotcha, all right, gotcha. 03:18:10.140 --> 03:18:11.140 That's it. 03:18:11.140 --> 03:18:12.140 I'm really just a four. 03:18:12.140 --> 03:18:13.140 Christopher Beck. 03:18:13.140 --> 03:18:14.140 Okay. 03:18:14.140 --> 03:18:15.140 Thank you, chair. 03:18:15.140 --> 03:18:16.140 Lee, you're up. 03:18:16.140 --> 03:18:17.140 Okay. 03:18:17.140 --> 03:18:18.140 Thanks, Haley. 03:18:18.140 --> 03:18:23.640 You know, I agree with you that you're putting a hard spot here because of the gas wells, 03:18:23.640 --> 03:18:29.880 if I had my way and HB40 had never been passed, we would never be dealing with this, would 03:18:29.880 --> 03:18:30.880 we? 03:18:30.880 --> 03:18:31.880 But we are. 03:18:31.880 --> 03:18:33.960 You mentioned the type D buffer that you wanted to modify. 03:18:33.960 --> 03:18:44.380 Can you explain what's going to be taken away there if you get this change? 03:18:44.380 --> 03:18:47.320 This is the required type D buffer. 03:18:47.320 --> 03:18:49.000 We're wanting to modify it. 03:18:49.000 --> 03:18:51.600 We're keeping the 40 trees, one tree for 40 feet. 03:18:51.600 --> 03:18:52.600 Okay. 03:18:52.600 --> 03:18:57.440 But instead of shrubs, we're saying no shrubs. 03:18:57.440 --> 03:19:01.440 We're still staying a 30 foot buffer, but on the very south end, it does get narrower. 03:19:01.440 --> 03:19:07.480 We don't keep the full 30 feet, but we got parking lot and other things in between there. 03:19:07.480 --> 03:19:12.240 With no shrubs, there's no fences required, but we're recommending a wooden fence. 03:19:12.240 --> 03:19:16.280 That provides the visibility barrier that you would have otherwise. 03:19:16.280 --> 03:19:17.280 Okay. 03:19:17.280 --> 03:19:18.280 No opaque fence. 03:19:18.280 --> 03:19:19.280 No opaque fence. 03:19:19.280 --> 03:19:20.280 No opaque fence. 03:19:20.280 --> 03:19:29.760 Right now, in a buffer, only 40% of the trees count towards canopy, and we're talking about 03:19:29.760 --> 03:19:34.980 the type D buffer on the east side only, we're asking that 100% of the trees count towards 03:19:34.980 --> 03:19:35.980 the canopy. 03:19:35.980 --> 03:19:39.920 There's a lot of trees going on this site, and this is a buffer that we don't feel like 03:19:39.920 --> 03:19:40.920 we should, I don't. 03:19:40.920 --> 03:19:42.920 To me, it's an equity issue. 03:19:42.920 --> 03:19:49.480 Why is the offender the one required to put up a buffer against somebody that's offending 03:19:49.480 --> 03:19:50.480 them? 03:19:50.480 --> 03:19:53.720 Voluntarily, you should, but why are we being required to? 03:19:53.720 --> 03:19:55.700 We're just asking for 100%. 03:19:55.700 --> 03:20:02.280 One of the reasons is, well, I'll go to it in a minute. 03:20:02.280 --> 03:20:07.720 This is not part of the buffer, but I wanted to stress that we have a parking lot in between 03:20:07.720 --> 03:20:11.480 us and the buildings, and that parking lot has parking lot trees as well, so there'll 03:20:11.480 --> 03:20:15.000 be additional trees in there acting as a buffer. 03:20:15.000 --> 03:20:18.600 And the street trees along the street in front of the building, so between the buildings 03:20:18.600 --> 03:20:22.280 and the gas well, there's going to be a type D buffer modified. 03:20:22.280 --> 03:20:26.460 There's going to be a parking lot with parking lot trees and a private street with street 03:20:26.460 --> 03:20:27.460 trees. 03:20:27.460 --> 03:20:29.720 The private street being? 03:20:29.720 --> 03:20:34.400 Being the street that -- the access all the way around the buildings, not -- 03:20:34.400 --> 03:20:35.400 Okay. 03:20:35.400 --> 03:20:36.400 Okay. 03:20:36.400 --> 03:20:37.400 Yeah. 03:20:37.400 --> 03:20:41.240 And in order to do this, my understanding is you can't really approve it tonight, so 03:20:41.240 --> 03:20:47.400 to speak, but the director can, and one of the conditions that's on here is the director 03:20:47.400 --> 03:20:53.440 can approve this with the understanding he can't go anything less than what we proposed. 03:20:53.440 --> 03:20:56.600 We can't come back later and do a bait and switch here. 03:20:56.600 --> 03:21:00.520 Within 5%, was that what I heard? 03:21:00.520 --> 03:21:04.280 I don't think on the landscape, but I think the other things were 5%, but I don't think 03:21:04.280 --> 03:21:05.280 this was. 03:21:05.280 --> 03:21:06.280 It was just on kind of those -- 03:21:06.280 --> 03:21:07.280 Conditions. 03:21:07.280 --> 03:21:08.280 Right. 03:21:08.280 --> 03:21:09.280 Okay. 03:21:09.280 --> 03:21:13.120 So really all you're essentially changing on that type D buffer that I can see is that 03:21:13.120 --> 03:21:15.160 you're just removing the shrubs. 03:21:15.160 --> 03:21:17.640 And you're adding a fence. 03:21:17.640 --> 03:21:18.640 Yeah. 03:21:18.640 --> 03:21:19.640 Okay. 03:21:19.640 --> 03:21:20.640 Gotcha. 03:21:20.640 --> 03:21:23.500 And this gray line, dark gray, that's the private street that's going to have to have 03:21:23.500 --> 03:21:25.800 street trees along it as well. 03:21:25.800 --> 03:21:26.800 Gotcha. 03:21:26.800 --> 03:21:27.800 All right. 03:21:27.800 --> 03:21:28.800 One last question here. 03:21:28.800 --> 03:21:29.800 Sure. 03:21:29.800 --> 03:21:31.920 You mentioned -- and that's the gray area for us here. 03:21:31.920 --> 03:21:35.000 It's something I got to contend with, and I'm going to address later, too. 03:21:35.000 --> 03:21:41.800 Just the gas well issue is a downer for me, but say they don't develop those gas sites. 03:21:41.800 --> 03:21:49.000 The one on the south, pain number two, if they wound up shutting that down, do you have 03:21:49.000 --> 03:21:52.520 any plans to extend that type D buffer then, or are you just -- 03:21:52.520 --> 03:21:53.760 Well, what will happen then is -- 03:21:53.760 --> 03:21:57.400 That may be a year or two or longer from now. 03:21:57.400 --> 03:22:03.080 This area right here, which is the area you're talking about, the apartments are -- that 03:22:03.080 --> 03:22:07.200 discussion negotiation was underway while these plants were being developed. 03:22:07.200 --> 03:22:10.800 The agreement says we won't even put the landscape in here. 03:22:10.800 --> 03:22:12.760 The apartments aren't even going to buy that now. 03:22:12.760 --> 03:22:14.560 That will go away. 03:22:14.560 --> 03:22:18.440 They may expand a little bit over here, some slight variation. 03:22:18.440 --> 03:22:22.280 And what will happen is that will probably end up being commercial along with this. 03:22:22.280 --> 03:22:25.560 That well goes away, and then that becomes a developable area. 03:22:25.560 --> 03:22:26.560 Okay. 03:22:26.560 --> 03:22:27.560 All right. 03:22:27.560 --> 03:22:28.560 Thank you, sir. 03:22:28.560 --> 03:22:35.680 If I could jump in here and just get clarification on the specific ask of what the applicant 03:22:35.680 --> 03:22:37.560 recommendation is that might be helpful. 03:22:37.560 --> 03:22:42.280 On the staff recommendation condition one, you're not wanting to change the maximum 03:22:42.280 --> 03:22:43.720 of 17 acres to the 33. 03:22:43.720 --> 03:22:44.720 Correct. 03:22:44.720 --> 03:22:45.720 Okay. 03:22:45.720 --> 03:22:46.800 So one, we're good. 03:22:46.800 --> 03:22:50.320 Item two, you're wanting to change the 16 to a 20. 03:22:50.320 --> 03:22:51.320 Basically yes. 03:22:51.320 --> 03:22:55.440 Item three, change the total number of dwelling units that essentially would allow for a maximum 03:22:55.440 --> 03:22:58.480 of 24, not 20 and a half. 03:22:58.480 --> 03:23:00.160 The density yes. 03:23:00.160 --> 03:23:02.280 Number four, the parking you're okay with. 03:23:02.280 --> 03:23:03.280 Yes. 03:23:03.280 --> 03:23:07.760 Number five, you want to change the percent to 65.35, not 49.51. 03:23:07.760 --> 03:23:08.760 Correct. 03:23:08.760 --> 03:23:10.560 And number six, you're okay with. 03:23:10.560 --> 03:23:11.560 Yes. 03:23:11.560 --> 03:23:17.560 So we're changing three of these in essence of the conditions plus the type D amendments 03:23:17.560 --> 03:23:18.560 to the buffer. 03:23:18.560 --> 03:23:20.760 Those are the requests of the applicant. 03:23:20.760 --> 03:23:22.400 The type D already in there. 03:23:22.400 --> 03:23:27.040 So the type D amendments to the buffer are already in the, it's under the conditions 03:23:27.040 --> 03:23:29.800 that follow that set, if I remember correctly. 03:23:29.800 --> 03:23:38.160 Well the type, I think the question is the 100% of the landscape trees being counted. 03:23:38.160 --> 03:23:43.760 That's something in addition that you were coming tonight with, correct? 03:23:43.760 --> 03:23:44.760 I'm not sure. 03:23:44.760 --> 03:23:47.320 I thought that was in our request for an alternate landscape buffer. 03:23:47.320 --> 03:23:48.320 Okay. 03:23:48.320 --> 03:23:49.320 Maybe we can get that verified. 03:23:49.320 --> 03:23:50.320 Maybe we can clarify that. 03:23:50.320 --> 03:23:56.920 I guess my position is, of the three requests the applicant's making, maybe this is for 03:23:56.920 --> 03:24:01.720 discussion, it doesn't seem like a massive ask, especially when you consider that there's 03:24:01.720 --> 03:24:08.440 a 5% discretion to go up anyways, but I think it's good to clarify exactly what you're asking 03:24:08.440 --> 03:24:09.440 for. 03:24:09.440 --> 03:24:11.220 That's helpful. 03:24:11.220 --> 03:24:16.920 From the sidebar discussions here, I would like to get clarification from the city about 03:24:16.920 --> 03:24:23.800 using 100% of the trees in the landscape buffer towards the canopy requirement. 03:24:23.800 --> 03:24:25.480 Is that permissible? 03:24:25.480 --> 03:24:34.660 Or is that even a change to what's being asked in this? 03:24:34.660 --> 03:24:37.340 That is not enumerated in the language of our recommendation. 03:24:37.340 --> 03:24:41.720 It is reflected on Lee's concept plan. 03:24:41.720 --> 03:24:47.180 I think the question that I would have that we may need to discuss more is rather that 03:24:47.180 --> 03:24:50.680 is permissible as part of an alternative buffer. 03:24:50.680 --> 03:24:54.800 I'm not sure that's within the range of what staff or what the director can approve as 03:24:54.800 --> 03:24:56.440 an alternative in the DDC. 03:24:56.440 --> 03:25:01.400 That's not on the agenda tonight, is it, an alternative buffer design? 03:25:01.400 --> 03:25:05.720 No, the intent was that that would be approvable by the director at a later time with the site 03:25:05.720 --> 03:25:06.720 plan. 03:25:06.720 --> 03:25:07.720 Perfect. 03:25:07.720 --> 03:25:08.720 But I'm not sure that... 03:25:08.720 --> 03:25:10.720 This is not an issue for the commission. 03:25:10.720 --> 03:25:15.180 So the ADP that's being proposed that Commissioner Beck just walked through, that's not relevant 03:25:15.180 --> 03:25:19.320 to the case as is tonight, that will go to the city director for a decision. 03:25:19.320 --> 03:25:20.800 Am I understanding that correctly? 03:25:20.800 --> 03:25:21.800 Correct. 03:25:21.800 --> 03:25:25.840 That the buffer is permitted within the DDC to be approved by the director as part of 03:25:25.840 --> 03:25:26.840 the site plan. 03:25:26.840 --> 03:25:27.840 Perfect. 03:25:27.840 --> 03:25:32.320 So that's what's listed in our condition and recommendation is that you all just agree 03:25:32.320 --> 03:25:36.160 that he has the right to approve that at a later date, so long as it's not less than 03:25:36.160 --> 03:25:37.720 what's shown on the plans here. 03:25:37.720 --> 03:25:38.720 I gotcha. 03:25:38.720 --> 03:25:39.720 Okay. 03:25:39.720 --> 03:25:42.720 So that's super helpful, if I understand it correctly. 03:25:42.720 --> 03:25:43.720 Clarify? 03:25:43.720 --> 03:25:44.720 Yeah. 03:25:44.720 --> 03:25:45.720 Commissioner Ellis. 03:25:45.720 --> 03:25:46.720 Thank you, Chair. 03:25:46.720 --> 03:25:48.560 But to go back to that, but I think what she said is she doesn't know if the director can 03:25:48.560 --> 03:25:52.840 approve 100% of the canopy being used in that effort. 03:25:52.840 --> 03:25:53.840 True. 03:25:53.840 --> 03:25:55.160 But that doesn't matter to our approval of what the... 03:25:55.160 --> 03:25:58.080 I didn't know if it mattered to Mr. Howelson. 03:25:58.080 --> 03:26:00.080 I don't have a choice. 03:26:00.080 --> 03:26:06.080 If it's something he doesn't have the authority to do, an illegal part of the contract's still 03:26:06.080 --> 03:26:09.080 illegal, so we wouldn't be able to do it. 03:26:09.080 --> 03:26:10.080 Yeah, the mic. 03:26:10.080 --> 03:26:11.080 I don't have a choice. 03:26:11.080 --> 03:26:15.920 If that's something he doesn't have the authority to do, just because we've asked for it here 03:26:15.920 --> 03:26:20.320 doesn't mean that you can give him permissions to do something he doesn't have permission 03:26:20.320 --> 03:26:21.320 to do. 03:26:21.320 --> 03:26:22.320 Authority to do. 03:26:22.320 --> 03:26:25.840 Perhaps to Commissioner Ellis's point, is the project still feasible if you can only 03:26:25.840 --> 03:26:27.800 use 40% of landscape buffering? 03:26:27.800 --> 03:26:29.960 Can you still get to your 35% landscape? 03:26:29.960 --> 03:26:31.960 Oh, it's not percent of coverage. 03:26:31.960 --> 03:26:32.960 It's tree canopy. 03:26:32.960 --> 03:26:33.960 Gotcha. 03:26:33.960 --> 03:26:34.960 Okay. 03:26:34.960 --> 03:26:37.400 So what it means is we just plant a few more trees. 03:26:37.400 --> 03:26:38.400 Gotcha. 03:26:38.400 --> 03:26:39.400 Commissioner Ellis. 03:26:39.400 --> 03:26:40.400 Yes. 03:26:40.400 --> 03:26:41.400 Thank you. 03:26:41.400 --> 03:26:44.680 Just to continue there, I'm not sure I'd want to write it into our recommendation today 03:26:44.680 --> 03:26:50.400 with that, not knowing if that's something the director can do. 03:26:50.400 --> 03:26:53.560 Can we not deal with that, as we're rewriting? 03:26:53.560 --> 03:26:58.000 Yeah, because I think the whole point of, I think what staff was trying to present here 03:26:58.000 --> 03:27:04.880 was something in a bit more concrete than we typically will do and say, sort of like 03:27:04.880 --> 03:27:09.120 the plan that's in front of us, and I think they wrote out these conditions so that we're 03:27:09.120 --> 03:27:13.200 kind of all on the same page and we all know we're approving. 03:27:13.200 --> 03:27:19.640 And now we're kind of rewriting that, and I think the whole point was to get clarity, 03:27:19.640 --> 03:27:27.680 and now things seem a bit unclear, so anyway, let's continue the discussion to see if we 03:27:27.680 --> 03:27:28.680 can clear them up. 03:27:28.680 --> 03:27:29.680 Yeah. 03:27:29.680 --> 03:27:32.840 Unfortunately, y'all were getting clarity, but we were getting confused after last Wednesday. 03:27:32.840 --> 03:27:34.640 And now we're confused. 03:27:34.640 --> 03:27:35.640 Ellis. 03:27:35.640 --> 03:27:37.480 Ellis, Jared interject here. 03:27:37.480 --> 03:27:39.280 Well, you know, there's a couple things. 03:27:39.280 --> 03:27:44.280 First of all, I disagree with what Mr. Allison was saying about the purpose of the SUP. 03:27:44.280 --> 03:27:46.520 It's not to enable negotiations. 03:27:46.520 --> 03:27:57.480 The purpose of the SUP is to start with a baseline of code compliance. 03:27:57.480 --> 03:28:03.640 That by itself is not sufficient to, otherwise there would be no need for an SUP. 03:28:03.640 --> 03:28:06.600 The SUP is supposed to go above and beyond that. 03:28:06.600 --> 03:28:15.880 The SUP is the opportunity for the city council to verify that certain impacts are being dealt 03:28:15.880 --> 03:28:20.280 with in this kind of proposal here. 03:28:20.280 --> 03:28:25.120 So for example, are traffic issues being dealt with in an appropriate fashion? 03:28:25.120 --> 03:28:32.680 Is there sufficient mitigation of impacts associated with this kind of development in 03:28:32.680 --> 03:28:34.400 this zoning district? 03:28:34.400 --> 03:28:43.840 So and moreover, the council in the past has expected, and I think that that is the nature 03:28:43.840 --> 03:28:52.080 of an SUP, is that the exhibit to the SUP should reflect what the SUP allows. 03:28:52.080 --> 03:28:58.760 And so that's what staff was doing, and it was largely my suggestion to preserve legibility 03:28:58.760 --> 03:29:03.580 because sometimes you can't read what's on this site plan. 03:29:03.580 --> 03:29:11.280 So the point was to take what's written, what was submitted by Mr. Allison himself and write 03:29:11.280 --> 03:29:16.760 that in there just to preserve it so that people can have a chance to read it and know 03:29:16.760 --> 03:29:20.520 what it says so that it can be enforced at a later time. 03:29:20.520 --> 03:29:23.920 It wasn't intended to be a negotiation point or what have you. 03:29:23.920 --> 03:29:31.960 It was intended to reproduce in legible type what was written in Mr. Allison's own submittal. 03:29:31.960 --> 03:29:40.160 So if there's confusion that's caused by this, probably the proper course of action 03:29:40.160 --> 03:29:46.320 is to let the submittal stand on its own merits and take out the staff recommendations, including 03:29:46.320 --> 03:29:53.040 the plus or minus 5%, and let it go up to city council to approve or deny the site plan 03:29:53.040 --> 03:29:54.420 as submitted. 03:29:54.420 --> 03:30:02.200 I think that's what the SUP approval process contemplates, and so if there's confusion 03:30:02.200 --> 03:30:07.600 associated with that, then perhaps that may be the right way to go. 03:30:07.600 --> 03:30:11.200 I would just respectfully disagree. 03:30:11.200 --> 03:30:15.860 I can't find anything in the code that says there's any reason to negotiate or not negotiate 03:30:15.860 --> 03:30:19.580 or to have to put additional constraints on there. 03:30:19.580 --> 03:30:23.480 There is certainly a very interest in dealing with working with neighbors so that we meet 03:30:23.480 --> 03:30:26.320 with them and address their concerns. 03:30:26.320 --> 03:30:32.200 We visited with staff extensively about this, with our pre-design meeting, et cetera, regarding 03:30:32.200 --> 03:30:36.320 how things were changing and how the approach to SUPs was going to be different than it 03:30:36.320 --> 03:30:40.840 had been in the past, and that's how we came up with this concept plan, and then we got 03:30:40.840 --> 03:30:43.200 surprised by this change. 03:30:43.200 --> 03:30:48.920 We'd already been scheduled for BNC twice and delayed twice, and this never came up, 03:30:48.920 --> 03:30:50.840 and then on the third one this comes up. 03:30:50.840 --> 03:30:57.720 So yes, it was prepared in part by us and in part by the Wolf Corporation. 03:30:57.720 --> 03:31:02.000 And again, we're willing to live with this going forward if that's what we have to do, 03:31:02.000 --> 03:31:08.520 but at the same time, I've not heard anything from the code that says it is a process of 03:31:08.520 --> 03:31:12.440 negotiation or it is a process to put something more stringent. 03:31:12.440 --> 03:31:18.640 When we look at the intensity and we look at the impact on the surrounding area, the 03:31:18.640 --> 03:31:20.040 zoning is already in place. 03:31:20.040 --> 03:31:26.360 In fact, if anything, the multifamily and particularly even at 24 units per acre is 03:31:26.360 --> 03:31:30.220 a medium intensity for what's already allowed in that zoning. 03:31:30.220 --> 03:31:34.800 So now it's the city has a due diligence and responsibility to provide the infrastructure 03:31:34.800 --> 03:31:39.840 and the planning to accommodate the zoning that it's put in place, and we're on the 03:31:39.840 --> 03:31:40.840 lower end. 03:31:40.840 --> 03:31:44.480 I say the lower, the middle end with this part of the improvements. 03:31:44.480 --> 03:31:48.560 We could not come in and we could go to hotels and restaurants all over the site without 03:31:48.560 --> 03:31:52.980 having to come for something like this, and there would be more intensity than what we're 03:31:52.980 --> 03:31:55.240 bringing forward with this proposal this evening. 03:31:55.240 --> 03:32:00.280 So I think those things have been discussed and thought about, mentioned with staff, talked 03:32:00.280 --> 03:32:05.080 with planning staff, talked with engineering staff, talked with the neighbors, and I think 03:32:05.080 --> 03:32:07.360 we've been appropriate in that. 03:32:07.360 --> 03:32:12.100 We just had one understanding of how SUPs were now being applied, and in fact, we did 03:32:12.100 --> 03:32:21.680 an SUP not long ago under that similar, so similar parameters, so we just appreciate 03:32:21.680 --> 03:32:22.680 that. 03:32:22.680 --> 03:32:23.680 I appreciate the context. 03:32:23.680 --> 03:32:28.480 Can you help me put a puzzle piece together here? 03:32:28.480 --> 03:32:34.840 There was a concept plan submitted to the city that has 16 buildings and has a 24 density, 03:32:34.840 --> 03:32:40.920 and you said there was a change that precipitated your applicant recommendation. 03:32:40.920 --> 03:32:44.280 So can you walk me through, you submitted a concept plan. 03:32:44.280 --> 03:32:51.000 What was the precipice for you to now make some changes? 03:32:51.000 --> 03:33:01.600 The precipice was that us having this understanding, I'm going to come back to this, demonstrate 03:33:01.600 --> 03:33:06.320 that the DVC has observed that we're able to meet the zoning requirements, and because 03:33:06.320 --> 03:33:11.760 it's apartments and those have a particular concern in the community, also that we go 03:33:11.760 --> 03:33:15.960 in front of neighbors and visit with them and see if there's things we need to concede 03:33:15.960 --> 03:33:20.940 in order to satisfy their issues and conditions. 03:33:20.940 --> 03:33:26.320 We had a plan that demonstrates that we meet them, demonstrates that we very easily meet 03:33:26.320 --> 03:33:30.600 all the code requirements, and we had plenty of room to wiggle with if we needed to as 03:33:30.600 --> 03:33:31.600 we came forward. 03:33:31.600 --> 03:33:39.560 Then, all of a sudden, as of last Wednesday, after twice being pulled from P&Z, one time 03:33:39.560 --> 03:33:44.200 my fault, but twice being pulled from P&Z, we're being told now that there's going to 03:33:44.200 --> 03:33:51.920 be limitations put into the ordinance that keep us very highly limited to what we put 03:33:51.920 --> 03:33:53.640 on that concept plan. 03:33:53.640 --> 03:33:58.640 Five percent, maybe we made it 15 percent but not exceed the code, but five percent 03:33:58.640 --> 03:34:03.800 on a 50 percent coverage, I think this is up to 52 and a half compared to 80. 03:34:03.800 --> 03:34:09.640 That's not much wiggle room at all, and when we got to go through detailed design later 03:34:09.640 --> 03:34:16.680 and look at drainage and detention, that'd be nice to have a little wiggle room to work 03:34:16.680 --> 03:34:17.680 with all of that. 03:34:17.680 --> 03:34:18.680 Got you. 03:34:18.680 --> 03:34:19.680 That makes sense. 03:34:19.680 --> 03:34:24.400 There was an abundance of questions, and now it seems like they all are gone. 03:34:24.400 --> 03:34:25.400 Commissioner Ellis. 03:34:25.400 --> 03:34:26.400 Thank you, Chair. 03:34:26.400 --> 03:34:33.720 I think the reason, again, for these is so the site plan doesn't drastically change, 03:34:33.720 --> 03:34:37.280 so you don't submit this and then suddenly it becomes something else. 03:34:37.280 --> 03:34:41.600 I understand that you're observing the DDC and you're within the restrictions of what 03:34:41.600 --> 03:34:47.720 the code is, but I think part of the SUP process is making sure we all understand what's going 03:34:47.720 --> 03:34:50.720 on at site with regard to multifamily. 03:34:50.720 --> 03:34:54.440 Like the code or not, the way it's written, that's how it's written, you need an SUP 03:34:54.440 --> 03:34:55.440 for multifamily. 03:34:55.440 --> 03:34:57.840 I mean, that's where we are today. 03:34:57.840 --> 03:35:03.720 So yeah, I don't like that we got to this point because they're just using your site 03:35:03.720 --> 03:35:07.640 plan as part of their recommendation. 03:35:07.640 --> 03:35:08.640 They didn't really make it up. 03:35:08.640 --> 03:35:10.000 They just went off your site plan. 03:35:10.000 --> 03:35:14.780 So I guess that's what we need to make sure we get to understand. 03:35:14.780 --> 03:35:19.040 What happened in the past is we would come in with a site plan like we did for the Woodlands 03:35:19.040 --> 03:35:24.400 Apartments, but then we were detailed site planning and we knew it, and that was the 03:35:24.400 --> 03:35:27.400 site plan we were going to actually live with. 03:35:27.400 --> 03:35:31.500 Now the idea was to demonstrate, this time around we were under the understanding that 03:35:31.500 --> 03:35:36.800 the idea is to demonstrate we can meet the code and determine if we need to put any special 03:35:36.800 --> 03:35:43.160 limitations on it, and no special limitations had been identified until a week ago today. 03:35:43.160 --> 03:35:44.960 And that's what really surprised us. 03:35:44.960 --> 03:35:49.120 I wish we were in a better situation. 03:35:49.120 --> 03:35:56.400 I mean, our backs against the wall, you know, we can take our 65% down to 60. 03:35:56.400 --> 03:36:03.560 We can take our 24 units per acre down to say 22 or 23, but at the same time, that 5% 03:36:03.560 --> 03:36:08.440 was just too little of a wiggle room tube under these conditions. 03:36:08.440 --> 03:36:17.480 And unfortunately, because of contract situations, if you all accept the thing as staff recommends, 03:36:17.480 --> 03:36:22.480 we kind of have to go that way just because now that's where we are. 03:36:22.480 --> 03:36:27.280 We're kind of late in the game to make those changes, but we feel like we're presenting 03:36:27.280 --> 03:36:33.520 as responsible, and it is something that, as Mr. Drake has indicated, can be written 03:36:33.520 --> 03:36:38.200 into the ordinance and understood, and you don't have to pull out a map and look at it 03:36:38.200 --> 03:36:41.200 and see if you can still read it in the future. 03:36:41.200 --> 03:36:43.560 Jared, let's see, speaking then, Commissioner Sebelius. 03:36:43.560 --> 03:36:44.560 Thank you. 03:36:44.560 --> 03:36:49.520 Well, let me just be real clear because I hope I didn't come across the wrong way. 03:36:49.520 --> 03:36:55.120 You know, from the legal standpoint, we don't care what the numbers are. 03:36:55.120 --> 03:37:00.560 What we care about is that we have a determinate standard, that we have a determinate standard 03:37:00.560 --> 03:37:05.000 that can be enforced, that can be applied, that's consistent. 03:37:05.000 --> 03:37:11.900 If the numbers that we're recommending for putting in the conditions of the ordinance 03:37:11.900 --> 03:37:15.920 or the recommendations of the ordinance or whatever you want to call it, if the numbers 03:37:15.920 --> 03:37:21.160 that we're putting in there don't match the site plan, then the site plan needs to change 03:37:21.160 --> 03:37:22.640 to agree with it. 03:37:22.640 --> 03:37:29.440 If you want the site plan to govern, then the numbers need to conform to what's in the 03:37:29.440 --> 03:37:31.880 site plan. 03:37:31.880 --> 03:37:40.100 The idea of being close or, you know, having wiggle room, it makes it difficult to enforce 03:37:40.100 --> 03:37:44.000 the site plan and for people to know what the requirements are. 03:37:44.000 --> 03:37:51.640 And so our recommendation, ultimately, this is a council decision of what conditions to 03:37:51.640 --> 03:37:54.280 put on the SUP approval. 03:37:54.280 --> 03:37:55.280 It's their permit. 03:37:55.280 --> 03:37:57.000 They are the ones who grant it. 03:37:57.000 --> 03:38:03.640 They are the ones who have the authority to impose conditions if they think are appropriate 03:38:03.640 --> 03:38:07.160 and whatever conditions they think are appropriate are fine. 03:38:07.160 --> 03:38:13.400 The only thing that we would recommend as from a legal perspective is that they need 03:38:13.400 --> 03:38:14.400 to be clear. 03:38:14.400 --> 03:38:15.400 They need to be determinate. 03:38:15.400 --> 03:38:26.880 They need to be written down and the submitted site plan needs to match what the restrictions 03:38:26.880 --> 03:38:27.880 are. 03:38:27.880 --> 03:38:30.720 >> Commissioner Smith, real fast and then I think staff will -- 03:38:30.720 --> 03:38:31.720 >> Thank you, Chair. 03:38:31.720 --> 03:38:34.180 I think I'll just make this spiral out of control a little bit. 03:38:34.180 --> 03:38:35.880 I think this will make it a lot easier. 03:38:35.880 --> 03:38:40.880 It looks like from my understanding is that staff took a conceptual plan, not a site plan, 03:38:40.880 --> 03:38:46.480 but a conceptual plan and tried to exactly what Jerry just said and exactly what Haley 03:38:46.480 --> 03:38:50.840 had said is they tried to put it in writing that the applicant or whoever was going to 03:38:50.840 --> 03:38:54.440 build on this site with this SUP had to follow those guidelines. 03:38:54.440 --> 03:38:59.800 They used a conceptual plan that was given to them at the time to create these parameters. 03:38:59.800 --> 03:39:02.960 All we're trying to do at the end of the day is just create the parameters to make sure 03:39:02.960 --> 03:39:07.760 that no matter what happens and what development is built there doesn't go outside and build 03:39:07.760 --> 03:39:12.520 a site plan that's incongruent with what the intent of this is. 03:39:12.520 --> 03:39:13.760 We don't have a site plan to look at. 03:39:13.760 --> 03:39:16.520 This is a zoning -- this is an SCP case. 03:39:16.520 --> 03:39:21.960 So really all we're trying to say is these parameters, they play within the code. 03:39:21.960 --> 03:39:24.200 There's nothing wrong with them. 03:39:24.200 --> 03:39:29.260 All we need to do is just agree as a commission that these are parameters that the applicant's 03:39:29.260 --> 03:39:30.680 willing to play within. 03:39:30.680 --> 03:39:34.120 The city has no problem with them because they are within the code, so why would the 03:39:34.120 --> 03:39:36.780 city have a problem with it if it's within the law? 03:39:36.780 --> 03:39:41.560 So let's just move on forward as a commission and say, okay, well, if the applicant likes 03:39:41.560 --> 03:39:45.920 it, it's not against city code, and the applicant's willing to play within those parameters that 03:39:45.920 --> 03:39:50.440 we're going to draw on the sandbox here, then everyone should be hunky-dory happy, right? 03:39:50.440 --> 03:39:53.280 Hopefully that makes it clearer. 03:39:53.280 --> 03:39:54.280 Clear as mud. 03:39:54.280 --> 03:39:55.280 [ Laughter ] 03:39:55.280 --> 03:39:59.800 I'm going to ask Richard to start and then we'll go to Commissioner Pernetta. 03:39:59.800 --> 03:40:03.440 Just wanted to provide sort of a little more background on this. 03:40:03.440 --> 03:40:09.080 When we first started looking at these SGPs about a year ago, actually perfect case in 03:40:09.080 --> 03:40:14.720 point, the item previously that was tabled, when SGPs were being looked at, they were 03:40:14.720 --> 03:40:19.440 being looked at as full site plan construction drawings, and so we had one case where we 03:40:19.440 --> 03:40:24.800 were actually recommending denial of the SGP, and so it's a little odd to put someone through 03:40:24.800 --> 03:40:29.920 full design site plan review spending thousands and thousands of dollars to say, okay, yes, 03:40:29.920 --> 03:40:34.280 you meet the code, but you know what, we're recommending against your SGP, and so when 03:40:34.280 --> 03:40:37.240 we looked at that, to me, it wasn't really fair on the applicant. 03:40:37.240 --> 03:40:40.600 We looked at the code and how it's worded and what's really required, and it's as a 03:40:40.600 --> 03:40:46.800 plan, and so when we first brought it forward to city council, you know, even there, I think 03:40:46.800 --> 03:40:50.960 it was the mayor that first said, well, you know, this is different, you know, we're not 03:40:50.960 --> 03:40:54.520 used to seeing it in sort of a conceptual fashion. 03:40:54.520 --> 03:40:59.600 And so we've been trying to kind of fashion it in a way that still provides some certainty 03:40:59.600 --> 03:41:03.520 so they kind of know what they're buying, and I think, Margie, you had brought it up, 03:41:03.520 --> 03:41:09.160 I think it was the McDonald's item that when it was approved here, it seemed very different 03:41:09.160 --> 03:41:14.000 when it went to council, and what that did is it really just memorialized that plan into 03:41:14.000 --> 03:41:16.000 the ordinance. 03:41:16.000 --> 03:41:21.240 So now moving forward, that was the attempt to say, okay, as we bring it forward to P&Z, 03:41:21.240 --> 03:41:25.680 let's make sure they're looking at the same thing to avoid any sort of confusion in the 03:41:25.680 --> 03:41:26.680 future. 03:41:26.680 --> 03:41:31.680 Now, one thing, and I don't know if this is even an option for Mr. Allison, if we do decide 03:41:31.680 --> 03:41:39.280 to go with, if it's voted to go with those alternative numbers, could that plan, that 03:41:39.280 --> 03:41:43.000 preliminary site plan be updated prior to going to council that reflects it? 03:41:43.000 --> 03:41:47.680 I don't know if that's something that is possible. 03:41:47.680 --> 03:41:54.000 Just thinking to what Jerry said, one or the other should match. 03:41:54.000 --> 03:41:59.960 Just a thought, and a little more perspective kind of on the background of how we got here. 03:41:59.960 --> 03:42:00.960 >> Mr. Pernetta. 03:42:00.960 --> 03:42:01.960 Thank you. 03:42:01.960 --> 03:42:02.960 >> Okay. 03:42:02.960 --> 03:42:06.720 Just a couple of things, and the first one's going to jump back before all the confusion 03:42:06.720 --> 03:42:13.520 just tangentially, and I guess this is probably more for Richard or Jerry to answer. 03:42:13.520 --> 03:42:23.200 So I think Larry and I both kind of had questions or concerns about the wells and the setbacks, 03:42:23.200 --> 03:42:25.480 and you answered that question right now. 03:42:25.480 --> 03:42:27.920 Currently, as it stands, the setback, you know. 03:42:27.920 --> 03:42:28.920 >> Can you turn your mic on? 03:42:28.920 --> 03:42:29.920 >> Is it on? 03:42:29.920 --> 03:42:30.920 >> Okay, I'm sorry. 03:42:30.920 --> 03:42:37.520 Where we are right now, basically, those wells are about 433 feet, which is an extra what, 03:42:37.520 --> 03:42:38.520 100? 03:42:38.520 --> 03:42:39.520 The north one? 03:42:39.520 --> 03:42:40.520 >> Yeah, only the north well. 03:42:40.520 --> 03:42:45.520 >> The south well is going to be more than the 250 to 300 feet. 03:42:45.520 --> 03:42:49.920 >> But the south one is farther away from like, you know, what we have is habitable structure, 03:42:49.920 --> 03:42:50.920 right? 03:42:50.920 --> 03:42:51.920 Right? 03:42:51.920 --> 03:42:52.920 Is that correct? 03:42:52.920 --> 03:42:58.840 >> No, let me find that exhibit, I apologize. 03:42:58.840 --> 03:43:09.480 Pitcher's worth a thousand words. 03:43:09.480 --> 03:43:15.040 The habitable structures here, there's the 250, the habitable structure is probably another 03:43:15.040 --> 03:43:16.040 50. 03:43:16.040 --> 03:43:21.560 In this case, well, I didn't show it, but there's the 250. 03:43:21.560 --> 03:43:27.800 We're closer to 275, 280 for the habitable structures down here. 03:43:27.800 --> 03:43:28.800 >> That's great. 03:43:28.800 --> 03:43:33.720 I can see the ones on the bottom are farther outside of that setback. 03:43:33.720 --> 03:43:40.880 My original question in the work session was the idea of the well moving out. 03:43:40.880 --> 03:43:47.400 Now, when we're voting tonight, what we're talking about is a setback of 433. 03:43:47.400 --> 03:43:53.580 In the event that the well operator ever wanted to expand that, that would be a separate thing 03:43:53.580 --> 03:43:58.080 that would come before us, and we would vote on their motion at that time. 03:43:58.080 --> 03:44:02.880 So what we're doing is completely separate on that one, right? 03:44:02.880 --> 03:44:03.880 >> Correct. 03:44:03.880 --> 03:44:04.880 >> Okay. 03:44:04.880 --> 03:44:05.880 All right. 03:44:05.880 --> 03:44:08.280 >> Haley, do you want to provide maybe a little more on a gas well site plan? 03:44:08.280 --> 03:44:12.000 >> Yes, if and when the well site seeks to expand, they would also have to come forward 03:44:12.000 --> 03:44:16.520 with an SUP as part of their watershed protection permit because their site is located within 03:44:16.520 --> 03:44:17.520 a floodplain boundary. 03:44:17.520 --> 03:44:18.520 >> Okay. 03:44:18.520 --> 03:44:21.920 >> So you would have a separate SUP to consider for the gas well site plan. 03:44:21.920 --> 03:44:22.920 >> Okay. 03:44:22.920 --> 03:44:23.920 Excellent. 03:44:23.920 --> 03:44:28.360 >> Wouldn't they also have to come back with another gas well site plan because this is 03:44:28.360 --> 03:44:32.160 the site plan they have or the gas well plan is very specific on the number of wells and 03:44:32.160 --> 03:44:33.160 where they are. 03:44:33.160 --> 03:44:34.160 >> Correct. 03:44:34.160 --> 03:44:37.620 That would be after they -- they would have to first get an SUP approved before they could 03:44:37.620 --> 03:44:39.240 apply for a gas well site plan. 03:44:39.240 --> 03:44:40.240 >> Okay. 03:44:40.240 --> 03:44:41.240 >> They could come back twice. 03:44:41.240 --> 03:44:42.240 >> Okay. 03:44:42.240 --> 03:44:44.720 >> The gas well site plan is administratively approved, but the SUP, which would have to 03:44:44.720 --> 03:44:50.080 contain a plan, as this one does, would come before you all as well as council. 03:44:50.080 --> 03:44:51.080 >> Okay. 03:44:51.080 --> 03:44:52.080 That helps a lot. 03:44:52.080 --> 03:44:53.080 Yeah. 03:44:53.080 --> 03:44:54.080 >> Christopher Beck? 03:44:54.080 --> 03:44:57.080 >> I was under the microphone. 03:44:57.080 --> 03:44:59.880 >> Can you turn the mic on? 03:44:59.880 --> 03:45:05.560 >> I'd like to clarify something here because I was under the impression and I think you 03:45:05.560 --> 03:45:11.160 addressed it because it's in a flood plan and then it would require coming back before 03:45:11.160 --> 03:45:12.160 the PDC. 03:45:12.160 --> 03:45:21.760 But that if they wanted to go to a smaller setback, a less setback, that all they need 03:45:21.760 --> 03:45:26.360 is CBA approval, where does that come into play? 03:45:26.360 --> 03:45:30.480 >> So there are multiple setbacks outlined in the code. 03:45:30.480 --> 03:45:35.600 The reverse setback only applies when a protected use is approaching a gas well. 03:45:35.600 --> 03:45:39.400 If the gas well operator seeks to expand, they're then expanding the existing gas well 03:45:39.400 --> 03:45:42.820 site and have a 500-foot setback required. 03:45:42.820 --> 03:45:46.440 They can't feasibly meet that because they're already well within 500 feet of several existing 03:45:46.440 --> 03:45:49.040 protected uses in that neighborhood. 03:45:49.040 --> 03:45:54.400 So to even be allowed to amend their site in any way, they would have to get that 500-foot 03:45:54.400 --> 03:45:59.480 setback reduced either by going to ZBA, in which case it could potentially go down to 03:45:59.480 --> 03:46:00.480 250 feet. 03:46:00.480 --> 03:46:02.880 >> Could it go below 250 feet? 03:46:02.880 --> 03:46:04.920 >> Never below 250 feet. 03:46:04.920 --> 03:46:08.880 Or they could seek a written waiver from all of the neighbors that are within that 500 03:46:08.880 --> 03:46:09.880 feet. 03:46:09.880 --> 03:46:12.960 So they would have to do one of those two things and then go through the watershed protection 03:46:12.960 --> 03:46:16.400 permit, which requires the SUP, then apply for a site plan. 03:46:16.400 --> 03:46:20.920 So they have a very long multi-step process to ever get to that future pad site boundary. 03:46:20.920 --> 03:46:21.920 >> Okay. 03:46:21.920 --> 03:46:22.920 Thank you. 03:46:22.920 --> 03:46:23.920 >> Thank you. 03:46:23.920 --> 03:46:24.920 Thank you very much. 03:46:24.920 --> 03:46:25.920 That helps a lot. 03:46:25.920 --> 03:46:30.440 So then back into the mock. 03:46:30.440 --> 03:46:39.200 So when we're voting, we will be voting with conditions just based on what's being asked 03:46:39.200 --> 03:46:45.400 for and at that point, those conditions are entered into the record into our minutes and 03:46:45.400 --> 03:46:53.720 would then be taken specifically before city council so that way they're -- what gets sent 03:46:53.720 --> 03:46:55.320 to them is enumerated specifically? 03:46:55.320 --> 03:47:07.080 >> Somebody is going to be making a motion to recommend approval of a proposal with certain 03:47:07.080 --> 03:47:12.480 conditions on it and they could be the staff conditions, you could make a motion to approve 03:47:12.480 --> 03:47:20.200 with the conditions that Mr. Allison brought forward today, something in between. 03:47:20.200 --> 03:47:22.480 It's just a matter of what that motion is. 03:47:22.480 --> 03:47:29.280 Will it get a second and will it be approved by a vote for recommendation? 03:47:29.280 --> 03:47:32.640 And that's basically what it's going to come down to. 03:47:32.640 --> 03:47:33.640 >> All right. 03:47:33.640 --> 03:47:36.880 Thank you very much. 03:47:36.880 --> 03:47:44.280 >> Clarification, Mr. Allison, if you could maybe bend an ear for this question. 03:47:44.280 --> 03:47:52.440 If we move forward with a recommendation that is not explicitly in line with the preliminary 03:47:52.440 --> 03:47:58.440 site plan submitted to us this evening, can it go before council without an updated preliminary 03:47:58.440 --> 03:48:03.940 site plan based just on the conditions that we enumerate this evening? 03:48:03.940 --> 03:48:07.600 >> Are you asking Mr. Allison or me? 03:48:07.600 --> 03:48:12.320 >> Well, I think it's two -- one, is it possible for city council to approve without an updated 03:48:12.320 --> 03:48:13.440 preliminary site plan? 03:48:13.440 --> 03:48:17.520 If not, is it possible for Mr. Allison to have an updated preliminary site plan prior 03:48:17.520 --> 03:48:18.520 to going to council? 03:48:18.520 --> 03:48:23.080 >> Tom just said, yes, I will. 03:48:23.080 --> 03:48:24.840 I think we answered that. 03:48:24.840 --> 03:48:26.880 >> Question A is now null and void. 03:48:26.880 --> 03:48:31.360 >> I kind of like question A myself. 03:48:31.360 --> 03:48:35.800 >> I think it's worth clarifying to know -- >> I didn't have anything to do next Thursday 03:48:35.800 --> 03:48:36.800 anyway. 03:48:36.800 --> 03:48:43.840 >> It would be helpful to know if an update -- if we change the staff recommendation conditions, 03:48:43.840 --> 03:48:51.300 if an updated preliminary site plan would need to display and graphically represent 03:48:51.300 --> 03:48:53.880 what we put in writing this evening. 03:48:53.880 --> 03:48:56.560 >> I would certainly recommend that. 03:48:56.560 --> 03:49:01.360 And I think that in bringing it forward to the council, to the extent that they want 03:49:01.360 --> 03:49:05.360 a recommendation from the legal department, our recommendation would be that the site 03:49:05.360 --> 03:49:13.800 plan match the conditions that are ultimately approved by city council. 03:49:13.800 --> 03:49:20.200 City council may adopt the recommendations made by the planning and zoning commission. 03:49:20.200 --> 03:49:23.360 They may choose their own conditions. 03:49:23.360 --> 03:49:29.040 Again, this is the city council's permit approval. 03:49:29.040 --> 03:49:35.840 PNZ is making a recommendation here, regardless of what you recommend, the council is going 03:49:35.840 --> 03:49:39.960 to approve the conditions that they think are appropriate. 03:49:39.960 --> 03:49:48.480 And so it's -- I guess what's brought forward to the city council is not nearly as important 03:49:48.480 --> 03:49:53.880 that it match your recommendations as that it match the recommendations that council 03:49:53.880 --> 03:49:55.880 ultimately approves. 03:49:55.880 --> 03:49:59.280 >> Mr. Fernanda. 03:49:59.280 --> 03:50:04.920 >> And just one more time to make sure that we're clear. 03:50:04.920 --> 03:50:11.040 Based on what was presented by staff recommendations, that was -- the staff recommendations are 03:50:11.040 --> 03:50:14.520 based on the original site plan, right? 03:50:14.520 --> 03:50:20.900 So what we are possibly recommending based on Mr. Allison's request is not outside of 03:50:20.900 --> 03:50:22.640 code. 03:50:22.640 --> 03:50:24.600 It's just different than the site plan. 03:50:24.600 --> 03:50:26.080 Is that accurate? 03:50:26.080 --> 03:50:27.080 With the exception of the treatment. 03:50:27.080 --> 03:50:28.080 >> That is accurate. 03:50:28.080 --> 03:50:29.080 >> Okay. 03:50:29.080 --> 03:50:30.080 All right. 03:50:30.080 --> 03:50:31.080 Thank you. 03:50:31.080 --> 03:50:32.080 >> Excuse me. 03:50:32.080 --> 03:50:33.080 Mr. Neary is here this evening. 03:50:33.080 --> 03:50:34.080 He would like to ask a question if that's okay. 03:50:34.080 --> 03:50:35.080 >> Yes. 03:50:35.080 --> 03:50:36.080 If you could just step forward. 03:50:36.080 --> 03:50:37.720 This is a public hearing. 03:50:37.720 --> 03:50:42.160 And your name is actually on the card already, but if you could state your full name and 03:50:42.160 --> 03:50:43.760 address for the record. 03:50:43.760 --> 03:50:44.760 >> Sure. 03:50:44.760 --> 03:50:47.960 My name is Tom Neary. 03:50:47.960 --> 03:50:54.400 My address is 1700 Pacific Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75201. 03:50:54.400 --> 03:50:58.720 So just make sure that I understand and I'm going to -- 03:50:58.720 --> 03:50:59.880 >> If you could try to say yes. 03:50:59.880 --> 03:51:00.880 There you go. 03:51:00.880 --> 03:51:01.880 >> I'll try to speak loud. 03:51:01.880 --> 03:51:17.440 So what your request is is that we got this multifamily component of the SUP with 17 specific 03:51:17.440 --> 03:51:22.120 apartment units, apartment pods, is that right, 17? 03:51:22.120 --> 03:51:23.120 >> If we could try to stay -- 03:51:23.120 --> 03:51:24.120 >> 16? 03:51:24.120 --> 03:51:25.120 Okay. 03:51:25.120 --> 03:51:26.120 So -- 03:51:26.120 --> 03:51:27.120 >> Mr. Neary, if you could stay close to the mic. 03:51:27.120 --> 03:51:36.720 So we've got 16 components, 16 pods of apartments, and the recommendation is, and we've got in 03:51:36.720 --> 03:51:43.400 this particular rendering, 20.4 units per acre. 03:51:43.400 --> 03:51:47.360 We're looking to take that to 24 units per acre. 03:51:47.360 --> 03:51:55.740 So potentially putting in two more pods in what is a conceptual plan, not a site plan 03:51:55.740 --> 03:51:58.240 that's being approved for construction. 03:51:58.240 --> 03:52:01.800 Is that what I'm hearing? 03:52:01.800 --> 03:52:08.160 >> Again, I don't think that from a legal standpoint that we care what the numbers are. 03:52:08.160 --> 03:52:11.040 That's a staff recommendation. 03:52:11.040 --> 03:52:13.520 That's a staff review. 03:52:13.520 --> 03:52:20.240 What we are recommending is that any SUP that the City Council approves, you know, whatever 03:52:20.240 --> 03:52:26.640 conditions are associated with it, that it match the site plan. 03:52:26.640 --> 03:52:31.080 That's going to be what our recommendation is, and that it be written in determinate 03:52:31.080 --> 03:52:36.920 language and set forth what the standards are so that they're clear, they're understandable, 03:52:36.920 --> 03:52:38.920 and they're enforceable. 03:52:38.920 --> 03:52:53.040 It's not a document for negotiation, it's not a document for maneuvering about. 03:52:53.040 --> 03:53:00.200 Part of the whole point is to prevent that, is to get a determinate standard of what is 03:53:00.200 --> 03:53:06.360 permitted associated with this zoning approval. 03:53:06.360 --> 03:53:15.320 >> So if you could use the cursor, there's a point that would help the mic. 03:53:15.320 --> 03:53:18.920 Mr. Alston, can you spin the mic back around? 03:53:18.920 --> 03:53:19.920 >> Sorry. 03:53:19.920 --> 03:53:22.360 >> There we go. 03:53:22.360 --> 03:53:34.480 >> So if we just made this 17 acres at 24 units per acre, that would be acceptable? 03:53:34.480 --> 03:53:41.200 >> Not from the council's perspective but from this group's perspective. 03:53:41.200 --> 03:53:47.120 So if we just ask for a 24 unit versus a 20.4 unit. 03:53:47.120 --> 03:53:49.640 >> It does not exceed the requirements of the DDC. 03:53:49.640 --> 03:53:50.640 >> Okay. 03:53:50.640 --> 03:53:59.820 >> So it's within the allowable -- >> Tom, I think what they're -- what Mr. Drake's 03:53:59.820 --> 03:54:07.920 trying to communicate is when we go before the council and if it all comes down to a 03:54:07.920 --> 03:54:13.400 maximum of 20 buildings on the site, we need to have a concept plan that shows 20 buildings 03:54:13.400 --> 03:54:15.060 on the site. 03:54:15.060 --> 03:54:22.200 We can come down from there with our final plans and if it shows that we're asking for 03:54:22.200 --> 03:54:32.960 65% maximum coverage and our buildings are at 62 or 63 or 64%, then we could put a limit 03:54:32.960 --> 03:54:33.960 of 65%. 03:54:33.960 --> 03:54:39.240 But if we come in with 50% coverage and ask for 65, that doesn't match up. 03:54:39.240 --> 03:54:43.080 And I'm talking about the documentation that we finally end up with not -- 03:54:43.080 --> 03:54:44.080 >> Yeah. 03:54:44.080 --> 03:54:48.200 But I guess my question, are we talking about the math or are we talking about the number 03:54:48.200 --> 03:54:49.200 of units? 03:54:49.200 --> 03:54:50.200 >> Both. 03:54:50.200 --> 03:54:51.200 >> Both. 03:54:51.200 --> 03:54:56.160 >> So both graphically exhibit the math that goes with it. 03:54:56.160 --> 03:54:59.680 >> And what you propose to council may not be what council approves. 03:54:59.680 --> 03:55:00.680 >> Exactly. 03:55:00.680 --> 03:55:05.800 >> They may approve something different in which case they will need to match what the 03:55:05.800 --> 03:55:07.280 council ultimately approves. 03:55:07.280 --> 03:55:14.720 >> I think Tom's is trying to come to an understanding of what we finally need to mesh together. 03:55:14.720 --> 03:55:19.120 >> I'd always envision this as a conceptual plan and not a site plan per site. 03:55:19.120 --> 03:55:25.520 >> I think that's where we've kind of changed horses now. 03:55:25.520 --> 03:55:27.400 >> That's how we'll. 03:55:27.400 --> 03:55:28.400 >> Okay. 03:55:28.400 --> 03:55:29.400 >> All right. 03:55:29.400 --> 03:55:32.160 So trying to get us a little bit back on track. 03:55:32.160 --> 03:55:35.520 The applicant has given his presentation and it is a public hearing. 03:55:35.520 --> 03:55:41.280 Do we have any more questions for Mr. Allison at this point? 03:55:41.280 --> 03:55:44.460 Perfect. 03:55:44.460 --> 03:55:45.520 This is a public hearing. 03:55:45.520 --> 03:55:48.920 If anyone's wishing to speak on the item, you're more than welcome to do so. 03:55:48.920 --> 03:55:49.920 Okay. 03:55:49.920 --> 03:56:02.080 Seeing no more discussion, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion, 03:56:02.080 --> 03:56:03.080 motion questions. 03:56:03.080 --> 03:56:04.080 Commissioner Smith. 03:56:04.080 --> 03:56:05.080 >> Thank you, Chair. 03:56:05.080 --> 03:56:14.120 I want a motion for approval based off of applicants requested recommendations of 20, 03:56:14.120 --> 03:56:20.200 maximum of 20 buildings, maximum of 24 units per acre. 03:56:20.200 --> 03:56:23.360 The garages as mentioned that were already in staff, and I guess the only other thing 03:56:23.360 --> 03:56:30.400 that was different from staff recommendations was max lot coverage of 65% and landscape 03:56:30.400 --> 03:56:31.400 of 35%. 03:56:31.400 --> 03:56:43.000 And then all other conditions that included the text dot, the landscaping, the elevations 03:56:43.000 --> 03:56:50.360 as well as the façade and everything else that's in the backup for the staff's recommendations 03:56:50.360 --> 03:57:00.000 and conditions to be in my motion in a matching site plan whenever it goes to city council. 03:57:00.000 --> 03:57:01.000 >> Preliminary site plan. 03:57:01.000 --> 03:57:02.000 >> Preliminary site plan. 03:57:02.000 --> 03:57:03.000 >> Gosh dang. 03:57:03.000 --> 03:57:04.000 >> We'll perfect it. 03:57:04.000 --> 03:57:05.000 We have a motion. 03:57:05.000 --> 03:57:09.320 Do we have a second on the motion? 03:57:09.320 --> 03:57:11.680 We'll need a second before we go to discussion. 03:57:11.680 --> 03:57:20.520 >> Let me ask for just a clarification, that the parking also follow the number of units 03:57:20.520 --> 03:57:21.520 that will be increased. 03:57:21.520 --> 03:57:28.520 >> Yes, correct, as is stated in the staff's recommendations, yeah. 03:57:28.520 --> 03:57:29.520 >> Commissioner Pernetta. 03:57:29.520 --> 03:57:30.520 >> Second. 03:57:30.520 --> 03:57:31.520 [ Laughter ] 03:57:31.520 --> 03:57:32.520 >> The confidence is overwhelming. 03:57:32.520 --> 03:57:33.520 [ Laughter ] 03:57:33.520 --> 03:57:34.520 >> Do we have to repeat the vote? 03:57:34.520 --> 03:57:35.520 >> No, you do not. 03:57:35.520 --> 03:57:36.520 >> Okay, thank you. 03:57:36.520 --> 03:57:37.520 >> So we have a first and a second. 03:57:37.520 --> 03:57:44.960 Any discussion, Commissioner Beck? 03:57:44.960 --> 03:57:45.960 >> Thank you, Chair. 03:57:45.960 --> 03:57:48.880 And I've had to change my notes around here a little bit. 03:57:48.880 --> 03:57:53.800 If this was really nothing more than we're changing a few numbers and everything, I wouldn't 03:57:53.800 --> 03:57:54.800 have any problem. 03:57:54.800 --> 03:57:58.400 If we're dealing strictly with commercial property here, I wouldn't have any problem 03:57:58.400 --> 03:57:59.400 with it. 03:57:59.400 --> 03:58:03.160 But we're talking about living units where people are going to live and in close proximity 03:58:03.160 --> 03:58:04.160 to gas wells. 03:58:04.160 --> 03:58:06.160 So I'm having a problem with it. 03:58:06.160 --> 03:58:10.560 And what's being proposed does indeed serve -- and I'm going to read from my notes here 03:58:10.560 --> 03:58:14.200 so I can articulate better, so bear with me. 03:58:14.200 --> 03:58:18.720 What's being proposed here does serve as an ideal transitional develop between the single 03:58:18.720 --> 03:58:23.080 family residents on the south and east side and the commercial development north of it. 03:58:23.080 --> 03:58:27.920 This area along the I-35 front roads is well suited for commercial interests as our comprehensive 03:58:27.920 --> 03:58:30.080 plan and future land use map indicate. 03:58:30.080 --> 03:58:34.240 However, I'm troubled once again we're building developments that will draw greater traffic 03:58:34.240 --> 03:58:38.920 there before the city has made accommodations to widen the streets that this traffic will 03:58:38.920 --> 03:58:39.920 flow through. 03:58:39.920 --> 03:58:43.360 Even though city staff have indicated that perimeter street improvements along Winter 03:58:43.360 --> 03:58:47.960 Drive are expected, our experience too often has shown this process moves at a much slower 03:58:47.960 --> 03:58:51.520 rate than residential development does. 03:58:51.520 --> 03:58:56.840 But I am most concerned that the current design of this development poses a problem for people 03:58:56.840 --> 03:59:02.680 like me who believe any residential dwelling in close proximity to active gas and oil wells 03:59:02.680 --> 03:59:07.780 poses greater health and safety risk than official estimates from industry friendly local and 03:59:07.780 --> 03:59:10.000 state governments that will let us believe. 03:59:10.000 --> 03:59:15.120 Though current and future setbacks will stay at the 250 reverse setback limit, that's fine, 03:59:15.120 --> 03:59:19.960 but to me that's still too close for comfort to the proposed development with its numerous 03:59:19.960 --> 03:59:22.080 multifamily units. 03:59:22.080 --> 03:59:27.760 It should be our greatest concern as public servants that allows any gas well being closer 03:59:27.760 --> 03:59:34.320 than 1,000 feet to a dwelling where children in their early formative years, the elderly 03:59:34.320 --> 03:59:39.760 with their weaker immune system, and pregnant women could reside, and I'll explain why. 03:59:39.760 --> 03:59:43.780 Since the state took Denton's right of way to ban fracking within the city limits back 03:59:43.780 --> 03:59:51.080 in 2015 with HB40 and established some minimum setback distances, new studies have shown 03:59:51.080 --> 03:59:56.760 that those distances are likely inadequate to prevent health risks that affect neurological, 03:59:56.760 --> 04:00:00.440 hematological, and developmental health. 04:00:00.440 --> 04:00:04.080 Researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health, Boulder County Public Health, the University 04:00:04.080 --> 04:00:08.920 of Colorado Boulder, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the University 04:00:08.920 --> 04:00:14.680 of California Irvine have found that populations living within 500 feet of an oil and gas facility 04:00:14.680 --> 04:00:20.720 could experience these health effects from inhalation exposures to benzene and alkanes. 04:00:20.720 --> 04:00:24.880 According to a study published recently in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, 04:00:24.880 --> 04:00:31.200 the cancer risk estimate of 8.3 per 10,000 people for populations living within 500 feet 04:00:31.200 --> 04:00:38.160 of an oil and gas facility exceeded the U.S. EPA's 1 in 10,000 upper threshold. 04:00:38.160 --> 04:00:42.880 And heading closer to home, studies in Pennsylvania and Texas found associations between proximity 04:00:42.880 --> 04:00:49.800 to oil and gas wells with fetal death, low birth weight, preterm birth, chronic rhinosinusitis, 04:00:49.800 --> 04:00:55.240 asthma, fatigue, and migraines, and though the researchers also noted that air pollutants 04:00:55.240 --> 04:00:59.560 from other sources can contribute to these elevated risks, they stress that because risk 04:00:59.560 --> 04:01:04.320 increases in proximity to wells, mitigation strategies should focus on controlling emissions 04:01:04.320 --> 04:01:06.440 from oil and gas facilities. 04:01:06.440 --> 04:01:10.500 So regardless of how this agenda item moves forward, I think before any of us decide to 04:01:10.500 --> 04:01:14.920 allow any dwelling units to be built that house children, the elderly, and pregnant 04:01:14.920 --> 04:01:19.600 women, we should know and understand what mitigation strategies are in place that focus 04:01:19.600 --> 04:01:22.720 on controlling emissions from oil and gas facilities. 04:01:22.720 --> 04:01:27.800 It should also be required that a more easily -- never mind, let me submit that because 04:01:27.800 --> 04:01:32.480 we do have a good road that accesses wells for first responders. 04:01:32.480 --> 04:01:38.160 But I'm hesitant, therefore, at this time to approve this SUP because these variables 04:01:38.160 --> 04:01:43.200 make conditions uncertain to those people who will reside in the 336 apartments. 04:01:43.200 --> 04:01:48.560 The DENT development code states that an SUP shall only be granted if all the following 04:01:48.560 --> 04:01:55.000 conditions have been met, and the first one that comes up states that "that the specific 04:01:55.000 --> 04:01:59.400 use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property 04:01:59.400 --> 04:02:05.120 nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity." 04:02:05.120 --> 04:02:10.980 It is my contention, based on the health and safety risks from gas wells, less than those 04:02:10.980 --> 04:02:18.320 distances that scientific research has suggested are inadequate, that this SUP should be denied 04:02:18.320 --> 04:02:22.840 because it will not be compatible with and could be injurious to the use and enjoyment 04:02:22.840 --> 04:02:27.680 of other property and could significantly diminish or impair property values within 04:02:27.680 --> 04:02:30.400 the immediate vicinity. 04:02:30.400 --> 04:02:35.480 Even with the more intense Type D buffer offered by the developer on the east side between 04:02:35.480 --> 04:02:40.520 gas wells and single-family homes, it does little to prevent the potential health and 04:02:40.520 --> 04:02:42.400 safety risks I mentioned here. 04:02:42.400 --> 04:02:45.680 Therefore, deny approval of this SUP. 04:02:45.680 --> 04:02:46.680 Thank you. 04:02:46.680 --> 04:02:49.920 Thank you, Commissioner Beck. 04:02:49.920 --> 04:02:55.840 We have a first and a second, is there any other discussion on the motion? 04:02:55.840 --> 04:02:57.360 Commissioner Ellis. 04:02:57.360 --> 04:03:00.360 Thank you, Chair. 04:03:00.360 --> 04:03:06.640 I really thought that this was not going to be as complicated as it got, and I really 04:03:06.640 --> 04:03:11.640 have a problem moving something along to council, recommending something to council that I don't 04:03:11.640 --> 04:03:15.200 really know what it looks like, and that was the whole reason for staff putting this in 04:03:15.200 --> 04:03:21.840 here in the first place, so something doesn't become something that we didn't mean to approve, 04:03:21.840 --> 04:03:27.120 and you know, it's okay, the plus or minus that they've got built in here, but now we're 04:03:27.120 --> 04:03:31.920 going plus or minus, I don't know, 20% maybe more of what the conceptual site plan shows. 04:03:31.920 --> 04:03:37.080 I mean, that could look considerably different than what we're attempting to move along here 04:03:37.080 --> 04:03:39.920 to council, and I have a real problem with that. 04:03:39.920 --> 04:03:44.360 As Richard mentioned, I don't like to see something that we recommended and then I sit 04:03:44.360 --> 04:03:47.920 in the city council meeting, it looks nothing like what we recommended. 04:03:47.920 --> 04:03:53.400 What are we even here for if things are changing as we move along? 04:03:53.400 --> 04:03:56.280 So I don't know. 04:03:56.280 --> 04:04:01.440 To me, a specific use permit, yes, is for the use, but it should also encompass what 04:04:01.440 --> 04:04:03.520 is going to be in that use. 04:04:03.520 --> 04:04:10.160 It should look something like that, and I don't know, I'm uncomfortable with now that 04:04:10.160 --> 04:04:17.760 we've changed these things around, and I'm certain staff is uncomfortable with it. 04:04:17.760 --> 04:04:19.720 I got a couple thoughts. 04:04:19.720 --> 04:04:23.160 I won't be as eloquent as Commissioner Beck, I'm sure. 04:04:23.160 --> 04:04:30.920 First, I think the direction the city's going in and memorializing things from the conceptual 04:04:30.920 --> 04:04:34.440 preliminary site plan is the right direction. 04:04:34.440 --> 04:04:35.920 I think that is a good thing. 04:04:35.920 --> 04:04:42.240 It's a new thing to the P and Z and to council, but I'm for it, like Commissioner Elf said. 04:04:42.240 --> 04:04:51.160 It helps us as a commission best understand in as large a picture as we can what's being 04:04:51.160 --> 04:04:54.800 put forth to city council, and when they look at it and they see our recommendation, it 04:04:54.800 --> 04:04:59.200 has some meat behind it because we know what we're actually recommending. 04:04:59.200 --> 04:05:10.480 That being said, this project is so under the rights that it would have, and I've expressed 04:05:10.480 --> 04:05:15.240 over and over again the fact that no one can build an apartment without an SUP in Denton. 04:05:15.240 --> 04:05:19.200 No zoning class that I think of, that might be one, but if someone wants to build an apartment 04:05:19.200 --> 04:05:23.440 complex in Denton, they have to go through the SUP process, and I've expressed my frustration 04:05:23.440 --> 04:05:24.440 with that. 04:05:24.440 --> 04:05:29.160 This is the only thing they can do, and it's not an opportunity for us to then say, well, 04:05:29.160 --> 04:05:30.160 now we can deny it. 04:05:30.160 --> 04:05:33.800 When Mr. Allison brought up a good point, you can go build a hotel on it right now, and 04:05:33.800 --> 04:05:37.200 it doesn't have to come to us, but because we want to put multi-family, it has to come 04:05:37.200 --> 04:05:43.400 to us, and now we have this unique opportunity to get in this odd negotiation and denial 04:05:43.400 --> 04:05:49.280 when all the code from 80% lot coverage to building height to density, they're under 04:05:49.280 --> 04:05:55.960 it by well over 10% to number of buildings, it just is so far under what they have the 04:05:55.960 --> 04:05:58.000 right to build if it wasn't an apartment. 04:05:58.000 --> 04:06:05.960 And so I think the right attitude was projected in saying, hey, this is what you think you're 04:06:05.960 --> 04:06:06.960 going to build. 04:06:06.960 --> 04:06:07.960 Let's build something very close to it. 04:06:07.960 --> 04:06:09.020 I get that. 04:06:09.020 --> 04:06:14.240 I think even if they put four more buildings on this property, which would in essence raise 04:06:14.240 --> 04:06:18.440 their density to the 24, it will look kind of the same. 04:06:18.440 --> 04:06:22.480 They're still limited to the 17 acres, so buildings get restructured. 04:06:22.480 --> 04:06:23.840 We know what the buildings are going to look like. 04:06:23.840 --> 04:06:26.320 It has to be agreed upon. 04:06:26.320 --> 04:06:28.960 It's already in there what they're going to look like. 04:06:28.960 --> 04:06:33.200 All that being said, I fully support this project going forward with the motion presented 04:06:33.200 --> 04:06:40.280 by Commissioner Smith and seconded, knowing that I feel comfortable with what I'm recommending 04:06:40.280 --> 04:06:41.280 to counsel. 04:06:41.280 --> 04:06:47.680 I've seen enough for me to feel comfortable moving forward with the knowledge that they 04:06:47.680 --> 04:06:52.320 have a lot of work to do before it gets to counsel to come up with -- it doesn't look 04:06:52.320 --> 04:06:54.880 like it's easy to do. 04:06:54.880 --> 04:06:57.620 So that's my two cents. 04:06:57.620 --> 04:07:01.280 Before I call to a vote, I definitely want to see if there's any other discussions to 04:07:01.280 --> 04:07:02.280 be had. 04:07:02.280 --> 04:07:03.280 Commissioner Ellis. 04:07:03.280 --> 04:07:08.840 Just a couple more thoughts, and I understand about adding a handful more units, and I can 04:07:08.840 --> 04:07:09.840 deal with that. 04:07:09.840 --> 04:07:13.680 Lot coverage is changing quite a bit, and we absolutely don't -- what is that going 04:07:13.680 --> 04:07:15.560 to look like on there? 04:07:15.560 --> 04:07:19.080 You don't really know what that's going to look like, going to 65 from 49? 04:07:19.080 --> 04:07:24.640 I know it's going to be less than the 80% code. 04:07:24.640 --> 04:07:27.480 But I do know that. 04:07:27.480 --> 04:07:29.760 Fair enough. 04:07:29.760 --> 04:07:32.760 Any other discussion? 04:07:32.760 --> 04:07:33.760 Commissioner Cole. 04:07:33.760 --> 04:07:38.520 I share Commissioner Beck's health concerns with the close proximity of those gas wells 04:07:38.520 --> 04:07:48.680 as well, but if -- there will be no development in West Denton if we're, you know, we're held 04:07:48.680 --> 04:07:49.680 to that. 04:07:49.680 --> 04:07:52.040 I mean, there will be none. 04:07:52.040 --> 04:07:57.160 Because that's where the majority of these wells are drilled. 04:07:57.160 --> 04:08:00.980 But you know, I mean, that's awfully close. 04:08:00.980 --> 04:08:02.640 It's awfully close. 04:08:02.640 --> 04:08:11.160 But I mean, there will be no development if we're held to that. 04:08:11.160 --> 04:08:19.880 And I mean, I live -- a football throw from a gas well, I have a water -- I'm on a water 04:08:19.880 --> 04:08:23.240 well, so I'm concerned. 04:08:23.240 --> 04:08:35.080 You know, if that thing goes, 250 is not enough, you know, if it's a severe blowout. 04:08:35.080 --> 04:08:41.920 But you know, this thing is so muddled up that I really don't understand what the hell 04:08:41.920 --> 04:08:45.800 we're voting for, to be honest with you. 04:08:45.800 --> 04:08:53.560 And so on that, I'm going to have -- I mean, I'm going to have to be a no. 04:08:53.560 --> 04:09:02.280 I mean, you know. 04:09:02.280 --> 04:09:04.120 Commissioner Beck. 04:09:04.120 --> 04:09:10.040 And I appreciate the sentiment expressed there, Commissioner Cole, and I'm not talking about 04:09:10.040 --> 04:09:11.040 all development. 04:09:11.040 --> 04:09:14.960 I'm just talking about where people have to live and raise their kids and may have health 04:09:14.960 --> 04:09:15.960 issues. 04:09:15.960 --> 04:09:20.040 We've already approved development close to gas wells that were commercial in nature. 04:09:20.040 --> 04:09:23.720 And if this was purely a commercial development, I wouldn't have any problem with it. 04:09:23.720 --> 04:09:27.520 I wouldn't have any problem with the fact that the number has changed because it stays 04:09:27.520 --> 04:09:32.240 within the parameters set within EDC, as Commissioner Smith pointed out. 04:09:32.240 --> 04:09:38.240 But my concern is always going to be if we're going to talk about living units coming in 04:09:38.240 --> 04:09:44.920 close proximity to these gas wells, that new information is showing that they are dangerous. 04:09:44.920 --> 04:09:47.360 They raise the potential of health and safety risks. 04:09:47.360 --> 04:09:51.120 Even when they're kept down the road, if these leak and these guys are out of business, who 04:09:51.120 --> 04:09:52.120 takes care of that? 04:09:52.120 --> 04:09:53.120 That comes back on us, too. 04:09:53.120 --> 04:09:54.920 So it's not all development. 04:09:54.920 --> 04:10:03.060 It's just living -- where people have got to live and raise their kids. 04:10:03.060 --> 04:10:07.720 Commissioner Smith, can I ask for a clarification of the motion? 04:10:07.720 --> 04:10:13.060 The staff recommendation is to limit their ability to variance it greater than or less 04:10:13.060 --> 04:10:14.840 than 5 percent. 04:10:14.840 --> 04:10:20.880 Are you wanting the applicant's recommendations to abide by that variance or to be a maximum 04:10:20.880 --> 04:10:22.640 limit on the project? 04:10:22.640 --> 04:10:29.260 My specific motion should have been phrased as I wanted to keep staff recommendation as 04:10:29.260 --> 04:10:32.940 is except for these three following things. 04:10:32.940 --> 04:10:38.520 The change on item 2 from 16 buildings is max to 20 buildings is max. 04:10:38.520 --> 04:10:47.680 The change in item 3 of the density of 20.48 units per acre to 24 units per acre and then 04:10:47.680 --> 04:10:53.280 the changes in item 5 saying that the site plan of a lot coverage can be moved from 49 04:10:53.280 --> 04:10:57.640 percent to 65 percent and landscape down to 35 percent. 04:10:57.640 --> 04:11:02.440 And then all other recommendations and conditions that have been made by staff to remain the 04:11:02.440 --> 04:11:03.440 same. 04:11:03.440 --> 04:11:06.440 Thank you for that clarification. 04:11:06.440 --> 04:11:16.680 So it's kind of funny that you said that with regard to -- I don't know what we're voting 04:11:16.680 --> 04:11:17.680 for. 04:11:17.680 --> 04:11:24.760 And when I say this, I don't know, this is probably more for people watching in posterity 04:11:24.760 --> 04:11:26.560 than the moment right now. 04:11:26.560 --> 04:11:31.560 I don't know if it was clear early on in the work session when I was asking questions about 04:11:31.560 --> 04:11:38.920 the gas wells and mentioning having a kid with a breathing condition, I was always going 04:11:38.920 --> 04:11:43.600 to have trouble voting on this one because the fact of the matter is I support development 04:11:43.600 --> 04:11:54.000 in Denton and I want more housing in Denton. 04:11:54.000 --> 04:11:59.880 I can't vote for this because as much as I asked questions about whether or not these 04:11:59.880 --> 04:12:09.760 wells would ever actually come back in to production, and there was some nice reassurance 04:12:09.760 --> 04:12:19.560 that it would take a lot to have that one come in, I have difficulty with this. 04:12:19.560 --> 04:12:26.660 And I think going forward as a board, as a commission, basically discussing how we develop 04:12:26.660 --> 04:12:31.720 Denton going forward, I don't know how we do, especially if we go west. 04:12:31.720 --> 04:12:34.640 Anyway, I just wanted to say that. 04:12:34.640 --> 04:12:35.640 Thank you. 04:12:35.640 --> 04:12:38.600 >> Clarification, you are withdrawing your second. 04:12:38.600 --> 04:12:45.400 >> Well, my second was to put this to a vote, really, not to -- my second was not let's 04:12:45.400 --> 04:12:47.960 approve it, it was just like let's move this to a vote. 04:12:47.960 --> 04:12:48.960 >> That stands. 04:12:48.960 --> 04:12:49.960 >> Yes. 04:12:49.960 --> 04:12:50.960 >> Okay. 04:12:50.960 --> 04:12:51.960 Commissioner Beck. 04:12:51.960 --> 04:12:58.380 >> I asked if Commissioner Perdida would consider removing his second for this. 04:12:58.380 --> 04:13:00.000 >> He can legally do that, correct? 04:13:00.000 --> 04:13:01.000 >> Yeah. 04:13:01.000 --> 04:13:06.400 So my understanding is that my second wasn't an approval, my second was to take this to 04:13:06.400 --> 04:13:07.400 a vote. 04:13:07.400 --> 04:13:08.400 >> That's right. 04:13:08.400 --> 04:13:09.400 >> Okay. 04:13:09.400 --> 04:13:10.400 >> Thank you. 04:13:10.400 --> 04:13:11.400 >> You can vote against it even though you motioned for it. 04:13:11.400 --> 04:13:12.400 >> Okay. 04:13:12.400 --> 04:13:15.920 >> We're going to stall here for a second. 04:13:15.920 --> 04:13:18.040 >> Chair, just a minute. 04:13:18.040 --> 04:13:19.040 >> Commissioner Ellis. 04:13:19.040 --> 04:13:20.040 >> Thank you. 04:13:20.040 --> 04:13:24.640 >> Do you clarify what you asked Commissioner Smith, is he removing the plus or minus 5 04:13:24.640 --> 04:13:25.640 in those numbers? 04:13:25.640 --> 04:13:26.640 >> He was -- 04:13:26.640 --> 04:13:37.680 >> You're leaving the plus or minus 5 and adding the numbers from Mr. Allison, understood? 04:13:37.680 --> 04:13:42.800 >> Just to make sure, with the plus or minus 5, that would not be applied such a way that 04:13:42.800 --> 04:13:45.160 fall below the code requirements, correct? 04:13:45.160 --> 04:13:46.160 >> Correct. 04:13:46.160 --> 04:13:47.160 Absolutely. 04:13:47.160 --> 04:13:48.160 >> Okay. 04:13:48.160 --> 04:13:53.360 So if it's okay with the commission, and we can just do this by nodding, I trust we'll 04:13:53.360 --> 04:13:56.600 do an informal vote, would it be okay if we took a recess? 04:13:56.600 --> 04:14:01.140 I think there's some conversations being had to see if there's a solution to maybe better 04:14:01.140 --> 04:14:03.760 clarify what can happen tonight. 04:14:03.760 --> 04:14:07.680 Would be okay taking 5 to 10 minutes and just take a breather on this? 04:14:07.680 --> 04:14:08.680 Okay. 04:14:08.680 --> 04:14:13.920 Then with that, I'm going to close the regular session at 917 and we'll reconvene in 5 to 04:14:13.920 --> 04:14:15.920 10 minutes. 04:14:15.920 --> 04:14:19.200 >> Thank you for providing us that recess. 04:14:19.200 --> 04:14:21.840 It is now 927. 04:14:21.840 --> 04:14:24.200 We'll open the regular session back. 04:14:24.200 --> 04:14:30.000 And I'll invite Haley to provide an update of what -- where we stand right now with the 04:14:30.000 --> 04:14:31.000 applicant. 04:14:31.000 --> 04:14:32.000 >> Yes. 04:14:32.000 --> 04:14:35.280 So during the recess, I was able to speak with the applicant and they would like to 04:14:35.280 --> 04:14:40.560 request that this item be continued to November 28th so that they have the time in between 04:14:40.560 --> 04:14:45.480 to update their concept plan and bring back a plan that would be consistent with the conditions 04:14:45.480 --> 04:14:51.520 that they recommended tonight so that everyone knows what would be voted on. 04:14:51.520 --> 04:14:52.520 >> Commissioner Smith. 04:14:52.520 --> 04:14:58.560 >> I'd like to amend my motion to -- from approval to motion to table to date certain 04:14:58.560 --> 04:14:59.560 November 28th. 04:14:59.560 --> 04:15:04.960 >> Is that a motion amendment or is that a withdrawal and remotion? 04:15:04.960 --> 04:15:09.580 >> I think we know what he meant. 04:15:09.580 --> 04:15:10.580 >> Thanks, Jerry. 04:15:10.580 --> 04:15:11.580 [ Laughter ] 04:15:11.580 --> 04:15:12.680 >> I'm not sure. 04:15:12.680 --> 04:15:16.600 >> You would like to -- the motion is to table to the November 28th. 04:15:16.600 --> 04:15:17.600 >> Correct. 04:15:17.600 --> 04:15:18.600 Exactly. 04:15:18.600 --> 04:15:19.600 >> Okay. 04:15:19.600 --> 04:15:20.600 We have a first on the floor. 04:15:20.600 --> 04:15:21.600 Commissioner Ellis. 04:15:21.600 --> 04:15:22.600 >> Second. 04:15:22.600 --> 04:15:23.600 >> We have a first and a second. 04:15:23.600 --> 04:15:24.600 Is there any discussion? 04:15:24.600 --> 04:15:26.680 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote by show of hands. 04:15:26.680 --> 04:15:29.200 All in favor for tabling? 04:15:29.200 --> 04:15:30.960 Opposed? 04:15:30.960 --> 04:15:31.960 Motion carries 6-0. 04:15:31.960 --> 04:15:39.980 >> Our next presentation will be a lot shorter than the other ones. 04:15:39.980 --> 04:15:40.980 >> All right. 04:15:40.980 --> 04:15:41.980 Guaranteed. 04:15:41.980 --> 04:15:46.200 [ Laughter ] 04:15:46.200 --> 04:15:55.040 Next item is item 5F, DCA 18-0005B. 04:15:55.040 --> 04:15:57.840 I'll open the public hearing and invite Julie for presentation. 04:15:57.840 --> 04:16:00.960 Julie, you got out early last time, so we kept you here tonight. 04:16:00.960 --> 04:16:01.960 >> I know. 04:16:01.960 --> 04:16:02.960 [ Inaudible ] 04:16:02.960 --> 04:16:03.960 >> That's true. 04:16:03.960 --> 04:16:08.960 I did get off easy. 04:16:08.960 --> 04:16:17.400 >> All right, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and we'll go over 04:16:17.400 --> 04:16:18.400 this briefly. 04:16:18.400 --> 04:16:19.600 I know we talked about it at work session. 04:16:19.600 --> 04:16:21.960 This is DCA 18-5. 04:16:21.960 --> 04:16:26.240 The request is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a text amendment 04:16:26.240 --> 04:16:30.820 to the Denton Development Code to address the Planning and Zoning Commission procedures 04:16:30.820 --> 04:16:33.840 as they relate to tie votes. 04:16:33.840 --> 04:16:40.920 As you're all aware, this is in response to a case that came forward earlier this year 04:16:40.920 --> 04:16:45.460 that resulted in a tie vote, which meant that that case could not move forward to the City 04:16:45.460 --> 04:16:53.560 Council per the current code of ordinances requirements. 04:16:53.560 --> 04:17:01.920 So in September, City Council looked at this issue and had four options that they could 04:17:01.920 --> 04:17:06.560 choose in order to address the issue, and the one that they chose was an amendment to 04:17:06.560 --> 04:17:14.680 the DDC to address only P&Z rules to allow cases to move forward as a denial in instances 04:17:14.680 --> 04:17:15.680 of tie votes. 04:17:15.680 --> 04:17:23.360 So they felt like that was the most conservative approach, most targeted approach to the situation. 04:17:23.360 --> 04:17:27.120 Denial recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission typically require a super 04:17:27.120 --> 04:17:34.600 majority vote at City Council in order to approve, and since the tie vote isn't a majority 04:17:34.600 --> 04:17:39.740 decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council felt that the super majority 04:17:39.740 --> 04:17:47.720 provision wasn't needed in this case, and so their direction to staff was to not include 04:17:47.720 --> 04:17:51.220 that super majority requirement. 04:17:51.220 --> 04:17:57.360 This was considered by this Planning and Zoning Commission in October, and the direction at 04:17:57.360 --> 04:18:01.520 that time was it was just too broad because this was really for instances when there was 04:18:01.520 --> 04:18:06.200 a long-term absence or a recusal, and that we wanted to make sure we really captured 04:18:06.200 --> 04:18:16.660 what that situation was instead of a broad application of the original language. 04:18:16.660 --> 04:18:24.040 So there is a revised language, and that would be applicable to those instances where there's 04:18:24.040 --> 04:18:29.240 either a rezoning or a zoning assignment, a specific use permit, a special exception 04:18:29.240 --> 04:18:35.480 expansion, an alternative ESA or zoning text amendment, or a criteria manual amendment. 04:18:35.480 --> 04:18:40.700 Not applicable in this would be things that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves, 04:18:40.700 --> 04:18:46.800 so that would be something like a plat in ADP or a subdivision variance, comprehensive 04:18:46.800 --> 04:18:53.920 plan text or map amendment, and then a new development code, wholesale new development 04:18:53.920 --> 04:18:54.920 code. 04:18:54.920 --> 04:18:56.960 So that wouldn't apply in those cases. 04:18:56.960 --> 04:19:03.360 The language essentially focuses on process due to Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns. 04:19:03.360 --> 04:19:08.560 Less about the actual reason for the recusal, but just to make sure that we have certainty 04:19:08.560 --> 04:19:10.020 in the process. 04:19:10.020 --> 04:19:14.160 So if, for instance, there are six voting members and there's a tie vote, that would 04:19:14.160 --> 04:19:20.440 be carried over to the next scheduled meeting to give PNZ another bite at the apple. 04:19:20.440 --> 04:19:26.560 And then if there's still six voting members remaining and of tie vote results, it could 04:19:26.560 --> 04:19:32.180 then move forward to City Council unless the Planning and Zoning Commission during their 04:19:32.180 --> 04:19:40.520 meeting votes to postpone that item for another hearing. 04:19:40.520 --> 04:19:44.120 So that language is in your backup and it's listed here. 04:19:44.120 --> 04:19:51.520 It essentially, if a majority voting, if the majority vote fails to either recommend the 04:19:51.520 --> 04:19:59.000 request or an amendment of that request, that request would go to the next meeting. 04:19:59.000 --> 04:20:03.880 If there was a second failure to recommend either approval or denial of the amendment 04:20:03.880 --> 04:20:11.160 or proposed amendment, then at that point it would go forward to City Council as a recommendation 04:20:11.160 --> 04:20:15.280 of denial, but without that super majority provision. 04:20:15.280 --> 04:20:22.760 Staff, in looking at this and considering the discussion that we had at the last PNZ, 04:20:22.760 --> 04:20:27.400 we felt like this revised language maintained the integrity of what the public hearing process 04:20:27.400 --> 04:20:31.600 is. It provided an additional opportunity embedded 04:20:31.600 --> 04:20:37.040 within that language for PNZ to reach a majority decision, but it also lays out a very clear 04:20:37.040 --> 04:20:43.160 path as to how these cases will proceed so that applicants as well as interested members 04:20:43.160 --> 04:20:49.480 of the public can be certain as to how, as to when the final decision will be made. 04:20:49.480 --> 04:20:55.960 This amendment would also prevent leaving projects in an indeterminate state and that since the 04:20:55.960 --> 04:21:00.240 tie vote is a failure to reach a majority decision, that super majority requirement 04:21:00.240 --> 04:21:05.880 has been removed, but that Council, City Council will be apprised of any discussion items or 04:21:05.880 --> 04:21:09.880 concerns that the Planning and Zoning Commission has so that they can make a fully informed 04:21:09.880 --> 04:21:16.680 decision considering all of those factors. So based upon those considerations, staff 04:21:16.680 --> 04:21:21.720 recommends approval of that revised language and I'll stand for any questions. 04:21:21.720 --> 04:21:26.640 - Mr. Smith? - Just to give clarification, I'm assuming 04:21:26.640 --> 04:21:30.360 that there's a, you know, that's simple for one. The second, the second time, so the, 04:21:30.360 --> 04:21:36.040 yeah, if you go back to that flow chart, go one more, flow chart. That second, that second 04:21:36.040 --> 04:21:40.520 tie vote, like technically that meeting, that next scheduled meeting, and there is six voting 04:21:40.520 --> 04:21:44.360 members, the discussion could happen of, hey, we as a commission, we know there's six voting 04:21:44.360 --> 04:21:50.080 members, the seventh will be here next time, we believe. Let's table, we can continue that. 04:21:50.080 --> 04:21:54.440 - One other thing I was gonna ask was, was on the tie votes to make that, you know, get 04:21:54.440 --> 04:21:58.800 all the way to the next meeting and then all the way to City Council, we need to go through 04:21:58.800 --> 04:22:05.000 all methods of someone makes a motion to approve, and then it goes to a tie, and then someone 04:22:05.000 --> 04:22:08.360 makes a motion to deny, and then it goes to a tie, and then that's correct. We're not 04:22:08.360 --> 04:22:14.440 gonna be seeing, it's not like once it's one tie, it automatically goes because that does, 04:22:14.440 --> 04:22:18.640 that second motion would allow for more discussion and possibly a discussion could lead to a 04:22:18.640 --> 04:22:24.040 sway to approval or to not, I guess, approval of the motion. 04:22:24.040 --> 04:22:28.360 - Yeah, it's a failure to make any kind of recommendation at all. 04:22:28.360 --> 04:22:29.600 - We'd be going through both. 04:22:29.600 --> 04:22:36.320 - And really, that's one of the reasons why I suggested inserting the language about as 04:22:36.320 --> 04:22:47.080 amended also, because maybe you can't come to a consensus on a particular motion, but 04:22:47.080 --> 04:22:53.120 even with an amendment to it of some kind, you know, or a modification to it, there should 04:22:53.120 --> 04:23:05.960 be some way to reach a majority, one way or another, on a motion by placing conditions 04:23:05.960 --> 04:23:10.160 or what have you on it to get somewhere. 04:23:10.160 --> 04:23:12.400 - Commissioner Burnetta. 04:23:12.400 --> 04:23:19.840 - So just to clarify, so upon the event of a second tie, it would automatically go through 04:23:19.840 --> 04:23:24.320 or we would have to agree to send it through as a tie vote? 04:23:24.320 --> 04:23:31.540 - As it's written, the second time the Planning and Zoning Commission fails to reach a majority 04:23:31.540 --> 04:23:37.000 decision, as this is written, just the structure of this, it would go to City Council, but 04:23:37.000 --> 04:23:40.680 it is up to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission that if they feel like 04:23:40.680 --> 04:23:46.480 another try may get them to that majority decision, it is always at the discretion of 04:23:46.480 --> 04:23:53.860 the Planning and Zoning Commission to table the item until another meeting where maybe 04:23:53.860 --> 04:24:02.800 that member would be present or maybe some amendment to the project may change the vote, 04:24:02.800 --> 04:24:03.800 how it shakes out. 04:24:03.800 --> 04:24:06.520 - Well, let me try refining that a little bit, because what I thought I heard you say 04:24:06.520 --> 04:24:11.000 is automatically upon a particular tie vote. 04:24:11.000 --> 04:24:15.560 The way that this is written is upon the failure of the Planning and Zoning Commission to make 04:24:15.560 --> 04:24:22.320 a recommendation or to reach a majority, either way. 04:24:22.320 --> 04:24:29.840 And so if you had a, let's say you have the first P&Z meeting and you have a tie vote, 04:24:29.840 --> 04:24:34.240 you spin the motion around, it's still a tie vote, kind of similar to what we had the last 04:24:34.240 --> 04:24:35.240 time. 04:24:35.240 --> 04:24:42.980 And now you have the second P&Z meeting, you have a motion, say, to approve, and it winds 04:24:42.980 --> 04:24:44.920 up in a tie vote. 04:24:44.920 --> 04:24:48.520 That doesn't go to Council as a denial. 04:24:48.520 --> 04:24:56.420 You still spin it around and see if you can get a motion to deny or you could maybe motion 04:24:56.420 --> 04:24:59.560 to approve with a modification or something like that. 04:24:59.560 --> 04:25:05.120 It's just that if you wind up where you cannot make a recommendation twice in a row, you've 04:25:05.120 --> 04:25:10.360 had two bites at the apple, that's when it goes forward to City Council. 04:25:10.360 --> 04:25:13.000 It's not on a particular motion. 04:25:13.000 --> 04:25:15.120 Commissioner Smith? 04:25:15.120 --> 04:25:22.920 And legal would then jump in at that point in time and say, there's no resolution, it's 04:25:22.920 --> 04:25:26.680 now been by City Code code, it's now going to the next meeting, and then there's still 04:25:26.680 --> 04:25:27.680 no resolution. 04:25:27.680 --> 04:25:33.440 But now City Code is going to majority, it's going to City Council as a denial, no supermajority 04:25:33.440 --> 04:25:34.440 rider. 04:25:34.440 --> 04:25:37.760 I mean, well, I'm going to turn it back to the P&Z. 04:25:37.760 --> 04:25:43.680 So if somebody could come up with another motion to bring forward, you're welcome to 04:25:43.680 --> 04:25:44.680 do that. 04:25:44.680 --> 04:25:50.640 Once you tell me that you've run out of motions and there's no motions to be made, that's 04:25:50.640 --> 04:25:51.640 when it goes forward. 04:25:51.640 --> 04:25:52.640 Commissioner Beck? 04:25:52.640 --> 04:25:59.080 The only option I would see in a case like that is what Commissioner Smith said a while 04:25:59.080 --> 04:26:04.760 ago, is if we know for sure that the third meeting would have all seven here and we would 04:26:04.760 --> 04:26:06.640 have a majority vote, then that would be the only exception I could see. 04:26:06.640 --> 04:26:10.560 Well, and then a motion to table would certainly suffice. 04:26:10.560 --> 04:26:11.560 Okay. 04:26:11.560 --> 04:26:19.000 But other than that, I don't see any options. 04:26:19.000 --> 04:26:22.480 Maybe this is the elephant in the room, but I feel like it's probably worth noting. 04:26:22.480 --> 04:26:27.760 I wouldn't see any table actually passing, practically, because there wouldn't be an 04:26:27.760 --> 04:26:32.160 incentive for the individuals who are voting to deny it, to table it, because then they 04:26:32.160 --> 04:26:38.620 could potentially be ensuring a denial which would require a supermajority vote by council, 04:26:38.620 --> 04:26:41.680 where if you didn't table it, it wouldn't require the supermajority. 04:26:41.680 --> 04:26:46.440 So I get the intent of the rule, but I just don't foresee a table happening. 04:26:46.440 --> 04:26:51.240 Sorry if I mentioned it, but whatever. 04:26:51.240 --> 04:26:52.240 Hopefully this never happens, guys. 04:26:52.240 --> 04:26:53.240 Sorry. 04:26:53.240 --> 04:26:57.000 But if that works, that's really your second strike. 04:26:57.000 --> 04:26:58.000 At that point. 04:26:58.000 --> 04:26:59.000 You're right. 04:26:59.000 --> 04:27:00.720 And it should go forward to City Council. 04:27:00.720 --> 04:27:04.760 Yeah, I think the way it's been written, and I appreciate Commissioner Ellis's lead 04:27:04.760 --> 04:27:10.360 in kind of pushing this back, because what came here, like Commissioner Ellis has said, 04:27:10.360 --> 04:27:11.720 this addresses the problem. 04:27:11.720 --> 04:27:18.040 Previously, it wasn't as specific as it needed to be. 04:27:18.040 --> 04:27:19.040 Commissioner Ellis. 04:27:19.040 --> 04:27:20.040 Thank you. 04:27:20.040 --> 04:27:23.440 I move to approve, and thank you, staff, for what you've done. 04:27:23.440 --> 04:27:24.440 I appreciate it. 04:27:24.440 --> 04:27:25.440 I did open it. 04:27:25.440 --> 04:27:26.440 I haven't closed it. 04:27:26.440 --> 04:27:28.400 I'll see if anyone wants to speak on the matter. 04:27:28.400 --> 04:27:29.400 Understood. 04:27:29.400 --> 04:27:30.400 Thank you. 04:27:30.400 --> 04:27:31.400 Okay. 04:27:31.400 --> 04:27:33.640 Any other questions for Julie? 04:27:33.640 --> 04:27:34.640 Sorry. 04:27:34.640 --> 04:27:35.640 Perfect. 04:27:35.640 --> 04:27:36.640 Nice. 04:27:36.640 --> 04:27:37.640 Anyone wishing to speak? 04:27:37.640 --> 04:27:39.640 I don't see anybody. 04:27:39.640 --> 04:27:43.280 I will close the public hearing and open it for motion or discussion. 04:27:43.280 --> 04:27:44.800 Commissioner Ellis. 04:27:44.800 --> 04:27:45.800 Thank you, Chair. 04:27:45.800 --> 04:27:46.800 I motion to approve. 04:27:46.800 --> 04:27:47.800 We have a first. 04:27:47.800 --> 04:27:48.800 Commissioner Beck. 04:27:48.800 --> 04:27:49.800 Second. 04:27:49.800 --> 04:27:50.800 First and second. 04:27:50.800 --> 04:27:51.800 Any discussion? 04:27:51.800 --> 04:27:54.720 Seeing none, I'll vote by show of hands. 04:27:54.720 --> 04:27:56.760 All in favor? 04:27:56.760 --> 04:27:57.940 All opposed? 04:27:57.940 --> 04:28:00.120 Motion carries 6-0. 04:28:00.120 --> 04:28:05.800 That leads us to item six, plan and zoning project matrix, and I'll ask Richard for 04:28:05.800 --> 04:28:06.800 an update. 04:28:06.800 --> 04:28:09.800 I wanted to note a couple things. 04:28:09.800 --> 04:28:24.080 One that isn't on here but wanted to mention the microphone's not on. 04:28:24.080 --> 04:28:29.800 When the commission meets, if you recall, you met in the capacity of the capital improvement 04:28:29.800 --> 04:28:31.360 advisory committee. 04:28:31.360 --> 04:28:36.600 That will be coming back to you again on the 28th for a shorter meeting. 04:28:36.600 --> 04:28:41.600 They did go to city council yesterday for a work session, so they'll be bringing the 04:28:41.600 --> 04:28:43.400 final final everything. 04:28:43.400 --> 04:28:48.600 I'm told it will be about a half hour meeting they anticipate, but they need, I guess, that 04:28:48.600 --> 04:28:54.960 formal recommendation based on whatever changes prior to it going to council in December. 04:28:54.960 --> 04:29:01.520 So that will be on sort of whether we start at 3.30 or 4, I'm trying to get it for 4 so 04:29:01.520 --> 04:29:05.640 we make sure we have everyone here so it's not too terribly early. 04:29:05.640 --> 04:29:10.080 Also wanted to note the tree code, I'll be giving an update on the tree code, but in 04:29:10.080 --> 04:29:17.920 a public hearing setting, but sort of wanted to preface it in -- after the meeting, I don't 04:29:17.920 --> 04:29:22.560 anticipate it going to council the next -- you know, in a couple weeks. 04:29:22.560 --> 04:29:28.040 It's more of -- I know we've had the discussion sort of at a work session setting, and I know 04:29:28.040 --> 04:29:32.680 we've talked about having members of the public be able to provide comments or input, and 04:29:32.680 --> 04:29:37.560 so at this point we thought let's start to bring forward the discussion draft more into 04:29:37.560 --> 04:29:43.840 a public setting with the commission where we can get -- where we can start to get input. 04:29:43.840 --> 04:29:47.260 So that will be sort of the premise of that public hearing. 04:29:47.260 --> 04:29:53.160 It's not that we're asking for the recommendation to move to council within two or three weeks. 04:29:53.160 --> 04:29:55.600 We anticipate coming back again. 04:29:55.600 --> 04:30:00.800 It's just a form to sort of get it out there and have that discussion both with the commission 04:30:00.800 --> 04:30:04.420 and the public in that kind of setting. 04:30:04.420 --> 04:30:11.040 With that, we may end up moving the historic preservation incentives. 04:30:11.040 --> 04:30:15.600 And I do want to talk to Roman to see when the consultant is going to be around that's 04:30:15.600 --> 04:30:19.840 currently working on it, so maybe they can -- we can kind of tie that into -- tie that 04:30:19.840 --> 04:30:21.840 into an update as well. 04:30:21.840 --> 04:30:24.920 A couple other updates. 04:30:24.920 --> 04:30:30.040 Just to give you an idea of that agenda on the 28th, we've got four items now I think 04:30:30.040 --> 04:30:33.640 that will be coming back that had been tabled. 04:30:33.640 --> 04:30:38.480 So we have the -- we have Teasley. 04:30:38.480 --> 04:30:45.560 We have the request for the automotive garage from last meeting will be coming back. 04:30:45.560 --> 04:30:49.920 And then obviously the item -- the item tonight. 04:30:49.920 --> 04:30:53.580 And then I think we'll have one or two consent items that I know for sure. 04:30:53.580 --> 04:30:56.960 And then I think a couple other items. 04:30:56.960 --> 04:31:01.400 So it will probably be a pretty big agenda. 04:31:01.400 --> 04:31:08.400 In addition, the tree code will be part of that public hearing item. 04:31:08.400 --> 04:31:12.720 So we'll be there a little later, I anticipate. 04:31:12.720 --> 04:31:20.960 I know we're starting to clear -- kind of clear the backlog of items. 04:31:20.960 --> 04:31:24.720 I know there was the Robert rules of order as well as clarification on what can be discussed 04:31:24.720 --> 04:31:27.160 at a work session. 04:31:27.160 --> 04:31:31.320 I want to get together with Jerry and perhaps it may be more beneficial. 04:31:31.320 --> 04:31:32.960 We do it maybe the first meeting in January. 04:31:32.960 --> 04:31:36.040 I don't think we're going to have that many items on the agenda so it might be a good 04:31:36.040 --> 04:31:40.280 opportunity to kind of talk about that and go through that right at the first of the 04:31:40.280 --> 04:31:41.280 year. 04:31:41.280 --> 04:31:49.960 And then we'll be sort of bringing forward some of the other items as we firm that up. 04:31:49.960 --> 04:31:54.240 We did provide a little bit of an update on Lake View -- on Lake View Ranch. 04:31:54.240 --> 04:31:57.120 I know that was a big concern from the last meeting. 04:31:57.120 --> 04:32:04.760 We will be meeting weaving staff, development services, police, engineering and city manager's 04:32:04.760 --> 04:32:10.880 office will be meeting with that HOA group tomorrow night to kind of go over some of 04:32:10.880 --> 04:32:11.880 their concerns. 04:32:11.880 --> 04:32:17.480 My understanding is that very next day the police department, the new chief did have 04:32:17.480 --> 04:32:21.600 a speed monitors out there to try to address some of their concerns right away. 04:32:21.600 --> 04:32:28.800 So it is starting to be taken care of, but I can give you a report after -- at the next 04:32:28.800 --> 04:32:35.480 meeting sort of what transpired from that discussion. 04:32:35.480 --> 04:32:42.260 One more item to add, what I think I'm going to start doing is we put out a weekly project 04:32:42.260 --> 04:32:43.260 submission list. 04:32:43.260 --> 04:32:47.600 And I want to temper it because I don't want it to really get into a discussion about projects 04:32:47.600 --> 04:32:51.120 prior to them, especially if they're going to come in front of the board, but I think 04:32:51.120 --> 04:32:54.920 it's good just to see what's coming down the pike. 04:32:54.920 --> 04:32:59.720 Before we were sending it out in sort of a static spreadsheet, and I think I had mentioned 04:32:59.720 --> 04:33:02.760 that that's kind of one of the things that goes to the school board and a number of other 04:33:02.760 --> 04:33:07.320 folks that have kind of subscribed to this, how -- I don't know how we got that subscription 04:33:07.320 --> 04:33:12.800 list to begin with, but we have this big list that we send out, but I did see -- and I don't 04:33:12.800 --> 04:33:19.720 think anybody from PNZ is on that list, but what we've begun to do is turn that into more 04:33:19.720 --> 04:33:21.480 of an interactive map. 04:33:21.480 --> 04:33:26.400 And so every week now what we do is rather than send that static list, you still have 04:33:26.400 --> 04:33:30.000 kind of the spreadsheet on the bottom that tells you what the request, the application 04:33:30.000 --> 04:33:34.640 is, who's requesting it, who the planner is and the contact information, but then it puts 04:33:34.640 --> 04:33:37.760 it on the map so you actually see where it's located. 04:33:37.760 --> 04:33:42.240 And so that's kind of just the start of where we're wanting to head on with kind of just 04:33:42.240 --> 04:33:44.680 getting the word out there of what's going on in the city. 04:33:44.680 --> 04:33:49.880 We still have an overall interactive project map, but what we're trying to do is work within 04:33:49.880 --> 04:33:51.880 the confines of the software that we have now. 04:33:51.880 --> 04:33:57.240 We will be up, you know, going for an update on our software, but the idea behind that 04:33:57.240 --> 04:34:02.800 is at any point in time, anybody can go to that map, and if they have a general idea 04:34:02.800 --> 04:34:07.120 of where that property is or that they see something, they can click on it, get some 04:34:07.120 --> 04:34:12.120 general information on the property, when it's projected to come to PNZ for a hearing, 04:34:12.120 --> 04:34:18.640 that might move, but at least give some projections, but we also want to try to get when a neighborhood 04:34:18.640 --> 04:34:23.240 meeting will be scheduled to also have that information on, and again, just as a way to 04:34:23.240 --> 04:34:24.240 get that out. 04:34:24.240 --> 04:34:30.920 So it's going to take some time, but I just wanted to let you all know where we're headed 04:34:30.920 --> 04:34:36.000 with some of that, but then wanted to at least get you on the list so you start to see how 04:34:36.000 --> 04:34:41.360 it's coming, how it's being displayed, and also welcome feedback as you're, you know, 04:34:41.360 --> 04:34:43.760 we all look at things differently. 04:34:43.760 --> 04:34:44.920 Other than that, that's all I had. 04:34:44.920 --> 04:34:45.920 Thanks for the update. 04:34:45.920 --> 04:34:46.920 Commissioner Beck. 04:34:46.920 --> 04:34:52.480 Was there any consideration in my request for notification of PNZ members interested 04:34:52.480 --> 04:34:55.600 in going to neighborhood meetings, is there? 04:34:55.600 --> 04:34:56.600 Absolutely. 04:34:56.600 --> 04:34:57.600 Okay. 04:34:57.600 --> 04:34:59.880 When those are scheduled, we will send that out. 04:34:59.880 --> 04:35:00.880 Okay. 04:35:00.880 --> 04:35:02.680 And just anybody who feels up to it. 04:35:02.680 --> 04:35:03.680 Okay. 04:35:03.680 --> 04:35:04.680 Thanks. 04:35:04.680 --> 04:35:05.680 I'll make sure that happens. 04:35:05.680 --> 04:35:06.680 Any other requests? 04:35:06.680 --> 04:35:14.440 Robert's rules will not be the first in January if I do it, because I'm going to be in Austin, 04:35:14.440 --> 04:35:19.320 so we may be able to get another attorney to present that. 04:35:19.320 --> 04:35:23.960 The only thing I have to add is, what's the requirements on removing notices once the 04:35:23.960 --> 04:35:24.960 agenda's been held? 04:35:24.960 --> 04:35:28.320 I'm getting questions from people saying, "Hey, what's going on with that property?" 04:35:28.320 --> 04:35:29.760 I'm like, "That was a month ago." 04:35:29.760 --> 04:35:33.680 Does it stay up until council? 04:35:33.680 --> 04:35:38.520 Typically, it'll stay up until council, but they should be removed. 04:35:38.520 --> 04:35:41.200 I think it's prescribed within a week or two. 04:35:41.200 --> 04:35:44.240 I'm trying to recall off memory. 04:35:44.240 --> 04:35:51.240 I know we've reached out a couple of times when it gets bad, or when they're not listening, 04:35:51.240 --> 04:35:55.240 we send zoning enforcement out for having any legal sign. 04:35:55.240 --> 04:35:56.240 Okay. 04:35:56.240 --> 04:35:59.240 Well, good to know that's being monitored. 04:35:59.240 --> 04:36:00.600 Anything else? 04:36:00.600 --> 04:36:01.600 Yeah. 04:36:01.600 --> 04:36:02.600 Tricia Ellis. 04:36:02.600 --> 04:36:03.600 Thank you, Chair. 04:36:03.600 --> 04:36:04.680 Just real quick. 04:36:04.680 --> 04:36:09.500 Something an applicant said today, are they really getting a denial the Friday before 04:36:09.500 --> 04:36:11.000 the planning and zoning meeting? 04:36:11.000 --> 04:36:19.440 I mean, if they are, that's probably something we need to fix, because that's not probably 04:36:19.440 --> 04:36:27.400 enough time for them to prepare to come before P&Z, but I just thought I'd ask that question. 04:36:27.400 --> 04:36:30.240 No, and it's a good thing to add. 04:36:30.240 --> 04:36:34.800 That was one I know we've talked about early on over a year ago, is making sure that we're 04:36:34.800 --> 04:36:37.840 not doing this kind of surprise. 04:36:37.840 --> 04:36:38.840 Here it is. 04:36:38.840 --> 04:36:44.640 Well, I'll have to follow up with Ron, but the intent is, and I think kind of Lee hinted 04:36:44.640 --> 04:36:49.680 to that, as we started to work through, we wanted to let him know ahead of time, just 04:36:49.680 --> 04:36:50.680 so everyone's aware. 04:36:50.680 --> 04:36:52.840 Yeah, if I could just get an update from you. 04:36:52.840 --> 04:36:54.000 I'm just curious about that. 04:36:54.000 --> 04:36:55.000 Yeah, absolutely. 04:36:55.000 --> 04:36:56.000 Okay. 04:36:56.000 --> 04:36:58.000 Thank you. 04:36:58.000 --> 04:36:59.200 With that, great meeting. 04:36:59.200 --> 04:37:00.600 We'll close it at 950.