1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,180
 >> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission

2
00:00:09,180 --> 00:00:13,000
 meeting for Wednesday, September 13, 2023.

3
00:00:13,000 --> 00:00:18,800
 This is our work session and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.32 p.m.

4
00:00:18,800 --> 00:00:23,700
 Let the record show commissioners Smith and Villarreal are absent at this time.

5
00:00:23,700 --> 00:00:28,580
 First item on our work session is citizen comment on consent agenda items.

6
00:00:28,580 --> 00:00:35,080
 Do we have anyone here wishing to speak on consent?

7
00:00:35,080 --> 00:00:40,360
 Seeing none, we will move on to our final work session item which is clarification on

8
00:00:40,360 --> 00:00:42,360
 today's agenda.

9
00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:47,840
 First item of business for us is approval of our minutes for the 23rd commissioners.

10
00:00:47,840 --> 00:00:53,720
 Do you have any questions on that?

11
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:56,040
 That will then take us to consent agenda.

12
00:00:56,040 --> 00:01:00,760
 Do we have questions on the consent agenda?

13
00:01:00,760 --> 00:01:01,760
 Commissioner McDade?

14
00:01:01,760 --> 00:01:04,760
 >> Thank you, chair.

15
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:10,880
 I have a question on D and E that I need to --

16
00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:11,880
 >> Okay.

17
00:01:11,880 --> 00:01:19,720
 We can move through those then if anyone -- does anyone have anything A through D?

18
00:01:19,720 --> 00:01:20,720
 Okay.

19
00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:24,920
 Then Julie, if you will come on up.

20
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:25,920
 Thank you.

21
00:01:25,920 --> 00:01:26,920
 Good evening.

22
00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:27,920
 Julie Wyatt.

23
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:28,920
 All right.

24
00:01:28,920 --> 00:01:44,400
 So this is two plats for the Kingsway subdivision.

25
00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:47,640
 It's a single-family residential development.

26
00:01:47,640 --> 00:01:49,200
 Has two tracks.

27
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:58,280
 The first -- the first plat is a final plat for a track located at King's Row and Loop

28
00:01:58,280 --> 00:01:59,280
 288.

29
00:01:59,280 --> 00:02:03,560
 It is phase 1A of the subdivision.

30
00:02:03,560 --> 00:02:12,040
 And then the second plat is phase 1B of the proposal.

31
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:16,840
 It does meet all of the technical requirements associated with plats within the debt and

32
00:02:16,840 --> 00:02:21,000
 development code, so staff is recommending approval, and I'll be happy to answer any

33
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:22,000
 questions.

34
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:23,000
 >> Okay.

35
00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:27,000
 The question I have, and I need you to refresh my memory, because I remember I asked this

36
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:29,120
 about a year ago.

37
00:02:29,120 --> 00:02:36,040
 At the last meeting, it was withdrawn, so now that it's only consent agenda, it does

38
00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:38,880
 not come back to this commission, correct?

39
00:02:38,880 --> 00:02:39,880
 All right.

40
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:40,880
 So it's been approved?

41
00:02:40,880 --> 00:02:42,920
 >> Well, that is a good question.

42
00:02:42,920 --> 00:02:50,240
 So, yes, you remember this was the subject of a rezoning case last year, two years ago,

43
00:02:50,240 --> 00:02:53,080
 18 months or so ago.

44
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:56,480
 The purpose of that rezoning was for a planned development.

45
00:02:56,480 --> 00:03:03,200
 If you recall, the developer wanted some smaller lots, some additional densities within this

46
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:11,480
 area, so they were proposing to rezone the property from R4 and R7 to a planned development.

47
00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:17,280
 That was not approved by city council, and so they are now just developing it under the

48
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:27,640
 current zoning, which this Phase 1B, so the larger tract, that has the R4 zoning, and

49
00:03:27,640 --> 00:03:31,280
 then the smaller tract has R7 zoning.

50
00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:32,280
 >> Okay.

51
00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:37,240
 I guess the reason I was asking, because I actually have friends out there, and they

52
00:03:37,240 --> 00:03:41,520
 were confused, and I told them, you know, they're watching right now, I told them if

53
00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:46,440
 you'll watch the program, I'll have her explain it to you how it went from being withdrawn

54
00:03:46,440 --> 00:03:51,120
 to now being approved and not coming through P&Z, so, I mean, that way I don't have to

55
00:03:51,120 --> 00:03:52,120
 answer all the questions.

56
00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:53,120
 >> I understand.

57
00:03:53,120 --> 00:03:54,120
 I understand.

58
00:03:54,120 --> 00:03:56,440
 >> Well, I think the original PD was denied by council, correct?

59
00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:57,440
 >> Correct.

60
00:03:57,440 --> 00:03:58,440
 Correct.

61
00:03:58,440 --> 00:04:00,440
 So the remaining -- the zoning just stayed in place.

62
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:04,880
 >> The zoning stayed as it was, since it was denied at council.

63
00:04:04,880 --> 00:04:05,880
 >> All right.

64
00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:06,880
 Thank you.

65
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:08,040
 So Julie, I'm going to keep you up there.

66
00:04:08,040 --> 00:04:09,560
 I don't know if you saw my email.

67
00:04:09,560 --> 00:04:10,920
 >> I did, yes, ma'am.

68
00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:14,520
 >> So if you -- well, I'll let everybody know what my email was.

69
00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:18,840
 So I wanted Julie to explain -- we've had a lot of communication on this, as you all

70
00:04:18,840 --> 00:04:22,920
 know, because it's in your inboxes.

71
00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:29,960
 So I wanted to know how CITI satisfies that Criterion 8A, which is minimizes adverse impacts

72
00:04:29,960 --> 00:04:34,800
 on surrounding, and it says the result of citizen participation process may appropriately

73
00:04:34,800 --> 00:04:39,440
 be considered here, the proposed development should not cause significant adverse impacts

74
00:04:39,440 --> 00:04:40,700
 to surrounding areas.

75
00:04:40,700 --> 00:04:45,080
 So can you run us through how the city would deduce that Criterion?

76
00:04:45,080 --> 00:04:46,080
 >> Sure.

77
00:04:46,080 --> 00:04:53,880
 So in this case, because this is a plat, this is a ministerial action, the zoning is in

78
00:04:53,880 --> 00:05:01,680
 place that R4 and R7 actually transitioned from our previous zoning code, the 2002 development

79
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:02,680
 code.

80
00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:12,500
 So the zoning that was put in place on this property was NR4 and NRMU12 in 2002.

81
00:05:12,500 --> 00:05:16,920
 At that time, it was determined it was consistent with the comprehensive plan, and then it met

82
00:05:16,920 --> 00:05:23,920
 that requirement of being appropriate within the area and adjacent to the single-family

83
00:05:23,920 --> 00:05:30,560
 residential developments to the east of the site and the north.

84
00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:36,860
 That said, we also have criteria within the Denton Development Code for development.

85
00:05:36,860 --> 00:05:41,540
 For example, if this were being developed with a commercial use, buffers would be required.

86
00:05:41,540 --> 00:05:46,960
 But because this is a residential use adjacent to a residential use, a buffer isn't required.

87
00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:50,840
 It just must meet those minimum standards within the Denton Development Code.

88
00:05:50,840 --> 00:05:57,720
 So that criteria could be challenging for plats because they are ministerial.

89
00:05:57,720 --> 00:06:02,320
 But with that existing zoning, developing under that existing zoning and meeting those

90
00:06:02,320 --> 00:06:07,520
 minimum standards within the Denton Development Code, it was determined that it would not

91
00:06:07,520 --> 00:06:13,040
 create any significant adverse impacts with the adjacent properties.

92
00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:16,660
 >> Is traffic considered an adverse impact when being looked at?

93
00:06:16,660 --> 00:06:22,680
 >> So we actually -- our transportation planner, I talked to her today in preparation of this

94
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:28,520
 meeting, and she had them update the TIA associated with this plat or with the preliminary plat

95
00:06:28,520 --> 00:06:32,640
 to make sure that all of her ducks were in a row.

96
00:06:32,640 --> 00:06:37,840
 If you recall, there were a lot of transportation improvements associated with that PD.

97
00:06:37,840 --> 00:06:44,800
 That was part of that negotiation with the PD, not necessarily something that the -- could

98
00:06:44,800 --> 00:06:48,600
 be required of a development under straight zoning.

99
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:55,520
 So she looked at the TIA, the existing conditions of those surrounding intersections, and the

100
00:06:55,520 --> 00:07:03,880
 impacts that this project would have on those intersections, particularly the intersection

101
00:07:03,880 --> 00:07:05,400
 here.

102
00:07:05,400 --> 00:07:10,540
 It's a little hard to see, but there at Kings Row and Loop 288, that was a really big one.

103
00:07:10,540 --> 00:07:17,440
 Currently that is operating at a level E, and this development would not make that letter

104
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:20,360
 grade change any lower, and so --

105
00:07:20,360 --> 00:07:22,680
 >> Didn't the letter grade go any lower?

106
00:07:22,680 --> 00:07:28,800
 >> F would be the next, and that really is based on not necessarily that it's -- it's

107
00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:33,280
 based on the number of seconds that a car has to wait at that intersection before they

108
00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:36,480
 can either turn or go straight.

109
00:07:36,480 --> 00:07:40,960
 So because they did analyze that intersection, the intersection's already got some challenges

110
00:07:40,960 --> 00:07:47,360
 that we're aware of, and that they would not -- this development would have minimal impacts

111
00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:48,480
 on that.

112
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:52,480
 They're just going to need to do some restriping for that intersection to make sure that it

113
00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:56,520
 flows a little bit better, and so that was the outcome of that TIA.

114
00:07:56,520 --> 00:07:58,080
 >> Are there any extra lanes coming in?

115
00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:02,160
 I know that was part of the PD, and I know that was -- so that is not happening here,

116
00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:03,160
 correct?

117
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:04,160
 >> Correct.

118
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:11,680
 >> So with this particular plat, this is coming in off of its own road off of King's Row.

119
00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:12,680
 >> Correct.

120
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:13,680
 Yes.

121
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:14,680
 >> And the next plat, it's coming in through --

122
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:15,680
 >> Dearwood.

123
00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:16,680
 >> Dearwood.

124
00:08:16,680 --> 00:08:17,680
 >> Dearwood.

125
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:18,680
 Sorry.

126
00:08:18,680 --> 00:08:20,520
 Yes, ma'am.

127
00:08:20,520 --> 00:08:27,200
 >> And so we don't think it's a problem that -- going back to the other plat, on King's

128
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:34,760
 Row, that's already a problem at certain times of day -- this has one access point.

129
00:08:34,760 --> 00:08:35,760
 >> It does.

130
00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:37,240
 >> And one -- yeah.

131
00:08:37,240 --> 00:08:38,240
 That's it.

132
00:08:38,240 --> 00:08:39,240
 >> Right.

133
00:08:39,240 --> 00:08:40,240
 >> That road right there.

134
00:08:40,240 --> 00:08:41,240
 Okay.

135
00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:42,240
 Commissioner Anderson, sorry.

136
00:08:42,240 --> 00:08:43,240
 >> Thank you, Chair.

137
00:08:43,240 --> 00:08:44,240
 No, I agree.

138
00:08:44,240 --> 00:08:56,520
 They're not going to widen King's Row at all because that intersection is a nightmare too.

139
00:08:56,520 --> 00:09:00,840
 I mean, and I don't see how they say it's not going to have an adverse effect when you're

140
00:09:00,840 --> 00:09:04,040
 adding 200 more homes.

141
00:09:04,040 --> 00:09:05,480
 That's another minimum 400 cars.

142
00:09:05,480 --> 00:09:10,120
 Most people have two cars, you know, a couple living in a house, so that's, you know, another

143
00:09:10,120 --> 00:09:16,360
 400 trips a day, one way, you know, 800 trips a day.

144
00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:17,360
 I don't know.

145
00:09:17,360 --> 00:09:23,720
 I'm with Margie on this, Jerry, on this because I don't see how it's not going to affect -- have

146
00:09:23,720 --> 00:09:24,720
 an adverse effect.

147
00:09:24,720 --> 00:09:31,080
 I guess Corina's not here or anybody here to talk about how that was analyzed.

148
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:36,760
 >> Well, so keep in mind when we do traffic impact analysis, our team meets with the engineer

149
00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:37,960
 and does a scoping meeting.

150
00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:42,360
 And so, you know, the engineer submitted their traffic impact analysis.

151
00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:43,360
 Our team reviewed it.

152
00:09:43,360 --> 00:09:46,400
 As Julie reported, the level of service is not changing.

153
00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:50,720
 You know, we had the opportunity for making some additional improvements associated with

154
00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:54,440
 this development when it was being considered as part of the plan development district request.

155
00:09:54,440 --> 00:09:56,440
 But ultimately, it was denied.

156
00:09:56,440 --> 00:10:00,600
 So what's before you meets our requirements as it relates to the improvements that need

157
00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:01,600
 to be made.

158
00:10:01,600 --> 00:10:04,800
 And therefore, hence why the plat is in an approval state.

159
00:10:04,800 --> 00:10:07,160
 >> And I understand that part of it.

160
00:10:07,160 --> 00:10:11,680
 It's the 8(a) that I'm trying to understand that how we get that it's not going to have

161
00:10:11,680 --> 00:10:17,280
 adverse impact because it will unless traffic's not taken into consideration under that particular

162
00:10:17,280 --> 00:10:18,440
 category.

163
00:10:18,440 --> 00:10:25,720
 >> So in response to the challenge I would add is, so our evaluation criteria, particularly

164
00:10:25,720 --> 00:10:30,720
 this 8(a) being in our general evaluation criteria for developments, in my opinion,

165
00:10:30,720 --> 00:10:35,040
 it's not taking into consideration the state law limitations that are associated with it.

166
00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:38,680
 So in hindsight, when it comes to platting, some of our general criteria, including the

167
00:10:38,680 --> 00:10:42,680
 one regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan, when the property is already entitled

168
00:10:42,680 --> 00:10:46,520
 for uses that they're allowed to develop in accordance with, then, you know, the cow's

169
00:10:46,520 --> 00:10:48,080
 already the barn on that one, right?

170
00:10:48,080 --> 00:10:54,120
 So it is platts when someone's property is entitled from a zoning standpoint and they

171
00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:57,480
 are proposing a development that meets all of the current standards under the existing

172
00:10:57,480 --> 00:11:02,480
 zoning and their plat complies also with all of our technical requirements associated with

173
00:11:02,480 --> 00:11:04,800
 the existing zoning in our subdivision ordinance.

174
00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:08,160
 Per state law, we are obligated to approve the plat because it complies.

175
00:11:08,160 --> 00:11:13,280
 And so it's -- I understand that there may be some concern that there's going to be more

176
00:11:13,280 --> 00:11:18,680
 traffic as a result of the property developing, but with our traffic impact analysis and our

177
00:11:18,680 --> 00:11:24,600
 evaluation of it and the level of service not changing, that it is in a state that it

178
00:11:24,600 --> 00:11:26,920
 meets our requirements and hence why it's being approved.

179
00:11:26,920 --> 00:11:30,600
 I don't have a problem with the neighborhoods going in and stuff.

180
00:11:30,600 --> 00:11:34,400
 I just wish there was something we could do to alleviate some of that traffic, because

181
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:40,280
 I think if my memory serves me correct, we've had people come up and talk about this in

182
00:11:40,280 --> 00:11:45,120
 the past about how on school days traffic backs up all the way down Kings Road and onto

183
00:11:45,120 --> 00:11:46,120
 Luke 288.

184
00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:47,400
 That's a traffic hazard.

185
00:11:47,400 --> 00:11:52,080
 Is there -- and I know 288 is a textile highway.

186
00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:56,760
 Would they be willing to put in a turn lane-only lane going northbound for these people to

187
00:11:56,760 --> 00:11:59,760
 get off the road?

188
00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:02,200
 I mean, I have no problem with the platts.

189
00:12:02,200 --> 00:12:05,680
 I mean, again, you know, they meet the criteria, they're going to get approved and all this

190
00:12:05,680 --> 00:12:06,680
 stuff.

191
00:12:06,680 --> 00:12:07,680
 I'm just worried about traffic.

192
00:12:07,680 --> 00:12:08,960
 I did talk to Karina.

193
00:12:08,960 --> 00:12:13,600
 She does have a meeting scheduled with TxDOT, so they -- we are continuing to coordinate

194
00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:22,320
 with TxDOT to try to make sure that those roadways are functioning in a safe and as

195
00:12:22,320 --> 00:12:24,320
 efficient manner as possible.

196
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:27,040
 So it's something they're continuing to refine.

197
00:12:27,040 --> 00:12:33,720
 I can certainly provide her with the feedback to kind of let her know what's going on in

198
00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:35,040
 that area regarding Hodge.

199
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:39,480
 Yeah, I mean, it's unfortunate that the PD couldn't get done because we could instill

200
00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:40,640
 that.

201
00:12:40,640 --> 00:12:42,000
 One moment, Commissioner McDade.

202
00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:44,760
 Tina, if I could just have you clarify.

203
00:12:44,760 --> 00:12:54,480
 So effectively, that particular criterion that's in our analysis is not really a -- is

204
00:12:54,480 --> 00:12:57,000
 not really -- you're saying it complies to all state law.

205
00:12:57,000 --> 00:13:00,640
 So that is really not anything that --

206
00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:07,680
 That maybe should be in there, because it seems --

207
00:13:07,680 --> 00:13:11,080
 Like it could be satisfied or not satisfied, and it's not going to matter.

208
00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:16,920
 This one, as well as -- some of our criteria could be updated to better reflect what we

209
00:13:16,920 --> 00:13:19,000
 can and can't do, particularly when it comes to platting.

210
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:24,600
 And so we can add that to the list of potential DDC amendments, but when the property is already

211
00:13:24,600 --> 00:13:28,520
 entitled under the existing zoning, the property owner has the rights to be able to develop

212
00:13:28,520 --> 00:13:32,560
 it, and if it meets all of our standards, then when we're comparing it against criteria

213
00:13:32,560 --> 00:13:37,640
 like this, and also comparing a plat against the comprehensive plan criteria when the property

214
00:13:37,640 --> 00:13:41,120
 is already entitled, it puts us in a more challenging situation.

215
00:13:41,120 --> 00:13:42,440
 So hence why we look at it from the --

216
00:13:42,440 --> 00:13:43,440
 This is my point exactly.

217
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:44,440
 Yeah.

218
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:46,600
 I mean, it's -- I get everything that you're saying.

219
00:13:46,600 --> 00:13:51,000
 So what I'm saying is maybe we need to relook at that, and I'll bring that up at a later

220
00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:53,360
 time in the matrix, and we can discuss, perhaps.

221
00:13:53,360 --> 00:13:54,360
 Okay.

222
00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:55,360
 Thank you.

223
00:13:55,360 --> 00:13:56,360
 Commissioner McDade.

224
00:13:56,360 --> 00:13:57,360
 Thank you, Chair.

225
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:06,360
 You made the comment that the city looked at improvements, but they were denied.

226
00:14:06,360 --> 00:14:09,960
 As part of that plan development district request, when it came forth, when we had that

227
00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:16,200
 rezoning submission, the developer was willing to make some additional improvements to be

228
00:14:16,200 --> 00:14:21,920
 able to help with the ingress/egress associated with these developments and some of the traffic

229
00:14:21,920 --> 00:14:24,000
 challenges that are within the area.

230
00:14:24,000 --> 00:14:29,000
 But because that plan development district was not approved, all of those offerings that

231
00:14:29,000 --> 00:14:32,640
 the developer was proposing at that time are no longer on the table.

232
00:14:32,640 --> 00:14:34,840
 So they're not obligated to provide those improvements.

233
00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:35,840
 All right.

234
00:14:35,840 --> 00:14:36,840
 Thank you.

235
00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:37,840
 If that helps.

236
00:14:37,840 --> 00:14:38,840
 Okay.

237
00:14:38,840 --> 00:14:39,840
 Commissioner Pruitt.

238
00:14:39,840 --> 00:14:40,840
 Thank you, Chair.

239
00:14:40,840 --> 00:14:41,840
 A couple things.

240
00:14:41,840 --> 00:14:50,800
 So the transportation criteria manual has a 200-foot minimum spacing between intersections

241
00:14:50,800 --> 00:14:54,360
 for this with a collector and a residential street.

242
00:14:54,360 --> 00:15:00,200
 I take it that it barely meets that to the current right-of-way of Loop 288, and it would

243
00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:04,240
 not meet that to the planned expansion of Loop 288.

244
00:15:04,240 --> 00:15:05,240
 Is that accurate?

245
00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:08,840
 I don't know about the planned expansion.

246
00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:12,680
 I assume there will be right-of-way because there is some reservation associated with

247
00:15:12,680 --> 00:15:15,120
 this.

248
00:15:15,120 --> 00:15:19,840
 Any Loop 288 expansions haven't been designed yet, so we don't know how that's going to

249
00:15:19,840 --> 00:15:20,840
 shake out in the future.

250
00:15:20,840 --> 00:15:22,920
 If I could add to that.

251
00:15:22,920 --> 00:15:26,600
 It's not 80 percent or more designed, but we kind of know where it's going.

252
00:15:26,600 --> 00:15:29,800
 Well, and I was just saying if I could add to that for Julie's benefit since I was at

253
00:15:29,800 --> 00:15:30,960
 that TechStat meeting.

254
00:15:30,960 --> 00:15:35,440
 So there are some initial schematics that have been developed, but we continue to work

255
00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:41,480
 with TechStat on this particular interchange or intersection, if you will, and how that

256
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:43,600
 could potentially be designed.

257
00:15:43,600 --> 00:15:50,600
 So there was one option that was proposed – I'm trying to think back to that TechStat

258
00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:51,600
 meeting.

259
00:15:51,600 --> 00:15:54,120
 If they had one option or two options that were proposed, I think it was one – that

260
00:15:54,120 --> 00:15:57,320
 was being proposed in which they were seeking the community's feedback.

261
00:15:57,320 --> 00:16:02,800
 And because of the way the geometry of the alignment of the existing King's Row street

262
00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:10,600
 is with respect to 288, it's not a perfect 90-degree angle intersection, it's skewed.

263
00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:12,520
 And so that creates some design challenges.

264
00:16:12,520 --> 00:16:18,040
 So we continue to work with TechStat on how to best design that particular intersection

265
00:16:18,040 --> 00:16:23,480
 because we know that that is a route that is traveled frequently for persons coming

266
00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:25,400
 from east to west and vice versa, right?

267
00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:27,520
 So we continue to work with them on that.

268
00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:29,160
 They are sensitive to that design.

269
00:16:29,160 --> 00:16:34,560
 Also, other things that we're having to factor in is how the ramps come from the direct connector

270
00:16:34,560 --> 00:16:41,320
 of 380 into Loop 288, also how that interfaces with Windsor to the south, and then also how

271
00:16:41,320 --> 00:16:46,720
 it relates to this, so we continue to work with them on that.

272
00:16:46,720 --> 00:16:48,760
 So I get that.

273
00:16:48,760 --> 00:17:00,080
 I just want to understand, is the limitations that we have on platting validity based on

274
00:17:00,080 --> 00:17:07,340
 the current right-of-way location of Loop 288, no matter what state of planning the

275
00:17:07,340 --> 00:17:12,560
 expansion was at until they've acquired that right-of-way or funded the project, we can't

276
00:17:12,560 --> 00:17:15,760
 consider essentially the future alignment?

277
00:17:15,760 --> 00:17:16,760
 Correct.

278
00:17:16,760 --> 00:17:21,100
 So because the fact that they're not advanced enough in their work, if they were at a point

279
00:17:21,100 --> 00:17:24,440
 where they were acquiring right-of-way, it might be a different situation, but because

280
00:17:24,440 --> 00:17:29,760
 they're not in a position to acquire right-of-way yet, when we were working on the preliminary

281
00:17:29,760 --> 00:17:33,280
 plat associated with this, there were a lot of conversations with respect to right-of-way

282
00:17:33,280 --> 00:17:39,420
 reservation and then how do we work through those issues because the TechStat has a responsibility

283
00:17:39,420 --> 00:17:42,960
 to acquire their right-of-way, but they cannot go out and acquire right-of-way until their

284
00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:47,160
 projects are further to an advanced state, and I believe it's beyond the schematic and

285
00:17:47,160 --> 00:17:50,500
 they have to have the environmental impact assessment completed before they can acquire

286
00:17:50,500 --> 00:17:51,680
 the right-of-way.

287
00:17:51,680 --> 00:17:57,000
 So we try to do our best planning right now based upon what we know, just like we did

288
00:17:57,000 --> 00:18:01,240
 that as we worked on the preliminary plat and it was approved, and so we use that as

289
00:18:01,240 --> 00:18:03,320
 we continue to move forward with these final plots.

290
00:18:03,320 --> 00:18:07,120
 These final plots are consistent with the preliminary plat that was done at that time.

291
00:18:07,120 --> 00:18:14,800
 So it is, like I said, we work through with the best information and knowns that we have

292
00:18:14,800 --> 00:18:17,200
 at such time when they're platting their property.

293
00:18:17,200 --> 00:18:18,200
 Okay.

294
00:18:18,200 --> 00:18:27,840
 And I understand the limitations of platting requirements, so this is not for tonight,

295
00:18:27,840 --> 00:18:36,320
 but just I would appreciate if I could get a copy of the TIA that associated the PD originally

296
00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:42,760
 and the updated TIA just for future understanding because at that original public hearing for

297
00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:48,080
 that PD, one of the big questions that I asked specifically was whether a right turn lane

298
00:18:48,080 --> 00:18:53,960
 in this location could be required as part of the general platting requirements, and

299
00:18:53,960 --> 00:19:01,600
 it was insinuated that, yes, that's a likely outcome, and now we're seeing that it's not.

300
00:19:01,600 --> 00:19:05,480
 And I understand things have changed, so I'd just like to see those TIAs to understand

301
00:19:05,480 --> 00:19:06,480
 how they differ.

302
00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:07,480
 Sure.

303
00:19:07,480 --> 00:19:08,480
 Okay.

304
00:19:08,480 --> 00:19:09,480
 Thank you, Chair.

305
00:19:09,480 --> 00:19:11,280
 Thank you, Commissioner Prout.

306
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:12,880
 Anything else for Julie on this?

307
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:20,240
 Hey, quick question, Julie, does DISD know about this development at all, anybody talking

308
00:19:20,240 --> 00:19:21,240
 to them?

309
00:19:21,240 --> 00:19:28,760
 I don't think that DISD know, they're part of our groups that we inform as projects come

310
00:19:28,760 --> 00:19:29,760
 in.

311
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:37,360
 I haven't had specific discussions with them about this final plat tonight, but it is shared

312
00:19:37,360 --> 00:19:39,200
 with them on a regular basis, all of our projects.

313
00:19:39,200 --> 00:19:40,200
 As the project continues.

314
00:19:40,200 --> 00:19:41,200
 Okay.

315
00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:42,200
 Yeah.

316
00:19:42,200 --> 00:19:43,200
 Perfect.

317
00:19:43,200 --> 00:19:44,200
 Okay.

318
00:19:44,200 --> 00:19:45,200
 Appreciate you.

319
00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:46,200
 Thank you.

320
00:19:46,200 --> 00:19:47,200
 Thank you.

321
00:19:47,200 --> 00:19:51,800
 Okay, for individual consideration, we've got 4A, I think Ashley's making her way up

322
00:19:51,800 --> 00:19:52,800
 for that.

323
00:19:52,800 --> 00:19:53,800
 Hello there.

324
00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:54,800
 Good evening.

325
00:19:54,800 --> 00:19:59,880
 Ashley Exditt, assistant planner.

326
00:19:59,880 --> 00:20:05,800
 This is FP23-0023, this is a final plat for barrel strap residential.

327
00:20:05,800 --> 00:20:10,200
 This is approximately 50 residential lots on approximately 14 acres, and this is at

328
00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:13,040
 Hickory Creek and 2499.

329
00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:16,400
 At this time, we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested

330
00:20:16,400 --> 00:20:19,360
 extension till October 11th, 2023.

331
00:20:19,360 --> 00:20:20,680
 Happy to answer any questions.

332
00:20:20,680 --> 00:20:21,680
 Thank you.

333
00:20:21,680 --> 00:20:24,440
 Any questions for Ashley?

334
00:20:24,440 --> 00:20:26,000
 Thank you.

335
00:20:26,000 --> 00:20:32,000
 4B is PP23-0019, that is Mia's project.

336
00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:33,000
 Hello.

337
00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:35,800
 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.

338
00:20:35,800 --> 00:20:37,600
 Mia Hines, associate planner.

339
00:20:37,600 --> 00:20:43,480
 This item is a preliminary plat for Jefferson Mayhill addition located just west of Mayhill

340
00:20:43,480 --> 00:20:44,480
 Road.

341
00:20:44,480 --> 00:20:50,280
 The property includes approximately, or just under 40 acres.

342
00:20:50,280 --> 00:20:54,160
 At this time, it is not ready for approval, so we are recommending denial, but we have

343
00:20:54,160 --> 00:20:59,640
 no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to October 11th, 2023.

344
00:20:59,640 --> 00:21:00,640
 Great.

345
00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:01,640
 Any questions?

346
00:21:01,640 --> 00:21:03,640
 I don't see any.

347
00:21:03,640 --> 00:21:04,640
 Thank you so much.

348
00:21:04,640 --> 00:21:13,720
 And then our last individual consideration item is 4C, that is FP23-0022, that is Julie.

349
00:21:13,720 --> 00:21:15,120
 Good evening, Julie Wyatt.

350
00:21:15,120 --> 00:21:19,840
 This is FP23-0022A, Townsend Green.

351
00:21:19,840 --> 00:21:21,800
 You've seen this one before.

352
00:21:21,800 --> 00:21:24,760
 They have had a preliminary plat approved.

353
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:28,320
 Phase one of this project is currently under construction.

354
00:21:28,320 --> 00:21:31,520
 This is a final plat for phase two.

355
00:21:31,520 --> 00:21:35,600
 We are recommending approval subject to a condition.

356
00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:39,880
 I know that's something that we don't do very often, but because this plat meets all of

357
00:21:39,880 --> 00:21:46,160
 the technical requirements, we felt comfortable to recommend approval with a condition.

358
00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:52,720
 In this case, and sorry, it's a little bit, it's turned to the side, but there is a property

359
00:21:52,720 --> 00:21:56,160
 on the south side of the site.

360
00:21:56,160 --> 00:21:57,200
 It's in a floodplain.

361
00:21:57,200 --> 00:21:59,560
 It's part of our parks master plan.

362
00:21:59,560 --> 00:22:04,720
 This is something that they've been working with the developer on to dedicate this property

363
00:22:04,720 --> 00:22:08,840
 as a park to allow trail connections.

364
00:22:08,840 --> 00:22:13,800
 The development agreement associated with this is going to council either at the end

365
00:22:13,800 --> 00:22:20,280
 of this month or the beginning of October.

366
00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:24,440
 Just kind of belt and suspenders, we thought it would be best to go ahead and just do that

367
00:22:24,440 --> 00:22:30,760
 conditional approval, make sure all of that gets finalized the way it's anticipated, and

368
00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:36,480
 then it could come back to P&Z to remove that condition.

369
00:22:36,480 --> 00:22:37,480
 Commissioner Pruitt.

370
00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:38,480
 Thank you, Chair.

371
00:22:38,480 --> 00:22:40,920
 Yeah, I understand the condition.

372
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:46,100
 We've done this before with other similar agreements for parkland dedication.

373
00:22:46,100 --> 00:22:56,480
 My question is on the south end where that cul-de-sac is, why couldn't that continue

374
00:22:56,480 --> 00:23:00,960
 as a stub with a temporary turnaround easement to the west of that?

375
00:23:00,960 --> 00:23:07,600
 Was that just something that couldn't be found with the landowner to the west or something?

376
00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:12,620
 It seems like that would be the more logical way to go about that.

377
00:23:12,620 --> 00:23:17,180
 Well, this one is a little different, and we're used to our current standards today

378
00:23:17,180 --> 00:23:18,540
 with our access.

379
00:23:18,540 --> 00:23:21,000
 We want to make sure those neighborhoods are connected.

380
00:23:21,000 --> 00:23:27,200
 This was actually originally plotted and devised under our old codes, and so it's really just

381
00:23:27,200 --> 00:23:29,560
 following that old code.

382
00:23:29,560 --> 00:23:39,120
 I don't remember the adjacent zoning, but it really is related to requirements under

383
00:23:39,120 --> 00:23:40,120
 the old code.

384
00:23:40,120 --> 00:23:46,860
 It does have a stub out here, so if that ever develops, and then it is also stubbed out

385
00:23:46,860 --> 00:23:53,760
 to the property to the east, so there will be connectivity, but it wasn't a requirement

386
00:23:53,760 --> 00:23:54,760
 under the old code.

387
00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:55,760
 Okay.

388
00:23:55,760 --> 00:23:56,760
 Thank you.

389
00:23:56,760 --> 00:23:59,640
 Anything else for Julie?

390
00:23:59,640 --> 00:24:00,640
 Okay.

391
00:24:00,640 --> 00:24:01,640
 Thank you.

392
00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:02,640
 Thank you very much.

393
00:24:02,640 --> 00:24:03,640
 Okay.

394
00:24:03,640 --> 00:24:06,520
 We've got three public hearings this evening.

395
00:24:06,520 --> 00:24:11,920
 Our first is 5A, and yes, Christy is here.

396
00:24:11,920 --> 00:24:14,920
 Hello there.

397
00:24:14,920 --> 00:24:15,920
 Hi.

398
00:24:15,920 --> 00:24:37,320
 Okay, so this is an alternative ESA plan for a sirene at Hickory Creek Barrowstrap Residential.

399
00:24:37,320 --> 00:24:42,040
 We wanted to let you know they have changed their name of their project, Barrowstrap Residential,

400
00:24:42,040 --> 00:24:48,800
 so there will be continuity with the final plot you saw earlier.

401
00:24:48,800 --> 00:24:55,600
 The purpose and the request of this is to improve an alternative ESA plan for mitigation

402
00:24:55,600 --> 00:25:03,200
 to remove 0.66 acres of a complex of riparian buffer and undeveloped floodplain.

403
00:25:03,200 --> 00:25:08,840
 The plan is to restore and improve ecological services that are offered by the remainder

404
00:25:08,840 --> 00:25:15,580
 of the ESA complex, and staff is recommending approval with the conditions that we'll talk

405
00:25:15,580 --> 00:25:20,440
 about at the end.

406
00:25:20,440 --> 00:25:28,320
 There was a preliminary plot that was approved in June of 2022, and it's for 14 acres, more

407
00:25:28,320 --> 00:25:35,040
 or less, of residential development southwest of the intersection of 2499 or Barrowstrap

408
00:25:35,040 --> 00:25:38,960
 and Hickory Creek Road.

409
00:25:38,960 --> 00:25:45,080
 I call it a complex because there's a combination or overlap of this riparian buffer and then

410
00:25:45,080 --> 00:25:52,240
 undeveloped floodplain, as defined by FEMA's 1% floodplain.

411
00:25:52,240 --> 00:26:00,800
 And then that area provides ecological services to that stream, including providing habitat,

412
00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:05,400
 organic stabilization, and water quality.

413
00:26:05,400 --> 00:26:12,720
 And the proposal is to remove that 0.66 acres of environmentally sensitive area.

414
00:26:12,720 --> 00:26:18,160
 Generally it's in this area right here for a couple of reasons.

415
00:26:18,160 --> 00:26:27,320
 First of all, to align the entrance to the neighborhood with a median opening on Hickory

416
00:26:27,320 --> 00:26:29,520
 Creek Road.

417
00:26:29,520 --> 00:26:38,200
 There will be retaining walls to be able to build up the roadway that crosses this riparian

418
00:26:38,200 --> 00:26:44,960
 buffer and undeveloped floodplain, as well as outfall structures to create the drainage

419
00:26:44,960 --> 00:26:47,600
 improvement infrastructure.

420
00:26:47,600 --> 00:26:52,440
 And then a trail that is being proposed to be constructed along the east side of the

421
00:26:52,440 --> 00:26:59,520
 development that will later after the construction be dedicated to the -- or the intent is to

422
00:26:59,520 --> 00:27:07,000
 dedicate it to the parks and recreation as part of their master trail system.

423
00:27:07,000 --> 00:27:12,920
 The mitigation plan is to improve the current habitat conditions of that remainder of the

424
00:27:12,920 --> 00:27:18,400
 ESAs, highlighting it here in the green, that will be the remainder.

425
00:27:18,400 --> 00:27:23,640
 And in addition to the remainder of what was identified as the ESAs, there's some small

426
00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:32,160
 spaces of open space that will be adjacent to that ESA.

427
00:27:32,160 --> 00:27:40,440
 And so the applicant is proposing to remove that pernicious from the area and to replace

428
00:27:40,440 --> 00:27:46,560
 that and improve the current conditions and improve that habitat with that native vegetation

429
00:27:46,560 --> 00:27:49,060
 planting plan.

430
00:27:49,060 --> 00:27:55,120
 Post-construction there's also some trees that are adjacent to the land disturbances

431
00:27:55,120 --> 00:28:06,000
 that may be damaged or destroyed during the construction of the development.

432
00:28:06,000 --> 00:28:11,620
 And so we have worked out with the applicant that they will inspect those trees and any

433
00:28:11,620 --> 00:28:17,600
 that were damaged or destroyed will be replaced at the application rate that is already outlined

434
00:28:17,600 --> 00:28:20,320
 in the development code.

435
00:28:20,320 --> 00:28:26,480
 And then up to 10 percent of the remainder of the area could be disturbed to meet FEMA

436
00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:28,300
 requirements.

437
00:28:28,300 --> 00:28:35,840
 To help explain this a little further, the applicant is currently working with FEMA,

438
00:28:35,840 --> 00:28:43,160
 has an application into FEMA to modify this 1 percent floodplain, and in seeking that

439
00:28:43,160 --> 00:28:49,880
 approval from FEMA, staff has already reviewed that and is in concurrence with the applicant.

440
00:28:49,880 --> 00:28:57,840
 But FEMA always has the right to make comments, require modifications.

441
00:28:57,840 --> 00:29:05,680
 Our concern was to not have to bring this plan back to this body and to the City Council

442
00:29:05,680 --> 00:29:09,840
 to request further changes to the ESA.

443
00:29:09,840 --> 00:29:15,640
 So what we've written into the conditions is that additional 10 percent modification

444
00:29:15,640 --> 00:29:24,280
 in that open space and/or the ESA area in order to allow for the applicant to make any

445
00:29:24,280 --> 00:29:32,160
 other – meet any other requirements that FEMA might come up with.

446
00:29:32,160 --> 00:29:37,800
 And there were notifications, we received three in opposition.

447
00:29:37,800 --> 00:29:45,280
 As you can see here, the location of those who sent in opposition letters and a neighborhood

448
00:29:45,280 --> 00:29:50,000
 meeting was held on March 11th.

449
00:29:50,000 --> 00:29:56,160
 There were four attendees at that meeting and generally it was a discussion about the

450
00:29:56,160 --> 00:29:59,060
 overall development.

451
00:29:59,060 --> 00:30:05,360
 And then staff is making a recommendation to approve this project with the conditions

452
00:30:05,360 --> 00:30:14,680
 as I've explained in this presentation and is outlined also in your packet.

453
00:30:14,680 --> 00:30:17,920
 And with that, I will take any other questions that you might have.

454
00:30:17,920 --> 00:30:19,920
 Thank you, Kristi.

455
00:30:19,920 --> 00:30:20,920
 Questions?

456
00:30:20,920 --> 00:30:28,320
 Kristi, I know we had a comment with regard to a green belt that is on an adjacent neighborhood.

457
00:30:28,320 --> 00:30:29,800
 Can you speak to that?

458
00:30:29,800 --> 00:30:30,800
 Sure.

459
00:30:30,800 --> 00:30:36,120
 Let me go back to a good outline of that.

460
00:30:36,120 --> 00:30:43,400
 So as you can see in this preliminary plot, this project will be adjacent to a neighborhood

461
00:30:43,400 --> 00:30:49,480
 that's already established and is just to the north of that neighborhood that is established.

462
00:30:49,480 --> 00:30:55,640
 This stream segment traverses and bisects this property.

463
00:30:55,640 --> 00:31:04,360
 The property to the south was constructed and received their approvals prior to the

464
00:31:04,360 --> 00:31:09,360
 Denton Development Code 2002 version.

465
00:31:09,360 --> 00:31:17,080
 So they were not subject to the ESA regulations as the ESA's regulations were adopted in 2002

466
00:31:17,080 --> 00:31:20,200
 with that big update at that time.

467
00:31:20,200 --> 00:31:27,080
 So that development to the south, that residential neighborhood, was not subject to the protection

468
00:31:27,080 --> 00:31:29,280
 of environmentally sensitive areas.

469
00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:37,360
 So they do have area, a lot, an HOA lot that they set aside and is considered their green

470
00:31:37,360 --> 00:31:42,840
 belt or their green space in that HOA lot.

471
00:31:42,840 --> 00:31:54,480
 And this project will be making a connection between their development, the current development

472
00:31:54,480 --> 00:31:59,200
 that's to the south and the one that is being proposed.

473
00:31:59,200 --> 00:32:02,080
 So they'll be making a connection into their green belt?

474
00:32:02,080 --> 00:32:11,600
 Well, what their vision is is to have one kind of open space that would look contiguous

475
00:32:11,600 --> 00:32:13,320
 throughout between the two neighborhoods.

476
00:32:13,320 --> 00:32:15,360
 And how are they doing that?

477
00:32:15,360 --> 00:32:20,440
 So first of all, this is going to remain an open space.

478
00:32:20,440 --> 00:32:26,840
 My understanding, there won't be a fencing place between the two developments.

479
00:32:26,840 --> 00:32:32,000
 There's going to be that trail that's part of that master plan trail that they intend

480
00:32:32,000 --> 00:32:34,240
 to dedicate to the city.

481
00:32:34,240 --> 00:32:39,400
 My understanding is that they intend to also construct that portion of that trail through

482
00:32:39,400 --> 00:32:41,420
 the neighborhood to the south.

483
00:32:41,420 --> 00:32:45,160
 So there would be a contiguousness between the two neighborhoods.

484
00:32:45,160 --> 00:32:46,160
 Gotcha.

485
00:32:46,160 --> 00:32:47,160
 Okay.

486
00:32:47,160 --> 00:32:48,160
 That's a good thing.

487
00:32:48,160 --> 00:32:49,160
 Great.

488
00:32:49,160 --> 00:32:50,160
 Thank you.

489
00:32:50,160 --> 00:32:52,840
 Commissioner Villarreal.

490
00:32:52,840 --> 00:33:00,160
 So with the development coming in for the unaffected ESA portion, it wouldn't be negatively affected

491
00:33:00,160 --> 00:33:04,760
 in terms of storm water runoff or drainage?

492
00:33:04,760 --> 00:33:09,800
 So the final plan is to improve what's there today.

493
00:33:09,800 --> 00:33:15,280
 What's there today is a stand of trees and has an understory of some native vegetation.

494
00:33:15,280 --> 00:33:23,520
 Unfortunately, at this time, the understory is being taken over by this privet plant.

495
00:33:23,520 --> 00:33:27,040
 This privet is really invasive.

496
00:33:27,040 --> 00:33:29,040
 It takes over very quickly.

497
00:33:29,040 --> 00:33:30,720
 It crowds out everything else.

498
00:33:30,720 --> 00:33:38,480
 And so none of the native vegetation has an opportunity to compete with that.

499
00:33:38,480 --> 00:33:45,240
 And so the plan is to remove all that privet that's there today and to reestablish native

500
00:33:45,240 --> 00:33:47,040
 vegetation.

501
00:33:47,040 --> 00:33:53,680
 And then I also had them include a maintenance plan so that if in the future, if there's

502
00:33:53,680 --> 00:34:02,120
 problems with the invasive plant reoccurring, that they would continue to try to tackle

503
00:34:02,120 --> 00:34:03,120
 that.

504
00:34:03,120 --> 00:34:04,120
 Got it.

505
00:34:04,120 --> 00:34:05,120
 Thank you.

506
00:34:05,120 --> 00:34:06,120
 Commissioner Pruitt.

507
00:34:06,120 --> 00:34:11,380
 Thank you, Chair.

508
00:34:11,380 --> 00:34:21,920
 So I wasn't able to fully understand exactly what catchment area this is draining into

509
00:34:21,920 --> 00:34:23,680
 this period.

510
00:34:23,680 --> 00:34:29,860
 But it looks like basically there will be under the roadbed, there would be buried pipe

511
00:34:29,860 --> 00:34:39,480
 that's carrying water flow from the north down into the increased region of the riparian

512
00:34:39,480 --> 00:34:40,480
 isa.

513
00:34:40,480 --> 00:34:41,480
 Is that correct?

514
00:34:41,480 --> 00:34:42,480
 Correct.

515
00:34:42,480 --> 00:34:43,480
 Okay.

516
00:34:43,480 --> 00:34:44,480
 And the...

517
00:34:44,480 --> 00:34:45,480
 Yes.

518
00:34:45,480 --> 00:34:46,480
 Right now...

519
00:34:46,480 --> 00:34:51,720
 Really, I just want to understand the triangle shown, usually those are for, you know, slowing

520
00:34:51,720 --> 00:34:53,080
 down effluent.

521
00:34:53,080 --> 00:34:54,600
 It looks fairly small.

522
00:34:54,600 --> 00:34:55,600
 Triangle.

523
00:34:55,600 --> 00:35:02,200
 Sorry, on the...

524
00:35:02,200 --> 00:35:06,200
 It's hashed in sort of the pinkish color on the full report.

525
00:35:06,200 --> 00:35:10,740
 It's basically at the base of right after the pipe, right?

526
00:35:10,740 --> 00:35:11,740
 Right there.

527
00:35:11,740 --> 00:35:12,740
 Right here?

528
00:35:12,740 --> 00:35:13,740
 Yeah.

529
00:35:13,740 --> 00:35:14,740
 Oh.

530
00:35:14,740 --> 00:35:18,480
 Is that the area that's intended to slow down the water or can you just explain that a little

531
00:35:18,480 --> 00:35:19,480
 bit more?

532
00:35:19,480 --> 00:35:20,480
 Sure, sure.

533
00:35:20,480 --> 00:35:26,160
 There will be a portion of this stream is already underground to the north of Hickory

534
00:35:26,160 --> 00:35:27,160
 Creek.

535
00:35:27,160 --> 00:35:28,160
 Okay.

536
00:35:28,160 --> 00:35:34,080
 They will be placing the rest of it in a pipe that will be coming out at this point.

537
00:35:34,080 --> 00:35:40,960
 This point right here, it will be the major receiving point or the outfall of the flow

538
00:35:40,960 --> 00:35:46,080
 from under Hickory Creek Road and under the new residential road.

539
00:35:46,080 --> 00:35:49,080
 And what you're seeing there, that little hash mark is riprap.

540
00:35:49,080 --> 00:35:50,080
 Okay.

541
00:35:50,080 --> 00:35:59,240
 So, riprap is a design element to help slow down water as it's coming through the pipe.

542
00:35:59,240 --> 00:36:02,360
 There will be additional riprap at the outfalls.

543
00:36:02,360 --> 00:36:09,320
 And so, the major other outfall that will be encroaching into the ESA area is just to

544
00:36:09,320 --> 00:36:10,320
 the south.

545
00:36:10,320 --> 00:36:16,600
 And then there's another one over on the southwest corner of the ESAs.

546
00:36:16,600 --> 00:36:21,200
 And then another one that will be coming into the open space but is not encroaching into

547
00:36:21,200 --> 00:36:24,680
 environmentally sensitive areas because they were pulled it back just a little bit.

548
00:36:24,680 --> 00:36:25,680
 Got it.

549
00:36:25,680 --> 00:36:26,680
 Okay.

550
00:36:26,680 --> 00:36:27,680
 Thank you.

551
00:36:27,680 --> 00:36:33,480
 Anything else for Christy at this time?

552
00:36:33,480 --> 00:36:34,480
 Thank you.

553
00:36:34,480 --> 00:36:35,480
 Okay.

554
00:36:35,480 --> 00:36:36,480
 Okay.

555
00:36:36,480 --> 00:36:42,680
 Our next public hearing is 5B DCA 230009.

556
00:36:42,680 --> 00:36:47,480
 We'll let Haley give us a quick summary on that.

557
00:36:47,480 --> 00:36:48,480
 Hi, Haley.

558
00:36:48,480 --> 00:36:49,480
 Good evening.

559
00:36:49,480 --> 00:36:52,600
 Haley Zygursky, Assistant Planning Director.

560
00:36:52,600 --> 00:36:56,440
 I will just go through a quick summary and then have a very brief presentation that we

561
00:36:56,440 --> 00:36:59,280
 can go through at the regular meeting.

562
00:36:59,280 --> 00:37:04,520
 So the request before you this evening is to update section 2.6.3 of the Denton Development

563
00:37:04,520 --> 00:37:07,600
 Code, which is our preliminary plat regulations.

564
00:37:07,600 --> 00:37:11,100
 The change to the section of the code is to make preliminary plats optional for properties

565
00:37:11,100 --> 00:37:15,240
 developing within the city limits rather than a strict requirement.

566
00:37:15,240 --> 00:37:19,120
 The reasoning for this, if you recall our last work session, we talked about House Bill

567
00:37:19,120 --> 00:37:24,680
 3699 that updated the shot clock legislation.

568
00:37:24,680 --> 00:37:29,200
 As part of that update, they took away a city's ability to require any form of a study as

569
00:37:29,200 --> 00:37:30,840
 part of a plat application.

570
00:37:30,840 --> 00:37:34,360
 So if you'd looked at our preliminary plat checklist in the past, you'd see it was a

571
00:37:34,360 --> 00:37:39,200
 lot of supplementary information that went along with it, like utility studies, drainage

572
00:37:39,200 --> 00:37:40,200
 studies.

573
00:37:40,200 --> 00:37:43,780
 So all of those pieces we have relocated to other points of the process.

574
00:37:43,780 --> 00:37:45,400
 So there's no loss of information.

575
00:37:45,400 --> 00:37:49,720
 They've just been shifted to different points in our review process.

576
00:37:49,720 --> 00:37:54,040
 So with that, the preliminary plat would have become essentially a redundant step in the

577
00:37:54,040 --> 00:37:55,040
 development process.

578
00:37:55,040 --> 00:37:59,280
 So rather than having every application go through that, we're requiring all of those

579
00:37:59,280 --> 00:38:02,780
 materials on the front end with their zoning compliance plan and saying preliminary plats

580
00:38:02,780 --> 00:38:05,200
 could be optional moving forward.

581
00:38:05,200 --> 00:38:08,120
 They would still have to go through the final plat process before they could get building

582
00:38:08,120 --> 00:38:11,600
 permits to develop, so we're just streamlining a little bit by taking out some redundancy

583
00:38:11,600 --> 00:38:16,600
 that would be created by shifting those studies to the zoning compliance plan.

584
00:38:16,600 --> 00:38:18,400
 So happy to answer any questions.

585
00:38:18,400 --> 00:38:21,280
 Otherwise, I can go into more detail at our regular meeting.

586
00:38:21,280 --> 00:38:23,440
 Commissioner Perot.

587
00:38:23,440 --> 00:38:27,400
 Yeah, just in looking through the backup, I couldn't find it.

588
00:38:27,400 --> 00:38:36,780
 So in the public hearing, if you could educate me as far as how we plan on handling determination

589
00:38:36,780 --> 00:38:42,840
 of alignment of collector streets in a subdivision if somebody just comes in with a big plat

590
00:38:42,840 --> 00:38:43,840
 all at once.

591
00:38:43,840 --> 00:38:44,840
 Does that make sense?

592
00:38:44,840 --> 00:38:45,840
 Sure.

593
00:38:45,840 --> 00:38:46,840
 So everything...

594
00:38:46,840 --> 00:38:51,600
 Typically, if there's a preliminary plat, those roadway alignments are shown and there's

595
00:38:51,600 --> 00:38:53,200
 time to get that worked out.

596
00:38:53,200 --> 00:38:54,200
 Sure.

597
00:38:54,200 --> 00:38:57,040
 So all of that same information that you see now with the preliminary plat is shifting to

598
00:38:57,040 --> 00:38:59,040
 our zoning compliance plan.

599
00:38:59,040 --> 00:39:02,520
 So every bit of that same review will occur a step earlier in the process.

600
00:39:02,520 --> 00:39:03,520
 Got it.

601
00:39:03,520 --> 00:39:04,520
 Thank you.

602
00:39:04,520 --> 00:39:10,840
 Haley, do you think this is going to add time to the whole process?

603
00:39:10,840 --> 00:39:14,560
 For some developments, it will remove a step.

604
00:39:14,560 --> 00:39:17,160
 So actually, let me see if I've got...

605
00:39:17,160 --> 00:39:20,480
 I put together a slide just in case there was process questions.

606
00:39:20,480 --> 00:39:28,040
 So as it stands today, the multifamily and non-residential developments do have two steps.

607
00:39:28,040 --> 00:39:30,680
 They do a zoning compliance plan and then a preliminary plat.

608
00:39:30,680 --> 00:39:32,080
 This would remove that step for them.

609
00:39:32,080 --> 00:39:35,420
 For residential, it just shifts all the stuff that we get with the preliminary plat now

610
00:39:35,420 --> 00:39:37,160
 into a different application type.

611
00:39:37,160 --> 00:39:43,440
 So for some developments, it reduces review time because there's one less step.

612
00:39:43,440 --> 00:39:44,800
 But overall, probably not a significant change.

613
00:39:44,800 --> 00:39:48,840
 It just seems like the staff is getting, I guess, more information possibly all at once.

614
00:39:48,840 --> 00:39:53,600
 So I was just wondering if that's where it was going to lag maybe.

615
00:39:53,600 --> 00:39:55,300
 We see all the same information either way.

616
00:39:55,300 --> 00:39:58,600
 So for us, it's just a different time at which we touch it.

617
00:39:58,600 --> 00:39:59,600
 Gotcha.

618
00:39:59,600 --> 00:40:00,600
 Thanks, Haley.

619
00:40:00,600 --> 00:40:13,280
 Okay, 5C DCA 230010, I think Angie's got the presentation on this one.

620
00:40:13,280 --> 00:40:16,000
 Hi, everyone.

621
00:40:16,000 --> 00:40:18,520
 Good evening.

622
00:40:18,520 --> 00:40:20,560
 Angie Manglars, senior planner.

623
00:40:20,560 --> 00:40:24,520
 I will pull up my quick presentation.

624
00:40:24,520 --> 00:40:29,160
 Okay, this is DCA 230010.

625
00:40:29,160 --> 00:40:33,400
 It is DDC amendments related to agricultural and animal uses.

626
00:40:33,400 --> 00:40:37,760
 I have a quick summary slide that I'll give to you all tonight as well as a little backup

627
00:40:37,760 --> 00:40:39,720
 for our public hearing this evening.

628
00:40:39,720 --> 00:40:48,400
 But this is recommended changes to tables 5.2-A, section 535 of the DDC, section 5.4.4

629
00:40:48,400 --> 00:40:54,760
 of the DDC, and section 9.2 of the DDC, all related to the regulation of agricultural

630
00:40:54,760 --> 00:40:56,660
 and animal businesses.

631
00:40:56,660 --> 00:41:01,120
 These are coming out of the state legislation, which we kind of gave you a brief recap of

632
00:41:01,120 --> 00:41:03,480
 at our last meeting when we had our workshop.

633
00:41:03,480 --> 00:41:12,860
 But House Bills 1750, 2308, and 2947 all spoke to the regulation, the city's ability to regulate

634
00:41:12,860 --> 00:41:15,000
 agricultural uses within the city limits.

635
00:41:15,000 --> 00:41:19,120
 Now, I do want to note at that time, we also talked about the animal uses and that some

636
00:41:19,120 --> 00:41:21,760
 of those amendments may be occurring as well.

637
00:41:21,760 --> 00:41:26,640
 However, House Bill 2127 is currently being litigated and is not yet in effect, so we're

638
00:41:26,640 --> 00:41:29,060
 going to put a pause on those animal uses.

639
00:41:29,060 --> 00:41:33,480
 But for tonight's purposes, we are going to focus on the agricultural uses.

640
00:41:33,480 --> 00:41:37,400
 Should we need to, we can come back and address the animal uses at a later date.

641
00:41:37,400 --> 00:41:43,100
 So House Bill 1750 prohibits a city from imposing any governmental requirement that applies to

642
00:41:43,100 --> 00:41:45,240
 agricultural operations.

643
00:41:45,240 --> 00:41:49,940
 Governmental requirements includes regulations, zonings, permitting, licenses, and prohibitions

644
00:41:49,940 --> 00:41:56,120
 on generally acceptable practices, which could include the use of pesticides, limitation

645
00:41:56,120 --> 00:41:58,520
 of number of livestock you could have, et cetera.

646
00:41:58,520 --> 00:42:01,760
 It does include some exceptions, so it's not quite a free-for-all.

647
00:42:01,760 --> 00:42:05,640
 It does allow cities to establish regulations that protect adjacent property owners from

648
00:42:05,640 --> 00:42:08,080
 imminent danger.

649
00:42:08,080 --> 00:42:13,120
 Cities can also base regulations on the finding of a report that is commissioned to protect

650
00:42:13,120 --> 00:42:14,120
 public health.

651
00:42:14,120 --> 00:42:19,320
 And then also forthcoming, we haven't seen it yet, but is the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension

652
00:42:19,320 --> 00:42:26,080
 Manual, which will give guiding principles as to the best agricultural practices.

653
00:42:26,080 --> 00:42:32,800
 That is the manual in which cities can establish regulations from, so it could be how many

654
00:42:32,800 --> 00:42:36,440
 acres you need to have to maintain a certain amount of livestock, but that is the manual

655
00:42:36,440 --> 00:42:44,160
 which House Bill 1750 specifies regulations regarding agriculture can come from.

656
00:42:44,160 --> 00:42:49,220
 House Bills 2308 and 2947 were more narrow in their scope, but they do both modify the

657
00:42:49,220 --> 00:42:52,720
 definitions of agricultural operations.

658
00:42:52,720 --> 00:42:57,680
 They were expanded to include the commercial sale of animals, production of livestock and

659
00:42:57,680 --> 00:43:04,400
 vegetation for livestock forage, as well as veterinary services that are related to the

660
00:43:04,400 --> 00:43:07,760
 keeping of livestock and poultry on site.

661
00:43:07,760 --> 00:43:11,720
 So staff has gone through and made a number of suggested amendments that includes allowing

662
00:43:11,720 --> 00:43:17,720
 agriculture uses to be permitted in all zoning districts in accordance with House Bill 1750

663
00:43:17,720 --> 00:43:22,440
 in the forthcoming Texas AgriLife Extension Manual, and then also some modifications to

664
00:43:22,440 --> 00:43:30,180
 our definitions for both agricultural general and animal uses to accommodate the new definitions

665
00:43:30,180 --> 00:43:34,600
 that came out in the state bills to make sure we're in line with what they're calling out

666
00:43:34,600 --> 00:43:36,800
 and what we have in our code.

667
00:43:36,800 --> 00:43:40,880
 With that, I can go into any more detail, or I'm happy to answer any questions.

668
00:43:40,880 --> 00:43:46,500
 Angie, do you know when the AgriLife Manual is going to be published?

669
00:43:46,500 --> 00:43:47,800
 I do not.

670
00:43:47,800 --> 00:43:53,200
 I have checked a few times on the Texas A&M's AgriLife Extension Manual.

671
00:43:53,200 --> 00:43:58,480
 We have reached out to the, I believe it's their Denton County office.

672
00:43:58,480 --> 00:44:00,240
 I don't have a date for that.

673
00:44:00,240 --> 00:44:03,880
 Yeah, I look pretty regularly at this point because I'm interested to know.

674
00:44:03,880 --> 00:44:08,880
 Well, yeah, because it seems odd we're going to alter our code and mention this manual,

675
00:44:08,880 --> 00:44:11,160
 which isn't printed yet.

676
00:44:11,160 --> 00:44:15,200
 So I'm just trying to make sure that we're not making a change too far ahead of time.

677
00:44:15,200 --> 00:44:20,800
 The House bill does specifically call out that this manual is to be published and is

678
00:44:20,800 --> 00:44:21,800
 forthcoming.

679
00:44:21,800 --> 00:44:26,480
 So to the best of our knowledge with these going into effect on September 1st, I do expect

680
00:44:26,480 --> 00:44:28,640
 that manual to be published soon.

681
00:44:28,640 --> 00:44:29,920
 Shortly thereafter?

682
00:44:29,920 --> 00:44:30,920
 Just don't know when yet.

683
00:44:30,920 --> 00:44:33,400
 They just don't give a specific date in the legislation?

684
00:44:33,400 --> 00:44:34,880
 There is not one yet, no.

685
00:44:34,880 --> 00:44:39,480
 Well, and to add to that if I could, and Angie, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but hence

686
00:44:39,480 --> 00:44:44,960
 why we've included language in the proposed ordinance to also cite back to the amendments

687
00:44:44,960 --> 00:44:50,440
 that are made in the text of the agriculture code, particularly those items related to

688
00:44:50,440 --> 00:44:57,080
 the imminent danger, basically, Angie's dubbed it the list of dangerous things, right?

689
00:44:57,080 --> 00:45:01,680
 So there's, I think, 11 items on that list, so at least to be able to circle back to that.

690
00:45:01,680 --> 00:45:07,000
 So there are provisions within the state statute that offer some protection, and then once

691
00:45:07,000 --> 00:45:13,080
 this AgriLife report gets published, then we'll know better best practices, and we will

692
00:45:13,080 --> 00:45:16,240
 go back and look to see if there's anything that we need to make modifications to on our

693
00:45:16,240 --> 00:45:17,240
 debt and development code.

694
00:45:17,240 --> 00:45:20,680
 So that reference would be the safety net until you're sure that this is published?

695
00:45:20,680 --> 00:45:26,360
 Yeah, we tried to make sure we included that to help property owners as well as ourselves

696
00:45:26,360 --> 00:45:28,520
 be able to go back and look at that safety net.

697
00:45:28,520 --> 00:45:29,520
 Gotcha.

698
00:45:29,520 --> 00:45:30,520
 Thanks.

699
00:45:30,520 --> 00:45:31,520
 Anything for Angie on this?

700
00:45:31,520 --> 00:45:32,520
 Commissioner Cole?

701
00:45:32,520 --> 00:45:33,520
 Thank you, Chair.

702
00:45:33,520 --> 00:45:42,160
 So what you're saying is that the Ag extension manual is going to dictate how y'all do this

703
00:45:42,160 --> 00:45:47,120
 or if that's where you're going to get your ideas to put further rules on this is from

704
00:45:47,120 --> 00:45:48,120
 the Ag manual?

705
00:45:48,120 --> 00:45:49,120
 Correct.

706
00:45:49,120 --> 00:45:52,000
 Which comes from the legislation.

707
00:45:52,000 --> 00:45:59,480
 Yeah, I would say it is my understanding in reading these bills a couple times and trying

708
00:45:59,480 --> 00:46:05,080
 to grasp where we were going with this is that if a city wants to impose a regulation,

709
00:46:05,080 --> 00:46:10,280
 apart from it being on the list of dangerous things or the city commissioning its own independent

710
00:46:10,280 --> 00:46:14,640
 contractor to commission a report to determine the public health impacts.

711
00:46:14,640 --> 00:46:18,160
 So apart from those two things, if you're wanting to establish a regulation, we'll say

712
00:46:18,160 --> 00:46:23,720
 surrounding chickens because that's a hot topic, it would have to come from that manual.

713
00:46:23,720 --> 00:46:28,000
 The guiding and leading experts is what the intent is, I think, of these bills.

714
00:46:28,000 --> 00:46:29,000
 Thanks.

715
00:46:29,000 --> 00:46:30,000
 Right.

716
00:46:30,000 --> 00:46:31,000
 So I would say to expand on her example.

717
00:46:31,000 --> 00:46:35,480
 So if that report said that if you were wanting to have five chickens on your property, then

718
00:46:35,480 --> 00:46:40,820
 you ideally need two acres, then we could include in our ordinance that in order to

719
00:46:40,820 --> 00:46:44,760
 have five chickens on your property, you would need to have a minimum of two acres, right?

720
00:46:44,760 --> 00:46:50,040
 So we would look to that report because presumably it's giving us the best practices, right?

721
00:46:50,040 --> 00:46:55,480
 If we're going to have agricultural operations happening on someone's property, then it would

722
00:46:55,480 --> 00:46:56,480
 give us that guidance.

723
00:46:56,480 --> 00:46:59,840
 You know, just for, you know, if it were to say if you wanted to raise winter wheat on

724
00:46:59,840 --> 00:47:04,920
 your property and recommended you have at least 10 acres, then if we were to adopt regulations

725
00:47:04,920 --> 00:47:12,080
 related to crops being farmed and wanted to establish a minimum 10 acre lot size, we could

726
00:47:12,080 --> 00:47:13,760
 because that would be consistent with that.

727
00:47:13,760 --> 00:47:17,720
 So it's a little unknown as to what's going to be put in the report.

728
00:47:17,720 --> 00:47:21,200
 The way I see it is the state legislature obviously puts a lot of faith and effort into

729
00:47:21,200 --> 00:47:24,360
 the AgriLife Extension Office in providing that guidance.

730
00:47:24,360 --> 00:47:29,040
 So we've tried to put some stopgap measures in our ordinance, at least referring back

731
00:47:29,040 --> 00:47:33,480
 to the list of dangerous things that's provided for in the code to make sure we at least have

732
00:47:33,480 --> 00:47:36,280
 those protections in place.

733
00:47:36,280 --> 00:47:37,280
 Okay.

734
00:47:37,280 --> 00:47:39,080
 Thank you, Angie.

735
00:47:39,080 --> 00:47:40,080
 Thank you guys.

736
00:47:40,080 --> 00:47:41,080
 Thank you, Tina.

737
00:47:41,080 --> 00:47:42,080
 Okay.

738
00:47:42,080 --> 00:47:46,760
 With that, I'll adjourn our work session at 619 and we will reconvene as close to 630

739
00:47:46,760 --> 00:47:52,320
 in council chambers as we can.

740
00:47:52,320 --> 00:47:56,680
 Thanks.

741
00:47:56,680 --> 00:47:59,560
 Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for

742
00:47:59,560 --> 00:48:03,560
 Wednesday, September 13th, 2023.

743
00:48:03,560 --> 00:48:07,760
 With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 646 p.m.

744
00:48:07,760 --> 00:48:09,600
 Thank you for your patience.

745
00:48:09,600 --> 00:48:12,200
 We are having a late start time.

746
00:48:12,200 --> 00:48:17,200
 First item on our agenda this evening is Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flag.

747
00:48:17,200 --> 00:48:25,080
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

748
00:48:25,080 --> 00:48:32,280
 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

749
00:48:32,280 --> 00:48:45,880
 On this Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one and indivisible.

750
00:48:45,880 --> 00:48:48,880
 Thank you.

751
00:48:48,880 --> 00:48:54,040
 First item on our agenda for consideration is approval of the minutes for August 23rd

752
00:48:54,040 --> 00:48:56,080
 P&Z meeting.

753
00:48:56,080 --> 00:48:57,080
 Commissioner Villarreal.

754
00:48:57,080 --> 00:48:58,700
 So moved.

755
00:48:58,700 --> 00:48:59,700
 Commissioner Cole.

756
00:48:59,700 --> 00:49:00,700
 Second.

757
00:49:00,700 --> 00:49:01,700
 Okay.

758
00:49:01,700 --> 00:49:02,700
 We've got a first and a second for approval discussion.

759
00:49:02,700 --> 00:49:03,700
 Okay.

760
00:49:03,700 --> 00:49:11,960
 Let's vote on the board, please.

761
00:49:11,960 --> 00:49:15,080
 That motion carries 7-0.

762
00:49:15,080 --> 00:49:20,960
 That will take us to our consent agenda items and I do have a card from a citizen to speak

763
00:49:20,960 --> 00:49:25,280
 on item 3E.

764
00:49:25,280 --> 00:49:33,040
 So I will be looking for a motion please to remove that from consent if that is so considered

765
00:49:33,040 --> 00:49:34,040
 by the commission.

766
00:49:34,040 --> 00:49:35,040
 Commissioner Villarreal.

767
00:49:35,040 --> 00:49:42,800
 I move to remove item 3E from consent and move to items for individual consideration.

768
00:49:42,800 --> 00:49:46,840
 And anything with regard to the rest of consent?

769
00:49:46,840 --> 00:49:51,000
 And then I move to pass consent as written.

770
00:49:51,000 --> 00:49:58,040
 So you're going to approve the consent agenda by removing item 3E?

771
00:49:58,040 --> 00:49:59,040
 That's right.

772
00:49:59,040 --> 00:50:00,040
 That's exactly right, yes.

773
00:50:00,040 --> 00:50:01,040
 Okay.

774
00:50:01,040 --> 00:50:02,040
 Clarifying that.

775
00:50:02,040 --> 00:50:03,040
 Thank you.

776
00:50:03,040 --> 00:50:04,040
 Commissioner Smith.

777
00:50:04,040 --> 00:50:05,040
 Second.

778
00:50:05,040 --> 00:50:06,040
 Okay.

779
00:50:06,040 --> 00:50:10,840
 We've got a first and a second to approve the consent agenda removing item 3E and placing

780
00:50:10,840 --> 00:50:14,280
 that on individual consideration this evening.

781
00:50:14,280 --> 00:50:15,280
 Commissioner Pruitt.

782
00:50:15,280 --> 00:50:24,940
 Just for clarity given that sometimes we have comments that refer to more than one item,

783
00:50:24,940 --> 00:50:29,480
 would you be okay with removing 3D and 3E?

784
00:50:29,480 --> 00:50:32,320
 I accept that as a friendly amendment, yes.

785
00:50:32,320 --> 00:50:33,320
 Commissioner Smith.

786
00:50:33,320 --> 00:50:34,320
 Second.

787
00:50:34,320 --> 00:50:35,320
 Okay.

788
00:50:35,320 --> 00:50:41,960
 Amended motion would be approve consent agenda removing items 3D and E and placing those on

789
00:50:41,960 --> 00:50:46,520
 individual consideration.

790
00:50:46,520 --> 00:50:56,600
 Seeing no questions, let's vote on the board, please.

791
00:50:56,600 --> 00:50:58,880
 That item carries 7-0.

792
00:50:58,880 --> 00:51:05,920
 That will take us then to item formally 3D, FP230020B.

793
00:51:05,920 --> 00:51:13,620
 Julie, I will have you come up here.

794
00:51:13,620 --> 00:51:14,620
 Thank you.

795
00:51:14,620 --> 00:51:15,620
 Good evening.

796
00:51:15,620 --> 00:51:18,180
 Let me get to that.

797
00:51:18,180 --> 00:51:19,400
 All right.

798
00:51:19,400 --> 00:51:25,040
 So first we have FP230020B.

799
00:51:25,040 --> 00:51:31,180
 This is phase 1A of the Kingsway subdivision.

800
00:51:31,180 --> 00:51:32,580
 It is a final plat.

801
00:51:32,580 --> 00:51:36,200
 It's consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved.

802
00:51:36,200 --> 00:51:41,880
 It meets all of the technical requirements for a final plat and therefore staff recommends

803
00:51:41,880 --> 00:51:42,880
 approval.

804
00:51:42,880 --> 00:51:46,880
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

805
00:51:46,880 --> 00:51:48,480
 I don't see any questions here.

806
00:51:48,480 --> 00:51:52,700
 Would you like to just roll into the next one as well since they are related and then

807
00:51:52,700 --> 00:51:55,360
 I can have Mr. Ferring come up.

808
00:51:55,360 --> 00:51:56,440
 Absolutely.

809
00:51:56,440 --> 00:52:01,020
 So this is FP230021B.

810
00:52:01,020 --> 00:52:04,640
 This is phase 1B of the Kingsway subdivision.

811
00:52:04,640 --> 00:52:12,680
 It is consistent with that preliminary plat and it meets the technical requirements of

812
00:52:12,680 --> 00:52:14,680
 a final plat.

813
00:52:14,680 --> 00:52:19,200
 I should mention both of these are single family residential developments and it is

814
00:52:19,200 --> 00:52:20,960
 consistent with the zoning as well.

815
00:52:20,960 --> 00:52:23,440
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

816
00:52:23,440 --> 00:52:25,640
 Thank you, Julie.

817
00:52:25,640 --> 00:52:27,240
 I don't see any at this time.

818
00:52:27,240 --> 00:52:28,240
 Thank you.

819
00:52:28,240 --> 00:52:35,560
 Mr. Ferring, I'm going to have you come up and speak on these items before we take any

820
00:52:35,560 --> 00:52:36,560
 action.

821
00:52:36,560 --> 00:52:37,560
 Good evening.

822
00:52:37,560 --> 00:52:38,560
 Hello.

823
00:52:38,560 --> 00:52:39,560
 Thank you.

824
00:52:39,560 --> 00:52:40,560
 I'm Reed Ferring.

825
00:52:40,560 --> 00:52:46,800
 I live at 4572 Coyote Point, just northeast of this plan development.

826
00:52:46,800 --> 00:52:51,480
 I've been here before to speak with you all.

827
00:52:51,480 --> 00:52:59,440
 I think the last time I came I suggested that I was very frustrated that there is not on

828
00:52:59,440 --> 00:53:05,880
 the table in my mind a really comprehensive long-term plan for how Northeast Denton is

829
00:53:05,880 --> 00:53:08,700
 going to be developed.

830
00:53:08,700 --> 00:53:14,040
 In addition to this development where we have a pending proposal for 1,900 apartments on

831
00:53:14,040 --> 00:53:22,280
 the Carter property, we have widening of Loop 288, we have a shunt from 380 to 288.

832
00:53:22,280 --> 00:53:27,640
 All of those activities are going to converge right here at the intersection of Kings Row

833
00:53:27,640 --> 00:53:30,080
 and Loop 288.

834
00:53:30,080 --> 00:53:34,780
 One of the proposals I read would indicate that when this is all done, it would not be

835
00:53:34,780 --> 00:53:41,080
 possible to turn left and go south on the Loop from Kings Row.

836
00:53:41,080 --> 00:53:42,080
 That would be a nightmare.

837
00:53:42,080 --> 00:53:48,200
 The other day I had an early appointment and the traffic was backed up from the Loop all

838
00:53:48,200 --> 00:53:51,320
 the way to Silverdome Road.

839
00:53:51,320 --> 00:53:54,400
 I had to make a U-turn and find another way out.

840
00:53:54,400 --> 00:54:00,840
 I couldn't wait for six light changes to get through that intersection.

841
00:54:00,840 --> 00:54:08,240
 This development in particular has one exit for all of these homes that has to feed onto

842
00:54:08,240 --> 00:54:15,320
 Kings Row, in the same place where Hodge Elementary people and the many residents of that part

843
00:54:15,320 --> 00:54:19,920
 of Denton have to travel heavily twice a day.

844
00:54:19,920 --> 00:54:26,880
 So on a kind of idealistic note, I've been a resident of Denton for 45 years.

845
00:54:26,880 --> 00:54:28,000
 I love this city.

846
00:54:28,000 --> 00:54:36,240
 I care about its growth, but I worry that the intense, dense development along the Loop

847
00:54:36,240 --> 00:54:42,880
 and in northeast Denton is going to compromise the quality of life that my family and I and

848
00:54:42,880 --> 00:54:47,160
 all of our friends, and you, have enjoyed here for decades.

849
00:54:47,160 --> 00:54:53,640
 So my request tonight is not to kill this proposal or anything else, but I would urge

850
00:54:53,640 --> 00:54:59,360
 each of you to ask yourself, would you buy a home in this development?

851
00:54:59,360 --> 00:55:03,040
 What would this mean for your lifestyle?

852
00:55:03,040 --> 00:55:09,280
 And isn't it time that we back off and look at what can be done and not take developers'

853
00:55:09,280 --> 00:55:15,840
 proposals one at a time and wait to see how it all turns out at the end?

854
00:55:15,840 --> 00:55:24,440
 So in that respect, I guess I am asking you to postpone decision on this project and consider

855
00:55:24,440 --> 00:55:30,180
 comprehensively the impact of this kind of development on our part of Denton.

856
00:55:30,180 --> 00:55:32,600
 I appreciate the hard work you all do.

857
00:55:32,600 --> 00:55:38,000
 I can't imagine that this is a very challenging time with the rapid growth in this city that

858
00:55:38,000 --> 00:55:44,160
 you all have lots of decisions to make, and you hear from lots of people, but I appreciate

859
00:55:44,160 --> 00:55:45,840
 your listening to me.

860
00:55:45,840 --> 00:55:46,840
 Thank you.

861
00:55:46,840 --> 00:55:47,840
 Thank you, Mr. Frayron.

862
00:55:47,840 --> 00:55:52,120
 Dr. Frayron, appreciate it.

863
00:55:52,120 --> 00:56:00,000
 Julie, I do have a question that I did not ask in work session.

864
00:56:00,000 --> 00:56:10,280
 Seeing that we have just this one access point, I guess in both of these plots, what was the

865
00:56:10,280 --> 00:56:12,160
 FHIR's take on this?

866
00:56:12,160 --> 00:56:14,880
 Surely, you consulted them.

867
00:56:14,880 --> 00:56:15,880
 Yes.

868
00:56:15,880 --> 00:56:23,200
 FHIR reviewed it, and it's consistent with their regulations, and so they did not have

869
00:56:23,200 --> 00:56:29,280
 any objection to this project.

870
00:56:29,280 --> 00:56:30,280
 Thank you, Julie.

871
00:56:30,280 --> 00:56:31,280
 I appreciate it.

872
00:56:31,280 --> 00:56:32,280
 Commissioner Smith?

873
00:56:32,280 --> 00:56:36,360
 Make a motion to approve.

874
00:56:36,360 --> 00:56:39,080
 We've got to take these one at a time.

875
00:56:39,080 --> 00:56:43,960
 They are separate on our agenda, so we are on FP230020.

876
00:56:43,960 --> 00:56:49,000
 We have to approve them one by one.

877
00:56:49,000 --> 00:56:50,000
 Correct.

878
00:56:50,000 --> 00:56:51,200
 So make a motion to approve item D.

879
00:56:51,200 --> 00:56:52,200
 Very good.

880
00:56:52,200 --> 00:56:53,200
 Thank you.

881
00:56:53,200 --> 00:56:54,200
 You're welcome.

882
00:56:54,200 --> 00:56:55,200
 I appreciate it.

883
00:56:55,200 --> 00:57:03,560
 We have a first on the floor for approval.

884
00:57:03,560 --> 00:57:04,560
 Commissioner Cole?

885
00:57:04,560 --> 00:57:05,560
 Second.

886
00:57:05,560 --> 00:57:06,560
 Okay.

887
00:57:06,560 --> 00:57:13,000
 We've got a first and a second for approval of this final plot.

888
00:57:13,000 --> 00:57:15,280
 I guess I just want more clarity.

889
00:57:15,280 --> 00:57:17,440
 Commissioner Pruitt, I'll let you have the floor.

890
00:57:17,440 --> 00:57:19,240
 Thank you, Chair.

891
00:57:19,240 --> 00:57:26,740
 I have a lot harder time with this one than the other one because the other one is a fairly

892
00:57:26,740 --> 00:57:35,560
 standard subdivision plot, nothing strange about it other than the fact that it is vested

893
00:57:35,560 --> 00:57:39,780
 before we had the two points of access requirement.

894
00:57:39,780 --> 00:57:49,120
 With this one, I don't see any other intersection away from an access road any closer than about

895
00:57:49,120 --> 00:57:55,600
 400 feet in the rest of the city, and those were done decades ago when the freeway may

896
00:57:55,600 --> 00:57:59,880
 have been in different places or not there yet when it was built.

897
00:57:59,880 --> 00:58:03,200
 So I understand the concern.

898
00:58:03,200 --> 00:58:11,680
 I understand staff's reasoning for conservancy here, but I'm not going to be able to support

899
00:58:11,680 --> 00:58:20,720
 this, and I'll just state that it's based on the reason for approval of 11A with the

900
00:58:20,720 --> 00:58:24,320
 transportation concerns.

901
00:58:24,320 --> 00:58:25,320
 Commissioner Villarreal?

902
00:58:25,320 --> 00:58:26,320
 Yes.

903
00:58:26,320 --> 00:58:31,560
 I appreciate staff's comments and the backup material.

904
00:58:31,560 --> 00:58:40,360
 However, I don't believe this item conforms to DDC section 2.4.5.E in regards to minimizing

905
00:58:40,360 --> 00:58:45,440
 adverse impacts to both surrounding property and adverse fiscal impacts, and I agree with

906
00:58:45,440 --> 00:58:51,840
 Commissioner Pruitt that there are some road concerns as well, so I'll be voting no.

907
00:58:51,840 --> 00:58:53,240
 Commissioner McDade?

908
00:58:53,240 --> 00:58:54,240
 Thank you, Chair.

909
00:58:54,240 --> 00:58:59,200
 Yeah, I just want to say that I also agree with Commissioner Villarreal and Commissioner

910
00:58:59,200 --> 00:59:03,760
 Pruitt on this subject.

911
00:59:03,760 --> 00:59:08,760
 I still have an issue with the traffic, and I know they've done the traffic studies, but

912
00:59:08,760 --> 00:59:15,400
 for some reason, I just can't go ... I just can't buy into it.

913
00:59:15,400 --> 00:59:16,400
 I don't know what it is.

914
00:59:16,400 --> 00:59:21,640
 I just cannot buy into that this is going to be okay with adding all those homes and all

915
00:59:21,640 --> 00:59:29,740
 those car trips per day, and for that reason, I have to vote no on this proposal.

916
00:59:29,740 --> 00:59:32,080
 Thank you, Commissioner McDade.

917
00:59:32,080 --> 00:59:36,960
 And I'll just ask Julie and Tina for more clarity of items that I brought up in work

918
00:59:36,960 --> 00:59:40,480
 session and that others brought up in work session as well.

919
00:59:40,480 --> 00:59:47,200
 Yes, knowing plats are ministerial, we've heard that so many times, unless we can point

920
00:59:47,200 --> 00:59:55,400
 to specifics, and so Commissioner Villarreal, Commissioner Pruitt did point to specifics.

921
00:59:55,400 --> 01:00:03,800
 Trying to understand and get clarity on that, because I as well have concerns that we haven't

922
01:00:03,800 --> 01:00:09,640
 done our due diligence on saying that this is not going to have adverse impacts.

923
01:00:09,640 --> 01:00:17,720
 I mean, we've already got a horrifically underperforming road in front of us now before any development

924
01:00:17,720 --> 01:00:23,720
 happens, before any construction trucks end up trying to navigate through that intersection.

925
01:00:23,720 --> 01:00:32,780
 We've got school buses, we've got pedestrians, we've got a real problem in this area, and

926
01:00:32,780 --> 01:00:36,980
 I understand the developer tried to come through with a PD, and I'll say it again because I've

927
01:00:36,980 --> 01:00:39,600
 said it before, I am really sorry that we couldn't get that done.

928
01:00:39,600 --> 01:00:47,480
 But here we are now trying to get it done as it is zoned, but I'm trying to understand

929
01:00:47,480 --> 01:00:53,280
 if the items are valid.

930
01:00:53,280 --> 01:00:57,680
 So I'll start, and I'm not sure I caught everybody's citation.

931
01:00:57,680 --> 01:01:04,640
 So I did understand from Commissioner Villarreal that he is citing section 2.2.4.5.E, did I

932
01:01:04,640 --> 01:01:07,640
 get that correct?

933
01:01:07,640 --> 01:01:08,640
 2.4.5.E.

934
01:01:08,640 --> 01:01:16,200
 2.4.5.E, and then also Commissioner Pruitt, did you make reference to a certain section?

935
01:01:16,200 --> 01:01:19,560
 I believe his also fell under that section.

936
01:01:19,560 --> 01:01:21,080
 Commissioner Pruitt?

937
01:01:21,080 --> 01:01:28,560
 Yes, but specifically it was the 11A transportation requirements for driveway spacing.

938
01:01:28,560 --> 01:01:36,720
 I just, there aren't any other collectors that intersect with an access road.

939
01:01:36,720 --> 01:01:39,080
 It's a very different situation.

940
01:01:39,080 --> 01:01:44,160
 Okay, and Commissioner McDade, I just want to make sure I understood.

941
01:01:44,160 --> 01:01:48,640
 So you mentioned that you agree with Commissioner Villarreal and Pruitt with respect to the

942
01:01:48,640 --> 01:01:53,480
 traffic and cars, are you citing a particular section out of our development code that you're

943
01:01:53,480 --> 01:01:54,640
 taking issue with?

944
01:01:54,640 --> 01:02:01,480
 Okay, I just want to make sure I understood, because given the state statute requirements,

945
01:02:01,480 --> 01:02:05,280
 if persons are voting in opposition, then we're interested in knowing what section of

946
01:02:05,280 --> 01:02:09,040
 the code or criteria manuals that you believe that the project does not comply with.

947
01:02:09,040 --> 01:02:11,640
 So Commissioner Ellis, back to your questions.

948
01:02:11,640 --> 01:02:16,600
 So you're right, the challenge we have here is we have a preliminary, or excuse me, a

949
01:02:16,600 --> 01:02:20,640
 final plat that is consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved that has bested this

950
01:02:20,640 --> 01:02:24,880
 project and done so in accordance with the existing zoning.

951
01:02:24,880 --> 01:02:27,440
 The applicant has submitted traffic impact analysis.

952
01:02:27,440 --> 01:02:32,280
 The traffic impact analysis submitted does illustrate that the proposed project does

953
01:02:32,280 --> 01:02:37,520
 comply with our development standards, hence why staff's recommendation for approval for

954
01:02:37,520 --> 01:02:38,840
 this final plat.

955
01:02:38,840 --> 01:02:44,360
 So with this particular project, as Ms. Wyatt reported in the work session, the applicant

956
01:02:44,360 --> 01:02:51,200
 will be doing some restriping with respect to King's Row, and that is consistent with

957
01:02:51,200 --> 01:02:54,720
 what we've approved and what is in our development requirements.

958
01:02:54,720 --> 01:03:01,720
 All of the roadway improvement offerings that were offered by the applicant when the planned

959
01:03:01,720 --> 01:03:06,960
 development request was submitted previously, those are no longer on the table, and unfortunately,

960
01:03:06,960 --> 01:03:10,840
 with this project, we will not be able to receive those improvements.

961
01:03:10,840 --> 01:03:16,040
 But as Commissioner Ellis did indicate, the challenge we have here is state law does say

962
01:03:16,040 --> 01:03:22,400
 that if a plat meets the city's requirements for its development regulations, hence why

963
01:03:22,400 --> 01:03:24,680
 we should be in a position of approving the plat.

964
01:03:24,680 --> 01:03:29,120
 So I just want to make sure we're on record, at least from staff's perspective, that this

965
01:03:29,120 --> 01:03:33,800
 plat as put forth meets all of our technical requirements, and hence why we should be recommending

966
01:03:33,800 --> 01:03:36,160
 or hence why the commission should be approving it.

967
01:03:36,160 --> 01:03:42,760
 But I appreciate the commissioners who anticipate voting in opposition of you citing the particular

968
01:03:42,760 --> 01:03:45,080
 provision within the code.

969
01:03:45,080 --> 01:03:53,400
 And I guess I would just ask, as it regards to the way we read the analysis and these

970
01:03:53,400 --> 01:04:00,080
 criterion numbers, these are all from 2.4, .5, .e, correct?

971
01:04:00,080 --> 01:04:03,640
 Is that where we're getting all of this from?

972
01:04:03,640 --> 01:04:07,160
 Yes, I believe, yes.

973
01:04:07,160 --> 01:04:12,680
 And so, you know, you say technical requirements, so I'm trying to understand what is technical,

974
01:04:12,680 --> 01:04:18,120
 and that's what originally my question was, of what is technical about item 8a.

975
01:04:18,120 --> 01:04:23,920
 As we have it, and I'll bring that up later in the meeting, but we have it listed as 8a,

976
01:04:23,920 --> 01:04:32,920
 which is not really a, not really a, this is all from 2.4, .5, .e, but somehow we've

977
01:04:32,920 --> 01:04:39,280
 got it in our analysis as 8a, but in any regard, how is that a technical requirement and how

978
01:04:39,280 --> 01:04:40,280
 is it met?

979
01:04:40,280 --> 01:04:41,280
 Okay.

980
01:04:41,280 --> 01:04:43,320
 Do you want to address that or do you want me to?

981
01:04:43,320 --> 01:04:54,920
 Well, I can start, and the concern is adverse impacts and the compatibility of the proposal.

982
01:04:54,920 --> 01:05:03,240
 The property is owned R7, and that was a zoning district that transitioned from NRMU 12, which

983
01:05:03,240 --> 01:05:07,320
 was established with the citywide rezoning in 2002.

984
01:05:07,320 --> 01:05:13,240
 That was consistent with the comp plan that was adopted prior to the 2002 Denton Development

985
01:05:13,240 --> 01:05:18,400
 Code, and it was rezoned because it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent

986
01:05:18,400 --> 01:05:22,880
 with the vision in the surrounding context.

987
01:05:22,880 --> 01:05:32,680
 So this project is a development that meets the zoning, both the lot size and the use,

988
01:05:32,680 --> 01:05:42,200
 and so by that, it is consistent with the zoning, and so because that zoning was put

989
01:05:42,200 --> 01:05:46,280
 in place, it was anticipated that it would be compatible with the surrounding development

990
01:05:46,280 --> 01:05:47,280
 pattern.

991
01:05:47,280 --> 01:05:59,560
 Likewise, for the other plat, it has zoning of R4, which was put in place at the outset

992
01:05:59,560 --> 01:06:01,760
 with the 2002 Denton Development Code.

993
01:06:01,760 --> 01:06:06,040
 Once again, that was consistent with the comprehensive plan and determined at that time that it was

994
01:06:06,040 --> 01:06:12,440
 compatible with the surrounding development pattern and would not create adverse impacts.

995
01:06:12,440 --> 01:06:17,080
 We also have development standards in our Denton Development Code.

996
01:06:17,080 --> 01:06:26,840
 We have landscaping standards, we have architectural design standards, we have minimum lot sizes,

997
01:06:26,840 --> 01:06:32,440
 and so those standards have to be met with any development, and those are the minimum

998
01:06:32,440 --> 01:06:38,360
 standards that were adopted by the city as to indicate quality development, and so this

999
01:06:38,360 --> 01:06:43,800
 project will be no different, and we'll have to meet those minimum standards, and by virtue

1000
01:06:43,800 --> 01:06:48,640
 of meeting the requirements in the Denton Development Code, it is compatible with the

1001
01:06:48,640 --> 01:06:50,640
 surrounding property.

1002
01:06:50,640 --> 01:06:55,720
 If this were a commercial development, they would have to meet buffering requirements,

1003
01:06:55,720 --> 01:07:01,400
 but because this is a residential use adjacent to an existing residential use, we don't anticipate

1004
01:07:01,400 --> 01:07:08,320
 that those two uses are incompatible next to each other, so by that, it does meet those

1005
01:07:08,320 --> 01:07:09,400
 standards.

1006
01:07:09,400 --> 01:07:17,280
 We also did have a TIA, I did confirm with Karina that Kings Row will be restriped as

1007
01:07:17,280 --> 01:07:23,160
 a result of this development so that there's a sufficient width within that existing right

1008
01:07:23,160 --> 01:07:30,280
 of way so that there will be restriped to have going west, you'll have a dedicated right

1009
01:07:30,280 --> 01:07:35,280
 turn to get on the loop, and then a through and a left hand, dedicated through and left

1010
01:07:35,280 --> 01:07:36,280
 hand turn.

1011
01:07:36,280 --> 01:07:41,720
 That will hopefully at least provide some relief at that intersection, so really that

1012
01:07:41,720 --> 01:07:45,760
 is our analysis associated with it, and I don't know if Tina wanted to add any more

1013
01:07:45,760 --> 01:07:46,760
 to that.

1014
01:07:46,760 --> 01:07:50,940
 Yeah, I would just add that based upon what was included in the traffic impact analysis

1015
01:07:50,940 --> 01:07:55,640
 associated with this development, that the restriping is the proportionate responsibility

1016
01:07:55,640 --> 01:08:00,960
 that the developer has associated with for this project.

1017
01:08:00,960 --> 01:08:09,280
 In the comment from our speaker, Mr. Farring, we know that in the Northeast Denton area,

1018
01:08:09,280 --> 01:08:14,400
 there is concern regarding how development will play out over time.

1019
01:08:14,400 --> 01:08:19,280
 City Council did direct us to do the work of the Northeast Denton area plan that is

1020
01:08:19,280 --> 01:08:23,600
 currently underway, which I know all of you around this dais are fully aware of that given

1021
01:08:23,600 --> 01:08:25,360
 the work that we've done thus far.

1022
01:08:25,360 --> 01:08:30,440
 One of the things that we were also looking at is mobility for the area because we know

1023
01:08:30,440 --> 01:08:35,400
 residents have expressed concern in the past regarding the mobility options that are available

1024
01:08:35,400 --> 01:08:40,640
 within Northeast Denton given how the area is starting to develop.

1025
01:08:40,640 --> 01:08:45,260
 The project before us, like I said earlier and as Julie explained, it meets our requirements

1026
01:08:45,260 --> 01:08:49,040
 for developing the property under the existing zoning that's in place.

1027
01:08:49,040 --> 01:08:53,600
 The applicant is proposing to do their proportionate responsibility with respect to improvements

1028
01:08:53,600 --> 01:09:00,520
 at Kings Row, but as we continue to experience development within this area, hence why we

1029
01:09:00,520 --> 01:09:06,720
 are doing also the Northeast Denton area plan to be able to provide some land use recommendations

1030
01:09:06,720 --> 01:09:12,200
 so that as development does occur, then it ideally would be in accordance with that plan

1031
01:09:12,200 --> 01:09:18,880
 and including any mobility improvements that would be required as part of that plan should

1032
01:09:18,880 --> 01:09:20,920
 it get adopted.

1033
01:09:20,920 --> 01:09:28,480
 Okay, so now I'll move on to the next question that Commissioner Pruitt had cited, which

1034
01:09:28,480 --> 01:09:36,320
 is what we call 11A where that fits into 2.4.5.E, I'm not sure, but that provides adequate

1035
01:09:36,320 --> 01:09:41,560
 road systems, so I'd like to know how this, you know, we have it marked as MET, so that

1036
01:09:41,560 --> 01:09:46,000
 reads adequate road capacity shall exist to serve the uses permitted under the proposed

1037
01:09:46,000 --> 01:09:50,320
 development and the proposed uses shall be designed to ensure safe ingress and egress

1038
01:09:50,320 --> 01:09:55,720
 onto the site and safe road conditions around the site, including adequate access onto the

1039
01:09:55,720 --> 01:09:59,360
 site for fire, public safety, and EMS services.

1040
01:09:59,360 --> 01:10:06,640
 So knowing that we have a road that is rated E, I believe.

1041
01:10:06,640 --> 01:10:08,120
 The intersection at Kings.

1042
01:10:08,120 --> 01:10:09,120
 Currently.

1043
01:10:09,120 --> 01:10:13,640
 Well, that's pretty much where this is, at the intersection.

1044
01:10:13,640 --> 01:10:16,920
 How did we determine?

1045
01:10:16,920 --> 01:10:26,680
 It doesn't appear we have adequate road capacity now, if it's rated E, so I'm trying to understand

1046
01:10:26,680 --> 01:10:34,040
 how we determine that MET if it's already at E, which doesn't sound to me as adequate,

1047
01:10:34,040 --> 01:10:36,480
 and that's what this says.

1048
01:10:36,480 --> 01:10:43,880
 So can you enlighten me on how we got there?

1049
01:10:43,880 --> 01:10:50,120
 Do we take, I mean, I'm trying to understand, you know, I get where this is zoned.

1050
01:10:50,120 --> 01:10:55,040
 I understand from the developer's perspective that they have every right to be doing what

1051
01:10:55,040 --> 01:11:01,440
 they're doing, and again, I'll say it again, I'm sorry that we couldn't get done what was

1052
01:11:01,440 --> 01:11:07,920
 asked the first time around, but this is where we are now, so I'm trying to understand because

1053
01:11:07,920 --> 01:11:14,480
 this intersection is awful right now, and so I'm trying to understand how we are weighing

1054
01:11:14,480 --> 01:11:24,760
 that as a city and coming to check that box that it's met, and it's not serviceable now,

1055
01:11:24,760 --> 01:11:27,200
 so help me understand that.

1056
01:11:27,200 --> 01:11:31,680
 I don't know that I can add much more than Julie, but in talking with Karina, the criteria

1057
01:11:31,680 --> 01:11:34,360
 is that they cannot worsen the conditions.

1058
01:11:34,360 --> 01:11:37,640
 Right now it's a level of service E, the data shows that they will not make it worse

1059
01:11:37,640 --> 01:11:41,400
 than a level of service E, so all we can obligate them to do is their proportionate share of

1060
01:11:41,400 --> 01:11:48,160
 the impacts, which is the re-striping that they've agreed to do.

1061
01:11:48,160 --> 01:11:56,480
 And how do they determine that it, how is that done, through the TIA, that it wouldn't

1062
01:11:56,480 --> 01:11:57,480
 make it worse?

1063
01:11:57,480 --> 01:11:58,480
 Correct, it's part of the traffic impact analysis.

1064
01:11:58,480 --> 01:11:59,720
 That's just part of that analysis.

1065
01:11:59,720 --> 01:12:00,720
 Right.

1066
01:12:00,720 --> 01:12:04,560
 So they would do analysis of the existing conditions, and they're doing analysis based

1067
01:12:04,560 --> 01:12:09,080
 upon the proposed conditions as it relates to this development.

1068
01:12:09,080 --> 01:12:15,760
 And with transportation engineers doing the work, they have submitted a report to the

1069
01:12:15,760 --> 01:12:16,760
 city.

1070
01:12:16,760 --> 01:12:21,440
 The city's transportation team has reviewed that report and has determined that, based

1071
01:12:21,440 --> 01:12:26,240
 upon the findings, that it will not worsen the situation that is there today, so it maintains

1072
01:12:26,240 --> 01:12:30,800
 the level of service E. Again, their proportionate responsibility is to do some re-striping at

1073
01:12:30,800 --> 01:12:37,840
 that intersection, and so they're proposing to do that in hopes to continue to alleviate

1074
01:12:37,840 --> 01:12:42,720
 any additional concerns and to maintain the service level, at least at a level of service

1075
01:12:42,720 --> 01:12:50,400
 E, so that it is not worsened, which is the evaluation criteria that we have in our code.

1076
01:12:50,400 --> 01:12:55,760
 And it's taken collectively, the way that was looked at, as this phase 1A and...

1077
01:12:55,760 --> 01:12:56,760
 Yes, ma'am.

1078
01:12:56,760 --> 01:12:57,760
 Yes.

1079
01:12:57,760 --> 01:12:58,760
 Next one.

1080
01:12:58,760 --> 01:12:59,760
 Okay.

1081
01:12:59,760 --> 01:13:00,760
 Commissioner Anderson.

1082
01:13:00,760 --> 01:13:01,760
 Yes, ma'am.

1083
01:13:01,760 --> 01:13:02,760
 Thank you, chair.

1084
01:13:02,760 --> 01:13:08,120
 Currently, how many lanes is Kings Road?

1085
01:13:08,120 --> 01:13:11,840
 I believe it's just two lanes, one east and one west.

1086
01:13:11,840 --> 01:13:17,040
 How are they going to re-stripe and get four lanes, because you're going to have to have

1087
01:13:17,040 --> 01:13:18,040
 a road...

1088
01:13:18,040 --> 01:13:23,160
 You said they're not going to the west, they're going to have a right turn, center lane, and

1089
01:13:23,160 --> 01:13:24,160
 a left turn.

1090
01:13:24,160 --> 01:13:27,200
 And how are they going to get a east road?

1091
01:13:27,200 --> 01:13:30,080
 So it does flare out at the intersection.

1092
01:13:30,080 --> 01:13:36,680
 It would actually be the left-hand turn and the through would share in a lane.

1093
01:13:36,680 --> 01:13:41,760
 So it would be two on the westbound and then one coming in.

1094
01:13:41,760 --> 01:13:46,780
 So there is sufficient, we checked with Karina, there is sufficient right-of-way there to

1095
01:13:46,780 --> 01:13:53,000
 stripe that so that there can be a little bit of relief for cars that are going toward

1096
01:13:53,000 --> 01:13:54,000
 the west.

1097
01:13:54,000 --> 01:14:00,920
 So you may get maybe two more cars in line instead of just one car, you might get three

1098
01:14:00,920 --> 01:14:01,920
 cars.

1099
01:14:01,920 --> 01:14:05,400
 Because it narrows back in on Kings Road, so you're not going to get...

1100
01:14:05,400 --> 01:14:07,640
 That's not going to really help a whole lot.

1101
01:14:07,640 --> 01:14:14,880
 And again, I don't see how just re-striping is going to alleviate another 400 cars a day

1102
01:14:14,880 --> 01:14:18,480
 or 800 cars a day, because if we're going to...

1103
01:14:18,480 --> 01:14:23,680
 Just this one little neighborhood here, you're going to have at least 40 cars.

1104
01:14:23,680 --> 01:14:27,480
 The other one that's bigger, you're going to have a couple of hundred cars a day, just

1105
01:14:27,480 --> 01:14:29,680
 one in and out.

1106
01:14:29,680 --> 01:14:35,600
 I don't know how that's not inadvertently affecting the traffic pattern.

1107
01:14:35,600 --> 01:14:36,600
 I don't get it.

1108
01:14:36,600 --> 01:14:37,600
 I don't.

1109
01:14:37,600 --> 01:14:41,600
 But that's not for me, it isn't.

1110
01:14:41,600 --> 01:14:43,680
 Go ahead, Haley, if you have something, please.

1111
01:14:43,680 --> 01:14:48,120
 Well, not directly related to transportation, but I did want to bring up something.

1112
01:14:48,120 --> 01:14:53,600
 So I want just to make everyone aware, procedurally, no matter what occurs tonight, if the applicant

1113
01:14:53,600 --> 01:14:58,560
 resubmits these plats in the future under House Bill 3699, we would be obligated to

1114
01:14:58,560 --> 01:15:02,160
 approve them, because state law now has three criteria for what a plat must contain.

1115
01:15:02,160 --> 01:15:05,880
 And if it has those three things, the city shall approve it.

1116
01:15:05,880 --> 01:15:11,800
 And that's a meets and bounds description of the property, tying that to a surveyed

1117
01:15:11,800 --> 01:15:15,860
 corner and ensuring that it shows property lines and roadways.

1118
01:15:15,860 --> 01:15:16,860
 That's it.

1119
01:15:16,860 --> 01:15:19,720
 So, Hillary can probably chime in more.

1120
01:15:19,720 --> 01:15:28,200
 Yes, to add a little bit of color, they added a section to the approval by municipality,

1121
01:15:28,200 --> 01:15:37,520
 a segment of the code that basically specifically constrains us from adding additional requirements.

1122
01:15:37,520 --> 01:15:40,680
 So effectively, all this criteria that we're using is going away.

1123
01:15:40,680 --> 01:15:41,680
 Correct.

1124
01:15:41,680 --> 01:15:46,160
 No matter if we have it removed from the DDC or not, any applications submitted after September

1125
01:15:46,160 --> 01:15:49,400
 1, we would be obligated to follow that section of state law.

1126
01:15:49,400 --> 01:15:53,440
 So effectively, this could get denied, get resubmitted, and we're looking at a whole

1127
01:15:53,440 --> 01:15:54,440
 different.

1128
01:15:54,440 --> 01:15:55,440
 Correct.

1129
01:15:55,440 --> 01:15:59,360
 Well, and then the other thing I would add with respect to House Bill 3699 is has further

1130
01:15:59,360 --> 01:16:03,880
 constraints on any requirements for roadway improvements.

1131
01:16:03,880 --> 01:16:10,200
 So we are even further limited as a result to any additional roadway improvements.

1132
01:16:10,200 --> 01:16:16,640
 So what's before you this evening is a proposal that includes at least a proportionate responsibility

1133
01:16:16,640 --> 01:16:22,920
 of trying to improve the lane configurations with re-striping at Kings Row and Loop 288.

1134
01:16:22,920 --> 01:16:28,240
 So at this time, we would be in a better position based upon this application and where it's

1135
01:16:28,240 --> 01:16:33,120
 filed right now in light of the changes in the state statute.

1136
01:16:33,120 --> 01:16:34,960
 Sure.

1137
01:16:34,960 --> 01:16:35,960
 Commissioner Anderson.

1138
01:16:35,960 --> 01:16:36,960
 Okay.

1139
01:16:36,960 --> 01:16:37,960
 Thank you, Chair.

1140
01:16:37,960 --> 01:16:40,120
 Haley, thank you for your statement, because basically, if we don't approve it tonight,

1141
01:16:40,120 --> 01:16:44,000
 we're just kicking the can down the road pretty much, and it's going to get approved either

1142
01:16:44,000 --> 01:16:47,680
 way, with or without them striping pretty much.

1143
01:16:47,680 --> 01:16:51,000
 I mean, so that's a little bit of a benefit if we pass it tonight.

1144
01:16:51,000 --> 01:16:52,000
 Correct.

1145
01:16:52,000 --> 01:16:53,000
 Correct.

1146
01:16:53,000 --> 01:16:54,000
 Okay.

1147
01:16:54,000 --> 01:16:55,000
 Thank you.

1148
01:16:55,000 --> 01:16:59,400
 Any other questions?

1149
01:16:59,400 --> 01:17:00,400
 Commissioner Pruitt.

1150
01:17:00,400 --> 01:17:01,400
 Real quick.

1151
01:17:01,400 --> 01:17:07,000
 Schedule check, are we at the 30-day limit?

1152
01:17:07,000 --> 01:17:11,480
 In other words, if someone were to move to table this item to the next meeting, would

1153
01:17:11,480 --> 01:17:15,960
 it run through the 30-day shot clock law and be automatically approved?

1154
01:17:15,960 --> 01:17:16,960
 Correct.

1155
01:17:16,960 --> 01:17:20,160
 It's already exhausted, the extension, yes, sir.

1156
01:17:20,160 --> 01:17:21,160
 Okay.

1157
01:17:21,160 --> 01:17:22,160
 Thank you.

1158
01:17:22,160 --> 01:17:23,160
 Any other questions?

1159
01:17:23,160 --> 01:17:24,160
 Okay.

1160
01:17:24,160 --> 01:17:34,560
 We've got a first and a second for approval of FP23-0020B.

1161
01:17:34,560 --> 01:17:43,320
 Not sure why that went away, but I think that it was Commissioner Smith and Commissioner

1162
01:17:43,320 --> 01:17:45,360
 Cole on a second.

1163
01:17:45,360 --> 01:17:46,360
 Okay.

1164
01:17:46,360 --> 01:17:47,360
 Any other discussion?

1165
01:17:47,360 --> 01:17:48,360
 Okay.

1166
01:17:48,360 --> 01:17:52,640
 I think I'll just say, I mean, thank you, staff, for taking all of our questions.

1167
01:17:52,640 --> 01:17:56,580
 I personally think all of them were valid.

1168
01:17:56,580 --> 01:17:58,640
 We have valid concerns over this area.

1169
01:17:58,640 --> 01:18:03,160
 We have had valid concerns for quite some time that we've spoken up.

1170
01:18:03,160 --> 01:18:10,280
 Since this area has come before us for development, as we know the zoning is in place, I hope

1171
01:18:10,280 --> 01:18:14,880
 that this is a bit of a lesson in what a PD can do.

1172
01:18:14,880 --> 01:18:19,160
 It can do really good things.

1173
01:18:19,160 --> 01:18:20,280
 We can codify things.

1174
01:18:20,280 --> 01:18:24,640
 We can hold the developer accountable to do things.

1175
01:18:24,640 --> 01:18:28,800
 In my personal opinion, we'd be in a lot better shape in this development now had we been

1176
01:18:28,800 --> 01:18:37,600
 able to get that done, since we haven't and has been explained to us by staff.

1177
01:18:37,600 --> 01:18:39,600
 We don't have a whole lot of choice.

1178
01:18:39,600 --> 01:18:46,840
 What I can say is I'd urge city council to do what they can do to get this at the top

1179
01:18:46,840 --> 01:18:51,640
 of some kind of capital improvements project so we can get some kind of work done that

1180
01:18:51,640 --> 01:18:56,200
 we as a city can control, which is not a whole lot in this area, but I think we can control

1181
01:18:56,200 --> 01:19:00,800
 Kingsrow, possibly.

1182
01:19:00,800 --> 01:19:05,600
 At any rate, it needs to be addressed sooner than later.

1183
01:19:05,600 --> 01:19:11,040
 As well, I'll say at this point, because it was brought up, the Northeast Dunn area plan,

1184
01:19:11,040 --> 01:19:16,520
 which is in process, that's why it's so important that we get that done, is not a whole lot

1185
01:19:16,520 --> 01:19:17,600
 we can do for this.

1186
01:19:17,600 --> 01:19:19,360
 This has already been zoned.

1187
01:19:19,360 --> 01:19:23,640
 The developer's doing what they have the right to do, but there's a whole lot of land in

1188
01:19:23,640 --> 01:19:28,480
 the area that is unknown.

1189
01:19:28,480 --> 01:19:33,280
 That's why, if we can get an area plan in place, we can be in a lot better position

1190
01:19:33,280 --> 01:19:42,120
 as a city to plan for this, what is now a rural area of our city, and have a say in

1191
01:19:42,120 --> 01:19:48,880
 how it's going to grow and not let the developers just come in and take it a parcel at a time.

1192
01:19:48,880 --> 01:19:52,000
 We make this decision a parcel at a time.

1193
01:19:52,000 --> 01:20:01,880
 With that being said, I'll go ahead and call for a vote on the board, please.

1194
01:20:01,880 --> 01:20:10,000
 Let's see, that motion will carry 4-3.

1195
01:20:10,000 --> 01:20:18,840
 Then we've got item formerly 3E, FP23-0021B, now individual consideration.

1196
01:20:18,840 --> 01:20:19,840
 Commissioner Pruitt.

1197
01:20:19,840 --> 01:20:21,840
 Thank you, Chair.

1198
01:20:21,840 --> 01:20:28,680
 I will move approval on this one, as my concern for the previous item does not apply to this,

1199
01:20:28,680 --> 01:20:33,360
 because it was mostly ingress and egress of that other plat.

1200
01:20:33,360 --> 01:20:34,360
 Commissioner Anderson.

1201
01:20:34,360 --> 01:20:35,360
 Second.

1202
01:20:35,360 --> 01:20:38,800
 We've got a first and a second for approval of this plat.

1203
01:20:38,800 --> 01:20:40,720
 Any discussion?

1204
01:20:40,720 --> 01:20:41,720
 Commissioner Villarreal.

1205
01:20:41,720 --> 01:20:42,720
 Yes.

1206
01:20:42,720 --> 01:20:49,480
 I'm going to once again vote against it, as I don't believe it conforms with DDC section

1207
01:20:49,480 --> 01:20:54,120
 2.4.5.E. Thank you.

1208
01:20:54,120 --> 01:20:55,120
 Any other discussion?

1209
01:20:55,120 --> 01:20:56,120
 Okay.

1210
01:20:56,120 --> 01:21:06,160
 Let's vote on the board, please.

1211
01:21:06,160 --> 01:21:09,120
 That motion will carry 6-1.

1212
01:21:09,120 --> 01:21:19,640
 That will further us into our individual consideration items, and we are now at FP23-0023.

1213
01:21:19,640 --> 01:21:20,640
 Hello, Ashley.

1214
01:21:20,640 --> 01:21:21,640
 Good evening.

1215
01:21:21,640 --> 01:21:25,280
 Ashley Eckstead, Assistant Planner, City of Denton.

1216
01:21:25,280 --> 01:21:29,500
 This is FP23-0023, Barrel Strap Residential.

1217
01:21:29,500 --> 01:21:34,280
 This is a final plat for 50 residential lots on approximately 14 acres at Hickory Creek

1218
01:21:34,280 --> 01:21:36,160
 in 2499.

1219
01:21:36,160 --> 01:21:39,800
 At this time, staff recommends denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension

1220
01:21:39,800 --> 01:21:42,160
 until October 11th, 2023.

1221
01:21:42,160 --> 01:21:43,160
 Happy to answer any questions.

1222
01:21:43,160 --> 01:21:44,160
 Thank you, Ashley.

1223
01:21:44,160 --> 01:21:45,160
 I do not see any questions.

1224
01:21:45,160 --> 01:21:46,160
 Appreciate it.

1225
01:21:46,160 --> 01:21:47,160
 Commissioner Smith.

1226
01:21:47,160 --> 01:21:51,960
 Make a motion to approve the date certain extension of date certain of October 11th,

1227
01:21:51,960 --> 01:21:52,960
 2023.

1228
01:21:52,960 --> 01:21:53,960
 Commissioner Anderson.

1229
01:21:53,960 --> 01:21:54,960
 Second.

1230
01:21:54,960 --> 01:21:58,280
 We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of October

1231
01:21:58,280 --> 01:22:00,400
 11th, 2023.

1232
01:22:00,400 --> 01:22:01,400
 Any discussion?

1233
01:22:01,400 --> 01:22:02,400
 Okay.

1234
01:22:02,400 --> 01:22:03,400
 Seeing none.

1235
01:22:03,400 --> 01:22:10,920
 Let's vote on the board, please.

1236
01:22:10,920 --> 01:22:12,920
 That motion will carry 7-0.

1237
01:22:12,920 --> 01:22:15,760
 That will take us to PP23-0019.

1238
01:22:15,760 --> 01:22:18,200
 Hello, Mia.

1239
01:22:18,200 --> 01:22:23,800
 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, Associate Planner.

1240
01:22:23,800 --> 01:22:28,640
 This item is a preliminary plat for Jefferson Mayhill Addition located just west of Mayhill

1241
01:22:28,640 --> 01:22:34,480
 Road, approximately 850 feet south of Roy Road.

1242
01:22:34,480 --> 01:22:38,160
 Right now, this preliminary plat does not meet our criteria for approval, and so we

1243
01:22:38,160 --> 01:22:42,560
 are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension, which can be granted

1244
01:22:42,560 --> 01:22:44,080
 to October 11th, 2023.

1245
01:22:44,080 --> 01:22:47,760
 At this time, I'll take any questions you have.

1246
01:22:47,760 --> 01:22:48,760
 Thanks, Mia.

1247
01:22:48,760 --> 01:22:50,040
 I do not see any questions.

1248
01:22:50,040 --> 01:22:51,040
 Thank you.

1249
01:22:51,040 --> 01:22:52,040
 Commissioner Smith.

1250
01:22:52,040 --> 01:22:56,800
 Make a motion to approve the extension request to date certain October 11th, 2023.

1251
01:22:56,800 --> 01:22:57,800
 Thank you.

1252
01:22:57,800 --> 01:22:58,800
 Second.

1253
01:22:58,800 --> 01:22:59,800
 Second.

1254
01:22:59,800 --> 01:23:00,800
 Okay.

1255
01:23:00,800 --> 01:23:03,640
 We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of October

1256
01:23:03,640 --> 01:23:06,440
 11th, 2023.

1257
01:23:06,440 --> 01:23:09,120
 Any discussion?

1258
01:23:09,120 --> 01:23:10,120
 Okay.

1259
01:23:10,120 --> 01:23:15,720
 Let's vote, please.

1260
01:23:15,720 --> 01:23:17,840
 That motion carries 7-0.

1261
01:23:17,840 --> 01:23:22,160
 That will take us to FP23-0022A.

1262
01:23:22,160 --> 01:23:23,160
 Julie again.

1263
01:23:23,160 --> 01:23:24,160
 Hello again.

1264
01:23:24,160 --> 01:23:25,160
 Hello.

1265
01:23:25,160 --> 01:23:26,160
 Julie Wyatt.

1266
01:23:26,160 --> 01:23:30,080
 This is a final plat for Townsend Green Phase 2.

1267
01:23:30,080 --> 01:23:34,760
 The site is located on the east side of town, south of McKinney.

1268
01:23:34,760 --> 01:23:37,920
 It's a single-family residential subdivision.

1269
01:23:37,920 --> 01:23:40,280
 Phase 1 is under construction.

1270
01:23:40,280 --> 01:23:43,560
 Phase 2, they'd like to start on.

1271
01:23:43,560 --> 01:23:46,800
 We are recommending approval with a condition.

1272
01:23:46,800 --> 01:23:53,560
 They have been coordinating with parks regarding the lot at the south side of the development

1273
01:23:53,560 --> 01:23:55,520
 to dedicate that property to parks.

1274
01:23:55,520 --> 01:24:00,620
 It's part of Parks Master Plan, and they want to have it for trail development.

1275
01:24:00,620 --> 01:24:06,580
 A development agreement is moving forward to council in the upcoming weeks, and so our

1276
01:24:06,580 --> 01:24:11,840
 condition is that that development agreement must be approved by City Council.

1277
01:24:11,840 --> 01:24:17,040
 Once that is approved, or if it's approved, this comes back to P&Z to clear that condition.

1278
01:24:17,040 --> 01:24:19,120
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

1279
01:24:19,120 --> 01:24:20,120
 Thanks, Julie.

1280
01:24:20,120 --> 01:24:25,240
 And obviously, if it doesn't get cleared, I mean, well, come to us regardless, right?

1281
01:24:25,240 --> 01:24:26,240
 Right.

1282
01:24:26,240 --> 01:24:27,240
 Whether it gets cleared or doesn't.

1283
01:24:27,240 --> 01:24:28,240
 Okay.

1284
01:24:28,240 --> 01:24:29,240
 Very good.

1285
01:24:29,240 --> 01:24:30,240
 Thanks.

1286
01:24:30,240 --> 01:24:31,240
 Commissioner Smith.

1287
01:24:31,240 --> 01:24:35,160
 Make a motion to approve the staff conditions.

1288
01:24:35,160 --> 01:24:36,160
 Commissioner Pruitt?

1289
01:24:36,160 --> 01:24:37,160
 Second.

1290
01:24:37,160 --> 01:24:38,160
 Okay.

1291
01:24:38,160 --> 01:24:41,360
 We've got a first and a second for approval as presented by staff.

1292
01:24:41,360 --> 01:24:43,600
 Any discussion?

1293
01:24:43,600 --> 01:24:44,760
 Okay.

1294
01:24:44,760 --> 01:24:48,360
 Let's vote, please.

1295
01:24:48,360 --> 01:24:53,600
 That motion will carry 7-0.

1296
01:24:53,600 --> 01:24:56,200
 We'll take us to our public hearings for this evening.

1297
01:24:56,200 --> 01:25:02,680
 First is 5A, AESA 22-0004A.

1298
01:25:02,680 --> 01:25:13,360
 Christy's making her way up, and I will open the public hearing.

1299
01:25:13,360 --> 01:25:19,080
 Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and tonight I'll be presenting the Alternative

1300
01:25:19,080 --> 01:25:25,680
 ESA Plan for Cyrene at Hickory Creek, also known as Barrel Strap Residential.

1301
01:25:25,680 --> 01:25:34,360
 This is a request to mitigate for the permanent removal of 0.66 acres of a complex of riparian

1302
01:25:34,360 --> 01:25:42,800
 buffer and undeveloped floodplain, and a restoration of that remainder of the ESA complex to improve

1303
01:25:42,800 --> 01:25:47,440
 the ecological services, and staff recommends approval.

1304
01:25:47,440 --> 01:25:54,800
 The preliminary plot was approved on June 22, 2022, and since then staff has been working

1305
01:25:54,800 --> 01:26:05,120
 with the property to develop this plan for the 14.176 acres of the residential development,

1306
01:26:05,120 --> 01:26:12,960
 and this Alternative ESA Plan to allow for the configuration.

1307
01:26:12,960 --> 01:26:18,780
 There was an ESA field assessment that confirmed that there was a riparian buffer, and the

1308
01:26:18,780 --> 01:26:27,000
 1% floodplain is considered undeveloped, and these provide ecological services such as

1309
01:26:27,000 --> 01:26:33,200
 providing habitat, bank stabilization, and improved water quality.

1310
01:26:33,200 --> 01:26:38,280
 The impacts to the environmentally sensitive areas will include a residential road that

1311
01:26:38,280 --> 01:26:45,240
 aligns with the median opening at Hickory Creek Road, and there will be retaining walls

1312
01:26:45,240 --> 01:26:54,720
 to help support that roadway, and the residential roadway that will be overlaid on that stream,

1313
01:26:54,720 --> 01:27:00,160
 outfalls to the structure, including riprap, and trails on the east side of the remainder

1314
01:27:00,160 --> 01:27:08,800
 of the ESA that is intended to be dedicated to the Parks and Recreation Department.

1315
01:27:08,800 --> 01:27:14,080
 The mitigation plan is to improve the current habitat conditions in the remainder space

1316
01:27:14,080 --> 01:27:22,300
 that's shown in the green, and the plan is to remove privet and to plant a native vegetation

1317
01:27:22,300 --> 01:27:26,600
 in its place to help outcompete that privet in the future.

1318
01:27:26,600 --> 01:27:31,520
 Next construction, there will be an inspection of trees that are in the environmentally sensitive

1319
01:27:31,520 --> 01:27:32,520
 area.

1320
01:27:32,520 --> 01:27:39,120
 If those trees are found to have been damaged or destroyed during the construction of the

1321
01:27:39,120 --> 01:27:46,280
 development, then the applicant has agreed to mitigate at the ratio that is in the development

1322
01:27:46,280 --> 01:27:47,280
 code.

1323
01:27:47,280 --> 01:27:53,960
 And then up to 10% of the remainder of that area, staff is asking for some flexibility

1324
01:27:53,960 --> 01:28:03,080
 in allowing for the property, the applicant, to make disturbances within that area with

1325
01:28:03,080 --> 01:28:11,480
 mitigation afterwards to allow for that development to move forward, considering FEMA's approval

1326
01:28:11,480 --> 01:28:16,680
 of their floodplain modifications.

1327
01:28:16,680 --> 01:28:25,160
 There were notifications made in the mailers, we received three opposition letters in return,

1328
01:28:25,160 --> 01:28:34,280
 and these are indicated on the map, and there was a neighborhood meeting on March 11, 2023.

1329
01:28:34,280 --> 01:28:41,360
 And staff is recommending approval of the mitigation plan with the conditions outlined

1330
01:28:41,360 --> 01:28:47,240
 in your backup material and described in this presentation.

1331
01:28:47,240 --> 01:28:51,600
 And with that, I'll take any questions.

1332
01:28:51,600 --> 01:28:52,600
 Thank you, Kristi.

1333
01:28:52,600 --> 01:28:56,160
 Any questions for Kristi at this time?

1334
01:28:56,160 --> 01:28:57,160
 Commissioner Smith?

1335
01:28:57,160 --> 01:28:58,160
 Thank you, Chair.

1336
01:28:58,160 --> 01:29:00,320
 Kristi, sorry I missed your presentation and work session.

1337
01:29:00,320 --> 01:29:05,240
 Just to get clarification, presentation and the backup, everything was very thorough.

1338
01:29:05,240 --> 01:29:09,200
 It's going to be a bridge, that parallel to Hickory Creek Road, that's going to be a bridge

1339
01:29:09,200 --> 01:29:12,240
 over the existing culvert and waterway that runs through there.

1340
01:29:12,240 --> 01:29:14,080
 Is that correct, am I understanding that?

1341
01:29:14,080 --> 01:29:15,080
 This right here?

1342
01:29:15,080 --> 01:29:16,080
 Correct.

1343
01:29:16,080 --> 01:29:19,680
 That parallel road there is essentially, it's just going to, because Hickory Creek works

1344
01:29:19,680 --> 01:29:24,080
 as a bridge for the waterway, the pathway that runs through north and south on Hickory

1345
01:29:24,080 --> 01:29:27,520
 Creek, that parallel road will just be essentially a bridge.

1346
01:29:27,520 --> 01:29:30,240
 We're not stopping up that waterway flow, correct?

1347
01:29:30,240 --> 01:29:31,240
 Yes.

1348
01:29:31,240 --> 01:29:34,800
 It's going to run through, it's basically a, call it an extension of the pass through

1349
01:29:34,800 --> 01:29:35,800
 underneath, correct?

1350
01:29:35,800 --> 01:29:36,800
 Right, right.

1351
01:29:36,800 --> 01:29:37,800
 Yeah, it's an extension of the culvert.

1352
01:29:37,800 --> 01:29:38,800
 Gotcha.

1353
01:29:38,800 --> 01:29:39,800
 I don't think we can necessarily call it bridge.

1354
01:29:39,800 --> 01:29:44,640
 Bridge, yeah, you know what, potato, potato, no one's a potato, but yeah, cool.

1355
01:29:44,640 --> 01:29:49,320
 I get where you're going with it, and yes, it'll be an extension of that culvert from

1356
01:29:49,320 --> 01:29:50,320
 the north, yes.

1357
01:29:50,320 --> 01:29:55,240
 Culvert, got it Kristi, thanks.

1358
01:29:55,240 --> 01:29:57,440
 Any other questions at this time for Kristi?

1359
01:29:57,440 --> 01:30:00,640
 Okay, thank you very much.

1360
01:30:00,640 --> 01:30:03,240
 I don't have any cards in front of me, but this is a public hearing.

1361
01:30:03,240 --> 01:30:10,120
 Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item?

1362
01:30:10,120 --> 01:30:16,280
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open this for a motion or discussion.

1363
01:30:16,280 --> 01:30:17,280
 Commissioner Smith?

1364
01:30:17,280 --> 01:30:20,860
 Make a motion to approve as staff present.

1365
01:30:20,860 --> 01:30:21,860
 Commissioner Anderson?

1366
01:30:21,860 --> 01:30:22,860
 Second.

1367
01:30:22,860 --> 01:30:29,360
 Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval as presented by staff.

1368
01:30:29,360 --> 01:30:30,360
 Any discussion?

1369
01:30:30,360 --> 01:30:44,600
 Okay, let's vote on the board please.

1370
01:30:44,600 --> 01:30:52,680
 That motion will carry 6-1, and that will take us to our next public hearing item for

1371
01:30:52,680 --> 01:30:57,880
 this evening, 5B, DCA 23-0009.

1372
01:30:57,880 --> 01:31:09,320
 Hayley is making way up to present, and I will open the public hearing.

1373
01:31:09,320 --> 01:31:10,320
 Good evening, commission.

1374
01:31:10,320 --> 01:31:14,400
 Hayley Zagorski, assistant planning director.

1375
01:31:14,400 --> 01:31:20,200
 So as we discussed at the work session, this proposed amendment to section 2.6.3 of the

1376
01:31:20,200 --> 01:31:23,760
 DDC is in response to House Bill 3699.

1377
01:31:23,760 --> 01:31:28,040
 We anticipate that this will be the first of at least one more set of amendments that

1378
01:31:28,040 --> 01:31:32,800
 will need to come before you all, possibly additional ones to clean up subchapter 2 of

1379
01:31:32,800 --> 01:31:35,940
 our debt and development code as well as our subdivision regulations to make them compliant

1380
01:31:35,940 --> 01:31:38,320
 with these changes to state law.

1381
01:31:38,320 --> 01:31:40,680
 So the request before you tonight is fairly limited in scope.

1382
01:31:40,680 --> 01:31:44,040
 We are simply looking to make preliminary plats an optional step in the development

1383
01:31:44,040 --> 01:31:48,360
 review process rather than a requirement for properties in the city limits.

1384
01:31:48,360 --> 01:31:52,640
 You may recall, I believe it was in 2021, we made a similar change and actually prohibited

1385
01:31:52,640 --> 01:31:57,400
 preliminary plats in the ETJ just to skip straight to that final plat part of the process.

1386
01:31:57,400 --> 01:31:59,840
 So this is in keeping with those changes.

1387
01:31:59,840 --> 01:32:06,000
 But to give a little bit of background, HB 3699 prohibits any sort of supporting study

1388
01:32:06,000 --> 01:32:10,360
 or analysis being required as part of a plat application for us that would include our

1389
01:32:10,360 --> 01:32:15,880
 traffic impact analysis, drainage studies, utility studies, as well as our tree preservation

1390
01:32:15,880 --> 01:32:19,760
 plans and our environmentally sensitive area assessments.

1391
01:32:19,760 --> 01:32:23,440
 So those can no longer be part of the plat application itself, therefore we have updated

1392
01:32:23,440 --> 01:32:28,040
 all of our checklists effective September 1 to relocate those requirements to either

1393
01:32:28,040 --> 01:32:32,360
 the zoning compliance plan or the civil engineering plan steps in the process, whichever was most

1394
01:32:32,360 --> 01:32:35,320
 appropriate based on the application type.

1395
01:32:35,320 --> 01:32:39,800
 So with that, as we now require that zoning compliance plan for all developments, if we

1396
01:32:39,800 --> 01:32:43,720
 were to keep preliminary plats as a requirement, it would be redundant for most applications.

1397
01:32:43,720 --> 01:32:46,800
 We would gain no new information with the preliminary plat than what we're seeing at

1398
01:32:46,800 --> 01:32:48,320
 those other steps.

1399
01:32:48,320 --> 01:32:52,520
 So therefore we are requesting approval of this amendment to make those an optional step

1400
01:32:52,520 --> 01:32:57,280
 in the event that a developer needs that preliminary plat for some sort of financing mechanism,

1401
01:32:57,280 --> 01:33:00,600
 or if they just have a very large overly complicated project and feel that there would be some

1402
01:33:00,600 --> 01:33:04,960
 benefit to that, then we would keep that option available to them.

1403
01:33:04,960 --> 01:33:08,280
 So that would streamline our development process, and as I mentioned, avoid that redundancy

1404
01:33:08,280 --> 01:33:13,400
 based on where we've moved those studies that we otherwise require.

1405
01:33:13,400 --> 01:33:17,300
 So with that, staff is recommending approval of this amendment, and I'm happy to answer

1406
01:33:17,300 --> 01:33:18,960
 any other questions.

1407
01:33:18,960 --> 01:33:19,960
 Thank you, Haley.

1408
01:33:19,960 --> 01:33:23,340
 Any questions for Haley?

1409
01:33:23,340 --> 01:33:24,340
 I have one.

1410
01:33:24,340 --> 01:33:28,840
 So is it going to be, you're just going to leave it up to the applicant, or could it

1411
01:33:28,840 --> 01:33:34,000
 be something you suggest that would help them, or is that not allowed?

1412
01:33:34,000 --> 01:33:36,400
 We could certainly make the suggestion.

1413
01:33:36,400 --> 01:33:41,480
 Part of the fun of HB 3699 is it essentially allows for someone to submit that plat, and

1414
01:33:41,480 --> 01:33:45,640
 as I mentioned before, if it meets those very limited criteria, we would be obligated to

1415
01:33:45,640 --> 01:33:47,840
 bring it forth for approval.

1416
01:33:47,840 --> 01:33:51,680
 So we see no real benefit for most projects in needing a preliminary plat, but we would

1417
01:33:51,680 --> 01:33:53,280
 keep that option open.

1418
01:33:53,280 --> 01:33:57,120
 And with all of our new applications, we encourage them to start with the pre-application conference,

1419
01:33:57,120 --> 01:34:01,040
 and as part of that, one of their takeaways is an outline of the process that we recommend

1420
01:34:01,040 --> 01:34:02,040
 they follow.

1421
01:34:02,040 --> 01:34:05,480
 So if we see there could be a benefit, we would certainly recommend that, but it would

1422
01:34:05,480 --> 01:34:06,480
 be entirely optional.

1423
01:34:06,480 --> 01:34:07,480
 Yeah.

1424
01:34:07,480 --> 01:34:08,480
 Good.

1425
01:34:08,480 --> 01:34:09,480
 Thank you.

1426
01:34:09,480 --> 01:34:10,480
 Any other questions?

1427
01:34:10,480 --> 01:34:11,480
 Okay.

1428
01:34:11,480 --> 01:34:12,480
 Thank you.

1429
01:34:12,480 --> 01:34:13,480
 This is a public hearing.

1430
01:34:13,480 --> 01:34:16,620
 I don't have any cards in front of me, but is there anyone wishing to speak?

1431
01:34:16,620 --> 01:34:21,080
 There's not really anybody left in the audience, so I'm going to go ahead and close the public

1432
01:34:21,080 --> 01:34:25,920
 hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion.

1433
01:34:25,920 --> 01:34:26,920
 Commissioner Smith.

1434
01:34:26,920 --> 01:34:28,280
 Make a motion to approve.

1435
01:34:28,280 --> 01:34:29,280
 Commissioner Cole.

1436
01:34:29,280 --> 01:34:30,280
 Second.

1437
01:34:30,280 --> 01:34:34,080
 We've got a first and a second for approval.

1438
01:34:34,080 --> 01:34:35,080
 Is there any discussion?

1439
01:34:35,080 --> 01:34:43,320
 We're going to pause for a minute, and I think we've got a technical difficulty with Commissioner

1440
01:34:43,320 --> 01:34:44,760
 McDade's screen.

1441
01:34:44,760 --> 01:34:48,720
 We'll wait for that to get fixed.

1442
01:34:48,720 --> 01:34:51,160
 You're still on her screen.

1443
01:34:51,160 --> 01:34:52,160
 Okay.

1444
01:34:52,160 --> 01:34:53,160
 Are you back?

1445
01:34:53,160 --> 01:34:54,160
 All right.

1446
01:34:54,160 --> 01:34:55,160
 Okay.

1447
01:34:55,160 --> 01:35:05,400
 Seeing no discussion, let's go ahead and vote, please.

1448
01:35:05,400 --> 01:35:07,560
 That motion carries seven is zero.

1449
01:35:07,560 --> 01:35:13,680
 That will take us to 5C, DCA 23-0010.

1450
01:35:13,680 --> 01:35:16,920
 Angie's here for presentation, and I will open the public hearing.

1451
01:35:16,920 --> 01:35:17,920
 All right.

1452
01:35:17,920 --> 01:35:22,640
 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglars, Senior Planner.

1453
01:35:22,640 --> 01:35:29,000
 This is a code amendment to address agricultural and animal use amendments due to recent state

1454
01:35:29,000 --> 01:35:30,000
 legislation.

1455
01:35:30,000 --> 01:35:35,600
 So a little bit of background on this, House Bill 1750 was one of the House Bills that

1456
01:35:35,600 --> 01:35:39,120
 were adopted that regulate agricultural uses.

1457
01:35:39,120 --> 01:35:43,560
 Specifically, this one goes on to state that a city may not impose a governmental requirement

1458
01:35:43,560 --> 01:35:47,320
 on any agricultural use within its corporate limits.

1459
01:35:47,320 --> 01:35:52,680
 Governmental requirements includes zoning, permitting, licensing, any sort of standards.

1460
01:35:52,680 --> 01:35:57,640
 It cannot adopt any requirement that would prohibit general best practices of agricultural

1461
01:35:57,640 --> 01:36:02,920
 operations, the use of certain pesticides.

1462
01:36:02,920 --> 01:36:07,600
 Overall this is a pretty broad bill, it does allow cities to retain some authority.

1463
01:36:07,600 --> 01:36:11,520
 Specifically, cities can still regulate the height of vegetation, specifically where an

1464
01:36:11,520 --> 01:36:16,960
 agricultural use is adjacent to a public road or a neighboring residence, where a city can

1465
01:36:16,960 --> 01:36:21,520
 require a written management plan to be commissioned by their city health official or other consultant

1466
01:36:21,520 --> 01:36:25,040
 to determine any impacts on public health.

1467
01:36:25,040 --> 01:36:32,560
 And the Texas AgriLife extension has been charged by passing of this bill to develop

1468
01:36:32,560 --> 01:36:36,040
 a manual that outlines best agricultural practices.

1469
01:36:36,040 --> 01:36:40,640
 Any regulations that cities are wanting to impose upon agricultural operations within

1470
01:36:40,640 --> 01:36:43,400
 its city limits must be derived from that manual.

1471
01:36:43,400 --> 01:36:48,940
 So from a finding that comes from this report that's forthcoming, we could derive regulations

1472
01:36:48,940 --> 01:36:50,840
 from that report.

1473
01:36:50,840 --> 01:36:53,800
 So what that means is we have to make a few amendments to our DDC.

1474
01:36:53,800 --> 01:36:57,940
 One of those is where we allow agricultural uses.

1475
01:36:57,940 --> 01:37:03,040
 So general agriculture, commercial stable, community gardens and urban farms had not

1476
01:37:03,040 --> 01:37:07,160
 been allowed in all of our zoning districts in the past with the adoption of House Bill

1477
01:37:07,160 --> 01:37:13,200
 1715 as our recommendation that we do allow these uses in all zoning districts as part

1478
01:37:13,200 --> 01:37:16,800
 of governmental requirements does include zoning.

1479
01:37:16,800 --> 01:37:23,220
 We are keeping the use specific standards in Section 5.3.5A and 5.3.5B and referring

1480
01:37:23,220 --> 01:37:30,000
 back to House Bill 1750 where it does list out the circumstances in which a city could

1481
01:37:30,000 --> 01:37:32,180
 regulate agricultural operations.

1482
01:37:32,180 --> 01:37:36,560
 That includes an extensive list they have on practices that could create imminent danger

1483
01:37:36,560 --> 01:37:38,140
 to adjacent properties.

1484
01:37:38,140 --> 01:37:42,960
 It also references the report that a city could ask either their health official or

1485
01:37:42,960 --> 01:37:47,440
 a consultant to commission and also the AgriLife extension report that's forthcoming.

1486
01:37:47,440 --> 01:37:52,520
 So both of these rather than having our own specific use standards, use specific standards

1487
01:37:52,520 --> 01:37:56,800
 which would regulate livestock or agricultural or commercial stables, it's just going to

1488
01:37:56,800 --> 01:38:00,120
 refer back to that bill.

1489
01:38:00,120 --> 01:38:03,600
 Likewise, sale of produce and plants.

1490
01:38:03,600 --> 01:38:07,480
 We can't establish our own regulations as a city on agricultural operations.

1491
01:38:07,480 --> 01:38:12,340
 However, we can look to the guidelines in both House Bill 1750 as well as any that come

1492
01:38:12,340 --> 01:38:17,360
 out of the Texas A&M AgriLife extension report and go off of those.

1493
01:38:17,360 --> 01:38:22,000
 Those are some of the amendments being proposed due to House Bill 1750.

1494
01:38:22,000 --> 01:38:27,040
 We also saw House Bills 2308 and 2947.

1495
01:38:27,040 --> 01:38:28,420
 These are more limited in scope.

1496
01:38:28,420 --> 01:38:32,360
 They do both look at the definition of agricultural operations.

1497
01:38:32,360 --> 01:38:38,240
 They add in them the commercial sale of animals to be under the general umbrella of agricultural

1498
01:38:38,240 --> 01:38:44,280
 operations as well as makes additions to addition, including veterinary services for livestock

1499
01:38:44,280 --> 01:38:46,460
 and poultry specifically.

1500
01:38:46,460 --> 01:38:50,520
 So we've recommended some minor amendments to our current definition of agriculture and

1501
01:38:50,520 --> 01:38:54,540
 animal uses to capture some of the language that comes out of this bill.

1502
01:38:54,540 --> 01:38:58,680
 One of those was including accessory structures that are meant to support agricultural uses,

1503
01:38:58,680 --> 01:39:02,880
 now do fall under the general umbrella term of agricultural operations.

1504
01:39:02,880 --> 01:39:04,620
 So we've included that.

1505
01:39:04,620 --> 01:39:08,480
 And then we have matched the definition or staff is proposing to match the definition

1506
01:39:08,480 --> 01:39:13,200
 of general agriculture as to what is referred to in the Texas Agriculture Code to be consistent

1507
01:39:13,200 --> 01:39:17,520
 with what state law is and what is being referenced in these bills.

1508
01:39:17,520 --> 01:39:22,040
 I think that staff is recommending approval as this does meet our criteria for approval

1509
01:39:22,040 --> 01:39:24,960
 in Section 274D of the DDC.

1510
01:39:24,960 --> 01:39:28,840
 And the next step will be city council next week on September 19th.

1511
01:39:28,840 --> 01:39:33,600
 With that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

1512
01:39:33,600 --> 01:39:35,560
 >> Any questions for Angie?

1513
01:39:35,560 --> 01:39:39,560
 I do not see any.

1514
01:39:39,560 --> 01:39:41,080
 Thank you very much.

1515
01:39:41,080 --> 01:39:42,160
 This is a public hearing.

1516
01:39:42,160 --> 01:39:45,280
 I do not have any cards in front of me.

1517
01:39:45,280 --> 01:39:48,100
 Or do I see anyone here in council chambers?

1518
01:39:48,100 --> 01:39:54,420
 So I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing.

1519
01:39:54,420 --> 01:39:57,720
 And I will open the floor for a motion or discussion.

1520
01:39:57,720 --> 01:39:58,720
 Commissioner Smith.

1521
01:39:58,720 --> 01:40:00,920
 >> Make a motion to approve.

1522
01:40:00,920 --> 01:40:01,920
 >> Commissioner Pritz.

1523
01:40:01,920 --> 01:40:02,920
 >> Second.

1524
01:40:02,920 --> 01:40:03,920
 >> Okay.

1525
01:40:03,920 --> 01:40:05,260
 We've got a first and a second for approval.

1526
01:40:05,260 --> 01:40:07,260
 Any discussion?

1527
01:40:07,260 --> 01:40:16,240
 I guess the only thing I'll say is we're going against what we discussed earlier in putting

1528
01:40:16,240 --> 01:40:19,680
 things on council agenda, that this is only a week apart.

1529
01:40:19,680 --> 01:40:22,680
 So maybe that was already put in place.

1530
01:40:22,680 --> 01:40:26,200
 But I'll just throw that out there.

1531
01:40:26,200 --> 01:40:30,060
 >> And the reason for the scheduling is due to the effectiveness of the state statutes.

1532
01:40:30,060 --> 01:40:32,280
 So hence why we're fast tracking this to council.

1533
01:40:32,280 --> 01:40:33,280
 >> Thank you.

1534
01:40:33,280 --> 01:40:34,280
 Okay.

1535
01:40:34,280 --> 01:40:35,280
 Any discussion?

1536
01:40:35,280 --> 01:40:36,280
 Further?

1537
01:40:36,280 --> 01:40:37,280
 Okay.

1538
01:40:37,280 --> 01:40:44,200
 Let's vote on the board, please.

1539
01:40:44,200 --> 01:40:46,920
 That motion carries 7-0.

1540
01:40:46,920 --> 01:40:50,360
 That will bring us to our planning and zoning matrix.

1541
01:40:50,360 --> 01:40:54,560
 And I will give the floor to Tina.

1542
01:40:54,560 --> 01:41:01,400
 >> Thank you, Chair Ellis.

1543
01:41:01,400 --> 01:41:06,920
 So the matrix has been updated to take into consideration the legislative update that

1544
01:41:06,920 --> 01:41:07,920
 we had given previously.

1545
01:41:07,920 --> 01:41:10,920
 So we removed that.

1546
01:41:10,920 --> 01:41:12,920
 That was done at the end of August.

1547
01:41:12,920 --> 01:41:14,960
 Just kind of a quick run down on some of the items.

1548
01:41:14,960 --> 01:41:20,560
 So I'll go through my list here, and actually the first item on my list addresses the minimum

1549
01:41:20,560 --> 01:41:22,720
 parking requirements item, which is on the matrix.

1550
01:41:22,720 --> 01:41:32,080
 So the DCRC has been working on parking, and after some extensive discussion with the DCRC,

1551
01:41:32,080 --> 01:41:38,240
 we have chosen to pause the amendments to the parking section, particularly as it relates

1552
01:41:38,240 --> 01:41:40,760
 to no minimum parking requirements.

1553
01:41:40,760 --> 01:41:46,000
 The city is actually undertaking a citywide parking study to address a lot of parking

1554
01:41:46,000 --> 01:41:50,000
 management challenges and issues that have surfaced within the community.

1555
01:41:50,000 --> 01:41:56,320
 And in light of interest by members of this body as well as City Council to consider potentially

1556
01:41:56,320 --> 01:42:00,400
 adopting no minimum parking requirement and allowing more or less the market to determine

1557
01:42:00,400 --> 01:42:06,200
 what might be appropriate for development, hence why we are including the evaluation

1558
01:42:06,200 --> 01:42:08,680
 no minimum parking within that citywide parking study.

1559
01:42:08,680 --> 01:42:14,480
 So this will allow the consultant that is retained to do a comprehensive analysis associated

1560
01:42:14,480 --> 01:42:20,360
 with our parking regulations and how we manage parking, and particularly parking on our public

1561
01:42:20,360 --> 01:42:26,680
 streets, and be able to provide some recommended practices associated with that for council's

1562
01:42:26,680 --> 01:42:31,640
 consideration and ultimately provide some better direction for us as it relates to addressing

1563
01:42:31,640 --> 01:42:34,600
 that particular topic.

1564
01:42:34,600 --> 01:42:39,440
 Also where the DCRC is concerned, so short-term run-offs, so several of you that serve on

1565
01:42:39,440 --> 01:42:44,400
 that group, and I know I've given some updates in the past, so we had paused that temporarily

1566
01:42:44,400 --> 01:42:50,200
 to allow us to do some public engagement as it relates to that particular code amendment.

1567
01:42:50,200 --> 01:42:56,600
 As a result, we hosted two town halls, but more recently we had an online survey where

1568
01:42:56,600 --> 01:43:02,720
 we were seeking the public's input, and happy to report that we had 224 participants within

1569
01:43:02,720 --> 01:43:03,720
 that survey.

1570
01:43:03,720 --> 01:43:07,920
 So staff is currently working through the results of the survey, and we'll be bringing

1571
01:43:07,920 --> 01:43:15,840
 that back to the DCRC to be able to finish any further refinements to the proposed amendments

1572
01:43:15,840 --> 01:43:20,800
 as it relates to that particular code, and once the DCRC feels that it's in a position

1573
01:43:20,800 --> 01:43:25,240
 to be able to deliver or move forward with a public hearing process, then we'll be bringing

1574
01:43:25,240 --> 01:43:27,800
 that forward.

1575
01:43:27,800 --> 01:43:37,060
 As it relates to our area planning, so we've kicked off the downtown update plan.

1576
01:43:37,060 --> 01:43:40,720
 As you're well aware of, that was one of the projects that council had asked us to prioritize

1577
01:43:40,720 --> 01:43:41,720
 and move forward.

1578
01:43:41,720 --> 01:43:46,640
 So the first downtown plan advisory group meeting is this Thursday at 2 p.m., so we

1579
01:43:46,640 --> 01:43:48,880
 will be doing that.

1580
01:43:48,880 --> 01:43:51,760
 We've already started some public engagement efforts, really trying to get the word out

1581
01:43:51,760 --> 01:43:52,760
 on the project.

1582
01:43:52,760 --> 01:43:56,960
 I know the team was present this past week at Arts and Auto, and they learned the magic

1583
01:43:56,960 --> 01:43:57,960
 secret sauce.

1584
01:43:57,960 --> 01:44:02,040
 That is, lure the children in with the coloring, and then the parents are standing there, so

1585
01:44:02,040 --> 01:44:04,880
 we get the parents to talk.

1586
01:44:04,880 --> 01:44:08,200
 But nonetheless, they started receiving some great feedback.

1587
01:44:08,200 --> 01:44:12,160
 One of the things that was interesting in talking with our consultant is, he's like,

1588
01:44:12,160 --> 01:44:14,200
 people in Denton love their downtown.

1589
01:44:14,200 --> 01:44:16,840
 He's like, you'd be surprised with some of the projects that they work on.

1590
01:44:16,840 --> 01:44:21,000
 They've got to get people to really like their downtown, so we're in a good position that

1591
01:44:21,000 --> 01:44:25,040
 at least our residents of Denton love downtown Denton, so we're in a much better starting

1592
01:44:25,040 --> 01:44:26,320
 point.

1593
01:44:26,320 --> 01:44:30,040
 But nonetheless, and we were starting to see that in some of the engagement from Arts and

1594
01:44:30,040 --> 01:44:32,920
 Autos, and we will be doing additional engagement.

1595
01:44:32,920 --> 01:44:35,960
 We have parking day that's this Friday down on the square.

1596
01:44:35,960 --> 01:44:37,720
 Hopefully it doesn't get rained out.

1597
01:44:37,720 --> 01:44:41,160
 And then we also have the Blues Festival that is this weekend, and so the planning team

1598
01:44:41,160 --> 01:44:46,080
 will be present at parking day as well as the Blues Festival, and seeking comments from

1599
01:44:46,080 --> 01:44:48,240
 the public on that.

1600
01:44:48,240 --> 01:44:53,440
 So we kick off our series of public engagement efforts, and I know Cameron put quite a few

1601
01:44:53,440 --> 01:44:58,200
 events on my calendar between now and at least through December, I believe, so that's really

1602
01:44:58,200 --> 01:44:59,200
 important.

1603
01:44:59,200 --> 01:45:02,740
 And so any assistance that this body can provide with helping get the word out as it relates

1604
01:45:02,740 --> 01:45:06,520
 to the work that we're doing on that downtown plan, I would really appreciate it.

1605
01:45:06,520 --> 01:45:10,920
 Southeast, we continue to progress with our analysis and work on that.

1606
01:45:10,920 --> 01:45:15,760
 We are looking at trying to schedule another public engagement event associated with that

1607
01:45:15,760 --> 01:45:16,840
 particular project.

1608
01:45:16,840 --> 01:45:20,400
 So once we get that date firmed up, we'll definitely let the commission know as to when

1609
01:45:20,400 --> 01:45:22,200
 we're doing that.

1610
01:45:22,200 --> 01:45:26,960
 And in coupling that with the information that we presented, that engagement event,

1611
01:45:26,960 --> 01:45:30,360
 I would anticipate it'll include some of the results and feedback that we've already received

1612
01:45:30,360 --> 01:45:36,480
 from the community, so we've had an extensive amount of engagement when you look at all

1613
01:45:36,480 --> 01:45:41,600
 of our efforts thus far in having over 100 respondents.

1614
01:45:41,600 --> 01:45:46,600
 When you look at not only the listening sessions, but the workshop that we did here a couple

1615
01:45:46,600 --> 01:45:51,680
 of weeks ago, the intercept surveys that the team has done, so we're really getting some

1616
01:45:51,680 --> 01:45:55,960
 good feedback from the community as it relates to our Southeast Denton project.

1617
01:45:55,960 --> 01:46:00,000
 Our Northeast Denton project, we also continue to do the work on that.

1618
01:46:00,000 --> 01:46:04,920
 For your benefit, so we're working through making some modifications to our project schedule,

1619
01:46:04,920 --> 01:46:08,760
 so one of the things that's been on your calendar, for those of you that might participate on

1620
01:46:08,760 --> 01:46:12,480
 the steering committee, was an implementation workshop with our partners, so we're no longer

1621
01:46:12,480 --> 01:46:16,200
 doing that, and staff will be doing the work as it relates to that.

1622
01:46:16,200 --> 01:46:20,640
 And really with that discussion that was meeting with our partners in terms of evaluating the

1623
01:46:20,640 --> 01:46:25,920
 action items that might be put forth, and responsible parties for implementation associated

1624
01:46:25,920 --> 01:46:26,920
 with that.

1625
01:46:26,920 --> 01:46:30,640
 So we as staff will be taking that task on.

1626
01:46:30,640 --> 01:46:37,280
 Also there is going to be no joint meeting on the 17th, so we are modifying our schedule,

1627
01:46:37,280 --> 01:46:42,200
 and once we have that firmed up, then I'll get that back out to the commission.

1628
01:46:42,200 --> 01:46:46,280
 One of the revisions that we're making is that we will be doing a work session with

1629
01:46:46,280 --> 01:46:51,320
 the Planning and Zoning Commission before we do a work session with council in leading

1630
01:46:51,320 --> 01:46:55,520
 into our adoption phase, and of course we have one additional steering committee meeting,

1631
01:46:55,520 --> 01:47:00,040
 and we also have an open house, and an online survey that we'll be conducting as well.

1632
01:47:00,040 --> 01:47:03,440
 So those are some of the key major points that are still, or key tasks I should say

1633
01:47:03,440 --> 01:47:05,680
 that are still left in that project.

1634
01:47:05,680 --> 01:47:11,280
 But like I said, once we get that schedule revised, we'll be sure to get that out and

1635
01:47:11,280 --> 01:47:12,560
 report on that to the group.

1636
01:47:12,560 --> 01:47:20,000
 So in terms of any action items coming from council, council's been on hiatus for about

1637
01:47:20,000 --> 01:47:24,880
 a month since their last meeting was on August 15th, so we have not had any development and

1638
01:47:24,880 --> 01:47:31,400
 applications go before the council since that time, and so I have nothing to report from

1639
01:47:31,400 --> 01:47:32,400
 that aspect.

1640
01:47:32,400 --> 01:47:34,520
 But happy to answer any questions you may have.

1641
01:47:34,520 --> 01:47:35,520
 Thank you, Tina.

1642
01:47:35,520 --> 01:47:36,520
 Commissioner Pruitt.

1643
01:47:36,520 --> 01:47:37,520
 Thank you, Chair.

1644
01:47:37,520 --> 01:47:41,120
 I just have something else for the matrix.

1645
01:47:41,120 --> 01:47:48,640
 I think as highlighted by some of the events of this evening, we've been more than two

1646
01:47:48,640 --> 01:47:55,160
 years now since the 87th session of the legislature, the shot clock came, and the additional platting

1647
01:47:55,160 --> 01:47:58,320
 restrictions and that sort of thing came.

1648
01:47:58,320 --> 01:48:08,560
 Really what I'd like to see is a legal opinion and work session to look at both the general

1649
01:48:08,560 --> 01:48:13,280
 requirements and the plat specific requirements that we have in our code, and separate them

1650
01:48:13,280 --> 01:48:15,640
 into three different buckets.

1651
01:48:15,640 --> 01:48:22,080
 So one bucket would be the requirements that we believe are technical in nature and already

1652
01:48:22,080 --> 01:48:23,760
 enforceable.

1653
01:48:23,760 --> 01:48:29,680
 The second bucket would be the requirements which we believe are not enforceable, not

1654
01:48:29,680 --> 01:48:36,600
 technical, and because of some case law or other legal proceedings that have happened

1655
01:48:36,600 --> 01:48:42,020
 over the last two years, we believe that they could not be made legally enforceable.

1656
01:48:42,020 --> 01:48:49,840
 And then the third bucket would be the items which in their content, the way they are written

1657
01:48:49,840 --> 01:48:55,520
 now could not be legally enforceable because they are not technical, however, amendments

1658
01:48:55,520 --> 01:49:05,280
 to said items for the same intended purpose could render them legally enforceable.

1659
01:49:05,280 --> 01:49:07,320
 So that was a lot of words.

1660
01:49:07,320 --> 01:49:11,960
 Any questions from staff on that?

1661
01:49:11,960 --> 01:49:17,040
 And then what I'd like to see is just we have some time as a commission to have probably

1662
01:49:17,040 --> 01:49:24,940
 a longer work session on discussing how we want to respond to the separation of those

1663
01:49:24,940 --> 01:49:33,040
 items and come up with a recommendation together to counsel about what a future actions would

1664
01:49:33,040 --> 01:49:40,880
 look like in order to clean that up and put things in less of a confusing bucket list,

1665
01:49:40,880 --> 01:49:43,040
 if that makes sense.

1666
01:49:43,040 --> 01:49:44,040
 Okay.

1667
01:49:44,040 --> 01:49:46,880
 Do you get it?

1668
01:49:46,880 --> 01:49:47,880
 Yes.

1669
01:49:47,880 --> 01:49:48,880
 Okay.

1670
01:49:48,880 --> 01:49:49,880
 Okay.

1671
01:49:49,880 --> 01:49:50,880
 Thank you.

1672
01:49:50,880 --> 01:49:54,920
 I was going to say I've got items two and three, and Haley took notes, and I'm relying

1673
01:49:54,920 --> 01:49:57,920
 upon our friends at DTV, so I go back and watch your video.

1674
01:49:57,920 --> 01:50:00,320
 But I understand the point that you're making, though.

1675
01:50:00,320 --> 01:50:01,320
 Thank you.

1676
01:50:01,320 --> 01:50:02,320
 Commissioner McDade.

1677
01:50:02,320 --> 01:50:03,880
 Thank you, Chair.

1678
01:50:03,880 --> 01:50:10,800
 Tina, on the downtown area plan, I know I've asked this question two or three times, but

1679
01:50:10,800 --> 01:50:12,800
 this question is coming from the neighborhood.

1680
01:50:12,800 --> 01:50:18,880
 I know you said you're having your first meeting soon, and they're still concerned

1681
01:50:18,880 --> 01:50:21,920
 about the boundaries.

1682
01:50:21,920 --> 01:50:24,760
 That's what they're very concerned about, and I keep telling them, well, they haven't

1683
01:50:24,760 --> 01:50:31,280
 met yet, but now that it's getting ready to kick off, will you get with the neighborhood,

1684
01:50:31,280 --> 01:50:37,080
 or will you go through the southeast area steering committee, or will you actually come

1685
01:50:37,080 --> 01:50:41,360
 to a setting meeting and let them know that this is the boundaries that we have drawn

1686
01:50:41,360 --> 01:50:44,880
 for the downtown area plan?

1687
01:50:44,880 --> 01:50:47,800
 Yes, all of the above.

1688
01:50:47,800 --> 01:50:52,680
 We can communicate that out at such a point in time when we know what the boundaries of

1689
01:50:52,680 --> 01:50:54,720
 the plan are.

1690
01:50:54,720 --> 01:51:01,360
 We are in our initial stages on that project, and those boundaries have not been drawn.

1691
01:51:01,360 --> 01:51:05,600
 We will definitely be communicating with the Southeast Denton steering committee.

1692
01:51:05,600 --> 01:51:10,000
 Also, we will be communicating with the Southeast Denton Neighborhood Association, because I

1693
01:51:10,000 --> 01:51:12,720
 know they're very interested in that as well.

1694
01:51:12,720 --> 01:51:16,840
 We'll also be communicating out with any of our public engagement efforts to let folks

1695
01:51:16,840 --> 01:51:19,780
 know when we have those conversations.

1696
01:51:19,780 --> 01:51:23,280
 That's also one of the things that we're still trying to work with on the Southeast Denton

1697
01:51:23,280 --> 01:51:27,720
 community, is what do they consider Southeast Denton?

1698
01:51:27,720 --> 01:51:33,960
 It's interesting, given some of the responses that we've received as to what folks consider

1699
01:51:33,960 --> 01:51:36,360
 the geographic area also associated with it.

1700
01:51:36,360 --> 01:51:40,920
 We're trying to navigate through all of that, but we will definitely be communicating with

1701
01:51:40,920 --> 01:51:44,360
 the public on any information we put out related to that.

1702
01:51:44,360 --> 01:51:45,600
 I know that's an area of concern.

1703
01:51:45,600 --> 01:51:46,600
 All right.

1704
01:51:46,600 --> 01:51:47,600
 Thank you.

1705
01:51:47,600 --> 01:51:48,600
 Sure thing.

1706
01:51:48,600 --> 01:51:49,600
 Anything else for the matrix?

1707
01:51:49,600 --> 01:51:56,240
 I know I had made mention to Platts, but I think Commissioner Pruitt, I think he ticked

1708
01:51:56,240 --> 01:51:59,720
 all the boxes that I need done, so looking forward to that work session item.

1709
01:51:59,720 --> 01:52:04,240
 Also, with regard to Commissioner Pruitt, just making sure somebody took notes that

1710
01:52:04,240 --> 01:52:08,840
 he would like the TIA for the Kingsway project sent to him, so we can make sure that that

1711
01:52:08,840 --> 01:52:09,840
 happens.

1712
01:52:09,840 --> 01:52:10,840
 Okay.

1713
01:52:10,840 --> 01:52:15,720
 Seeing nothing else for the matrix, do we have any concluding items?

1714
01:52:15,720 --> 01:52:17,560
 Okay.

1715
01:52:17,560 --> 01:52:20,360
 With that, I will adjourn our meeting at 7.50 p.m.

1716
01:52:20,360 --> 01:52:20,800
 Thank you, everyone.