Good afternoon, welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, June 28th, 2023.
This is our work session, and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.30 p.m.
I'll let the record show Commissioner Villarreal is absent at this time.
First item on our work session is citizen comment on consent agenda.
However, we do not have a consent agenda this evening, so we will go move right to number
two on our work session, which is clarification of agenda items for this evening's meeting.
First item is the minutes for the 14th of June.
Commissioners, any comments on the minutes?
Questions?
Okay.
That will move us to items for individual consideration, 3A is V230003.
I'll have Mia come up and give us a quick rundown on that, and we'll see if there's
any questions.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, good evening, members of the commission, Mia Hines, Associate Planner.
This item, V230003, is a request to reduce the minimum number of vehicular access points
from two to one for a proposed multi-family site located at the northwest corner of FM1173
and the southbound I-35 frontage road.
The site itself is currently zoned MR, and per the Ditten Development Code, recent adoption,
we do require at least two full points of vehicular access for residential uses where
the development is proposing to construct 30 new dwelling units or more, which this
one is, and so we would require normally two points of access per that Code of the Ditten
Development Code.
However, there are some construction plans for the TXDOT reconstruction of the I-35 per
TXDOT in this area that a second drive access point off I-35 would not meet TXDOT standards
from the intersection of FM1173 and I-35 and the GORE, proposed GORE, that would be within
the TXDOT right-of-way, and so given that information, we are recommending approval
of this application. I do have a fuller presentation with a little blown up exhibits, but I can
go on through that if you'd like or I can take any questions that you have from this
summary.
Can I share his questions?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair. Can you remind me what TXDOT plans are currently with 77 and how that
crosses over and what's happening there?
Yeah, 'cause there's some plan, as I recall, for arterial that's going over toward Crum,
right?
Yes, so Carina Maldonado, Transportation Planner, so in this general area, US77 will realign
with Barthold and when, so if you look at our mobility plan, I know we don't have it
up here, 77 will have a crossing over with Barthold and then as it goes west, it'll come
back down to FM 1173, so it'll go kind of north in this area, and so what you're seeing
here is part of that expansion for the frontage roads that will ultimately have on and off
ramps to also connect to loop 288.
Okay, but the access proposed on the south end is to 1173, not to Barthold, so it won't
be that future thoroughfare.
This, so this is the Gore point, that will actually be an on-ramp onto I-35, and then
further north, or I should say further south, would be the ramps towards future loop 288
on the west side, so 77 is not near this area.
Barthold is to the north.
It's north of here, and then it'll come down, okay, thank you.
Yep.
Commissioner Cole?
Thank you, Chair, so what you're saying is this one access is temporary, so eventually
with the ramps in I-35, that would...
The driveway access point?
Yeah.
No, so they are requesting to remove that one completely, the one that's off of I-35,
and just stick with the one that's off of FM 1173.
Okay.
Mia, did you have a discussion with FIRE on this?
We did.
I didn't see a whole lot of that in the backup, other than that it, you know, it was not public
safety concern.
My whole issue with this would be the safety of the complex, so...
Yeah, usually with the...
It's depending on the unit count that kicks in, their requirement for two points of access
and meeting, you know, those spacing requirements.
Do you remember that number for the unit count?
Sorry.
Thanks.
Sorry.
So for FIRE's requirements per the International Fire Code, if they hit the trigger of more
than 201 units, then they would meet that remoteness and would require two points of
access.
So since this proposed development is less than 200, they wouldn't need to meet two points
of access for FIRE.
They would need to meet it per our development code and would have spacing requirements that
they wouldn't need to meet certain FIRE code requirements, so this is just a waiver to
drop it down to normally what FIRE would be okay with.
Okay.
And that was my question.
Yep.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Okay.
Thanks, Mia.
Next is 3B, FP230012.
Julie has that one.
Hi, Julie.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, and I have a final plot.
You may be familiar with this project.
This is the Agave Ranch project.
It is located on FM428, just northeast of town.
They have submitted a final plot for the second phase of this project.
They have some additional items that they do need to work through in order for it to
comply with all of the standards and regulations, and so staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to the July 19th planning and zoning
meeting, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions for Julie?
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Next item on the agenda tonight is 3C, FP230010.
Are you the stand-in for, Cameron?
I am.
I'm standing in for Cameron tonight.
Julie Wyatt, this is FP230010.
This is a final plot for an industrial use.
It is located on the northwest side of town in that general area that Mia was discussing.
This is south of 1173.
Once again, they do have some items that they need to correct in order to meet all the regulations,
and so staff is recommending denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to July 19th.
Great.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions for Julie on this one?
Great.
All right.
Thank you.
We've got two public hearings this evening.
First one is 4A, AESA230000.
Commissioner Cole will be recusing himself from this item.
Hello, Christy.
Hi.
It's already loaded?
Okay.
Thanks.
So, just do this real quick.
Christy Upton, environmental compliance coordinator, and I'm presenting an alternative ESA plan
for Hunter Ranch phase one.
In summary, Hunter Ranch is requesting to deviate from the environmentally sensitive areas protection
requirements by filling in a .14 acre herbaceous wetland, and then they will be recreating
the ecological services offered by that wetland closer to a waterway, and staff is recommending
approval to get into a little bit more detail.
Hunter Ranch received permission to develop under a master plan community plan, and the
phase one preliminary plot during that review, we identified that there is that .14 acre
wetland that is located generally where two residential lots are being constructed.
And then also there is phase one of the civil plans are currently under review.
And then a little bit more detail on the wetland that was identified.
It was a herbaceous wetland that was -- that seems to have developed after a stock pond.
There were some dam failures, and the water remained, and so it had created these wetland
conditions.
It's isolated, and it's kind of upland of the remainder of the waterway.
So the isolation and the development of the site is going to further degrade the wetland
if it was to remain, because it would further be isolated from hydrologically.
So the proposal is to recreate the wetland by first excavating the soils close to that
waterway, and then scraping the existing wetland, transferring the root stock and the seed stock
from that existing wetland to the new location, and then supplementing that with a seed mix
that is a vegetative cover that would -- that is -- sorry, I missed the word -- that is
native and adaptive to those conditions.
And then the final product is to expect a 60 percent vegetative cover.
Notifications were sent out, and because Hunter Ranch is the only property within the required
boundaries of the notifications, Hunter Ranch did offer to host neighborhood meetings with
some of the surrounding properties, so those informal meetings were held.
I also received several inquiries from residents who were passing by and saw the signs, but
no one sent in any responses officially.
And our recommendation is to approve the project, and with the conditions that were in your
backup, there is one minor correction that is being made, a typo in your backup materials
that listed that 90 percent vegetative cover and should say 60 percent.
And with that, I'll take any questions.
>> Thank you, Kristi.
Commissioner Smith.
>> There we go.
Always nice to get something you haven't seen in six years of being on P&Z, so having never
seen something like this where we are basically relocating -- I know it's an AESA -- we've
seen AESAs, but an AESA that pertains to specifically relocating a wetland like that, how many times
have we done that in the city?
What's our past experience with doing that, and you're shaking your head never?
>> Yeah, I've never seen this proposed project.
I do have another project in the pipeline that you'll be seeing in the near future.
The environmental scientist who prepared the plan, she is here.
Maybe she can give us a little more insight if you have questions at the public hearing.
>> Yeah, we'll wait for one.
>> But it's -- yeah, it's kind of a new concept to me as well.
>> I think just for the environmental scientist, I'm looking over at you guys because I don't
know -- okay, hi.
Nice to see you.
Who here is that?
But in the presentation, I'd like to just know a little bit more about history of replacing
these from just past projects since we've never seen something like this that, you know,
in theory on paper, it sounds like you can just, you know, cut and paste elsewhere.
I don't know.
That's not in reality that easy, not environmental scientist.
So one was about the success rate.
We've seen failures before in other projects when this happened, and how long will it take
for it to get back to its -- to what it currently provides to the land and to the community
now?
Will it be when it gets transplanted?
And so I'd like to be able to know more of that information.
>> Great.
And I assume your presentation is bigger that you're going to be talking about tonight anyway,
right?
Or is that --
>> It's generally what I had prepared.
>> Okay.
Then if you could incorporate --
>> Yes.
>> Yeah, well, Commissioner Smith, yeah, has asked.
That would be fantastic.
Please.
>> Absolutely, yes.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villareal.
>> Hi.
More generally, when we're doing mitigation efforts for AESAs, do we see at least an equitable
return on environmental impact, or what are we looking for in terms of approving an AESA?
Does it have to have the same positive impact that the initial ESA would have?
>> I guess so.
We have a criteria for approval in the Denton Development Code, and Hunter Ranch's project
has demonstrated that the project will exceed the minimum expectations.
They are recreating the wetlands so that the final acreage would be .23 acres.
There's not specifically a measure of the ecological services that is currently there,
and there's not a direct correlation to the ecological services that would provide.
But we do know that what is currently on the property is pretty low quality as far as species
richness and the ability for that wetland to provide those ecological services.
And when we talk about ecological services, we're talking about sequestering pollutants
and providing habitat to wildlife, just two examples of something that we look for, and
by recreating the wetland closer to the waterway and introducing a native mix that is not currently
on the property, it's heavily grazed.
So a lot of the vegetation is missing from that area.
So reintroducing some of that vegetative mix, hopefully it will take off and maybe spread
within the riparian zone.
So those are some of my hopes to see as well.
Just by relocating it closer to the waterway and by putting it within the hydrological
flow of the whole discharge of the proposed residential development, this new wetland should
provide more services in the future.
>> Fantastic.
And just for -- the backup was great, but for a layperson like me, would you be able
to say that it wouldn't cause any, you know, undue detrimental harm to wildlife in that
area?
You know, we're moving it, you know, physically we're moving habitat, right, and moving it
a bit far away.
What's the effect on the wildlife currently in that habitat zone?
>> I expect to see that this actually will increase habitat for wildlife because, like
I said, it's pretty low quality right now, where it is and what is there, and so by this
project we should see a higher quality habitat overall and a greater acreage, so the end
result should be an improvement to the environment.
>> Fantastic.
And I know this is a new mitigation effort, but past mitigation efforts, what's the success
rate on past AESAs in terms of either replicating the benefits or even improving on the benefits
of past AESAs?
>> So I have seen through a few projects now.
I've been here five years, and so in that time the projects that had been approved in
the past that I've seen come through, we are seeing that there is an opportunity, not only
just an opportunity, but there is more vegetation, species richness that's being introduced,
and those areas where the vegetative cover is reestablished, the system does have an
improvement in the quality of the overall environment around those waterways.
>> So since you've been here for the past five years, there's been no failure rate in
terms of AESAs?
>> I mean, there's times when we still have to work through things, and so I continuously
work on that.
I'm not going to say that the first time that they plan it, it's successful because I've
seen those failures occur, but we don't relent until -- and we don't release the project
until we have seen what is in the ordinance, the requirements to meet those criteria.
>> Gotcha.
Thank you.
>> All right.
Failure is not an option, right?
Any other questions for Chrissy?
Thank you very much.
>> You're welcome.
That will move us to 4B, is Z220022B, and Angie is making her way up.
Hello.
>> Hey.
Good evening, everyone.
Just a moment here.
Hey, Angie Mangler, Senior Planner, Development Services.
This is Brush Creek Rezoning.
Before we get into the background of this request, I'm sure you all saw on your backup
there are a handful of emails, I think upwards of 50, from residents in our ETJ who were
concerned about multifamily development.
I wanted to make it clear that we did have an error in our GIS map when we initially
posted this, the label red, Brush Creek multifamily, which I can see how that would be misleading.
We did quickly correct it and in my emails have corresponded with individuals that this
is not a multifamily request.
It's actually single family and SC, so I just kind of wanted to address that now as to maybe
why you had seen that and make it clear that this is a rezoning request from rural residential
and residential one on approximately 18 acres located at the northeast corner of US 377
and Brush Creek Road.
The request is to rezone.
>> Angie, can I interrupt you just a minute because Commissioner Cole hasn't returned
yet, so I'm going to go see if we can track you down.
>> That is true.
>> Yeah, if you don't mind, please.
Thank you.
>> He may -- yeah, he may -- >> He might want to know.
>> Yeah.
Right.
There's no TV knowing to tell him, hey.
Did you find him?
Oh, there he is.
We almost got completely started without you on this one.
Nice.
Angie, thank you.
Go ahead.
>> Yeah, absolutely.
So, background on this request, this is a rezoning request on approximately 18 acres
located at the northeast corner of US 377 and Brush Creek Road.
The request is to rezone from rural residential and residential one to R6 and suburban corridor
districts.
Of the 18 acres, approximately 15 are being requested to be rezoned to R6 with the intent
to develop a single-family residential, and the remaining 2.7 acres located at that hard
corner is being requested to be rezoned to suburban corridor.
Does have a future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use, which calls for predominantly
residential development and a variety of densities and housing types, but also calls for neighborhood
serving professional services and retail to help kind of serve those neighborhoods.
Staff does find that this is consistent with our comprehensive plan and does meet our criteria
for approval.
We are forwarding this to you this evening with a recommendation of approval.
Neither R6 nor SC would allow for multifamily development by right.
If somebody wanted to develop in the future that SC as multifamily, there would have to
be an SUP first requested, and you would see this before you again.
So, just to kind of help clarify that multifamily component confusion, that's not part of this
request.
It does allow for a variety of residential types, but multifamily is not one of them.
Happy to answer any questions.
Questions for Angie?
Angie, I know one thing that didn't make sense to me as I was reading the backup is it mentioned
11 students being proposed.
That seems really low.
Sure.
How did that number come about?
I do not have that math, but I did reach out to Argal ISD and let them know I had a project
that was within their boundaries and asked for an estimate based on the proposed R6 zoning
and the single-family development.
They provided me with their estimate for what they typically see in developments of this
type, and I was given the number 11 students were projected for the approximately 51 homes
that this development would generate.
That seems too low to me.
I mean, I could see it with the way a lot of homes are developed in this area, 11 being
one of them, because they were bigger lots and a lot less homes, but okay, I'll hold
other questions because I think I saw Commissioner Pritz hand up.
Thank you, Chair.
So I made the mistake of going back and watching the three hours of the public hearing that
occurred back in 2019, not the mistake, but then being facetious here.
It seemed to me that staff at that time, and I understand different staff, it's been five
years or four years, whatever the math works out to, it was suggested within that public
hearing that the community mixed-use future land use designation required some sort of
mixed-use zoning district that MN at that time was the least intensive that they thought
would comply with that.
Can you explain to me, just elaborate more why this is in conformance to the future land
use map and we're not seeking a change to the future land use map alongside this?
Sure.
Well, the community mixed-use, this has the future land use designation of neighborhood
mixed-use, which is kind of the lens I viewed this under.
Community mixed-use, we kind of had this discussion with the PD a couple months ago where we see
it being more of a retail-centered district with residential as being the supporting component,
whereas the way neighborhood mixed-use breeds is that it's really intended for a variety
of neighborhoods in a different type of densities and product type, but where commercial is
appropriate.
The suburban corridor land use in this area, it's intended to be along major thoroughfares
with Brush Creek Road and US 377 both being primary arterials, it creates an ease of access
to serve the neighborhoods that you see developing around this area like Sage Brook, and then
I think it's Ridgecrest, which is a little bit further to the northwest.
So that was kind of some of how we got to this landing point.
Anything else?
Okay.
Any other questions?
Yeah, I guess with Karina here, I'm sure you don't have the answer to this, but I'll ask
it anyway.
I mean, we are a long way from this looking like SC.
I mean, these roads right now, it's barely neighborhood with the way they're developed.
So what's a ballpark time frame in your estimate?
Sorry, I don't know that I fully caught the question.
What's the time frame for it?
For that intersection to be what it ... To be at ultimate conditions.
So I can sort of answer the question with the information I know on 377, which is a
textile roadway.
It is currently not even anywhere in any future roadway construction project.
So it's not anticipated to have any major construction on it to be at its ultimate capacity.
So with this development, there might be some mitigation needed when it does come in for
a development past the zoning stage, and that was anticipated in the TIA, but the extent
of that would be auxiliary lanes, which are your right and left turn lanes to serve the
site.
It wouldn't necessarily be to increase capacity of those roadways.
With that said, Brush Creek is anticipated within the next, I'd say five to 10 years,
to be on a CIP project for the city of Denton.
In the next 10 years, you said?
I'm giving a rough kind of time frame because it obviously needs to go through a bond program
to be on a CIP, but the city does have plans because we do have projects further to the
east for other phases of Brush Creek/Hickory Creek.
So these would be continuing phases of that project once we identify funding.
So for the city, I say near-term is five to 10 years, for TechStat it's sort of an unknown.
In terms of this development specifically, I don't believe that there would be any perimeter
street improvements past right turn lanes that would be warranted.
I can go back to the TIA and look at that specifically, but I don't believe it's going
to be anything to that extent.
Okay.
I appreciate it.
Yep.
Taking my question.
Commissioner Perrett?
Sorry.
Transportation again.
My memory must be failing me, but I thought the extent of the Hickory Creek project that
had 2019 bond funding was riverside over to 377.
So it actually ends at Country Club, I believe.
So further to the east is the terminus for the current CIP projects, and then the phases
that I'm talking about is actually from Country Club up to 377 and then extending further
through the Sagebrook development all the way to I-35.
Those two are future CIP projects that we anticipate, but don't yet have funding.
Okay.
Thanks.
Yep.
I'll just kind of stay here just in case.
I don't see any other hands up.
Thank you, Karina.
Angie, just to the north of this, can you elaborate on those lots?
Because I'm kind of looking at the zoning map right now.
I think I saw self-storage coming in somewhere.
Sure.
Let me just go...
Yeah.
That might help.
Yeah.
So there's a mix of land uses in zoning districts, both within the city and the ETJ, but directly
to the north is Residential 1, and I believe we can see it better on this aerial.
Sorry for jumping back and forth.
They do take access through that lot to some storage.
So you have Residential 1, which is here, and then you've got the MN to the north.
There is access to self-storage and I think some other kind of office warehouse type uses
that are situated within our ETJ, but they're not within the city limits.
So at this time, these lots are...
They're currently undeveloped.
Okay.
And on the subject property now is like an outbuilding in a residence?
Is that what I saw?
This driveway that you see right here is leading to a single-family residence, and then there's
a few little accessory structures.
There is a gas well that has been plugged near the center of the site, but it's largely
armed up.
I assume, yeah, the sellers of the land are they who are living on it, I assume.
I mean, that structure's going away.
The structure's going away.
I don't know if it's currently owner-occupied or I don't have those details.
Okay.
Well, the applicant's here tonight, right?
Yes, the applicant will be here to speak on their behalf.
Yeah, I mean, what I'm struggling with is just with this request that we don't have
a lot of protection from what's already there, particularly that really nice rural space that's
just to the east of this.
So trying to see how that kind of density would be and how that changes things for them,
those backyards on Kiowa there that are literally going to back to this development.
So I'm struggling a little bit there because we don't have any kind of protections in place
with this request.
And then as well, I'm struggling with the SC because again, I mean, we're far from suburban
corridor and gosh knows when we're ever going to get to anything on that corner that would
look like suburban corridor, and it concerns me that suburban corridor does allow multifamily.
I know with an SUP, but an SUP is not a way to zone land.
And so anyway, I'm just throwing my concerns out right now as I'm mulling through things.
Anybody else have any questions for Angie?
Okay.
Appreciate you.
Thank you.
We'll look forward to the fuller presentation at the meeting.
That is it on our agenda for this evening.
So I will adjourn our work session at 6.01.
We'll meet up in council chambers at 6.30.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
Wednesday, June 28th, 2023.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.35 p.m.
Let the record show that Commissioner McDade is absent from tonight's meeting.
Next item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
will be not having a point of access off of I-35 and sticking with one point of access off of FM1173.
So here in providing your backup is the exhibit for the requested variance showing that currently
proposed.
Second point of access that would be off of I-35, again, the variance is to remove that
point of access and just allow this site to be served with the one off of FM1173.
The reason they are requesting this is because some construction plans for the I-35, that
area of I-35 shows that there is a proposed gore approximately 150 feet aligned just south
of that north eastern most corner of this property, where TXDOT's requirement for a
driveway spacing from that gore is 200 feet north of that point where that triangular
point that you see there, pointed on the side, that's the gore.
And so the minimum spacing requirement from that point is 200 feet to the north.
Obviously, you can see with the existing frontage, they wouldn't be able to meet that.
They only have 150 feet there.
And then another issue that they would run into as far as going south of the gore would
be the spacing between the intersection of FM1173 and I-35 needs to be a minimum of 425
feet.
There is a small typo in the AIS, it does say 495 feet, that correct, that is supposed
to be 425 feet.
It's also in the variance exhibit there, but I wanted to make that correction for the record.
It is 425 feet and that spacing would not work either, again, given the gore that's
going to be there and then the existing frontage just would not be able to accommodate the
drive that would meet those two requirements.
And so with that and the requested or with this being a variance request, subdivision
variance request, we did put it up against our criteria for approval in our subdivision,
I'm sorry, our DDC subchapter two.
And then specifically those items that I just stated, TxDOT's access management manual is
partially intended to provide guidelines to ensure safe and proper access management and
assist in protecting the public investment and transportation by preserving roadway efficiency
and enhancing traffic safety.
And so, of course, by having that second port of access or requiring that second port of
access to be along I-35, they would be out of compliance with TxDOT standards which are
meant to implement, provide safety.
And so with that, staff is recommending approval of this request as it does comply with those
criteria and at this time I will take any questions or concerns that you have.
Thank you, Mia.
Any questions for me at this time?
Okay.
I don't see any.
Thank you.
Okay.
The chair.
Commissioner Smith.
I make a motion to approve.
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval.
Is there any discussion?
Okay.
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That'll move us to 3-B, FP230012.
And Julie's making her way up for our presentation.
Hi, Julie.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, principal planner with the city.
Let me pull up the presentation.
All right.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt.
This is FP230012.
It's a final plat for the next phase of the Agave Ranch development, which is a single
family residential development located on the northeast side of town, just east of FM428.
They do have some items that they need to correct per our development code and criteria
manual, so staff does recommend denial of the request.
However, we have no objection to the requested 30-day extension to July 19th.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
I do not see any questions here on the board.
Thank you much.
Commissioner Smith.
I make a motion to approve the extension of date certain July 19th, 2023.
Commissioner Anderson.
Second.
So we've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of
July 19th, 2023.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to our next item, which is 3C, FP230010, and Julie will be presenting
that item as well.
This is FP230010.
This is also a final plat.
It is for a property located on the northwest side of town, just south of FM1173.
The proposed use is an industrial type use, warehouse type use.
As with the previous plat, they do have some items that they need to correct in order for
it to conform to the minimum standard.
So staff does recommend denial.
However, we have no objection to that requested extension to July 19th.
Thank you, Julie.
I do not see any questions.
Thanks.
Appreciate you.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Make a motion to approve the extension to a date certain of July 19th, 2023.
Thank you.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of
July 19th, 2023.
Any discussion on that?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 6-0.
That will take us to our public hearing portion of the evening.
And first up, we have 4A, AESA 23-0001, and Christy is on her way to present that item.
Hi, Christy.
I will go ahead at this time and open the public hearing.
Thank you, Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and I will be presenting an alternative
ESA plan for Hunter Ranch Phase 1.
In summary, this is a request to fill in 0.14 acres of herbaceous wetlands to construct
two residential lots in exchange for the removal of this environmentally sensitive area.
The applicant is proposing to replace the wetlands with 0.23 acres of herbaceous wetlands
closer to a waterway, and staff recommends approval.
Really quickly, a background on this, Hunter Ranch is a master plan community, and with
that approval of the plan for this master plan community, Hunter Ranch started planning
for Phase 1, and with the approval of the preliminary plot for Phase 1, staff had identified
a small herbaceous wetland of 0.14 acres.
It's an upland habitat.
I'll go into a little bit more detail in a second.
And then Phase 1 is also currently, staff is currently reviewing the civil plans.
This herbaceous wetland was likely developed from a stockpond that has been on the property
for some time, and is of low quality.
It has very few different types of plants in it.
We call it species richness, but it does have wetland qualities to it, the soils, the vegetation
meet those criteria of a wetland.
The wetland does overflow to this Roark branch, which it traverses the property from south
to north, and the Roark branch eventually meets up with Hickory Creek to the north.
The remainder of the environmentally sensitive areas on the property serve a purpose of protecting
the waterway.
The project is to remove this wetland and to fill it in to be able to construct two residential
lots.
What will happen when these residential lots are constructed is that it will end up isolating
the wetland from hydrologically receiving water in order to support that vegetation.
Essentially, even if the residential lots were not built, that isolated wetland become
even more isolated, even more degradated, and probably wouldn't be a wetland in the
long term.
The better solution is to relocate the wetland.
In this location that they have chosen, it will both be receiving flow from this pond
that they will be constructing, as well as it will be intercepting flow from the residential
neighborhood in the future.
The plan is to excavate the soils to create a basin, and then before they fill in the
current wetland, they will be scraping the roots and the seed stock and the soils from
the wetland and transplanting them to this new location.
In addition to that, they will be supplementing the effort with a greater species richness,
introducing new species that are native and adaptive to these wetlands.
Finally, the plan is to achieve a 60% vegetative cover.
That 60% vegetative cover is because you expect the bottoms of the wetland to remain wet for
periods of time, which then doesn't support for the vegetation to be able to grow in those
wet areas very well.
You're really expecting the vegetation to be at the perimeter of the pond.
Notifications were sent out, and staff received no responses.
As some notification was, the direct mailers were to the Hunter Ranch property, and Hunter
Ranch recognizing that they're our neighbors, they went and had informal meetings with those
neighbors to explain the project.
I did receive some inquiries from residents passing by and seeing the signs, but we did
not receive any responses.
Staff is recommending approval with the conditions that were in your backup, with one minor
revision a typo in the percentage of vegetative cover.
There were some questions at the work session about projects like this before, and so chatting
with the environmental scientists, she's explained that Peloton Land Solutions, who is the consultant
doing this work, has worked on projects like this before.
However, they have identified that the Corps of Engineers is the one that typically they
are doing this type of project with, but the Corps of Engineers prefers mitigation banking,
and the mitigation banks, those property owners, are then doing this type of project on a larger
scale.
She's also said that creating these wetlands is more effective than trying to create other
ecological systems, and that this project being designed to have that direct hydrological
flow is going to really be helpful.
She also wanted to emphasize that in addition to the seed stock that I mentioned earlier,
there's also the wetland soils, so the bacteria and organisms that are in those soils, and
the chemical makeup of those soils will really help the new vegetation really take off, and
the wildlife to take off, and that's about the summary of it.
Great.
With that, I'll take any other questions.
Any questions for Christy?
Commissioner Smith, I'll ask you, I know that was your question in work session, just making
sure that you got your questions answered.
I think the answer helps out, especially saying that the USACOE says that this is the secondary
preferred type, but honestly, mitigation banking is not going to work in this scenario.
I think that being reintroduced to a new hydrology area as well, the environmental scientist
that's working on this has done this type of project before, gives me more comfort.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you, Commissioner Smith.
I don't see any other questions, Christy, thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards in front of me for this item.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Smith?
I make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for approval as presented.
Any discussion?
Okay, seeing none, let's go ahead and vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
We'll give a moment for Commissioner Cole to return as he had to recuse himself from
that.
There he is.
Okay.
We'll go ahead and move to our next public hearing item, which is 4B, Z220022, and Angie
is here for presentation.
Good evening.
Hi.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
Before you begin, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing.
Thank you.
I'll pull up my presentation real quick.
Okay.
Angie Maglaris, Senior Planner, City of Denton.
This is Z220022.
It is a rezoning case for Brush Creek Residential and Commercial.
A little bit of background on this case.
This is a request to rezone approximately 18 acres of land situated at the northeast
corner of US 377 and Brush Creek Road from Rural Residential and Residential 1 to Residential
6 and Suburban Corridor.
The breakdown of that is approximately 15.7 acres of the total subject area is being requested
to be rezoned to R6 with the intent to develop as future single-family residential.
The remaining 2.7 acres situated at the hard corner is being proposed to be rezoned to
Suburban Corridor, or SC, for future commercial development.
As stated, this is located at the northeast corner of Brush Creek Road and US 377, both
of which are designated as primary arterials on our mobility plan.
It does have a future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use in the Denton 2040
comprehensive plan.
As it is today, the site is predominantly undeveloped open pasture.
There is a residential home on the site that does have some supporting accessory structures
along with it, and there's a plugged gas well towards the middle of the site.
There's a variety of residential zoning districts in different types of densities, both within
the city and in the ETJ surrounding the subject property.
There's also some undeveloped parcels to the north-northwest, as well as some smaller commercial
structures in the ETJ area surrounding the subject property.
When reviewing the request, staff did compare it to the 2040 comprehensive plan and found
that the request to rezone to R6 and SC is consistent with the designation of neighborhood
mixed use.
Neighborhood mixed use is predominantly intended to apply to residential areas, but does recognize
that local serving retail and service uses are appropriate and critical to achieving
balanced neighborhoods.
The proposed zoning districts are intended to accommodate a variety of residential housing
types, as well as facilitate commercial development at a scale that will be compatible with those
neighborhood developments.
The most eastern portion of the site is a transition area where you have some ETJ out
to the east in larger lots, and the site transitions from that larger lot, rural residential style
towards the more intensive residential uses that we're starting to see along the US 377
corridor as that area develops.
In addition to that, this development is consistent with the housing and neighborhood goals that
the comprehensive plan calls for, which calls to develop and maintain a housing stock that
meets all needs of our residents in a variety of choices, types, costs, and locations throughout
the city.
Staff is recommending approval of this request in reviewing it against the general criteria
for approval, as well as our criteria for zoning approval.
Staff does find that this is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan, as well
as the DDC.
Specifically, the proposed zoning to residential six permits a development of residential styles
and a variety of price points that could create greater housing diversity in the area, while
the SC proposed rezoning would allow for neighborhood serving commercial, which will be critical
to serving those neighborhoods out in that region as the US 377 corridor continues to
develop with developments in the region like Sagebrook that are starting to be under construction.
Any development that would be approved is required to meet all the requirements of the
DDC and any, I'm sorry, I just totally lost my train of thought there, but the development
would have to meet all the requirements of the DDC as per any project in the city.
Just to give you a little bit of background on the traffic impact analysis, there was
a traffic impact analysis that was submitted and approved by our city staff.
It contemplated up to 51 dwelling units, as well as approximately 2,500 square feet of
commercial development.
The TIA did make several recommendations, including a southbound left-hand turn lane
at US 377 in the most northern driveway, which I'll point out is right here, and that would
come at the time of the residential development portion of this project.
For the future commercial, the TIA made several recommendations, including a southbound left-hand
turn lane and a westbound right-hand turn lane to be installed on US 377, as well as
a southbound left-hand turn lane and a westbound right-hand turn lane installed at the Brush
Creek intersection.
Staff did notify in accordance with both state law and the Denton Development Code.
You can see the buffer area here.
We did not receive any responses within our city limit notification boundary.
However, as you'll see in your backup, we did receive approximately 50 emails from residents
residing in the ETJ.
The applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings in advance of this public hearing.
Staff is forwarding this to you this evening with a recommendation of approval, as it does
meet both our general criteria for approval and our criteria for approval for zoning cases.
The next step in this project will be a public hearing at City Council, which is scheduled
for July 18th.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
The applicant is also here with a brief presentation.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Angie, you said it in the work session, but you didn't mention it now.
Can you talk about capability of multifamily on this property?
Yes.
Thank you for reminding me.
The requested rezonings are to SC and R6.
Neither of those proposed rezoning districts or those zoning districts would allow for
multifamily development by right.
R6 does allow for a variety of housing types, which includes detached single family, duplexes,
townhomes and triplexes.
SC contemplates multifamily being appropriate with the approval of a specific use permit.
So if later down the line, if somebody wanted to apply for a multifamily development on
those 2.7 acres, we would be in a process much similar to this where a public hearing
would have to be held.
Great.
Thank you, Angie.
Thank you.
I don't see any other questions at this time.
I've got several cards in front of me.
The first one being the applicant.
So I'll go ahead and invite him down for presentation.
He'll state your name and address.
Your time will begin.
Good evening.
Absolutely.
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Omar Awais.
Address is 5225 Los Colinas Boulevard, Irving, Texas, 75039.
So my name is Omar Awais.
I own a family development business called Red Rock Communities.
We were hired by the owner of this property to help him develop out the property.
As you all know, there was some history with this property.
I believe the applicant tried to, the owner tried to get it rezoned to multifamily a few
years ago.
That was not seen very favorably by residents in the area.
He wanted some help from somebody that does a lot of single family developments to potentially
do a single family development here.
So I'll tell you a little bit about me and my company.
We primarily focus on single family projects around the DFW Metroplex.
Most of our projects have been closer to this area, a little bit east of here.
If you know where Bartonville is, we developed 170 acres over there right behind Marty B's
and right around the corner of where that tractor supply is.
Our primary kind of focus for our company is luxury.
We do everything kind of luxury.
We haven't done very much production homes, entry level homes.
So everything we typically have done has been in the, I'd say, $800,000 plus range for homes
and developments.
We've partnered with a lot of builders over the years.
We've partnered with Toll Brothers.
We've partnered with a lot of custom builders, Pentevia Custom Homes, Lingenfelter Custom
Homes, and a few others.
The reason why this owner reached out to us is because he feels like this more luxury
kind of look to this development would probably be ideal here.
So we've kind of done the land plan in a way and the landscape package that we've selected
and some of the monumentation that we're working through has all been to target more of a kind
of a luxury look for the neighborhood.
I understand 50 foot lots, it's kind of hard to visualize what a luxury kind of feel and
look would look like.
But there's several of those neighborhoods up in Frisco and a few others.
So we want to make sure it's luxury, but at the same time, it's also a sellable product
kind of within the area.
So that's what we're working towards.
We held three neighborhood meetings, we tried to be the first two, we sent it out to everybody
that was within the buffer, but I don't think there was a lot of people within that buffer
so not many people showed up to the first two.
The last one we sent out, we actually reached out to the Hills of Argyle HOA and we sent
them the notice and they notified their residents.
And so we had a few more people show up to the third one.
We kind of went through the project with them.
I know there's a lot of concern from the neighboring property and from the neighbors.
So we tried to answer as much as we could.
You know, one thing I kind of pride myself on and the company that we work for is we're
very honest and straightforward about things.
If there's things that we can do that's within reason that we can kind of do to help this
be more of an easy project for people to swallow landscape packages, fencing, a better look,
we're open to all of that and we're happy to work with the residents.
Density, we tried to do this with 60 foot lots and 70 foot lots.
The numbers just don't work out based off of the purchase price and based off of kind
of the economics around it.
50 foot lots is kind of the best that we can really do on this property.
So we're hoping that you all kind of see that we're doing the best that we can and making
this a nice community.
The owner did, we did talk over the last few weeks, he's given me full authority to be
able to make decisions on his behalf here and be able to answer as many questions as
I can.
In regards to the commercial piece on the corner, right now there's no plans at all
in terms of what he would put there but it would be a neighborhood service of some kind
but he's not going to be building any kind of spec'd out commercial property.
It would be based off of what the need is in there.
Right now though he's ready to move forward with a single family piece of the development
if we're able to get that rezoned so we'll go straight to design plans and be able to
go break ground.
We're going to be, my company's going to be responsible to take the project through entitlements,
through construction and delivery of the lots to a builder and I'm also responsible for
picking the builders that we can bring into this neighborhood.
We have not selected who those builders are, we were in conversations with a few different
builders out there but we have not made that selection yet but obviously we would want
to keep it under the typical branding that we would normally do which is something on
the higher end side.
I just don't know what that is just yet.
It's really all I had but I'm happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability.
Okay, thank you, we do have a question.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Chair.
The, Sid mentioned that right now it was before the single family residential section.
The commercial section then will he, if the zoning moves through, after that single family
residential part begins, will the commercial section of that land still be owned by the
owner or will that be transferred off to another entity at that point in time?
No, at this point it will remain with the owner.
Okay.
Yeah, he's not planning on selling that.
Okay.
Yeah, he's not told me he wants to sell it.
He wouldn't sell it until, until, locates, locates a commercial use, a commercial, some
sort of commercial developer.
Like a built to suit.
Correct.
Yeah.
For that purpose.
Okay.
That's correct.
I should.
Yeah.
And typically with these commercial developments they want to have the residential completed
and built out to have, to generate the needs and demand for, for that so I'm, I'm assuming
he would want to wait until houses are built, people are moved in before you can really
capture the value there.
I should.
Any other questions for the applicant at this time?
I guess you can't tell us what builders you're talking to at this point.
They wouldn't want me to.
Sure.
We're still.
Understood.
And the reason, it's not that I want to hide anything.
Typically how these things work is I've got to get the cost estimate completed, figure
out what the lot values are, have those conversations and see which works.
If I, if I throw a name of a builder out I'd be lying to you that we have something done.
I just don't know yet.
Okay.
So what I do know is the builders that I do business with are typically higher end builders.
That's what I'm trying to get completed for this community and you wouldn't be able to
get like a starter level home here.
It would need to be something a little bit nicer than that to kind of, to kind of make
it work.
And you're envisioning how many dwelling units?
52 I believe is the number that we have on the land plan.
It might be 51 or 52.
I'm not planning on changing the land plan.
I know we're just talking zoning today, but the land plan that we've done that the city's
looked at, that we've evaluated, we're not planning on changing from that.
We're probably going to go straight to construction plans right after this.
Did you ever think about, cause this is such a unique space in the city with, you know,
the ETJ, the city of Argyle meets the city of Denton, really a rural corner at this point.
Did you consider planning this out any better than it has already been done?
Can you explain what you mean by planning better?
Basically have it, have more of a plan development in mind to be able to put restrictions in
place and whatnot.
Oh, so you mean in terms of like CCNRs and deed restrictions and are you talking about
that?
Not that so much, but yeah, instead of a straight zoning case, which is kind of, we're not quite
sure where it's going to go.
We're not quite sure who the builder is going to be.
We're not quite sure what's going to be built on this.
I mean, it's just, it's just a zoning change.
So it's, it's nothing against you and your company.
But what I'm saying is there's nothing to, to secure what you're telling us tonight.
That's just not how a zoning change works.
Yeah.
Look, I understand in a plan development, you would have a lot more things ironed out.
You know, we feel that with the density that's going to be there, it's, it's not extremely
dense.
The items that you're talking about from a plan development standpoint would have, it's
pretty much what CCNRs would have as part of the HOA documents in terms of finish out
for the houses, what builders you would have.
We could go that route.
That route probably takes a lot longer to get through and get all that stuff ironed
out.
The owner wants to move forward with the development as quickly as he possibly can.
And the types of houses that are going to be going in to be competitive, they have to
be at a certain level to be able to sell in this market.
There's right across the 377, there's a bunch of houses going up in there and there has
to be some sort of differentiation from, from that development that's across the street.
And that's the kind of the idea here is, is going more of the luxury route.
You won't be competing with the people across the street and at the same time, it'll look
nicer for kind of the houses that are kind of surrounding.
So, but yeah, I mean, in terms of doing planned developments, you typically have different
sized lots and all that.
We really had to have the 50-ish lots in there to make this work.
So that's kind of the route that we selected here.
My other concern, I don't know if you heard our work session, was 11 students generated
from this.
Seems really low to me.
11?
I'm sorry?
11 students is what the school district said this neighborhood would generate.
Did you talk, you did, I assume you didn't talk to Argyle ISD at all?
No, I did not have a conversation with Argyle ISD.
Okay.
That was, that was my question at work session that just, in our information, that's what
they said this would generate.
It seems really low to me.
Yeah, I didn't come up with that.
Right.
Yeah.
That's fine.
Okay.
I think that's all the questions I've got, but we will have you on the back burner as
we go through the public hearing if we need to call you back up.
Okay.
Thank you.
I do have several cards in front of me, so we'll get to those right now.
Wishing to speak.
First one I have is Jacqueline Wendell.
If you'll make your way to the podium, give your name and address and your time will begin.
Good evening.
Hello there.
Public speaking is not my favorite.
I'm going to do my best.
That's okay.
My name is Jacqueline Wendell.
I live on Kiowa Trail, which is directly behind the property of interest.
Like y'all know, we went through this a couple years ago.
This is definitely an emotional thing for all of us who live on the street.
We moved out to Argyle to be away from the Frisco type neighborhoods that he mentioned
earlier.
I felt like the picture didn't truly display what the neighborhood itself is going to look
like, but my property is about 60 yards wide, and it's pretty narrow.
I'm going to have two and a half houses behind my property.
To me, that's insane.
I don't even know how these houses are going to fit on these properties, but we're in a
position right now where we don't know for sure that even this is going to happen, that
the plan that they have in place is actually going to be carried out, like you mentioned
with the R6, multifamily homes, the duplexes, triplexes, all of that, and that for one is
another thing that really concerns me.
If this does get approved, we don't want that.
We've got land animals behind us.
We've got goats.
We have a donkey.
We have chickens.
We use these animals to make money.
We're concerned about construction, which we all knew this, that this was going to happen.
This land is going to be developed, and that's fine.
If this does go through, one thing that we were requesting, or really demanding, is that
there is some type of barrier or wall that's put up behind our properties.
One for the construction, noise, the dust, again, it's going to affect our animals.
We all have children.
We've got pools, and so I think it's a courtesy for them to put something up to block us from
some of those things that will come with the construction side of it, and two, again, we
moved out here to have privacy and to have space, and so to have two and a half families
looking over our property and potentially interacting is not something that we were interested
in.
I guess in terms of assurances that, again, if this does get approved, it'd be nice to
have something from the developer saying, "Yes, we are going to stick by this plan,"
or "Is there another zoning change that could be requested that would limit what they could
do in terms of those duplexes and that sort of thing to make sure we're not in a situation
where that actually happens?"
I didn't mention this, but this is kind of concerning to me because when this did, again,
go happen a couple years ago, we had a huge turnout, and I know you all probably remember
we were here for like three hours.
We were sent two different letters from the developer saying that we were going to have
the P&Z meeting either on this date or this date.
The first letter never happened.
We got a second letter maybe in May or something that, again, said the meeting will happen
on this date or this date.
We will notify you as required by state law when the actual date would be.
None of us on the street received any notification, and so I'm concerned because I feel like there
would be a lot more people here had we actually received that notification.
I found out on Facebook, somebody in the Argal page had posted something saying, "Oh, by
the way, tomorrow is this meeting.
If you can go, go," but to find out last minute like that definitely is going to put a damper
on how many people actually can make it.
I don't feel like this is a fair representation of the community, and I don't know if you
all ended up making a decision on this today or some other time, but I don't know if it's
possible to postpone decision making and hopefully allow for more people to actually put their
say into what they think should happen.
I know I'm almost out of time.
One other thing, I don't know if the developer has any type of property value impact projection
study, if there's something like that that he could share with us regarding some of the
other things that he's done in the past and how this will affect our property value.
I'm guessing it will be lowering it, and then two, knowing what the houses are going to
look like I think would also make a big difference.
Thank you, Ms. Wendell, for speaking.
Appreciate it.
Angie, can I invite you up here?
I just want to have you address her concern with notifications.
State law requires us, obviously, to send out notification.
I'm assuming the reason they did not receive notification is because they are outside the
city limits.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
We sent notifications in accordance with state law to property owners in the city limits
within 200 feet, and then we sent courtesy postcards to residents within 500 feet.
If they're not in the city limits, they would be missed by that notification.
That equaled how many?
I forgot that number.
Do you remember how many postcards you actually sent out?
I'm sorry.
Did you say the email count?
No.
How many postcards you actually sent out?
It was about 11, because keep in mind, some of these in Sagebrook are not developed yet,
so there's nobody there to send them to.
Yeah.
Okay.
Appreciate that.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Next card I have is Garth Blackburn.
If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin.
Good evening.
My name is Garth Blackburn.
We're at 900 Brush Creek, so we are the first adjoining property.
To support that cause, I understand that it's state law in terms of notification, but when
this happened previously, we were notified.
We're the most impacted property.
We have the longest stretch that's shared.
Also previously, and I know it's not state law anymore, but the hearing or city council
meeting was noted with a date and time on the sign, which was not noted this time.
I know it's not required, but you would think if y'all want community support, that you
would actually try and get as much of the community and the surrounding area to come,
so that would be a first component.
Next would be the development side, and I'm going to give a backhanded compliment to Omar.
His developments I'm very familiar with, and they're incredible.
He does a great job.
They're nothing like this.
What he cited from behind Marty B's, beautiful, multi-million dollar homes.
That's not what this is going to be.
We're going from these one, two plus acre lots to these incredibly small houses.
It's going to change everything.
Angie had mentioned as you go further east, and Angie's been super helpful in all of our
meetings.
I just want to point that out.
As you go further east and it's stuff that's more similar to this, it's not.
Maybe once you cross 1830 and go into near the Teasley area, sure, that's not this corridor.
There's not another development.
If you had a development that would be east on Brush Creek, it'd be Hills of Argyle.
If you look at the size of the lots, price of the houses, those are completely different.
Also do want to point out, again, an Omar's favor on how well he's done on developments
has been incredible, but he doesn't have ownership in this.
At the end of the day, your concern is our concern, which is once they get it rezoned,
they can just say, "Peace out," and it can be done.
Who knows who's going to take it over and put in townhomes through the whole thing?
There's no requirement for a minimum.
There's nothing.
It's almost like this free for all just to get it rezoned.
In fact, until tonight, I didn't know that they had an option to spend more time, which
they've had years to develop whatever they wanted to.
If there was an option to develop some master plan that I wasn't aware of until tonight,
why didn't that start two and a half, three years ago when this was initially declined
and now suddenly the owner wants to have something fast?
Omar referred to that twice and not in offense to him at all, but in offense to the owner.
Why does this need to happen so fast without us having a chance to voice our opinions as
a community, but also for you all to assess, how is this going to impact Denton?
How is it going to impact the surrounding area of Argyle where unincorporated?
It's going to affect all of us.
My biggest concerns are that there's no true ownership in this property.
It's just let's get it rezoned and we'll deal with it from there.
If you look at the lots, I mean, if you're comparing somebody's driving down the street
and they turn left off 377 as they're going northbound on Bonnie Bray and the houses are
being listed at 330,000, the likelihood that somebody's going to turn right just because
they get a better school, especially if there's only 11 students out of 52 houses that are
going to be going to school in Argyle, they're not going to pay that difference.
They're not going to spend a million dollars for the same lot size as they would be paying
$332,000 on the left side or the west side.
So I think those are some core components that at the very least was what Jacqueline
had mentioned.
I mean, there needs to be time.
I think that we need a further assessment.
I didn't realize this is going to be July 18th, I think is what was said for going to
city council because once that happens, if there's not enough opposition, it's going
to go through.
And at that point, sales are up and it's gone.
And I really think that this is the opportunity to ask for more time from the owner who has
decided not to show up again and have Omar's representative, great guy, but I do think
that there needs to be some time to reassess.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next card I have is Troy Fulkerson.
Good evening.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
We live on the hills of Argyle, we've been there for 20 years.
The reason we moved out there was because when there were lots, big community, traffic
was not bad at that time.
But our goal is that corner has been misfired a several times.
I was here two years ago when there were probably 100 people here, standing room only.
I agree with the last speaker that we don't have time to really adjust or see what the
final place will be.
The restrictions are houses or they could be multi housing, they could be condominiums.
We don't know.
But once you guys give the commitment that it's carte blanche, what do we know?
That's the frightening thing though.
I understand the owner wants to sell his property.
Everybody needs to have the right to sell their land, but we do have a right to say
what goes on with land and what affects us.
If you look at the hills of Argyle, the average house in that neighborhood now is $900,000.
If you go behind us to Country Club Acres, it's about the same thing.
I agree, on the other side of the road they're building $400,000 houses, $350,000, but will
it be a supermarket, will it be a high rise, will it be multifamily?
We want something that's good for our community, that's stable, that keeps our property values
up, and to be good neighbors.
20 years of living there, we live in the hills of Argyle, it's a community, and we come together
to bond and we don't want a multifamily unit there.
Some houses there, that'd probably be great, and limit it to 52 lots, and that's tight.
I can't even envision what it would look like.
It would be better if we had an architectural design, and look, this is what we're planning.
This is it, this is how it goes, this is how it's laid out, this is what the houses will
look for, this is what the houses will cost.
So we have an ideal who's going to be our neighbor in the next 40, 50, 60 years.
In a nutshell, we love our neighborhood, change is happening, and it did in Texas.
Everywhere you go, there's apartments and building and building and building.
In two, I saw recently, 220 acres, it's going to be built out, so if we can contain our
little piece of land and kind of have some control of what it's going to look like now,
and what it will look like in 30 years, that's what we want, because we've all lived out
there, chose that land.
Our property values are nice, and we love the community, so help us control what goes
on that land.
That's all I got to say.
Thank you very much.
I've got some other cards here that's not wishing to speak.
I'll go ahead and call out, and if you would like to, you absolutely are welcome to.
I have Joel Martin in opposition, not wishing to speak, I assume.
Okay.
I've got another one here, Erlayne Martin in opposition.
Okay.
Carol Hassel, would you like to come down and speak?
Please do.
Hi there.
Just state your name and address.
Your time will begin.
Carol Haisley, 4701 Upper Glenwick.
It's in the hills of Argyle.
I wasn't going to talk because I don't have a lot to say, but R6 next to R1 is not planning.
That's chaos.
If you taper down, you taper down one or two zones, you don't jump from R1 to R6.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you very much.
Next card I have is Donna Parfetti in opposition, okay, and Lucinda Boas, thank you, in opposition.
Did you want to speak?
I did.
Okay.
Good evening.
If you'll give us your name and address, your time will begin, and if you'll speak into
the microphone, that would be great.
Lucinda Boas, and I live at 1050 Brush Creek Road, which is behind the hills of Argyle.
With the 11 children, I back up to four homes, and in those four homes, I have six children
behind me, so I can't imagine that you would only have 11 children out of 50 homes, especially
if these became duplexes, so now it's not just 50, it's 100.
The infrastructure is not there to handle an additional 50 homes.
We're already going to have traffic from across the railroad tracks.
There's multiple housing additions going in down Bonnie Bray.
The traffic, the infrastructure's not there.
We have 18 wheelers right now just obliterating Brush Creek.
They put in the sewer line and half the road caved in, so there just needs to be more planning,
and I agree with my neighbors that just giving them a blank check is not good.
Thank you very much.
Next card I have is Terry Boas in opposition.
Did you want to speak, Mr. Boas?
No, I'm good.
Okay.
I'll put you at the bottom because I've got some others before you, okay?
Thank you.
On here, this says Poland in opposition.
Did you wish to speak this evening?
Yes.
Judy Fulkerson is in opposition.
Amy Blackburn, did you want to come up and speak, please?
Good evening.
You probably know the drill by now.
Yes.
Okay.
Hi.
I'm Amy Blackburn.
My husband spoke earlier, and we live just in the very first property that's adjoining
the property that's vacant that we're talking about.
I just have one thing to point out.
When we first got a letter in the mail, it was from a company called Red Rock Communities,
and then we got a second letter, and it was from a different name.
I think it was called Maggie and Sons or something like that, LLC.
And then there was a third letter with a different company representing this particular seller.
And so for me personally, I can hear what they're presenting and what the ideas are.
My main concern is that it's a trust thing for me.
I feel like the name has changed three times already, and I feel like, well, what am I
supposed to believe when the names have been sent out three different times with three
different representations?
The developer doesn't even own the property, but he's representing the owner who's not
here.
So for me personally, it's a trust thing.
I understand what I'm being presented, but I don't understand what we're going to get.
And so for me personally, it's just kind of hard to buy into.
So therefore, I oppose.
Thank you.
David Wendell in opposition, Amanda Shriver in opposition, Eric Nordstrom in opposition,
Claire Nordstrom in opposition.
Do you want to come up and speak, Claire?
Sure.
Just quickly, and I don't know how many others this affects, but I never got a postcard or
notice about this meeting, and my property backs up directly to this project.
So it might affect more people than just me, but didn't know about it, so I'm sure a lot
more people would be here if they knew.
Okay.
I'm assuming you're in the ETJ?
I'm within the 200-meter buffer.
I'm within the ETJ off of the Kiowa Trail.
Okay.
Yeah.
So they're one they're allowed to back right up to mine.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Carrie Johnson in opposition.
David Haseley in opposition.
Kevin Kosman in opposition.
Do you want to come down and speak?
Great.
Yeah.
I think I can't remember your name.
You said it very well.
We weren't given enough time to plan everybody to come up here, and this just doesn't fit
the area.
Like you said, we have such a unique area, and it's kind of a mixture of Denton and Argyle,
and we just need to rethink it and give it more time to maybe we can keep it unique and
beautiful, and putting 50-foot homes or whatever lots is not beautiful.
We need just some more time to keep it just beautiful.
And a lot of us have animals, and I'm worried that if my donkeys are hollering in the morning
that whenever these people move in, and they're hearing my donkey, everybody in my neighborhood
loves them.
I don't know about anybody, and it just seems like it's going to cause a lot of problems.
And I'm not the only one with animals.
We have a whole community of animals, and we all love them, so that's really all I'd
say.
Thank you for speaking.
I've got another card here.
Alexander Allen in opposition.
That is all the cards I have in front of me.
If there's anyone wishing to speak who has not filled out a card, you're certainly welcome
to do so.
Okay.
Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Hey, Tina, I had a question for you.
To be honest, and this is for everyone in the room to understand, those of you guys
that are in the ETJ that did not receive notifications, when this project came in front of this commission
back in 2019, this property, when it was proposed to be multifamily, that was something that
was heard from residents at that time, that didn't receive notification of that at that
time.
I, myself, Chair Ellis, and I think Commissioner Cole were still on the commission at that
time, and all of us at that time, the city, we need to make a change to our notification
to make sure those that are in the ETJ receive notification.
We have been making changes and pushing to have that be changed.
That process is in the works.
There was a work session conversation we had about notifications, and so those changes
are coming, and we're sorry that that has not happened as of yet, but it's something
that has been addressed.
So, Tina, can you give us an update on where we are with notifications in ETJ?
Yes.
So, I seem to recall where we left things was having Chair Ellis potentially talk with
council.
I'm trying to think back to that conversation, and if you have a different recollection,
let me know.
But you're right, we did have a fair amount of conversation about notification within
the ETJ, and so there was consensus amongst the commission to explore that further and
getting that message delivered to council.
So, ideally, that message would get delivered to council.
Council would do a two-minute pitch to direct staff to be able to, well, actually would
do a two-minute pitch to be able to see if there's interest amongst the at least four
members of council to have us explore waiving or changing, I should say.
We can't waive, but changing our notification requirements, and that hasn't occurred yet.
Right.
Okay.
Thank you.
Changing of council.
I think the other thing we're waiting on, too, is still some more legal information
on that as well.
Okay.
Any other questions?
I know I've got one for Mr. Owise, and I apologize if I said your last name wrong.
Okay.
It's Owise.
Owise.
Yeah, yeah.
I apologize.
Can you speak at all to the comment about the differing names on notifications?
Sure.
Do you know anything about that?
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
So, you know, we were asked to do some neighborhood meetings.
This was the first neighborhood meeting that we had was probably three months ago, so we
sent out the first letter.
It was under our Red Rock Consulting Group.
That's the entity that ... So we have several entities.
We have a development entity.
We have a consulting entity.
We've got a commercial entity, so they're all just different entities.
So we sent out the notice under Red Rock Consulting Group.
That's still us.
And then on the second notification, we ended up putting the owner's entity, because the
owners asked us to put their entity on there, because they're the owners and we're the consultants.
So there was some issues there.
But by the time we held the third meeting, we specifically reached out to the Hills of
Argyle HOA.
We were not trying to hide this or speed this through.
I reached out to the Hills of Argyle management company, the HOA management company.
I sent them the notices and I asked them to distribute that with the rest of their presidents.
That's why the first two meetings, not many people showed up.
The third meeting, I think we had seven or eight folks, a few of them are sitting here
today.
We explained that in the neighborhood meeting.
We tried to answer that.
We told them that we were hired, right?
We don't own the property.
We're not hiding that.
We're doing it for the owner.
But we do that very regularly across the DFW area.
It's called fee development.
It's a consulting service that people have, they own property and they don't know how
to develop the land and they need the services for somebody to do that.
We come and do that.
So that's exactly what we're doing over here.
We were hired by the owner to come and provide these services for this property.
I'll stop because I've got some other comments if that's okay, unless you have any other
kind of questions, please.
Yeah, since you spoke already, yeah.
You're kind of down to questions from us at this point, which I think I don't have any
other questions for you at this moment.
Any other commissioners?
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't have a question, but I'm just commenting.
I think 52, or over 50 lots is just, I don't know how you're going to fit that in there.
It seems way too dense for what's around it.
I mean, what's to the east of it, you would find in Hartley Field, Ranch of States, and
you know, would we go and put R6 right there?
I mean, it just seems to me that this plan is not ready for prime time.
Well, it's not a plan, it's a zoning request.
Again, they can put what, it's a zoning change, so that means they can do whatever they want
to do under that land use in the development code.
So they can say, "We're going to put a million-dollar homes here," but in the end, they don't have
to do it at all.
It don't have to, don't even have to put anything close to that.
So this is a very sensitive area, and it has that rural-ish feeling, and yeah, I just don't
see how, I just don't see over 50 lots happening.
I mean, it's just me, you know, but I'm an O on this, so.
And Mr. Oase, you're certainly welcome to address, yeah, can 50 lots fit on this?
Yeah, Angie had the land plan up, actually, for all of you all to see, so it was up there.
You can fit 50 lots.
You might not like that density, but you can fit 50 lots on there.
It's consistent with what's across the street, across 377 in that neighborhood that's right
over there.
It's the exact same thing.
It's just like Angie mentioned, it's consistent with land use, future land use on this property.
We felt like because we, because everybody didn't like the multifamily case that came
here a couple years ago, that we were coming and we're doing something that's way more
reasonable than that.
So that's really all I have to say to Mr. Cole's comments there.
I'll wait for some other questions.
I do have some things I'd like, some points that were brought up by the residents that
I'd like to address.
Okay.
As chair, I will allow you to do that.
I'll give you two minutes.
Sure.
Can you do that?
Yeah.
Okay.
Let's do that and then we'll continue our discussion.
Okay.
Sounds good.
You know, one of the points was about having kind of a wall on the east side.
We plan on keeping privacy there.
There's a whole landscape package that we're planning on putting trees and a fence line.
We want to have privacy between our property and the property to the east.
Town homes, duplexes are coming up.
We're not planning, if I can sign something here today saying we're doing single family
houses, I would sign it.
That's what we're planning on doing.
We're not planning on doing duplexes.
We're not planning on doing townhomes, detached or attached townhomes.
These will be individual single family lots with single family housing on there.
And you cannot believe me or whatever, we can figure something out to sign something
to say that's what we're planning on doing.
That's what we're planning on doing.
I'm not here to say anything other than that.
I never, the whole 11 children comment, I'm not the one that came up with that number.
I know somebody said that there's no way, I never, this is, today was the first time
I heard of 11 children going to the Argyle School District.
I didn't.
Yeah.
It was the school district, I believe.
It was the school district.
Yeah.
I just want that on the record.
I didn't come up with that number.
Traffic and all those issues, you know, we had a TIA done.
It was approved by the city.
There's going to be some upgrades to the streets to accommodate for the change in traffic,
so we went ahead and we followed the rules on that.
In terms of the reach out, I already mentioned that we did purposely reach out to the HOA.
We wanted the neighborhood to be involved in this.
We met with them, we talked to them.
I held three neighborhood meetings, not just one or two, so I really honestly did the best
I could.
If I did anything that was not acceptable, then I'm sorry.
I tried to reach out as many times as I could, working with Angie and the city.
Yeah, that's really all I have.
I mean, I'll give my time back for any other questions, 10 seconds.
I appreciate you.
Yeah.
I don't see any other questions from commissioners at this point, so I'll go ahead and, if they
come up again, we'll call you back to the podium.
Sure.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Tina.
Thank you, Chair Ellis.
I just wanted to address something with respect to the comprehensive plan, and also I want
to make sure that the record was correct with the commission giving some comments in the
work session.
I went back and I looked at the 2030 plan.
The 2030 plan had this area designated as neighborhood mixed use, so I think the comment
was made possibly community mixed use, so I just want to make sure that the commission
understood that that has not changed as we went through that plan update.
I know we had the zoning case, it does predate my time, but I know we had the zoning case
request to rezone the property to MN, and that was not successful, obviously, given
that the existing zoning is what it is today on the property.
When staff evaluates requests for rezonings, we evaluate those zoning requests in accordance
with what the comprehensive plan recommendation is.
So, you know, we updated our comprehensive plan in 2040.
For 2040, we adopted that plan in March of 2022, in which I know many of you were involved
in that process.
This is an area that we did not make changes with respect to that neighborhood mixed use
district or designation, excuse me, at that location.
So as you all are well aware of, zoning is the tool that implements the comprehensive
plan, and so, you know, we evaluate zoning requests that are brought forth based upon
what our comprehensive plan recommendations are.
You know, this is a unique area in that we have a variety of different land uses along
377.
We have properties within the city that are adjacent to properties that are not within
the city.
And so, even when the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council worked on the comprehensive
plan update, I know that was a challenge at times when we looked at designations of land
use and how we balance that with properties that are outside the ETJ.
You know, if the commission finds itself where it's not supportive of this rezoning request
that's consistent with the comprehensive plan, then my recommendation to the commission then
is then maybe we need to reevaluate this area and what our land use designations are for
the area, because we would have had a second zoning case come through, and if the commission
is finding that this request is not the right request for this area, then we do need to
look at reevaluating our land use recommendations for this area.
So, you know, I just want to put that out there.
If that's where the--if the commission may be struggling with what is the appropriate
land uses for this area, you know, again, our task as staff is to review requests that
are received to see how it stacks up with our comprehensive plan.
In this case, you know, we look to the future land use map.
We also look at our other goals and policies, which is also providing an opportunity for
diverse housing within the community.
So thank you.
Thank you, Tina.
Appreciate that.
Do we have a motion on the floor, Commissioner Villareal?
Yes.
It's difficult for me to see how, as a straight zoning case, this is appropriate for the area
and the surrounding density.
I agree with the chair's earlier point that, you know, promises are great.
It's good to hear that you all are willing to work with the neighborhoods, but unless
it's codified in a plan--you know, a plan development, it doesn't mean much.
So I would like to see it come back as a PD down the road perhaps with some of those protections
in place, but at this current time, as a straight zoning case, I have to move denial.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second for denial.
Commissioner Perrett is on the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
So just a few thoughts on this.
We live in America.
We have a lot of rights.
The right to prevent someone from living near us who doesn't have as much money of us is
not one of those rights.
You know, there are other cities who have gone with PDs so that everybody feels happy
and safe.
Cities with 1,000 PDs just do not work.
They do not.
It's a way to ensure that the next time housing--how do you think prices go up?
They go up three times as fast in your city as they go up anywhere else.
With that said, this is a special area, not because of the character or the animals, but
I love goats, trust me.
It's special because to me, Hickory Creek provides a natural southern border toward
the type of development that you would consider the city, and this is south of that.
So I think, you know, staff absolutely agree that staff evaluated this based on the future
land use map.
To me, when I look at that land use map, it looks like an inkblot down there that is leftover
from the 1990 plan that envisioned a whole bunch of additional annexation and creating
a true neighborhood down there, and it's just not going to happen.
Not like that anyway.
So to me, the question is, we need homes, is it better to have 51, 52 homes down here,
or is it better to have them somewhere else in the city?
And just because of the sensitivity of reining in expansive development that honestly is
a tax raise to everybody else in the city, because we would be subsidizing it, it's just
not worth it to me.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't think necessarily a denial is something that would be an item that I would support,
although I do think that from what the applicant did say that if I could have you, if I could
sign something today that says I'm going to develop a single family residential, I would,
there is, and that is a plan development, seeing a PD, having a site plan incorporated
into that PD that codifies what that property is going to look like with no ability for
it to be changed in comparison to a straight zoning.
And so I think that essentially either whether it's a postponement or a denial, I would heavily
encourage that if this project wants to move forward whatsoever, I think that it needs
to be changed and retracted and then presented back as a plan development.
But if not, then I think I agree with Commissioner Pruitt in the sense that diversity of housing
is something that our comprehensive plan calls for.
I love this area of Argyle.
I live maybe two miles from the side of this property.
It is rural and I do think that a development and this zoning could allow for the character
of the neighborhood to be maintained while also allowing for diversity of housing as
well as an allowance for commercial property.
I'm a supporter for the commercial property to be there.
But if it was to be codified, the plan development would be the best format for it to be done.
And so, but I'm not sure if I would necessarily support denial.
I think that it does need to make changes.
Thanks, Commissioner Smith.
Yeah, this whole struggle here is not anything, honestly, that Mr. Oasis said.
I mean, I think 50 homes here is okay.
Single family homes there is great.
I think the problem is there's nothing to codify that in this request.
So there's no protections that are here.
We have to look at everything on this case-by-case basis and this particular case, it's such
a unique area, as we've mentioned before, and there's nothing that helps to safeguard
what is around this piece of land.
So I think that's the whole struggle here.
It's not the struggle with development so much.
I mean, certainly more homes in this area, fine.
Commercial, as soon as the roads can support it, absolutely.
So I don't think that's not where the struggle is.
The struggle is a straight zoning case in this particular area is quite scary because
we can't, there's nothing that was said today that the city can uphold.
So, I mean, this could end up, you know, express homes.
I mean, who knows?
It could end up as a townhome development.
We don't know what it could end up, anything that R6 allows by right, which is a lot of
things.
So I think that's the struggle that many on this commission are having is that this isn't
presented in a way that we can put any safeguards in, that we can make sure that wall or that
buffer is there for these people who live, really, in the ETJ and the way they live should
be respected.
They do have animals.
I drove that property, I think it was just this morning, and several animals are running
around.
I mean, that's just how the area is.
It's rural living, and protection, I think, does need to be in place on this particular
tract of land to ensure the safety of those residents and their animals and their children.
So I believe that's the struggle here is that we can't safeguard anything here.
We're just gonna put it out there to run R6 zoning, and then the property owner, I assume,
is going to look for a seller, I mean, a buyer for the property to develop under R6, and
that could be anything.
So I guess that's all I have to say at this point.
I don't see, is there any other commissioners wishing to speak?
We do have a motion on the floor to deny this request, and it has been seconded.
So with that, I'll go ahead and ask for a vote.
That will carry 5-1.
I do appreciate everyone who did come out to speak on this item.
Thank you very much.
That will go ahead and move us to our project matrix.
I will go ahead and recess us for five minutes and let the room clear.
It is 7-50.
Thank you for that brief recess.
It is 7-55, and I'll call us back to order, and next on our agenda this evening is the
planning and zoning matrix, and I'll turn that over to Tina.
Thank you, Chair Ellis.
So we updated the matrix since our last planning and zoning commission meeting.
I know the commission had requested for a presentation regarding city and tech stock
coordination on a variety of different roadways, so we've added that to the matrix, and so,
and my apologies.
I know we've had some items on here that have been a little bit longer, and with everything
else we've had going on, we haven't had a chance to get to some of those, but we'll
make sure we start working on this list.
So, but other items, just I wanted to give the commission an update on, I promise, my
notes are short compared to previous evenings.
If you want to hold up just a minute, we're going to go ahead and close the door for noise.
Thank you, Hillary.
Appreciate that.
Okay, Tina.
No worries.
You're welcome.
So, typically I give you an update on development cases that have been to city council since
your last meeting.
We have not had anything go before council in terms of development case, however, we
did have last night, our downtown master plan update contract was approved, so we will start
working on our third area plan, and so Ron's going to be the project manager on that, assisted
by Sean, and so we will be, I know there was emails going back and forth today regarding
getting that first meeting set up with the consultant, so we'll be working on getting
that project underway.
Speaking of our other area plans, so Northeast area plan, the next major milestone we have
as it relates to that project is a joint meeting with the planning and zoning commission and
city council and steering committee on Tuesday, August 1st, at 11 a.m., not 8 a.m., 11 a.m.,
and so make sure you put that on your calendar.
I know Kathy will eventually get a meeting invite sent out to you, but again, that's
already was done.
Oh, it has been?
Okay, perfect.
Okay, excellent.
So make sure you respond to that.
So we have folks in attendance, but again, that's our next major milestone as it relates
to that project, and we'll be talking about some proposed strategies as it relates to
the Northeast Denton area plan.
Southeast Denton area plan, so this past week we're going to have has been extremely busy
for the team with Juneteenth celebration festivities going on as well as our listening sessions,
and so we had a huge public engagement push for our second round of engagement, really
trying to attract that 50 and younger crowd, if you will, and get a variety of demographic
interest as well.
The team did intercept surveys in addition to having a booth presence, if you will, canopy
presence in the heat at the Juneteenth festivities in addition to intercept surveys.
So the consultant team is still pulling together our numbers from that last round of engagement
sessions, so we'll have more information to share as we move on as it relates to that
project.
I would like to point out the steering committee had their first meeting this past Friday,
so we had a really good discussion with the steering committee, and we were able to have
some discussion and validate some of the public engagement feedback that's been received thus
far, so I think we're going to have a really great group to work with as it relates to
that.
So that concludes my update, and happy to answer any questions you may have.
Commissioner Villarreal.
I just wanted to thank you for everything you all are doing for the Southeast area plan.
It sounds like you all are taking unique efforts to ensure that we have a variety of opinions
voiced, so thank you so much for doing that.
Absolutely, and I have to admit, I can't take credit for this.
It's my team.
Mia, I know, is here.
Mia is our assistant PM.
Julie is our project manager on that, but also I had several other staff members, you
know, Angie's assistant PM on the Northeast plan, but I know I had several staff members
in attendance at the various events over the weekend.
We've also had, again, doing the intercept surveys.
I think they're having a lot of fun with it, but it's been really a lot of hard work also,
and I commend them for really trying to engage the public and receive feedback, and we can
tell the word is getting out, right, and because we hear it from other sources, and so, again,
we're continuing to try.
So thank you for recognizing those efforts.
That's excellent.
Thank you.
Commissioner Perot.
Yeah, I just want to echo that.
It's been nothing short of heroic, really.
You know, we complain and we say we need more planning, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and
when it really comes down to it, you're knocking it out of the park.
It's just everybody involved is, you know, from staff to the consultant to everything,
the Southeast Denton plan is truly just trying to make sure that everybody is involved, and
I know that's hard, and I know that makes everything harder to draft once you have all
that stuff and you have to comprehend it, but thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Perot.
Anything else for the matrix?
I'll say I agree with all of that.
I think you and your staff are great, and yay, area plans.
We've never had so many approved and going all at one time.
It's really a great thing.
Commissioner Smith's got his thumbs up there, so thanks.
With regard to your staff, I think you have a new staff member here that people don't
know, so why don't we go ahead and get him introduced, if you don't mind?
Ask, and you all have 10 questions each for him, right?
So, I would like to introduce Matt Bodine.
Did I pronounce that correct?
Okay.
I introduced him, and I misspelled his last name, or mispronounced his last name, so my
apologies.
I want to make sure I get that right.
But Matt joined us here recently.
Matt, have you been three weeks, four weeks?
Third week on the job.
So, Matt is a recent graduate from Texas A&M, so for all you Aggies, go ahead and get your
hoops out.
So, but Matt joins our team, and we've been excited to have him, so we've been very fortunate
to be able to grow our team, and we're still working on trying to fill some positions that
we have, but we're very happy to have Matt with us, and today I asked him to help Karina
in providing some support and to help with some transportation reviews, so we're letting
him jump in with both feet and get started, so it's great, and we appreciate having him
with us.
So, eventually you'll have presentations from Matt at the podium, but also I want to give
him some baby steps and not quite throw him into the deep end just yet.
Sounds good.
Come aboard, Matt.
With regard, Tina, to our discussion tonight with ETJ notification, I know Commissioner
Smith is taking lead on that in talking to Council, so hopefully we'll get that going
on that end just to see if we can, you know, I'm not exactly sure what the right answer
is, but I'm sure as a collective group that we can figure out the best way to handle that.
Thank you for that update.
Do we have any concluding items?
Okay.
I'll just say thanks, everybody.
Stay cool out there, and hydrated, and I'll adjourn us at 8.02.
Thank you all.
Thank you very much.