WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.760
 >> Good evening and welcome to the planning

00:00:03.760 --> 00:00:09.140
 and zoning work session meeting for November 28th, 2018.

00:00:09.140 --> 00:00:13.880
 We can open the meeting at 437.

00:00:13.880 --> 00:00:17.440
 First item on the agenda is any clarification of agenda items.

00:00:17.440 --> 00:00:21.320
 It seems like other than two postponed items.

00:00:21.320 --> 00:00:22.560
 Is there any other changes?

00:00:22.560 --> 00:00:26.520
 >> The work session report, we're going to come back

00:00:26.520 --> 00:00:28.760
 on the design standards.

00:00:28.760 --> 00:00:31.160
 We just need to work through some more details on sort

00:00:31.160 --> 00:00:32.540
 of the governance of that.

00:00:32.540 --> 00:00:35.600
 So we'll be bringing that to another meeting.

00:00:35.600 --> 00:00:37.900
 Probably when we have less of a full agenda.

00:00:37.900 --> 00:00:40.080
 I know we've got quite-- I don't even know

00:00:40.080 --> 00:00:43.000
 if we would actually probably get to it anyways given the number

00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:44.980
 of items that we have today.

00:00:44.980 --> 00:00:47.420
 We won't be doing that.

00:00:47.420 --> 00:00:48.720
 >> And without a consent agenda,

00:00:48.720 --> 00:00:52.180
 we will spend the next two hours potentially

00:00:52.180 --> 00:00:54.720
 in our public hearing items.

00:00:54.720 --> 00:00:59.820
 So with that, we can jump right into item B

00:00:59.820 --> 00:01:04.060
 since item A is being postponed to the December 12th meeting.

00:01:04.060 --> 00:01:08.660
 Item B is the SUP that we heard last meeting

00:01:08.660 --> 00:01:11.080
 but I'll invite Haley for continued discussion

00:01:11.080 --> 00:01:12.640
 on the item.

00:01:24.880 --> 00:01:25.820
 >> All right, good evening.

00:01:25.820 --> 00:01:28.420
 I will keep this brief hopefully unless we need

00:01:28.420 --> 00:01:30.620
 to dive back into the details.

00:01:30.620 --> 00:01:33.600
 So this is the Windsor Drive Apartments SUP.

00:01:33.600 --> 00:01:36.620
 The request as you may remember was to make a recommendation

00:01:36.620 --> 00:01:39.940
 to city council regarding a request for an SUP

00:01:39.940 --> 00:01:42.360
 for a multifamily use on the property that's outlined

00:01:42.360 --> 00:01:46.280
 in yellow, it's approximately 31 acres located at the intersection

00:01:46.280 --> 00:01:50.000
 of Windsor and the I-35 frontage road.

00:01:50.000 --> 00:01:53.480
 This item was continued from the November 14th meeting

00:01:53.480 --> 00:01:54.980
 at the applicant's request.

00:01:54.980 --> 00:01:58.760
 They asked for more time to develop a modified plan.

00:01:58.760 --> 00:02:00.880
 I did want to point out that the public hearing was closed

00:02:00.880 --> 00:02:02.820
 that night so this would just be

00:02:02.820 --> 00:02:05.260
 for discussion and motion this evening.

00:02:05.260 --> 00:02:09.020
 And we're following the meeting, the applicant did decide

00:02:09.020 --> 00:02:11.600
 to move forward with staff's original recommended condition

00:02:11.600 --> 00:02:13.340
 so there is no revised plan to go

00:02:13.340 --> 00:02:17.240
 over with you all at this time.

00:02:17.240 --> 00:02:20.240
 And as you may remember, notices were sent for this case

00:02:20.240 --> 00:02:23.380
 but we've received no responses to that.

00:02:23.380 --> 00:02:27.720
 And just a refresher, with this case, we are trying

00:02:27.720 --> 00:02:31.780
 to capture all the details of the site plan in the ordinance

00:02:31.780 --> 00:02:34.020
 so all of these requirements listed

00:02:34.020 --> 00:02:37.760
 on the screen would be expressly outlined in the ordinance.

00:02:37.760 --> 00:02:39.320
 All six items relate to the details

00:02:39.320 --> 00:02:42.360
 that were on the original site plan.

00:02:42.360 --> 00:02:45.100
 And then based on that, staff did have four conditions

00:02:45.100 --> 00:02:47.260
 that we're recommending with the SUP.

00:02:47.260 --> 00:02:50.640
 The first be that council would recognize

00:02:50.640 --> 00:02:52.100
 that driveway access locations

00:02:52.100 --> 00:02:54.580
 from the state highway must be approved by TechStot

00:02:54.580 --> 00:02:56.400
 and that alterations to the configuration

00:02:56.400 --> 00:02:59.880
 of I-35 are currently in the planning stages.

00:02:59.880 --> 00:03:01.740
 So any driveway access locations

00:03:01.740 --> 00:03:04.680
 on the northbound frontage road which have to be altered

00:03:04.680 --> 00:03:07.780
 as a result of TechStot's plans during the permitting process,

00:03:07.780 --> 00:03:09.980
 we ask that those be able to be administratively approved

00:03:09.980 --> 00:03:12.160
 by staff providing that all other elements

00:03:12.160 --> 00:03:14.120
 of the site plan are complied with.

00:03:14.120 --> 00:03:17.600
 The second condition is that landscaping on the site plan does

00:03:17.600 --> 00:03:21.240
 reflect an intent to comply with all the DDC requirements

00:03:21.240 --> 00:03:23.600
 in terms of parking lot landscaping, street trees,

00:03:23.600 --> 00:03:26.340
 minimum landscaping, canopy area and buffers.

00:03:26.340 --> 00:03:28.400
 However, the applicant is requesting administrative

00:03:28.400 --> 00:03:31.740
 approval for an alternative buffer along

00:03:31.740 --> 00:03:33.440
 that western property line as you may remember

00:03:33.440 --> 00:03:35.280
 from the discussion last time.

00:03:35.280 --> 00:03:37.480
 So minor alterations to the locations

00:03:37.480 --> 00:03:40.620
 of individual plantings shown on the plan may be approved

00:03:40.620 --> 00:03:43.720
 by staff provided that the final landscaping complies

00:03:43.720 --> 00:03:46.620
 with the site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations

00:03:46.620 --> 00:03:50.320
 as well as all other components of the DDC.

00:03:50.320 --> 00:03:52.360
 The third condition relates to an agreement

00:03:52.360 --> 00:03:55.640
 between the surface developer and the gas well operator.

00:03:55.640 --> 00:03:57.600
 So one of our conditions recommended is

00:03:57.600 --> 00:04:00.140
 that the agreement entered into by these two parties

00:04:00.140 --> 00:04:03.900
 that sets forth the 250 foot reverse setbacks shown

00:04:03.900 --> 00:04:07.440
 on the site plan for both of the well sites be filed in the records

00:04:07.440 --> 00:04:09.740
 of Denton County prior to approval of a plat

00:04:09.740 --> 00:04:12.240
 for the subject property and then that a note be placed

00:04:12.240 --> 00:04:15.580
 on the plant recognizing the agreement and the setbacks.

00:04:15.580 --> 00:04:17.320
 And then finally the fourth condition would be

00:04:17.320 --> 00:04:20.260
 that notwithstanding the limited administrative approvals

00:04:20.260 --> 00:04:24.500
 that were outlined in these criteria as well as conditions one

00:04:24.500 --> 00:04:26.660
 and two that the city would reserve the right

00:04:26.660 --> 00:04:30.560
 to require approval by ordinance of any amendment to the SUP.

00:04:30.560 --> 00:04:33.800
 And I'm happy to go through any other details of the case.

00:04:33.800 --> 00:04:37.340
 It's just kind of a high level overview of where we're at.

00:04:37.340 --> 00:04:38.040
 >> Mr. Beck.

00:04:38.040 --> 00:04:38.880
 >> Thank you Chair.

00:04:38.880 --> 00:04:44.040
 Just to be clear, there is no-- currently there is no definitive

00:04:44.040 --> 00:04:46.540
 commercial development that will happen.

00:04:46.540 --> 00:04:47.180
 >> Correct.

00:04:47.180 --> 00:04:51.480
 There are-- if I can get to the site plan, the area shown

00:04:51.480 --> 00:04:54.120
 in red are intended for commercial development someday

00:04:54.120 --> 00:04:55.560
 but there are no definitive plans for that yet.

00:04:55.560 --> 00:04:57.120
 >> There's no date.

00:04:57.120 --> 00:04:57.400
 >> Okay.

00:04:57.400 --> 00:04:58.300
 >> Not that I'm aware of.

00:04:58.300 --> 00:05:00.020
 >> Great, thanks.

00:05:00.020 --> 00:05:00.820
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:05:00.820 --> 00:05:01.760
 >> Thank you Chair.

00:05:01.760 --> 00:05:04.340
 So what was-- the applicant originally was asking once the,

00:05:04.340 --> 00:05:06.740
 once the, you know, the conditions that--

00:05:06.740 --> 00:05:10.200
 or the recommendations I should say that the city staff were one

00:05:10.200 --> 00:05:12.600
 to put on there, they found out only a short period

00:05:12.600 --> 00:05:15.340
 of time before they would come back and see it.

00:05:15.340 --> 00:05:17.740
 Why did they eventually give in to the recommendations

00:05:17.740 --> 00:05:18.820
 and why is there no change?

00:05:18.820 --> 00:05:20.940
 Because that was the discussion a lot of last time was like,

00:05:20.940 --> 00:05:23.380
 well we'd actually have to see it this way instead.

00:05:23.380 --> 00:05:23.980
 >> Correct.

00:05:23.980 --> 00:05:25.820
 It was through discussions actually

00:05:25.820 --> 00:05:27.760
 with legal staff following the meeting.

00:05:27.760 --> 00:05:31.060
 The way our notices are worded, it implies that PNZ

00:05:31.060 --> 00:05:34.700
 and council can recommend and approve anything that is--

00:05:34.700 --> 00:05:36.100
 make sure I get this right--

00:05:36.100 --> 00:05:38.260
 equal to or more restrictive than what was seen

00:05:38.260 --> 00:05:38.940
 at the meeting.

00:05:38.940 --> 00:05:40.800
 What they were proposing is actually less restrictive.

00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:41.340
 >> Okay, so--

00:05:41.340 --> 00:05:43.940
 >> So it would have required another notification.

00:05:43.940 --> 00:05:45.740
 >> So, oh, so that's-- so they just said just for the sake

00:05:45.740 --> 00:05:47.540
 of notification issue and delaying the process--

00:05:47.540 --> 00:05:49.280
 >> Correct, yeah, just to keep moving forward--

00:05:49.280 --> 00:05:50.580
 >> Go ahead and--

00:05:50.580 --> 00:05:51.140
 >> Correct.

00:05:51.140 --> 00:05:52.140
 >> -- bend to the will.

00:05:52.140 --> 00:05:55.180
 Okay. And then if we vote-- vote any type of motion,

00:05:55.180 --> 00:05:57.020
 it would be for staff's recommendations

00:05:57.020 --> 00:05:58.260
 and the conditions, correct?

00:05:58.260 --> 00:05:58.720
 >> Mm-hmm.

00:05:58.720 --> 00:05:59.620
 >> Okay, got it.

00:05:59.620 --> 00:06:01.220
 Perfect, thank you.

00:06:06.260 --> 00:06:08.300
 >> Any other questions for Haley?

00:06:08.300 --> 00:06:12.100
 Great. Thank you, Haley.

00:06:12.100 --> 00:06:14.940
 >> Thank you.

00:06:14.940 --> 00:06:22.980
 >> Next item is the specific use permit S18-0002B.

00:06:22.980 --> 00:06:27.980
 This item was continued from October 24th meeting.

00:06:27.980 --> 00:06:29.080
 I'll ask Cindy.

00:06:29.080 --> 00:06:30.020
 Is Cindy here?

00:06:30.020 --> 00:06:30.580
 >> Yeah.

00:06:30.580 --> 00:06:33.060
 >> Oh, I'm behind Matt's head.

00:06:33.060 --> 00:06:38.020
 I couldn't see.

00:06:38.020 --> 00:06:41.660
 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.

00:06:41.660 --> 00:06:53.780
 >> And this was for which one, sir?

00:06:53.780 --> 00:07:02.620
 >> S18-002B, 2B, got to be that--

00:07:02.620 --> 00:07:04.660
 >> One above that, two above that.

00:07:04.660 --> 00:07:05.780
 >> No.

00:07:05.780 --> 00:07:06.860
 >> Yeah.

00:07:06.860 --> 00:07:07.860
 >> Two above you highlighted.

00:07:07.860 --> 00:07:09.820
 >> Third one down.

00:07:09.820 --> 00:07:10.420
 >> This one?

00:07:10.420 --> 00:07:13.220
 >> Yeah.

00:07:13.220 --> 00:07:14.900
 >> Okay, yes.

00:07:14.900 --> 00:07:20.600
 And I-- you are familiar with this one.

00:07:20.600 --> 00:07:30.700
 This is the request for an SUP for a specific use permit

00:07:30.700 --> 00:07:34.520
 to allow quick vehicle servicing in suite 110 and suite 111

00:07:34.520 --> 00:07:36.620
 of the budget self-storage site.

00:07:36.620 --> 00:07:40.860
 The property, again, is located at 2820 Virginia Circle.

00:07:40.860 --> 00:07:42.980
 You can see it right here.

00:07:42.980 --> 00:07:47.000
 Now, when we were last here, the item was continued

00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:49.900
 from the October 28th planning and zoning commission meeting

00:07:49.900 --> 00:07:52.700
 to allow the tenants, the two tenants involved time

00:07:52.700 --> 00:07:56.340
 to address the parking issues associated with these two suites.

00:07:56.340 --> 00:07:59.000
 If you'll recall, there was parking--

00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:01.800
 quite a bit of parking on the lot that was adjacent

00:08:01.800 --> 00:08:04.840
 to the site, the vacant lot adjacent to the site.

00:08:04.840 --> 00:08:08.940
 At that time, the public hearing was not closed.

00:08:08.940 --> 00:08:12.820
 We had-- we went out there today and as of today,

00:08:12.820 --> 00:08:17.220
 the vehicles have been removed from the lot adjacent to the site

00:08:17.220 --> 00:08:21.300
 and there are-- there are not a lot of vehicles

00:08:21.300 --> 00:08:24.900
 in the parking area in front of the units.

00:08:24.900 --> 00:08:29.060
 Mr. Melton who was in suite 111 has left

00:08:29.060 --> 00:08:31.760
 and Mr. Haney now has leased the unit

00:08:31.760 --> 00:08:34.780
 and has both units 110 and 111.

00:08:34.780 --> 00:08:40.740
 These are the photos that were taken back in February 2018

00:08:40.740 --> 00:08:44.680
 and you can see the cars are stacked.

00:08:44.680 --> 00:08:45.820
 There's no room between them.

00:08:45.820 --> 00:08:47.420
 I don't know how they get them out to be honest.

00:08:47.420 --> 00:08:52.360
 Along the front of the site, this shows the adjacent lot

00:08:52.360 --> 00:08:58.400
 and this shows the two units right here and here's a head

00:08:58.400 --> 00:09:02.200
 on of the two units right here.

00:09:02.200 --> 00:09:05.760
 This was taken November 11th and as you can see,

00:09:05.760 --> 00:09:09.840
 there are still some cars parked around here to the side

00:09:09.840 --> 00:09:15.100
 of the site and these-- the cars on the adjacent lot as well,

00:09:15.100 --> 00:09:18.840
 you can see these two cars which are right here, here

00:09:18.840 --> 00:09:21.280
 and there are also cars here.

00:09:21.280 --> 00:09:24.720
 So there's a total of approximately four cars still

00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:26.860
 on the vacant lot next door.

00:09:26.860 --> 00:09:31.560
 You can see there's quite a few less cars.

00:09:31.560 --> 00:09:34.360
 There are fewer cars there along the--

00:09:34.360 --> 00:09:35.800
 in the parking area in the front.

00:09:35.800 --> 00:09:37.360
 Now this was November 11th

00:09:37.360 --> 00:09:40.600
 and these pictures were taken this afternoon.

00:09:40.600 --> 00:09:43.740
 The adjacent lot is clear.

00:09:43.740 --> 00:09:48.240
 There are what you'd expect to see a normal number of cars along

00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:54.480
 the front of the site and here's a close up of that.

00:09:54.480 --> 00:09:56.680
 Again, just to remind you, this is a public hearing.

00:09:56.680 --> 00:09:59.720
 We sent out notices via certified mail

00:09:59.720 --> 00:10:04.800
 and courtesy postcards and we received no responses.

00:10:04.800 --> 00:10:08.600
 There was one site-- one sign posted on the site.

00:10:08.600 --> 00:10:12.760
 Staff recommends denial of this request.

00:10:12.760 --> 00:10:16.340
 However, should the commission decide to recommend approval,

00:10:16.340 --> 00:10:18.840
 staff recommends the following recommendations.

00:10:18.840 --> 00:10:21.880
 A new certificate of occupancy should be issued

00:10:21.880 --> 00:10:24.980
 for the correct use, quick vehicle servicing.

00:10:24.980 --> 00:10:28.220
 A new-- the new certificate of occupancy shall state

00:10:28.220 --> 00:10:31.860
 that the proposed use of new quick vehicle servicing is

00:10:31.860 --> 00:10:33.780
 limited to this particular business owner

00:10:33.780 --> 00:10:36.720
 and these two particular suites.

00:10:36.720 --> 00:10:39.960
 This specific use permit will be limited to the use description

00:10:39.960 --> 00:10:45.000
 and floor plan as shown in Exhibits 8 and 9.

00:10:45.000 --> 00:10:48.740
 Overnight, outdoor storage of automobiles is prohibited

00:10:48.740 --> 00:10:51.400
 and no more than two customer vehicles per business can be

00:10:51.400 --> 00:10:52.740
 parked in the parking spaces

00:10:52.740 --> 00:10:55.280
 in front of the building during business hours.

00:10:55.280 --> 00:10:57.380
 And that concludes my presentation.

00:10:57.380 --> 00:10:58.240
 >> Ms. Charles.

00:10:58.240 --> 00:10:59.340
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:10:59.340 --> 00:11:01.820
 So Cindy, we actually only have one business now.

00:11:01.820 --> 00:11:07.220
 So, does that need to be reworded or?

00:11:07.220 --> 00:11:11.260
 >> No, no, he's in both suites, suite 110 and 111.

00:11:11.260 --> 00:11:13.520
 >> But it's just one, not per each.

00:11:13.520 --> 00:11:15.060
 >> So you're saying for each suite?

00:11:15.060 --> 00:11:16.260
 >> For each suite, yes.

00:11:16.260 --> 00:11:18.660
 We have to park each suite

00:11:18.660 --> 00:11:23.100
 and that's what we're saying is each suite can have two spaces

00:11:23.100 --> 00:11:24.700
 for customer parking.

00:11:24.700 --> 00:11:26.380
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

00:11:26.380 --> 00:11:29.340
 >> Okay. And kind of along those lines,

00:11:29.340 --> 00:11:32.280
 I believe it was Mr. Melton-- Mr. Melton wasn't here.

00:11:32.280 --> 00:11:33.240
 It was Mr. Haney before.

00:11:33.240 --> 00:11:34.580
 >> Mr. Haney was here last time.

00:11:34.580 --> 00:11:37.720
 >> Okay. And Mr. Melton has since vacated the property

00:11:37.720 --> 00:11:39.680
 as we were told.

00:11:39.680 --> 00:11:42.620
 So Mr. Haney is now occupying both of them?

00:11:42.620 --> 00:11:43.160
 >> Yes, he is.

00:11:43.160 --> 00:11:45.800
 >> So he would need a specific use permit for both.

00:11:45.800 --> 00:11:46.360
 >> That's right.

00:11:46.360 --> 00:11:47.800
 >> Okay.

00:11:47.800 --> 00:11:53.500
 >> Commissioner Sanchez.

00:11:53.500 --> 00:11:58.100
 >> If I remember correctly, when we first discussed this issue,

00:11:58.100 --> 00:12:02.100
 one of the things is he mentioned that he had rented

00:12:02.100 --> 00:12:05.440
 that lot next to him and he had gotten permission

00:12:05.440 --> 00:12:11.080
 to actually gravel that and according to--

00:12:11.080 --> 00:12:14.360
 if I remember correctly, I guess he had gotten

00:12:14.360 --> 00:12:19.000
 from code enforcement permission to utilize that as long

00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:21.260
 as it was graveled but the problem was

00:12:21.260 --> 00:12:23.060
 that gone beyond that or something?

00:12:23.060 --> 00:12:26.100
 >> Code enforcement never gave them permission to do that.

00:12:26.100 --> 00:12:27.800
 >> Okay.

00:12:27.800 --> 00:12:32.700
 >> Code enforcement was concerned about the number of cars,

00:12:32.700 --> 00:12:36.440
 the fact that they were parking on grass as well as gravel

00:12:36.440 --> 00:12:40.640
 and the nuisance factor that was out there.

00:12:40.640 --> 00:12:43.480
 >> Okay, that's what I remember him saying something about,

00:12:43.480 --> 00:12:46.160
 that he had put gravel out there but then they had gone beyond

00:12:46.160 --> 00:12:48.280
 that so that was one of the big issues.

00:12:48.280 --> 00:12:52.960
 Now, my other question is, there's other offices there?

00:12:52.960 --> 00:12:53.420
 >> Yes.

00:12:53.420 --> 00:12:56.660
 >> So each one gets two parking spots, right?

00:12:56.660 --> 00:12:57.260
 Is that correct?

00:12:57.260 --> 00:13:01.240
 >> Each one gets-- well, it depends on the floor area

00:13:01.240 --> 00:13:05.800
 of their suite and it depends on the use.

00:13:05.800 --> 00:13:12.120
 So each one, I went through the manager of the site gave me a list

00:13:12.120 --> 00:13:18.140
 of all of the tenants in their-- the strip, the building right now

00:13:18.140 --> 00:13:20.480
 and I went through and looked at each CEO

00:13:20.480 --> 00:13:24.420
 to see how much parking each one required

00:13:24.420 --> 00:13:28.320
 and for the total strip, 12 spaces are required

00:13:28.320 --> 00:13:30.360
 and that's how many are provided.

00:13:30.360 --> 00:13:31.200
 >> Right, right.

00:13:31.200 --> 00:13:37.200
 And so, when we saw that one picture of all those cars,

00:13:37.200 --> 00:13:40.200
 were some of those cars belong to some of those other suites

00:13:40.200 --> 00:13:42.680
 or was it just-- we just assumed that they all belong to--

00:13:42.680 --> 00:13:43.740
 >> I don't know.

00:13:43.740 --> 00:13:44.280
 >> Okay.

00:13:44.280 --> 00:13:45.440
 >> We can't tell that.

00:13:45.440 --> 00:13:46.480
 >> Well, that's what I was wondering.

00:13:46.480 --> 00:13:48.580
 We just saw that one picture but we don't know

00:13:48.580 --> 00:13:52.640
 if those cars belong to anybody else in that office space

00:13:52.640 --> 00:13:56.280
 and so we don't know how many of those actually belong to that.

00:13:56.280 --> 00:14:00.620
 >> Well, I can tell you that 12 cars are permitted to park

00:14:00.620 --> 00:14:01.420
 in that area.

00:14:01.420 --> 00:14:02.360
 >> Okay.

00:14:02.360 --> 00:14:05.360
 >> And there were over 15 cars there.

00:14:05.360 --> 00:14:07.160
 >> Okay.

00:14:07.160 --> 00:14:09.200
 >> Okay. But we don't know who they belong to,

00:14:09.200 --> 00:14:11.300
 if they belong to him or they belong to somebody else.

00:14:11.300 --> 00:14:15.400
 >> Well, the-- now, from my discussions with the applicant,

00:14:15.400 --> 00:14:18.200
 some of them did belong to these two businesses.

00:14:18.200 --> 00:14:19.580
 >> Okay, okay.

00:14:19.580 --> 00:14:25.120
 >> The number, I don't know but, yeah, they had.

00:14:25.120 --> 00:14:27.080
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:14:27.080 --> 00:14:28.520
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:14:28.520 --> 00:14:34.580
 And I hate to be Mr. Skeptical here but do we have any provision

00:14:34.580 --> 00:14:38.860
 other than maybe a complaint that down the road he may be

00:14:38.860 --> 00:14:42.820
 in violation again, I would maybe put before the commission,

00:14:42.820 --> 00:14:45.300
 maybe should we put that sometime

00:14:45.300 --> 00:14:48.060
 in the next year there would be a random inspection,

00:14:48.060 --> 00:14:51.400
 a one-time random inspection just to make sure it's compliant

00:14:51.400 --> 00:14:54.680
 because I can see this getting out of control again.

00:14:54.680 --> 00:14:57.980
 >> You're welcome to add any stipulations that you want

00:14:57.980 --> 00:14:59.840
 to add to the recommendation.

00:14:59.840 --> 00:15:04.180
 >> Would it be fair to kind of just ask, just a general nod

00:15:04.180 --> 00:15:07.720
 from everybody if that would be a--

00:15:07.720 --> 00:15:10.280
 >> I do have some concerns with putting

00:15:10.280 --> 00:15:12.920
 that in there as a requirement because this is passed

00:15:12.920 --> 00:15:20.860
 by ordinance and, you know, the enforcement is generally left

00:15:20.860 --> 00:15:24.140
 to the code enforcement department to enforce the provisions

00:15:24.140 --> 00:15:28.000
 of the ordinance that go through the legislative process.

00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:28.900
 >> OK.

00:15:28.900 --> 00:15:31.180
 >> I can tell you that the code enforcement officer is going

00:15:31.180 --> 00:15:34.040
 to have this on his radar for a while.

00:15:34.040 --> 00:15:35.140
 >> OK.

00:15:35.140 --> 00:15:37.120
 >> That's good enough for me then, thank you.

00:15:37.120 --> 00:15:38.120
 Commissioner Pernetta.

00:15:38.120 --> 00:15:41.520
 >> OK. So the-- you mentioned that there's about 15 cars,

00:15:41.520 --> 00:15:43.360
 that was as of today?

00:15:43.360 --> 00:15:44.860
 >> No, there's 12 today.

00:15:44.860 --> 00:15:45.660
 >> 12 today, OK.

00:15:45.660 --> 00:15:49.320
 >> Right. They had 15 parking spaces originally

00:15:49.320 --> 00:15:51.520
 and when the site plan was originally submitted

00:15:51.520 --> 00:15:56.140
 and I checked the dimensions of the parking spaces they had,

00:15:56.140 --> 00:15:59.960
 they didn't meet our required dimensions for parallel parking.

00:15:59.960 --> 00:16:02.840
 So the applicant restriped them according to code

00:16:02.840 --> 00:16:05.240
 and reduced the parking down to 12.

00:16:05.240 --> 00:16:09.180
 >> OK. The other thing that I remember, Mr. Haney talked

00:16:09.180 --> 00:16:14.020
 about the possibility of storing cars within the facility.

00:16:14.020 --> 00:16:15.020
 >> Yeah.

00:16:15.020 --> 00:16:17.380
 >> Were you able to check the size of, you know,

00:16:17.380 --> 00:16:19.620
 the building or the interior to see

00:16:19.620 --> 00:16:22.500
 if that could effectively do what he claimed?

00:16:22.500 --> 00:16:25.320
 >> We have-- I included a dimension site plan

00:16:25.320 --> 00:16:29.060
 in your exhibits and you can take a look at that

00:16:29.060 --> 00:16:31.360
 and see if that would work out.

00:16:31.360 --> 00:16:34.700
 It looks to me like he could fit at least two in there

00:16:34.700 --> 00:16:40.100
 but I'm not a car person so I don't know.

00:16:40.100 --> 00:16:41.240
 >> Thank you very much.

00:16:41.240 --> 00:16:42.940
 >> I think legal wants to ask a question.

00:16:42.940 --> 00:16:45.780
 >> Yeah. Cindy, just so we don't have any, you know,

00:16:45.780 --> 00:16:50.120
 misunderstandings here as far as if the commission were

00:16:50.120 --> 00:16:51.580
 to recommend this.

00:16:51.580 --> 00:16:57.420
 Are there still building code issues that would remain apart

00:16:57.420 --> 00:17:02.260
 from the zoning issues that might prevent this

00:17:02.260 --> 00:17:07.100
 from ever being a viable option for a business?

00:17:07.100 --> 00:17:08.240
 >> Not that I'm aware of.

00:17:08.240 --> 00:17:09.340
 >> OK.

00:17:09.340 --> 00:17:13.200
 >> No. The whole issue was the fact that they were

00:17:13.200 --> 00:17:17.280
 in violation of their CO and that they were parking

00:17:17.280 --> 00:17:19.920
 on the adjacent lot.

00:17:19.920 --> 00:17:20.620
 >> Christopher Smith.

00:17:20.620 --> 00:17:21.840
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:17:21.840 --> 00:17:24.460
 Yeah, that's actually slightly what my question was going

00:17:24.460 --> 00:17:26.780
 to be with legal ask which was that what was the likelihood

00:17:26.780 --> 00:17:29.380
 that an actual CO would be issued for this because--

00:17:29.380 --> 00:17:30.960
 but I'm guessing that you're what you're saying is

00:17:30.960 --> 00:17:33.400
 that the reason they're in the violation of their CO is

00:17:33.400 --> 00:17:36.060
 that they had filed for a use that was allowed

00:17:36.060 --> 00:17:38.400
 and if there's zoning but because we'll have an SCP,

00:17:38.400 --> 00:17:41.300
 now this use would be allowed so really other

00:17:41.300 --> 00:17:45.440
 than just building standard things, you know, exits,

00:17:45.440 --> 00:17:47.240
 mark, bathrooms, everything else.

00:17:47.240 --> 00:17:48.740
 They should be able to get a CO pretty easily.

00:17:48.740 --> 00:17:49.640
 >> Yes.

00:17:49.640 --> 00:17:51.020
 >> So it is very likely that if we approve the CO

00:17:51.020 --> 00:17:54.380
 that they approve the SCP that they will get a CO.

00:17:54.380 --> 00:17:54.980
 >> Exactly.

00:17:54.980 --> 00:17:55.980
 >> Sure. OK, awesome.

00:17:55.980 --> 00:17:57.580
 Thank you.

00:17:57.580 --> 00:17:58.360
 >> Christopher Beck.

00:17:58.360 --> 00:18:02.760
 >> Thank you, Chair and in so doing then, should he grow

00:18:02.760 --> 00:18:06.020
 and expand and move out of there that would allow somebody else

00:18:06.020 --> 00:18:06.920
 to come in and do this?

00:18:06.920 --> 00:18:07.560
 >> No.

00:18:07.560 --> 00:18:08.500
 >> We'd have to start over, right?

00:18:08.500 --> 00:18:12.060
 >> That is why we are putting that requirement

00:18:12.060 --> 00:18:14.440
 that you see right here.

00:18:14.440 --> 00:18:17.400
 The new certificate of occupancy shall state

00:18:17.400 --> 00:18:20.440
 that the proposed use of quick vehicle service is limited

00:18:20.440 --> 00:18:22.580
 to this particular business owner and these two.

00:18:22.580 --> 00:18:23.180
 >> OK.

00:18:23.180 --> 00:18:26.320
 >> So when the business owner leaves, they have to--

00:18:26.320 --> 00:18:29.880
 if they wanted to put quick vehicle servicing in there again,

00:18:29.880 --> 00:18:31.680
 they would have to go through the SUP process.

00:18:31.680 --> 00:18:32.580
 >> OK. Good.

00:18:32.580 --> 00:18:33.920
 Thanks.

00:18:36.920 --> 00:18:39.160
 >> So I have a couple of questions.

00:18:39.160 --> 00:18:43.740
 We took last time of limiting SUP to a business

00:18:43.740 --> 00:18:46.500
 and we-- I think the conclusion was the SUP is limited

00:18:46.500 --> 00:18:49.480
 to the use of the land.

00:18:49.480 --> 00:18:53.180
 Is it within this authority or the council authority

00:18:53.180 --> 00:18:58.320
 to limit the CO to a business?

00:18:58.320 --> 00:19:04.460
 >> Yes. This is how the city attorney said it had

00:19:04.460 --> 00:19:07.360
 to be restricted during the meeting last time.

00:19:07.360 --> 00:19:08.360
 >> OK.

00:19:08.360 --> 00:19:10.460
 >> The CO would be the instrument.

00:19:10.460 --> 00:19:11.120
 >> Gotcha.

00:19:11.120 --> 00:19:11.960
 >> It wasn't me.

00:19:11.960 --> 00:19:13.000
 >> Yeah, it was.

00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:14.200
 It's in the minutes.

00:19:14.200 --> 00:19:16.540
 [ Laughter ]

00:19:16.540 --> 00:19:20.400
 >> Remind me a dog when you guys come up with the minutes.

00:19:20.400 --> 00:19:21.340
 >> Yeah.

00:19:21.340 --> 00:19:24.600
 [ Laughter ]

00:19:24.600 --> 00:19:28.540
 >> Well, then, that'd be my question is if there can be

00:19:28.540 --> 00:19:31.080
 stipulations enforced, whoever issues the certificate

00:19:31.080 --> 00:19:32.680
 of occupancy, that that has to be limited

00:19:32.680 --> 00:19:34.980
 and what's the mechanism to ensure

00:19:34.980 --> 00:19:37.720
 that the individual's issuing the CO know about this.

00:19:37.720 --> 00:19:40.460
 That would be more just to put on their radar.

00:19:40.460 --> 00:19:43.120
 Commissioner Pernette asked a question.

00:19:43.120 --> 00:19:45.000
 I was surprised by the answer.

00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:50.300
 He said would each suite need to have its own SUP.

00:19:50.300 --> 00:19:53.740
 You responded affirmatively, we're only seeing one SUP.

00:19:53.740 --> 00:19:56.340
 So is this SUP for suite 110 or 110?

00:19:56.340 --> 00:19:58.600
 >> Well, then I must have misunderstood his question then.

00:19:58.600 --> 00:19:59.600
 >> OK.

00:19:59.600 --> 00:20:04.340
 >> Because this suite is for-- this SUP is for suite 110 and 111.

00:20:04.340 --> 00:20:04.840
 >> OK.

00:20:04.840 --> 00:20:05.840
 >> Those two.

00:20:05.840 --> 00:20:06.720
 >> Perfect.

00:20:06.720 --> 00:20:07.620
 That was my understanding.

00:20:07.620 --> 00:20:09.980
 I was a little confused by the response.

00:20:09.980 --> 00:20:12.760
 >> Yeah. I just misunderstood the question then.

00:20:12.760 --> 00:20:15.220
 >> Lastly, I'm not sure if it's articulated

00:20:15.220 --> 00:20:18.500
 or can you re-articulate, given these provisions,

00:20:18.500 --> 00:20:23.200
 why the staff would be in denial of this request?

00:20:23.200 --> 00:20:27.460
 >> Well, this-- we call this a soft denial to be honest

00:20:27.460 --> 00:20:31.780
 with you where we feel that because it was denied

00:20:31.780 --> 00:20:36.080
 as an automotive use previously back in 2010,

00:20:36.080 --> 00:20:41.080
 we feel that we would be better served if we went ahead

00:20:41.080 --> 00:20:44.080
 and recommended denial again and let the commission

00:20:44.080 --> 00:20:48.620
 and the council decide if this is an appropriate location.

00:20:48.620 --> 00:20:51.220
 >> OK. Thank you.

00:20:51.220 --> 00:20:54.060
 So any other questions for this item?

00:20:54.060 --> 00:20:56.960
 Great. Thank you, Cindy.

00:20:56.960 --> 00:20:58.600
 >> Thank you.

00:20:58.600 --> 00:21:00.160
 >> Although, don't go too far.

00:21:00.160 --> 00:21:00.840
 >> Oh.

00:21:00.840 --> 00:21:07.840
 >> Next item is S189A, the SUP for Verizon Wireless.

00:21:07.840 --> 00:21:13.480
 >> I have a lot of-- it would be at all possible to skip

00:21:13.480 --> 00:21:16.320
 to the next one while I sort of-- I printed out a bunch--

00:21:16.320 --> 00:21:19.020
 >> This one's-- I'm getting a notification

00:21:19.020 --> 00:21:19.860
 that you're not mic'd.

00:21:19.860 --> 00:21:22.960
 You're wanting to come back to the Verizon?

00:21:22.960 --> 00:21:23.460
 OK.

00:21:23.460 --> 00:21:25.460
 >> Yes. I'll come back after the next one

00:21:25.460 --> 00:21:28.220
 because I just need to sort out all of the notifications,

00:21:28.220 --> 00:21:30.400
 responses we got to give to you.

00:21:30.400 --> 00:21:32.440
 >> And just for those listening, Cindy said that she's going

00:21:32.440 --> 00:21:34.200
 to sort out some things and come back.

00:21:34.200 --> 00:21:36.200
 I wanted to make sure we don't miss that.

00:21:36.200 --> 00:21:44.280
 With that, Julie Wyatt, can you present on PDA 18-1?

00:21:44.280 --> 00:21:45.480
 >> Yes.

00:21:56.160 --> 00:21:57.760
 >> Good evening.

00:21:57.760 --> 00:22:00.260
 I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton.

00:22:00.260 --> 00:22:04.740
 And I'm presenting PDA 18-1, King's Ridge.

00:22:04.740 --> 00:22:06.740
 The request before you is to hold a public hearing

00:22:06.740 --> 00:22:08.100
 and consider a recommendation

00:22:08.100 --> 00:22:12.180
 to City Council regarding a general concept plan amendment

00:22:12.180 --> 00:22:16.420
 and detail plan approval for PD 115.

00:22:16.420 --> 00:22:19.520
 The property is on approximately 78 acres

00:22:19.520 --> 00:22:22.920
 and it is located adjacent to Bonnie Bray.

00:22:22.920 --> 00:22:25.420
 Bonnie Bray is here, just south of Elm Street.

00:22:25.420 --> 00:22:28.920
 So it's sort of in the north part of the city.

00:22:28.920 --> 00:22:33.360
 So we don't see PDs a whole lot so we'll just go

00:22:33.360 --> 00:22:38.760
 over briefly general items about plan developments.

00:22:38.760 --> 00:22:42.680
 So the 2002 Denton Development Code doesn't actually have plan

00:22:42.680 --> 00:22:47.880
 developments but it did carry over 15 PDs that were

00:22:47.880 --> 00:22:52.880
 in effect prior to the adoption of the 2002 code.

00:22:52.880 --> 00:22:57.180
 Because these are holdovers from prior to 2002,

00:22:57.180 --> 00:23:02.300
 we looked to the 1991 code in order to regulate these

00:23:02.300 --> 00:23:04.800
 and administer the PDs.

00:23:04.800 --> 00:23:06.600
 So in the '91 code it says

00:23:06.600 --> 00:23:09.600
 that plan developments generally encourage flexible

00:23:09.600 --> 00:23:12.940
 and creative planning to ensure compatibility of uses

00:23:12.940 --> 00:23:17.380
 and superior design, amenities, open space, and environmental

00:23:17.380 --> 00:23:18.480
 or historic preservation.

00:23:18.480 --> 00:23:20.680
 That was the intent of PDs.

00:23:20.680 --> 00:23:24.580
 And PDs were generally approved in a two-step process.

00:23:24.580 --> 00:23:30.620
 The general concept plan which was the broadest part of the PD.

00:23:30.620 --> 00:23:33.720
 It established maybe broad general guidelines,

00:23:33.720 --> 00:23:37.300
 the land use types, the general locations of those land uses,

00:23:37.300 --> 00:23:39.500
 and then the project boundaries.

00:23:39.500 --> 00:23:43.360
 It does not expire, it's kind of the base zoning of the property.

00:23:43.360 --> 00:23:48.440
 >> I'm hearing myself and it's freaking me out.

00:23:48.440 --> 00:23:51.080
 >> I imagine so.

00:23:51.080 --> 00:23:52.620
 >> It's very meta.

00:23:52.620 --> 00:23:53.740
 >> Guys.

00:23:53.740 --> 00:24:01.620
 [ Inaudible Remarks ]

00:24:01.620 --> 00:24:04.260
 >> Step two is a detail plan.

00:24:04.260 --> 00:24:07.160
 That is the final step in the PD process.

00:24:07.160 --> 00:24:10.920
 It really lays out the details, what the buildings look like,

00:24:10.920 --> 00:24:13.200
 the orientation, the landscaping.

00:24:13.200 --> 00:24:16.960
 These do expire after 24 months if it's not developed.

00:24:16.960 --> 00:24:20.640
 So the two steps for PDs, and we're actually going to be looking

00:24:20.640 --> 00:24:24.200
 at both of these items for PD 115 tonight.

00:24:24.200 --> 00:24:30.120
 So more generally, let's look at the background of PD 115.

00:24:30.120 --> 00:24:33.020
 It was established back in 1986.

00:24:33.020 --> 00:24:35.880
 The first general concept plan was approved at that time

00:24:35.880 --> 00:24:37.980
 and it was a mixed use development.

00:24:37.980 --> 00:24:41.960
 And you can see by the map here, this is PD 115 and it took

00:24:41.960 --> 00:24:44.920
 in all of this green area right here.

00:24:44.920 --> 00:24:48.400
 PD 142 is also green, it's adjacent to it,

00:24:48.400 --> 00:24:51.040
 but really we're looking at this area right here.

00:24:51.040 --> 00:24:54.740
 It wasn't developed, so in 2000 they revised the general concept

00:24:54.740 --> 00:25:00.140
 plan to reallocate some of those uses and that is still in effect.

00:25:00.140 --> 00:25:01.640
 That has not expired and we'll look

00:25:01.640 --> 00:25:04.520
 at that general concept plan in just a minute.

00:25:04.520 --> 00:25:06.720
 Also in 2000, a detailed plan

00:25:06.720 --> 00:25:09.880
 for the single family uses was approved, it expired.

00:25:09.880 --> 00:25:12.720
 And then in 2006, they came again, once again,

00:25:12.720 --> 00:25:17.120
 with a detailed plan for single family uses and it also expired.

00:25:17.120 --> 00:25:20.640
 So now we'll look at the 2000 general concept plan

00:25:20.640 --> 00:25:22.760
 that is in effect today.

00:25:22.760 --> 00:25:26.640
 It is-- it's actually much larger than the subject property.

00:25:26.640 --> 00:25:30.840
 So it continues to the south but this--

00:25:30.840 --> 00:25:32.140
 the subject property we're looking

00:25:32.140 --> 00:25:34.640
 at is just this part in black here.

00:25:34.640 --> 00:25:36.940
 And we'll look at just the mix of uses.

00:25:36.940 --> 00:25:40.020
 So they proposed single family, multi-family and commercial

00:25:40.020 --> 00:25:41.080
 and office.

00:25:41.080 --> 00:25:44.760
 The single family was located in these areas

00:25:44.760 --> 00:25:46.720
 and there were two lot sizes.

00:25:46.720 --> 00:25:52.020
 SF5, located here and here, called for 5,000 square foot lots.

00:25:52.020 --> 00:25:55.740
 SF7, in this general area and actually then continuing

00:25:55.740 --> 00:25:58.940
 on to the south, called for 7,000 square foot lots.

00:25:58.940 --> 00:26:02.140
 Multi-family was proposed in this general direct area

00:26:02.140 --> 00:26:04.740
 and then commercial and office in this area adjacent

00:26:04.740 --> 00:26:08.680
 to Bonnie Bray.

00:26:08.680 --> 00:26:11.120
 So they are proposing to revise this

00:26:11.120 --> 00:26:15.320
 to only permit single family uses in this area.

00:26:15.320 --> 00:26:18.960
 So this is the new concept plan and this is really just zooming

00:26:18.960 --> 00:26:23.760
 in on the most important part 'cause it's big,

00:26:23.760 --> 00:26:24.800
 it's hard to see.

00:26:24.800 --> 00:26:26.960
 So they are just proposing to flatten out the uses,

00:26:26.960 --> 00:26:30.100
 only permit single family dwellings at a maximum density

00:26:30.100 --> 00:26:33.400
 of 3.6 dwelling units per acre, minimum lot size

00:26:33.400 --> 00:26:37.840
 of 6,000 square feet with the dimensions of 50 by 100.

00:26:37.840 --> 00:26:39.520
 They also have other dimensional standards,

00:26:39.520 --> 00:26:41.880
 maximum height of 36 feet.

00:26:41.880 --> 00:26:44.020
 They have the setbacks, the front side

00:26:44.020 --> 00:26:47.960
 and rear yard setbacks and then maximum lot coverage of 60%.

00:26:47.960 --> 00:26:50.760
 This is fairly typical of what we see in our zoning

00:26:50.760 --> 00:26:54.200
 for our standard neighborhood residential districts.

00:26:54.200 --> 00:26:54.920
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:26:54.920 --> 00:26:55.720
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:26:55.720 --> 00:26:57.700
 So my math is right, they could build a house

00:26:57.700 --> 00:27:03.000
 up to 3,600 square feet, 60% of 6,000.

00:27:03.000 --> 00:27:04.500
 >> Well, that's a really good question.

00:27:04.500 --> 00:27:07.540
 The way we calculate lot coverage within the city

00:27:07.540 --> 00:27:09.440
 of Denton is not just the building,

00:27:09.440 --> 00:27:11.240
 it is all impervious surface.

00:27:11.240 --> 00:27:11.840
 >> Driveways.

00:27:11.840 --> 00:27:13.720
 >> That would be the building, driveway, sidewalk.

00:27:13.720 --> 00:27:14.680
 And really they're kind

00:27:14.680 --> 00:27:17.420
 of following those general development standards

00:27:17.420 --> 00:27:18.480
 within the PD.

00:27:18.480 --> 00:27:22.460
 >> 'Cause that seems if, yeah, if you got a house that big,

00:27:22.460 --> 00:27:25.620
 that doesn't really fit over there, does it seem like, yeah.

00:27:25.620 --> 00:27:28.160
 Okay, thanks.

00:27:28.160 --> 00:27:30.860
 >> So just generally the detail plan, the text,

00:27:30.860 --> 00:27:31.800
 it's in your backup.

00:27:31.800 --> 00:27:33.240
 I know it's pretty lengthy.

00:27:33.240 --> 00:27:35.440
 It discusses administration of the PD,

00:27:35.440 --> 00:27:38.580
 what the rules control, the phasing, infrastructure,

00:27:38.580 --> 00:27:41.000
 the uses and dimensions, those are consistent

00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:44.240
 with that concept plan that they're coming in with today.

00:27:44.240 --> 00:27:46.980
 Mobility, open space, landscaping,

00:27:46.980 --> 00:27:49.180
 perimeter fencing, and design.

00:27:49.180 --> 00:27:53.620
 We'll go over some of these a little more specifically now.

00:27:53.620 --> 00:27:58.400
 So we just wanted to kind of show you what they're proposing

00:27:58.400 --> 00:28:01.460
 versus what our standards are.

00:28:01.460 --> 00:28:04.700
 So the intent of the PD is to have more creative design

00:28:04.700 --> 00:28:07.500
 and superior, more quality development.

00:28:07.500 --> 00:28:10.240
 And so we wanted to show you what they're proposing

00:28:10.240 --> 00:28:13.600
 versus what a typical NR4 would permit.

00:28:13.600 --> 00:28:18.420
 So if they came in and just said we just want to do NR4,

00:28:18.420 --> 00:28:21.420
 we don't want to do the PD, that would allow a maximum density

00:28:21.420 --> 00:28:23.020
 of four dwelling units per acre.

00:28:23.020 --> 00:28:26.060
 They're proposing a little less than that at 3.6.

00:28:26.060 --> 00:28:28.220
 Minimum open space in our residential areas,

00:28:28.220 --> 00:28:29.320
 we don't have any.

00:28:29.320 --> 00:28:35.000
 They're actually proposing 13.38 acres of common open space.

00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:37.840
 Perimeter fencing, we don't have any requirements

00:28:37.840 --> 00:28:39.800
 for subdivision perimeter fencing

00:28:39.800 --> 00:28:41.700
 under the Denton Development Code.

00:28:41.700 --> 00:28:45.300
 They're proposing perimeter fencing in different locations

00:28:45.300 --> 00:28:47.840
 of masonry near Bonnie Bray and then wood

00:28:47.840 --> 00:28:49.880
 and ornamental metal to the south.

00:28:49.880 --> 00:28:51.640
 >> Mr. Smith?

00:28:51.640 --> 00:28:53.340
 >> I'll wait for you to get down to him.

00:28:53.340 --> 00:28:55.680
 Sorry, once he gets into your body, I'm sorry.

00:28:55.680 --> 00:28:58.680
 >> We don't have any requirements for tree canopy

00:28:58.680 --> 00:29:01.120
 and open spaces under current rules

00:29:01.120 --> 00:29:02.760
 in the Denton Development Code.

00:29:02.760 --> 00:29:04.320
 As part of our discussion with them,

00:29:04.320 --> 00:29:08.560
 they're proposing an average 40% tree canopy

00:29:08.560 --> 00:29:11.260
 throughout their open space areas.

00:29:11.260 --> 00:29:14.000
 We don't have any requirements for entry monuments.

00:29:14.000 --> 00:29:16.100
 They're proposing up to four.

00:29:16.100 --> 00:29:19.080
 Off-street trails, they're proposing 600 feet

00:29:19.080 --> 00:29:21.280
 of all-weather off-street trails.

00:29:21.280 --> 00:29:24.480
 Minimum masonry, we don't have any minimum masonry requirements

00:29:24.480 --> 00:29:26.840
 for single-family homes in the Denton Development Code.

00:29:26.840 --> 00:29:29.420
 They're proposing a minimum 70% masonry.

00:29:29.420 --> 00:29:30.720
 >> Commissioner Smith?

00:29:30.720 --> 00:29:31.660
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:29:31.660 --> 00:29:33.080
 So on the entry monuments, just to make sure,

00:29:33.080 --> 00:29:34.160
 because I'm reading through this and you're going

00:29:34.160 --> 00:29:35.520
 to keep going through it, I'm sorry to interrupt you

00:29:35.520 --> 00:29:35.960
 halfway through.

00:29:35.960 --> 00:29:36.520
 >> No, it's all right.

00:29:36.520 --> 00:29:40.260
 >> But it seems like the things we're really making sure

00:29:40.260 --> 00:29:42.560
 as a commission, we want to make sure is that minimums,

00:29:42.560 --> 00:29:44.760
 if they want to set minimums, if there's pretty much most

00:29:44.760 --> 00:29:46.760
 of that stuff is, there is no minimum.

00:29:46.760 --> 00:29:48.400
 But we want to make sure they're not, you know,

00:29:48.400 --> 00:29:50.540
 superseding any maximums on there.

00:29:50.540 --> 00:29:53.880
 So the entry monument, when it says there's on requirements,

00:29:53.880 --> 00:29:58.640
 there's none, that doesn't mean that entry monuments are allowed

00:29:58.640 --> 00:29:59.640
 within our form, correct?

00:29:59.640 --> 00:30:00.880
 >> That is a very good question.

00:30:00.880 --> 00:30:01.740
 Yes, sir, they are.

00:30:01.740 --> 00:30:03.280
 >> It's just saying that they're allowed.

00:30:03.280 --> 00:30:04.820
 We just don't have any minimum requirements.

00:30:04.820 --> 00:30:05.680
 >> Correct.

00:30:05.680 --> 00:30:06.820
 >> They're going to say our minimum

00:30:06.820 --> 00:30:08.320
 for entry monuments is going to be four.

00:30:08.320 --> 00:30:09.160
 >> Yes.

00:30:09.160 --> 00:30:10.260
 >> So then that's not unusual, so okay, got it.

00:30:10.260 --> 00:30:13.160
 Just wanted to make clarification.

00:30:13.160 --> 00:30:15.160
 >> Perimeter street trees, under current code,

00:30:15.160 --> 00:30:18.160
 we don't require perimeter street trees for,

00:30:18.160 --> 00:30:21.640
 if say a subdivision comes in and it's adjacent to one

00:30:21.640 --> 00:30:25.440
 of arterials, there's no requirement for a developer

00:30:25.440 --> 00:30:28.380
 to put perimeter streets along that arterial

00:30:28.380 --> 00:30:31.840
 that abuts a subdivision.

00:30:31.840 --> 00:30:35.640
 They are proposing those perimeter trees.

00:30:35.640 --> 00:30:37.020
 And then neighborhood street trees,

00:30:37.020 --> 00:30:39.420
 our code does require those, and they are,

00:30:39.420 --> 00:30:42.220
 they are proposing to put those in.

00:30:42.220 --> 00:30:44.320
 They're a little different than our requirement,

00:30:44.320 --> 00:30:47.460
 and we could talk about that as we get a little down a little

00:30:47.460 --> 00:30:48.920
 further in our site design.

00:30:48.920 --> 00:30:52.660
 They're proposing a minimum medium canopy tree every 45

00:30:52.660 --> 00:30:56.500
 to 50 feet, and then they are proposing the right-of-ways

00:30:56.500 --> 00:30:58.040
 widths to be consistent

00:30:58.040 --> 00:31:01.540
 with what our transportation criteria manual requires now,

00:31:01.540 --> 00:31:04.780
 which is 55 feet of right-of-way.

00:31:04.780 --> 00:31:07.680
 So here's what the detailed plan looks like.

00:31:07.680 --> 00:31:12.320
 So as you can see, they show the single-family lots

00:31:12.320 --> 00:31:15.060
 in that minimum 6,000 square feet.

00:31:15.060 --> 00:31:20.600
 This area right here is the contiguous open space.

00:31:20.600 --> 00:31:25.060
 It does provide a linear open space through the neighborhood.

00:31:25.060 --> 00:31:29.000
 It's also got several points of entry to the open space

00:31:29.000 --> 00:31:30.600
 in these cul-de-sac areas.

00:31:30.600 --> 00:31:34.180
 So it's a little more accessible.

00:31:34.180 --> 00:31:37.720
 They are proposing traffic calming on some

00:31:37.720 --> 00:31:40.580
 of these longer streets to make sure that cars go

00:31:40.580 --> 00:31:45.580
 with safe speed, and then there are additional open spaces

00:31:45.580 --> 00:31:48.120
 and buffers surrounding the subject property,

00:31:48.120 --> 00:31:49.820
 and we'll look at those in a little more detail

00:31:49.820 --> 00:31:51.060
 in just a minute.

00:31:51.060 --> 00:31:54.220
 So here's their proposed landscape plan.

00:31:54.220 --> 00:31:55.360
 This is the broad view of it.

00:31:55.360 --> 00:31:56.600
 It's conceptual.

00:31:56.600 --> 00:31:58.400
 Within the text, it lays

00:31:58.400 --> 00:32:03.100
 out a little more specifically what they are proposing to do,

00:32:03.100 --> 00:32:08.640
 but just in general, the open space, this open space,

00:32:08.640 --> 00:32:11.820
 along with the buffers and this open space where it would have

00:32:11.820 --> 00:32:19.460
 that average of 40% tree canopy, and then there is a pond here

00:32:19.460 --> 00:32:22.860
 with a little stream.

00:32:22.860 --> 00:32:26.200
 So now we'll look at a little more detail,

00:32:26.200 --> 00:32:30.700
 zoom in on a few specific areas of that landscape plan.

00:32:30.700 --> 00:32:35.200
 So on the south side of the property, and as you may know,

00:32:35.200 --> 00:32:38.600
 the Denton ISD has acquired the property to the south,

00:32:38.600 --> 00:32:42.580
 so when we were talking with the applicant, we wanted to make sure

00:32:42.580 --> 00:32:47.320
 that that edge of their development was treated

00:32:47.320 --> 00:32:49.760
 in a really sensitive way because there's going to be a lot

00:32:49.760 --> 00:32:52.760
 of cars coming out on that area, and we wanted to make sure

00:32:52.760 --> 00:32:55.460
 that the buffers and the screening was appropriate.

00:32:55.460 --> 00:33:00.020
 So they are proposing a minimum 15-foot landscape buffer area.

00:33:00.020 --> 00:33:02.340
 That minimum is there because you can see it skinnies

00:33:02.340 --> 00:33:07.000
 up adjacent to those proposed lots,

00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:10.480
 but then it gets a little larger when you've got the open space areas.

00:33:10.480 --> 00:33:17.340
 That perimeter fencing along the edge will be wood with masonry columns

00:33:17.340 --> 00:33:21.560
 when it's 15 feet, and then along those open space areas,

00:33:21.560 --> 00:33:27.320
 they're proposing an ornamental metal fence to provide those views.

00:33:27.320 --> 00:33:29.760
 Street trees are proposed.

00:33:29.760 --> 00:33:32.600
 Every 45 linear feet, however, they are asking

00:33:32.600 --> 00:33:35.100
 that they could cluster those if they needed

00:33:35.100 --> 00:33:37.800
 to provide a little more natural landscape area.

00:33:37.800 --> 00:33:43.240
 They are proposing monument entry signs along this arterial.

00:33:43.240 --> 00:33:46.880
 Turf and native grasses, they are proposing some burming

00:33:46.880 --> 00:33:50.680
 in some of the open space areas, once again, to provide a visual break

00:33:50.680 --> 00:33:55.920
 as cars are driving along that roadway, and then a sidewalk.

00:33:55.920 --> 00:34:02.560
 All right, on the east property line, it's a little more straightforward.

00:34:02.560 --> 00:34:08.460
 They're proposing a 20-foot landscape area with trees planted every 45 linear feet.

00:34:08.460 --> 00:34:12.560
 Once again, they're requesting that clustering if needed.

00:34:12.560 --> 00:34:19.980
 A 6-foot masonry wall along Bonny Bray, monument entry sign, and then turf

00:34:19.980 --> 00:34:25.680
 and native grasses, turf or native grasses and landscape beds and sidewalk.

00:34:25.680 --> 00:34:29.680
 As we get into the internal part of the development,

00:34:29.680 --> 00:34:35.020
 they are proposing 600 feet of all-weather trail to--

00:34:35.020 --> 00:34:39.760
 throughout the internal, five seating areas.

00:34:39.760 --> 00:34:43.340
 They're looking at putting five seating areas somewhere within the--

00:34:43.340 --> 00:34:48.700
 that open space along the trail and it to be sort of a natural stone bench.

00:34:48.700 --> 00:34:54.140
 One shade structure, dogway stations, tree preservation,

00:34:54.140 --> 00:34:59.240
 and that tree preservation would go toward that 40% canopy that they're proposing.

00:34:59.240 --> 00:35:05.180
 Street trees along the internal streets at one every 45 to 50 feet.

00:35:05.180 --> 00:35:08.820
 They asked for that little wiggle room in the 45 to 50 feet because they wanted

00:35:08.820 --> 00:35:11.620
 to make sure that trees were planted in the right places.

00:35:11.620 --> 00:35:17.800
 And sometimes, depending on where the driveway is, it may increase that footage

00:35:17.800 --> 00:35:21.960
 of where that tree should go, so they wanted that little wiggle room, 45 to 50 feet,

00:35:21.960 --> 00:35:24.340
 to make sure that those street trees were put in the right place

00:35:24.340 --> 00:35:28.480
 and that they weren't put somewhere that would conflict with the driveway.

00:35:28.480 --> 00:35:33.340
 And then each lot is proposed to have one tree.

00:35:33.340 --> 00:35:40.360
 Additionally, each lot will maintain a 50% landscape area in the front yard.

00:35:40.360 --> 00:35:49.860
 So these are conceptual elevations and in the text, they're proposing four parking spaces,

00:35:49.860 --> 00:35:52.500
 which is consistent with the Denton Development Code.

00:35:52.500 --> 00:35:57.980
 It will essentially mean that each lot, each house will have a two-car garage.

00:35:57.980 --> 00:36:03.340
 The PD also calls for architectural variety, certain architectural elements

00:36:03.340 --> 00:36:08.080
 from a menu they'll choose from in order to make sure that the houses are distinctive.

00:36:08.080 --> 00:36:14.460
 Any attached front entry garage would be constructed of wood, synthetic wood

00:36:14.460 --> 00:36:18.700
 or stained fiberglass, so it would have a wood-look feel to it.

00:36:18.700 --> 00:36:24.240
 That, once again, that 70% masonry and then the 50% landscape front yard.

00:36:24.240 --> 00:36:30.700
 So we go back to our criteria for approval in the 1991 code and we're going to look

00:36:30.700 --> 00:36:34.080
 at two sections of criteria for approval because we really have two things we're looking at.

00:36:34.080 --> 00:36:35.380
 First, the general concept plan.

00:36:35.380 --> 00:36:39.420
 It just has one criteria and that is, does the proposed amendment,

00:36:39.420 --> 00:36:42.380
 is it in harmony with the plan for the entire district?

00:36:42.380 --> 00:36:48.320
 Well, the district's kind of shrunk due to the high school and just the evolution

00:36:48.320 --> 00:36:54.620
 of the district, but PD 115 was originally conceived of as a mixed-use development

00:36:54.620 --> 00:36:58.040
 with commercial office and residential uses.

00:36:58.040 --> 00:37:04.240
 Since it's shrunk, the uses have narrowed in the PD to only that single family.

00:37:04.240 --> 00:37:10.920
 However, the surrounding zoning and the future uses will really maintain

00:37:10.920 --> 00:37:12.020
 that mixed-use feel.

00:37:12.020 --> 00:37:16.060
 We're still going to have a mix of uses in the general area.

00:37:16.060 --> 00:37:20.600
 Additionally, the proposal is an extension of that land use pattern that was established

00:37:20.600 --> 00:37:23.760
 in 2000, it's really just broadening the single family use,

00:37:23.760 --> 00:37:27.060
 just really pulling out the multi-family use in the commercial uses.

00:37:27.060 --> 00:37:31.240
 So staff feels like it is consistent with that criteria for approval.

00:37:31.240 --> 00:37:34.140
 The detail plan has four criteria for approval.

00:37:34.140 --> 00:37:37.280
 So first, does the plan comply with the general concept plan?

00:37:37.280 --> 00:37:40.640
 Well, if the general concept plan is approved as proposed,

00:37:40.640 --> 00:37:42.920
 then the detail plan would be consistent with it

00:37:42.920 --> 00:37:46.520
 because it calls for those single family uses.

00:37:46.520 --> 00:37:51.760
 Does the detail plan provide for compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses

00:37:51.760 --> 00:37:54.300
 that would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods

00:37:54.300 --> 00:37:56.400
 or properties outside the plan?

00:37:56.400 --> 00:38:00.600
 So what they're proposing is really a cluster of single family development that's oriented

00:38:00.600 --> 00:38:03.800
 inward toward those common open spaces.

00:38:03.800 --> 00:38:09.640
 They're proposing those buffers around it, either the 20-foot or the 15-foot buffers

00:38:09.640 --> 00:38:16.280
 around it, to separate from the adjacent uses and also from the high traffic.

00:38:16.280 --> 00:38:23.360
 And one area that is close to that is a very large lot subdivision to the southwest of

00:38:23.360 --> 00:38:25.120
 the subject site.

00:38:25.120 --> 00:38:31.520
 There's no proposal for any connection, roadway connection to that neighborhood, to the southwest.

00:38:31.520 --> 00:38:34.760
 So they won't be introducing traffic to that neighborhood.

00:38:34.760 --> 00:38:41.000
 So we feel like the proposal complies with this criteria for approval.

00:38:41.000 --> 00:38:42.000
 Commissioner Beck.

00:38:42.000 --> 00:38:50.320
 On that note, then, this arterial is going to be running on the south face.

00:38:50.320 --> 00:38:57.360
 That is going to connect with that road that connects that commercial area there.

00:38:57.360 --> 00:38:58.360
 Yes.

00:38:58.360 --> 00:38:59.360
 So you're right.

00:38:59.360 --> 00:39:04.480
 The road will actually connect, eventually, will connect through to here.

00:39:04.480 --> 00:39:06.840
 It won't connect to this road.

00:39:06.840 --> 00:39:07.840
 Okay.

00:39:07.840 --> 00:39:10.320
 Is that going to be considered a collector arterial?

00:39:10.320 --> 00:39:13.320
 I believe it's going to be an arterial.

00:39:13.320 --> 00:39:14.320
 It's a secondary arterial.

00:39:14.320 --> 00:39:15.320
 Secondary arterial.

00:39:15.320 --> 00:39:16.320
 We'll get to the mobility.

00:39:16.320 --> 00:39:17.320
 Okay.

00:39:17.320 --> 00:39:18.320
 Okay.

00:39:18.320 --> 00:39:19.320
 Thanks.

00:39:19.320 --> 00:39:24.960
 It's going to be a four-lane divided, as proposed.

00:39:24.960 --> 00:39:28.040
 All right.

00:39:28.040 --> 00:39:32.760
 Does the plan provide for the adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic?

00:39:32.760 --> 00:39:39.440
 The proposal complies with all current standards for streets, and it's also proposing traffic

00:39:39.440 --> 00:39:42.320
 calming in accordance with our transportation criteria manuals.

00:39:42.320 --> 00:39:44.840
 We feel like it meets that criteria.

00:39:44.840 --> 00:39:49.020
 And finally, is it in substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision and other

00:39:49.020 --> 00:39:50.880
 regulations of the city?

00:39:50.880 --> 00:39:56.720
 So once again, because it's a PD, we look to an old code, and that's the 1998 landscape

00:39:56.720 --> 00:39:57.720
 code.

00:39:57.720 --> 00:40:03.520
 That required 15 trees to be planted per acre, or it could be a part of tree preservation.

00:40:03.520 --> 00:40:08.040
 So a combination of preservation and planting, there had to be 15 trees per acre, which really

00:40:08.040 --> 00:40:13.600
 came out to about 34% canopy per acre.

00:40:13.600 --> 00:40:18.960
 They're actually proposing, in their open space areas, a 40% average canopy.

00:40:18.960 --> 00:40:24.200
 In addition, they're proposing one tree per lot and also street trees, not only internally,

00:40:24.200 --> 00:40:34.680
 but also in excess of what the code requires, and that's the perimeter street trees.

00:40:34.680 --> 00:40:39.260
 So we feel like it does meet that requirement.

00:40:39.260 --> 00:40:41.440
 We also looked at the mobility of the area.

00:40:41.440 --> 00:40:45.360
 I know it's always a topic on everyone's mind.

00:40:45.360 --> 00:40:51.640
 They did do a trick generation analysis for the request.

00:40:51.640 --> 00:40:56.040
 They assumed 350 dwellings, so they assumed more than what they're proposing.

00:40:56.040 --> 00:41:04.120
 Per the trip generation manual, the 350 dwellings would generate about 3,300 trips per day,

00:41:04.120 --> 00:41:12.160
 which would be AM peak hour traffic of 230 trips, the PM peak would be 338 trips.

00:41:12.160 --> 00:41:17.720
 This coupled with so much going on in this corner, and I know we've talked about this,

00:41:17.720 --> 00:41:22.960
 mobility is looking at regional improvements for traffic, and that's why the Bonnebray

00:41:22.960 --> 00:41:24.720
 improvements are forthcoming.

00:41:24.720 --> 00:41:30.440
 So as we've discussed before, Bonnebray will be improved from university going north.

00:41:30.440 --> 00:41:35.520
 It will be a four lane divided as currently proposed, but it will have enough right of

00:41:35.520 --> 00:41:39.360
 way to come to six if they need it.

00:41:39.360 --> 00:41:45.140
 The final alignment is still under design, so we don't know where it will end up.

00:41:45.140 --> 00:41:49.320
 We're thinking it's probably going to track to the east, but we don't know the final

00:41:49.320 --> 00:41:50.320
 alignment.

00:41:50.320 --> 00:41:57.120
 It is targeted to be complete for the opening of the Denton High School, and that's in late

00:41:57.120 --> 00:41:58.120
 2021.

00:41:58.120 --> 00:42:04.920
 And then also as you asked earlier, this connector road here will be also as part of the improvements

00:42:04.920 --> 00:42:11.360
 of any development adjacent to it, and it would be a four lane divided, and at some

00:42:11.360 --> 00:42:16.800
 point in the future it will connect out to I-35.

00:42:16.800 --> 00:42:17.800
 Notification was sent out.

00:42:17.800 --> 00:42:19.120
 They also had a neighborhood meeting.

00:42:19.120 --> 00:42:20.760
 They actually had it on Monday night.

00:42:20.760 --> 00:42:26.760
 They had a few attendees, and they really were just asking questions about what they

00:42:26.760 --> 00:42:29.480
 were going to do.

00:42:29.480 --> 00:42:32.660
 So we haven't received any feedback.

00:42:32.660 --> 00:42:37.280
 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request with the

00:42:37.280 --> 00:42:42.720
 condition that it complies with the general concept plan, the detailed plan, and the text

00:42:42.720 --> 00:42:46.040
 associated with those as included in your backup.

00:42:46.040 --> 00:42:48.000
 And I'll stand for questions.

00:42:48.000 --> 00:42:49.000
 We've got a couple of questions.

00:42:49.000 --> 00:42:50.000
 Commissioner Smith.

00:42:50.000 --> 00:42:51.000
 Thank you, Chair.

00:42:51.000 --> 00:42:58.640
 On the -- can you go back to the slides when you were showing kind of the conceptual -- just

00:42:58.640 --> 00:43:01.520
 something where I can see that right there, that's perfect.

00:43:01.520 --> 00:43:07.240
 That pond, is there any type of -- first of all, is that a detention pond?

00:43:07.240 --> 00:43:08.320
 What is that?

00:43:08.320 --> 00:43:10.840
 They will use it as part of their drainage system.

00:43:10.840 --> 00:43:11.840
 Gotcha.

00:43:11.840 --> 00:43:12.840
 Okay.

00:43:12.840 --> 00:43:14.600
 Was it naturally there before?

00:43:14.600 --> 00:43:18.720
 Was this back in -- back in 2000 or whatever this whole thing started?

00:43:18.720 --> 00:43:19.960
 Did they begin doing a detention?

00:43:19.960 --> 00:43:21.880
 What was the history of it?

00:43:21.880 --> 00:43:22.880
 I just don't know.

00:43:22.880 --> 00:43:23.880
 I don't know.

00:43:23.880 --> 00:43:24.880
 Okay.

00:43:24.880 --> 00:43:25.880
 It is there.

00:43:25.880 --> 00:43:26.880
 And there was --

00:43:26.880 --> 00:43:27.880
 It was there.

00:43:27.880 --> 00:43:28.880
 We got it.

00:43:28.880 --> 00:43:29.880
 We see that there.

00:43:29.880 --> 00:43:32.880
 There was a gentleman at the neighborhood meeting who's farmed this area for many years,

00:43:32.880 --> 00:43:35.840
 and I should have asked him, but I don't know.

00:43:35.840 --> 00:43:41.600
 The only question I'm really having about that in regards to the pond is just the flooding

00:43:41.600 --> 00:43:44.680
 that might be created, because it looks like if you go back to the conceptual and if you

00:43:44.680 --> 00:43:48.080
 look at it on the -- if you get a closer look on the satellite picture, you can see that

00:43:48.080 --> 00:43:52.880
 far left in there, that just -- it just -- the river appears.

00:43:52.880 --> 00:43:53.880
 It's not really a river.

00:43:53.880 --> 00:43:55.840
 It's more of a drainage ditch is what it really is.

00:43:55.840 --> 00:43:59.880
 It's kind of a naturally flowing drainage creek, but I'm just afraid of building up

00:43:59.880 --> 00:44:04.960
 a bunch of concrete around that and causing what now -- what used to be a permeable area

00:44:04.960 --> 00:44:07.880
 to soak up a lot of that rain is now going to be funneled down to that.

00:44:07.880 --> 00:44:14.680
 And so I don't know, as a city, if we have done -- required the applicant to do an analysis

00:44:14.680 --> 00:44:18.280
 on that to make sure there's not going to be massive flooding once we build up a neighborhood

00:44:18.280 --> 00:44:19.280
 there.

00:44:19.280 --> 00:44:20.280
 As part of platting, they will have --

00:44:20.280 --> 00:44:21.280
 They will?

00:44:21.280 --> 00:44:24.560
 They always have to do the pre- and post-development conditions, and they will have to make sure

00:44:24.560 --> 00:44:25.560
 that they address that drainage.

00:44:25.560 --> 00:44:26.560
 So it's a great question.

00:44:26.560 --> 00:44:27.560
 They will have to do that.

00:44:27.560 --> 00:44:32.760
 And then would that also -- so adding onto that, the pre- and post-development, will

00:44:32.760 --> 00:44:36.280
 that extend to the property -- it's going to sound weird because I think the answer

00:44:36.280 --> 00:44:37.280
 is going to be no.

00:44:37.280 --> 00:44:39.240
 But will that extend to the property across the way?

00:44:39.240 --> 00:44:44.160
 Because you can't see it, but if you go onto an aerial view, you see that that creek, because

00:44:44.160 --> 00:44:51.080
 it goes out the right side, it actually extends basically underneath Bonnie Bray into a -- you

00:44:51.080 --> 00:44:54.080
 see just right of your cursor, that pond there.

00:44:54.080 --> 00:44:59.160
 And so while it may not affect that pond there, it may affect what looks like the natural

00:44:59.160 --> 00:45:03.000
 flow goes across Bonnie Bray to the other side, may affect that land over there.

00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:07.000
 So I'd hate to say -- hate to have a property owner do something to their property that

00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:08.240
 affects their next-door neighbor.

00:45:08.240 --> 00:45:12.600
 It may not affect them, but it affects their next-door neighbors.

00:45:12.600 --> 00:45:18.800
 Engineering always makes sure that they can't make conditions to adjacent property owners

00:45:18.800 --> 00:45:19.800
 worse.

00:45:19.800 --> 00:45:20.800
 Sure.

00:45:20.800 --> 00:45:21.800
 Okay.

00:45:21.800 --> 00:45:22.800
 So they have to make sure that they take care of the water.

00:45:22.800 --> 00:45:26.840
 The post-development does say, okay, well, it won't affect anybody next to us, that kind

00:45:26.840 --> 00:45:27.840
 of thing.

00:45:27.840 --> 00:45:28.840
 Correct.

00:45:28.840 --> 00:45:30.480
 So that's the Bonnie Bray improvements.

00:45:30.480 --> 00:45:37.560
 I suspect as part of that, there will also be some infrastructure placed in to accommodate

00:45:37.560 --> 00:45:38.560
 for water.

00:45:38.560 --> 00:45:39.560
 Okay.

00:45:39.560 --> 00:45:42.560
 And then could you show me on the map, just because I can't remember off the top of my

00:45:42.560 --> 00:45:45.280
 head, and looking at it, there's too many open fields to pick which -- where it's supposed

00:45:45.280 --> 00:45:46.280
 to be.

00:45:46.280 --> 00:45:47.280
 Where is the new high school?

00:45:47.280 --> 00:45:48.280
 It will be...

00:45:48.280 --> 00:45:51.280
 Is it right across the way, or is it just south of it?

00:45:51.280 --> 00:45:52.280
 Okay.

00:45:52.280 --> 00:45:53.840
 Somebody's honestly thinking it was north of '77.

00:45:53.840 --> 00:45:54.840
 Okay.

00:45:54.840 --> 00:45:57.120
 So it's right, right, smack dab.

00:45:57.120 --> 00:45:58.120
 There.

00:45:58.120 --> 00:45:59.120
 Okay.

00:45:59.120 --> 00:46:00.120
 All right.

00:46:00.120 --> 00:46:01.120
 Thank you.

00:46:01.120 --> 00:46:02.120
 Commissioner Beck.

00:46:02.120 --> 00:46:03.880
 Thank you, Chair.

00:46:03.880 --> 00:46:04.880
 Just a couple of questions.

00:46:04.880 --> 00:46:10.440
 Now, on the north boundary line there, the property between that and the I-35 ramping

00:46:10.440 --> 00:46:12.640
 out, that's still PD?

00:46:12.640 --> 00:46:19.600
 Well, you probably remember, you've recently seen a rezoning case for this property to

00:46:19.600 --> 00:46:26.400
 zone it out of the PD to the adjacent -- the adjacent is RCCD.

00:46:26.400 --> 00:46:30.160
 They requested RCCD to be consistent with the adjacent property.

00:46:30.160 --> 00:46:31.160
 Okay.

00:46:31.160 --> 00:46:32.480
 It's actually going to City Council on December 4th.

00:46:32.480 --> 00:46:33.480
 Okay.

00:46:33.480 --> 00:46:36.360
 So that conceivably could be commercial?

00:46:36.360 --> 00:46:40.440
 The intent is to use the commercial to have some mix of uses in that area, which is not

00:46:40.440 --> 00:46:41.440
 even necessary.

00:46:41.440 --> 00:46:42.440
 That's part of a future land use, ma'am?

00:46:42.440 --> 00:46:43.440
 Yes, sir.

00:46:43.440 --> 00:46:44.440
 Okay.

00:46:44.440 --> 00:46:48.800
 That is actually business innovation to the north of there, but, you know, that's kind

00:46:48.800 --> 00:46:54.040
 of one of those areas of business innovation where those sort of supporting uses make a

00:46:54.040 --> 00:46:55.040
 lot of sense there.

00:46:55.040 --> 00:46:56.040
 Okay.

00:46:56.040 --> 00:47:01.040
 So as far as concerning tree canopy, do we know what kind of trees are going to lie in

00:47:01.040 --> 00:47:02.040
 the yard?

00:47:02.040 --> 00:47:05.040
 Are they going to be nice canopy trees, or do we know?

00:47:05.040 --> 00:47:07.080
 I brought the tree list.

00:47:07.080 --> 00:47:09.280
 I brought the tree list just in case.

00:47:09.280 --> 00:47:10.280
 Okay.

00:47:10.280 --> 00:47:16.040
 So as part of the PD, we talk mostly about medium canopy trees, particularly in the street

00:47:16.040 --> 00:47:20.320
 trees, because we want to make sure that they grow to a nice street tree, frame the street,

00:47:20.320 --> 00:47:23.400
 but not so much that garbage trucks are going to hit them and they're not going to -- they're

00:47:23.400 --> 00:47:24.400
 going to get pruned in a way.

00:47:24.400 --> 00:47:31.880
 The ones in the yard, the ones in the yard, there aren't any provisions for what actual

00:47:31.880 --> 00:47:34.720
 tree except that -- to take off of the tree list.

00:47:34.720 --> 00:47:39.120
 But they have the developer had suggested -- okay, that's all I wanted to know.

00:47:39.120 --> 00:47:40.120
 All right.

00:47:40.120 --> 00:47:41.120
 Thanks, Julie.

00:47:41.120 --> 00:47:42.120
 Commissioner Sanchez.

00:47:42.120 --> 00:47:43.120
 Yeah.

00:47:43.120 --> 00:47:44.120
 I just wanted to mention -- you mentioned about the pond.

00:47:44.120 --> 00:47:47.280
 If you look at this whole area, there's several ponds out there.

00:47:47.280 --> 00:47:50.560
 It's probably soil conservation service at one time.

00:47:50.560 --> 00:47:53.280
 If you look at some of that topography, it kind of rolls.

00:47:53.280 --> 00:47:58.120
 And in order to control erosion, they probably built a lot of those ponds in that area.

00:47:58.120 --> 00:48:04.960
 I just wanted to mention that.

00:48:04.960 --> 00:48:09.440
 Any other questions for Ms. Haley?

00:48:09.440 --> 00:48:10.520
 Perfect.

00:48:10.520 --> 00:48:11.520
 Thank you.

00:48:11.520 --> 00:48:13.360
 Thank you.

00:48:13.360 --> 00:48:23.120
 That was item E. We can go back now to item D, which is Cindy Jackson's SUP for Verizon

00:48:23.120 --> 00:48:24.120
 Wireless.

00:48:24.120 --> 00:48:25.120
 Thank you.

00:48:25.120 --> 00:48:40.120
 I appreciate you letting me take care of these.

00:48:40.120 --> 00:49:08.480
 I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Ms. Haley.

00:49:08.480 --> 00:49:26.120
 Where did it go?

00:49:26.120 --> 00:49:35.520
 S180009 is a request for a specific use permit for a freestanding monopole telecommunications

00:49:35.520 --> 00:49:38.400
 tower and associated equipment room.

00:49:38.400 --> 00:49:41.440
 The property is located at 816 Frame Street.

00:49:41.440 --> 00:49:43.040
 You can see it right here.

00:49:43.040 --> 00:49:44.040
 Here's Frame.

00:49:44.040 --> 00:49:51.880
 Paisley also runs along the south side of the site and the railroad is along the northwest

00:49:51.880 --> 00:49:53.420
 side of the site.

00:49:53.420 --> 00:49:55.680
 Over here you can see the city service center.

00:49:55.680 --> 00:50:00.280
 So it's very close to the service center.

00:50:00.280 --> 00:50:07.080
 The subject site is zone DCG and approval of an SUP is required for a monopole tower

00:50:07.080 --> 00:50:08.840
 up to 85 feet in height.

00:50:08.840 --> 00:50:14.920
 In fact, according to the table, approval of an SUP is required for any monopole tower

00:50:14.920 --> 00:50:19.200
 in the DCG district.

00:50:19.200 --> 00:50:25.000
 When looking at whether or not to recommend approval for an SUP, we actually look at the

00:50:25.000 --> 00:50:28.200
 SUP criteria.

00:50:28.200 --> 00:50:32.600
 We look at the -- we do a compatibility analysis between the surrounding property and the request

00:50:32.600 --> 00:50:37.760
 it used and we also look for telecommunications towers.

00:50:37.760 --> 00:50:43.560
 We look at 3513.8 telecommunication tower standards.

00:50:43.560 --> 00:50:50.600
 The site complies with both sets of criteria as noted in your backup.

00:50:50.600 --> 00:50:55.440
 Here you see the site plan of the warehouse in which it's located.

00:50:55.440 --> 00:50:57.280
 It will be located right here.

00:50:57.280 --> 00:51:03.240
 The tower and the equipment room will take up three storage spaces.

00:51:03.240 --> 00:51:13.080
 Those are going to be removed and the tower and the equipment room will be placed instead.

00:51:13.080 --> 00:51:16.080
 This is an elevation of the site.

00:51:16.080 --> 00:51:25.440
 You can see the tower which is a total of 80 feet and you can see the site plan.

00:51:25.440 --> 00:51:27.080
 This is the monopole tower.

00:51:27.080 --> 00:51:32.080
 This is the generator and equipment room and you can kind of see where the three units

00:51:32.080 --> 00:51:33.080
 used to be.

00:51:33.080 --> 00:51:36.080
 There's one, two, three.

00:51:36.080 --> 00:51:44.320
 Analysis, the zoning DCG, monopole towers less than 85 feet are permitted with approval

00:51:44.320 --> 00:51:47.280
 of a specific use permit, an SUP.

00:51:47.280 --> 00:51:54.840
 You can see the site is zoned DCG and then we've got DR1, DR2, NR4 and then DCG in the

00:51:54.840 --> 00:51:57.840
 proximity.

00:51:57.840 --> 00:52:03.900
 The subject site is located within a self-storage warehouse adjacent to the railroad tracks.

00:52:03.900 --> 00:52:09.480
 This location will minimize both nuisance caused by the site as well as visibility of the site.

00:52:09.480 --> 00:52:14.640
 The only thing that will be visible from adjoining streets or neighborhoods will be the pole

00:52:14.640 --> 00:52:15.880
 itself.

00:52:15.880 --> 00:52:23.280
 The actual equipment room and the emergency backup generator will not be visible unless

00:52:23.280 --> 00:52:28.280
 you go into the self-storage facility.

00:52:28.280 --> 00:52:39.180
 We sent out notices, 29 notices via certified mail and 118 notices via courtesy mail via

00:52:39.180 --> 00:52:40.640
 regular mail.

00:52:40.640 --> 00:52:45.240
 We received two responses in favor which I handed out to you.

00:52:45.240 --> 00:52:49.080
 Two signs were posted on the site and the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting

00:52:49.080 --> 00:52:52.780
 to which I was the only attendee.

00:52:52.780 --> 00:52:57.440
 We got no response to that.

00:52:57.440 --> 00:52:59.040
 Staff recommends approval of this request.

00:52:59.040 --> 00:53:04.360
 It is compatible with the surrounding property and conforms to all applicable requirements

00:53:04.360 --> 00:53:10.600
 of section 35128, wireless telecommunications facilities as well as the requirements for

00:53:10.600 --> 00:53:11.840
 a specific use permit.

00:53:11.840 --> 00:53:13.400
 And that concludes my presentation.

00:53:13.400 --> 00:53:14.400
 Thank you Cindy.

00:53:14.400 --> 00:53:15.400
 Mr. Smith.

00:53:15.400 --> 00:53:16.400
 Hey Chair.

00:53:16.400 --> 00:53:19.880
 The neighborhood meeting, when was, do you know when the applicant sent out notifications

00:53:19.880 --> 00:53:23.120
 of the neighborhood meeting and where it was looked, do you know the details around it,

00:53:23.120 --> 00:53:26.000
 just whenever there's neighborhood meetings that are poorly attended, all that stuff.

00:53:26.000 --> 00:53:31.880
 The applicant sent the notices out a good 10 days at least before the meeting and it

00:53:31.880 --> 00:53:35.440
 was actually held at the Fowler Museum.

00:53:35.440 --> 00:53:36.440
 Okay.

00:53:36.440 --> 00:53:37.440
 Museum, I'm sorry, library.

00:53:37.440 --> 00:53:42.520
 I'm not going to say it's like whatever, I didn't know there was a museum there.

00:53:42.520 --> 00:53:43.520
 Fowler Library.

00:53:43.520 --> 00:53:48.200
 Museums, libraries, quietly both, got it, okay.

00:53:48.200 --> 00:53:52.920
 Any other questions on this item?

00:53:52.920 --> 00:53:53.920
 Thank you Cindy.

00:53:53.920 --> 00:53:54.920
 Thank you.

00:53:54.920 --> 00:53:57.840
 Do you have one more this evening?

00:53:57.840 --> 00:53:58.840
 Yes.

00:53:58.840 --> 00:54:22.480
 That is the next item, item FZ18-8 for the Sentinel Centennial on North Elm.

00:54:22.480 --> 00:54:46.160
 We have received quite a few responses to this in the past few days and I'm sorry the

00:54:46.160 --> 00:54:59.360
 one on the back.

00:54:59.360 --> 00:55:04.800
 We can wait until you're on the mic, I'm getting in trouble for you speaking off the mic.

00:55:04.800 --> 00:55:11.600
 Sorry about that, can you say that note again?

00:55:11.600 --> 00:55:12.600
 I will.

00:55:12.600 --> 00:55:30.080
 I will note that the one on the back is a duplicate of one that's on the inside.

00:55:30.080 --> 00:55:44.240
 Okay, Z18-0008 is a request for approval of a zoning change of a site from Neighborhood

00:55:44.240 --> 00:55:51.400
 Residential Mixed Use NRMU 12 to Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use NRMU.

00:55:51.400 --> 00:55:58.080
 The 2.411 acre site is located at 3131 and 3161 North Elm Street.

00:55:58.080 --> 00:55:59.920
 You can see it right here.

00:55:59.920 --> 00:56:04.840
 This is North Elm Street and this is Joyce that is across from it.

00:56:04.840 --> 00:56:09.640
 Windsor Drive is to the south.

00:56:09.640 --> 00:56:14.840
 This shows the current zoning map of the site and you can see most of this entire triangle

00:56:14.840 --> 00:56:22.160
 is NRMU with a couple of exceptions, excuse me NRMU 12 and we've got some NRMU here and

00:56:22.160 --> 00:56:26.680
 NR4 here.

00:56:26.680 --> 00:56:32.440
 If this is approved, this is what the zoning map will look like.

00:56:32.440 --> 00:56:37.880
 You'll notice that this would be a continuation of the NRMU district that is to the north

00:56:37.880 --> 00:56:42.000
 across Elm Street.

00:56:42.000 --> 00:56:43.920
 Here's the proposed concept plan.

00:56:43.920 --> 00:56:52.700
 This is just a concept plan, it is not something that the applicant is being held to.

00:56:52.700 --> 00:56:59.760
 The applicant is proposing 71 units, one and two bedroom apartments, three stories and

00:56:59.760 --> 00:57:06.000
 I want to note that any future multi-family development that would go here if this zoning

00:57:06.000 --> 00:57:11.840
 is approved would require a specific use permit so you would see this before you again and

00:57:11.840 --> 00:57:19.600
 you would have a closer look at what is actually proposed.

00:57:19.600 --> 00:57:25.200
 When looking at criteria for approval for rezoning we look at whether the request conforms

00:57:25.200 --> 00:57:30.240
 to the future land use plan and if there is adequate provision of transportation, water,

00:57:30.240 --> 00:57:35.320
 sewer, schools, parks, public services.

00:57:35.320 --> 00:57:39.920
 The site is designated as neighborhood mixed use on the future land use plan.

00:57:39.920 --> 00:57:46.400
 The intent of neighborhood mixed use is applied to areas of Denton which are primarily residential

00:57:46.400 --> 00:57:51.440
 but were a mix of housing types along with retail and service uses that support the surrounding

00:57:51.440 --> 00:57:53.240
 neighborhoods are encouraged.

00:57:53.240 --> 00:57:56.600
 It recommends moderate to high density residential.

00:57:56.600 --> 00:58:01.160
 The types and uses and scale of the development permitted in the NRMU district conforms with

00:58:01.160 --> 00:58:07.800
 the goals of the neighborhood mixed use designation.

00:58:07.800 --> 00:58:09.600
 We also look at zoning compatibility.

00:58:09.600 --> 00:58:14.740
 The requested NRMU district is a continuation of the NRMU district located on the north

00:58:14.740 --> 00:58:17.400
 side of the site across Elm.

00:58:17.400 --> 00:58:24.720
 The proposed NRMU zoning is compatible with the goals and objectives outlined in the Denton

00:58:24.720 --> 00:58:28.840
 plan 2030 for areas designated neighborhood mixed use.

00:58:28.840 --> 00:58:33.600
 It is the most intensive of the neighborhood residential districts and permits a variety

00:58:33.600 --> 00:58:40.680
 of institutional, commercial and moderate to high density residential uses.

00:58:40.680 --> 00:58:48.680
 Now with regards to infrastructure, the applicant will be required to actually bore across North

00:58:48.680 --> 00:58:51.800
 Elm Street to bring water and sewer to the site.

00:58:51.800 --> 00:58:56.660
 You can see this is where it is located right now and they would have to get a text-top

00:58:56.660 --> 00:59:02.620
 permit to bore under North Elm.

00:59:02.620 --> 00:59:08.200
 North Elm Street is designated as a primary arterial with 135 feet of right of way.

00:59:08.200 --> 00:59:16.520
 It's currently constructed as four-lane divided roadway with an ultimate buildout of 135 feet.

00:59:16.520 --> 00:59:23.080
 So the applicant may have to dedicate right of way to bring it to their half of the street

00:59:23.080 --> 00:59:26.320
 to that width.

00:59:26.320 --> 00:59:31.720
 We'll know more when the site goes forward for plotting.

00:59:31.720 --> 00:59:38.080
 I want to note that the applicant will only have access to North Elm Street.

00:59:38.080 --> 00:59:45.960
 There's going to be no other access available to the applicant and based on the number of

00:59:45.960 --> 00:59:52.200
 units the proposed development is expected to generate 468 trips daily.

00:59:52.200 --> 01:00:01.600
 The PM peak total number of trips is 41 and that's per the 8th edition ITE trip generation

01:00:01.600 --> 01:00:02.600
 table.

01:00:02.600 --> 01:00:08.320
 >> Can I ask a question real fast if I understand that correctly?

01:00:08.320 --> 01:00:14.200
 The PM peak hour for 71 units is 48 cars?

01:00:14.200 --> 01:00:15.200
 >> 41.

01:00:15.200 --> 01:00:16.200
 >> Mm-hmm.

01:00:16.200 --> 01:00:17.200
 >> Okay.

01:00:17.200 --> 01:00:20.200
 That seems low.

01:00:20.200 --> 01:00:26.360
 >> Well, I'll be honest with you, I'm not a transportation planner so I'm not sure how

01:00:26.360 --> 01:00:27.880
 they came up with those numbers.

01:00:27.880 --> 01:00:28.880
 >> Okay.

01:00:28.880 --> 01:00:32.440
 >> But that's what the table said when I checked it.

01:00:32.440 --> 01:00:33.440
 >> Okay.

01:00:33.440 --> 01:00:34.440
 Thanks.

01:00:34.440 --> 01:00:35.440
 Chris, you're back.

01:00:35.440 --> 01:00:36.440
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:00:36.440 --> 01:00:44.560
 While we're on the impact of traffic and I know this is a text out road but in the consideration

01:00:44.560 --> 01:00:50.920
 of how traffic is going to be affected, you're going to have a little back up there if you're

01:00:50.920 --> 01:00:57.520
 heading I guess it's northwest on Elm and you're going to try and turn into that first means

01:00:57.520 --> 01:01:03.120
 of egress there and there's no left-turn lane there so was that taken into consideration?

01:01:03.120 --> 01:01:06.200
 >> No, because that's a concept plan.

01:01:06.200 --> 01:01:10.960
 And they have to get a tech stop permit for a driveway.

01:01:10.960 --> 01:01:12.920
 >> So it's not likely that we don't know that?

01:01:12.920 --> 01:01:16.360
 >> It's not like they're going to have to be honest with you.

01:01:16.360 --> 01:01:23.920
 They might but normally they only permit one driveway for a site unless it's very large.

01:01:23.920 --> 01:01:29.800
 >> Okay and the only way you can access this is going to be off of Elm from what I can

01:01:29.800 --> 01:01:30.800
 see here.

01:01:30.800 --> 01:01:31.800
 Okay.

01:01:31.800 --> 01:01:32.800
 Interesting.

01:01:32.800 --> 01:01:33.800
 Thank you.

01:01:33.800 --> 01:01:34.800
 >> Commissioner Sanchez.

01:01:34.800 --> 01:01:39.640
 >> You mentioned that they'd have to drill under Elm Street to get water.

01:01:39.640 --> 01:01:42.920
 Swordline already exists on that south side, I guess.

01:01:42.920 --> 01:01:43.920
 Is that what you're --

01:01:43.920 --> 01:01:44.920
 >> No.

01:01:44.920 --> 01:01:45.920
 >> No.

01:01:45.920 --> 01:01:46.920
 >> Water and wastewater.

01:01:46.920 --> 01:01:47.920
 You can see both of them.

01:01:47.920 --> 01:01:50.220
 The water is blue, wastewater is red.

01:01:50.220 --> 01:01:53.000
 >> So everything will have to be brought in.

01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:58.840
 Is there any idea of creating the same water and sewage lines on the south side?

01:01:58.840 --> 01:02:02.040
 I mean long-term that whole area is going to be developed.

01:02:02.040 --> 01:02:06.040
 >> Well at this time I'm not aware of any plans.

01:02:06.040 --> 01:02:10.840
 Typically the lines are put in as sites develop and the city participates if they request

01:02:10.840 --> 01:02:13.840
 oversizing.

01:02:13.840 --> 01:02:18.320
 >> Because eventually I'm just thinking eventually they're going to build it.

01:02:18.320 --> 01:02:25.520
 That's a long -- big cost for that particular -- to bore underneath that little Elm Street

01:02:25.520 --> 01:02:29.920
 if they could extend those lines at least up to where they exist.

01:02:29.920 --> 01:02:32.920
 I'm sure there's some other businesses further down there.

01:02:32.920 --> 01:02:35.320
 >> We agree with you.

01:02:35.320 --> 01:02:42.160
 It's not inexpensive to do something like this.

01:02:42.160 --> 01:02:49.280
 The applicant may be able to answer more questions about this, but that's what they've been advised

01:02:49.280 --> 01:02:53.960
 is that they have to bore under the street and they have to get approval from TXDOT to

01:02:53.960 --> 01:02:58.440
 do it.

01:02:58.440 --> 01:03:09.360
 Okay, analysis, well I pretty much went through this already.

01:03:09.360 --> 01:03:12.800
 The NRMU district permits a mix of housing types and density.

01:03:12.800 --> 01:03:15.440
 It's consistent with the future land use element.

01:03:15.440 --> 01:03:20.120
 The NRMU district permits a maximum 30 dwelling units per acre, also consistent with the future

01:03:20.120 --> 01:03:21.720
 land use element.

01:03:21.720 --> 01:03:28.120
 The concept plan that was presented to us has a density, proposed density of 29.4 dwelling

01:03:28.120 --> 01:03:30.240
 units per acre.

01:03:30.240 --> 01:03:35.580
 The proposed NRMU district provides a transition between established single family neighborhoods

01:03:35.580 --> 01:03:44.280
 to the South and the potential mixed use or commercial areas located along North Elm Street.

01:03:44.280 --> 01:03:49.840
 Existing land uses surrounding the site includes single family residents in a church, a regional

01:03:49.840 --> 01:03:53.600
 drainage facility, and undeveloped land.

01:03:53.600 --> 01:03:58.480
 The subject site is located on the north side of North Elm Street, approximately 1.65 miles

01:03:58.480 --> 01:04:01.680
 southeast of Loop 288.

01:04:01.680 --> 01:04:06.760
 Demand was to comply with all ESA, tree preservation, buffer screening, tree canopy, and lighting

01:04:06.760 --> 01:04:07.760
 requirements.

01:04:07.760 --> 01:04:16.040
 An extension of both water and wastewater service will be necessary to serve the site.

01:04:16.040 --> 01:04:23.840
 Public notices were sent out, 12 notices were sent out via certified mail, and 58 were sent

01:04:23.840 --> 01:04:27.080
 out courtesy notices via regular mail.

01:04:27.080 --> 01:04:33.760
 We received, in opposition, well, in opposition within the 200 foot buffer, we received four,

01:04:33.760 --> 01:04:39.880
 which equates to 40% of the land within the 200 foot boundary.

01:04:39.880 --> 01:04:46.520
 That will require this to be approved by council with a super majority vote of 6 to 1.

01:04:46.520 --> 01:04:53.400
 We received one response in favor, that representing 4% of the property.

01:04:53.400 --> 01:05:00.680
 One sign was posted on the site, and like I said, a super majority vote will be required.

01:05:00.680 --> 01:05:07.120
 We received a lot of notices from people who were outside the site or within the 500 foot

01:05:07.120 --> 01:05:12.440
 buffer, which are included in your packet as well, and they're pointed out here.

01:05:12.440 --> 01:05:17.100
 I received more, I noticed in my email just before I came here.

01:05:17.100 --> 01:05:23.280
 We will add those to the computations and present them to city council.

01:05:23.280 --> 01:05:26.840
 >> City is the opposition one land owner.

01:05:26.840 --> 01:05:28.480
 >> It's not, no.

01:05:28.480 --> 01:05:35.760
 These are all separate land owners.

01:05:35.760 --> 01:05:51.120
 These three, they are related, but no, this one land owner right here is not related.

01:05:51.120 --> 01:05:55.360
 >> Staff recommends approval of this request as it is compatible with the surrounding property

01:05:55.360 --> 01:05:59.120
 and consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030.

01:05:59.120 --> 01:06:00.920
 >> Mr. Beck.

01:06:00.920 --> 01:06:03.120
 >> Thank you, chair.

01:06:03.120 --> 01:06:04.120
 Okay.

01:06:04.120 --> 01:06:05.120
 Thank you, Cindy.

01:06:05.120 --> 01:06:07.560
 I'm sitting here looking at the Google map on this.

01:06:07.560 --> 01:06:12.160
 I wasn't aware that there were any residential houses that backed up to this property, but

01:06:12.160 --> 01:06:13.760
 you say there's three.

01:06:13.760 --> 01:06:14.760
 >> Yep.

01:06:14.760 --> 01:06:15.760
 There's one here.

01:06:15.760 --> 01:06:21.040
 >> I thought that belonged, I thought, looking at, again, the Google map, I can see one.

01:06:21.040 --> 01:06:22.040
 >> Mm-hmm.

01:06:22.040 --> 01:06:25.960
 >> But then you've got the church there, the Jehovah's Witness, I believe it is.

01:06:25.960 --> 01:06:26.960
 >> That's Jehovah's Witness.

01:06:26.960 --> 01:06:27.960
 >> Okay.

01:06:27.960 --> 01:06:31.200
 That isn't their land then that backs up to that property.

01:06:31.200 --> 01:06:32.200
 >> No.

01:06:32.200 --> 01:06:33.200
 >> It's parcel.

01:06:33.200 --> 01:06:34.200
 >> No.

01:06:34.200 --> 01:06:35.200
 >> Okay.

01:06:35.200 --> 01:06:36.200
 >> No.

01:06:36.200 --> 01:06:37.200
 This is a house.

01:06:37.200 --> 01:06:38.200
 >> Okay.

01:06:38.200 --> 01:06:57.360
 In your statement that you're in favor of this, you point out that it aligns with the NRM

01:06:57.360 --> 01:07:02.960
 units across now, and I don't disagree with that, but I'm curious when I look at the future

01:07:02.960 --> 01:07:09.080
 land use map, that whole area is considered moderate residential, which NRMU wouldn't fit,

01:07:09.080 --> 01:07:11.080
 and yet there we have it.

01:07:11.080 --> 01:07:14.080
 How did that occur?

01:07:14.080 --> 01:07:17.240
 You weren't here when that happened, right?

01:07:17.240 --> 01:07:20.760
 >> Well, you can see north we've got moderate residential.

01:07:20.760 --> 01:07:21.760
 >> All right.

01:07:21.760 --> 01:07:25.720
 >> South we've got neighborhood mixed use, and they kind of overlap like our --

01:07:25.720 --> 01:07:26.720
 >> Right.

01:07:26.720 --> 01:07:31.160
 On the southern part of Elm, yeah, it does align with the future land use map.

01:07:31.160 --> 01:07:33.640
 >> I'm just curious how that entered.

01:07:33.640 --> 01:07:37.360
 >> The actual neighborhood mixed use, you can see it goes to here.

01:07:37.360 --> 01:07:39.280
 They overlap right here.

01:07:39.280 --> 01:07:40.280
 >> Okay.

01:07:40.280 --> 01:07:41.280
 >> So you can be either.

01:07:41.280 --> 01:07:42.280
 >> Okay.

01:07:42.280 --> 01:07:43.280
 All right.

01:07:43.280 --> 01:07:44.280
 Thank you.

01:07:44.280 --> 01:07:45.280
 >> Sure.

01:07:45.280 --> 01:07:46.280
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

01:07:46.280 --> 01:07:47.280
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:07:47.280 --> 01:07:55.680
 Cindy, with the zoning change, it opens up other uses other than just bigger density

01:07:55.680 --> 01:07:56.680
 for multifamily.

01:07:56.680 --> 01:07:59.040
 Did you take into consideration that?

01:07:59.040 --> 01:08:01.040
 >> Yes, I did.

01:08:01.040 --> 01:08:08.000
 The fact that this is neighborhood mixed use, and the NRMU district provides for neighborhood

01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:17.600
 services and neighborhood-sized retail and commercial, and it is along a primary arterial

01:08:17.600 --> 01:08:24.400
 that directly connects to the loop, we felt that this was appropriate.

01:08:24.400 --> 01:08:29.360
 If it doesn't happen, we actually talked about whether or not we should overlay it, and because

01:08:29.360 --> 01:08:36.000
 of the fact that we've got this primary arterial here close to the loop, we thought that it

01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:37.000
 may not be necessary.

01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:40.640
 If you feel it's necessary, you can recommend that as a condition.

01:08:40.640 --> 01:08:45.240
 >> So mainly just because it's fronting Elm, it was your reason for it didn't really take

01:08:45.240 --> 01:08:48.160
 into consideration what's behind it?

01:08:48.160 --> 01:08:54.120
 >> Well, what's behind it is a house and vacant land.

01:08:54.120 --> 01:09:00.560
 We've got a lot of residential here, however, this is not going to have any access to this.

01:09:00.560 --> 01:09:04.400
 It's not really going to interact with them at all unless we have people coming around.

01:09:04.400 --> 01:09:10.400
 >> Chris, you're back.

01:09:10.400 --> 01:09:20.560
 >> Along those same lines, well, I just had one of those memory lapses again.

01:09:20.560 --> 01:09:24.920
 It'll come back to me, sorry about that.

01:09:24.920 --> 01:09:32.360
 >> Cindy, kind of piggybacking off Mr. Ellis' question, the past two P&Z meetings we've had

01:09:32.360 --> 01:09:37.480
 actually zoning and SUP cases almost in tandem.

01:09:37.480 --> 01:09:42.000
 I'm surprised not to see the SUP in tandem with this.

01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:48.400
 Is there a reason why there's going to be a delay to get an SUP on this property?

01:09:48.400 --> 01:09:52.480
 >> The applicant did not submit an SUP.

01:09:52.480 --> 01:09:56.600
 They really haven't started the engineering yet.

01:09:56.600 --> 01:09:57.600
 That became clear.

01:09:57.600 --> 01:10:03.280
 The applicant had a neighborhood meeting last night and it became clear during the meeting

01:10:03.280 --> 01:10:06.800
 that the applicant hasn't even started the engineering really for this yet.

01:10:06.800 --> 01:10:11.200
 They're waiting to see if they get this approval before they start that.

01:10:11.200 --> 01:10:12.200
 >> Okay.

01:10:12.200 --> 01:10:13.200
 Mr. Beck.

01:10:13.200 --> 01:10:22.320
 >> Thank you, I remember, realistically, the way this is zoned now, we could have apartments

01:10:22.320 --> 01:10:26.200
 on that whole side of Elm Street from Windsor all the way up to Rhineland, correct?

01:10:26.200 --> 01:10:27.200
 >> Yes.

01:10:27.200 --> 01:10:30.840
 >> And that's a little troubling to me because it is supposed to be mixed use.

01:10:30.840 --> 01:10:31.840
 >> Yes.

01:10:31.840 --> 01:10:39.120
 >> And just going forward on this, I would think not only to city planners but when it

01:10:39.120 --> 01:10:43.400
 comes to us, that we ought to be considering that as we get down the road that we just

01:10:43.400 --> 01:10:48.320
 don't have bumper to bumper multifamily units there without a little commercial because

01:10:48.320 --> 01:10:51.800
 otherwise you're building up all that residential there and yet they're still going to have

01:10:51.800 --> 01:10:57.920
 to come into town or drive a good distance to get to some convenience stores or whatever.

01:10:57.920 --> 01:10:58.920
 >> Right.

01:10:58.920 --> 01:11:08.200
 Right now we actually talked about this too and we don't feel that the mixed use aspect

01:11:08.200 --> 01:11:10.080
 would work there right now.

01:11:10.080 --> 01:11:11.080
 >> Where?

01:11:11.080 --> 01:11:15.560
 In that from Rhineland to Windsor?

01:11:15.560 --> 01:11:17.120
 >> No, this property here.

01:11:17.120 --> 01:11:18.120
 >> Okay.

01:11:18.120 --> 01:11:19.360
 >> We need more --

01:11:19.360 --> 01:11:20.360
 >> Commercial.

01:11:20.360 --> 01:11:21.360
 >> Commercial.

01:11:21.360 --> 01:11:22.360
 >> I agree.

01:11:22.360 --> 01:11:23.360
 I agree.

01:11:23.360 --> 01:11:31.480
 >> And a good example is Victoria Station, that's a mixed use and those offices and those

01:11:31.480 --> 01:11:35.520
 retail spaces are usually vacant.

01:11:35.520 --> 01:11:37.200
 >> But we can't dictate --

01:11:37.200 --> 01:11:38.200
 >> No, we can't.

01:11:38.200 --> 01:11:39.200
 >> -- what the mixed use is.

01:11:39.200 --> 01:11:40.200
 That's the problem.

01:11:40.200 --> 01:11:44.920
 But, yeah, going forward I think we need to keep that in mind because I think then the

01:11:44.920 --> 01:11:48.400
 neighborhood of the people that live in the neighborhood would have a legitimate complaint

01:11:48.400 --> 01:11:53.000
 if you've got strictly multifamily all the way up and down Elm Street there.

01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:55.920
 Even though you're beginning to look like that now.

01:11:55.920 --> 01:12:01.000
 >> It would be up to you and the City Council if we would have that happen because multifamily

01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:02.960
 would require an SUP.

01:12:02.960 --> 01:12:04.400
 >> Okay.

01:12:04.400 --> 01:12:09.520
 And conceivably it would probably be easier said than done we could rezone it to accommodate

01:12:09.520 --> 01:12:10.680
 more commercial, correct?

01:12:10.680 --> 01:12:11.680
 >> Mm-hmm.

01:12:11.680 --> 01:12:12.680
 >> Yeah.

01:12:12.680 --> 01:12:13.680
 Okay.

01:12:13.680 --> 01:12:14.680
 Thanks.

01:12:14.680 --> 01:12:15.680
 >> Commissioner Smith.

01:12:15.680 --> 01:12:24.320
 >> Was the applicant ever, when we were talking about permitted uses, was the applicant ever

01:12:24.320 --> 01:12:28.640
 agreeable to restrictions put on the zoning to restrict it just to multifamily and then

01:12:28.640 --> 01:12:32.400
 take out the commercial at that point in time just if they're -- I didn't see any of the

01:12:32.400 --> 01:12:37.760
 opposition letters that we see sometimes with people who are coming in for rezoning specifically

01:12:37.760 --> 01:12:42.640
 for multifamily use, don't worry about the new zoning allowing bars and clubs and kind

01:12:42.640 --> 01:12:43.640
 of things like that.

01:12:43.640 --> 01:12:45.760
 But I don't know if that was --

01:12:45.760 --> 01:12:50.960
 >> It wasn't broached with the applicant but he's going to be here tonight so you could

01:12:50.960 --> 01:12:51.960
 ask.

01:12:51.960 --> 01:12:52.960
 >> Okay.

01:12:52.960 --> 01:12:53.960
 Thanks.

01:12:53.960 --> 01:12:54.960
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

01:12:54.960 --> 01:12:55.960
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:12:55.960 --> 01:12:58.160
 Cindy, you mentioned a neighborhood meeting.

01:12:58.160 --> 01:12:59.160
 Did you go to that?

01:12:59.160 --> 01:13:00.160
 >> Yes, I did.

01:13:00.160 --> 01:13:01.160
 >> Can you fill us in?

01:13:01.160 --> 01:13:02.160
 >> Oh, yes.

01:13:02.160 --> 01:13:03.160
 Thank you.

01:13:03.160 --> 01:13:08.920
 There were approximately 14 people here and the -- I have a list.

01:13:08.920 --> 01:13:15.520
 A lot of -- all of the people there were not in favor of this request and some of the concerns

01:13:15.520 --> 01:13:20.360
 that they had were with the density.

01:13:20.360 --> 01:13:26.700
 They had concerns about visitor parking which actually visitor parking under our new parking

01:13:26.700 --> 01:13:31.560
 requirements they have to provide for visitor parking.

01:13:31.560 --> 01:13:35.560
 No transition from apartments on the north side of Northam to single family on the south

01:13:35.560 --> 01:13:37.480
 side of Windsor.

01:13:37.480 --> 01:13:44.360
 Well, again, it doesn't touch Windsor so there would be -- whatever happens here could act

01:13:44.360 --> 01:13:47.800
 as a transition.

01:13:47.800 --> 01:13:54.280
 One of the neighbors lived here, lives here.

01:13:54.280 --> 01:14:00.280
 She's concerned that if this property is allowed to be rezoned NRMU, then the remaining portions

01:14:00.280 --> 01:14:11.200
 of the neighborhood mixed use in this triangle area would be rezoned to NRMU as well.

01:14:11.200 --> 01:14:13.240
 Another person was concerned about safety.

01:14:13.240 --> 01:14:18.300
 She's got trouble with people crossing her property and littering.

01:14:18.300 --> 01:14:25.600
 She wanted to know about fencing that may be put up around the site.

01:14:25.600 --> 01:14:28.880
 Several attendees had questions about the cost of the apartments which they didn't know at

01:14:28.880 --> 01:14:34.120
 this time, they're not that far in the design.

01:14:34.120 --> 01:14:35.640
 They were concerned about affordable.

01:14:35.640 --> 01:14:39.840
 The applicant stated in his letter these were going to be affordable apartments and so they

01:14:39.840 --> 01:14:42.880
 were concerned about that.

01:14:42.880 --> 01:14:50.960
 The applicants asked -- again, they asked for more information about the rent.

01:14:50.960 --> 01:14:56.160
 Concerns about traffic, a lot of concerns about traffic increasing along North Elm.

01:14:56.160 --> 01:15:00.240
 There apparently are apartments across from the UNT engineering center that are being

01:15:00.240 --> 01:15:05.800
 developed as well as Denton High School on the south side of West Gate which Julie showed

01:15:05.800 --> 01:15:10.720
 you that location on hers.

01:15:10.720 --> 01:15:17.680
 And they're concerned about the parking that will be generated by all the development in

01:15:17.680 --> 01:15:19.680
 the area.

01:15:19.680 --> 01:15:28.240
 Concerns about the capacity of water and sewer service and storm water runoff.

01:15:28.240 --> 01:15:32.920
 The company that was there, the applicant indicated there's an eight-inch existing

01:15:32.920 --> 01:15:36.560
 water main on the north side of Elm and an eight-inch sanitary sewer line on the north

01:15:36.560 --> 01:15:39.440
 side of West Windsor.

01:15:39.440 --> 01:15:43.720
 The project could potentially connect through easements on adjacent private property with

01:15:43.720 --> 01:15:50.800
 relevant landowners or they would bore across through -- right now their plan is to bore

01:15:50.800 --> 01:15:53.680
 under North Elm.

01:15:53.680 --> 01:15:58.600
 And they are going to -- they indicated they would contact TechStat to determine the capacity

01:15:58.600 --> 01:16:02.760
 of the storm drain system in North -- in North Elm.

01:16:02.760 --> 01:16:07.520
 If it was lacking capacity, they would have to look at detention.

01:16:07.520 --> 01:16:18.120
 Just to circle back on the apartments, you mentioned they stated they would be affordable.

01:16:18.120 --> 01:16:20.080
 That's what they said.

01:16:20.080 --> 01:16:23.520
 Was there any discussion about the type of leases they had?

01:16:23.520 --> 01:16:28.280
 I know there's been a lot of concern around town about new apartments going up and moving

01:16:28.280 --> 01:16:31.360
 towards a single room occupancy model.

01:16:31.360 --> 01:16:37.720
 These apartment homes, usually when you see single room occupancy you see four-bedroom

01:16:37.720 --> 01:16:38.720
 apartments.

01:16:38.720 --> 01:16:41.840
 These are one- and two-bedroom apartments.

01:16:41.840 --> 01:16:49.080
 So I don't anticipate that they would be student housing, but they could be.

01:16:49.080 --> 01:16:51.440
 We have nothing restricting that.

01:16:51.440 --> 01:16:52.440
 Okay.

01:16:52.440 --> 01:16:54.000
 Commissioner Beck.

01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:57.720
 Thank you, Chair.

01:16:57.720 --> 01:17:06.880
 This whole area, including this parcel of land that wants to be rezoned, NRMU, what

01:17:06.880 --> 01:17:13.120
 would be the buffer requirement between that parcel and the existing land around it?

01:17:13.120 --> 01:17:17.600
 Well, we have -- it's based on user zoning.

01:17:17.600 --> 01:17:25.360
 So if this were residential zoning and not NRMU, they'd have to buffer all the way around.

01:17:25.360 --> 01:17:30.440
 Right now there's no buffer requirements on the vacant property.

01:17:30.440 --> 01:17:37.520
 They will have to buffer along the church and the single family home.

01:17:37.520 --> 01:17:38.520
 Okay.

01:17:38.520 --> 01:17:39.520
 And what's that buffer requirement?

01:17:39.520 --> 01:17:42.520
 It's a type C buffer, 10-foot.

01:17:42.520 --> 01:17:43.520
 10-foot.

01:17:43.520 --> 01:17:44.520
 Okay.

01:17:44.520 --> 01:17:47.240
 Does it include fencing?

01:17:47.240 --> 01:17:52.900
 No, it doesn't, but we can require -- that's something that you can require when it comes

01:17:52.900 --> 01:17:53.900
 forward for SUP.

01:17:53.900 --> 01:17:54.900
 Okay.

01:17:54.900 --> 01:17:55.900
 Thanks.

01:17:55.900 --> 01:18:03.880
 Any other questions for Cindy?

01:18:03.880 --> 01:18:07.040
 Great.

01:18:07.040 --> 01:18:08.040
 Thank you, Cindy.

01:18:08.040 --> 01:18:09.040
 Sure.

01:18:09.040 --> 01:18:15.080
 Item G is being postponed to January 9th, so that would move us to item H. But prior

01:18:15.080 --> 01:18:20.040
 to Haley's presentation, I'm going to call for a break so we can get food.

01:18:20.040 --> 01:18:27.500
 It is 555, we'll reconvene at 605.

01:18:27.500 --> 01:18:29.800
 Welcome back to the work session meeting for plan and zoning.

01:18:29.800 --> 01:18:47.700
 We'll reconvene the meeting at 610 on the city staff presentation.

01:18:47.700 --> 01:18:52.200
 So the item tonight -- and I didn't know how much detail we wanted to get into in the work

01:18:52.200 --> 01:18:57.600
 session since this will be sort of our first time to discuss this sort of in a public hearing

01:18:57.600 --> 01:19:04.400
 setting, and we just presented this to council about two weeks ago as part of a work session.

01:19:04.400 --> 01:19:08.920
 And so legal is still going through their review, but we wanted to at least still have

01:19:08.920 --> 01:19:10.880
 a discussion publicly.

01:19:10.880 --> 01:19:16.440
 I know that has been talked about here, I think, the last time we presented around some

01:19:16.440 --> 01:19:18.240
 of the concepts and where we're headed.

01:19:18.240 --> 01:19:23.920
 So I'd like to just sort of run through some of these fairly quickly, but then a little

01:19:23.920 --> 01:19:27.860
 bit more in detail tonight.

01:19:27.860 --> 01:19:33.960
 But again, just wanted to go over the overall approach, again, looking at this sort of holistically

01:19:33.960 --> 01:19:40.320
 and really ways and how we manage and improve the urban forest and kind of the steps that

01:19:40.320 --> 01:19:41.920
 we went through.

01:19:41.920 --> 01:19:48.520
 Then really looking at that inventory, which was completed in 2016, setting goals and then

01:19:48.520 --> 01:19:53.680
 establishing those methods to achieve the goals, both publicly -- I'm sorry, privately

01:19:53.680 --> 01:19:58.440
 through the regulatory mechanism and then publicly through programatically.

01:19:58.440 --> 01:20:04.880
 How do we handle with public funds, tree fund dollars, how do we both kind of attack this

01:20:04.880 --> 01:20:07.480
 on a two-fold basis?

01:20:07.480 --> 01:20:13.320
 And then what I think is equally important is establishing metrics and sort of a report

01:20:13.320 --> 01:20:20.360
 card and evaluation on an annual basis of how are we performing, both from private and

01:20:20.360 --> 01:20:26.460
 public side, and are there adjustments that we need to make moving forward?

01:20:26.460 --> 01:20:34.480
 And so the way we kind of arranged this presentation is it was even good for me to kind of go back

01:20:34.480 --> 01:20:41.400
 to the real history of how the tree code started and go through kind of the background, past

01:20:41.400 --> 01:20:50.540
 and present, get into that regulatory framework with really the just of the presentation,

01:20:50.540 --> 01:20:55.520
 talk about the tree fund, that's kind of that bridge between the private and public, and

01:20:55.520 --> 01:21:01.640
 then talk to how we program some of that, both from land acquisition right away plannings

01:21:01.640 --> 01:21:09.560
 and how parks becomes -- has a role in this.

01:21:09.560 --> 01:21:14.640
 Interestingly enough, 2003 Flow Hospital redeveloped and there were a number of established oaks

01:21:14.640 --> 01:21:16.360
 on that site.

01:21:16.360 --> 01:21:20.880
 There was a lot of public outcry as a result of that redevelopment.

01:21:20.880 --> 01:21:29.440
 And in reaction to that outcry in 2003, the tree preservation ordinance was -- had begun

01:21:29.440 --> 01:21:32.600
 and it was adopted in 2004.

01:21:32.600 --> 01:21:39.400
 Interestingly a year later, the Denton citizens tree committee was created and they recommended

01:21:39.400 --> 01:21:43.120
 tightening that ordinance and removing some of the loopholes.

01:21:43.120 --> 01:21:46.960
 And I won't go through every draft.

01:21:46.960 --> 01:21:52.800
 There were probably well over a dozen, if not more, maybe two dozen drafts from staff

01:21:52.800 --> 01:21:58.920
 members, consultants, staff, committee members, consultants, I mean, it was numerous drafts

01:21:58.920 --> 01:22:04.200
 and there was never a consensus that could be reached from a year after this thing was

01:22:04.200 --> 01:22:07.200
 originally adopted to where we are today.

01:22:07.200 --> 01:22:11.360
 But I kind of -- what I also wanted to highlight in there, some of the actions that the state

01:22:11.360 --> 01:22:17.000
 legislature has kind of been picking at with respect to tree preservation and some of the

01:22:17.000 --> 01:22:25.520
 bills that they had been trying to pass through the years to where we are with this last legislative

01:22:25.520 --> 01:22:32.460
 session 2017, House Bill 7 and sort of what that did.

01:22:32.460 --> 01:22:41.360
 So here we are again, 2018, and this just gives you kind of that framework of where

01:22:41.360 --> 01:22:45.680
 we are present in coming up with this draft.

01:22:45.680 --> 01:22:50.160
 If you remember, we started talking about it towards the beginning of the year and kind

01:22:50.160 --> 01:22:57.800
 of put a hold on it to really look at this, not just tree, but also tree landscape, ESA

01:22:57.800 --> 01:23:00.120
 and how we move forward.

01:23:00.120 --> 01:23:02.320
 And so that's really where this draft is.

01:23:02.320 --> 01:23:07.400
 Again, it started with kind of this initial policy discussion back in April and May and

01:23:07.400 --> 01:23:12.280
 then listening to input from the Committee on the Environment, of course, Planning and

01:23:12.280 --> 01:23:20.920
 Zoning Commission, DCRC, as well as City Council, and then sort of holding with making sure

01:23:20.920 --> 01:23:26.600
 we're going to comply with Local Government Code 212095, making sure we're increasing

01:23:26.600 --> 01:23:30.800
 preservation and mitigation and then unifying the standards.

01:23:30.800 --> 01:23:38.400
 And so a little bit of House Bill 7, again, there are some prohibitions requiring homeowners

01:23:38.400 --> 01:23:44.100
 pay mitigation fees for removing trees under 10 inches in DBH and then mitigation removal

01:23:44.100 --> 01:23:49.120
 for dead or diseased or trees that pose an imminent or immediate threat to a person or

01:23:49.120 --> 01:23:50.120
 property.

01:23:50.120 --> 01:23:54.600
 Again, how that's defined is anyone's guess.

01:23:54.600 --> 01:23:57.240
 I think that's part of that carryover from that fire bill.

01:23:57.240 --> 01:23:58.240
 Commissioner Beck.

01:23:58.240 --> 01:24:00.240
 Thank you, Chair.

01:24:00.240 --> 01:24:05.720
 A mitigation fee for removing trees under 10 inches, that kind of struck me as odd.

01:24:05.720 --> 01:24:10.400
 And I can see over, you know, charging somebody if they were going to move a bigger tree,

01:24:10.400 --> 01:24:12.840
 but if they're under 10 inch...

01:24:12.840 --> 01:24:19.840
 If it's less than 10 inches in diameter, the municipality cannot require a person...

01:24:19.840 --> 01:24:20.840
 Cannot require?

01:24:20.840 --> 01:24:23.840
 Yeah, to pay a tree mitigation fee for removing a tree.

01:24:23.840 --> 01:24:24.840
 Okay.

01:24:24.840 --> 01:24:30.280
 We're going to charge them, so thank you for clarifying that.

01:24:30.280 --> 01:24:35.240
 Mitigation fee credit, again, I think we went over this previously, but just wanted to touch

01:24:35.240 --> 01:24:37.000
 on it.

01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:40.480
 If a municipality imposes a tree mitigation fee credit for the removal, it must allow

01:24:40.480 --> 01:24:43.280
 for a credit to offset that fee.

01:24:43.280 --> 01:24:46.800
 And then if it's planted on the property for which the mitigation fee was assessed or on

01:24:46.800 --> 01:24:50.700
 a mutually agreed upon by the municipality and the person.

01:24:50.700 --> 01:24:56.880
 And then it requires that any tree that's replanted must be a minimum of two inches

01:24:56.880 --> 01:25:00.880
 in diameter at a point on the trunk of four and a half feet above the ground, which is

01:25:00.880 --> 01:25:04.360
 that DBH, diameter at breast height.

01:25:04.360 --> 01:25:10.160
 And then mutually agreed upon, it kind of defines and kind of hints to what that means.

01:25:10.160 --> 01:25:15.400
 We're really looking at just requiring it primarily on that replanting to be done on

01:25:15.400 --> 01:25:18.800
 the property itself.

01:25:18.800 --> 01:25:25.880
 There's language also in there that talks about 50% credit for residential and a 40%

01:25:25.880 --> 01:25:26.880
 credit for non-residential.

01:25:26.880 --> 01:25:33.040
 Interestingly, I think we can all read this a number of different ways.

01:25:33.040 --> 01:25:38.080
 We've called a couple of the cities that have modified their code to address this.

01:25:38.080 --> 01:25:41.960
 As we're calling, a lot have not yet addressed it.

01:25:41.960 --> 01:25:45.560
 And they asked us, how are you guys addressing it?

01:25:45.560 --> 01:25:52.400
 We looked at two in particular that I think Irving was the first to incorporate some language

01:25:52.400 --> 01:25:54.840
 in their tree code.

01:25:54.840 --> 01:26:01.120
 It was done in 2017 or 2018.

01:26:01.120 --> 01:26:04.160
 And then Flower Mound recently amended theirs.

01:26:04.160 --> 01:26:08.880
 They more or less adopted the language right from the local government code, but they were

01:26:08.880 --> 01:26:14.320
 one of the ones, how are you administering this when we spoke to, when staff spoke to

01:26:14.320 --> 01:26:15.500
 their staff?

01:26:15.500 --> 01:26:21.040
 And so the approach we really took is a very liberal interpretation of it and kind of mimicked

01:26:21.040 --> 01:26:31.880
 that of Irving and just took a straight 50% credit off, kind of off the top, if you will.

01:26:31.880 --> 01:26:36.120
 But I'll get into those, get into that example.

01:26:36.120 --> 01:26:40.240
 A little bit of the goals, again, unified approach, make sure we comply with local government

01:26:40.240 --> 01:26:41.240
 code.

01:26:41.240 --> 01:26:45.560
 Limit clear cutting and increased preservation, require mitigation for all trees removed,

01:26:45.560 --> 01:26:50.560
 guide priorities towards preserving larger quality trees, tree stands and habitat, promote

01:26:50.560 --> 01:26:57.120
 multi-age forest with native and quality trees, and then balance trees with reasonable development.

01:26:57.120 --> 01:27:02.440
 Looking at canopy goals, this was an item that was discussed pretty heavily with respect

01:27:02.440 --> 01:27:04.560
 to whether it should be 30%.

01:27:04.560 --> 01:27:13.160
 Ultimately, we looked at then splitting it between 40 and 20, 40% east of 35, 20% west

01:27:13.160 --> 01:27:14.880
 of 35.

01:27:14.880 --> 01:27:21.080
 What we did was just looked at where we are today with that, what's on the ground now,

01:27:21.080 --> 01:27:25.660
 and so we're about 33% and 16%.

01:27:25.660 --> 01:27:33.040
 We also looked at all of the current parcels and their zoning classification and applying

01:27:33.040 --> 01:27:38.920
 that canopy coverage that's required in the DDC now, if it would actually bring it up.

01:27:38.920 --> 01:27:45.400
 We're still shy, but what that doesn't include are any public plantings that would be done

01:27:45.400 --> 01:27:50.040
 with respect to right-of-way plantings or anything else or any future zoning changes.

01:27:50.040 --> 01:27:56.280
 So again, it's a goal for us to reach, but I think it could be attainable and it's pretty

01:27:56.280 --> 01:27:57.280
 close.

01:27:57.280 --> 01:28:02.440
 Kind of the summary of changes, I wanted to sort of start at more of a higher level and

01:28:02.440 --> 01:28:09.920
 just kind of talk about some broad categories rather than do a page turn, I think, with

01:28:09.920 --> 01:28:14.200
 each section of the code, but get into kind of some of the major changes, applicability,

01:28:14.200 --> 01:28:20.920
 tree type, again, the preservation and landscape, new opportunities for preservation, habitat,

01:28:20.920 --> 01:28:22.520
 and mitigation.

01:28:22.520 --> 01:28:27.520
 And so the first applicability, you may recall we talked pretty heavily about whether or not

01:28:27.520 --> 01:28:33.320
 the city should have to comply with the same rules as everybody.

01:28:33.320 --> 01:28:37.000
 There were some exemptions, and the only one that really stayed was the airport, which

01:28:37.000 --> 01:28:39.200
 kind of makes sense.

01:28:39.200 --> 01:28:45.160
 I don't think there's a lot of trees out there anyways to preserve to begin with, but one

01:28:45.160 --> 01:28:50.160
 of the major changes, and I have it kind of highlighted as a discussion item, is again,

01:28:50.160 --> 01:28:55.680
 we took straight from local government code single family duplex lots with trees under

01:28:55.680 --> 01:28:57.880
 10 inches at DBH.

01:28:57.880 --> 01:29:04.320
 Currently the code exempts all single family, regardless of DBH or size.

01:29:04.320 --> 01:29:06.360
 And so this would not.

01:29:06.360 --> 01:29:12.160
 So that is a change that a single family property, which currently is exempt if they had a tree

01:29:12.160 --> 01:29:21.300
 at 15 inches or 16 inches, they would have to get a tree removal permit and possibly

01:29:21.300 --> 01:29:25.200
 preserve or mitigate depending the type of tree.

01:29:25.200 --> 01:29:31.520
 Again, that's a substantial change, but I just wanted to highlight that.

01:29:31.520 --> 01:29:36.880
 Tree type and mitigation, this was something, this is probably the most discussed and debated

01:29:36.880 --> 01:29:40.200
 topic.

01:29:40.200 --> 01:29:45.920
 If you remember, we have a variety of preserve, protected quality, quality tree stands, secondary

01:29:45.920 --> 01:29:47.960
 secondary tree stands.

01:29:47.960 --> 01:29:52.440
 And so we try to consolidate some of those, and again, keep that landmark, which is a

01:29:52.440 --> 01:29:55.680
 historic or Texas big tree registry.

01:29:55.680 --> 01:30:00.560
 Right now we don't have any, but we think it's still a worthy category to have.

01:30:00.560 --> 01:30:06.680
 Heritage trees, which would be all protected trees with a DBH of 18 inches or greater,

01:30:06.680 --> 01:30:11.880
 and then all post and black check oaks, DBH of 4 inches or greater.

01:30:11.880 --> 01:30:17.040
 And then quality trees, any non-secondary trees between 6 and 17.

01:30:17.040 --> 01:30:23.200
 And so 30% minimum preservation, and that would be made up of those in green.

01:30:23.200 --> 01:30:32.040
 Now, secondary, 6 to 17 inches in DBH, the boat arc hackberry or cottonwood, there is

01:30:32.040 --> 01:30:36.040
 no preservation requirement for those.

01:30:36.040 --> 01:30:39.040
 However, if they are removed, there is a replacement rate.

01:30:39.040 --> 01:30:45.720
 But rather than on an inch for inch, it's for every tree removed, it's replacement with

01:30:45.720 --> 01:30:47.800
 a 2-inch tree.

01:30:47.800 --> 01:30:51.840
 And then there's some, the ability to get some credits, again, that's to sort of foster

01:30:51.840 --> 01:30:57.440
 or push towards preserving some of those larger type trees.

01:30:57.440 --> 01:31:03.200
 But if the hackberry, so if that secondary tree is greater than 17 inches, just say it's

01:31:03.200 --> 01:31:08.180
 18 inches, then it falls into that heritage tree.

01:31:08.180 --> 01:31:15.240
 So they would be, they essentially would be protected if they are greater than 18 inches.

01:31:15.240 --> 01:31:21.040
 >> Is this for all development, including single family residents?

01:31:21.040 --> 01:31:25.160
 >> Correct, correct.

01:31:25.160 --> 01:31:32.320
 And then non-protected, again, still a debate, you know, a debated item, particularly the

01:31:32.320 --> 01:31:35.920
 first two, the mesquite and honey locust.

01:31:35.920 --> 01:31:41.440
 What we did include, what we, trying to kind of meet in the middle, if you remember, we

01:31:41.440 --> 01:31:46.480
 have the concept of a preserved habitat or conservation easement.

01:31:46.480 --> 01:31:51.480
 So if it is part of a natural area that's adjacent to an, that's undisturbed, we would

01:31:51.480 --> 01:31:53.640
 allow for credit for that.

01:31:53.640 --> 01:32:02.400
 Interestingly, I'll show you on another slide, some of our parks folks brought me a limb

01:32:02.400 --> 01:32:09.400
 from a honey locust, and everybody that comes by my office thinks it looks like some barbaric

01:32:09.400 --> 01:32:10.400
 staff from Conan.

01:32:10.400 --> 01:32:13.400
 I mean, it is, it's pretty wicked when you look at it.

01:32:13.400 --> 01:32:18.680
 And so when you think of it in terms of preserving these in a park or somewhere else, it may

01:32:18.680 --> 01:32:21.200
 not be conducive to that.

01:32:21.200 --> 01:32:26.640
 Again, crepe myrtle, malty trunk, any diseased or dead tree, trees that pose an eminent or

01:32:26.640 --> 01:32:31.520
 immediate threat to a person's or property, again, I think we need to ultimately define

01:32:31.520 --> 01:32:37.260
 what that means, but that's straight from the local government code.

01:32:37.260 --> 01:32:41.960
 And then any tree listed on the Department of Ag's noxious and invasive plant list, and

01:32:41.960 --> 01:32:48.340
 that was a request that came from our watershed folks.

01:32:48.340 --> 01:32:53.520
 And so again, should the mesquite and honey locust be preserved, replaced, or just considering

01:32:53.520 --> 01:32:56.880
 a non-protected tree?

01:32:56.880 --> 01:33:05.480
 And this is that branch, and so I'm happy I got the ruler to balance, but it's almost

01:33:05.480 --> 01:33:11.160
 three inches in length, and it is, I couldn't bend the thing, and I didn't want to try

01:33:11.160 --> 01:33:14.980
 that much, but it is, it's pretty wicked.

01:33:14.980 --> 01:33:18.800
 And so that's, again, something to consider.

01:33:18.800 --> 01:33:25.000
 What I'm going to do is tag my partner, Haley, to come up on the landscape components, and

01:33:25.000 --> 01:33:29.840
 she's really been working on that component of this ordinance.

01:33:29.840 --> 01:33:38.840
 All right, I see the clock shows we only have five minutes left, so do you want to continue

01:33:38.840 --> 01:33:45.080
 with this now, or just continue the conversation in the regular meeting?

01:33:45.080 --> 01:33:47.760
 I mean, let's go ahead and take five minutes.

01:33:47.760 --> 01:33:48.760
 Okay.

01:33:48.760 --> 01:33:54.440
 All right, so we've talked about the landscape code in depth pretty well before now.

01:33:54.440 --> 01:33:57.760
 It hasn't changed a whole lot in the form, if you look through the draft code that we

01:33:57.760 --> 01:34:02.480
 provided, but one of the main goals overall of this entire code update was to maintain

01:34:02.480 --> 01:34:07.880
 and improve our minimum landscape area and canopy requirements city-wide.

01:34:07.880 --> 01:34:11.200
 So that's kind of broken down into three major components, the preservation that Richard

01:34:11.200 --> 01:34:16.800
 will talk about further, and then buffers in landscape areas within new development.

01:34:16.800 --> 01:34:21.280
 Some of the major changes that we're proposing, preserve trees will now be allowed to count

01:34:21.280 --> 01:34:25.720
 towards landscape and canopy goals, currently in the code, unless you're preserving in excess

01:34:25.720 --> 01:34:29.400
 of the minimum, that doesn't count, so that would give a little bit more credit there

01:34:29.400 --> 01:34:31.880
 towards landscaping.

01:34:31.880 --> 01:34:37.400
 We are going to introduce some requirements for diversity in terms of age and species

01:34:37.400 --> 01:34:39.640
 with new plantings on site.

01:34:39.640 --> 01:34:44.600
 We're introducing some low-impact design standards that Clarion had originally proposed that

01:34:44.600 --> 01:34:49.240
 we thought were definitely worthy of introducing, just bioswales and things like that, to give

01:34:49.240 --> 01:34:54.520
 a little more creative options, and then we are taking away the credit you may be familiar

01:34:54.520 --> 01:35:00.120
 with where pervious paving on a site can count towards landscaping in the current code.

01:35:00.120 --> 01:35:03.920
 And then we're also proposing to remove the credits that are currently allowed for ESA

01:35:03.920 --> 01:35:08.280
 to count towards your landscaping.

01:35:08.280 --> 01:35:14.520
 So those credits that were recently introduced in the ESA update, sub-chapter 17, were that

01:35:14.520 --> 01:35:18.000
 for tree canopy, you would get one square foot of canopy credit for every square foot

01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:22.240
 of ESA tree canopy, and then in addition, you could get two square feet of landscaping

01:35:22.240 --> 01:35:27.200
 credits for every square foot of ESA tree canopy, and one square foot for every square

01:35:27.200 --> 01:35:29.000
 foot of non-wooded ESA canopy.

01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:33.200
 So you'll see a little bit later on, we're introducing a new concept called the development

01:35:33.200 --> 01:35:38.000
 impact area that would take ESA out of your landscape requirements entirely, so we thought

01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:42.160
 it made sense to concurrently take away those credits, and so now it won't count for you

01:35:42.160 --> 01:35:46.200
 or against you, in essence.

01:35:46.200 --> 01:35:48.080
 So you've seen this table before.

01:35:48.080 --> 01:35:51.000
 We are proposing point systems be introduced.

01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:55.640
 So for buffers, the point system, again, it would depend on the use that's developing

01:35:55.640 --> 01:35:59.360
 and what is adjoining it to determine how many points you would have to have and what

01:35:59.360 --> 01:36:05.040
 the width of that buffer would be, and then within the required points, there would be

01:36:05.040 --> 01:36:07.720
 kind of a menu of options that they could choose from.

01:36:07.720 --> 01:36:11.000
 The current code is very prescriptive in what has to be in that buffer.

01:36:11.000 --> 01:36:14.540
 This would give a greater amount of flexibility in site design.

01:36:14.540 --> 01:36:20.040
 So just looking at example, multi-family, developing and joining single-family.

01:36:20.040 --> 01:36:21.040
 Family is very stringent.

01:36:21.040 --> 01:36:25.700
 It has to be 10 feet wide with five trees and 30 shrubs for every 100 linear feet.

01:36:25.700 --> 01:36:29.560
 Under the current option, all it would dictate is that it has to have at least that 10-foot

01:36:29.560 --> 01:36:32.480
 width and then 20 points from that list of options.

01:36:32.480 --> 01:36:37.360
 So that could be obtained by something as simple as a masonry wall or by some combination

01:36:37.360 --> 01:36:42.760
 of a wood fence with landscaping or just with landscaping alone.

01:36:42.760 --> 01:36:47.120
 We're also recommending a point system for all of the other aspects of site design and

01:36:47.120 --> 01:36:48.120
 landscaping.

01:36:48.120 --> 01:36:51.640
 We can go through those tables a little bit more in the regular meeting, because it looks

01:36:51.640 --> 01:36:56.000
 like we're almost out of time, but the general goal of the landscape code is to now provide

01:36:56.000 --> 01:37:01.080
 greater flexibility in site design while enhancing the requirements, but it looks like we're

01:37:01.080 --> 01:37:02.080
 almost out of time.

01:37:02.080 --> 01:37:03.080
 Yeah.

01:37:03.080 --> 01:37:10.200
 Let's go ahead and we can close the work session now at 5-20, yeah, is it 6-28, 6-28, yeah,

01:37:10.200 --> 01:37:18.780
 and we'll meet it for regular session in council chambers.

01:37:18.780 --> 01:37:19.780
 Good evening.

01:37:19.780 --> 01:37:22.920
 Welcome to the plan and zoning meeting for November 28th.

01:37:22.920 --> 01:37:27.280
 It is 6-37, we'll call this meeting to order.

01:37:27.280 --> 01:37:29.280
 Appreciate y'all waiting for us.

01:37:29.280 --> 01:37:32.080
 There's a delay in work session, so appreciate your patience.

01:37:32.080 --> 01:37:35.400
 First order of business is to stand and give the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas

01:37:35.400 --> 01:37:36.400
 flag.

01:37:36.400 --> 01:37:44.600
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which

01:37:44.600 --> 01:37:53.280
 it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:37:53.280 --> 01:38:10.600
 I pledge allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag, one state under God, one indivisible.

01:38:10.600 --> 01:38:14.800
 With no consent agenda items on the docket for this evening, we'll move right into the

01:38:14.800 --> 01:38:16.560
 public hearings.

01:38:16.560 --> 01:38:20.840
 Item A has been postponed to the December 12th meeting.

01:38:20.840 --> 01:38:25.320
 That brings us to item B, S18-0008E.

01:38:25.320 --> 01:38:31.040
 I'll invite Haley for presentation.

01:38:31.040 --> 01:38:34.780
 This is a continued item that had a public hearing closed, so this evening there will

01:38:34.780 --> 01:38:39.160
 not be any public hearing on the item, but I wanted to invite Haley for presentation

01:38:39.160 --> 01:38:41.880
 so that we can have a discussion.

01:38:41.880 --> 01:38:45.400
 All right, and similar to work session, I'll keep it fairly brief unless there are some

01:38:45.400 --> 01:38:47.920
 specific questions we need to go look at.

01:38:47.920 --> 01:38:52.480
 So this is case S18-8 for the Windsor Drive Apartments.

01:38:52.480 --> 01:38:56.840
 The request before you is to consider making a recommendation to city council regarding

01:38:56.840 --> 01:39:01.120
 a request for a specific use permit to allow a multifamily use on the property that is

01:39:01.120 --> 01:39:03.360
 outlined in yellow on the map.

01:39:03.360 --> 01:39:07.320
 The property is a total of approximately 31 acres, located at the intersection of Windsor

01:39:07.320 --> 01:39:11.880
 Drive and the R35 frontage road.

01:39:11.880 --> 01:39:15.680
 As the chairman mentioned, this item was continued from the November 14th meeting.

01:39:15.680 --> 01:39:19.560
 At that time, the applicant requested the postponement to allow them time to develop

01:39:19.560 --> 01:39:21.000
 a modified plan.

01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:23.800
 The public hearing was closed at that time.

01:39:23.800 --> 01:39:29.400
 And then following that meeting, staff had discussions with legal and with the applicant,

01:39:29.400 --> 01:39:32.680
 and it was ultimately determined that the applicant would move forward with staff's

01:39:32.680 --> 01:39:37.820
 original recommended conditions and the original site plan that was shown on November 14th.

01:39:37.820 --> 01:39:41.960
 No modifications to that site plan are being proposed at this time.

01:39:41.960 --> 01:39:45.120
 A notification was sent out for this public hearing.

01:39:45.120 --> 01:39:47.440
 We received no written responses to that.

01:39:47.440 --> 01:39:51.640
 And the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting back on September 6th and had approximately

01:39:51.640 --> 01:39:58.000
 20 people in attendance at that meeting with generally positive feedback at that time.

01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:02.840
 So staff does have several requirements based upon the site plan that was provided that

01:40:02.840 --> 01:40:07.840
 will be written into the ordinance to provide clarity, because ultimately, over time, the

01:40:07.840 --> 01:40:11.240
 plans, when they get attached to our ordinances, lose a little bit of their legibility and

01:40:11.240 --> 01:40:15.400
 integrity, so to preserve the integrity of what you all in council have seen, we're

01:40:15.400 --> 01:40:18.440
 adding these elements into the text of the ordinance.

01:40:18.440 --> 01:40:22.920
 With this, we're requesting that staff have the ability to approve an increase or decrease

01:40:22.920 --> 01:40:26.320
 of less than or equal to 5% of any of the amounts described below.

01:40:26.320 --> 01:40:31.280
 So first, the multifamily portion is part of a mixed-use development and will encompass

01:40:31.280 --> 01:40:35.600
 a maximum of 17 out of the 31 acres you saw on the map.

01:40:35.600 --> 01:40:41.440
 16 buildings are indicated on the site plan with a building footprint at 112,724 square

01:40:41.440 --> 01:40:42.440
 feet.

01:40:42.440 --> 01:40:47.360
 There are 336 dwelling units specified on the plan for a density of 20.48 dwelling units

01:40:47.360 --> 01:40:49.320
 per acre.

01:40:49.320 --> 01:40:53.960
 No fewer than 629 parking spaces are required for that amount of dwelling units.

01:40:53.960 --> 01:40:58.320
 The plan does reflect 632 spaces, however, 60 of those are within the footprint of the

01:40:58.320 --> 01:41:02.280
 building, so it doesn't trigger any need for pervious paving or an alternative development

01:41:02.280 --> 01:41:03.840
 plan.

01:41:03.840 --> 01:41:08.960
 The site plan specifies a total of 49% lot coverage, 51% landscape area.

01:41:08.960 --> 01:41:13.160
 This includes a 30-foot wide type D buffer along the eastern property line.

01:41:13.160 --> 01:41:17.800
 The plan does reflect an alternative buffer request that would be one tree for every 40

01:41:17.800 --> 01:41:21.400
 linear feet and a six-foot high opaque fence.

01:41:21.400 --> 01:41:25.800
 The DDC does grant the director the ability to approve this alternative buffer.

01:41:25.800 --> 01:41:29.480
 So we specify that the director may approve any alternative buffer that's equivalent

01:41:29.480 --> 01:41:32.780
 to or more restrictive than what's on the plan.

01:41:32.780 --> 01:41:36.880
 And then finally, the sample building elevation specify an earth tone and gray tone color

01:41:36.880 --> 01:41:41.560
 palette with facades of stucco, hardy board plank siding, and hardy board panels.

01:41:41.560 --> 01:41:45.840
 The final building elevations should reflect these materials and colors and be in compliance

01:41:45.840 --> 01:41:50.600
 with the Denton Development Code multifamily standards.

01:41:50.600 --> 01:41:55.680
 And then with that, staff does have four recommended conditions for this SUP.

01:41:55.680 --> 01:41:59.420
 First be that the City Council would recognize that the driveway access location from the

01:41:59.420 --> 01:42:02.760
 state highway must be approved by TxDOT.

01:42:02.760 --> 01:42:05.960
 Alternations in the configuration of I-35 are currently in planning at this time.

01:42:05.960 --> 01:42:10.320
 So any driveway access locations from the northbound I-35 frontage road, which must

01:42:10.320 --> 01:42:15.240
 be altered in response to changing TxDOT requirements during the permitting process, may be administratively

01:42:15.240 --> 01:42:19.840
 approved by City staff provided that such alterations comply with all DDC and criteria

01:42:19.840 --> 01:42:25.480
 manual requirements and that all remaining elements of the approved site plan be satisfied.

01:42:25.480 --> 01:42:28.800
 Second is that landscaping in the attached plan reflects an intent to comply with all

01:42:28.800 --> 01:42:33.880
 DDC requirements for parking, street trees, minimum landscape, and canopy areas and compatibility

01:42:33.880 --> 01:42:38.400
 buffers with the administrative approval allowance for an alternative buffer.

01:42:38.400 --> 01:42:41.980
 Minor alterations to the depicted locations of the individual plantings on that plan may

01:42:41.980 --> 01:42:46.600
 be approved by City staff provided that the final landscaping as planted comply with the

01:42:46.600 --> 01:42:51.640
 site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as all DDC requirements.

01:42:51.640 --> 01:42:56.560
 Third, that the agreement that has been entered into and executed by CL Ventures LLC and Sage

01:42:56.560 --> 01:43:01.820
 Natural Resources LLC, which sets forth the 250-foot reverse setback for the multifamily

01:43:01.820 --> 01:43:06.080
 development from the two wells shown on the attached site plan, must be filed in the records

01:43:06.080 --> 01:43:09.980
 of Denton County prior to approval of a plat for the subject property and that a note be

01:43:09.980 --> 01:43:14.440
 placed on the plat that reference the agreements and the approved setbacks.

01:43:14.440 --> 01:43:19.040
 And finally, notwithstanding the limited administrative approvals authorized in conditions one and

01:43:19.040 --> 01:43:22.960
 two, the City reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of any amendments to

01:43:22.960 --> 01:43:28.040
 the SUP, the attached site plan, and the elements described on the previous slide, including

01:43:28.040 --> 01:43:30.080
 those referenced in condition one and two.

01:43:30.080 --> 01:43:33.680
 And I'd be happy to walk you all through the plans if there are any questions.

01:43:33.680 --> 01:43:36.920
 Are there any questions for Haley?

01:43:36.920 --> 01:43:41.880
 I do not see any questions for you.

01:43:41.880 --> 01:43:47.160
 At this time, the public hearing was closed last week, but I would like to invite the

01:43:47.160 --> 01:43:53.680
 applicant, Mr. Allison, to come and at least present the rationale or context for bringing

01:43:53.680 --> 01:44:00.280
 this item back and just any information you can provide for clarity.

01:44:00.280 --> 01:44:01.280
 Thank you.

01:44:01.280 --> 01:44:02.280
 Good evening.

01:44:02.280 --> 01:44:04.120
 Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group.

01:44:04.120 --> 01:44:07.420
 Let's start over.

01:44:07.420 --> 01:44:14.160
 Last time we came before you, and I think I'm going the wrong, okay, you know, here to obtain

01:44:14.160 --> 01:44:21.440
 or seeking a specific use permit to incorporate 336-unit multifamily project into a larger

01:44:21.440 --> 01:44:24.320
 31-acre mixed use development.

01:44:24.320 --> 01:44:28.920
 We're in agreement with the staff's report, and I think I indicated at the last meeting

01:44:28.920 --> 01:44:32.240
 that we could work with the staff's report.

01:44:32.240 --> 01:44:36.200
 We were seeking some more flexibility in the site, depending on who could come along and

01:44:36.200 --> 01:44:38.280
 what could accomplish it.

01:44:38.280 --> 01:44:43.960
 We really didn't understand that we were upzoning in our request.

01:44:43.960 --> 01:44:49.000
 We felt like because we were requesting limits that were lower than what the zoning category

01:44:49.000 --> 01:44:51.960
 required that it was still a downzoning, but apparently not.

01:44:51.960 --> 01:44:57.880
 So we're here and ready to go forward.

01:44:57.880 --> 01:45:04.880
 The development code requires a 250-foot reverse setback for protected uses.

01:45:04.880 --> 01:45:09.200
 I'm not an expert in the health industry in what these setbacks should be, so I'm not

01:45:09.200 --> 01:45:14.800
 here to argue whether it should be 250 or 1,000 or 100 or whatever.

01:45:14.800 --> 01:45:18.720
 That's something that y'all get to work with, and you have a responsibility to be working

01:45:18.720 --> 01:45:19.720
 with it.

01:45:19.720 --> 01:45:25.040
 And if technology and other things change, maybe the code needs to be changed, but that's

01:45:25.040 --> 01:45:26.680
 something that needs to be discussed.

01:45:26.680 --> 01:45:30.000
 But it's from the gas well pad site.

01:45:30.000 --> 01:45:37.640
 Our proposed site plan provides 433-foot setback from pain number one to a habitable structure.

01:45:37.640 --> 01:45:44.080
 A 300-foot setback from pain number two on the south to a habitable structure.

01:45:44.080 --> 01:45:51.520
 Currently, that particular gas well is between 50 and 75 feet from the subdivision to the

01:45:51.520 --> 01:45:52.520
 east of it.

01:45:52.520 --> 01:45:53.520
 That doesn't make it right.

01:45:53.520 --> 01:45:55.680
 It's just what it is.

01:45:55.680 --> 01:45:59.920
 Any future plan by the well operator to reduce those setbacks will require a specific use

01:45:59.920 --> 01:46:00.920
 permit.

01:46:00.920 --> 01:46:02.680
 That's a lie.

01:46:02.680 --> 01:46:04.760
 My fault got into the slide.

01:46:04.760 --> 01:46:06.760
 It doesn't require a specific use permit.

01:46:06.760 --> 01:46:13.000
 It requires a watershed protection permit because of their nearness to the flood plain.

01:46:13.000 --> 01:46:17.140
 That does require P&Z as well as city council consideration.

01:46:17.140 --> 01:46:21.640
 So any changes they want to make in the future will have to come back to planning and zoning.

01:46:21.640 --> 01:46:22.640
 That's a correct statement.

01:46:22.640 --> 01:46:28.820
 But it's not as a specific use permit, and I apologize for that error in our presentation.

01:46:28.820 --> 01:46:32.940
 This is a slide you saw before that shows the pain number one to the north, pain number

01:46:32.940 --> 01:46:38.360
 two to the south, the various setbacks, the distances and what's been agreed to.

01:46:38.360 --> 01:46:47.760
 Well, actually, what I do want to mention is our agreement with the gas well operator

01:46:47.760 --> 01:46:53.840
 is if they come in with an application to move their pad site to within 250 feet of

01:46:53.840 --> 01:46:56.480
 our protected uses, we will not oppose it.

01:46:56.480 --> 01:46:57.480
 It's not a pre-approval.

01:46:57.480 --> 01:47:02.160
 It's anything that just means we're not going to oppose it if that occurs.

01:47:02.160 --> 01:47:07.240
 The south on pain number two, our agreement is we won't put anything in that area.

01:47:07.240 --> 01:47:11.640
 We won't develop it at all, the commercial or the apartments.

01:47:11.640 --> 01:47:13.480
 Hopefully someday they'll abandon that site.

01:47:13.480 --> 01:47:17.080
 That's the ones that's so close to the neighbors, but for now it's still there.

01:47:17.080 --> 01:47:22.440
 They want that area free and clear in case there's ever a need for emergency vehicles.

01:47:22.440 --> 01:47:26.560
 You might be aware that pain number one had a lightning strike a few years ago.

01:47:26.560 --> 01:47:31.480
 Fortunately, I'm sure it was a big scare, but fortunately no one was in real danger,

01:47:31.480 --> 01:47:37.520
 but at the same time there were some issues about fire access and things.

01:47:37.520 --> 01:47:43.480
 I looked up the definition of protected use and on the left-hand side of this slide by

01:47:43.480 --> 01:47:47.620
 definition it itemizes what protected uses are.

01:47:47.620 --> 01:47:55.160
 On the right-hand side of the slide, I listed what I believe are the protected uses under

01:47:55.160 --> 01:47:56.960
 NRMU.

01:47:56.960 --> 01:48:00.600
 Some of those include dwellings and some are businesses, et cetera.

01:48:00.600 --> 01:48:05.400
 The items listed in black do not have to come to planning and zoning commission.

01:48:05.400 --> 01:48:10.160
 As long as we meet the agreed to setbacks with the operator, we can move forward, attach

01:48:10.160 --> 01:48:14.800
 single family, dwelling above businesses, live work units, et cetera.

01:48:14.800 --> 01:48:18.920
 The items listed in red require a specific use permit.

01:48:18.920 --> 01:48:22.920
 Those do have to come before planning and zoning and you do have an opportunity to consider

01:48:22.920 --> 01:48:25.120
 and vote on those.

01:48:25.120 --> 01:48:31.680
 I did put the L4 by multifamily in black, and the reason is if we were to reduce this

01:48:31.680 --> 01:48:37.200
 to 12 acres, which really doesn't work economically on the site at this time, but if we were to

01:48:37.200 --> 01:48:43.800
 reduce it to 12 acres so that the multifamily is only 40% or less of a mixed use development,

01:48:43.800 --> 01:48:47.840
 it doesn't have to come to the planning and zoning commission either.

01:48:47.840 --> 01:48:55.040
 Home occupation, hotels, again under the protected uses or public schools, et cetera, these are

01:48:55.040 --> 01:49:02.920
 on the right again more uses that are allowed by right under the current zoning consideration.

01:49:02.920 --> 01:49:05.200
 I just wanted to present that as a perspective.

01:49:05.200 --> 01:49:11.280
 I know that things got very discombobulated at the last meeting.

01:49:11.280 --> 01:49:16.840
 I think now we're back to being focused on the item as presented with some concerns and

01:49:16.840 --> 01:49:21.080
 considerations regarding gas wells, and I wanted to provide you some of our perspectives,

01:49:21.080 --> 01:49:24.720
 so I go back to my seat and watch y'all deliberate.

01:49:24.720 --> 01:49:27.800
 I'll be glad to respond to any questions if you should have any.

01:49:27.800 --> 01:49:28.800
 We do.

01:49:28.800 --> 01:49:29.800
 Commissioner Smith.

01:49:29.800 --> 01:49:30.800
 Thank you, Chair.

01:49:30.800 --> 01:49:34.600
 Mr. Allison, if you go back to the setbacks that you're talking about, you had mentioned

01:49:34.600 --> 01:49:40.360
 on the one more back to the numbers, the 433 and the 300.

01:49:40.360 --> 01:49:43.680
 You said that the, and it's not the specific use permit.

01:49:43.680 --> 01:49:48.680
 It's the watershed, that watershed protection, some of the things they have to apply to.

01:49:48.680 --> 01:49:51.760
 They would have to apply that if they want to reduce the setbacks from 250 downwards,

01:49:51.760 --> 01:49:55.760
 not from 433 or 300, but from 200, 250 downward, correct?

01:49:55.760 --> 01:49:56.760
 Or is that a question for staff?

01:49:56.760 --> 01:50:00.680
 I believe the current setback for a gas well would be 500 feet.

01:50:00.680 --> 01:50:02.280
 I think staff has something to say, too.

01:50:02.280 --> 01:50:05.800
 And I think it's really a staff determination as far as the setback itself.

01:50:05.800 --> 01:50:09.960
 I guess the question I have is that if you say, "Well, right now our proposed site plan

01:50:09.960 --> 01:50:17.400
 is 433 and 300," is it, they have to go and make that request to the watershed change

01:50:17.400 --> 01:50:22.320
 at 433 or 300, or is it only the change of the 250?

01:50:22.320 --> 01:50:28.720
 My understanding is they're going to ask for the setbacks to be where these red lines are.

01:50:28.720 --> 01:50:35.880
 And you can see on here the blue, that's where they're, the green is where their future set

01:50:35.880 --> 01:50:39.520
 pad site that they're wanting to put it and they're talking about.

01:50:39.520 --> 01:50:42.120
 And that would be a 250-foot setback there.

01:50:42.120 --> 01:50:46.360
 I guess I'm asking if they're, you're saying that if they wanted to reduce it, if they

01:50:46.360 --> 01:50:50.800
 wanted to do something to make that setback reduced, you're talking about the reduction

01:50:50.800 --> 01:50:56.600
 would be from, they have the right to come in and go all the way up to 250 feet away,

01:50:56.600 --> 01:51:02.920
 or if the site plan is 433 and 300, if they want to go any closer than 433 or 300 closer,

01:51:02.920 --> 01:51:03.920
 they have to file a change.

01:51:03.920 --> 01:51:04.920
 There's a special process.

01:51:04.920 --> 01:51:05.920
 I need to.

01:51:05.920 --> 01:51:06.920
 Okay.

01:51:06.920 --> 01:51:07.920
 We'll let Haley.

01:51:07.920 --> 01:51:08.920
 Sure.

01:51:08.920 --> 01:51:12.800
 So the gas well setback is different from the reverse setback.

01:51:12.800 --> 01:51:17.800
 So the operator is, I get vested for lack of a better word, in their existing site.

01:51:17.800 --> 01:51:21.340
 If they leave it as is, they need not go through any changes.

01:51:21.340 --> 01:51:26.800
 If they seek to modify the site and enlarge the site, do anything to it, it's substantial.

01:51:26.800 --> 01:51:29.480
 They have a 500-foot setback that's imposed upon them.

01:51:29.480 --> 01:51:30.480
 Got it.

01:51:30.480 --> 01:51:34.320
 So right now, as it stands, they couldn't do anything to, because they're already in

01:51:34.320 --> 01:51:35.320
 a 500-foot setback.

01:51:35.320 --> 01:51:36.320
 Correct.

01:51:36.320 --> 01:51:40.480
 They're already not meeting that setback, so they would have a very onerous process

01:51:40.480 --> 01:51:44.920
 that would start by having to get waivers from either all property owners within the

01:51:44.920 --> 01:51:49.040
 500-foot buffer saying that they're okay with it being reduced as low as 250.

01:51:49.040 --> 01:51:51.480
 It can never go below 250.

01:51:51.480 --> 01:51:55.120
 They could ask the Board of Adjustment for that permission as well, and then staff could

01:51:55.120 --> 01:51:59.840
 get them to a happy medium of 375, but that wouldn't help them out as well.

01:51:59.840 --> 01:52:02.600
 So they would either be going through one of those first two processes.

01:52:02.600 --> 01:52:06.320
 If they get that, they would then require the watershed protection permit, which, Lee,

01:52:06.320 --> 01:52:11.120
 you were correct, actually does require an SUP as part of that process.

01:52:11.120 --> 01:52:14.840
 So it would be a multifaceted process for them to ever get a reduction, but it would

01:52:14.840 --> 01:52:15.840
 be from the 500.

01:52:15.840 --> 01:52:21.080
 I guess what I was trying to say is that from the way the site plan is built at 433 on one

01:52:21.080 --> 01:52:27.080
 site and 300 on another site, that in reality, the development isn't going to go any closer

01:52:27.080 --> 01:52:33.920
 to the gas well up to the 250, and the gas well operator, they have a very cumbersome

01:52:33.920 --> 01:52:37.600
 process ahead of them if they try to move anywhere, basically.

01:52:37.600 --> 01:52:41.960
 Correct, and there's no means of them getting a setback approved for anything less than

01:52:41.960 --> 01:52:42.960
 250 feet.

01:52:42.960 --> 01:52:43.960
 That's the absolute minimum.

01:52:43.960 --> 01:52:44.960
 Okay.

01:52:44.960 --> 01:52:45.960
 Thank you.

01:52:45.960 --> 01:52:46.960
 That's all I wanted to know.

01:52:46.960 --> 01:52:47.960
 Commissioner Pernitta.

01:52:47.960 --> 01:52:50.960
 Actually, if you have a question for me, just to kind of piggyback on what we're talking

01:52:50.960 --> 01:52:51.960
 about.

01:52:51.960 --> 01:52:58.680
 So right now, those gas wells are not being used at all, right?

01:52:58.680 --> 01:52:59.680
 No, they're both in use.

01:52:59.680 --> 01:53:00.680
 They are both in use?

01:53:00.680 --> 01:53:01.680
 Correct.

01:53:01.680 --> 01:53:07.400
 So when we talked last week about, or a couple of weeks ago about, you know, the watershed

01:53:07.400 --> 01:53:14.360
 and everything, that was only if they were to expand the path from 433 to the 250?

01:53:14.360 --> 01:53:17.560
 No, that requirement would come into play for the northern site.

01:53:17.560 --> 01:53:20.240
 The southern site is not within the floodplain.

01:53:20.240 --> 01:53:22.600
 The northern site is within the floodplain already.

01:53:22.600 --> 01:53:27.240
 So any modifications to the site boundaries, or if they needed additional wells on that

01:53:27.240 --> 01:53:31.880
 site, would require that watershed protection permit process.

01:53:31.880 --> 01:53:32.880
 Okay.

01:53:32.880 --> 01:53:38.000
 But right now, the wells are in use and what we are voting on would be, and I guess out

01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:44.080
 of my misunderstanding, last time I thought the wells were not in use, but they are in

01:53:44.080 --> 01:53:45.080
 use and we're looking at 433 and 300.

01:53:45.080 --> 01:53:46.080
 Correct.

01:53:46.080 --> 01:53:47.080
 Both pad sites are considered active.

01:53:47.080 --> 01:53:51.000
 I don't think the production is all that high on either site, but they both are active

01:53:51.000 --> 01:53:52.000
 wells.

01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:53.000
 All right.

01:53:53.000 --> 01:53:54.000
 Thank you.

01:53:54.000 --> 01:53:55.000
 I did not see any other questions.

01:53:55.000 --> 01:53:56.000
 Thank you, Mr. Ellison.

01:53:56.000 --> 01:53:59.640
 All righty.

01:53:59.640 --> 01:54:00.640
 Thank you.

01:54:00.640 --> 01:54:04.680
 Sorry about getting wrong on the SUP too.

01:54:04.680 --> 01:54:08.360
 So because the public hearing is closed, there won't be opportunities to speak.

01:54:08.360 --> 01:54:14.840
 However, I wanted to read in the record the opposition of Ed Soft at 1620 Victoria Drive

01:54:14.840 --> 01:54:17.360
 in Texas.

01:54:17.360 --> 01:54:27.080
 With the public hearing closed, the dais is open for discussion or motion.

01:54:27.080 --> 01:54:28.080
 Commissioner Smith.

01:54:28.080 --> 01:54:36.160
 I'd like to make a motion for approval with staff's recommendations and conditions.

01:54:36.160 --> 01:54:40.560
 And just to add on to that, I think that, yes, while it is close to the gas wells, and

01:54:40.560 --> 01:54:48.040
 I understand the health concerns and the science for and against the health concerns there,

01:54:48.040 --> 01:54:50.840
 I think the project makes sense where it is.

01:54:50.840 --> 01:54:55.960
 I think that there's already other residential near that gas well as is, not that that makes

01:54:55.960 --> 01:55:04.200
 it right, but with the developer as well as the engineer working hard to even go above

01:55:04.200 --> 01:55:09.640
 and beyond the 250, I think this site could work.

01:55:09.640 --> 01:55:13.080
 And there is no promise that the gas will work for forever.

01:55:13.080 --> 01:55:16.960
 And so I do want to make a motion in support.

01:55:16.960 --> 01:55:17.960
 Commissioner Sanchez.

01:55:17.960 --> 01:55:20.320
 I'd like to second that motion.

01:55:20.320 --> 01:55:21.320
 Thank you.

01:55:21.320 --> 01:55:22.880
 Commissioner Beck.

01:55:22.880 --> 01:55:23.880
 Thank you, Chair.

01:55:23.880 --> 01:55:28.200
 I just want to, and I'm going to read from a note too, if that's okay.

01:55:28.200 --> 01:55:33.480
 I just want to reiterate what I stated at the last PNZ meeting on this agenda item.

01:55:33.480 --> 01:55:38.440
 The current science is showing us that the 250-foot setbacks, the minimums they can have

01:55:38.440 --> 01:55:44.680
 for these active gas wills may well be inadequate, especially for small children, the elderly,

01:55:44.680 --> 01:55:46.160
 and pregnant women.

01:55:46.160 --> 01:55:50.520
 I appreciate what the developer and the gas will operator have tried to achieve here at

01:55:50.520 --> 01:55:55.240
 keeping these minimum setback distances from the gas wells and the residential development

01:55:55.240 --> 01:55:56.240
 they are promoting.

01:55:56.240 --> 01:56:00.160
 And I have no doubt that they too share my concern for the health and safety of those

01:56:00.160 --> 01:56:03.880
 vulnerable populations that can live near these gas wells.

01:56:03.880 --> 01:56:08.600
 But they have been given distances by state and federal agencies that too often seem to

01:56:08.600 --> 01:56:15.240
 favor profits over people, putting human life at risk based on industry standards that seldom

01:56:15.240 --> 01:56:18.720
 reflect the independent science that disputes their claims.

01:56:18.720 --> 01:56:24.120
 According to one research paper, the majority of setback distances in the area we study,

01:56:24.120 --> 01:56:29.120
 which Barnett Shell is a part of, are not derived from peer-reviewed data, data-driven

01:56:29.120 --> 01:56:31.720
 analysis, or historical events.

01:56:31.720 --> 01:56:36.400
 They are a compromise between governments, the regulated community, environmental and

01:56:36.400 --> 01:56:39.640
 citizen interest groups, and landowners.

01:56:39.640 --> 01:56:46.280
 The chances of any devastating explosion or massive emission of toxic elements might be

01:56:46.280 --> 01:56:52.640
 small, but reports have shown that some explosion radii can be as much as 0.8 miles.

01:56:52.640 --> 01:56:58.400
 However, there will always be those small leaks of volatile organic compounds and particulate

01:56:58.400 --> 01:57:04.640
 matter that fall within the allowable limits that the TCEQ and EPA advocate.

01:57:04.640 --> 01:57:10.320
 Yet people who live in close proximity to these wells and who have physiological sensitivities

01:57:10.320 --> 01:57:16.520
 like asthma and other respiratory illnesses could well suffer these lesser effects, impacting

01:57:16.520 --> 01:57:21.520
 not only their health, but their health care costs with more than normal visits to the

01:57:21.520 --> 01:57:25.600
 doctor or ER than those less susceptible.

01:57:25.600 --> 01:57:31.040
 There's a history of catastrophic events that result from chemicals in the human area.

01:57:31.040 --> 01:57:38.280
 Bhopal India comes to mind, the Gulf BP oil well disaster, the Texas City refinery explosion

01:57:38.280 --> 01:57:44.360
 in 2005, and in 2013, we all remember the West Texas fertilizer explosion, and these

01:57:44.360 --> 01:57:47.760
 are just the tip of the icebergs of these kind of events.

01:57:47.760 --> 01:57:52.040
 Yes, these are dramatic events, but they do illustrate the serious threat that hazardous

01:57:52.040 --> 01:57:57.520
 chemicals can pose when neglect and short-sightedness are part of the equation.

01:57:57.520 --> 01:58:02.160
 These tracks of lands with gas and oil wells on them can eventually be fully developed

01:58:02.160 --> 01:58:06.960
 once they are depleted and certifiably capped.

01:58:06.960 --> 01:58:10.720
 But even before then, they can be commercially developed with the existing setback limits

01:58:10.720 --> 01:58:16.680
 because the human patronage to these commercial sites will not routinely and necessarily reside

01:58:16.680 --> 01:58:21.640
 there over any duration that could pose a threat from these gas and oil wells like it

01:58:21.640 --> 01:58:27.260
 will the permanent residents who live at those locations, and with that in mind, I will oppose

01:58:27.260 --> 01:58:28.260
 this agenda item.

01:58:28.260 --> 01:58:29.260
 Thank you.

01:58:29.260 --> 01:58:30.880
 Thank you, Mr. Rebeck, for those words.

01:58:30.880 --> 01:58:31.880
 Commissioner Pernetta?

01:58:31.880 --> 01:58:38.520
 Yeah, I just wanted to first start off with a clarifying question because I know, as Commissioner

01:58:38.520 --> 01:58:42.480
 Rebeck mentioned just a second ago, there are concerns about proximity to the wells

01:58:42.480 --> 01:58:44.960
 and how they may affect health.

01:58:44.960 --> 01:58:49.600
 I don't know what the vote would be right now, but if it was a vote to deny, it would

01:58:49.600 --> 01:58:54.480
 still go before city council and require a supermajority, right?

01:58:54.480 --> 01:58:58.680
 And that's one of the things that I want to have put out on the record.

01:58:58.680 --> 01:59:05.360
 While certainly we always encourage development in Denton, and as someone who pushes for affordable

01:59:05.360 --> 01:59:11.960
 housing, the addition of units is kind of a big deal to me.

01:59:11.960 --> 01:59:16.960
 Knowing that this vote or how I vote, how Commissioner Beck votes, et cetera, may not

01:59:16.960 --> 01:59:21.440
 make a decision on what happens with this property, I think it is important if we're

01:59:21.440 --> 01:59:26.520
 going to have developments that are close to wells to have them go before the city council

01:59:26.520 --> 01:59:32.680
 and have these things be discussed in a more open area where people can come out and discuss

01:59:32.680 --> 01:59:33.680
 these.

01:59:33.680 --> 01:59:38.800
 You know, similarly to Commissioner Beck, I'll be voting against this.

01:59:38.800 --> 01:59:42.480
 When I say that, though, I want to make sure that everyone who's paying attention to the

01:59:42.480 --> 01:59:47.040
 proceedings understands that this isn't killing this project going forward.

01:59:47.040 --> 01:59:51.840
 What I hope to do is open a discussion about, you know, how this thing impacts people and,

01:59:51.840 --> 01:59:57.520
 like I said, push this on to a larger forum where more citizens can come out and discuss

01:59:57.520 --> 01:59:58.520
 things.

01:59:58.520 --> 02:00:02.120
 Because I know city council is also looking at reverse setbacks and, you know, long-term,

02:00:02.120 --> 02:00:08.120
 you know, whether or not the current minimums, you know, satisfy the public good.

02:00:08.120 --> 02:00:09.120
 That's all I have to say.

02:00:09.120 --> 02:00:10.120
 Thank you.

02:00:10.120 --> 02:00:14.720
 Commissioner Pernetta, I have a couple things to say.

02:00:14.720 --> 02:00:18.960
 I'm going to be supporting this project, and I think the research Commissioner Beck's done

02:00:18.960 --> 02:00:21.240
 is valuable.

02:00:21.240 --> 02:00:23.760
 It seems valid and worth it.

02:00:23.760 --> 02:00:29.160
 I think this project is not the correct venue to make those debates.

02:00:29.160 --> 02:00:35.320
 I think it's a council decision, and if the governing body of our city deems that those

02:00:35.320 --> 02:00:39.880
 need to be addressed, then that needs to be taken to the council in full force of all

02:00:39.880 --> 02:00:40.880
 its supporters.

02:00:40.880 --> 02:00:50.040
 But I think if the council has agreed upon and set these setbacks, it provides developers

02:00:50.040 --> 02:00:56.120
 some confusion and ambiguity that the commission of planning and zoning might be setting arbitrary

02:00:56.120 --> 02:01:00.120
 conditions that are not codified and they're not from the council.

02:01:00.120 --> 02:01:05.600
 And so now by stipulating that we have some commissioners stating that we're going to

02:01:05.600 --> 02:01:12.080
 change the codified rules of our city, I think that that doesn't promote a lot of unambiguity

02:01:12.080 --> 02:01:14.760
 and clarity to the process to be approved.

02:01:14.760 --> 02:01:19.120
 And so I'm not necessarily against increasing setbacks or looking into that to see what

02:01:19.120 --> 02:01:24.280
 the correct solution should be, but I'm not, I do not believe that the developer should

02:01:24.280 --> 02:01:28.200
 be held accountable for something that's not codified by the city.

02:01:28.200 --> 02:01:30.600
 That is the prevailing rule of the land right now.

02:01:30.600 --> 02:01:33.400
 And they're meeting all those things more than the minimums.

02:01:33.400 --> 02:01:37.360
 And so for that, I support that it looks like a couple more discussion items.

02:01:37.360 --> 02:01:39.020
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:01:39.020 --> 02:01:40.020
 Thank you, chair.

02:01:40.020 --> 02:01:41.020
 Yeah, just a couple of words.

02:01:41.020 --> 02:01:46.880
 I absolutely appreciate the concerns raised by Commissioner Beck.

02:01:46.880 --> 02:01:52.160
 But in front of us right now is an SUP and it more than complies with our current gas

02:01:52.160 --> 02:01:55.640
 well ordinances.

02:01:55.640 --> 02:01:58.360
 It's possible that our code needs to be looked at.

02:01:58.360 --> 02:01:59.880
 It does need to be looked at.

02:01:59.880 --> 02:02:02.800
 But it's not this applicant's responsibility, in my opinion.

02:02:02.800 --> 02:02:06.000
 Its responsibility is to fall within the parameters of our code right now.

02:02:06.000 --> 02:02:07.840
 And it does that.

02:02:07.840 --> 02:02:13.600
 And it's not that I am unsympathetic to the concerns in the new studies coming before us.

02:02:13.600 --> 02:02:17.440
 But that's not what is before us right now, in my opinion.

02:02:17.440 --> 02:02:18.440
 And I will be supporting.

02:02:18.440 --> 02:02:19.440
 Thank you, Mr. Ellis.

02:02:19.440 --> 02:02:20.440
 Commissioner Beck.

02:02:20.440 --> 02:02:21.440
 Thank you, chair.

02:02:21.440 --> 02:02:22.440
 And I appreciate both of your points of view.

02:02:22.440 --> 02:02:23.440
 And I don't disagree with it at all.

02:02:23.440 --> 02:02:33.960
 It likely is going to go forward and I realize that when I made my presentation, but if anything,

02:02:33.960 --> 02:02:37.320
 I hope it does start a conversation on moving in the right direction.

02:02:37.320 --> 02:02:41.520
 So it may be nothing more than a protest vote, it is for sure.

02:02:41.520 --> 02:02:43.520
 But there is a discussion that needs to be had.

02:02:43.520 --> 02:02:47.360
 And if this sets the wheels in motion on that, then I'll be set aside with that.

02:02:47.360 --> 02:02:50.800
 But I respect everybody's decision here to do what they feel like they got to do.

02:02:50.800 --> 02:02:51.800
 Thank you, Mr. Beck.

02:02:51.800 --> 02:02:57.200
 We have a first and a second for approval with conditions based on staffs recommendations.

02:02:57.200 --> 02:03:12.300
 Seeing no other discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:03:12.300 --> 02:03:17.520
 Motion carries 4-3.

02:03:17.520 --> 02:03:25.520
 Next item on the agenda is item C, S18-0002B.

02:03:25.520 --> 02:03:29.840
 This item was continued from our October 24th meeting.

02:03:29.840 --> 02:03:31.360
 So we will continue the public hearing.

02:03:31.360 --> 02:03:34.200
 We will not be opening it since it's already open.

02:03:34.200 --> 02:03:50.920
 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.

02:03:50.920 --> 02:03:55.080
 Thank you, Chair, commissioners.

02:03:55.080 --> 02:04:02.760
 S18-0002, as you recall, is a request for approval of a specific use permit to allow

02:04:02.760 --> 02:04:08.880
 quick vehicle servicing in suites 110 and 111 of budget self-storage.

02:04:08.880 --> 02:04:14.360
 Just to refresh your memory, the site is located at 2820 Virginia Circle.

02:04:14.360 --> 02:04:21.280
 You can see right here, and it's very close to University, which runs parallel to Virginia.

02:04:21.280 --> 02:04:27.520
 This item was continued from the October 28th, 2018 meeting to allow the tenants the opportunity

02:04:27.520 --> 02:04:34.940
 to address the parking issues that were noted during that meeting with regards to parking

02:04:34.940 --> 02:04:42.000
 on the lot next door, as well as excess parking in front of the building.

02:04:42.000 --> 02:04:45.160
 The public hearing at that time was not closed.

02:04:45.160 --> 02:04:49.440
 The vehicles have been removed from the lot adjacent to the site.

02:04:49.440 --> 02:04:55.240
 Mr. Melton has vacated suite 111, and Mr. Haney has now leased the unit.

02:04:55.240 --> 02:05:02.140
 So Mr. Haney now is a tenant of both 110 and 111.

02:05:02.140 --> 02:05:07.520
 For some comparison purposes, here are the photos that were taken February 19th, and

02:05:07.520 --> 02:05:16.080
 you can see that the cars were stacked up very close to each other in front of the building.

02:05:16.080 --> 02:05:21.280
 Here's a view of the lot next door, and you can see that there's cars everywhere on that,

02:05:21.280 --> 02:05:27.400
 and then just some views, different views of the two suites.

02:05:27.400 --> 02:05:32.160
 Photos were taken again on November 11th, a couple of weeks ago, and you can see there's

02:05:32.160 --> 02:05:37.640
 a few cars still on the lot next door, and here's another view of the cars on the lot

02:05:37.640 --> 02:05:39.280
 next door.

02:05:39.280 --> 02:05:45.680
 You can see there's far fewer cars along the road parking in front of the building, and

02:05:45.680 --> 02:05:48.400
 that view is replicated right here.

02:05:48.400 --> 02:05:51.720
 Now these next photos were taken this morning.

02:05:51.720 --> 02:05:54.440
 You can see there's no cars on the lot.

02:05:54.440 --> 02:06:03.840
 You can see that the parking is not jammed in there like it was in February, and that

02:06:03.840 --> 02:06:08.000
 there is parking available for people to visit the other businesses.

02:06:08.000 --> 02:06:16.040
 Since this is a public hearing, we did send out notices to within 200 and 500 feet of

02:06:16.040 --> 02:06:17.040
 the site.

02:06:17.040 --> 02:06:19.440
 We received no responses.

02:06:19.440 --> 02:06:23.440
 One sign was posted on the site.

02:06:23.440 --> 02:06:26.240
 Staff does recommend denial of this request.

02:06:26.240 --> 02:06:29.920
 Should the Planning and Zoning Commission decide to approve this request, staff recommends

02:06:29.920 --> 02:06:33.760
 the following conditions for Suite 110 and 111.

02:06:33.760 --> 02:06:38.520
 A new certificate of occupancy for the correct use of quick vehicle servicing must be applied

02:06:38.520 --> 02:06:40.120
 for and approved.

02:06:40.120 --> 02:06:45.200
 The new certificate of occupancy shall state that the proposed use of quick vehicle service

02:06:45.200 --> 02:06:50.680
 is limited to this particular business owner and these two particular suites to prevent

02:06:50.680 --> 02:06:53.320
 them being grandfathered in.

02:06:53.320 --> 02:06:57.760
 This specific use permit will be limited to the use description and floor plan shown in

02:06:57.760 --> 02:07:00.880
 Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9.

02:07:00.880 --> 02:07:05.800
 Overnight outdoor storage of automobiles is prohibited, and no more than two customer

02:07:05.800 --> 02:07:10.600
 vehicles per each business can be parked in the parking spaces in front of the building

02:07:10.600 --> 02:07:12.040
 during business hours.

02:07:12.040 --> 02:07:13.040
 And that concludes my presentation.

02:07:13.040 --> 02:07:15.840
 We have a couple of questions, or at least one.

02:07:15.840 --> 02:07:17.800
 Commissioner Pernetta?

02:07:17.800 --> 02:07:21.840
 So I just kind of want to circle back on a few things because I know when we were here

02:07:21.840 --> 02:07:28.960
 a few weeks ago, the major concerns were parking in the vacant lot and parking in the front.

02:07:28.960 --> 02:07:32.920
 And the majority of things that we brought up, you know, to the applicant and everything,

02:07:32.920 --> 02:07:35.480
 seem to have been resolved on those fronts.

02:07:35.480 --> 02:07:36.480
 Is that correct?

02:07:36.480 --> 02:07:37.480
 That's correct.

02:07:37.480 --> 02:07:43.920
 And as we discussed in the work session, the reason for the denial is based on the Certificate

02:07:43.920 --> 02:07:48.480
 of Occupancy, which we don't have and they can't get because of the current zoning.

02:07:48.480 --> 02:07:52.840
 But if we were to get the current, you know, award the current zoning, the Certificate

02:07:52.840 --> 02:07:56.380
 of Occupancy would most likely be approved.

02:07:56.380 --> 02:07:57.380
 So it's kind of a…

02:07:57.380 --> 02:07:58.380
 Right.

02:07:58.380 --> 02:08:04.120
 If this SUP is approved, then the applicant would have no problem getting a Certificate

02:08:04.120 --> 02:08:05.120
 of Occupancy.

02:08:05.120 --> 02:08:06.120
 Okay.

02:08:06.120 --> 02:08:13.680
 So I guess my next question is, if much of the denial is based on the lack of the Certificate

02:08:13.680 --> 02:08:19.080
 of Occupancy, are there any concerns that we have right now outside of that, once we

02:08:19.080 --> 02:08:26.760
 remove that, that would precipitate, you know, a suggestion or a recommendation of denial?

02:08:26.760 --> 02:08:34.400
 Well, as I spoke earlier in the work session, staff did not feel that they could reverse

02:08:34.400 --> 02:08:43.340
 the original denial because the situation is still as it was where we just don't feel

02:08:43.340 --> 02:08:48.280
 this is really an appropriate site for quick vehicle servicing.

02:08:48.280 --> 02:08:54.120
 However, with the conditions that we've got here and what the applicant has agreed

02:08:54.120 --> 02:09:00.160
 to and has done, we feel the situation has improved and that's why we're doing what

02:09:00.160 --> 02:09:01.880
 we call a soft denial.

02:09:01.880 --> 02:09:02.880
 Okay.

02:09:02.880 --> 02:09:10.600
 So if we were to vote to approve this, currently there are no adjacent properties that are

02:09:10.600 --> 02:09:12.600
 objecting or anything like that?

02:09:12.600 --> 02:09:13.600
 We receive no responses.

02:09:13.600 --> 02:09:14.600
 Okay.

02:09:14.600 --> 02:09:15.600
 Thank you very much.

02:09:15.600 --> 02:09:16.600
 To Mr. Sanchez.

02:09:16.600 --> 02:09:17.600
 When you say the original denial, when was that original denial?

02:09:17.600 --> 02:09:18.600
 2010.

02:09:18.600 --> 02:09:19.600
 Right.

02:09:19.600 --> 02:09:20.600
 That's what I was getting at.

02:09:20.600 --> 02:09:21.600
 Exactly.

02:09:21.600 --> 02:09:34.320
 Several years have been passed and then he had got a certificate for something else.

02:09:34.320 --> 02:09:37.320
 Can you turn your mic on, Commissioner?

02:09:37.320 --> 02:09:38.320
 Okay.

02:09:38.320 --> 02:09:41.680
 So it was, it's been about eight years since it was denied?

02:09:41.680 --> 02:09:42.680
 Yes, it has.

02:09:42.680 --> 02:09:43.680
 It has.

02:09:43.680 --> 02:09:44.680
 Okay.

02:09:44.680 --> 02:09:48.720
 If you'll recall, Mr. Melton applied for a certificate of occupancy for automotive repair,

02:09:48.720 --> 02:09:49.720
 which was denied.

02:09:49.720 --> 02:09:50.720
 Right.

02:09:50.720 --> 02:09:57.240
 And he changed his application, as you can see in your backup, to office as the use and

02:09:57.240 --> 02:10:07.720
 his certificate of occupancy even said office only, but he just went in there and did automotive

02:10:07.720 --> 02:10:08.720
 repair.

02:10:08.720 --> 02:10:09.720
 Okay.

02:10:09.720 --> 02:10:12.320
 I do not see any other questions for you.

02:10:12.320 --> 02:10:14.440
 Thank you for your presentation.

02:10:14.440 --> 02:10:17.840
 This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

02:10:17.840 --> 02:10:21.640
 I do have a couple of cards, I think.

02:10:21.640 --> 02:10:23.400
 The first one is Chris Haney.

02:10:23.400 --> 02:10:25.200
 Are you wanting to speak this evening?

02:10:25.200 --> 02:10:30.440
 If you could just state your name and address for the record.

02:10:30.440 --> 02:10:37.360
 Chris Haney, 17787 West FM 922, Forestburg, Texas.

02:10:37.360 --> 02:10:40.120
 I'm the owner of Haney's Grudge.

02:10:40.120 --> 02:10:42.920
 As she said, that was Mr. Melton.

02:10:42.920 --> 02:10:47.760
 We had this conversation at 1.30 in the morning the last time I was here.

02:10:47.760 --> 02:10:56.160
 That was Melton, Mr. Melton, that was denied and changed, like she said earlier and like

02:10:56.160 --> 02:10:57.840
 you saw earlier.

02:10:57.840 --> 02:10:58.840
 He's gone.

02:10:58.840 --> 02:11:02.540
 I've rented that unit for the sole purpose.

02:11:02.540 --> 02:11:07.480
 Not knowing what was going to happen with this, I actually bought his tools and stuff

02:11:07.480 --> 02:11:11.160
 that he had in there, so I went ahead and rented the unit until I see where this goes,

02:11:11.160 --> 02:11:16.720
 where it pans out, because everything in that unit is mine now.

02:11:16.720 --> 02:11:18.560
 The parking was an issue.

02:11:18.560 --> 02:11:21.200
 You can see from the pictures, none of those vehicles.

02:11:21.200 --> 02:11:35.320
 Mr. Melton moved out on November the 21st, which was the day before Thanksgiving.

02:11:35.320 --> 02:11:36.320
 Was his last day.

02:11:36.320 --> 02:11:37.320
 He was out.

02:11:37.320 --> 02:11:40.280
 I wasn't able to rent the unit until the day after Thanksgiving, because the office was

02:11:40.280 --> 02:11:41.280
 closed on Thanksgiving.

02:11:41.280 --> 02:11:45.740
 We were all closed on Thanksgiving, so I actually took over the unit on November the 23rd.

02:11:45.740 --> 02:11:50.280
 From that day forward, there's no vehicles on the side lot.

02:11:50.280 --> 02:11:54.520
 Only customer vehicles that pull up, drop off, and hand me the keys are out front.

02:11:54.520 --> 02:11:59.040
 With both units now, there's room for up to 10 vehicles, if I have to cram everything

02:11:59.040 --> 02:12:00.780
 in at night.

02:12:00.780 --> 02:12:04.840
 Working space is eight vehicles inside the building.

02:12:04.840 --> 02:12:07.400
 Right now, I have space for two cars inside.

02:12:07.400 --> 02:12:11.840
 Everything's in at night, like it's supposed to, and there's space for two more cars.

02:12:11.840 --> 02:12:15.160
 Everything's in and out, in and out.

02:12:15.160 --> 02:12:22.600
 Like I said, the denial was from 2010 for him, and I've done nothing but everything

02:12:22.600 --> 02:12:24.600
 you all have asked me to do.

02:12:24.600 --> 02:12:26.120
 I appreciate you being here.

02:12:26.120 --> 02:12:27.360
 We have a couple questions for you.

02:12:27.360 --> 02:12:28.360
 Yes.

02:12:28.360 --> 02:12:29.360
 Commissioner Smith.

02:12:29.360 --> 02:12:30.360
 Thank you.

02:12:30.360 --> 02:12:31.360
 Mr. Haney?

02:12:31.360 --> 02:12:32.360
 Yes, sir.

02:12:32.360 --> 02:12:33.360
 Glad you're back.

02:12:33.360 --> 02:12:34.360
 Glad you made all the changes and everything else.

02:12:34.360 --> 02:12:35.360
 Happy to have you back.

02:12:35.360 --> 02:12:36.360
 Thank you.

02:12:36.360 --> 02:12:40.400
 I'll just let you know now, before we get to the motion, I'll support you to get your

02:12:40.400 --> 02:12:41.400
 working space up and going.

02:12:41.400 --> 02:12:44.520
 Don't want to hold back a small business, even though it is in a self-storage area and

02:12:44.520 --> 02:12:45.520
 everything else.

02:12:45.520 --> 02:12:49.720
 I know it's kind of a weird area, but the only question I have for you, as I think Commissioner

02:12:49.720 --> 02:12:55.520
 Parnetta was trying to get to, is that there was no ... His question lined to Ms. Jackson

02:12:55.520 --> 02:12:59.720
 was there was no reason why the certificate of occupancy could be denied for things like

02:12:59.720 --> 02:13:00.720
 safety.

02:13:00.720 --> 02:13:06.840
 I'm assuming then that with your knowledge of what a quick service repair shop, safety-wise,

02:13:06.840 --> 02:13:09.960
 would need, you would have no safety issues.

02:13:09.960 --> 02:13:14.680
 There's nothing with fumes or hazardous materials or power tools or anything like that that

02:13:14.680 --> 02:13:16.120
 would be a safety issue.

02:13:16.120 --> 02:13:19.400
 I think that's the biggest thing, is that being in a non-traditional ... There's not

02:13:19.400 --> 02:13:24.400
 a whole lot of quick service vehicle repair places that are inside of storage utilities.

02:13:24.400 --> 02:13:29.640
 It's not necessarily a storage ... The building that I'm in is an actual warehouse building

02:13:29.640 --> 02:13:34.280
 with concrete walls, and then all the buildings behind it are metal storage buildings.

02:13:34.280 --> 02:13:35.280
 Correct.

02:13:35.280 --> 02:13:39.080
 The building that I'm in is in the concrete warehouse building in the front.

02:13:39.080 --> 02:13:41.160
 Yeah, I guess I misspoke.

02:13:41.160 --> 02:13:44.800
 It's still not a ... It's not like a standalone place out in the corner of the road or whatever

02:13:44.800 --> 02:13:45.800
 it is.

02:13:45.800 --> 02:13:46.800
 Correct.

02:13:46.800 --> 02:13:48.800
 Yeah, there's no safety issues, nothing like that.

02:13:48.800 --> 02:13:53.760
 No, as far as the certificate of occupancy, I shouldn't have any problem at all getting

02:13:53.760 --> 02:13:55.680
 the CO the way I'm supposed to.

02:13:55.680 --> 02:13:59.560
 I don't know a lot of conversation that I know that Commissioner Beck had in the work

02:13:59.560 --> 02:14:06.840
 session, but just the fact that it's fixed now, it's good now, snapshot in time, cars

02:14:06.840 --> 02:14:10.600
 are off the lot, everything's good and clean, I think you're an upstanding guy, and I think

02:14:10.600 --> 02:14:15.000
 that was Mr. Melton's, a lot of his issues, the reason why it was all dirtied up.

02:14:15.000 --> 02:14:18.960
 I guess, not really a question, but more just an encouragement.

02:14:18.960 --> 02:14:22.120
 We do know that code enforcement's probably going to be really keeping a strong eye on

02:14:22.120 --> 02:14:27.920
 you for making sure you're there, and as long as you know that, and you're willing to play

02:14:27.920 --> 02:14:33.400
 by the rules, then I'm willing to support you in business.

02:14:33.400 --> 02:14:35.240
 As you would say, I'm on the map now.

02:14:35.240 --> 02:14:47.240
 I was kind of hitting back there for a long time, and we had this discussion last time.

02:14:47.240 --> 02:14:54.440
 I did nothing wrong with my CO at the time, and then my business evolved, and we had this

02:14:54.440 --> 02:14:56.280
 discussion last time.

02:14:56.280 --> 02:15:02.580
 But I'm aware now that I saw Mr. Sanchez driving by checking it out today, the building

02:15:02.580 --> 02:15:08.160
 inspections guy, I've seen him pass through, eyeballing.

02:15:08.160 --> 02:15:18.960
 I'm aware that everybody's looking, and I have no intentions of going backwards or anything.

02:15:18.960 --> 02:15:22.200
 I'm here to do what the city wants me to do, keep the city clean.

02:15:22.200 --> 02:15:24.960
 I love Denton, I'm born and raised in Denton.

02:15:24.960 --> 02:15:29.920
 Unfortunately, I got some property left to me, and I don't have to pay any house payments

02:15:29.920 --> 02:15:34.200
 or anything, so I don't live in the city anymore, but I love this town, and I've been born and

02:15:34.200 --> 02:15:35.200
 raised here.

02:15:35.200 --> 02:15:36.200
 Great.

02:15:36.200 --> 02:15:37.200
 Well, thank you, Mr. Haney.

02:15:37.200 --> 02:15:38.200
 I appreciate it.

02:15:38.200 --> 02:15:39.200
 Mr. Cole.

02:15:39.200 --> 02:15:40.200
 Thank you, Chair.

02:15:40.200 --> 02:15:42.960
 I just want to say you're a man of your word, Mr. Haney, and I do appreciate that.

02:15:42.960 --> 02:15:45.520
 I mean, you did everything.

02:15:45.520 --> 02:15:50.560
 I was skeptical, and it was one something a.m.

02:15:50.560 --> 02:15:51.560
 You came at the right time.

02:15:51.560 --> 02:15:52.560
 We were whooped down.

02:15:52.560 --> 02:15:53.560
 Thirty-seven cars in 28 days.

02:15:53.560 --> 02:15:54.560
 Yeah, that's impressive.

02:15:54.560 --> 02:15:55.560
 I wish you well in your small business.

02:15:55.560 --> 02:16:02.160
 I didn't realize how much was there and how much had accumulated until I had to get it

02:16:02.160 --> 02:16:03.160
 moved in that amount of time.

02:16:03.160 --> 02:16:04.160
 Well, you're a man of your word, and I appreciate your word.

02:16:04.160 --> 02:16:05.160
 I appreciate it.

02:16:05.160 --> 02:16:06.160
 I don't see any other questions for you.

02:16:06.160 --> 02:16:07.160
 I appreciate it.

02:16:07.160 --> 02:16:08.160
 All right.

02:16:08.160 --> 02:16:09.160
 Thank you.

02:16:09.160 --> 02:16:10.160
 Thank you.

02:16:10.160 --> 02:16:11.160
 I just want to clarify.

02:16:11.160 --> 02:16:22.160
 Is Vincent Huebinger here for the next agenda item, or this one?

02:16:22.160 --> 02:16:27.960
 Perfect, that's what I assume, but if you want to speak on this item, you're more than

02:16:27.960 --> 02:16:28.960
 welcome to.

02:16:28.960 --> 02:16:35.160
 Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?

02:16:35.160 --> 02:16:40.280
 It is a public hearing, so anyone can speak.

02:16:40.280 --> 02:16:44.000
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open for a motion or discussion.

02:16:44.000 --> 02:16:45.000
 Commissioner Burnetta.

02:16:45.000 --> 02:16:53.360
 I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendations.

02:16:53.360 --> 02:16:56.360
 The staff is recommending denial, so ... No, I'm sorry.

02:16:56.360 --> 02:16:57.360
 With the suggestions.

02:16:57.360 --> 02:16:58.360
 With the suggestions.

02:16:58.360 --> 02:16:59.360
 I'm sorry.

02:16:59.360 --> 02:17:00.360
 With the suggestions.

02:17:00.360 --> 02:17:01.360
 Okay.

02:17:01.360 --> 02:17:02.360
 Yeah, let me clarify that.

02:17:02.360 --> 02:17:04.240
 Motion to approve with staff suggestions.

02:17:04.240 --> 02:17:05.240
 Got it.

02:17:05.240 --> 02:17:06.240
 Perfect.

02:17:06.240 --> 02:17:07.240
 Thank you for that clarification.

02:17:07.240 --> 02:17:08.240
 Thank you.

02:17:08.240 --> 02:17:09.240
 All right.

02:17:09.240 --> 02:17:10.240
 Commissioner Smith.

02:17:10.240 --> 02:17:11.240
 Second.

02:17:11.240 --> 02:17:12.240
 Having a first and a second.

02:17:12.240 --> 02:17:13.240
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:17:13.240 --> 02:17:14.240
 Thank you, Chair.

02:17:14.240 --> 02:17:15.240
 Commissioner Haney.

02:17:15.240 --> 02:17:16.240
 You don't have to come up here.

02:17:16.240 --> 02:17:19.320
 I just wanted to say thank you for doing everything that you said you were going to do when we

02:17:19.320 --> 02:17:22.560
 sent you away that night in the middle of the night.

02:17:22.560 --> 02:17:23.560
 I appreciate it.

02:17:23.560 --> 02:17:27.520
 I know you worked hard, because I drove by there a couple of times this week as well.

02:17:27.520 --> 02:17:34.760
 We have a first and a second.

02:17:34.760 --> 02:17:36.880
 Before calling the motion, I want to echo what the other commissioner said.

02:17:36.880 --> 02:17:38.680
 I appreciate you doing what you said you'd do.

02:17:38.680 --> 02:17:45.480
 It wasn't a small task, and it's a first initial step in providing a lot of confidence in us

02:17:45.480 --> 02:17:50.200
 as a city to have you as a business owner and working and thriving in that location.

02:17:50.200 --> 02:17:52.800
 When I drive by, it's a front door and a bay.

02:17:52.800 --> 02:17:53.800
 It seems perfect.

02:17:53.800 --> 02:17:55.120
 Open that bay up and get to work.

02:17:55.120 --> 02:18:00.160
 So I wish you all the best, and hopefully the CEO has no issue with the processing and

02:18:00.160 --> 02:18:01.160
 maintenance of that.

02:18:01.160 --> 02:18:03.160
 So I congratulate someone to be supporting this.

02:18:03.160 --> 02:18:15.720
 Seeing no other discussion, I'm going to call for a vote on the board.

02:18:15.720 --> 02:18:17.720
 Motion is approved, 7-0.

02:18:17.720 --> 02:18:18.720
 Congratulations.

02:18:18.720 --> 02:18:24.560
 Next item on the agenda is item D, S18-009.

02:18:24.560 --> 02:18:29.600
 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.

02:18:29.600 --> 02:18:55.320
 Okay, S18-009 is a request for a specific use permit for a freestanding monopole and

02:18:55.320 --> 02:18:57.840
 associated equipment room.

02:18:57.840 --> 02:19:05.320
 The site is located at 816 Frame Street within the South Storage Facility.

02:19:05.320 --> 02:19:13.000
 Frame Street is here, Paisley is along the south side, and the railroad goes northwest.

02:19:13.000 --> 02:19:17.960
 The site is located in the DCG Zoning District.

02:19:17.960 --> 02:19:27.540
 Approval of an SUP is required for a monopole tower up to 85 feet in height in the DCG District.

02:19:27.540 --> 02:19:36.080
 We did a compatibility analysis, both following the SUP criteria and Section 35-12-8, telecommunications

02:19:36.080 --> 02:19:37.920
 tower standards.

02:19:37.920 --> 02:19:45.520
 As detailed in your backup, the site does comply with all of these standards.

02:19:45.520 --> 02:19:52.280
 Here is the site plan, and you can see that the tower site will be located right here.

02:19:52.280 --> 02:20:00.880
 The applicant intends to remove three existing storage units and place the monopole and equipment

02:20:00.880 --> 02:20:05.720
 shed in this location.

02:20:05.720 --> 02:20:10.360
 Here's a site plan of the site, which shows the monopole tower, the equipment, and the

02:20:10.360 --> 02:20:11.360
 generator.

02:20:11.360 --> 02:20:18.280
 If you look here, the dashed lines show you where the three units will be removed from.

02:20:18.280 --> 02:20:25.840
 And elevation shows the 80-foot site pole, rather.

02:20:25.840 --> 02:20:31.240
 Zoning analysis, as mentioned previously, a monopole tower less than 85 feet is permitted

02:20:31.240 --> 02:20:37.440
 upon approval of a specific use permit.

02:20:37.440 --> 02:20:43.400
 For compatibility, the subject site is going to be located within a South Storage Facility.

02:20:43.400 --> 02:20:51.800
 It will not be visible from the neighboring communities, streets, or the railroad, really.

02:20:51.800 --> 02:20:55.080
 All is anyone will see is the tower.

02:20:55.080 --> 02:21:00.600
 This will help minimize any nuisance caused by the visibility of the site.

02:21:00.600 --> 02:21:03.240
 This is a public hearing.

02:21:03.240 --> 02:21:07.840
 Notices were sent out within 200 and 500 feet of the site.

02:21:07.840 --> 02:21:11.120
 We received two responses in favor.

02:21:11.120 --> 02:21:16.960
 You can see them in green here, and I handed them out to you at the work session, representing

02:21:16.960 --> 02:21:20.480
 16 percent of the land area within 200 feet.

02:21:20.480 --> 02:21:22.840
 Two signs were also posted on this site.

02:21:22.840 --> 02:21:30.520
 The applicant held a neighborhood meeting to which no property owners or citizens attended.

02:21:30.520 --> 02:21:32.160
 Staff recommends approval of this request.

02:21:32.160 --> 02:21:39.720
 It is compatible with the surrounding property, conforms with all requirements of Section 35-12-8,

02:21:39.720 --> 02:21:44.780
 wireless telecommunications facilities, as well as the SUP criteria.

02:21:44.780 --> 02:21:47.360
 That concludes my presentation, and the applicant is here.

02:21:47.360 --> 02:21:48.360
 >> Thank you, Cindy.

02:21:48.360 --> 02:21:52.680
 I don't see any questions for you.

02:21:52.680 --> 02:21:55.200
 This is a public hearing, so anyone wishing to speak may do so.

02:21:55.200 --> 02:21:56.600
 We have one card in.

02:21:56.600 --> 02:21:59.200
 It's the applicant, Mr. Vincent Hubebinger.

02:21:59.200 --> 02:22:06.600
 I don't know if I'm pronouncing that correctly.

02:22:06.600 --> 02:22:12.560
 >> Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Vince Hubebinger.

02:22:12.560 --> 02:22:13.920
 >> It should be one of these up here.

02:22:13.920 --> 02:22:14.920
 >> Yeah, it is.

02:22:14.920 --> 02:22:15.920
 I got it from here.

02:22:15.920 --> 02:22:16.920
 Thank you.

02:22:16.920 --> 02:22:19.720
 >> If you could just state your address for the record, that would be helpful.

02:22:19.720 --> 02:22:20.720
 >> Sure.

02:22:20.720 --> 02:22:25.920
 1715 Keplup, Texas Highway, Austin, Texas.

02:22:25.920 --> 02:22:27.040
 Thank you for having me.

02:22:27.040 --> 02:22:35.960
 Basically, this is a request for Verizon site located at this location kind of south of downtown

02:22:35.960 --> 02:22:40.520
 southeast of downtown.

02:22:40.520 --> 02:22:45.960
 Closer view shows it within the Thumbtack area, as Cindy was saying, in the storage

02:22:45.960 --> 02:22:46.960
 area.

02:22:46.960 --> 02:22:50.480
 They're going to take one of those, three of those units down, put the monopole in there

02:22:50.480 --> 02:22:53.840
 just south of Texas Women's University.

02:22:53.840 --> 02:22:54.840
 Very unique.

02:22:54.840 --> 02:22:59.280
 >> Is it possible for you to put that into presentation mode so viewers at home can view

02:22:59.280 --> 02:23:00.280
 it?

02:23:00.280 --> 02:23:01.280
 >> Is it not in presentation mode?

02:23:01.280 --> 02:23:08.240
 I'm seeing the presentation button at the bottom right.

02:23:08.240 --> 02:23:12.160
 >> Yes.

02:23:12.160 --> 02:23:13.160
 >> Thank you.

02:23:13.160 --> 02:23:14.160
 Sorry for the interruption.

02:23:14.160 --> 02:23:15.160
 >> My technology.

02:23:15.160 --> 02:23:16.160
 That's okay.

02:23:16.160 --> 02:23:17.160
 Let me go back to where I was.

02:23:17.160 --> 02:23:23.240
 Anyway, it's very unique to find a heavy commercial use in this area that meets the setbacks of

02:23:23.240 --> 02:23:26.560
 three times the height that complies with the code.

02:23:26.560 --> 02:23:32.000
 We thought this was a good site from the beginning and we moved it a couple of times and reduced

02:23:32.000 --> 02:23:34.560
 the height to make sure it worked.

02:23:34.560 --> 02:23:38.840
 You're going to ask why do we need another tower?

02:23:38.840 --> 02:23:40.320
 This is a capacity site.

02:23:40.320 --> 02:23:44.760
 What we have going on in this situation is all the apps that you're running on your smartphones,

02:23:44.760 --> 02:23:49.720
 your Amber Alerts, your Weather Alerts, your favorite sport teams, the Cowboys, of course,

02:23:49.720 --> 02:23:54.880
 alerts on their scores is all taken up infrastructure on that network.

02:23:54.880 --> 02:23:59.720
 So what all the carriers are having to do is try to download that capacity and that

02:23:59.720 --> 02:24:05.240
 capacity is only been dealt with by having a new site between them.

02:24:05.240 --> 02:24:08.340
 I'll show you the RF maps.

02:24:08.340 --> 02:24:13.120
 These are propagation maps and this is a basic map showing green in building coverage which

02:24:13.120 --> 02:24:17.680
 is what's preferred for everybody in kitchen coverage in your rooftops.

02:24:17.680 --> 02:24:22.400
 Very light yellow in there in any vehicle only and you can tell that's north of the

02:24:22.400 --> 02:24:26.880
 University, Women's University and up there by the loop.

02:24:26.880 --> 02:24:32.560
 You can see the existing sites around the area and you can see the proposed in the red

02:24:32.560 --> 02:24:33.560
 triangle.

02:24:33.560 --> 02:24:39.560
 Now once we turn it on air, it does take away some of that yellow but this is really a capacity

02:24:39.560 --> 02:24:43.200
 site for three of the sites that are surrounding.

02:24:43.200 --> 02:24:46.920
 Centrally located between those two would be perfect but we can't get into Texas Women's

02:24:46.920 --> 02:24:52.680
 University, the best we can do is this site right here.

02:24:52.680 --> 02:24:56.880
 This is just an aerial of all our existing sites surrounding us, you can see how we're

02:24:56.880 --> 02:24:57.880
 trying to spread out.

02:24:57.880 --> 02:25:02.880
 You may have not known where these are but they are there, a lot of times I mention that

02:25:02.880 --> 02:25:07.720
 monopoles are somewhat discrete, a lot of people don't know where their closest tower

02:25:07.720 --> 02:25:16.520
 is but for E911, if Denton has E911 capabilities and a 911 call comes in, it triangulates and

02:25:16.520 --> 02:25:21.320
 dispatch where you are within nine feet and that is through the GPS navigation, also in

02:25:21.320 --> 02:25:25.040
 the infrastructure so it's important for safety to get this done.

02:25:25.040 --> 02:25:31.120
 It meets all the requirements as Cindy said, goals, three times the height, those things.

02:25:31.120 --> 02:25:36.200
 Location again, in the middle of a structure that you really can't see any of the equipment,

02:25:36.200 --> 02:25:40.280
 you may see the monopole but a lot of the neighborhoods around there have fairly large

02:25:40.280 --> 02:25:44.880
 trees, it's a pretty older neighborhood that will kind of block up that view as well.

02:25:44.880 --> 02:25:52.360
 So we were a quiet but needed structure and there's the 210 setback from all residential

02:25:52.360 --> 02:25:53.360
 uses.

02:25:53.360 --> 02:25:56.880
 If you have any questions, let me have an answer.

02:25:56.880 --> 02:25:58.760
 Thank you for your presentation.

02:25:58.760 --> 02:25:59.760
 Thank you.

02:25:59.760 --> 02:26:02.720
 I do not see any questions.

02:26:02.720 --> 02:26:06.240
 This is a public hearing, anyone wishing to speak on this may certainly do so.

02:26:06.240 --> 02:26:12.760
 I don't have any other cards and I don't see any motion in the audience so we'll go ahead

02:26:12.760 --> 02:26:17.760
 and close the public hearing and I will turn it over to the dais for motion or discussion.

02:26:17.760 --> 02:26:19.000
 Commissioner Smith.

02:26:19.000 --> 02:26:20.000
 Motion for approval.

02:26:20.000 --> 02:26:23.000
 We have a first, Commissioner Pernetta.

02:26:23.000 --> 02:26:24.000
 Second that motion.

02:26:24.000 --> 02:26:26.880
 We have a first and a second, any discussion on the item?

02:26:26.880 --> 02:26:36.720
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:26:36.720 --> 02:26:44.200
 Motion carries 7-0.

02:26:44.200 --> 02:26:51.160
 Next item on the agenda is item E, PDA 18-1, I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation

02:26:51.160 --> 02:26:53.560
 and open to public hearing.

02:26:53.560 --> 02:27:04.680
 Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner and I want to get my presentation.

02:27:04.680 --> 02:27:14.520
 So I'm presenting to you PDA 18-1, Kings Ridge.

02:27:14.520 --> 02:27:18.560
 The request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council

02:27:18.560 --> 02:27:23.680
 regarding a general concept plan amendment and a detailed plan approval for PD 115.

02:27:23.680 --> 02:27:30.360
 The subject property is 78 acres and it is located on the north side of town adjacent

02:27:30.360 --> 02:27:34.800
 to Bonnie Bray, just south of Elm.

02:27:34.800 --> 02:27:42.680
 PDs in Denton are a two-step process and are governed by our 91 code and that two-step

02:27:42.680 --> 02:27:46.040
 process includes a general concept plan and a detailed plan.

02:27:46.040 --> 02:27:54.000
 The applicant is proposing an amendment to that concept plan regarding the uses and then

02:27:54.000 --> 02:27:56.960
 the detailed plan as well, approval.

02:27:56.960 --> 02:28:01.000
 The concept plan never expires, it's kind of the zoning of the property.

02:28:01.000 --> 02:28:05.560
 The detailed plan, if the property did not develop in accordance with it, would expire

02:28:05.560 --> 02:28:07.800
 after 24 months.

02:28:07.800 --> 02:28:13.720
 So a little bit of background about the existing PD, it was approved in 1986, it was a mixed

02:28:13.720 --> 02:28:14.720
 use PD.

02:28:14.720 --> 02:28:20.560
 It had commercial and office and residential uses.

02:28:20.560 --> 02:28:27.080
 That PD was amended, the concept plan, in 2000 to reallocate those uses and in 2002

02:28:27.080 --> 02:28:32.320
 and 2006 they did do detailed plans for the single family uses, however those expired.

02:28:32.320 --> 02:28:40.240
 So that 2000 general concept plan and here we'll just briefly look at those uses that

02:28:40.240 --> 02:28:43.240
 are permitted in the locations for those uses.

02:28:43.240 --> 02:28:49.600
 So it provides for single family, lots that are 5,000 square feet would be located in

02:28:49.600 --> 02:28:51.360
 this area and this area.

02:28:51.360 --> 02:28:56.160
 7,000 square foot lots are proposed for this general area plus south.

02:28:56.160 --> 02:29:00.080
 Multifamily was proposed for this central portion and then adjacent to Bonnie Bray there

02:29:00.080 --> 02:29:02.640
 was commercial and office uses.

02:29:02.640 --> 02:29:07.400
 The applicant is proposing to amend this to remove those commercial office and multifamily

02:29:07.400 --> 02:29:13.280
 uses and just have straight single family neighborhood in that area.

02:29:13.280 --> 02:29:18.320
 So that is the detached single family at a maximum density of 3.6 dwelling units per

02:29:18.320 --> 02:29:19.320
 acre.

02:29:19.320 --> 02:29:23.600
 The dimensional requirements that they're proposing are 6,000 square foot lots with

02:29:23.600 --> 02:29:29.720
 the minimum width of 50 feet, minimum depth of 100 feet, maximum height of 36 feet.

02:29:29.720 --> 02:29:34.720
 They have setbacks that they're proposing as well as a maximum lot coverage of 60 percent

02:29:34.720 --> 02:29:37.600
 all impervious surface.

02:29:37.600 --> 02:29:38.720
 So that's the concept plan.

02:29:38.720 --> 02:29:41.840
 The detail plan gets a little more fine grain.

02:29:41.840 --> 02:29:46.320
 It outlines the administration of the PD, the uses and dimensions that are consistent

02:29:46.320 --> 02:29:48.200
 with that general concept plan.

02:29:48.200 --> 02:29:53.080
 Talks about mobility, open space, landscaping, perimeter fencing, those amenities as well

02:29:53.080 --> 02:29:55.400
 as design guidelines.

02:29:55.400 --> 02:30:02.800
 So just briefly a comparison of what if they went straight zoning versus the proposed PD.

02:30:02.800 --> 02:30:05.960
 The benefit of the proposed PD is we kind of know what they want to do and it gives

02:30:05.960 --> 02:30:09.800
 us certainty about what they're proposing as well as any amenities.

02:30:09.800 --> 02:30:13.200
 They're proposing things like open space which is not required in the Denton Development

02:30:13.200 --> 02:30:20.800
 Code, things like perimeter fencing, the masonry walls at arterials, they're proposing tree

02:30:20.800 --> 02:30:27.720
 canopy within the open space, trails, minimum masonry on those single family homes.

02:30:27.720 --> 02:30:28.720
 They're proposing that.

02:30:28.720 --> 02:30:32.200
 The Denton Development Code does not require that.

02:30:32.200 --> 02:30:36.280
 Perimeter streets and neighborhood street trees as well as the right of way widths that

02:30:36.280 --> 02:30:39.880
 they're proposing are consistent with what we would require with any other single family

02:30:39.880 --> 02:30:42.840
 development in the city.

02:30:42.840 --> 02:30:47.280
 So here is the detailed plan that they are proposing.

02:30:47.280 --> 02:30:50.720
 It shows the locations of the single family lots.

02:30:50.720 --> 02:31:00.880
 They're proposing 267 as part of this as well as the street networks and traffic calming

02:31:00.880 --> 02:31:03.720
 devices for some of those longer streets.

02:31:03.720 --> 02:31:07.160
 Here's the main open space common area.

02:31:07.160 --> 02:31:12.760
 It's connected and it provides several opportunities for people to enter that open space through

02:31:12.760 --> 02:31:15.440
 out the neighborhood.

02:31:15.440 --> 02:31:23.760
 Also buffers and open space surrounding the property adjacent to those arterials and abutting

02:31:23.760 --> 02:31:25.560
 land uses.

02:31:25.560 --> 02:31:30.440
 You're probably aware and most are aware that Denton ISD has acquired the property

02:31:30.440 --> 02:31:39.880
 south of this proposal and the new Denton High School is proposed to go in this location.

02:31:39.880 --> 02:31:43.600
 So here's the landscape plan that they are proposing as part of this.

02:31:43.600 --> 02:31:50.760
 We'll look at this briefly and then we'll kind of zoom into some specific spots.

02:31:50.760 --> 02:31:54.920
 This kind of gives you a broad overview of what they're proposing and what those open

02:31:54.920 --> 02:32:02.520
 spaces may look like as well as some photographs of the typologies of those amenities.

02:32:02.520 --> 02:32:07.320
 So when we zoom into that southern boundary of the PD, they're proposing a minimum 15

02:32:07.320 --> 02:32:08.320
 foot landscape buffer.

02:32:08.320 --> 02:32:13.960
 It'll get a little narrower in some spots, for instance in these general locations, but

02:32:13.960 --> 02:32:18.600
 it'll increase in other locations to provide open spaces.

02:32:18.600 --> 02:32:23.400
 The rumor of fence sitting in this area will be wood with masonry columns or ornamental

02:32:23.400 --> 02:32:28.560
 metal if a lot is adjacent to a larger open space.

02:32:28.560 --> 02:32:33.360
 They're proposing street trees along that arterial that is going to be on the southern

02:32:33.360 --> 02:32:34.360
 boundary.

02:32:34.360 --> 02:32:38.960
 On every 45 linear feet, however, those may be grouped together to provide a little more

02:32:38.960 --> 02:32:40.840
 natural setting.

02:32:40.840 --> 02:32:47.240
 Monument entry signs, turf or native grasses, berms in order to mitigate any visual impacts

02:32:47.240 --> 02:32:51.040
 that the high school traffic is going to put on that road.

02:32:51.040 --> 02:32:55.120
 So they really want to be really sensitive to the treatment of that landscape and that

02:32:55.120 --> 02:32:56.740
 buffering and screening there.

02:32:56.740 --> 02:33:00.120
 And then a sidewalk.

02:33:00.120 --> 02:33:05.100
 The eastern property boundary along Bonnie Bray is proposed to have a minimum 20 foot

02:33:05.100 --> 02:33:10.240
 landscape buffer with trees and a minimum six foot masonry wall as well as a monument

02:33:10.240 --> 02:33:12.080
 entry sign.

02:33:12.080 --> 02:33:19.400
 Internally, they are proposing 600 feet of all weather trail within their open space

02:33:19.400 --> 02:33:20.400
 areas.

02:33:20.400 --> 02:33:27.840
 Seating areas, blocks of natural stone, a shade structure, dogway stations, tree preservation

02:33:27.840 --> 02:33:34.400
 within those open space areas, they are proposing 40% landscape on average throughout the open

02:33:34.400 --> 02:33:40.000
 space areas and that'll be a combination of tree preservation as well as new plantings.

02:33:40.000 --> 02:33:44.880
 Street trees along the neighborhood streets and also lot trees for the individual single

02:33:44.880 --> 02:33:47.880
 family homes.

02:33:47.880 --> 02:33:54.800
 The design for the single family homes includes four parking spaces per lot and that essentially

02:33:54.800 --> 02:33:59.080
 requires a garage, so each of them would have a two car garage.

02:33:59.080 --> 02:34:03.960
 The PD also puts in architectural variety, there's a menu of items that they can choose

02:34:03.960 --> 02:34:07.440
 in order to make sure that there's variety among the homes.

02:34:07.440 --> 02:34:13.120
 Any attached front-end garages would have to have a wood look to them, either with actual

02:34:13.120 --> 02:34:16.360
 wood or stained fiberglass or synthetic wood.

02:34:16.360 --> 02:34:23.400
 70% masonry is required and then that front yard would need to be 50% landscaped.

02:34:23.400 --> 02:34:28.000
 So the criteria for approval is in the 1991 code, it does meet the criteria for approval

02:34:28.000 --> 02:34:31.880
 for both the concept plan and the detail plan.

02:34:31.880 --> 02:34:35.120
 There's only one criteria for approval for the concept plan and it has to be in harmony

02:34:35.120 --> 02:34:36.800
 with the entire district.

02:34:36.800 --> 02:34:43.840
 PD 115 was envisioned to be a mixed use district, it has shrunk in size due to the high school

02:34:43.840 --> 02:34:50.560
 coming in and so, but the surrounding zoning and the future uses will really mimic that

02:34:50.560 --> 02:34:55.400
 mixed use component, so it really is maintaining that mixed use feel in the area.

02:34:55.400 --> 02:35:00.160
 It's also just an extension of what the uses are, that it's really just broadening that

02:35:00.160 --> 02:35:02.360
 residential use.

02:35:02.360 --> 02:35:04.840
 The detail plan has four criteria for approval.

02:35:04.840 --> 02:35:11.240
 First is it comply with the general concept plan and if approved, it would.

02:35:11.240 --> 02:35:15.600
 It would also provide for compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not

02:35:15.600 --> 02:35:18.200
 adversely impact the adjoining properties.

02:35:18.200 --> 02:35:24.400
 This is a single family neighborhood that's oriented toward its common open space.

02:35:24.400 --> 02:35:29.880
 The buffers around it will kind of provide that screening and that separation between

02:35:29.880 --> 02:35:35.200
 those, not only those arterials, but also the adjacent properties.

02:35:35.200 --> 02:35:39.840
 And then also nearby, it's not going to connect to any nearby neighborhoods, it really is

02:35:39.840 --> 02:35:46.280
 going to kind of be adjacent to those collector streets, or arterials, I'm sorry.

02:35:46.280 --> 02:35:50.000
 Does the plan provide for adequate and safe vehicular circulation?

02:35:50.000 --> 02:35:51.000
 It does.

02:35:51.000 --> 02:35:56.200
 It's going to comply with all Denton code requirements, as well as provide traffic calming.

02:35:56.200 --> 02:36:01.000
 And is it in substantial compliance with landscape signs, subdivision, and other regulations?

02:36:01.000 --> 02:36:05.360
 The 1998 Landscape Code, which is what we kind of look at when we look at these PDs,

02:36:05.360 --> 02:36:12.360
 and it does, it requires 15 trees per acre and that could include planting and preservation

02:36:12.360 --> 02:36:16.320
 and that really comes out to about 34% canopy.

02:36:16.320 --> 02:36:21.240
 They're actually proposing 40% canopy on average throughout the open spaces, as well

02:36:21.240 --> 02:36:23.560
 as one tree per lot and one street tree.

02:36:23.560 --> 02:36:27.660
 So they really are meeting the intent of that, they're really increasing that canopy and

02:36:27.660 --> 02:36:30.800
 making sure there's adequate landscaping.

02:36:30.800 --> 02:36:34.920
 We looked at the mobility, it's not a criteria for approval, but it's certainly on everyone's

02:36:34.920 --> 02:36:39.960
 mind in that area, especially with the high school coming in and all of those, the additional

02:36:39.960 --> 02:36:42.720
 developments.

02:36:42.720 --> 02:36:47.840
 They provided a trip generation analysis, they actually assumed a little more density

02:36:47.840 --> 02:36:55.080
 than what they're proposing and based upon that 350 dwellings, they had nearly 3,300

02:36:55.080 --> 02:37:02.440
 trips with 230 of those in the morning and then 338 in the evening.

02:37:02.440 --> 02:37:07.480
 Based upon this development, but really also the high school in the area, there's a UNT

02:37:07.480 --> 02:37:12.280
 campus in the area, there's other residential developments, as well as a regional park.

02:37:12.280 --> 02:37:15.800
 Bonnie Bray is going to be improved, it's going to be improved, it's just the improvements

02:37:15.800 --> 02:37:21.160
 are going to continue north of university, it'll be a two lane divided, things like

02:37:21.160 --> 02:37:27.040
 capacity, safety, storm water, and utility will all come into play, that final design

02:37:27.040 --> 02:37:30.000
 isn't going to be ready until next year, so we really don't know where it's going

02:37:30.000 --> 02:37:36.360
 to land, but they know that it needs to be done by 2021 when that high school opens.

02:37:36.360 --> 02:37:41.240
 Information was sent out, the applicant did have a neighborhood meeting, a few attended,

02:37:41.240 --> 02:37:44.880
 really they wanted to know kind of what they were doing, it really seemed like a more fact

02:37:44.880 --> 02:37:47.440
 finding kind of neighborhood meeting.

02:37:47.440 --> 02:37:53.200
 We haven't received any feedback at all from residents.

02:37:53.200 --> 02:37:57.880
 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval with the following condition

02:37:57.880 --> 02:38:04.840
 that any development would conform with that general concept plan, detail plan, and including

02:38:04.840 --> 02:38:08.920
 that landscape plan and that text that is in your backup and I'll stand for any questions

02:38:08.920 --> 02:38:09.920
 and the applicant is here.

02:38:09.920 --> 02:38:14.120
 Thank you Julie for the presentation, we do have a couple questions, Commissioner Ellis.

02:38:14.120 --> 02:38:15.120
 Thank you Chair.

02:38:15.120 --> 02:38:19.400
 Julie, hey I noticed in the detailed plan that the street that they're putting in on

02:38:19.400 --> 02:38:23.880
 the south there, they've labeled as Westgate, but they're not tying that into the current

02:38:23.880 --> 02:38:25.400
 Westgate, the north-south.

02:38:25.400 --> 02:38:33.680
 Well, there's, it's kind of, so this is named Westgate right now, and this is also

02:38:33.680 --> 02:38:35.280
 named Westgate.

02:38:35.280 --> 02:38:36.280
 This is Riney.

02:38:36.280 --> 02:38:42.480
 I suspect this will change, so although they're calling it Westgate because really when they

02:38:42.480 --> 02:38:46.600
 drew up their plan, they were continuing on with this street, which is named Westgate,

02:38:46.600 --> 02:38:52.720
 but I suspect fire is going to want, some, one of them has to change because--

02:38:52.720 --> 02:38:56.720
 Well, and it's really the north-south Westgate that has the homes on it that I was concerned

02:38:56.720 --> 02:38:58.680
 about, but it is not tying into that from what we've discussed.

02:38:58.680 --> 02:38:59.680
 It is not.

02:38:59.680 --> 02:39:01.920
 This will, this dead-end's here and will remain dead-end.

02:39:01.920 --> 02:39:02.920
 Perfect.

02:39:02.920 --> 02:39:03.920
 Thank you.

02:39:03.920 --> 02:39:04.920
 Commissioner Smith.

02:39:04.920 --> 02:39:05.920
 Thank you, Chair.

02:39:05.920 --> 02:39:12.480
 To piggyback on what Commissioner Alice was mentioning, the, that Westgate that does jump

02:39:12.480 --> 02:39:18.880
 behind the, I should know, my grandma's shop's out there, the businesses out there on 35.

02:39:18.880 --> 02:39:19.880
 Stonehill Center.

02:39:19.880 --> 02:39:20.880
 Stonehill Center.

02:39:20.880 --> 02:39:21.880
 Thank you very much.

02:39:21.880 --> 02:39:22.880
 Sorry, I blanked.

02:39:22.880 --> 02:39:23.880
 Who's responsible for expanding that?

02:39:23.880 --> 02:39:26.680
 Is that going to be the developers, the city project?

02:39:26.680 --> 02:39:30.480
 What is that secondary arterial, that expansion of that?

02:39:30.480 --> 02:39:31.760
 There is a gap here.

02:39:31.760 --> 02:39:35.900
 So as part of this development and as part of the high school development, they will

02:39:35.900 --> 02:39:41.720
 have to improve the portion of the street that's adjacent to their site.

02:39:41.720 --> 02:39:47.440
 I'm not sure if the city plans on, you know, as part of any regional improvements, plans

02:39:47.440 --> 02:39:55.840
 on closing this gap, but as it typically develops, this would remain undeveloped or this would

02:39:55.840 --> 02:40:00.640
 remain a gap until the adjacent properties develop.

02:40:00.640 --> 02:40:01.640
 So really, Westgate--

02:40:01.640 --> 02:40:02.640
 Really?

02:40:02.640 --> 02:40:07.400
 So the school and the PD could be and will be developed, and there's that connection

02:40:07.400 --> 02:40:10.440
 to the Stonehill Crossing and Bonnie Bray.

02:40:10.440 --> 02:40:11.440
 There wouldn't be a connection.

02:40:11.440 --> 02:40:14.580
 There'd be stub outs, but it'd be closed off.

02:40:14.580 --> 02:40:16.320
 It could be, yes.

02:40:16.320 --> 02:40:17.320
 Could be.

02:40:17.320 --> 02:40:22.480
 Well, and I don't know if as part of any city projects that that would be something that

02:40:22.480 --> 02:40:26.400
 would go forward, but it wouldn't be a requirement of the developer.

02:40:26.400 --> 02:40:27.400
 Okay.

02:40:27.400 --> 02:40:28.400
 All right.

02:40:28.400 --> 02:40:29.400
 Thank you.

02:40:29.400 --> 02:40:30.400
 Commissioner Beck.

02:40:30.400 --> 02:40:31.400
 Thank you, Chair.

02:40:31.400 --> 02:40:38.840
 You mentioned that there was going to be some tree preservation on their part, like 34 percent?

02:40:38.840 --> 02:40:39.840
 Well that will be--

02:40:39.840 --> 02:40:44.160
 What's that number come from?

02:40:44.160 --> 02:40:49.680
 So under-- when we review these, we have to look at previous codes because the development

02:40:49.680 --> 02:40:50.680
 code.

02:40:50.680 --> 02:40:51.680
 Okay.

02:40:51.680 --> 02:40:52.680
 Okay.

02:40:52.680 --> 02:40:55.240
 So the '98 code required 15 trees per acre.

02:40:55.240 --> 02:40:56.240
 Gotcha.

02:40:56.240 --> 02:40:59.840
 Whether that was a preservation or whether that was planting on site, they didn't-- it

02:40:59.840 --> 02:41:00.840
 wasn't prescriptive.

02:41:00.840 --> 02:41:02.720
 It was just 15 trees.

02:41:02.720 --> 02:41:08.560
 So just by doing the rough math, that's about 34 percent canopy.

02:41:08.560 --> 02:41:13.480
 Their intent is in their open space areas is to do their tree preservation in those

02:41:13.480 --> 02:41:16.040
 areas to have those tree stands.

02:41:16.040 --> 02:41:22.160
 That may not get them to that 40 percent, so there will be additional plantings that

02:41:22.160 --> 02:41:23.160
 they'll have to do.

02:41:23.160 --> 02:41:24.160
 Well--

02:41:24.160 --> 02:41:25.160
 So it's going to be a combination.

02:41:25.160 --> 02:41:26.160
 And that'll be interesting.

02:41:26.160 --> 02:41:28.400
 I'm sitting here looking at the aerial map and I'm wondering if there's any trees in

02:41:28.400 --> 02:41:29.400
 that area.

02:41:29.400 --> 02:41:35.960
 I'm not talking about any substantive area of trees that they can't preserve.

02:41:35.960 --> 02:41:40.480
 It seems like they would be planning quite a bit to get to a 40 percent canopy, so.

02:41:40.480 --> 02:41:43.160
 But they are assuring us they will--

02:41:43.160 --> 02:41:48.080
 Well, and that would be something that would be a requirement of the plan development if

02:41:48.080 --> 02:41:49.960
 it is approved as it's written.

02:41:49.960 --> 02:41:50.960
 Okay.

02:41:50.960 --> 02:41:51.960
 So-- okay.

02:41:51.960 --> 02:41:53.680
 Well, I'll deal with it when we get down the road then.

02:41:53.680 --> 02:41:54.680
 Thank you.

02:41:54.680 --> 02:41:59.480
 I don't see any other questions, Julie, except I have one.

02:41:59.480 --> 02:42:04.840
 Will this come back to us for a site plan, or is this PD approval, they can go break

02:42:04.840 --> 02:42:05.840
 ground?

02:42:05.840 --> 02:42:09.500
 Well, they would have to go-- so if it moves forward, it's approved.

02:42:09.500 --> 02:42:11.920
 They would still have to plat, so you would see the plat.

02:42:11.920 --> 02:42:12.920
 Okay.

02:42:12.920 --> 02:42:14.480
 A preliminary and then final plat.

02:42:14.480 --> 02:42:15.480
 Okay.

02:42:15.480 --> 02:42:16.480
 Perfect.

02:42:16.480 --> 02:42:17.480
 I don't see any other questions for you.

02:42:17.480 --> 02:42:18.960
 Thank you.

02:42:18.960 --> 02:42:20.120
 This is a public hearing item.

02:42:20.120 --> 02:42:21.880
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

02:42:21.880 --> 02:42:25.840
 I do not have any cards on the item.

02:42:25.840 --> 02:42:33.680
 If you could just state your name and address for the record.

02:42:33.680 --> 02:42:34.680
 Good evening.

02:42:34.680 --> 02:42:38.680
 Warren Corwin, Corwin Engineering, 200 West Belmont in Allen, Texas.

02:42:38.680 --> 02:42:40.280
 I'm representing the developer.

02:42:40.280 --> 02:42:42.680
 I'm the engineer working on the project.

02:42:42.680 --> 02:42:47.640
 Julie did a good job of showing what we're hoping to do, but I just want to give you

02:42:47.640 --> 02:42:52.960
 a quick thought process of our thinking on this property.

02:42:52.960 --> 02:42:59.000
 We have a concept plan now that would allow us to do single-family, multi-family and commercial,

02:42:59.000 --> 02:43:05.880
 but if you look at the area, much more appropriate for that use is north of us, because you got

02:43:05.880 --> 02:43:13.440
 the loop and you got 77, so that's the appropriate place for commercial multi-family retail.

02:43:13.440 --> 02:43:19.800
 So to get a buffer between the high school and that existing zoning, we felt the single

02:43:19.800 --> 02:43:25.880
 family basically, the 6,000 square foot lot would be the appropriate transition.

02:43:25.880 --> 02:43:32.840
 So when we first brought this project in a year ago, we had a 230 acre project that we

02:43:32.840 --> 02:43:35.720
 were really excited about working on.

02:43:35.720 --> 02:43:38.200
 I've been involved with this project since 2000.

02:43:38.200 --> 02:43:44.080
 In 2007, we did actual engineering plans right to break ground, and you know what the economy

02:43:44.080 --> 02:43:45.080
 did to that.

02:43:45.080 --> 02:43:51.240
 So we got back involved, like I say, last November, three weeks after we make a submittal

02:43:51.240 --> 02:43:56.200
 to the city, we get the curve ball from the school district where they want two-thirds

02:43:56.200 --> 02:43:57.200
 of the project.

02:43:57.200 --> 02:44:01.800
 So this 78 acres is what we're left with.

02:44:01.800 --> 02:44:05.360
 We're not really, I don't want to say we're burdened, but we have all the open space and

02:44:05.360 --> 02:44:11.080
 we have to deal with the thoroughfare that's going through us, so you know, this is our

02:44:11.080 --> 02:44:17.780
 thinking of what works, we feel works best for the project, does for that piece of land

02:44:17.780 --> 02:44:20.840
 that was left from the school in our piece north.

02:44:20.840 --> 02:44:24.840
 So I'd be happy to answer any questions, but that's where we're at.

02:44:24.840 --> 02:44:25.840
 I appreciate you being here.

02:44:25.840 --> 02:44:26.840
 We do have a couple of questions.

02:44:26.840 --> 02:44:27.840
 Commissioner Beck.

02:44:27.840 --> 02:44:28.840
 Thank you, Chair.

02:44:28.840 --> 02:44:32.360
 Mr. Corwin, thank you for your presentation.

02:44:32.360 --> 02:44:38.040
 On the secondary arterial that's going to go through there, Julie explained, I think

02:44:38.040 --> 02:44:43.320
 you're going to be responsible for that part of it on your side of the road and the school

02:44:43.320 --> 02:44:44.320
 on the other part.

02:44:44.320 --> 02:44:45.320
 Yes.

02:44:45.320 --> 02:44:46.320
 Are you working with them?

02:44:46.320 --> 02:44:47.320
 With the school?

02:44:47.320 --> 02:44:48.320
 Yes.

02:44:48.320 --> 02:44:49.320
 Oh, yeah.

02:44:49.320 --> 02:44:50.320
 We've had several meetings.

02:44:50.320 --> 02:44:51.320
 Okay.

02:44:51.320 --> 02:44:52.320
 Where it'll all be developed in one fell swoop.

02:44:52.320 --> 02:44:54.720
 Well, I don't know about that.

02:44:54.720 --> 02:45:00.120
 We will develop, we'll build what we plant against initially.

02:45:00.120 --> 02:45:06.400
 Now, where the conversation goes with the school and us as far as working together to

02:45:06.400 --> 02:45:11.960
 build it all at one time, sometimes it's difficult for us to build a private road.

02:45:11.960 --> 02:45:14.640
 Ours is private, but we have private money.

02:45:14.640 --> 02:45:16.160
 Theirs is public money.

02:45:16.160 --> 02:45:22.640
 So the way you bid projects and build with private public money may create the situation

02:45:22.640 --> 02:45:25.200
 where we just have to work that out.

02:45:25.200 --> 02:45:26.200
 Okay.

02:45:26.200 --> 02:45:31.040
 Just a question and concern I had, you're looking at a minimum of 6,000 square foot

02:45:31.040 --> 02:45:32.040
 lots.

02:45:32.040 --> 02:45:33.040
 Correct.

02:45:33.040 --> 02:45:34.040
 Is that right?

02:45:34.040 --> 02:45:38.640
 Can you give us an idea, a range of the housing square footages you're looking at from smallest

02:45:38.640 --> 02:45:39.640
 to largest?

02:45:39.640 --> 02:45:40.640
 I'm the engineer.

02:45:40.640 --> 02:45:43.960
 I've got the owner here could address that better than me.

02:45:43.960 --> 02:45:44.960
 Okay.

02:45:44.960 --> 02:45:47.440
 Because I was curious about pricing too, if you want to dare that.

02:45:47.440 --> 02:45:48.440
 I don't dare to.

02:45:48.440 --> 02:45:49.440
 Yeah.

02:45:49.440 --> 02:45:51.920
 I stick with what I think I know how to do.

02:45:51.920 --> 02:45:53.160
 Just always curious about that.

02:45:53.160 --> 02:45:59.160
 Mr. Smith, can we finish questioning this individual and then just so we have ...

02:45:59.160 --> 02:46:03.440
 If he can't answer that, then I'm through, yes.

02:46:03.440 --> 02:46:06.560
 We'll put this gentleman on standby to come up, but Mr. Smith, you have a question.

02:46:06.560 --> 02:46:07.560
 Yep.

02:46:07.560 --> 02:46:08.560
 Let's do that.

02:46:08.560 --> 02:46:11.120
 Just to add on to that, the average square footage is one of the questions I had, then

02:46:11.120 --> 02:46:15.520
 average house price whenever you guys build was a question I was going to have as well.

02:46:15.520 --> 02:46:20.120
 The only thing I really had a question of is that I know from asking about the Westgate

02:46:20.120 --> 02:46:26.840
 connection, the only reason I had for asking about that was the connection to 35 and just

02:46:26.840 --> 02:46:34.000
 knowing that that then creates an inclination to go that way, but you guys have no plans

02:46:34.000 --> 02:46:35.000
 to do that.

02:46:35.000 --> 02:46:36.000
 It's not even on your land.

02:46:36.000 --> 02:46:37.000
 It's not even part of your development.

02:46:37.000 --> 02:46:40.840
 It's going to be close, but it won't be a connecting there.

02:46:40.840 --> 02:46:44.040
 I was going to ask about neighborhood meeting and actually reaching out to the businesses

02:46:44.040 --> 02:46:47.920
 at Stonehill Crossing, but I don't think that happened.

02:46:47.920 --> 02:46:50.960
 Yeah, we're addressing our piece.

02:46:50.960 --> 02:46:51.960
 That's it.

02:46:51.960 --> 02:46:52.960
 That's fine.

02:46:52.960 --> 02:46:55.040
 Yeah, just the average price is all I have, so if you want to come ...

02:46:55.040 --> 02:46:59.400
 Commissioner Becker, will you restate your question and then whoever on your team is

02:46:59.400 --> 02:47:01.400
 best prepared to answer?

02:47:01.400 --> 02:47:02.400
 Yes.

02:47:02.400 --> 02:47:05.960
 Along with Commissioner Smith, I'm curious to what kind of square footage we're looking

02:47:05.960 --> 02:47:10.600
 at that range from smallest to largest, along with pricing of your houses.

02:47:10.600 --> 02:47:13.200
 If you could just state your name and address for the record.

02:47:13.200 --> 02:47:14.200
 Yes.

02:47:14.200 --> 02:47:19.760
 My question was since you're an American, 1800 Valley View, Suite 300, Farmer's Branch,

02:47:19.760 --> 02:47:21.520
 75234.

02:47:21.520 --> 02:47:30.320
 The square footage of the home should be between like 1700 and 3000, and the price point on

02:47:30.320 --> 02:47:37.600
 the home should be starting in the 270s and go to the 330s, 340s, something like that.

02:47:37.600 --> 02:47:38.600
 Okay.

02:47:38.600 --> 02:47:39.600
 Great.

02:47:39.600 --> 02:47:40.600
 Thank you.

02:47:40.600 --> 02:47:41.600
 That's it.

02:47:41.600 --> 02:47:42.600
 Thank you.

02:47:42.600 --> 02:47:43.600
 That's all we got for you right now.

02:47:43.600 --> 02:47:44.600
 Thank you.

02:47:44.600 --> 02:47:45.600
 Thanks for y'all's time.

02:47:45.600 --> 02:47:46.920
 Thanks for being here.

02:47:46.920 --> 02:47:47.920
 This is a public hearing.

02:47:47.920 --> 02:47:50.240
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

02:47:50.240 --> 02:47:54.360
 For the individuals who did speak, we would ask if you fill in a card just for our records,

02:47:54.360 --> 02:47:58.040
 that'd be helpful if you get a chance.

02:47:58.040 --> 02:48:01.960
 I do not see any other individuals wishing to speak, so I'm going to go ahead and close

02:48:01.960 --> 02:48:05.920
 the public hearing and open to the dais discussion or motion.

02:48:05.920 --> 02:48:06.920
 Commissioner Pernitta.

02:48:06.920 --> 02:48:07.920
 Motion to approve.

02:48:07.920 --> 02:48:08.920
 Commissioner.

02:48:08.920 --> 02:48:09.920
 Motion to approve.

02:48:09.920 --> 02:48:10.920
 Commissioner Cole.

02:48:10.920 --> 02:48:11.920
 Second.

02:48:11.920 --> 02:48:16.160
 We have a first and a second.

02:48:16.160 --> 02:48:20.960
 Any discussion?

02:48:20.960 --> 02:48:26.100
 Is Commissioner Pernitta, are you recommending approval with staff recommendations?

02:48:26.100 --> 02:48:27.100
 That is correct.

02:48:27.100 --> 02:48:28.100
 Yes.

02:48:28.100 --> 02:48:29.480
 Yes, I'm seconding that.

02:48:29.480 --> 02:48:30.480
 Perfect.

02:48:30.480 --> 02:48:31.480
 Thank you for that clarification.

02:48:31.480 --> 02:48:39.080
 Seeing no discussion, I will call for a motion on the board.

02:48:39.080 --> 02:48:53.680
 Motion carries, 7-0, congratulations.

02:48:53.680 --> 02:49:01.200
 Next on the agenda is item FZ18-0008.

02:49:01.200 --> 02:49:05.960
 I will open the public hearing and call Cindy Jackson for presentation.

02:49:05.960 --> 02:49:28.340
 Thank you, Chairman, commissioners.

02:49:28.340 --> 02:49:35.920
 This is a request for zoning change from neighborhood residential mixed use 12 and RMU 12 to new

02:49:35.920 --> 02:49:39.920
 neighborhood residential mixed use NRMU.

02:49:39.920 --> 02:49:47.120
 The 2.411 acre site is located on south side of Elm Street across from Joyce.

02:49:47.120 --> 02:49:57.120
 Oh, I'm sorry, I brought the wrong one down.

02:49:57.120 --> 02:50:14.960
 Let me go up and get my right notes.

02:50:14.960 --> 02:50:34.800
 I apologize.

02:50:34.800 --> 02:50:40.020
 This is a request to rezone from NRMU 12 to NRMU.

02:50:40.020 --> 02:50:45.940
 As you can see on the current zoning map right here, the site as it's currently situated

02:50:45.940 --> 02:50:52.720
 surrounded by NRMU 12 on all sides except the north.

02:50:52.720 --> 02:51:00.240
 If this is approved, the NRMU would be an extension of the NRMU which is located to

02:51:00.240 --> 02:51:05.280
 the north across Elm Street.

02:51:05.280 --> 02:51:16.120
 This is a request that the applicant is requesting to rezone to NRMU in order to construct a

02:51:16.120 --> 02:51:25.200
 multi-family development consisting of approximately 71 units at a density of 29.4 dwelling units

02:51:25.200 --> 02:51:27.040
 per acre.

02:51:27.040 --> 02:51:30.720
 This is a concept plan that the applicant has provided.

02:51:30.720 --> 02:51:33.880
 I would like to point out that this is just a concept plan.

02:51:33.880 --> 02:51:36.320
 It hasn't gone through review.

02:51:36.320 --> 02:51:42.760
 If this is approved, the next step would be for a specific use permit for multi-family.

02:51:42.760 --> 02:51:51.040
 At that point, we'll be able to work on the details of the site design more.

02:51:51.040 --> 02:51:58.920
 The criteria for approval of a zoning request according to 3534B, does the request conform

02:51:58.920 --> 02:52:05.320
 to the future land use plan and is there adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer,

02:52:05.320 --> 02:52:08.800
 parks, public services if the request is granted?

02:52:08.800 --> 02:52:13.920
 First, we're going to look at the future land use designation.

02:52:13.920 --> 02:52:17.800
 The site is designated neighborhood mixed use.

02:52:17.800 --> 02:52:24.080
 As you can see here, the intent of neighborhood mixed use is applied to areas of Denton which

02:52:24.080 --> 02:52:29.060
 are primarily residential, but where a mix of housing types along with retail and service

02:52:29.060 --> 02:52:36.200
 uses that would support the surrounding neighborhoods are encouraged, recommends moderate to high

02:52:36.200 --> 02:52:38.500
 density residential.

02:52:38.500 --> 02:52:44.120
 The types and uses of scaled and of development, which is permitted in the NRMU district, which

02:52:44.120 --> 02:52:51.280
 is requested, conforms to the goals of the neighborhood mixed use designation.

02:52:51.280 --> 02:52:58.120
 In compatibility, the requested NRMU district, as mentioned earlier, is a continuation of

02:52:58.120 --> 02:53:02.760
 the NRMU district located to the north of the site, as can be seen here.

02:53:02.760 --> 02:53:07.200
 The proposed NRMU zoning district is compatible with the goals and objectives outlined in

02:53:07.200 --> 02:53:11.080
 the Denton plan 2020-30.

02:53:11.080 --> 02:53:15.920
 It is the most intensive of the neighborhood residential districts and permits a variety

02:53:15.920 --> 02:53:23.400
 of commercial, institutional, and moderate to high density residential uses.

02:53:23.400 --> 02:53:29.560
 In order, another test is whether or not there's infrastructure available for the site.

02:53:29.560 --> 02:53:40.300
 The applicant has stated that they propose to bore along underneath Elm Street to provide

02:53:40.300 --> 02:53:42.640
 water and sewer to the site.

02:53:42.640 --> 02:53:48.780
 There is, I believe, there's some utilities that are located along Windsor, but they would

02:53:48.780 --> 02:53:59.440
 have to try to get the needed easements to get the utility to the site.

02:53:59.440 --> 02:54:05.600
 North Elm Street is designated as a primary arterial with 135 feet of right of way.

02:54:05.600 --> 02:54:09.280
 It's currently developed as four lane divided.

02:54:09.280 --> 02:54:14.640
 At the time of platting, if any right of way is required to ensure that it will meet the

02:54:14.640 --> 02:54:22.720
 ultimate right of way requirement, they will be required at that time.

02:54:22.720 --> 02:54:27.000
 The NRMU district permits a mix of housing types and densities and is consistent with

02:54:27.000 --> 02:54:29.000
 the future land use element.

02:54:29.000 --> 02:54:34.280
 The NRMU district permits a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre, and that's also

02:54:34.280 --> 02:54:36.840
 consistent with the future land use element.

02:54:36.840 --> 02:54:41.400
 The proposed NRMU district provides a transition between the established single family neighborhoods

02:54:41.400 --> 02:54:48.800
 to the south on the south side of Windsor, and potential mixed use or commercial areas

02:54:48.800 --> 02:54:53.720
 which may be located along North Elm in the future.

02:54:53.720 --> 02:54:58.960
 The existing land uses surrounding the site include a single family residence, a church,

02:54:58.960 --> 02:55:02.840
 a regional drainage facility, and undeveloped land.

02:55:02.840 --> 02:55:08.960
 The subject site is located on the south side of North Elm, approximately 1.65 miles southeast

02:55:08.960 --> 02:55:11.480
 of Loop 288.

02:55:11.480 --> 02:55:16.880
 Development must comply with all ESA, tree preservation, buffer screening, tree canopy

02:55:16.880 --> 02:55:23.240
 and lighting requirements, and extension of both water and wastewater, as I mentioned

02:55:23.240 --> 02:55:26.120
 earlier, would be required.

02:55:26.120 --> 02:55:29.960
 Public notices were sent out as well as courtesy notices.

02:55:29.960 --> 02:55:34.760
 I handed the responses out to you during the work session.

02:55:34.760 --> 02:55:38.040
 Received them all within the past two days.

02:55:38.040 --> 02:55:45.120
 We have received enough responses from property owners within 200 feet of the site to require

02:55:45.120 --> 02:55:48.200
 a supermajority vote of the city council.

02:55:48.200 --> 02:55:57.760
 40% of the land area within 200 feet of the site, property owners are in opposition.

02:55:57.760 --> 02:55:59.280
 Received one in favor.

02:55:59.280 --> 02:56:04.200
 That represents 4% of the land, and one sign was posted on the site.

02:56:04.200 --> 02:56:12.320
 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting last night to which 14 people attended.

02:56:12.320 --> 02:56:15.680
 The applicant will discuss that further in his presentation.

02:56:15.680 --> 02:56:22.120
 I did go over briefly what was discussed during the work session.

02:56:22.120 --> 02:56:26.360
 Staff recommends approval of this request as it is compatible with the surrounding property

02:56:26.360 --> 02:56:31.560
 and it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030, and that would conclude

02:56:31.560 --> 02:56:33.480
 my presentation.

02:56:33.480 --> 02:56:36.120
 The applicant is present.

02:56:36.120 --> 02:56:37.120
 Thank you, Cindy.

02:56:37.120 --> 02:56:38.800
 We do have a question for you, Mr. Beck.

02:56:38.800 --> 02:56:39.800
 Thank you, Chair.

02:56:39.800 --> 02:56:42.840
 Cindy, did you mention the analysis, the TRIP analysis?

02:56:42.840 --> 02:56:46.280
 I know you did in the work session, but did you do that here publicly?

02:56:46.280 --> 02:56:47.280
 I did not.

02:56:47.280 --> 02:56:48.280
 Thank you.

02:56:48.280 --> 02:56:49.280
 I did not.

02:56:49.280 --> 02:56:57.080
 Did you do the I.T.E. TRIP analysis?

02:56:57.080 --> 02:56:58.080
 Let's see.

02:56:58.080 --> 02:57:01.480
 Sorry, I've got to find it.

02:57:01.480 --> 02:57:11.000
 I kind of went off instead of following my script.

02:57:11.000 --> 02:57:16.320
 Here it is.

02:57:16.320 --> 02:57:21.520
 Based on the number of units, which is 71, the proposed development is expected to generate

02:57:21.520 --> 02:57:28.840
 approximately 468 daily trips with a P.M. peak total of 41 trips per the eighth edition

02:57:28.840 --> 02:57:32.360
 of the I.T.E. TRIP generation report.

02:57:32.360 --> 02:57:33.360
 Okay.

02:57:33.360 --> 02:57:40.200
 So, it's going to -- there's going to be 460 more vehicles traveling up and down Almore

02:57:40.200 --> 02:57:41.200
 Island.

02:57:41.200 --> 02:57:42.200
 That's correct.

02:57:42.200 --> 02:57:43.200
 What was the 71?

02:57:43.200 --> 02:57:45.760
 71 is the number of units proposed.

02:57:45.760 --> 02:57:46.760
 Okay.

02:57:46.760 --> 02:57:47.760
 But there was another number.

02:57:47.760 --> 02:57:48.760
 I'm sorry.

02:57:48.760 --> 02:57:49.760
 There -- 41?

02:57:49.760 --> 02:57:50.760
 Yes.

02:57:50.760 --> 02:57:51.760
 Right.

02:57:51.760 --> 02:57:54.760
 A P.M. peak total of 41 trips.

02:57:54.760 --> 02:57:57.240
 That's an increased number compared to --

02:57:57.240 --> 02:57:58.240
 No.

02:57:58.240 --> 02:57:59.240
 It's just 41 trips.

02:57:59.240 --> 02:58:06.480
 P.M. peak total of 41 trips will be generated by the site if it is developed with 71 units.

02:58:06.480 --> 02:58:07.480
 Okay.

02:58:07.480 --> 02:58:09.440
 P.M. being from 12 noon to midnight?

02:58:09.440 --> 02:58:10.440
 Rush hour.

02:58:10.440 --> 02:58:11.440
 Rush hour.

02:58:11.440 --> 02:58:12.440
 Got you.

02:58:12.440 --> 02:58:13.440
 Okay.

02:58:13.440 --> 02:58:14.440
 Thank you.

02:58:14.440 --> 02:58:15.440
 We do have a couple more questions.

02:58:15.440 --> 02:58:23.440
 Elm Street is what kind of road -- I think you called it a main arterial?

02:58:23.440 --> 02:58:24.440
 Yes.

02:58:24.440 --> 02:58:25.440
 It's a primary arterial.

02:58:25.440 --> 02:58:26.440
 Primary arterial.

02:58:26.440 --> 02:58:31.520
 Now, what kind of businesses go on a primary arterial and what kind of -- how -- what kind

02:58:31.520 --> 02:58:35.760
 of planning do we look at when we look at --

02:58:35.760 --> 02:58:41.520
 Well, what we look at when we're looking at locating businesses, you want -- large traffic

02:58:41.520 --> 02:58:47.280
 generators should be along an arterial so that they have instant access, immediate access

02:58:47.280 --> 02:58:52.200
 to the arterial and they won't clog up the collector streets, our neighborhood streets.

02:58:52.200 --> 02:58:55.320
 So basically traffic generators.

02:58:55.320 --> 02:58:56.320
 Okay.

02:58:56.320 --> 02:59:04.840
 Something that is -- would not be sensitive to the traffic and noise of being close to

02:59:04.840 --> 02:59:06.560
 an arterial.

02:59:06.560 --> 02:59:11.560
 So primarily you're looking at probably businesses or multi-family kind of thing rather than

02:59:11.560 --> 02:59:12.760
 single residential?

02:59:12.760 --> 02:59:13.760
 That's correct.

02:59:13.760 --> 02:59:14.760
 Okay.

02:59:14.760 --> 02:59:15.760
 Christian Pernetta.

02:59:15.760 --> 02:59:16.760
 Yeah.

02:59:16.760 --> 02:59:23.280
 I just wanted to kind of get a gauge of the responses that you've got.

02:59:23.280 --> 02:59:26.520
 So if you could go back to the aerial of --

02:59:26.520 --> 02:59:27.520
 This?

02:59:27.520 --> 02:59:28.520
 Okay.

02:59:28.520 --> 02:59:29.520
 Yes.

02:59:29.520 --> 02:59:30.520
 Right there.

02:59:30.520 --> 02:59:34.960
 So when I look at the -- when I zoom in on the map and everything, you know, obviously

02:59:34.960 --> 02:59:40.200
 to the -- to the slight southwest we have the church and then on the southwest corner

02:59:40.200 --> 02:59:42.160
 I do see a house.

02:59:42.160 --> 02:59:47.560
 The properties immediately to the south and then I guess to the east of those.

02:59:47.560 --> 02:59:48.560
 Are there --

02:59:48.560 --> 02:59:49.560
 Here?

02:59:49.560 --> 02:59:50.560
 Yes.

02:59:50.560 --> 02:59:51.560
 Are there houses there?

02:59:51.560 --> 02:59:54.720
 Because I can't see them in the map.

02:59:54.720 --> 02:59:56.680
 I couldn't see any houses on there.

02:59:56.680 --> 03:00:01.400
 I know this property owner lives -- this property owner lives here.

03:00:01.400 --> 03:00:02.400
 I don't believe this.

03:00:02.400 --> 03:00:03.560
 This is not developed.

03:00:03.560 --> 03:00:06.640
 Coming to the DCAD, these are not developed sites.

03:00:06.640 --> 03:00:07.640
 Okay.

03:00:07.640 --> 03:00:09.000
 These three are not developed sites.

03:00:09.000 --> 03:00:10.000
 Okay.

03:00:10.000 --> 03:00:11.000
 Yeah, because I see one just outside that.

03:00:11.000 --> 03:00:15.520
 I just wanted to make sure that in those little plots there -- yeah, I didn't see it on the

03:00:15.520 --> 03:00:16.520
 aerial.

03:00:16.520 --> 03:00:18.840
 Well, I'm pretty sure the property owners are here tonight, so they could clarify for

03:00:18.840 --> 03:00:19.840
 you when they come up.

03:00:19.840 --> 03:00:20.840
 All right.

03:00:20.840 --> 03:00:21.840
 Thank you.

03:00:21.840 --> 03:00:26.600
 So now I don't see any other questions.

03:00:26.600 --> 03:00:27.600
 Okay.

03:00:27.600 --> 03:00:29.600
 Thank you for your presentation.

03:00:29.600 --> 03:00:30.600
 This is a public hearing.

03:00:30.600 --> 03:00:32.440
 And we do have several cards.

03:00:32.440 --> 03:00:38.720
 So if you are wishing to speak, we'd ask that you fill out a card, or when we run out, you're

03:00:38.720 --> 03:00:41.280
 more than welcome just to walk down and introduce yourself.

03:00:41.280 --> 03:00:44.680
 But before we begin that, I believe the applicant is here.

03:00:44.680 --> 03:00:45.680
 Is the applicant here?

03:00:45.680 --> 03:00:52.120
 Would you like to come down, and if you have a presentation or stand for questions?

03:00:52.120 --> 03:00:59.560
 I'm sorry, I don't have a card for you.

03:00:59.560 --> 03:01:01.920
 Can you just state your name and address?

03:01:01.920 --> 03:01:02.920
 My name is Craig Bond.

03:01:02.920 --> 03:01:05.720
 I live at 1107 Woodmount Court here in Denton.

03:01:05.720 --> 03:01:13.160
 And I work for KJE, we're the silver firm that put together the rezoning application

03:01:13.160 --> 03:01:15.240
 for the client.

03:01:15.240 --> 03:01:25.680
 And as Cindy said, the site, you know, meets the requirements to be able to apply for rezoning.

03:01:25.680 --> 03:01:29.640
 And so I thought probably the best thing for me to do is just -- we had the public meeting

03:01:29.640 --> 03:01:35.480
 last night is kind of go through the comments that everybody had that showed up.

03:01:35.480 --> 03:01:38.960
 I sent these to Cindy this morning so she could kind of review them as well.

03:01:38.960 --> 03:01:47.280
 Of course, the first concern was that we were going from NRMU 12 to NRMU, which goes from

03:01:47.280 --> 03:01:50.880
 12 units per acre to 30 units per acre.

03:01:50.880 --> 03:01:58.840
 And you know, I understand people having a concern about this, but out of all the property

03:01:58.840 --> 03:02:05.400
 around us, most of it is vacant except for there's one house where one of the residents

03:02:05.400 --> 03:02:09.040
 lives over there next to the family dollar store and then the other residence is over

03:02:09.040 --> 03:02:10.440
 next to the church.

03:02:10.440 --> 03:02:13.280
 So all the rest of the land around it is vacant.

03:02:13.280 --> 03:02:19.280
 And I'm sure that those landowners plan on developing that at some point.

03:02:19.280 --> 03:02:25.520
 Now on our site plan, we had I think 107 parking spaces and we didn't have any visitors parking.

03:02:25.520 --> 03:02:31.560
 So we're probably going to have to remove about four units to make room for that additional

03:02:31.560 --> 03:02:32.560
 parking space.

03:02:32.560 --> 03:02:37.680
 And so the count per acre will go down a little bit, not a whole lot, but we'll have to make

03:02:37.680 --> 03:02:41.200
 room for the guest parking.

03:02:41.200 --> 03:02:45.800
 I think in May is when they passed the new ordinance that required, you know, the guest

03:02:45.800 --> 03:02:48.720
 parking, I think 10% of the total parking count.

03:02:48.720 --> 03:02:54.000
 So we'll have to include that.

03:02:54.000 --> 03:02:59.120
 One of the residents, Mrs. Dean, she was concerned about safety and her house is the one down

03:02:59.120 --> 03:03:01.240
 there by the Dollar General store.

03:03:01.240 --> 03:03:06.520
 And in her complaint, she was saying that a lot of people would cross through her property

03:03:06.520 --> 03:03:08.160
 to get to the Dollar General.

03:03:08.160 --> 03:03:13.400
 And one thing we can do is we can put a fence, you know, around the south, east and west

03:03:13.400 --> 03:03:18.480
 side to and that would encourage people to go out to Elm Street and then walk down the

03:03:18.480 --> 03:03:21.320
 street to the family dollar instead of cutting across.

03:03:21.320 --> 03:03:25.580
 So I think that might help, you know, alleviate that problem.

03:03:25.580 --> 03:03:36.400
 And there were several questions about the cost of the -- or let's see, how did I put

03:03:36.400 --> 03:03:37.400
 that?

03:03:37.400 --> 03:03:38.400
 Let's see.

03:03:38.400 --> 03:03:42.680
 I think we introduced the project as more affordable housing as opposed to somebody

03:03:42.680 --> 03:03:45.040
 having to rent a single family home.

03:03:45.040 --> 03:03:48.040
 And there was some misconception for a little while that we were trying to put in Section

03:03:48.040 --> 03:03:53.280
 8 housing and we reiterated several times that it's not Section 8, it's just multi-family,

03:03:53.280 --> 03:03:56.860
 which is going to be cheaper than having to go out and rent single family.

03:03:56.860 --> 03:04:02.200
 And from what I understand, the City of Denton still has a shortage of apartments or student

03:04:02.200 --> 03:04:10.220
 housing and so it makes sense for the project to proceed.

03:04:10.220 --> 03:04:20.200
 And now there was some concern about the traffic or actually there was several of the people

03:04:20.200 --> 03:04:23.000
 mentioned that they were concerned about the traffic in the area.

03:04:23.000 --> 03:04:26.760
 They mentioned the UNT Engineering Center and then they also mentioned that there's

03:04:26.760 --> 03:04:29.880
 probably going to be some additional traffic from Denton High School that's going to go

03:04:29.880 --> 03:04:31.780
 up not too far away.

03:04:31.780 --> 03:04:36.640
 And I didn't really know what to tell them about that other than it's a four-lane arterial,

03:04:36.640 --> 03:04:40.400
 it can handle lots of traffic, and I think as these other developments occur, the city

03:04:40.400 --> 03:04:42.880
 is probably going to have to look at putting in some signals along there.

03:04:42.880 --> 03:04:50.360
 So I think at some point that will be taken care of and our client can't really do too

03:04:50.360 --> 03:04:51.360
 much about that.

03:04:51.360 --> 03:04:56.680
 So there's going to have to be participation from the city for traffic calming and stuff

03:04:56.680 --> 03:04:59.120
 in the area.

03:04:59.120 --> 03:05:02.520
 And of course, they had questions about the water and sewer and like Cindy said, there's

03:05:02.520 --> 03:05:06.920
 existing water and sewer on the north side, so we're going to propose boring underneath

03:05:06.920 --> 03:05:08.880
 the road to bring water and sewer.

03:05:08.880 --> 03:05:14.320
 And we also pointed out that for future development, for the other folks there, this is going to

03:05:14.320 --> 03:05:19.240
 be to their benefit because our client is going to incur the cost of the bores and extending

03:05:19.240 --> 03:05:27.320
 that water and sewer to the south side of Elm Street, so that's going to benefit everybody.

03:05:27.320 --> 03:05:34.000
 And the other thing I wanted to point out too is everybody was, a lot of folks were

03:05:34.000 --> 03:05:41.020
 opposed to the higher density, but our client, he did his own study and for his project to

03:05:41.020 --> 03:05:46.600
 make a go of things, 12 units per acre isn't going to, the math isn't going to work out,

03:05:46.600 --> 03:05:51.280
 so he's going to have to increase that to make the math work out, otherwise the construction

03:05:51.280 --> 03:05:55.040
 costs, the project won't work for him.

03:05:55.040 --> 03:06:00.840
 So that's why we, that's why he wants to rezone it.

03:06:00.840 --> 03:06:08.520
 And I think I've addressed most of the comments there that people had, so if you all have

03:06:08.520 --> 03:06:10.560
 any questions, we're glad to answer.

03:06:10.560 --> 03:06:12.920
 I appreciate you being here and for speaking.

03:06:12.920 --> 03:06:14.300
 We do have a couple of questions.

03:06:14.300 --> 03:06:17.920
 I think it might be prudent to remind the commission that we are only looking at a rezone

03:06:17.920 --> 03:06:23.280
 case tonight, so density, land use, those type things, specifics of parking and engineering

03:06:23.280 --> 03:06:28.880
 questions and those things would certainly come before us at an SUP case.

03:06:28.880 --> 03:06:33.840
 But if we could stay focused on a rezone case tonight, as tempting as it is to get into

03:06:33.840 --> 03:06:37.320
 a concept plan, I think that'd be productive for the discussion.

03:06:37.320 --> 03:06:38.320
 With that being said, Commissioner Smith.

03:06:38.320 --> 03:06:39.320
 Thank you, Chair.

03:06:39.320 --> 03:06:44.960
 I know you said, Mr. Bond, I know you said that the owner did his own study and his own

03:06:44.960 --> 03:06:50.280
 maths to get down to that a 12 unit per acre was not financially viable, and so that's

03:06:50.280 --> 03:06:55.160
 actually one of my first questions I have for you, is why not a 12, why not keeping

03:06:55.160 --> 03:06:57.640
 within RME 12 and stick it to 12 units per acre?

03:06:57.640 --> 03:07:03.720
 I mean, on the acreage you have, you can get to 28.9 is where the math works out, so basically

03:07:03.720 --> 03:07:09.720
 28, too bad Cindy Jackson won't let you bump up to 29, but 28 units out there, do you as

03:07:09.720 --> 03:07:17.380
 an engineer, would you agree with the owner then, with your client, that at 28 units there's

03:07:17.380 --> 03:07:24.200
 no way to financially make that viable to be able to build a 12 unit per acre site?

03:07:24.200 --> 03:07:27.840
 We don't get into the cost that much, but we've had several clients on other projects

03:07:27.840 --> 03:07:33.440
 that they've had to kill the project because they couldn't get the density that they needed.

03:07:33.440 --> 03:07:34.440
 Okay.

03:07:34.440 --> 03:07:42.760
 I find it hard to believe, to be honest, that there are sites I feel like around Denton

03:07:42.760 --> 03:07:48.060
 that have that density and make that financially viable, we've seen that come before us, and

03:07:48.060 --> 03:07:53.840
 I just feel like it could be done, to be honest with you, but that's just a question.

03:07:53.840 --> 03:07:58.240
 And then I guess the other one was, this is just a zoning case, and Commissioner Rozelle,

03:07:58.240 --> 03:08:03.060
 our Chair Rozelle brought it up in a work session about, usually we see that the zoning

03:08:03.060 --> 03:08:07.240
 and the SCP, when it is going to be an SCP case, we see them come together.

03:08:07.240 --> 03:08:12.680
 And so the SCP wasn't done, and as Ms. Jackson mentioned, a lot of that was because, you

03:08:12.680 --> 03:08:16.280
 guys hadn't gotten into the engineering conversation yet, could you give us some clarity why?

03:08:16.280 --> 03:08:20.600
 Was it just timing, you know, the project came on too quickly to get the engineering

03:08:20.600 --> 03:08:25.440
 started, to be able to warrant the SCP, or waiting to see if the zoning passes first,

03:08:25.440 --> 03:08:28.480
 be able to spend the money and the time on the engineering to get to the SCP?

03:08:28.480 --> 03:08:31.000
 Any clarity you can give there, I appreciate it.

03:08:31.000 --> 03:08:34.720
 Yeah, I think it may have been a little of what you just said, that they wanted to make

03:08:34.720 --> 03:08:39.240
 sure that they were going to be able to rezone, because, you know, in addition to what we've

03:08:39.240 --> 03:08:48.560
 discussed here, we still have to talk to TxDOT, you know, about the, about the driveway entrances,

03:08:48.560 --> 03:08:52.120
 and we still need to look at detention, you know, we've got to talk to TxDOT and find

03:08:52.120 --> 03:08:56.160
 out if they have capacity in Elm Street, if they don't, then there's going to be detention

03:08:56.160 --> 03:09:00.640
 and we're going to lose, you know, lose some units there.

03:09:00.640 --> 03:09:05.880
 Yeah, so you're saying, I mean, there's obstacles past just the rezoning, that, you know, we

03:09:05.880 --> 03:09:10.220
 could rezone the site for this project, but there's a lot of obstacles afterwards that

03:09:10.220 --> 03:09:12.560
 could trip this project up even further.

03:09:12.560 --> 03:09:18.380
 Well, it might trip up the 30 units per acre, but, you know, we'd really like to be somewhere

03:09:18.380 --> 03:09:23.560
 between the 12 and 30 units per acre, you know, to make it more, you know, cost effective

03:09:23.560 --> 03:09:25.560
 and stuff and make the project work.

03:09:25.560 --> 03:09:26.560
 Understood.

03:09:26.560 --> 03:09:27.560
 All right.

03:09:27.560 --> 03:09:28.560
 Thank you.

03:09:28.560 --> 03:09:29.560
 Chris Trebek.

03:09:29.560 --> 03:09:30.560
 Thank you, Chair.

03:09:30.560 --> 03:09:31.560
 Thank you, Mr. Bond, for your presentation.

03:09:31.560 --> 03:09:42.200
 Would you be willing to work with an overlay that will keep you above the 12 but puts you

03:09:42.200 --> 03:09:48.160
 down a little bit closer to something that might be more acceptable, 20 units per acre,

03:09:48.160 --> 03:09:49.160
 say?

03:09:49.160 --> 03:09:52.680
 I think we're going to end up having to work with less than, you know, less than 30 units

03:09:52.680 --> 03:09:56.240
 just to get the parking and, you know, possibly the detention as well.

03:09:56.240 --> 03:10:01.720
 About four, though, I mean, I don't think you're going to come down much, that much,

03:10:01.720 --> 03:10:06.400
 so an overlay would bring you down a little bit more, but it would still keep you probably,

03:10:06.400 --> 03:10:11.160
 hopefully, within the financial arena to make it cost--

03:10:11.160 --> 03:10:14.360
 I mean, I wouldn't-- you know, our client would have to speak more to that than me.

03:10:14.360 --> 03:10:15.360
 Okay.

03:10:15.360 --> 03:10:16.360
 Is he here?

03:10:16.360 --> 03:10:17.360
 Yeah, he's here.

03:10:17.360 --> 03:10:18.360
 Okay.

03:10:18.360 --> 03:10:19.360
 If he wants to come down.

03:10:19.360 --> 03:10:22.360
 Well, is there any more-- if there's no more questions for him, then, yeah, if we could

03:10:22.360 --> 03:10:23.360
 bring him down.

03:10:23.360 --> 03:10:24.360
 Chair?

03:10:24.360 --> 03:10:29.820
 I don't see any more questions at this time, so if you're wanting to open up a--

03:10:29.820 --> 03:10:32.720
 Could we have the owner come down?

03:10:32.720 --> 03:10:33.720
 The owner?

03:10:33.720 --> 03:10:34.720
 Yeah.

03:10:34.720 --> 03:10:37.720
 Muhammad, do you want to come down for a second?

03:10:37.720 --> 03:10:41.600
 We're actually the architects here, too.

03:10:41.600 --> 03:10:42.600
 He may be better.

03:10:42.600 --> 03:10:43.600
 Okay.

03:10:43.600 --> 03:10:48.800
 Whatever you think's best, whoever you think can answer it best, and if you'll state your

03:10:48.800 --> 03:10:51.800
 name and address when you come to the mic, please.

03:10:51.800 --> 03:10:58.040
 My name is Muhammad Parva, I live 3110 Hillside Drive in Highland Village.

03:10:58.040 --> 03:10:59.040
 Okay.

03:10:59.040 --> 03:11:05.600
 Muhammad, I guess my question to Mr. Bond was, a lot of the problem that a lot of the

03:11:05.600 --> 03:11:11.320
 residents are having is the higher density that an NRMU would allow, and I was trying

03:11:11.320 --> 03:11:12.600
 to seek a compromise.

03:11:12.600 --> 03:11:18.720
 We could put an overlay on that area to help bring the numbers down, keep you above 12,

03:11:18.720 --> 03:11:22.160
 but keep you considerably lower than 28 units per acre.

03:11:22.160 --> 03:11:27.000
 Say if we got you around 20 units per acre, you think that would be manageable, financially

03:11:27.000 --> 03:11:28.000
 feasible for you?

03:11:28.000 --> 03:11:29.000
 Yeah, that would work.

03:11:29.000 --> 03:11:30.000
 Okay.

03:11:30.000 --> 03:11:34.720
 Okay, so that would be something we could consider and you would consider.

03:11:34.720 --> 03:11:39.360
 So if it's 20 units per acre and he's got about 2.4, so he'd be able to get 40 plus

03:11:39.360 --> 03:11:42.760
 units is what you're looking at.

03:11:42.760 --> 03:11:54.000
 Okay, you don't have to make an effort to make a decision right now, Bond.

03:11:54.000 --> 03:12:02.640
 When I said 20 units for work, it kind of, I didn't do the math, yeah, that's correct,

03:12:02.640 --> 03:12:03.640
 it's 44 units.

03:12:03.640 --> 03:12:05.840
 Yeah, because it's 2.4 acres times 48.

03:12:05.840 --> 03:12:14.480
 Our math genius is up here saying you're looking at 48 units as opposed to it would have come

03:12:14.480 --> 03:12:16.360
 down to 67.

03:12:16.360 --> 03:12:21.400
 So that is less than, that's about almost half.

03:12:21.400 --> 03:12:26.840
 So instead of rezoning, you would get an overlay, but you would have to limit it to that 48

03:12:26.840 --> 03:12:27.840
 units.

03:12:27.840 --> 03:12:30.880
 Well, you would get the rezone, but we'd put an overlay on it.

03:12:30.880 --> 03:12:31.880
 Okay.

03:12:31.880 --> 03:12:32.880
 Yeah, that would work.

03:12:32.880 --> 03:12:33.880
 Will that work, 48 units?

03:12:33.880 --> 03:12:34.880
 Yes.

03:12:34.880 --> 03:12:35.880
 That would work.

03:12:35.880 --> 03:12:36.880
 Something to consider then.

03:12:36.880 --> 03:12:37.880
 Yeah.

03:12:37.880 --> 03:12:38.880
 All right.

03:12:38.880 --> 03:12:39.880
 Thank you.

03:12:39.880 --> 03:12:40.880
 Okay.

03:12:40.880 --> 03:12:41.880
 Thank you.

03:12:41.880 --> 03:12:42.880
 Thanks.

03:12:42.880 --> 03:12:44.000
 We have one more question for, no, not for him, for you.

03:12:44.000 --> 03:12:45.000
 Okay.

03:12:45.000 --> 03:12:46.000
 Sorry.

03:12:46.000 --> 03:12:47.000
 Commissioner Sanchez.

03:12:47.000 --> 03:12:54.800
 My concern is I guess the cost of boring under the road and have you even looked at what

03:12:54.800 --> 03:12:55.800
 kind of costs you have?

03:12:55.800 --> 03:13:03.200
 It seems like we're putting, you're looking at doing a, changing the zoning, but you don't,

03:13:03.200 --> 03:13:07.760
 maybe you had taken the time to figure out what it's going to cost to bore that.

03:13:07.760 --> 03:13:14.240
 Because I know, I know the reason I was looking at something in a project I was doing and

03:13:14.240 --> 03:13:18.720
 it wasn't even close to the width of that road and the costs are astronomical.

03:13:18.720 --> 03:13:23.720
 Have you looked at that before we even decide that we want to change, that it would even

03:13:23.720 --> 03:13:35.160
 be a viable idea right now until maybe looking at bringing the utilities and all that on

03:13:35.160 --> 03:13:37.320
 the south side of Elm Street?

03:13:37.320 --> 03:13:41.240
 Well, it'd probably be about $100 per foot, 135 feet.

03:13:41.240 --> 03:13:50.360
 So you're looking at 135 to 150,000 per bore, so about 300,000 for the bore probably.

03:13:50.360 --> 03:13:51.360
 Yeah.

03:13:51.360 --> 03:13:53.000
 And that's what I'm thinking.

03:13:53.000 --> 03:13:56.920
 That's pretty steep considering everything else you're going to have to do.

03:13:56.920 --> 03:14:00.760
 I think that's why he wanted to have a higher density.

03:14:00.760 --> 03:14:05.320
 Okay, yeah, because it's going to be high.

03:14:05.320 --> 03:14:12.280
 So I guess my concern, my biggest concern is if we change it and then you look at it,

03:14:12.280 --> 03:14:16.240
 we can't do it because the costs are too expensive.

03:14:16.240 --> 03:14:20.960
 I guess it's what Tim was saying a while ago, looking at getting all the information first

03:14:20.960 --> 03:14:23.220
 before we go in there and change it.

03:14:23.220 --> 03:14:29.040
 Though I think in time, because this is a primary arterial, those kinds of businesses

03:14:29.040 --> 03:14:36.680
 or those kinds of projects are viable on a primary arterial.

03:14:36.680 --> 03:14:37.920
 I do agree with that.

03:14:37.920 --> 03:14:46.480
 I mean, that's my feeling, but I don't think at this point it's a viable project.

03:14:46.480 --> 03:14:51.500
 I mean, I'm just saying it's based on the cost and not having those that information

03:14:51.500 --> 03:14:52.500
 yet.

03:14:52.500 --> 03:14:59.400
 Would it be better to table this then and come back later with a more developed site

03:14:59.400 --> 03:15:00.400
 plan?

03:15:00.400 --> 03:15:01.400
 I don't know.

03:15:01.400 --> 03:15:08.840
 I was just going by, you know, you haven't done the whole research, I think, on it and

03:15:08.840 --> 03:15:12.200
 I think we're going to jump into it and then you're going to find out, you know what, maybe

03:15:12.200 --> 03:15:13.760
 this isn't what I want.

03:15:13.760 --> 03:15:15.480
 I mean, it's your decision.

03:15:15.480 --> 03:15:18.560
 I'm just saying it's based on what I can see here.

03:15:18.560 --> 03:15:24.040
 I'd be afraid that we'd be make a decision and then a year from now or several months

03:15:24.040 --> 03:15:28.640
 from now, you're going to come back and say, "Well, that wasn't the best decision because

03:15:28.640 --> 03:15:33.000
 boring across that street, across that road is going to be expensive."

03:15:33.000 --> 03:15:36.360
 I think it's worth interjecting here.

03:15:36.360 --> 03:15:40.920
 We're not looking at what the cost to build the construction is.

03:15:40.920 --> 03:15:46.300
 As a commission, we are trying to address, is it appropriate to have an NRMU zoning district

03:15:46.300 --> 03:15:50.880
 in that location, regardless of what their project can and will be?

03:15:50.880 --> 03:15:54.480
 There's a lot of other things that they could actually build besides multifamily.

03:15:54.480 --> 03:15:58.360
 They could come back to us and present to us.

03:15:58.360 --> 03:16:06.560
 Our duty here is not to see if their project is viable per se, but rather try to best ascertain

03:16:06.560 --> 03:16:09.840
 the request to rezone.

03:16:09.840 --> 03:16:14.260
 Like I said, I think rezoning based on the fact that we're on our primary arterial to

03:16:14.260 --> 03:16:18.600
 me is a good decision.

03:16:18.600 --> 03:16:24.360
 I agree with the staff and I'm just throwing that out.

03:16:24.360 --> 03:16:29.880
 I do agree with them that a primary arterial, as you look 20, 30 years from now, this primary

03:16:29.880 --> 03:16:34.080
 arterial is going to be ... There's a lot of vacant land in there in time.

03:16:34.080 --> 03:16:35.080
 It's going to be developed.

03:16:35.080 --> 03:16:42.080
 What do we want developed in a primary arterial, if not businesses and those kinds of things?

03:16:42.080 --> 03:16:45.560
 Residential is not going ... It doesn't really fit that for me.

03:16:45.560 --> 03:16:49.080
 Thank you, Mr. Sanchez.

03:16:49.080 --> 03:16:51.200
 We have a couple more questions.

03:16:51.200 --> 03:16:54.200
 Commissioner Pernetta.

03:16:54.200 --> 03:16:58.280
 I'm not going to say too much on this one, but based on where we are right now, the understanding

03:16:58.280 --> 03:17:02.320
 is that this would have to go to city council for a super majority anyway, due to the number

03:17:02.320 --> 03:17:04.280
 of objections we have.

03:17:04.280 --> 03:17:11.360
 Based on the idea that you guys are considering making adjustments to your request, I think

03:17:11.360 --> 03:17:16.360
 maybe tabling it at this time would be best, because even if we did approve it, you'd have

03:17:16.360 --> 03:17:22.480
 a long road to hoe to get through to city council, perhaps a revisit to try and find

03:17:22.480 --> 03:17:28.400
 something that might be more amenable to the surrounding neighbors might be the best.

03:17:28.400 --> 03:17:34.520
 Would it be possible if we table it now when we come back, can we do the rezoning and the

03:17:34.520 --> 03:17:36.760
 SUP at the same time then?

03:17:36.760 --> 03:17:38.200
 It would be possible to put them on the same agenda.

03:17:38.200 --> 03:17:39.200
 They would be separate items.

03:17:39.200 --> 03:17:40.200
 Okay.

03:17:40.200 --> 03:17:42.240
 They wouldn't be technically at the same time.

03:17:42.240 --> 03:17:47.480
 It would be one herd and then the SUP following that.

03:17:47.480 --> 03:17:49.120
 Okay.

03:17:49.120 --> 03:17:52.120
 That is an option.

03:17:52.120 --> 03:17:53.120
 Commissioner Smith.

03:17:53.120 --> 03:17:54.120
 Thank you, Chair.

03:17:54.120 --> 03:18:00.160
 I was discussing this with legal and sidebar with Commissioner Pernetta, but I think my

03:18:00.160 --> 03:18:05.040
 biggest fear is, look, development in the city of Denton, all for it.

03:18:05.040 --> 03:18:08.200
 I think we're going to have people move in here, we need to put them somewhere.

03:18:08.200 --> 03:18:16.680
 I think apartments and renting are great ways to subsidize low income housing and to have

03:18:16.680 --> 03:18:17.680
 affordable housing.

03:18:17.680 --> 03:18:22.120
 I should not say low income housing, but affordable places for people to live, but I would hate

03:18:22.120 --> 03:18:29.720
 to rezone a piece of land and then you guys go do the engineering and find out the cost

03:18:29.720 --> 03:18:35.260
 and then maybe possibly, because this happens, we have cases presented to us pretty constantly

03:18:35.260 --> 03:18:37.760
 of this is rezoned, the project fell through.

03:18:37.760 --> 03:18:41.080
 Well, that stinks because now this other person is coming through and having to pay to rezone

03:18:41.080 --> 03:18:45.160
 this land again because it's not compatible to what the project they want to do.

03:18:45.160 --> 03:18:49.760
 I'd hate to change the zoning on a piece of land and then come back and find out the cost

03:18:49.760 --> 03:18:54.560
 through the SUP process and the engineering process, finding that out isn't going to be

03:18:54.560 --> 03:18:55.560
 viable.

03:18:55.560 --> 03:18:59.440
 That's why I'd have a hard time approving it or moving forward with this was that I

03:18:59.440 --> 03:19:04.000
 would rather see both of them present at the same time, see what the cost with the SUP

03:19:04.000 --> 03:19:08.280
 would be, see what the engineering cost, be able to actually do everything and see a site

03:19:08.280 --> 03:19:13.440
 plan and all that great stuff and then know there's more financial viability there and

03:19:13.440 --> 03:19:16.240
 then from there we could have conversations like Commissioner Beck brought up, which is

03:19:16.240 --> 03:19:23.200
 okay, how financial viable can a project be while keeping the unity density down to be

03:19:23.200 --> 03:19:27.960
 able to appease the neighborhood and be able to protect the neighborhoods around it.

03:19:27.960 --> 03:19:32.480
 So I guess it's not really a question so much as it's a comment and that's what I was talking

03:19:32.480 --> 03:19:36.560
 with legal about was that the possibility that after we hear public hearing and hear

03:19:36.560 --> 03:19:43.040
 from residents is a possibility we might table this and request you guys bring it back whenever

03:19:43.040 --> 03:19:48.720
 you have some better numbers and some engineering and some financial viability.

03:19:48.720 --> 03:19:53.440
 We would hate to be up here and even talk with you Mr. Pavar and say hey would you be

03:19:53.440 --> 03:19:57.120
 able to do 20 units an acre and you say yep and then you come back and find out it's like

03:19:57.120 --> 03:20:00.760
 you know what we just put an overlay on a zoning for 20 units an acre and that's not

03:20:00.760 --> 03:20:01.760
 financially viable.

03:20:01.760 --> 03:20:04.800
 That doesn't seem like good work on our end either.

03:20:04.800 --> 03:20:09.680
 That's unfair to you as the applicant and so that's my opinion.

03:20:09.680 --> 03:20:14.480
 Would you guys be opposed to a table if we got to that part I mean would you think you

03:20:14.480 --> 03:20:18.360
 would be willing to go through that process of starting the SCP getting those engineering

03:20:18.360 --> 03:20:20.280
 numbers and we did get to a tabling?

03:20:20.280 --> 03:20:23.440
 I think that would be the best.

03:20:23.440 --> 03:20:27.360
 Okay, well we'll let the public hearing see I'm not saying to make a decision but just

03:20:27.360 --> 03:20:33.360
 wanted to make sure that if we did as a commission make a motion to table and that was approved

03:20:33.360 --> 03:20:37.360
 to table that you guys would step away and start doing the numbers so as long as I hear

03:20:37.360 --> 03:20:40.160
 that from you then I'm good to go.

03:20:40.160 --> 03:20:43.360
 Sounds like that'd be the best course of action at this point.

03:20:43.360 --> 03:20:49.360
 With that conversation being said if we're wanting to table it might be prudent to try

03:20:49.360 --> 03:20:54.680
 to push the table with the public hearing open so typically when I would call for a

03:20:54.680 --> 03:20:59.400
 motion it's after I close the public hearing so if there is going to be a motion to table

03:20:59.400 --> 03:21:03.600
 it needs to be done proactively before the chair requests one.

03:21:03.600 --> 03:21:10.560
 So with that said I want to have Commissioner Prunette ask for the floor and then I'll give

03:21:10.560 --> 03:21:14.000
 it back to you Commissioner Smith.

03:21:14.000 --> 03:21:17.040
 That was actually going to be my question you know what the best procedure would be

03:21:17.040 --> 03:21:23.160
 whether we table it before we go into the public hearing because we'd have a lot of

03:21:23.160 --> 03:21:26.560
 people who want to speak and most likely they'll be speaking about something that's not actually

03:21:26.560 --> 03:21:32.800
 going to be what the decision is made on eventually what would be the best thing to you know make

03:21:32.800 --> 03:21:36.080
 sure this moves forward table it and then allow them to have the rest of their lives

03:21:36.080 --> 03:21:38.720
 back so they can save it for another day.

03:21:38.720 --> 03:21:43.000
 That's certainly an option just for point of order if there is a motion to table it's

03:21:43.000 --> 03:21:48.040
 second and approved the public hearing will remain open anyone wishing to speak tonight

03:21:48.040 --> 03:21:53.400
 I'll provide them that opportunity to still vocalize but it will come back before us which

03:21:53.400 --> 03:21:56.720
 would give them an opportunity to come back the night of the vote.

03:21:56.720 --> 03:22:00.920
 So public hearing and discourse will partake this evening regardless if there's a table

03:22:00.920 --> 03:22:03.360
 or not.

03:22:03.360 --> 03:22:09.600
 With that said there's a motion on the floor and Commissioner Smith I'll just ask that

03:22:09.600 --> 03:22:13.360
 there's an affirmation from the applicant about the motion.

03:22:13.360 --> 03:22:19.240
 Sure I'll make a motion to table the item until date certain.

03:22:19.240 --> 03:22:24.840
 We will remain I'm assuming no date name just date certain.

03:22:24.840 --> 03:22:25.840
 Date uncertain.

03:22:25.840 --> 03:22:35.240
 I'm sorry yeah okay got it motion motion to table date uncertain.

03:22:35.240 --> 03:22:41.800
 Yeah I'm sorry I didn't have my microphone on you're gonna have to table it to a date

03:22:41.800 --> 03:22:45.840
 certain if you're going to leave the public hearing open without re-noticing it.

03:22:45.840 --> 03:22:50.920
 If you're going to table it to a date uncertain then it will require staff to send out new

03:22:50.920 --> 03:22:51.920
 notices.

03:22:51.920 --> 03:22:56.440
 I mean the applicant can make can request city staff to postpone on agenda items we

03:22:56.440 --> 03:23:00.680
 can put it as a date certain and then if the applicant feels like the date after we have

03:23:00.680 --> 03:23:04.720
 a discussion here to figure out what what date would work for the applicant they can

03:23:04.720 --> 03:23:09.120
 postpone that right because we have that that item is removed from agendas.

03:23:09.120 --> 03:23:16.680
 Well you may have to re-notice it because you're going to be tabling it to date certain.

03:23:16.680 --> 03:23:23.120
 So one one possibility may be to extend your date certain out pretty far you know just

03:23:23.120 --> 03:23:27.720
 to make sure that sooner it's got to be date it's got to be right re-noticed as well.

03:23:27.720 --> 03:23:34.000
 Mr. Bond Mr. Pavard do you guys have an idea of if the request that's being made is one

03:23:34.000 --> 03:23:38.640
 is that clear what we're trying to find as a commission and two if it is clear what date

03:23:38.640 --> 03:23:42.680
 would be how much time do you think you would need and I would say be generous with the

03:23:42.680 --> 03:23:43.680
 time.

03:23:43.680 --> 03:23:46.800
 We could put it out two months.

03:23:46.800 --> 03:23:47.800
 Two months?

03:23:47.800 --> 03:23:48.800
 Yeah.

03:23:48.800 --> 03:23:49.800
 Could we get up?

03:23:49.800 --> 03:23:50.800
 I think Richard's working on getting the calendar.

03:23:50.800 --> 03:23:55.680
 Does anyone have the approved P and Z calendar?

03:23:55.680 --> 03:23:57.160
 They're working they're working on it.

03:23:57.160 --> 03:23:58.160
 Awesome.

03:23:58.160 --> 03:24:03.560
 And I guess why slow the floor chair Rozelle did mention that for those who are here and

03:24:03.560 --> 03:24:08.800
 wishing to speak you will still have the chance to speak tonight and voice your opinion if

03:24:08.800 --> 03:24:20.440
 you would like.

03:24:20.440 --> 03:24:21.440
 January 23rd?

03:24:21.440 --> 03:24:22.440
 Yeah.

03:24:22.440 --> 03:24:27.400
 That'd be that'd be two months out would be okay.

03:24:27.400 --> 03:24:29.160
 January 23rd.

03:24:29.160 --> 03:24:34.360
 Now by that time we may or may not have the textile driveways worked out but we will have

03:24:34.360 --> 03:24:37.160
 a site plan we'll know what the costs are for the boring.

03:24:37.160 --> 03:24:41.480
 Would you prefer us moving into February or would the 23rd be fine still?

03:24:41.480 --> 03:24:43.740
 If I may I would probably recommend February.

03:24:43.740 --> 03:24:44.740
 Okay.

03:24:44.740 --> 03:24:48.720
 That way if there is an SGP associated with that we will notice for that so that gives

03:24:48.720 --> 03:24:49.720
 us enough time.

03:24:49.720 --> 03:24:53.880
 It's typically two to three weeks in advance of the meeting for us to send the notices

03:24:53.880 --> 03:24:54.880
 so.

03:24:54.880 --> 03:24:57.880
 February 6th or 20th then would that be better to say that?

03:24:57.880 --> 03:25:02.440
 I don't have it entered yet is it the 6th or 13th?

03:25:02.440 --> 03:25:07.800
 I don't have the calendar is there two that month?

03:25:07.800 --> 03:25:14.640
 So it has to be at 6th or the 20th?

03:25:14.640 --> 03:25:19.360
 Why don't we go with the 20th and that'll give us time to get all the text out as well.

03:25:19.360 --> 03:25:25.360
 I'm gonna make a motion then a motion to table table the item until date certain of the Planning

03:25:25.360 --> 03:25:30.400
 and Zoning Commission meeting as of February 20th and yep.

03:25:30.400 --> 03:25:32.680
 We have a first looks Commissioner Beck.

03:25:32.680 --> 03:25:33.680
 Second.

03:25:33.680 --> 03:25:38.680
 We have a first and a second to table we'll go ahead and hear that vote now and then progress

03:25:38.680 --> 03:25:42.560
 with the public hearing so I'm going to call for a vote on the board to table this to a

03:25:42.560 --> 03:25:53.400
 date certain of February 20th.

03:25:53.400 --> 03:25:59.520
 That motion carries 7-0 we'll enjoy the presentation in a couple months for y'all thank you.

03:25:59.520 --> 03:26:00.520
 Thank you.

03:26:00.520 --> 03:26:08.240
 This is the public hearing is still open and so we will still welcome your feedback and

03:26:08.240 --> 03:26:14.440
 comments we have a couple cards for speaking and a couple cards not for speaking the first

03:26:14.440 --> 03:26:20.040
 individual will be Terry Martin if you just state your name and address for the record

03:26:20.040 --> 03:26:24.960
 and then I'm gonna ask the Commission if we can jot down notes if they have any questions

03:26:24.960 --> 03:26:30.340
 that we want to post to staff if we jot those down once we go through all citizens feedback

03:26:30.340 --> 03:26:34.600
 we can bring up the appropriate city staff to collectively answer those just as a point

03:26:34.600 --> 03:26:38.320
 of moving the discussion along.

03:26:38.320 --> 03:26:42.480
 You can obviously ask the applicant any questions I'm not saying that but for city staff you

03:26:42.480 --> 03:26:43.480
 could hold them.

03:26:43.480 --> 03:26:48.040
 Yes sir if you just state your name and address for the record.

03:26:48.040 --> 03:26:53.760
 My name is Terry Martin I live at 1216 Mistywood here in Denton.

03:26:53.760 --> 03:27:00.480
 I'm representing or I'm responsible for the could we get a this picture like a plan of

03:27:00.480 --> 03:27:01.480
 plan view of this.

03:27:01.480 --> 03:27:05.200
 The aerial view of the surrounding area as well yes.

03:27:05.200 --> 03:27:06.200
 Yeah we can get that for you.

03:27:06.200 --> 03:27:14.680
 You don't have to stand up here with me I thought you was gonna do that for me.

03:27:14.680 --> 03:27:17.200
 Yeah so I'm just here in case he needs help hearing something.

03:27:17.200 --> 03:27:18.200
 I'm his son.

03:27:18.200 --> 03:27:19.200
 Perfect.

03:27:19.200 --> 03:27:20.200
 And what is your name?

03:27:20.200 --> 03:27:21.200
 Daniel Martin.

03:27:21.200 --> 03:27:22.200
 Thank you.

03:27:22.200 --> 03:27:23.200
 Same address.

03:27:23.200 --> 03:27:39.080
 The very first plan view that went on whenever you prefer this or come on back okay you're

03:27:39.080 --> 03:27:46.540
 getting close right I'd like to show which I'd like to show Windsor there that's right

03:27:46.540 --> 03:27:52.760
 there that's good that's good thank you thank you all for my inability to handle

03:27:52.760 --> 03:27:56.200
 computers and things like that.

03:27:56.200 --> 03:28:05.760
 The property that I'm speaking for is the property due south of this main body and the

03:28:05.760 --> 03:28:17.400
 property due east that runs down that runs down Elm Street the the I think common sense

03:28:17.400 --> 03:28:25.800
 many times many many times whether it's whatever outweighs what somebody has printed in a computer

03:28:25.800 --> 03:28:32.160
 program or a book or something or other this traffic you can't I don't I don't I don't

03:28:32.160 --> 03:28:37.600
 believe you can anticipate what the traffic is going to be there.

03:28:37.600 --> 03:28:43.120
 We have we have all these other projects going to high school out there that that huge apartment

03:28:43.120 --> 03:28:53.040
 complex across from from the research center the the the day to day and here we're fixing

03:28:53.040 --> 03:29:01.120
 to throw another hundred cars possibly easily a hundred cars at work time coming and going

03:29:01.120 --> 03:29:12.520
 the distance from that drive to Windsor is the is the bare minimum it's nothing whenever

03:29:12.520 --> 03:29:17.200
 that whenever that that Windsor is going to get so clogged up you can't imagine it and

03:29:17.200 --> 03:29:21.320
 then you're going to throw another hundred cars out there trying to get out and half

03:29:21.320 --> 03:29:26.420
 of those are going to try to go left and go north.

03:29:26.420 --> 03:29:30.920
 Denton is eat up with traffic problems I see no need in creating another one and but that's

03:29:30.920 --> 03:29:36.960
 but that's that's that's a my that's in my opinion that's a minor problem.

03:29:36.960 --> 03:29:42.680
 I understand about development I've been in construction all my life I understand about

03:29:42.680 --> 03:29:46.920
 development and progress and moving forward.

03:29:46.920 --> 03:29:55.880
 But that this exact property or the right hand side one has sold in the last 15 years

03:29:55.880 --> 03:30:05.460
 20 years has sold probably a dozen times and the deal fell through because of the expense

03:30:05.460 --> 03:30:10.320
 of boring under the highway and then when you get it bored under the highway yes there's

03:30:10.320 --> 03:30:14.860
 water there and there's a sewer line over there but that sewer line is already maxed

03:30:14.860 --> 03:30:22.780
 out everybody keeps failing to admit to admit that and and research that.

03:30:22.780 --> 03:30:28.600
 So even if so somebody is going to have to which it sounds like the taxpayer if they

03:30:28.600 --> 03:30:35.540
 have to enlarge that line to handle 60 apartments.

03:30:35.540 --> 03:30:41.880
 I don't know who's that who's that who's that's up to but I don't want to be paying for it.

03:30:41.880 --> 03:30:46.880
 Plus like I said the deals have fallen through whenever the they would have a contract and

03:30:46.880 --> 03:30:51.560
 then whenever the whenever they would start researching that it's a tremendous expense

03:30:51.560 --> 03:30:57.600
 to bore under a text on highway and they would back out on the deals that's happened over

03:30:57.600 --> 03:31:01.560
 and over and over over over a long period of time.

03:31:01.560 --> 03:31:11.960
 The the the developer very nice guy I've talked to him at length yesterday and today.

03:31:11.960 --> 03:31:18.800
 Last night meeting they could not tell us what the departments were going to rent for

03:31:18.800 --> 03:31:23.160
 they keep throwing around this affordable rent affordable rent that's the key that's

03:31:23.160 --> 03:31:28.280
 the key phrase affordable rent but yet we we we don't even have a clue what departments

03:31:28.280 --> 03:31:33.000
 are going to rent for.

03:31:33.000 --> 03:31:38.680
 I never went into a project in my life that I didn't have a have have a pretty good sight

03:31:38.680 --> 03:31:41.280
 of what the end was going to be.

03:31:41.280 --> 03:31:47.440
 I didn't go try to build something without researching what the what the plywood was going

03:31:47.440 --> 03:31:53.400
 to cost what what the what the hardware on that cabinet was going to cost I had a pretty

03:31:53.400 --> 03:31:57.920
 good idea now it wasn't always exact but I had a very very good idea and I knew what

03:31:57.920 --> 03:32:06.160
 the goal was the developer he'd has no no clue period and I think that's been discussed

03:32:06.160 --> 03:32:09.040
 a little bit only I'm putting it in a little bit harder terms.

03:32:09.040 --> 03:32:20.200
 Two and a half minutes left huh two and a half minutes left oh oh oh okay the the the

03:32:20.200 --> 03:32:26.360
 lot the lot due south is a very nice lot huge huge oak trees it's a very nice situated

03:32:26.360 --> 03:32:30.080
 place there's a there's a there's a house right down the way that's a huge mansion

03:32:30.080 --> 03:32:37.840
 type house this is a this is a pristine place for a very nice house prime some nobody's

03:32:37.840 --> 03:32:44.320
 going to want to build a very nice house without a swimming pool without a barbecue every time

03:32:44.320 --> 03:32:50.840
 whoever builds this house wife or daughter wants to have a swimming party everybody from

03:32:50.840 --> 03:32:57.240
 the second floor up in that in that apartment complex is going to enjoy the party with them.

03:32:57.240 --> 03:33:02.040
 I say that's a huge deterrent.

03:33:02.040 --> 03:33:07.160
 Apartments work well this kind of apartment works very well at a street intersection all

03:33:07.160 --> 03:33:12.880
 over Denton they work well there will you find them all over Denton they adjacent to

03:33:12.880 --> 03:33:19.520
 a storage facility something where people don't actually live a gas station that kind

03:33:19.520 --> 03:33:28.360
 of thing even even strip center but jamming it in there it won't work.

03:33:28.360 --> 03:33:34.480
 This vacant land we lost a picture this vacant land is not very big on the picture it looks

03:33:34.480 --> 03:33:41.160
 like you just you can't comprehend it from the south side there to Windsor Street this

03:33:41.160 --> 03:33:48.840
 guy can throw a football that far it's not very far that it's it's it's not two point

03:33:48.840 --> 03:33:52.760
 something acres sounds like huge it's really not that very big you get out there walk around

03:33:52.760 --> 03:34:04.400
 and it's not very big. And privacy concerns is before we came over here I wouldn't pick

03:34:04.400 --> 03:34:08.280
 my end up and there's people out there in the middle of that taking pictures she has

03:34:08.280 --> 03:34:12.880
 a tremendous problem with people out there all the time they throw their trash down they

03:34:12.880 --> 03:34:17.600
 go out there and take these pictures they cross in there they dump their trash it's

03:34:17.600 --> 03:34:24.600
 a dump she keeps it very nice and they just love to go out there and ride four wheelers

03:34:24.600 --> 03:34:29.520
 all this stuff every kid in that part and that apartment complex right down Windsor

03:34:29.520 --> 03:34:35.040
 Street here there the city has got a beautiful park all kinds of games all kinds of play

03:34:35.040 --> 03:34:41.960
 things the North Lake Center ball fields every kid is going to walk out of that apartment

03:34:41.960 --> 03:34:48.000
 boundary that big fine fence that restrains them walk right it walk right down the side

03:34:48.000 --> 03:34:54.520
 of it cross my property cross my aunt's property hit that very nice sidewalk that you built

03:34:54.520 --> 03:34:58.960
 in front of the and a long a long Windsor and they're going to walk right out to that

03:34:58.960 --> 03:35:04.200
 park they're going to come back and they're going to make that same crossing this is the

03:35:04.200 --> 03:35:09.040
 first time I want to interrupt a little bit if you wrap up and start to conclude the points

03:35:09.040 --> 03:35:23.360
 okay the developer bought this land knowing what the zoning was he had an idea of what

03:35:23.360 --> 03:35:30.720
 to do with it now he's decided something else and he's asking everybody else to make the

03:35:30.720 --> 03:35:39.720
 concessions for him to do something else he invested his money I'm just asking you to

03:35:39.720 --> 03:35:45.440
 do the right thing and deny this let's use some common sense I'm not above progress I'm

03:35:45.440 --> 03:35:51.960
 not above change but this particular situation is not it go back to the duplex plan he told

03:35:51.960 --> 03:35:57.000
 me himself he bought it with planning on duplexes it would be absolutely wonderful it fit the

03:35:57.000 --> 03:36:05.160
 area but there will be no buffer between that crop that zoning and the single-family houses

03:36:05.160 --> 03:36:10.960
 across Windsor if you approve that that is a tongue down there you need you need Elm

03:36:10.960 --> 03:36:15.840
 Street to stop to be the drawing line I'm sorry we went over thank you that's right

03:36:15.840 --> 03:36:25.080
 thank you Mr. Martin next individual is Julie Smith if you just state your name and address

03:36:25.080 --> 03:36:30.400
 for the record and it might be a good reminder that we will have a four-minute clock we'll

03:36:30.400 --> 03:36:33.360
 try to be if you want to go over a little bit we'll have some flexibility if we'd stick

03:36:33.360 --> 03:36:38.520
 to four minutes I'll be great thank you okay four minutes for a three-story apartment and

03:36:38.520 --> 03:36:42.000
 mr. Drake good to see you again kind of odd to be on this side of the dice and I will

03:36:42.000 --> 03:36:46.320
 say to you you do an excellent job of describing what is in front of the commission in terms

03:36:46.320 --> 03:36:50.520
 of the zoning and I really appreciate that I may have you come up and explain that to

03:36:50.520 --> 03:36:58.120
 the commission I'm responsible to and mr. Smith besides sharing a name in common that

03:36:58.120 --> 03:37:06.480
 no one else ever has I also really do appreciate your comments my sense is that we are probably

03:37:06.480 --> 03:37:11.800
 short in every housing type that there is in Denton right now there's a demand for any

03:37:11.800 --> 03:37:18.200
 type and and whether duplexes are built here or a six-story apartment building is built

03:37:18.200 --> 03:37:26.280
 here I think people will pay to live there I have been in Denton since 1969 that's why

03:37:26.280 --> 03:37:30.700
 Jerry and I have the same hair color and and and I had the pleasure of going to school

03:37:30.700 --> 03:37:39.160
 in a one high school town and so I understand also about growth if we're on the I-35 corridor

03:37:39.160 --> 03:37:46.280
 we're going to grow every city does who knew where Thackerville was five years ago and

03:37:46.280 --> 03:37:51.840
 now the entire United States knows where Thackerville is so so that is a done deal I mean we are

03:37:51.840 --> 03:37:56.640
 going to grow and growth is good and especially mixed growth for all the economic reasons

03:37:56.640 --> 03:38:01.120
 we all we all know about so the only question for I think planning and zoning commissions

03:38:01.120 --> 03:38:04.760
 and city councils and those of us who choose to live in these cities is how are we going

03:38:04.760 --> 03:38:11.280
 to grow I think it's a little disingenuous and let me preface this by saying Cindy has

03:38:11.280 --> 03:38:16.420
 been great answering my questions but things a little disingenuous to rely on the existing

03:38:16.420 --> 03:38:23.680
 zoning map to support a staff support as a recommendation to support this rezoning and

03:38:23.680 --> 03:38:30.320
 also on a future land use map that are mutually exclusive and what I mean by that is if you

03:38:30.320 --> 03:38:37.560
 look at your existing zoning map the area that's due north of the proposed is in this

03:38:37.560 --> 03:38:41.720
 red slash stuff and it's vacant right now there's nothing there if you look at your

03:38:41.720 --> 03:38:49.480
 proposed 2030 plan that's back to moderate density not high density so you may not eat

03:38:49.480 --> 03:38:54.300
 your cake and have it too so whatever your recommendation I would I would ask you to

03:38:54.300 --> 03:38:58.600
 notice that that there is a conflict between those two things having said that the existing

03:38:58.600 --> 03:39:04.600
 zoning here 12 I'm sure every commissioner has heard this but just for anyone in the audience

03:39:04.600 --> 03:39:10.840
 it hasn't it's it's beautiful writing in terms of the description which is this is 12 units

03:39:10.840 --> 03:39:16.960
 breaker where we are right now mixed-use development intended to preserve and protect existing

03:39:16.960 --> 03:39:21.520
 neighborhoods and to ensure that any new infill development is compatible with existing land

03:39:21.520 --> 03:39:28.280
 uses patterns and design standards and it also mentions that low and multifamily low

03:39:28.280 --> 03:39:32.640
 and moderate male to family which fit in that not unlike what you have mentioned Mr. Sanchez

03:39:32.640 --> 03:39:39.440
 and including retail uses if you back up and look at a Google shot of this okay you'll

03:39:39.440 --> 03:39:44.560
 notice that we do have retail uses they're tiny and wonderful if you have not had pizza

03:39:44.560 --> 03:39:50.120
 it bruises Romans pizza I suggest that you do so because you actually provides our dinner

03:39:50.120 --> 03:39:54.400
 quite regularly and of course his son Sam has the wash interior right next door we have

03:39:54.400 --> 03:39:58.960
 a dollar general store right there that's actually acts as this convenience store for

03:39:58.960 --> 03:40:04.560
 every parent on Saturday morning who has no milk and that little corner is the gather

03:40:04.560 --> 03:40:10.200
 up neighborhood type corner it's not intense commercial it's neighborhood retail that's

03:40:10.200 --> 03:40:14.600
 how it operates and dollar general things probably only brick and mortar that's going

03:40:14.600 --> 03:40:19.280
 to survive Amazon at least in the near future and so that building's not going away anytime

03:40:19.280 --> 03:40:26.000
 soon that use is not going away anytime soon we you know when you look at your 200 notice

03:40:26.000 --> 03:40:31.680
 full disclosure I'm the one house everybody keeps mentioning at a 1935 farmhouse I've

03:40:31.680 --> 03:40:37.160
 lived over 20 years now so I am the closest one to it but the house that people seem to

03:40:37.160 --> 03:40:42.640
 that you couldn't see is belongs to Agnes my dear neighbor there I mean she is next

03:40:42.640 --> 03:40:47.520
 to the dollar general so there are two homes but that's a very close look all you have

03:40:47.520 --> 03:40:55.000
 to do is back up and you'll notice my lots the smallest one as you go along Windsor to

03:40:55.000 --> 03:40:59.600
 the west at the corner there's some smaller lots but they're actually zoned less than

03:40:59.600 --> 03:41:04.400
 12 I think they're four I think they're four units per acre zone and then of course as

03:41:04.400 --> 03:41:10.480
 you go up Riney they get larger and larger the Northridge development subdivision to the

03:41:10.480 --> 03:41:16.360
 south of us which has always been kind enough to include me in their neighborhood and those

03:41:16.360 --> 03:41:22.320
 are three units per acre okay everything around us is between two and four units per acre

03:41:22.320 --> 03:41:28.600
 it's 77 is a huge corridor I recognize that I recognize it makes sense to grow and I actually

03:41:28.600 --> 03:41:33.640
 like to see retail and commercial and I that's a great use because I don't have a college

03:41:33.640 --> 03:41:37.960
 student coming home at 2 in the morning slamming car doors and that type of thing and when

03:41:37.960 --> 03:41:43.320
 what was proposed was one at the risk of doing what I say we shouldn't do a proposed one

03:41:43.320 --> 03:41:48.480
 and two bedroom we're talking college it means going to be primarily transient college student

03:41:48.480 --> 03:41:58.880
 renting so that's what's going to go there we are neighborhood we are a neighborhood

03:41:58.880 --> 03:42:04.320
 and so we're not just vacant land there was a home on Terry's property what he didn't

03:42:04.320 --> 03:42:09.680
 tell you is it actually was pre-civil war his father lived next to me he died of Parkinson's

03:42:09.680 --> 03:42:15.600
 years ago but as a child he watched his grandfather and the gentleman across the street put on

03:42:15.600 --> 03:42:22.600
 their respective union and Confederate uniforms and not speak to each other on Veterans Day

03:42:22.600 --> 03:42:28.280
 okay but then the rest of the time they were fine so there's a lot of history here and

03:42:28.280 --> 03:42:33.400
 we recognize it's going to change it's a huge deal for this to go to 12 for us right I mean

03:42:33.400 --> 03:42:39.880
 that's a big difference just to put 12 units per acre on this next to us but there are

03:42:39.880 --> 03:42:45.080
 other folks in town that are making plenty on 12 units per acre and all these other ones

03:42:45.080 --> 03:42:48.920
 that you talked to you and I thought maybe you should read notice this as the corridor

03:42:48.920 --> 03:42:54.240
 77 planning its own commission but the others are closer to 35 they're closer to more arterials

03:42:54.240 --> 03:42:58.120
 and they're less dense than what is proposed here every one that you have looked at tonight

03:42:58.120 --> 03:43:04.760
 is less dense than this and this is further from 35 it's closer to downtown and it's certainly

03:43:04.760 --> 03:43:10.040
 closer to the Northridge neighborhood and so in terms of zoning I don't think it's appropriate

03:43:10.040 --> 03:43:14.720
 to ups the zoning I think 12 makes sense even though I will admit I'll have trouble adjusting

03:43:14.720 --> 03:43:21.520
 to that but 77 is a growing corridor and I get it but more than doubling that I am opposed

03:43:21.520 --> 03:43:28.480
 to that thank you for your time tonight absolutely thanks for coming out.

03:43:28.480 --> 03:43:47.400
 The affirmation Agnes Dean is next.

03:43:47.400 --> 03:43:50.160
 And if you could state your name and address for the record.

03:43:50.160 --> 03:44:01.640
 My name is Agnes Dean I live at 428 West Windsor and I have been there since 1939 not at 428

03:44:01.640 --> 03:44:08.000
 Miss West Windsor but on the property in 1939 my mother and dad moved into the house my

03:44:08.000 --> 03:44:14.720
 mother was born in upon Terry's property that house has since burned and there was another

03:44:14.720 --> 03:44:23.780
 house there that has been destroyed but I have seen a lot of change when I was a child

03:44:23.780 --> 03:44:30.240
 the only people who came down and it was a gravel road two cars had to slow down to even

03:44:30.240 --> 03:44:37.760
 pass and it had was called the old Sanger Road was at one time was the main way to get

03:44:37.760 --> 03:44:47.700
 to Sanger and so we used to go into history I could tell a lot of stories but I'm very

03:44:47.700 --> 03:44:53.720
 concerned about the zoning they're trying they were trying to put too much on too little

03:44:53.720 --> 03:45:02.360
 and as far as my own safety I've hoped to be able to spend my last days right there

03:45:02.360 --> 03:45:09.960
 where I am few people get to live in the generations of history that I've been less blessed to

03:45:09.960 --> 03:45:19.880
 enjoy and I have to now ask people to leave the property I still mow and do a lot of things

03:45:19.880 --> 03:45:26.120
 that 85 year old women don't usually do and I'll have to go out and pick up paper and

03:45:26.120 --> 03:45:32.960
 trash and glass and cans and things where people have come across and have thrown their

03:45:32.960 --> 03:45:38.300
 things away as Terry and I left when he came to pick me up this afternoon there were people

03:45:38.300 --> 03:45:45.060
 out there and we had to ask them to leave my property I get a lot of trash over Dollar

03:45:45.060 --> 03:45:50.880
 General's fence but I have not really had the disturbance from Dollar General that I

03:45:50.880 --> 03:45:58.460
 thought I would have so I just asked that you preserve the integrity of the community

03:45:58.460 --> 03:46:06.980
 and of that neighborhood Northridge is a very good and stable neighborhood they have for

03:46:06.980 --> 03:46:14.200
 years asked and hoped that there would be a transition of town homes or something between

03:46:14.200 --> 03:46:19.120
 their neighborhood and then the commercial that's going to be back on Elm Street and

03:46:19.120 --> 03:46:24.660
 the high density that will be back there so I don't have very much more to say I'll wait

03:46:24.660 --> 03:46:31.440
 and see what the applicant comes up with in his next plan before I come back and say very

03:46:31.440 --> 03:46:35.960
 much more but I do appreciate your time in your consideration thank you very much.

03:46:35.960 --> 03:46:38.240
 Thank you Ms. Dean we actually have a question for you.

03:46:38.240 --> 03:46:39.240
 Okay.

03:46:39.240 --> 03:46:40.240
 Commissioner Smith.

03:46:40.240 --> 03:46:41.240
 Thank you Chair.

03:46:41.240 --> 03:46:45.080
 Not really a question for you Ms. Dean thank you very much for coming out and I'd love

03:46:45.080 --> 03:46:49.900
 to pick your brain some time I like here in history and funny stories so more of something

03:46:49.900 --> 03:46:54.040
 I read into the minutes to remind myself when I come back around on February 20th and then

03:46:54.040 --> 03:47:00.120
 something maybe a suggestion to the applicant fencing some sort of foot traffic mitigation

03:47:00.120 --> 03:47:06.440
 from keeping the backlots that are there because I think that the last two public last three

03:47:06.440 --> 03:47:11.500
 public speakers have definitely brought up something that it would be pretty natural

03:47:11.500 --> 03:47:18.360
 for folks to cut through their land behind there so I don't I know there was the conceptual

03:47:18.360 --> 03:47:23.340
 plan that was put in the presentation was just that it was conceptual so if some sort

03:47:23.340 --> 03:47:27.000
 of foot traffic mitigation could be looked at and if my comments could be read into the

03:47:27.000 --> 03:47:30.800
 minutes to remind ourselves to bring that back up February 20th I'd appreciate it but

03:47:30.800 --> 03:47:31.800
 thank you Ms. Dean.

03:47:31.800 --> 03:47:35.800
 Thank you very much.

03:47:35.800 --> 03:47:42.760
 The next card I have of individual wishing to speak is Ashley Bender.

03:47:42.760 --> 03:47:46.760
 This is the last card requesting to speak I have other ones in opposition but if you

03:47:46.760 --> 03:47:51.680
 do have a blue card you can come up here and hand it in or we can just call you up next

03:47:51.680 --> 03:47:55.940
 and I'll take the card from you good evening Ms. Bender if you can say your name and address

03:47:55.940 --> 03:47:56.940
 for the record.

03:47:56.940 --> 03:48:00.920
 Hi I'm Ashley Bender I live at 606 Northridge Street I just want to reiterate what my neighbors

03:48:00.920 --> 03:48:09.680
 have said that we are a really magnificent sorry I'm really love my neighborhood and

03:48:09.680 --> 03:48:16.440
 I want to protect the integrity to use your terms I want to protect the integrity of residential

03:48:16.440 --> 03:48:23.520
 life that we have I am not opposed to development I am not opposed to new housing I know that

03:48:23.520 --> 03:48:28.240
 we need that in town I see it with my students all the time they need affordable places to

03:48:28.240 --> 03:48:35.120
 live but with the new development going in at Hinkle and Windsor and then with this proposed

03:48:35.120 --> 03:48:41.800
 zoning change that will infiltrate our neighborhood in really negative ways we already have through

03:48:41.800 --> 03:48:51.920
 traffic on my street cars going regularly well over the speed limit we have and nothing

03:48:51.920 --> 03:48:56.440
 to calm traffic there and when a development like this if a development like this were

03:48:56.440 --> 03:49:01.840
 to go in that will creep into the neighborhood because there is a cut-through on Mesquite

03:49:01.840 --> 03:49:08.480
 from Windsor and it's not just about traffic on Elm Street that traffic will be using Windsor

03:49:08.480 --> 03:49:13.560
 Windsor is already quite dangerous we've had to make changes on Windsor and change the

03:49:13.560 --> 03:49:19.440
 speed limit on Windsor because of accidents happening on that street we have kids who

03:49:19.440 --> 03:49:25.520
 have to cross Windsor to get to elementary school we have kids who have to cross Windsor

03:49:25.520 --> 03:49:31.720
 to get to we do have kids who will walk to Calhoun because they can't take the bus and

03:49:31.720 --> 03:49:40.820
 so we have kids crossing back and forth this very busy street I appreciate the conversation

03:49:40.820 --> 03:49:50.740
 that we have had tonight I am very concerned about this zoning change setting a precedent

03:49:50.740 --> 03:49:56.560
 for other changes rights other zoning changes in the adjacent lots and losing that potential

03:49:56.560 --> 03:50:06.520
 buffer that my neighbors have talked about I am also concerned about infrastructure and

03:50:06.520 --> 03:50:16.960
 I am sorry I wrote my notes and then I got choked up so I'm concerned about encroachment

03:50:16.960 --> 03:50:23.600
 on to Windsor specifically that is a residential street that whole strip right there people

03:50:23.600 --> 03:50:35.040
 live there and so I just want us to move forward with this neighborhood in mind we want to

03:50:35.040 --> 03:50:42.480
 be good neighbors to other developments we want to be good community members I feel confident

03:50:42.480 --> 03:50:48.120
 I can speak for my neighbors in saying that and we want to welcome new people into our

03:50:48.120 --> 03:50:54.320
 area but we want to do so in a way that protects the integrity that protects the quality of

03:50:54.320 --> 03:51:00.360
 life for the people currently there and that ensures a good residential experience for

03:51:00.360 --> 03:51:08.360
 people who will be moving into that area that's all I got thank you thank you Miss Bender

03:51:08.360 --> 03:51:19.280
 this is a public hearing of anyone wishing to speak we certainly do so you just hand

03:51:19.280 --> 03:51:29.280
 them to she will take care of it and if you could just state your name and address for

03:51:29.280 --> 03:51:38.320
 the record my name is Edward Cuthbertson I live at 512 Northridge Street in Denton I

03:51:38.320 --> 03:51:45.640
 where we live fall within falls within the 500 foot radius or whatever you call it of

03:51:45.640 --> 03:51:54.080
 the proposed zoning change anyway I'm not well versed in these kind of matters I don't

03:51:54.080 --> 03:52:04.440
 think of too much time but to have the zoning change from a 12 unit situation per acre to

03:52:04.440 --> 03:52:15.600
 a 12 unit to a 30 unit and multiple that times two it would be 24 units for if it was 12

03:52:15.600 --> 03:52:25.320
 or 60 units or whatever if it was 30 it to me it poses quite a transition that is not

03:52:25.320 --> 03:52:30.960
 compatible with the surrounding areas I don't know all the codes but I did remember last

03:52:30.960 --> 03:52:36.000
 night that I think our neighborhood is is NR for if that's the right code I don't know

03:52:36.000 --> 03:52:44.440
 if that's even the right thing to say but anyway to me my impression is apartments once

03:52:44.440 --> 03:52:51.440
 you have apartments you have transient population that's just the nature of apartments town

03:52:51.440 --> 03:52:55.880
 homes if they're for sale maybe that might be less transient but then of course the whoever

03:52:55.880 --> 03:53:01.920
 owns and buys them could rent them out so that could also be a rental situation. Duplexes

03:53:01.920 --> 03:53:08.880
 I'm going in order of least desirable to maybe more desirable in my concept from apartments

03:53:08.880 --> 03:53:14.320
 to town homes to duplexes I didn't even think of that that might be more acceptable if the

03:53:14.320 --> 03:53:23.160
 zoning is kept at NR 12. Somebody suggested to me and I hadn't even thought of this what

03:53:23.160 --> 03:53:28.080
 would be the feasibility or the appropriateness of taking this parcel of land and making it

03:53:28.080 --> 03:53:32.800
 into a park I don't know if anybody's ever thought of that but I don't know if there's

03:53:32.800 --> 03:53:37.600
 funding in the city for such things like that this area would you know I don't know all

03:53:37.600 --> 03:53:44.840
 the details it's just an idea which I'll just throw out that maybe will be thrown out but

03:53:44.840 --> 03:53:51.840
 as a possible possibility that would be very nice for surrounding areas I think these people

03:53:51.840 --> 03:53:58.880
 that are south of the of this 2.68 acres and east of it that own these this older tracts

03:53:58.880 --> 03:54:04.400
 of land I think their thoughts are that their offspring could develop something there for

03:54:04.400 --> 03:54:09.880
 you know housing for themselves but if I had that land and I was going to develop it and

03:54:09.880 --> 03:54:15.520
 there was apartments right in my backyard that would be less desirable to you know go

03:54:15.520 --> 03:54:22.160
 forward with something like that so I'm I'm in opposition to the zoning change I think

03:54:22.160 --> 03:54:28.440
 the the 12 capacity is is good enough it's probably actually a lot more than what could

03:54:28.440 --> 03:54:34.920
 be done in a more gradual transition but anyway I'm running out of time here thank you for

03:54:34.920 --> 03:54:38.600
 your time I appreciate all your consideration all the technicalities you have to consider

03:54:38.600 --> 03:54:44.240
 and that's like that's all I have to say we actually have one question for you Mr. Beck

03:54:44.240 --> 03:54:49.000
 thank you chair thank you Mr. Cuthberson yes did I say that right thank you for your presentation

03:54:49.000 --> 03:54:55.440
 appreciate your time here if I had my way we would put a park like we do churches on

03:54:55.440 --> 03:55:00.600
 every other block but that's not gonna happen you've got North Lakes just up you've got

03:55:00.600 --> 03:55:07.400
 North Lakes just up the street so I would like to ask you a question this really would

03:55:07.400 --> 03:55:14.760
 go out to the other ones that responded to I'd mention to the property owner if he would

03:55:14.760 --> 03:55:20.280
 consider reducing the density with an overlay I'm curious if we got it down to 20 and that

03:55:20.280 --> 03:55:25.600
 was financially feasible for him would that be more acceptable to you and if some of you

03:55:25.600 --> 03:55:29.920
 want to just nod or shake your head can't all does that mean that the zoning we would

03:55:29.920 --> 03:55:34.880
 be lower well zoning would still say it - 12 or would it it would go past 12 but it would

03:55:34.880 --> 03:55:40.880
 be less than the 28 he's proposing right now if we got it down to 20 units per acre that's

03:55:40.880 --> 03:55:46.720
 kind of a it would be less dense but then it would accommodate we would go ahead and

03:55:46.720 --> 03:55:53.160
 zone it NRMU but with an overlay that say we couldn't build more than 20 units per acre

03:55:53.160 --> 03:55:58.920
 is that she's shaking her head no so just curious that gives room for other adjacent

03:55:58.920 --> 03:56:03.960
 development to go up higher amounts well now there's limits to height oh no I don't I don't

03:56:03.960 --> 03:56:09.560
 mean right I mean they're usually gonna be density one right that could be three stories

03:56:09.560 --> 03:56:14.880
 so I don't have the knowledge of okay that was just I just thought I'd throw that out

03:56:14.880 --> 03:56:19.480
 there because it was something that we approached him with and he may bring back I just wanted

03:56:19.480 --> 03:56:24.080
 to say 20 unit does a 20 unit deal mean it's still gonna be an apartment or would it be

03:56:24.080 --> 03:56:29.900
 duplexes or townhomes it'll be multi-family still it just won't be as dense density was

03:56:29.900 --> 03:56:36.440
 the concern of I don't think anybody's really I don't think okay all right I had to throw

03:56:36.440 --> 03:56:42.680
 it out there thank you sir thank you very much I don't have any other cards for individuals

03:56:42.680 --> 03:56:45.880
 wishing to speak I have something to read into the record but if there's anyone else

03:56:45.880 --> 03:56:52.360
 wishing to speak you may certainly do so the public hearing will remain open seeing none

03:56:52.360 --> 03:57:01.240
 I'll read the following individuals into the record as opposition Gene Cuthbertson 512

03:57:01.240 --> 03:57:10.880
 Northridge Street W Lee Negrang sorry if I missed that 506 Northridge John Hyatt 513

03:57:10.880 --> 03:57:19.520
 Northridge Street at this time since we've had a motion to table and it's passed we

03:57:19.520 --> 03:57:28.000
 will close discussion on this I keep the public here open and that will be the end of this

03:57:28.000 --> 03:57:33.480
 item for this evening and I hope and encourage everyone to come back out when we take action

03:57:33.480 --> 03:57:40.520
 on this Christian back so none of us can cut I mean just make comments in general about

03:57:40.520 --> 03:57:44.960
 what we've heard tonight would you rather put that off until if you like to make a comment

03:57:44.960 --> 03:57:49.680
 go for it well I would just throw out to the audience kind of give a sense where I'm at

03:57:49.680 --> 03:57:54.840
 get some feedback when we come back in I'd like to hit a couple points if I may I think

03:57:54.840 --> 03:57:59.320
 one point that was made and I think the property owner is probably going to be looking at pretty

03:57:59.320 --> 03:58:04.640
 seriously too is the high cost of infrastructure whether it's going to be worth it to build

03:58:04.640 --> 03:58:11.080
 what he wants to build and add the infrastructure that he's going to need in the form of water

03:58:11.080 --> 03:58:17.940
 and sewage so that's something that yeah should be considered if we're gonna anything that

03:58:17.940 --> 03:58:22.120
 gets rezoned in our MU and then they don't come in and build what they say they're going

03:58:22.120 --> 03:58:26.560
 to build it opens it up NRM you can build a lot of things in there that in our in our

03:58:26.560 --> 03:58:32.720
 in you 12 can't bars of being one of them of course it has to have a little not a special

03:58:32.720 --> 03:58:37.600
 use permit but it has to meet certain criteria to allow that it would come before this commission

03:58:37.600 --> 03:58:45.840
 to do so now on the other hand the traffic issue I and somebody help me with this I understand

03:58:45.840 --> 03:58:51.200
 that everybody's concerned about traffic on Windsor but I'm not sure how this apartment

03:58:51.200 --> 03:58:57.320
 complex or any apartment complex that faces and can only be exited and entered off Elm

03:58:57.320 --> 03:59:02.720
 Street can impact Windsor that much that you're not going to have already you're right we're

03:59:02.720 --> 03:59:08.920
 going to have growth and I wish it was going to be commercial as much as residential in

03:59:08.920 --> 03:59:14.680
 fact that's one of the concerns I've got here is that whole area could be opened up to wall

03:59:14.680 --> 03:59:20.080
 to wall apartments multifamily so I want to see some commercial in there but eventually

03:59:20.080 --> 03:59:24.520
 as that grows eventually you're going to see some more traffic on Windsor but there's a

03:59:24.520 --> 03:59:27.840
 pretty good barrier there where people are going to be forced if they're coming from

03:59:27.840 --> 03:59:32.880
 the south they're going to come up Carol Boulevard they're going to hit Elm and then go up Elm

03:59:32.880 --> 03:59:38.960
 that way the other direction would be coming down Bonnie Bray yeah you're going to get

03:59:38.960 --> 03:59:44.280
 a little traffic from that but I just don't see that being a major issue especially with

03:59:44.280 --> 03:59:49.720
 one complex as that whole area gets developed as that whole area gets developed you're going

03:59:49.720 --> 04:00:01.240
 to see some anyway okay so just that no no sorry hang on the mixed use well I mentioned

04:00:01.240 --> 04:00:06.200
 that I am concerned that we're going to do more apartments in our commercial so that's

04:00:06.200 --> 04:00:10.200
 something that I mentioned in the work session that I hope staff can look at and as a commission

04:00:10.200 --> 04:00:14.520
 we can look at that we just don't open the door strictly to apartments here that we get

04:00:14.520 --> 04:00:20.160
 some useful commercial development in there so you people aren't having to go to Razor

04:00:20.160 --> 04:00:25.480
 Ranch or go into town or anything like that you can do it within walking distance again

04:00:25.480 --> 04:00:31.480
 whether it's NRMU or NRMU 12 they can build apartments here by right right now and I know

04:00:31.480 --> 04:00:35.840
 12 doesn't seem like a lot but if you do that all the way along there you're still going

04:00:35.840 --> 04:00:43.800
 to have the same problems and concerns you're going to have so whether it takes away from

04:00:43.800 --> 04:00:48.600
 the type of people who move in there or not no one knows that for sure but if we right

04:00:48.600 --> 04:00:53.080
 now if we did nothing you could still have apartments all the way up down there but again

04:00:53.080 --> 04:00:57.600
 one of my concerns I'm sure the concern some of the other commissioners is we want to develop

04:00:57.600 --> 04:01:04.880
 that where there is a true mixed use in there and I think that's all the points I want to

04:01:04.880 --> 04:01:14.620
 make so this bender I think you had a concern about something if you'd like to come down

04:01:14.620 --> 04:01:19.000
 would that be okay for her to do that yes you have a question for you do you have a

04:01:19.000 --> 04:01:29.560
 question about the traffic issue along Windsor Drive that I mentioned that what you consider

04:01:29.560 --> 04:01:34.840
 to be not that big of a concern is actually a significant concern because Windsor is using

04:01:34.840 --> 04:01:41.560
 it as a I use it all the time to get fraud to raise a ranch to get to Sherman and more

04:01:41.560 --> 04:01:45.600
 people because we're all looking for backwards right it's hard to get anywhere in town now

04:01:45.600 --> 04:01:52.800
 right so we're all looking for alternative routes and so the higher density the population

04:01:52.800 --> 04:01:57.640
 grows in that area and I know it's going to happen right the more people will be using

04:01:57.640 --> 04:02:05.380
 Windsor for that purpose which makes it a pretty many thoroughfares all the way from

04:02:05.380 --> 04:02:13.520
 out 35 to 288 almost right and that's what to a major community park right so it has

04:02:13.520 --> 04:02:18.840
 a pedestrian and bike component it does and that helps sometimes I think that the traffic

04:02:18.840 --> 04:02:23.800
 a little bit I just I just wanted I know y'all I just wanted to counter that I I do believe

04:02:23.800 --> 04:02:31.320
 it is far more of a significance concern than you're suggesting because yes while the entrance

04:02:31.320 --> 04:02:40.760
 and exit into this proposed apartment housing right would be on elm people will be using

04:02:40.760 --> 04:02:46.400
 Windsor to get where they need to go and it's already it's already dangerous right it's

04:02:46.400 --> 04:02:51.100
 already I don't I don't walk my kids across the street to go to the park but again you're

04:02:51.100 --> 04:02:59.960
 going to have that if it says NRU 12 - yes I understand that there will be increased

04:02:59.960 --> 04:03:06.520
 traffic but there is there is a way that we can try and prevent it right try and limit

04:03:06.520 --> 04:03:16.520
 it in some way that would be ideal okay thank you very much Mr. Pernitta so I'm probably

04:03:16.520 --> 04:03:25.120
 going to leave myself open to some harassment in the future I live in North Lakes so I kind

04:03:25.120 --> 04:03:31.880
 of feel your sympathy you know I feel so because you know I go down Windsor I jog at night

04:03:31.880 --> 04:03:36.160
 I like to jog at night because you know just to get away from the heat and one of the biggest

04:03:36.160 --> 04:03:40.000
 things that breaks my heart is that nice big open field that's on the corner of Hinkle

04:03:40.000 --> 04:03:46.280
 and Windsor is going to be gone I liked walking by running by high grass I don't know why

04:03:46.280 --> 04:03:51.920
 so you know when we talk about Windsor you know I didn't know I was walking by your house

04:03:51.920 --> 04:04:02.840
 my wife and I go up there often yeah exactly so you know one of the things you know I would

04:04:02.840 --> 04:04:06.800
 encourage everybody to do because one of the one of the things that we hear a lot is that

04:04:06.800 --> 04:04:12.280
 there are concerns about traffic and everything and I and I feel you I you know I a pedestrian

04:04:12.280 --> 04:04:18.680
 there and I get hit countless almost almost hit countless times you know I would encourage

04:04:18.680 --> 04:04:23.480
 people to talk to city council about you know possibly widening Windsor and things like that

04:04:23.480 --> 04:04:29.240
 because in addition to the thing that we're putting on Hinkle and Windsor which breaks

04:04:29.240 --> 04:04:36.840
 my heart tonight we put you know 236 units on Bonnie Bray just north of where the school

04:04:36.840 --> 04:04:41.960
 is going to go and those people are going to go on those same streets and everything

04:04:41.960 --> 04:04:45.960
 I don't know how I feel about you know about what's been proposed tonight yet and I'll

04:04:45.960 --> 04:04:50.240
 also deliberate and I'll see what they come back with because as somebody who wants affordable

04:04:50.240 --> 04:04:54.720
 housing I look at this and I also kind of cringe because then I find myself going you

04:04:54.720 --> 04:05:00.320
 know feeling that not in my backyard thing but you know I guess the point I wanted to

04:05:00.320 --> 04:05:06.760
 say is that you know you know kind of what Larry was saying you know I do understand

04:05:06.760 --> 04:05:11.440
 the traffic in Windsor I do understand everything around it you know no matter what happens I

04:05:11.440 --> 04:05:16.480
 always encourage people to talk to city council especially when it comes to things that affect

04:05:16.480 --> 04:05:22.640
 the roads because my daughter walks to Calhoun you know every day I walk my son to Newton

04:05:22.640 --> 04:05:28.240
 razor and I've seen the development that goes there and that is a concern to me so in addition

04:05:28.240 --> 04:05:32.000
 to this I would encourage people I would encourage everyone in the neighborhood to make sure

04:05:32.000 --> 04:05:37.280
 that whatever we do in terms of you know we do traffic studies but the traffic studies

04:05:37.280 --> 04:05:43.100
 don't always reflect the real impact of what you know people who walk in and live and play

04:05:43.100 --> 04:05:49.560
 in a vibrant neighborhood do so just wanted to toss it out there thanks Commissioner for

04:05:49.560 --> 04:05:55.960
 now before we move on to the next item the only I would say is I don't speak on behalf

04:05:55.960 --> 04:06:00.600
 of the commissioners but when we come into a meeting like this what we have is it's typically

04:06:00.600 --> 04:06:03.600
 data it sounds like Commissioner for now might have more first-hand knowledge I don't I don't

04:06:03.600 --> 04:06:08.440
 have first-hand knowledge of the area so we have data and staff analysis and citizens

04:06:08.440 --> 04:06:13.880
 coming out and vocalizing and providing feedback of what's happening on the ground is infinitely

04:06:13.880 --> 04:06:20.000
 important for us to have a healthy perspective of the context of the situation and so thank

04:06:20.000 --> 04:06:23.120
 you for coming out here it's certainly been enlightening to me to understand kind of the

04:06:23.120 --> 04:06:26.760
 scope what's going on I would encourage you and invite your neighbors to come out to the

04:06:26.760 --> 04:06:32.440
 next meeting in terms of the next meeting a couple notes if you did fill out a card this

04:06:32.440 --> 04:06:36.840
 evening the city will come they will follow up with you and remind you and let you know

04:06:36.840 --> 04:06:40.960
 the next meeting so you're not falling through the cracks and invites you back and so these

04:06:40.960 --> 04:06:46.800
 will be filed away and your phone numbers will be used to contact you and then secondly

04:06:46.800 --> 04:06:52.560
 not knowing how the applicants going to come back it could include an SUP which is a different

04:06:52.560 --> 04:06:57.480
 type of approval it will be in a separate agenda item which would provide separate ability

04:06:57.480 --> 04:07:04.040
 to speak but your opposition to one item does not correlate to another so if you have opinions

04:07:04.040 --> 04:07:10.480
 on either item they need to be expressed independently we can't apply one to the other so if that's

04:07:10.480 --> 04:07:15.080
 helpful going forward to know that they're they're potentially could be two items coming

04:07:15.080 --> 04:07:21.200
 back before you in February so if anyone else has any other thing certainly provide the

04:07:21.200 --> 04:07:27.600
 day is an opportunity if not we will move on to the next item what I'll do is is maybe

04:07:27.600 --> 04:07:31.400
 provide a five minute recess to clear the room unless you're staying for our tree talk

04:07:31.400 --> 04:07:39.960
 then we'll pick that up in about five minutes thank you and welcome back to our final item

04:07:39.960 --> 04:07:49.480
 which is item H it is DCA 18-008 a discussion about proposed revisions to the Denton Development

04:07:49.480 --> 04:08:02.160
 Code subchapters seven thirteen and seventeen the floor Richard Richard can only Development

04:08:02.160 --> 04:08:07.400
 Services Department what I wanted to do is I guess I'll call this our soft opening for

04:08:07.400 --> 04:08:12.880
 a public hearing on on the on the tree code I know we've we've talked about this a number

04:08:12.880 --> 04:08:18.800
 of times in in a work session but wanted to at least start the process to be able to talk

04:08:18.800 --> 04:08:25.640
 about it publicly as well as get those individuals in the audience or from the public public

04:08:25.640 --> 04:08:31.520
 would like to comment we are planning on coming back in in two weeks again for another public

04:08:31.520 --> 04:08:36.280
 hearing just to kind of continue that continue that discussion what we will make sure that

04:08:36.280 --> 04:08:43.080
 we do is try to get the word out a little bit more to the various groups that are interested

04:08:43.080 --> 04:08:48.960
 but again this is this is just kind of the first of many before before we ultimately

04:08:48.960 --> 04:08:56.000
 adopt this the draft that that is part of the packet has not been fully vetted by legal

04:08:56.000 --> 04:09:01.840
 so there's we're still kind of in that concept stage so I suspect when we come back it might

04:09:01.840 --> 04:09:05.240
 be a little bit you know some of the language might be a little bit tighter and and how

04:09:05.240 --> 04:09:10.960
 we interpret some of the some of the items from from this last house bill will probably

04:09:10.960 --> 04:09:16.560
 be somewhat different as well so with that I'll just kind of jump in jump into the presentation

04:09:16.560 --> 04:09:21.960
 feel free to stop me anytime when we when we first looked at this we really wanted to

04:09:21.960 --> 04:09:27.720
 you know we started working on a variety of number of drafts that were out there and quite

04:09:27.720 --> 04:09:31.480
 honestly I was getting confused at some point as far as which draft was the last one that

04:09:31.480 --> 04:09:35.800
 was presented to the various different groups and so we kind of just stepped back and looked

04:09:35.800 --> 04:09:38.880
 at it and okay let's let's really look at this holistically and what we're trying to

04:09:38.880 --> 04:09:43.520
 accomplish and let let's really kind of set up how we should how we should look at this

04:09:43.520 --> 04:09:49.600
 moving forward and and the base really being that that State of the Denton State of State

04:09:49.600 --> 04:09:54.200
 of the Denton Urban Force that was done in 2016 and let's kind of use that as as as kind

04:09:54.200 --> 04:09:59.680
 of the base map if you will in in in moving forward from there really setting goals of

04:09:59.680 --> 04:10:04.680
 what we what we want this ordinance to be or what we want want it to accomplish and

04:10:04.680 --> 04:10:09.000
 what we've seen I think in the in the past have been these little fixes throughout where

04:10:09.000 --> 04:10:14.160
 we really haven't fixed the whole ordinance together and so so that attempt is is really

04:10:14.160 --> 04:10:20.040
 let's set some goals and then really look at how can we achieve those both from a regulatory

04:10:20.040 --> 04:10:26.360
 or private private perspective but also programmatically through through how we spend our public funds

04:10:26.360 --> 04:10:31.080
 whether that be through capital improvement projects through tree fund dollars and and

04:10:31.080 --> 04:10:37.200
 the like but but most importantly how how how are we performing how how are these ordinances

04:10:37.200 --> 04:10:41.780
 or these codes that we write on what what results are they actually producing and making

04:10:41.780 --> 04:10:48.560
 sure that we have sort of a report card or metrics and we can we can evaluate this annually

04:10:48.560 --> 04:10:52.600
 and so that so the way we kind of set this up kind of try to color code it yellow and

04:10:52.600 --> 04:11:00.160
 blue me makes green is is go through the background sort of past and present talk get into the

04:11:00.160 --> 04:11:07.560
 kind of that the main breast of the conversation the regulatory or the private side get into

04:11:07.560 --> 04:11:12.040
 a little bit of the tree fund and then and then kind of hit on on some of the programmatic

04:11:12.040 --> 04:11:16.960
 changes that that recently have occurred particularly in our parks department with the creation

04:11:16.960 --> 04:11:23.220
 of the of a forestry division and so a little bit of background kind of touch on this briefly

04:11:23.220 --> 04:11:29.080
 the tree code was born out of like a lot of things public outcry over redevelopment of

04:11:29.080 --> 04:11:35.840
 of flow hospital and so the first tree preservation landscape requirements as we have it today

04:11:35.840 --> 04:11:41.320
 were adopted in two thousand four a year later there was a committee established to recommend

04:11:41.320 --> 04:11:47.080
 tightening that ordinance so from a year after it's been adopted there were always concerns

04:11:47.080 --> 04:11:54.080
 with the ordinance wasn't wasn't performing to how how it should be and as you can see

04:11:54.080 --> 04:12:00.600
 the the variety of of attempts and and and reports that went back and forth and and and

04:12:00.600 --> 04:12:05.120
 various committees there was never consensus in how to how to actually move forward in

04:12:05.120 --> 04:12:10.960
 in addressing it in two thousand and fifty in fourteen council directed staff again to

04:12:10.960 --> 04:12:17.040
 proceed with an update to accomplish there were three objectives that were were outlined

04:12:17.040 --> 04:12:21.360
 one one being that I've had provided more robust code that will expand and protect tree

04:12:21.360 --> 04:12:26.440
 canopy including planning of trees on private property with expenditures from the tree fund

04:12:26.440 --> 04:12:33.200
 and so in two thousand and fifteen there there was one change to the to the to the tree tree

04:12:33.200 --> 04:12:39.240
 ordinance that allowed tree mitigation funds for the planning of of trees on private property

04:12:39.240 --> 04:12:43.520
 as ordinance two thousand fifteen two five two I'm not aware that we've actually done

04:12:43.520 --> 04:12:51.200
 that but that that that language was changed in the in the code back in twenty fifteen

04:12:51.200 --> 04:12:57.160
 year later that's when we had the the Denton urban forest state of urban force was completed

04:12:57.160 --> 04:13:02.480
 and then as you know over the last over the last two years at least there's been a variety

04:13:02.480 --> 04:13:09.300
 a variety of drafts back and forth there's also a work session that talked about purchasing

04:13:09.300 --> 04:13:15.280
 properties for preservation there were five properties at that that time they had considered

04:13:15.280 --> 04:13:20.080
 none of which were purchased at that time and it was sort of how how do we you know

04:13:20.080 --> 04:13:25.920
 establish metrics or or kind of a decision tree for that and then kind of in the midst

04:13:25.920 --> 04:13:32.100
 of all of this there was a legislative session House Bill seven forty four failed they brought

04:13:32.100 --> 04:13:39.280
 it back at a special session House Bill seven which was signed into law creating two one

04:13:39.280 --> 04:13:46.240
 two zero nine five local government code specifically dealing with tree preservation kind of where

04:13:46.240 --> 04:13:53.800
 we were over where we are over the last year we we went to city council for a work session

04:13:53.800 --> 04:13:59.640
 in in April to talk sort of some policy get some policy direction we then followed that

04:13:59.640 --> 04:14:04.640
 up with with committee on the environment in in May and as you can see we've and as

04:14:04.640 --> 04:14:08.720
 you know we've we've kind of gone back and forth a number of times with various drafts

04:14:08.720 --> 04:14:13.480
 and and kind of building up to kind of the concepts or discussion draft that that we

04:14:13.480 --> 04:14:19.640
 have in front of you today and again looking really at at the base of this is is that policy

04:14:19.640 --> 04:14:25.320
 discussion that we had in April in May but then really looking at at making sure we comply

04:14:25.320 --> 04:14:30.320
 with local government code increased preservation and mitigation kind of the charge back from

04:14:30.320 --> 04:14:35.720
 two thousand and five and then and then making sure that we really unified unify our our

04:14:35.720 --> 04:14:41.560
 landscape and and ESA standards among among others House Bill seven I'll just touch on

04:14:41.560 --> 04:14:48.660
 on briefly there are some some limitations that we can and can't do with respect to requiring

04:14:48.660 --> 04:14:56.440
 mitigation for for homeowners if if it's under ten inches DBH it's four and a half feet above

04:14:56.440 --> 04:15:04.040
 we're limited in required in in in requiring any mitigation for that same with any dead

04:15:04.040 --> 04:15:09.640
 or disease tree or tree that poses an eminent or immediate threat to a person or property

04:15:09.640 --> 04:15:13.880
 I don't know what that means to be quite honest yet that was in a local government code there

04:15:13.880 --> 04:15:20.680
 was a a bill that was brought forward maybe two or three years ago it was the I before

04:15:20.680 --> 04:15:25.600
 I was in Texas but we I always heard it as the fire tree bill and that was one where

04:15:25.600 --> 04:15:29.760
 there was a fire I don't know if it was I forget which city it was in and there was

04:15:29.760 --> 04:15:34.160
 a discussion that if they were able to take down the trees they wouldn't have had the

04:15:34.160 --> 04:15:38.800
 fire and cause the damage well there's no tree preservation ordinance in that city but

04:15:38.800 --> 04:15:44.040
 but the bill had to do with if you felt that a tree was going to pose an eminent threat

04:15:44.040 --> 04:15:49.920
 you're able to remove it without any any sort of repercussions it ultimately didn't pass

04:15:49.920 --> 04:15:54.480
 but I have a feeling that's where this language kind of carried forward but that's just something

04:15:54.480 --> 04:15:59.480
 we need to ultimately flush out with with the city attorney's office mitigation fee

04:15:59.480 --> 04:16:05.800
 credit and even if a municipality imposes a mitigation fee you have to allow a credit

04:16:05.800 --> 04:16:12.960
 for the tree for a tree planting to offset that amount we do that now but we just want

04:16:12.960 --> 04:16:17.200
 to make sure that we carry that forward one thing that that's that's I thought was interesting

04:16:17.200 --> 04:16:23.800
 they they specify in that bill the size of the tree that that has to be planted so it's

04:16:23.800 --> 04:16:30.680
 only a two two inch tree at DBH which is a little interesting because when you trees that

04:16:30.680 --> 04:16:35.480
 size you typically don't measure it DBH are typically done in a caliper basis so that's

04:16:35.480 --> 04:16:39.640
 just something we have to we have to contend through as as we work through this as we work

04:16:39.640 --> 04:16:45.320
 through the language there's also there's also a section that talks about credit for

04:16:45.320 --> 04:16:51.800
 residential and and non-residential there's a 50 percent credit for residential 40 percent

04:16:51.800 --> 04:16:59.240
 credit for for non-residential as I stated previously there's a number of different ways

04:16:59.240 --> 04:17:03.200
 I think even even us internally I think we read it read it all we have three different

04:17:03.200 --> 04:17:08.960
 ways to interpret this very few cities have haven't have amended their codes to really

04:17:08.960 --> 04:17:14.960
 address it we sort of modeled but but Irving did but but really took more of a liberal

04:17:14.960 --> 04:17:20.240
 approach and just applied the 50 percent credit to both residential and and non-residential

04:17:20.240 --> 04:17:26.800
 for an easier way to just enforce that and then you get into a mixed use development

04:17:26.800 --> 04:17:30.720
 and then how do you how do you differentiate between there so we thought 50 percent would

04:17:30.720 --> 04:17:36.480
 just be across the board be be be the easiest and then getting in again getting into some

04:17:36.480 --> 04:17:41.520
 of the backgrounds and goals you know again unified approach making sure we comply with

04:17:41.520 --> 04:17:46.560
 with local government code limit clear-cutting require mitigation for all trees removed guide

04:17:46.560 --> 04:17:51.200
 priorities to preserving larger and quality trees tree stains and habitat promoting that

04:17:51.200 --> 04:17:56.380
 multi-aged urban forest with native and quality trees and then balance that with with with

04:17:56.380 --> 04:18:02.640
 reasonable development and one of the early discussions was a canopy goal for the city

04:18:02.640 --> 04:18:07.240
 part of it had to do with preservation if you recall there was a we had a discussion

04:18:07.240 --> 04:18:14.400
 whether it should be on on DBH or on canopy sort of the direction we we got was we were

04:18:14.400 --> 04:18:21.520
 okay with with setting the the the preservation on a D on a can on I'm sorry on a DBH basis

04:18:21.520 --> 04:18:26.800
 diameter at breast height but still keeping that overall canopy goal or preservation is

04:18:26.800 --> 04:18:32.120
 just a component of that we still have landscaping that that speaks to that and so the summary

04:18:32.120 --> 04:18:39.360
 the changes kind of kind of big picture for for this for this for this opening night applicability

04:18:39.360 --> 04:18:44.160
 types of tree again getting a little bit more into the preservation and landscape the meat

04:18:44.160 --> 04:18:51.880
 of it some some new options with respect to tree preservation and habitat and then get

04:18:51.880 --> 04:18:59.400
 into the mitigation applicability we remove the exemptions primarily for city facilities

04:18:59.400 --> 04:19:05.540
 with the exception of of the city airport for obvious reasons there's not many trees

04:19:05.540 --> 04:19:12.160
 at the airport to begin with but we did leave that in single-family and duplex lots with

04:19:12.160 --> 04:19:18.400
 trees under 10 inches at DBH currently we exempt all single-family and duplex one of

04:19:18.400 --> 04:19:23.640
 the initial policy discussions we have is had was should we just adopt but you know

04:19:23.640 --> 04:19:28.160
 but was in the local government code and that was sort of the direction we got at that time

04:19:28.160 --> 04:19:33.280
 and so that's that's why that is the way the way it is today at least in the draft whether

04:19:33.280 --> 04:19:39.080
 we ultimately change that through through discussion but that's that's where it is today the tree

04:19:39.080 --> 04:19:46.280
 types and mitigation this is obviously one of the most discussed items primarily as it

04:19:46.280 --> 04:19:54.480
 retain as it pertains to secondary trees we've we've reduced the category of trees to just

04:19:54.480 --> 04:20:01.000
 landmark heritage quality and secondary so right now the 30 percent minimum preservation

04:20:01.000 --> 04:20:06.480
 of DBH is based off of either landmark heritage or quality so secondary trees there is no

04:20:06.480 --> 04:20:12.920
 minimum preservation of those trees however whatever you remove you are required to mitigate

04:20:12.920 --> 04:20:21.080
 there's a replacement rate I'll call them the green trees if you will for simple to

04:20:21.080 --> 04:20:27.200
 keep it simple they're at a replacement rate on a per inch basis so that the the larger

04:20:27.200 --> 04:20:33.520
 the tree the more the more the replacement rate is so if you're a landmark tree and

04:20:33.520 --> 04:20:39.600
 the replacement rates at four to one for a heritage it's at three to one and a quality

04:20:39.600 --> 04:20:44.640
 it's a one to one when you get to secondary the replacement rate is instead of on an inch

04:20:44.640 --> 04:20:48.760
 by inch basis it's it's so you take out a tree you have to replace it you have to replace

04:20:48.760 --> 04:20:53.120
 it with a tree from from the approved tree list where it gets a little where it gets

04:20:53.120 --> 04:21:00.440
 a little convoluted is in our criteria manual we have we have a list of numerous types of

04:21:00.440 --> 04:21:04.720
 trees we have native trees but then we have preferred and then we have a not preferred

04:21:04.720 --> 04:21:10.440
 list and so the majority of the secondary trees for preservation are on kind of the

04:21:10.440 --> 04:21:15.840
 non-preferred planting list already so you can't get credit for planning those you're

04:21:15.840 --> 04:21:20.960
 not supposed to get credit for planning those based on canopy and so it's just trying to

04:21:20.960 --> 04:21:26.920
 just clean trying to clean all of that up however a secondary tree Boadark hackberry

04:21:26.920 --> 04:21:33.960
 or cottonwood could be a heritage tree if it's 18 inches or greater and so we've we

04:21:33.960 --> 04:21:37.080
 we try to kind of meet in the middle on on some of the stuff initially we were exempting

04:21:37.080 --> 04:21:45.680
 it it totally tree types again non-protected trees mesquite honey locusts crepe myrtle

04:21:45.680 --> 04:21:50.560
 diseases are dead trees again the eminent the eminent or immediate threat and then any

04:21:50.560 --> 04:21:58.480
 tree listed on the department of ag noxious and invasive plant list again one of the major

04:21:58.480 --> 04:22:03.600
 major points of contention or discussion items have been you know the mesquite and honey

04:22:03.600 --> 04:22:10.040
 locust and whether or not those should be a non-protected tree or a or a protected secondary

04:22:10.040 --> 04:22:18.160
 tree and even should secondary should we require preservation of secondary trees again we we

04:22:18.160 --> 04:22:24.060
 added in because we have the concept of preserve habitat or conservation easement allowing

04:22:24.060 --> 04:22:30.040
 a mesquite or or honey locusts to remain if those areas were adjacent to a an ESA for

04:22:30.040 --> 04:22:35.160
 example where where it's you're not going to have much interaction with with individuals

04:22:35.160 --> 04:22:40.260
 anyways so that was sort of our our attempt to to try to again try to meet meet and meet

04:22:40.260 --> 04:22:48.120
 in the middle and and this is this is my my my barbara club that that he would have actually

04:22:48.120 --> 04:22:53.320
 brought because I I just could not I mean I've seen that the thorns on a mesquite but

04:22:53.320 --> 04:22:59.040
 on on the honey locusts I never really pictured it to be this this large and so you can see

04:22:59.040 --> 04:23:06.920
 this the branch is not that big but the thorns are quite large so over just about three three

04:23:06.920 --> 04:23:12.000
 inches so you know these are I don't know if we really want to preserve these with it

04:23:12.000 --> 04:23:19.280
 within a within a landscape buffer or or or parking lot so again it's just looking at

04:23:19.280 --> 04:23:28.240
 it in in that that that that perspective landscape and and preservation at this point I'm going

04:23:28.240 --> 04:23:38.400
 to have Haley come up this is really been her Mr. Beck thank you chair this future public

04:23:38.400 --> 04:23:44.160
 hearing you're going to have that is there a date certain on that the next week the 12th

04:23:44.160 --> 04:23:49.920
 okay is this going to be a PNZ yep okay any chance we can do it earlier I mean because

04:23:49.920 --> 04:23:55.320
 if you're going to get the public here you don't want the last presentation of the we

04:23:55.320 --> 04:24:00.560
 certainly could okay just something we can put that as the first agenda item okay to

04:24:00.560 --> 04:24:15.920
 get a lot of public input I would thank you not a problem right so the one of the main

04:24:15.920 --> 04:24:20.560
 goals of the code update is of course improving our minimum standards for landscape entry

04:24:20.560 --> 04:24:25.000
 canopy so the three major elements that will aid in that are the preservation component

04:24:25.000 --> 04:24:30.680
 that Richard will speak to a little bit further here in a moment but buffers and landscape

04:24:30.680 --> 04:24:35.040
 area are also important in looking at that some of the major changes we're looking at

04:24:35.040 --> 04:24:39.640
 in the landscape code are allowing preserve trees that are within what we're now calling

04:24:39.640 --> 04:24:44.520
 the development impact area of a site to count towards the tree canopy current code only

04:24:44.520 --> 04:24:50.160
 allows you to count those trees if they are in excess of the minimum preservation we also

04:24:50.160 --> 04:24:55.160
 are adding language to encourage and require biodiversity within the trees planted on a

04:24:55.160 --> 04:24:59.680
 site so that in the event there is some sort of pest or disease that comes through that

04:24:59.680 --> 04:25:05.240
 not all of the trees on site would be wiped out potentially we are adopting some low impact

04:25:05.240 --> 04:25:10.160
 development standards that were first introduced by clarion in the draft DDC we thought those

04:25:10.160 --> 04:25:14.800
 were worth bringing forward ahead of time with the landscape code and then we are also

04:25:14.800 --> 04:25:20.120
 proposing to eliminate the credits are currently in the code for pervious paving to count as

04:25:20.120 --> 04:25:24.600
 landscaping on the site as well as eliminating the credits for ESA that were introduced with

04:25:24.600 --> 04:25:32.580
 the latest version of subchapter 17 specifically the the ESA code that was recently adopted

04:25:32.580 --> 04:25:37.200
 allows for one square foot of canopy credit for every square foot of ESA canopy as well

04:25:37.200 --> 04:25:43.080
 as two square feet of landscaping credit for every square foot of tree ESA and one square

04:25:43.080 --> 04:25:47.960
 foot for every square foot of non-wooded ESA that's preserved on the site as you'll see

04:25:47.960 --> 04:25:52.280
 a little bit later with the development impact area concept we're proposing to take ESAs

04:25:52.280 --> 04:25:55.800
 out of the mix altogether their preservation will still be required but it won't count

04:25:55.800 --> 04:26:03.400
 for or against the development when they look to what their required landscaping is on site.

04:26:03.400 --> 04:26:08.040
 So speaking of buffers what we have in our code currently that you've probably heard

04:26:08.040 --> 04:26:12.920
 reference to even this evening is the type A B C and D that are very prescriptive what

04:26:12.920 --> 04:26:18.280
 we're proposing is with the table that you see here depending on what your use is it

04:26:18.280 --> 04:26:23.360
 would prescribe a number of points that you have to meet within the required buffer area

04:26:23.360 --> 04:26:28.120
 and then to meet those points there is a proposed list of options that include fencing various

04:26:28.120 --> 04:26:31.680
 sizes of trees and shrubs so you can kind of pick and choose what fits best for your

04:26:31.680 --> 04:26:37.400
 site so just an example that we've looked at before whereas the type D buffer now is

04:26:37.400 --> 04:26:42.200
 a very specific number of trees and shrubs under this system there'd be multiple ways

04:26:42.200 --> 04:26:46.860
 of meeting that that could be as simple as a masonry wall or any combination of landscaping

04:26:46.860 --> 04:26:51.000
 that would work with your site design.

04:26:51.000 --> 04:26:55.880
 Similarly we're proposing a point system for all other aspects of site landscaping so

04:26:55.880 --> 04:27:00.000
 we'd require moving forward that a landscape plan be provided that demonstrates a minimum

04:27:00.000 --> 04:27:04.920
 of 30 points are provided on the site as well as that the site meets the minimum landscaping

04:27:04.920 --> 04:27:07.680
 canopy percentages.

04:27:07.680 --> 04:27:12.240
 So within these options we would require that two of the elements be in the form of right

04:27:12.240 --> 04:27:16.840
 away screening so that we have adequate screening for parking lots along the street and that

04:27:16.840 --> 04:27:20.840
 two of the elements be from within the internal parking lot landscaping categories to ensure

04:27:20.840 --> 04:27:24.900
 that we have adequate canopy and shade within our parking lots and then the remaining points

04:27:24.900 --> 04:27:28.760
 could be from any of the options.

04:27:28.760 --> 04:27:32.320
 So just looking at some of those options you can see for right away screening we have five

04:27:32.320 --> 04:27:36.420
 different things listed there a variety of things that could fit in different widths

04:27:36.420 --> 04:27:40.760
 of areas in front of the parking lot and then within the parking lot there are options that

04:27:40.760 --> 04:27:45.200
 include internal islands end caps at the end of your parking rows as well as an option

04:27:45.200 --> 04:27:49.440
 for a landscape median between rows of spaces.

04:27:49.440 --> 04:27:53.240
 And then other elements on the site this is where we get a little creative and introduce

04:27:53.240 --> 04:27:58.700
 some of those low impact design standards such as bioswales bioretention facilities

04:27:58.700 --> 04:28:03.080
 things like that that we haven't explicitly had in the code prior to this.

04:28:03.080 --> 04:28:07.960
 In addition we're also introducing the option for a living walls or even rooftop vegetation

04:28:07.960 --> 04:28:12.120
 is more frequently these days we're seeing requests for that but it doesn't necessarily

04:28:12.120 --> 04:28:16.320
 fit within landscaping in our current code.

04:28:16.320 --> 04:28:20.160
 And then because we've recently found out that Denton is a monarch city we've also added

04:28:20.160 --> 04:28:25.120
 an option for a butterfly or pollinator gardens that hopefully people can find a way to incorporate

04:28:25.120 --> 04:28:27.720
 on their site.

04:28:27.720 --> 04:28:39.240
 And with that I will pass it back to Richard to talk through the development impact areas.

04:28:39.240 --> 04:28:44.680
 If you recall when we first started talking about the various concepts and eliminating

04:28:44.680 --> 04:28:52.360
 the credits for the ESA we came up with the idea of this development impact area and then

04:28:52.360 --> 04:28:57.680
 looked at through our discussions at the Committee on the Environment it's really looking at

04:28:57.680 --> 04:29:05.240
 ways to preserve how can we continue to preserve habitat and it was interesting because around

04:29:05.240 --> 04:29:12.880
 the same time we've had a couple projects that have come in where we also have this

04:29:12.880 --> 04:29:19.160
 concept of artificial lot line that someone can use and it really gets a little convoluted

04:29:19.160 --> 04:29:26.480
 and it works in some instances but there's not a lot of guidance so what we wanted to

04:29:26.480 --> 04:29:33.440
 do is just try to provide a little bit more predictability and also give staff some guidance

04:29:33.440 --> 04:29:37.000
 in what and how it should work.

04:29:37.000 --> 04:29:47.080
 Where right now we had an area that was an industrial property that had an ESA with scrub

04:29:47.080 --> 04:29:52.280
 grass that they were able to count towards meeting their landscape requirements.

04:29:52.280 --> 04:29:58.480
 And so I understand the intent but it really wasn't I don't think getting the results

04:29:58.480 --> 04:30:00.840
 that we really intended.

04:30:00.840 --> 04:30:06.500
 And so with this instance what we did is we if you had an ESA on your site it really was

04:30:06.500 --> 04:30:12.960
 to exclude it from that development impact area and there's a couple of cities a number

04:30:12.960 --> 04:30:19.640
 of cities in the Metroplex that have kind of a similar concept but what we looked at

04:30:19.640 --> 04:30:25.640
 is but also trying to incentivize it so if you do have a preserved habitat you're able

04:30:25.640 --> 04:30:33.040
 to reduce your minimum preservation down to 20%.

04:30:33.040 --> 04:30:40.520
 And then we set some minimums 10% of the total site or 5,000 square foot and then mitigate

04:30:40.520 --> 04:30:46.200
 for that for 80% with some additional credits as a result of that preserved habitat.

04:30:46.200 --> 04:30:51.080
 And then we looked at it as you know should other folks be allowed to take advantage of

04:30:51.080 --> 04:30:55.160
 that if they don't have an ESA and then how do we differentiate it.

04:30:55.160 --> 04:30:58.520
 And so we really came up with sort of this conservation easement or conservation area

04:30:58.520 --> 04:31:03.640
 and we've had this conservation easement in the code for some time and it's really never

04:31:03.640 --> 04:31:06.740
 been never really been used.

04:31:06.740 --> 04:31:13.520
 So we also put that kind of follow the same model as a preserved habitat but also looked

04:31:13.520 --> 04:31:18.240
 at this as a possibility and I'll get to it later in the slide of you know if we do want

04:31:18.240 --> 04:31:22.920
 to look to purchase property or partner with someone with the Tree Fund maybe this is a

04:31:22.920 --> 04:31:29.760
 method that we can do that to preserve some of these some of these natural areas.

04:31:29.760 --> 04:31:35.960
 And so again this development impact area is also relates to the preservation but then

04:31:35.960 --> 04:31:39.120
 your landscape requirements are also based on it so your landscape requirements would

04:31:39.120 --> 04:31:46.520
 not be based on that ESA or if you had a preserved habitat or conservation easement either.

04:31:46.520 --> 04:31:50.680
 And so what I've done is I've just kind of put together you may remember some of these

04:31:50.680 --> 04:31:51.680
 some of these examples.

04:31:51.680 --> 04:31:57.920
 So I kind of gave a single family example a multi-family and a non-residential and so

04:31:57.920 --> 04:32:04.160
 this was a project recently approved on the south end of Bonnie Bray and I know the numbers

04:32:04.160 --> 04:32:09.400
 kind of look a little I know when I first presented to council there were some concern

04:32:09.400 --> 04:32:16.280
 because it's such a reduction in the amount of preserved DBH but I think it was almost

04:32:16.280 --> 04:32:22.840
 ninety percent if not more of the trees that were on this site were hackberry and mesquite

04:32:22.840 --> 04:32:28.960
 and so what this really does is there was a lot less preservation obviously because

04:32:28.960 --> 04:32:36.880
 they were secondary trees under the new and so but the mitigation obviously was much higher

04:32:36.880 --> 04:32:42.360
 and so when you kind of pencil it all out at the end of the day there's a five percent

04:32:42.360 --> 04:32:49.600
 increase of total DBH but you get a much what I guess we would call a much more quality

04:32:49.600 --> 04:32:57.240
 tree as opposed to preserving hackberries and mesquites and honey locusts on the site.

04:32:57.240 --> 04:33:03.480
 And so what we actually did is mapped or attempted to map where those trees were that were preserved

04:33:03.480 --> 04:33:07.680
 based on the tree preservation plan and so what they did is most of them are really stacked

04:33:07.680 --> 04:33:16.160
 up here in the corner anyways but this is a good opportunity also to look at ways to

04:33:16.160 --> 04:33:22.840
 preserve this there is a small little pond on here and that could easily been that conservation

04:33:22.840 --> 04:33:29.640
 area so there is some there is some flexibility with respect to that but I wanted to also

04:33:29.640 --> 04:33:35.280
 point out where we apply that fifty percent credit and so we calculate the DBH removed

04:33:35.280 --> 04:33:41.480
 and you have the calculated DBH which includes those that has those multipliers and then

04:33:41.480 --> 04:33:46.320
 from that point we took that fifty percent credit and then there's additional credit

04:33:46.320 --> 04:33:50.440
 depending on the type of tree again there were I think there were a handful of post

04:33:50.440 --> 04:33:54.600
 oaks out there so since those were preserved you would get you would get you know a greater

04:33:54.600 --> 04:34:00.960
 credit again pushing pushing towards more quality quality trees and so that's sort

04:34:00.960 --> 04:34:05.360
 of the single family example and again some of these are kind of the extremes but wanted

04:34:05.360 --> 04:34:09.400
 to look at it in those perspectives.

04:34:09.400 --> 04:34:18.400
 This is a multi-family site at 404 industrial the change in preservation is a one percent

04:34:18.400 --> 04:34:27.360
 reduction however there were substantial hack berries on the site that would require mitigation

04:34:27.360 --> 04:34:34.320
 and so that 365 inches is really because it's two inches per tree so that's where we came

04:34:34.320 --> 04:34:41.720
 up with that number and so you look at the total DBH is 141 percent this site poses some

04:34:41.720 --> 04:34:47.380
 other challenges this is one where they were able to use quite a bit of their driveway

04:34:47.380 --> 04:34:53.320
 and paved area as credit for open space because it was before some of the code changed now

04:34:53.320 --> 04:34:58.560
 and so whether or not this this could actually develop as it does today may may not be able

04:34:58.560 --> 04:35:04.380
 to or just in a different in a different form or form or fashion.

04:35:04.380 --> 04:35:10.520
 This is the one that that I think everybody knows the site that again I think was a lot

04:35:10.520 --> 04:35:19.040
 of the similar to when this was first created there was a lot of people were upset about

04:35:19.040 --> 04:35:24.260
 that the post books that were removed on this property for a restaurant and so just looking

04:35:24.260 --> 04:35:31.400
 at kind of the comparison so based on the proposed it would have been 80 percent more

04:35:31.400 --> 04:35:43.760
 DBH required slightly higher mitigation but overall 49 almost a 50 percent increase in

04:35:43.760 --> 04:35:48.600
 in total DBH and again that's that's after applying that again that 50 percent credit

04:35:48.600 --> 04:35:57.360
 but then also giving those credits back for for preserving those those post oaks.

04:35:57.360 --> 04:36:02.120
 Looking at mitigation fee this has been another one that that we've tried to attempt to to

04:36:02.120 --> 04:36:09.160
 address the current fee is at a hundred and twenty five dollars per DBH and I don't believe

04:36:09.160 --> 04:36:14.120
 this has been updated since it was first put in place and I haven't seen it change in quite

04:36:14.120 --> 04:36:20.220
 a while and so what we did is we looked at what we were proposing was a method based

04:36:20.220 --> 04:36:27.440
 on a manual that sets values for for maintaining a tree again a reasonable cost for maintenance

04:36:27.440 --> 04:36:33.200
 and irrigation for a period of three years what we did is we looked we talked with parks

04:36:33.200 --> 04:36:38.840
 and said well what's the actual cost for the same thing and they're at about three hundred

04:36:38.840 --> 04:36:45.960
 and seventeen dollars an inch and so we haven't we as we discussed it at the council work

04:36:45.960 --> 04:36:50.360
 session we didn't there was there hasn't been clear direction it was like you know

04:36:50.360 --> 04:36:55.860
 let's sort of talk how we should whether it should be what what was proposed or whether

04:36:55.860 --> 04:37:00.840
 or not we should just charge the fee for what what it costs some other considerations that

04:37:00.840 --> 04:37:08.520
 we had is where there are certain street characteristics or construction requirements make it infeasible

04:37:08.520 --> 04:37:13.940
 to meet planning requirements whether or not at that point in time rather than seek a variance

04:37:13.940 --> 04:37:18.640
 or some other method should they be allowed to pay into the tree fund for that right now

04:37:18.640 --> 04:37:24.480
 there there's we have some flexibility already I think with where we're headed with the point

04:37:24.480 --> 04:37:30.120
 system right now you can propose an alternative buffer but there's really no guidance with

04:37:30.120 --> 04:37:35.840
 respect to how how staff enforces that what we what we what I've been typically doing

04:37:35.840 --> 04:37:39.640
 is when we get those requests is making sure that if you can't plant the tree because there's

04:37:39.640 --> 04:37:44.680
 an easement or overhead utility line trying to plant those trees at least somewhere somewhere

04:37:44.680 --> 04:37:51.160
 else on the site but currently there's no there's no guidance or any set way to do that

04:37:51.160 --> 04:37:54.080
 so at least with this we wanted to again have that predictability or at least have that

04:37:54.080 --> 04:37:58.560
 menu of items that everybody knows is out there with respect to the point system but

04:37:58.560 --> 04:38:04.520
 in those extreme cases particularly when we get an infill is there another possible relief

04:38:04.520 --> 04:38:12.640
 valve to allow for that and then any any enforcement actions restoration fees that are a result

04:38:12.640 --> 04:38:18.360
 of enforcement actions should those fees from that enforcement action go into the tree fund

04:38:18.360 --> 04:38:22.840
 or should they just go into into a general fund and we haven't gotten any guidance yet

04:38:22.840 --> 04:38:28.600
 on that but that was something that that we thought might be might be something to consider

04:38:28.600 --> 04:38:39.040
 with respect to the to the tree fund we don't have a lot of it but we we may in the future

04:38:39.040 --> 04:38:44.280
 again managing the urban forest on the on the public side our current tree tree fund

04:38:44.280 --> 04:38:51.000
 regulations the bullet points it's what kind of what's in the code today we really weren't

04:38:51.000 --> 04:38:55.400
 recommending any changes at this point purchase plant maintain trees preserve wooded property

04:38:55.400 --> 04:39:01.720
 remaining in a naturalistic state and perpetuity perform and maintain citywide tree inventory

04:39:01.720 --> 04:39:07.440
 education and then support programs for public purpose of increasing tree canopy within the

04:39:07.440 --> 04:39:12.760
 city as approved by by the council and so what we really looked at as kind of the the

04:39:12.760 --> 04:39:18.800
 the center of all of this is is a forestry plan that I had mentioned previously and so

04:39:18.800 --> 04:39:24.040
 that is that that is something that that has been budgeted there there will be a project

04:39:24.040 --> 04:39:29.320
 kickoff in in december this this is actually going to be managed through the through the

04:39:29.320 --> 04:39:34.840
 parks department which is i think is probably a lot more appropriate and what they have

04:39:34.840 --> 04:39:41.120
 since done is is created a forestry division to really carry out a carry out a lot of these

04:39:41.120 --> 04:39:49.120
 these programs and so part of the what they've established as far as far as the outcomes

04:39:49.120 --> 04:39:56.040
 of that study again is staff training and and development opportunities look at prefer

04:39:56.040 --> 04:40:02.680
 tree and plant species identification identification and priority prioritization of planning areas

04:40:02.680 --> 04:40:09.280
 particularly as we get into planning for parks within parks within trail areas within our

04:40:09.280 --> 04:40:15.960
 within our rights away again best management practices strategies for preservation expansion

04:40:15.960 --> 04:40:24.920
 benchmarks again keeping that inventory and optimizing data branding outreach again going

04:40:24.920 --> 04:40:30.080
 also kind of promoting that educational component letting people know why it's good to have

04:40:30.080 --> 04:40:35.240
 trees and what those what the benefits are and really looking at again monitoring and

04:40:35.240 --> 04:40:43.320
 measuring our success and so part of part of that whole discussion too has been when

04:40:43.320 --> 04:40:48.640
 is it appropriate and how how should we consider land acquisition and so these were some items

04:40:48.640 --> 04:40:53.880
 that were presented at that council work session and when is it appropriate for for the city

04:40:53.880 --> 04:40:58.980
 to look at at that should it be part of a of a of a plan development that's something

04:40:58.980 --> 04:41:04.520
 that we're looking at bringing back as part of the ddc update we've had had some projects

04:41:04.520 --> 04:41:08.880
 that come forward as part of a pre annexation development agreement that was the creek side

04:41:08.880 --> 04:41:15.120
 development since that time we've had other larger tracks of land now interested in in

04:41:15.120 --> 04:41:20.440
 annexing in the city wanting to pursue something similar and so is that you know is that a

04:41:20.440 --> 04:41:25.520
 time that we should we should look at it just through the development review process or

04:41:25.520 --> 04:41:30.000
 or as a partnership you know should we be the the outright owner of the land or should

04:41:30.000 --> 04:41:34.560
 should we look at being a partnership through an easement where it where it's where it's

04:41:34.560 --> 04:41:39.040
 controlled through through some other entity or the city itself and then really where and

04:41:39.040 --> 04:41:41.440
 what is it what what are we going to prove you know what are we going to purchase or

04:41:41.440 --> 04:41:48.360
 what are we going to maintain is are they tree stands is it vacant land to plant trees

04:41:48.360 --> 04:41:52.760
 should it be those iso or conservation areas or is it market rate land that we want to

04:41:52.760 --> 04:41:59.920
 just kind of take take off kind of take off the rules and and and purchase and then what's

04:41:59.920 --> 04:42:06.280
 the cost should it be should be a fixed amount or percentage of the tree fund annually how

04:42:06.280 --> 04:42:12.200
 do we look at what what those those lost revenues are and then or or should we if we decide

04:42:12.200 --> 04:42:16.720
 to purchase vacant land to plant should we look at a mitigation bank where we can sell

04:42:16.720 --> 04:42:22.320
 credits similar to you know they're like a wetland mitigation area where we can look

04:42:22.320 --> 04:42:28.200
 at continuing funding that so I think there's a that that might come in the future but but

04:42:28.200 --> 04:42:33.200
 I at least wanted to to look at all options of how how how we should how we should approach

04:42:33.200 --> 04:42:38.360
 this since this item seems to be one of the items that continues to be discussed and provide

04:42:38.360 --> 04:42:43.440
 some guidance we tried to look at at a number of of cities that that do land acquisition

04:42:43.440 --> 04:42:49.240
 for tree preservation and just see if they have sort of a a matrix you know almost like

04:42:49.240 --> 04:42:54.320
 a decision tree or policy guidance and and none of them really have it so this was kind

04:42:54.320 --> 04:43:01.000
 of our best attempt to kind of kind of weave something together for for consideration and

04:43:01.000 --> 04:43:06.160
 then again getting back to the to the metrics and evaluation making sure that that whatever

04:43:06.160 --> 04:43:12.120
 ordinance ultimately gets adopted or passed we know that it's effective we can communicate

04:43:12.120 --> 04:43:18.080
 what we're doing we can have the transparency of what what we're preserving people don't

04:43:18.080 --> 04:43:22.400
 really have to ask that the information should be there making sure we're meeting those those

04:43:22.400 --> 04:43:27.080
 established goals and and what I'd like to ultimately get to a point is is publishing

04:43:27.080 --> 04:43:32.920
 those results as part of an annual annual report but also in talking with with Gary

04:43:32.920 --> 04:43:38.680
 and Parks is also using that as kind of a tool when they do their their forestry has

04:43:38.680 --> 04:43:42.640
 their own capital improvements project plan where they look at the number of plannings

04:43:42.640 --> 04:43:48.760
 that they're going to do each year for certain parks for trails and and rights of way mediums

04:43:48.760 --> 04:43:53.080
 and really looking at at how how we can use these tools effectively and what I put in

04:43:53.080 --> 04:43:59.560
 here this was I came across the city of Portland has has a pretty robust program but I thought

04:43:59.560 --> 04:44:04.320
 it was interesting you know they they tagged the number of inspections permits issue trees

04:44:04.320 --> 04:44:11.200
 permitted street trees parks and schools private emergency response but but you know right

04:44:11.200 --> 04:44:19.240
 away what what they what they did on an annual basis and and and where where the where the

04:44:19.240 --> 04:44:23.280
 need is and and so it kind of paints a kind of paints a picture I I don't know if we'll

04:44:23.280 --> 04:44:29.160
 get up to 15,000 inspections annually for trees maybe as we continue to grow but but

04:44:29.160 --> 04:44:37.600
 but it's at least somewhere I think to to to point and and and set the goal and so this

04:44:37.600 --> 04:44:42.760
 was just sort of an anticipated schedule.

04:44:42.760 --> 04:44:48.480
 Coming back again December December 12th what we'll do is we'll put that we'll put this

04:44:48.480 --> 04:44:57.720
 item on for the first public hearing coming back again on on on 123 we make me wait at

04:44:57.720 --> 04:45:02.080
 at that point in time we we may want to come back and have another public hearing what

04:45:02.080 --> 04:45:06.560
 I just try to do is just kind of forecast as far as when we want to when we want to

04:45:06.560 --> 04:45:12.560
 get this ultimately adopted we we talked about whether or not we should just fold it in with

04:45:12.560 --> 04:45:19.440
 with the DDC overall but I think it's been such obviously discussed item since a year

04:45:19.440 --> 04:45:24.840
 after it's been adopted in 2004 that we will we're going to take this sort of on a separate

04:45:24.840 --> 04:45:32.320
 track for adoption and so it kind of doesn't get doesn't get lost in in the weeds but that's

04:45:32.320 --> 04:45:41.640
 that's kind of the the the anticipated schedule I'll be happy to answer any questions clarifications

04:45:41.640 --> 04:45:49.160
 I know it's exciting stuff when I tell my wife she gets really really excited.

04:45:49.160 --> 04:45:52.160
 It's a lot to take in.

04:45:52.160 --> 04:45:57.240
 Richard I had a question and it wasn't your presentation was in her backup tree fund history

04:45:57.240 --> 04:46:06.560
 of revenue and expenses and yes balances it's really confusing to me not not the numbers

04:46:06.560 --> 04:46:12.160
 per se but the math do you have that it wasn't one of your talking points so this isn't the

04:46:12.160 --> 04:46:17.160
 venue I'm happy to table it yeah that that was something that that parks had had prepared

04:46:17.160 --> 04:46:24.840
 since they they really have managed that fund okay what I can do is if you want to ask the

04:46:24.840 --> 04:46:32.480
 questions maybe I can respond if not I will get I will get the answers sure the last column

04:46:32.480 --> 04:46:42.280
 budget 2018 to 19 expenses are set at seven hundred fifty thousand revenues are I assume

04:46:42.280 --> 04:46:46.920
 positive although parentheses typically mean negative two hundred seventy six two ninety

04:46:46.920 --> 04:46:51.800
 five it would seem to be that the annual net balance then based on that math would be a

04:46:51.800 --> 04:47:03.300
 negative four hundred seventy three thousand not a positive so I'm not sure about that

04:47:03.300 --> 04:47:10.920
 do you have in front of you the tiny version you have the tiny version so I may and again

04:47:10.920 --> 04:47:19.040
 that that it might just be reporting inconsequential although being down half a million dollars

04:47:19.040 --> 04:47:29.360
 is of consequence or why expenses jumped three times year over year from 17 18 18 19 and

04:47:29.360 --> 04:47:36.760
 then the current balance of the fund says two point two million how long has this fund

04:47:36.760 --> 04:47:41.640
 been around if we're annual net balances a hundred thousand dollars that we have two

04:47:41.640 --> 04:47:51.020
 point two million in the in the bank for this fund again it might just be that these numbers

04:47:51.020 --> 04:47:58.280
 is to be cleaned up from a right reporting purposes but this slide I think would solicit

04:47:58.280 --> 04:48:08.960
 a lot more questions than the department necessarily wants to have solicited I'll get the I'll

04:48:08.960 --> 04:48:16.680
 get I'll get get the answer I know that that in the last at least this last year there

04:48:16.680 --> 04:48:26.400
 was a substantial expenditures for for capital projects out of out of parks capital projects

04:48:26.400 --> 04:48:38.320
 there was a there was an agenda item a month or two ago that hasn't I don't I don't I'm

04:48:38.320 --> 04:48:42.520
 not aware that it ultimately got approved there Council did have some questions about

04:48:42.520 --> 04:48:48.960
 the expenditures for the for the amount of the amount of trees I'm not aware that that

04:48:48.960 --> 04:48:53.580
 item came back but what I'll do is I'll get that I'll get that answer included for the

04:48:53.580 --> 04:48:59.560
 backup for this might be helpful to have if we're gonna put in the history of the fund

04:48:59.560 --> 04:49:06.080
 maybe reported with more clarity that's all I had I don't see any other questions Larry

04:49:06.080 --> 04:49:19.200
 are you awake down there okay thank you Commissioner so is this a public hearing right it yeah it

04:49:19.200 --> 04:49:24.840
 we advertise it as a public hearing I didn't know what other way to really get input from

04:49:24.840 --> 04:49:31.600
 from the public we can we can just leave it open I guess and and continue it for the for

04:49:31.600 --> 04:49:39.680
 the 12th oh they make a motion for that uh Christian Smith make a motion to table the

04:49:39.680 --> 04:49:50.000
 discussion till date certain which was uh j uh December 12th to 2018 Christian Pernetta

04:49:50.000 --> 04:49:59.120
 I'll second that motion so first and second to table this item until December 12th seeing

04:49:59.120 --> 04:50:26.480
 no discussion I call for a vote on the board

04:50:26.480 --> 04:50:51.200
 other but you're mic'd up Commissioner that's probably right motion carries 7-0 that moves

04:50:51.200 --> 04:51:01.560
 us to our last item I'll let Richard meander back up here for the matrix Richard I'll let

04:51:01.560 --> 04:51:06.560
 you start with any updates to the matrix then if any commissioners want to add anything

04:51:06.560 --> 04:51:19.160
 to the matrix yeah just wanted to note a couple items obviously 12 12 coming back tree code

04:51:19.160 --> 04:51:27.040
 update also I have the historic preservation incentive program I know we had we had talked

04:51:27.040 --> 04:51:34.000
 about that previously the Lakota group will be in town that that Monday and Tuesday I

04:51:34.000 --> 04:51:40.600
 was trying to get them to stay an extra day but unfortunately was not able to but Roman

04:51:40.600 --> 04:51:45.400
 will be here to kind of give an update one on the overall historic preservation plan

04:51:45.400 --> 04:51:51.960
 where where that isn't sort of initial kickoff but also talk about how those incentive programs

04:51:51.960 --> 04:52:03.000
 will be incorporated into that into that plan will be bringing back probably one nine I'll

04:52:03.000 --> 04:52:10.080
 add back to this the the update on the downtown design standards and if you recall we we also

04:52:10.080 --> 04:52:15.400
 talked about that training that first meeting in January on Robert's Rules of Order and

04:52:15.400 --> 04:52:25.880
 sort of what what can be talked about at at a work session and I think that was it one

04:52:25.880 --> 04:52:34.760
 other item sorry I have I failed to do it yet but but I have Charlie helping work on

04:52:34.760 --> 04:52:40.720
 on a system where as we get community meetings scheduled we'll be able to send out sort

04:52:40.720 --> 04:52:46.040
 of that that blast notification to let everyone everyone know when those are when those are

04:52:46.040 --> 04:52:53.800
 scheduled so that that that is in the works does anyone have anything to add to the matrix

04:52:53.800 --> 04:52:59.840
 Mr. Ellis thank you just real quick as maybe just some cleanup with staff is can you make

04:52:59.840 --> 04:53:05.160
 sure that the the affidavit and the signs are in our backup I mean I drove out to a

04:53:05.160 --> 04:53:11.160
 property today to ensure that the sign was up because it wasn't in our material certainly

04:53:11.160 --> 04:53:15.840
 so I mean I know that's supposed to be part of it so if they post it as scheduled there

04:53:15.840 --> 04:53:19.640
 should be plenty of time to get it in our backup so we have it we'll do okay thank you

04:53:19.640 --> 04:53:27.040
 anyone else have any items I'd like to Christian Sanchez I know wall back we had on this list

04:53:27.040 --> 04:53:31.440
 we had talked that we're gonna have some training or talk about roundabouts whatever happened

04:53:31.440 --> 04:53:39.560
 to that is that we decide not to do it or we're talking about you don't remember yeah

04:53:39.560 --> 04:53:49.440
 and I thought perhaps pre temp covered it I can have I can have him provide some additional

04:53:49.440 --> 04:54:01.520
 background on on the on the roundabouts might get trade to cover that meeting for us so

04:54:01.520 --> 04:54:07.000
 I don't see anyone else the only things that I would don't I have two points rather than

04:54:07.000 --> 04:54:12.880
 than maybe three points I think that first I don't know if it's a guessing game or if

04:54:12.880 --> 04:54:17.520
 there's thought to it but I appreciate the stacking of the agenda tonight I thought it

04:54:17.520 --> 04:54:22.320
 went really well to have the quick ones up front to get them out so just wanted whoever

04:54:22.320 --> 04:54:28.880
 stacks these agendas I noted that it went well tonight so I appreciate that apart from

04:54:28.880 --> 04:54:37.080
 I know coaster Beck once trees up front next time yeah I totally agree there wasn't too

04:54:37.080 --> 04:54:43.520
 many people here the only other thing that I would I would like to just say to the commission

04:54:43.520 --> 04:54:50.840
 before even have our rules it's it's difficult for me as a chair to step into the engagement

04:54:50.840 --> 04:54:58.040
 from the audience members to the commission and so if we can refrain from pulling the

04:54:58.040 --> 04:55:04.480
 audience or entertaining individuals that aren't announced it just it alleviates that

04:55:04.480 --> 04:55:08.040
 selfishness for me but it just tonight there's a couple banters that I didn't know how to

04:55:08.040 --> 04:55:13.080
 interject properly and so if it's possible to refrain from engaging the audience members

04:55:13.080 --> 04:55:19.060
 that would be super helpful to first one that would come up I would say ask him that question

04:55:19.060 --> 04:55:25.000
 then anybody else coming up if they'd answer that question too sorry about that no no worries

04:55:25.000 --> 04:55:31.800
 the last thing is and I told city staff this and let vice chair Ellis know I will not be

04:55:31.800 --> 04:55:37.520
 at the next meeting the 12th so vice chair Ellis will be taking lead on that thank you

04:55:37.520 --> 04:55:41.640
 for that and then if it works out great for Roman is still provide that update I know

04:55:41.640 --> 04:55:47.960
 I asked request if I requested it I'm certainly able to catch the video so I just want it

04:55:47.960 --> 04:55:55.520
 is what it is okay seeing no other discussion items will close the meeting at 10.05