WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.180 >> Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Denton's planning and zoning commission 00:00:09.180 --> 00:00:13.000 meeting for Wednesday, September 13, 2023. 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. 00:00:18.800 --> 00:00:23.700 Let the record show commissioners Smith and Villarreal are absent at this time. 00:00:23.700 --> 00:00:28.580 First item on our work session is citizen comment on consent agenda items. 00:00:28.580 --> 00:00:35.080 Do we have anyone here wishing to speak on consent? 00:00:35.080 --> 00:00:40.360 Seeing none, we will move on to our final work session item which is clarification on 00:00:40.360 --> 00:00:42.360 today's agenda. 00:00:42.360 --> 00:00:47.840 First item of business for us is approval of our minutes for the 23rd commissioners. 00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:53.720 Do you have any questions on that? 00:00:53.720 --> 00:00:56.040 That will then take us to consent agenda. 00:00:56.040 --> 00:01:00.760 Do we have questions on the consent agenda? 00:01:00.760 --> 00:01:01.760 Commissioner McDade? 00:01:01.760 --> 00:01:04.760 >> Thank you, chair. 00:01:04.760 --> 00:01:10.880 I have a question on D and E that I need to -- 00:01:10.880 --> 00:01:11.880 >> Okay. 00:01:11.880 --> 00:01:19.720 We can move through those then if anyone -- does anyone have anything A through D? 00:01:19.720 --> 00:01:20.720 Okay. 00:01:20.720 --> 00:01:24.920 Then Julie, if you will come on up. 00:01:24.920 --> 00:01:25.920 Thank you. 00:01:25.920 --> 00:01:26.920 Good evening. 00:01:26.920 --> 00:01:27.920 Julie Wyatt. 00:01:27.920 --> 00:01:28.920 All right. 00:01:28.920 --> 00:01:44.400 So this is two plats for the Kingsway subdivision. 00:01:44.400 --> 00:01:47.640 It's a single-family residential development. 00:01:47.640 --> 00:01:49.200 Has two tracks. 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 00:01:58.280 --> 00:01:59.280 288. 00:01:59.280 --> 00:02:03.560 It is phase 1A of the subdivision. 00:02:03.560 --> 00:02:12.040 And then the second plat is phase 1B of the proposal. 00:02:12.040 --> 00:02:16.840 It does meet all of the technical requirements associated with plats within the debt and 00:02:16.840 --> 00:02:21.000 development code, so staff is recommending approval, and I'll be happy to answer any 00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:22.000 questions. 00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:23.000 >> Okay. 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 00:02:27.000 --> 00:02:29.120 about a year ago. 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 00:02:36.040 --> 00:02:38.880 not come back to this commission, correct? 00:02:38.880 --> 00:02:39.880 All right. 00:02:39.880 --> 00:02:40.880 So it's been approved? 00:02:40.880 --> 00:02:42.920 >> Well, that is a good question. 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, 00:02:50.240 --> 00:02:53.080 18 months or so ago. 00:02:53.080 --> 00:02:56.480 The purpose of that rezoning was for a planned development. 00:02:56.480 --> 00:03:03.200 If you recall, the developer wanted some smaller lots, some additional densities within this 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. 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 00:03:17.280 --> 00:03:27.640 current zoning, which this Phase 1B, so the larger tract, that has the R4 zoning, and 00:03:27.640 --> 00:03:31.280 then the smaller tract has R7 zoning. 00:03:31.280 --> 00:03:32.280 >> Okay. 00:03:32.280 --> 00:03:37.240 I guess the reason I was asking, because I actually have friends out there, and they 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 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 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 00:03:51.120 --> 00:03:52.120 answer all the questions. 00:03:52.120 --> 00:03:53.120 >> I understand. 00:03:53.120 --> 00:03:54.120 I understand. 00:03:54.120 --> 00:03:56.440 >> Well, I think the original PD was denied by council, correct? 00:03:56.440 --> 00:03:57.440 >> Correct. 00:03:57.440 --> 00:03:58.440 Correct. 00:03:58.440 --> 00:04:00.440 So the remaining -- the zoning just stayed in place. 00:04:00.440 --> 00:04:04.880 >> The zoning stayed as it was, since it was denied at council. 00:04:04.880 --> 00:04:05.880 >> All right. 00:04:05.880 --> 00:04:06.880 Thank you. 00:04:06.880 --> 00:04:08.040 So Julie, I'm going to keep you up there. 00:04:08.040 --> 00:04:09.560 I don't know if you saw my email. 00:04:09.560 --> 00:04:10.920 >> I did, yes, ma'am. 00:04:10.920 --> 00:04:14.520 >> So if you -- well, I'll let everybody know what my email was. 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 00:04:18.840 --> 00:04:22.920 know, because it's in your inboxes. 00:04:22.920 --> 00:04:29.960 So I wanted to know how CITI satisfies that Criterion 8A, which is minimizes adverse impacts 00:04:29.960 --> 00:04:34.800 on surrounding, and it says the result of citizen participation process may appropriately 00:04:34.800 --> 00:04:39.440 be considered here, the proposed development should not cause significant adverse impacts 00:04:39.440 --> 00:04:40.700 to surrounding areas. 00:04:40.700 --> 00:04:45.080 So can you run us through how the city would deduce that Criterion? 00:04:45.080 --> 00:04:46.080 >> Sure. 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 00:04:53.880 --> 00:05:01.680 place that R4 and R7 actually transitioned from our previous zoning code, the 2002 development 00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:02.680 code. 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. 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 00:05:16.920 --> 00:05:23.920 that requirement of being appropriate within the area and adjacent to the single-family 00:05:23.920 --> 00:05:30.560 residential developments to the east of the site and the north. 00:05:30.560 --> 00:05:36.860 That said, we also have criteria within the Denton Development Code for development. 00:05:36.860 --> 00:05:41.540 For example, if this were being developed with a commercial use, buffers would be required. 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. 00:05:46.960 --> 00:05:50.840 It just must meet those minimum standards within the Denton Development Code. 00:05:50.840 --> 00:05:57.720 So that criteria could be challenging for plats because they are ministerial. 00:05:57.720 --> 00:06:02.320 But with that existing zoning, developing under that existing zoning and meeting those 00:06:02.320 --> 00:06:07.520 minimum standards within the Denton Development Code, it was determined that it would not 00:06:07.520 --> 00:06:13.040 create any significant adverse impacts with the adjacent properties. 00:06:13.040 --> 00:06:16.660 >> Is traffic considered an adverse impact when being looked at? 00:06:16.660 --> 00:06:22.680 >> So we actually -- our transportation planner, I talked to her today in preparation of this 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 00:06:28.520 --> 00:06:32.640 to make sure that all of her ducks were in a row. 00:06:32.640 --> 00:06:37.840 If you recall, there were a lot of transportation improvements associated with that PD. 00:06:37.840 --> 00:06:44.800 That was part of that negotiation with the PD, not necessarily something that the -- could 00:06:44.800 --> 00:06:48.600 be required of a development under straight zoning. 00:06:48.600 --> 00:06:55.520 So she looked at the TIA, the existing conditions of those surrounding intersections, and the 00:06:55.520 --> 00:07:03.880 impacts that this project would have on those intersections, particularly the intersection 00:07:03.880 --> 00:07:05.400 here. 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. 00:07:10.540 --> 00:07:17.440 Currently that is operating at a level E, and this development would not make that letter 00:07:17.440 --> 00:07:20.360 grade change any lower, and so -- 00:07:20.360 --> 00:07:22.680 >> Didn't the letter grade go any lower? 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 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 00:07:33.280 --> 00:07:36.480 can either turn or go straight. 00:07:36.480 --> 00:07:40.960 So because they did analyze that intersection, the intersection's already got some challenges 00:07:40.960 --> 00:07:47.360 that we're aware of, and that they would not -- this development would have minimal impacts 00:07:47.360 --> 00:07:48.480 on that. 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 00:07:52.480 --> 00:07:56.520 flows a little bit better, and so that was the outcome of that TIA. 00:07:56.520 --> 00:07:58.080 >> Are there any extra lanes coming in? 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, 00:08:02.160 --> 00:08:03.160 correct? 00:08:03.160 --> 00:08:04.160 >> Correct. 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. 00:08:11.680 --> 00:08:12.680 >> Correct. 00:08:12.680 --> 00:08:13.680 Yes. 00:08:13.680 --> 00:08:14.680 >> And the next plat, it's coming in through -- 00:08:14.680 --> 00:08:15.680 >> Dearwood. 00:08:15.680 --> 00:08:16.680 >> Dearwood. 00:08:16.680 --> 00:08:17.680 >> Dearwood. 00:08:17.680 --> 00:08:18.680 Sorry. 00:08:18.680 --> 00:08:20.520 Yes, ma'am. 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 00:08:27.200 --> 00:08:34.760 Row, that's already a problem at certain times of day -- this has one access point. 00:08:34.760 --> 00:08:35.760 >> It does. 00:08:35.760 --> 00:08:37.240 >> And one -- yeah. 00:08:37.240 --> 00:08:38.240 That's it. 00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:39.240 >> Right. 00:08:39.240 --> 00:08:40.240 >> That road right there. 00:08:40.240 --> 00:08:41.240 Okay. 00:08:41.240 --> 00:08:42.240 Commissioner Anderson, sorry. 00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:43.240 >> Thank you, Chair. 00:08:43.240 --> 00:08:44.240 No, I agree. 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. 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 00:09:00.840 --> 00:09:04.040 adding 200 more homes. 00:09:04.040 --> 00:09:05.480 That's another minimum 400 cars. 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 00:09:10.120 --> 00:09:16.360 400 trips a day, one way, you know, 800 trips a day. 00:09:16.360 --> 00:09:17.360 I don't know. 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 00:09:23.720 --> 00:09:24.720 an adverse effect. 00:09:24.720 --> 00:09:31.080 I guess Corina's not here or anybody here to talk about how that was analyzed. 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 00:09:36.760 --> 00:09:37.960 and does a scoping meeting. 00:09:37.960 --> 00:09:42.360 And so, you know, the engineer submitted their traffic impact analysis. 00:09:42.360 --> 00:09:43.360 Our team reviewed it. 00:09:43.360 --> 00:09:46.400 As Julie reported, the level of service is not changing. 00:09:46.400 --> 00:09:50.720 You know, we had the opportunity for making some additional improvements associated with 00:09:50.720 --> 00:09:54.440 this development when it was being considered as part of the plan development district request. 00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:56.440 But ultimately, it was denied. 00:09:56.440 --> 00:10:00.600 So what's before you meets our requirements as it relates to the improvements that need 00:10:00.600 --> 00:10:01.600 to be made. 00:10:01.600 --> 00:10:04.800 And therefore, hence why the plat is in an approval state. 00:10:04.800 --> 00:10:07.160 >> And I understand that part of it. 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 00:10:11.680 --> 00:10:17.280 adverse impact because it will unless traffic's not taken into consideration under that particular 00:10:17.280 --> 00:10:18.440 category. 00:10:18.440 --> 00:10:25.720 >> So in response to the challenge I would add is, so our evaluation criteria, particularly 00:10:25.720 --> 00:10:30.720 this 8(a) being in our general evaluation criteria for developments, in my opinion, 00:10:30.720 --> 00:10:35.040 it's not taking into consideration the state law limitations that are associated with it. 00:10:35.040 --> 00:10:38.680 So in hindsight, when it comes to platting, some of our general criteria, including the 00:10:38.680 --> 00:10:42.680 one regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan, when the property is already entitled 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 00:10:46.520 --> 00:10:48.080 already the barn on that one, right? 00:10:48.080 --> 00:10:54.120 So it is platts when someone's property is entitled from a zoning standpoint and they 00:10:54.120 --> 00:10:57.480 are proposing a development that meets all of the current standards under the existing 00:10:57.480 --> 00:11:02.480 zoning and their plat complies also with all of our technical requirements associated with 00:11:02.480 --> 00:11:04.800 the existing zoning in our subdivision ordinance. 00:11:04.800 --> 00:11:08.160 Per state law, we are obligated to approve the plat because it complies. 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 00:11:13.280 --> 00:11:18.680 traffic as a result of the property developing, but with our traffic impact analysis and our 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 00:11:24.600 --> 00:11:26.920 meets our requirements and hence why it's being approved. 00:11:26.920 --> 00:11:30.600 I don't have a problem with the neighborhoods going in and stuff. 00:11:30.600 --> 00:11:34.400 I just wish there was something we could do to alleviate some of that traffic, because 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 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 00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:46.120 Luke 288. 00:11:46.120 --> 00:11:47.400 That's a traffic hazard. 00:11:47.400 --> 00:11:52.080 Is there -- and I know 288 is a textile highway. 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 00:11:56.760 --> 00:11:59.760 get off the road? 00:11:59.760 --> 00:12:02.200 I mean, I have no problem with the platts. 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 00:12:05.680 --> 00:12:06.680 stuff. 00:12:06.680 --> 00:12:07.680 I'm just worried about traffic. 00:12:07.680 --> 00:12:08.960 I did talk to Karina. 00:12:08.960 --> 00:12:13.600 She does have a meeting scheduled with TxDOT, so they -- we are continuing to coordinate 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 00:12:22.320 --> 00:12:24.320 efficient manner as possible. 00:12:24.320 --> 00:12:27.040 So it's something they're continuing to refine. 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 00:12:33.720 --> 00:12:35.040 that area regarding Hodge. 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 00:12:39.480 --> 00:12:40.640 that. 00:12:40.640 --> 00:12:42.000 One moment, Commissioner McDade. 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:44.760 Tina, if I could just have you clarify. 00:12:44.760 --> 00:12:54.480 So effectively, that particular criterion that's in our analysis is not really a -- is 00:12:54.480 --> 00:12:57.000 not really -- you're saying it complies to all state law. 00:12:57.000 --> 00:13:00.640 So that is really not anything that -- 00:13:00.640 --> 00:13:07.680 That maybe should be in there, because it seems -- 00:13:07.680 --> 00:13:11.080 Like it could be satisfied or not satisfied, and it's not going to matter. 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 00:13:16.920 --> 00:13:19.000 can and can't do, particularly when it comes to platting. 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 00:13:24.600 --> 00:13:28.520 entitled under the existing zoning, the property owner has the rights to be able to develop 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 00:13:32.560 --> 00:13:37.640 like this, and also comparing a plat against the comprehensive plan criteria when the property 00:13:37.640 --> 00:13:41.120 is already entitled, it puts us in a more challenging situation. 00:13:41.120 --> 00:13:42.440 So hence why we look at it from the -- 00:13:42.440 --> 00:13:43.440 This is my point exactly. 00:13:43.440 --> 00:13:44.440 Yeah. 00:13:44.440 --> 00:13:46.600 I mean, it's -- I get everything that you're saying. 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 00:13:51.000 --> 00:13:53.360 time in the matrix, and we can discuss, perhaps. 00:13:53.360 --> 00:13:54.360 Okay. 00:13:54.360 --> 00:13:55.360 Thank you. 00:13:55.360 --> 00:13:56.360 Commissioner McDade. 00:13:56.360 --> 00:13:57.360 Thank you, Chair. 00:13:57.360 --> 00:14:06.360 You made the comment that the city looked at improvements, but they were denied. 00:14:06.360 --> 00:14:09.960 As part of that plan development district request, when it came forth, when we had that 00:14:09.960 --> 00:14:16.200 rezoning submission, the developer was willing to make some additional improvements to be 00:14:16.200 --> 00:14:21.920 able to help with the ingress/egress associated with these developments and some of the traffic 00:14:21.920 --> 00:14:24.000 challenges that are within the area. 00:14:24.000 --> 00:14:29.000 But because that plan development district was not approved, all of those offerings that 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:32.640 the developer was proposing at that time are no longer on the table. 00:14:32.640 --> 00:14:34.840 So they're not obligated to provide those improvements. 00:14:34.840 --> 00:14:35.840 All right. 00:14:35.840 --> 00:14:36.840 Thank you. 00:14:36.840 --> 00:14:37.840 If that helps. 00:14:37.840 --> 00:14:38.840 Okay. 00:14:38.840 --> 00:14:39.840 Commissioner Pruitt. 00:14:39.840 --> 00:14:40.840 Thank you, Chair. 00:14:40.840 --> 00:14:41.840 A couple things. 00:14:41.840 --> 00:14:50.800 So the transportation criteria manual has a 200-foot minimum spacing between intersections 00:14:50.800 --> 00:14:54.360 for this with a collector and a residential street. 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 00:15:00.200 --> 00:15:04.240 not meet that to the planned expansion of Loop 288. 00:15:04.240 --> 00:15:05.240 Is that accurate? 00:15:05.240 --> 00:15:08.840 I don't know about the planned expansion. 00:15:08.840 --> 00:15:12.680 I assume there will be right-of-way because there is some reservation associated with 00:15:12.680 --> 00:15:15.120 this. 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 00:15:19.840 --> 00:15:20.840 shake out in the future. 00:15:20.840 --> 00:15:22.920 If I could add to that. 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. 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 00:15:29.800 --> 00:15:30.960 that TechStat meeting. 00:15:30.960 --> 00:15:35.440 So there are some initial schematics that have been developed, but we continue to work 00:15:35.440 --> 00:15:41.480 with TechStat on this particular interchange or intersection, if you will, and how that 00:15:41.480 --> 00:15:43.600 could potentially be designed. 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 00:15:50.600 --> 00:15:51.600 meeting. 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 00:15:54.120 --> 00:15:57.320 was being proposed in which they were seeking the community's feedback. 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 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. 00:16:10.600 --> 00:16:12.520 And so that creates some design challenges. 00:16:12.520 --> 00:16:18.040 So we continue to work with TechStat on how to best design that particular intersection 00:16:18.040 --> 00:16:23.480 because we know that that is a route that is traveled frequently for persons coming 00:16:23.480 --> 00:16:25.400 from east to west and vice versa, right? 00:16:25.400 --> 00:16:27.520 So we continue to work with them on that. 00:16:27.520 --> 00:16:29.160 They are sensitive to that design. 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 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 00:16:41.320 --> 00:16:46.720 it relates to this, so we continue to work with them on that. 00:16:46.720 --> 00:16:48.760 So I get that. 00:16:48.760 --> 00:17:00.080 I just want to understand, is the limitations that we have on platting validity based on 00:17:00.080 --> 00:17:07.340 the current right-of-way location of Loop 288, no matter what state of planning the 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 00:17:12.560 --> 00:17:15.760 consider essentially the future alignment? 00:17:15.760 --> 00:17:16.760 Correct. 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 00:17:21.100 --> 00:17:24.440 where they were acquiring right-of-way, it might be a different situation, but because 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 00:17:29.760 --> 00:17:33.280 plat associated with this, there were a lot of conversations with respect to right-of-way 00:17:33.280 --> 00:17:39.420 reservation and then how do we work through those issues because the TechStat has a responsibility 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 00:17:42.960 --> 00:17:47.160 projects are further to an advanced state, and I believe it's beyond the schematic and 00:17:47.160 --> 00:17:50.500 they have to have the environmental impact assessment completed before they can acquire 00:17:50.500 --> 00:17:51.680 the right-of-way. 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 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 00:18:01.240 --> 00:18:03.320 we continue to move forward with these final plots. 00:18:03.320 --> 00:18:07.120 These final plots are consistent with the preliminary plat that was done at that time. 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 00:18:14.800 --> 00:18:17.200 at such time when they're platting their property. 00:18:17.200 --> 00:18:18.200 Okay. 00:18:18.200 --> 00:18:27.840 And I understand the limitations of platting requirements, so this is not for tonight, 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 00:18:36.320 --> 00:18:42.760 and the updated TIA just for future understanding because at that original public hearing for 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 00:18:48.080 --> 00:18:53.960 in this location could be required as part of the general platting requirements, and 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. 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 00:19:05.480 --> 00:19:06.480 how they differ. 00:19:06.480 --> 00:19:07.480 Sure. 00:19:07.480 --> 00:19:08.480 Okay. 00:19:08.480 --> 00:19:09.480 Thank you, Chair. 00:19:09.480 --> 00:19:11.280 Thank you, Commissioner Prout. 00:19:11.280 --> 00:19:12.880 Anything else for Julie on this? 00:19:12.880 --> 00:19:20.240 Hey, quick question, Julie, does DISD know about this development at all, anybody talking 00:19:20.240 --> 00:19:21.240 to them? 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 00:19:28.760 --> 00:19:29.760 in. 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 00:19:37.360 --> 00:19:39.200 with them on a regular basis, all of our projects. 00:19:39.200 --> 00:19:40.200 As the project continues. 00:19:40.200 --> 00:19:41.200 Okay. 00:19:41.200 --> 00:19:42.200 Yeah. 00:19:42.200 --> 00:19:43.200 Perfect. 00:19:43.200 --> 00:19:44.200 Okay. 00:19:44.200 --> 00:19:45.200 Appreciate you. 00:19:45.200 --> 00:19:46.200 Thank you. 00:19:46.200 --> 00:19:47.200 Thank you. 00:19:47.200 --> 00:19:51.800 Okay, for individual consideration, we've got 4A, I think Ashley's making her way up 00:19:51.800 --> 00:19:52.800 for that. 00:19:52.800 --> 00:19:53.800 Hello there. 00:19:53.800 --> 00:19:54.800 Good evening. 00:19:54.800 --> 00:19:59.880 Ashley Exditt, assistant planner. 00:19:59.880 --> 00:20:05.800 This is FP23-0023, this is a final plat for barrel strap residential. 00:20:05.800 --> 00:20:10.200 This is approximately 50 residential lots on approximately 14 acres, and this is at 00:20:10.200 --> 00:20:13.040 Hickory Creek and 2499. 00:20:13.040 --> 00:20:16.400 At this time, we are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested 00:20:16.400 --> 00:20:19.360 extension till October 11th, 2023. 00:20:19.360 --> 00:20:20.680 Happy to answer any questions. 00:20:20.680 --> 00:20:21.680 Thank you. 00:20:21.680 --> 00:20:24.440 Any questions for Ashley? 00:20:24.440 --> 00:20:26.000 Thank you. 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:32.000 4B is PP23-0019, that is Mia's project. 00:20:32.000 --> 00:20:33.000 Hello. 00:20:33.000 --> 00:20:35.800 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. 00:20:35.800 --> 00:20:37.600 Mia Hines, associate planner. 00:20:37.600 --> 00:20:43.480 This item is a preliminary plat for Jefferson Mayhill addition located just west of Mayhill 00:20:43.480 --> 00:20:44.480 Road. 00:20:44.480 --> 00:20:50.280 The property includes approximately, or just under 40 acres. 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 00:20:54.160 --> 00:20:59.640 no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to October 11th, 2023. 00:20:59.640 --> 00:21:00.640 Great. 00:21:00.640 --> 00:21:01.640 Any questions? 00:21:01.640 --> 00:21:03.640 I don't see any. 00:21:03.640 --> 00:21:04.640 Thank you so much. 00:21:04.640 --> 00:21:13.720 And then our last individual consideration item is 4C, that is FP23-0022, that is Julie. 00:21:13.720 --> 00:21:15.120 Good evening, Julie Wyatt. 00:21:15.120 --> 00:21:19.840 This is FP23-0022A, Townsend Green. 00:21:19.840 --> 00:21:21.800 You've seen this one before. 00:21:21.800 --> 00:21:24.760 They have had a preliminary plat approved. 00:21:24.760 --> 00:21:28.320 Phase one of this project is currently under construction. 00:21:28.320 --> 00:21:31.520 This is a final plat for phase two. 00:21:31.520 --> 00:21:35.600 We are recommending approval subject to a condition. 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 00:21:39.880 --> 00:21:46.160 the technical requirements, we felt comfortable to recommend approval with a condition. 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 00:21:52.720 --> 00:21:56.160 on the south side of the site. 00:21:56.160 --> 00:21:57.200 It's in a floodplain. 00:21:57.200 --> 00:21:59.560 It's part of our parks master plan. 00:21:59.560 --> 00:22:04.720 This is something that they've been working with the developer on to dedicate this property 00:22:04.720 --> 00:22:08.840 as a park to allow trail connections. 00:22:08.840 --> 00:22:13.800 The development agreement associated with this is going to council either at the end 00:22:13.800 --> 00:22:20.280 of this month or the beginning of October. 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 00:22:24.440 --> 00:22:30.760 conditional approval, make sure all of that gets finalized the way it's anticipated, and 00:22:30.760 --> 00:22:36.480 then it could come back to P&Z to remove that condition. 00:22:36.480 --> 00:22:37.480 Commissioner Pruitt. 00:22:37.480 --> 00:22:38.480 Thank you, Chair. 00:22:38.480 --> 00:22:40.920 Yeah, I understand the condition. 00:22:40.920 --> 00:22:46.100 We've done this before with other similar agreements for parkland dedication. 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 00:22:56.480 --> 00:23:00.960 as a stub with a temporary turnaround easement to the west of that? 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? 00:23:07.600 --> 00:23:12.620 It seems like that would be the more logical way to go about that. 00:23:12.620 --> 00:23:17.180 Well, this one is a little different, and we're used to our current standards today 00:23:17.180 --> 00:23:18.540 with our access. 00:23:18.540 --> 00:23:21.000 We want to make sure those neighborhoods are connected. 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 00:23:27.200 --> 00:23:29.560 following that old code. 00:23:29.560 --> 00:23:39.120 I don't remember the adjacent zoning, but it really is related to requirements under 00:23:39.120 --> 00:23:40.120 the old code. 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 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 00:23:53.760 --> 00:23:54.760 under the old code. 00:23:54.760 --> 00:23:55.760 Okay. 00:23:55.760 --> 00:23:56.760 Thank you. 00:23:56.760 --> 00:23:59.640 Anything else for Julie? 00:23:59.640 --> 00:24:00.640 Okay. 00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:01.640 Thank you. 00:24:01.640 --> 00:24:02.640 Thank you very much. 00:24:02.640 --> 00:24:03.640 Okay. 00:24:03.640 --> 00:24:06.520 We've got three public hearings this evening. 00:24:06.520 --> 00:24:11.920 Our first is 5A, and yes, Christy is here. 00:24:11.920 --> 00:24:14.920 Hello there. 00:24:14.920 --> 00:24:15.920 Hi. 00:24:15.920 --> 00:24:37.320 Okay, so this is an alternative ESA plan for a sirene at Hickory Creek Barrowstrap Residential. 00:24:37.320 --> 00:24:42.040 We wanted to let you know they have changed their name of their project, Barrowstrap Residential, 00:24:42.040 --> 00:24:48.800 so there will be continuity with the final plot you saw earlier. 00:24:48.800 --> 00:24:55.600 The purpose and the request of this is to improve an alternative ESA plan for mitigation 00:24:55.600 --> 00:25:03.200 to remove 0.66 acres of a complex of riparian buffer and undeveloped floodplain. 00:25:03.200 --> 00:25:08.840 The plan is to restore and improve ecological services that are offered by the remainder 00:25:08.840 --> 00:25:15.580 of the ESA complex, and staff is recommending approval with the conditions that we'll talk 00:25:15.580 --> 00:25:20.440 about at the end. 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 00:25:28.320 --> 00:25:35.040 or less, of residential development southwest of the intersection of 2499 or Barrowstrap 00:25:35.040 --> 00:25:38.960 and Hickory Creek Road. 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 00:25:45.080 --> 00:25:52.240 undeveloped floodplain, as defined by FEMA's 1% floodplain. 00:25:52.240 --> 00:26:00.800 And then that area provides ecological services to that stream, including providing habitat, 00:26:00.800 --> 00:26:05.400 organic stabilization, and water quality. 00:26:05.400 --> 00:26:12.720 And the proposal is to remove that 0.66 acres of environmentally sensitive area. 00:26:12.720 --> 00:26:18.160 Generally it's in this area right here for a couple of reasons. 00:26:18.160 --> 00:26:27.320 First of all, to align the entrance to the neighborhood with a median opening on Hickory 00:26:27.320 --> 00:26:29.520 Creek Road. 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 00:26:38.200 --> 00:26:44.960 buffer and undeveloped floodplain, as well as outfall structures to create the drainage 00:26:44.960 --> 00:26:47.600 improvement infrastructure. 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 00:26:52.440 --> 00:26:59.520 development that will later after the construction be dedicated to the -- or the intent is to 00:26:59.520 --> 00:27:07.000 dedicate it to the parks and recreation as part of their master trail system. 00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:12.920 The mitigation plan is to improve the current habitat conditions of that remainder of the 00:27:12.920 --> 00:27:18.400 ESAs, highlighting it here in the green, that will be the remainder. 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 00:27:23.640 --> 00:27:32.160 spaces of open space that will be adjacent to that ESA. 00:27:32.160 --> 00:27:40.440 And so the applicant is proposing to remove that pernicious from the area and to replace 00:27:40.440 --> 00:27:46.560 that and improve the current conditions and improve that habitat with that native vegetation 00:27:46.560 --> 00:27:49.060 planting plan. 00:27:49.060 --> 00:27:55.120 Post-construction there's also some trees that are adjacent to the land disturbances 00:27:55.120 --> 00:28:06.000 that may be damaged or destroyed during the construction of the development. 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 00:28:11.620 --> 00:28:17.600 that were damaged or destroyed will be replaced at the application rate that is already outlined 00:28:17.600 --> 00:28:20.320 in the development code. 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 00:28:26.480 --> 00:28:28.300 requirements. 00:28:28.300 --> 00:28:35.840 To help explain this a little further, the applicant is currently working with FEMA, 00:28:35.840 --> 00:28:43.160 has an application into FEMA to modify this 1 percent floodplain, and in seeking that 00:28:43.160 --> 00:28:49.880 approval from FEMA, staff has already reviewed that and is in concurrence with the applicant. 00:28:49.880 --> 00:28:57.840 But FEMA always has the right to make comments, require modifications. 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 00:29:05.680 --> 00:29:09.840 to request further changes to the ESA. 00:29:09.840 --> 00:29:15.640 So what we've written into the conditions is that additional 10 percent modification 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 00:29:24.280 --> 00:29:32.160 other – meet any other requirements that FEMA might come up with. 00:29:32.160 --> 00:29:37.800 And there were notifications, we received three in opposition. 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 00:29:45.280 --> 00:29:50.000 meeting was held on March 11th. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:56.160 There were four attendees at that meeting and generally it was a discussion about the 00:29:56.160 --> 00:29:59.060 overall development. 00:29:59.060 --> 00:30:05.360 And then staff is making a recommendation to approve this project with the conditions 00:30:05.360 --> 00:30:14.680 as I've explained in this presentation and is outlined also in your packet. 00:30:14.680 --> 00:30:17.920 And with that, I will take any other questions that you might have. 00:30:17.920 --> 00:30:19.920 Thank you, Kristi. 00:30:19.920 --> 00:30:20.920 Questions? 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. 00:30:28.320 --> 00:30:29.800 Can you speak to that? 00:30:29.800 --> 00:30:30.800 Sure. 00:30:30.800 --> 00:30:36.120 Let me go back to a good outline of that. 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 00:30:43.400 --> 00:30:49.480 that's already established and is just to the north of that neighborhood that is established. 00:30:49.480 --> 00:30:55.640 This stream segment traverses and bisects this property. 00:30:55.640 --> 00:31:04.360 The property to the south was constructed and received their approvals prior to the 00:31:04.360 --> 00:31:09.360 Denton Development Code 2002 version. 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 00:31:17.080 --> 00:31:20.200 with that big update at that time. 00:31:20.200 --> 00:31:27.080 So that development to the south, that residential neighborhood, was not subject to the protection 00:31:27.080 --> 00:31:29.280 of environmentally sensitive areas. 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 00:31:37.360 --> 00:31:42.840 belt or their green space in that HOA lot. 00:31:42.840 --> 00:31:54.480 And this project will be making a connection between their development, the current development 00:31:54.480 --> 00:31:59.200 that's to the south and the one that is being proposed. 00:31:59.200 --> 00:32:02.080 So they'll be making a connection into their green belt? 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 00:32:11.600 --> 00:32:13.320 throughout between the two neighborhoods. 00:32:13.320 --> 00:32:15.360 And how are they doing that? 00:32:15.360 --> 00:32:20.440 So first of all, this is going to remain an open space. 00:32:20.440 --> 00:32:26.840 My understanding, there won't be a fencing place between the two developments. 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 00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:34.240 to dedicate to the city. 00:32:34.240 --> 00:32:39.400 My understanding is that they intend to also construct that portion of that trail through 00:32:39.400 --> 00:32:41.420 the neighborhood to the south. 00:32:41.420 --> 00:32:45.160 So there would be a contiguousness between the two neighborhoods. 00:32:45.160 --> 00:32:46.160 Gotcha. 00:32:46.160 --> 00:32:47.160 Okay. 00:32:47.160 --> 00:32:48.160 That's a good thing. 00:32:48.160 --> 00:32:49.160 Great. 00:32:49.160 --> 00:32:50.160 Thank you. 00:32:50.160 --> 00:32:52.840 Commissioner Villarreal. 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 00:33:00.160 --> 00:33:04.760 in terms of storm water runoff or drainage? 00:33:04.760 --> 00:33:09.800 So the final plan is to improve what's there today. 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. 00:33:15.280 --> 00:33:23.520 Unfortunately, at this time, the understory is being taken over by this privet plant. 00:33:23.520 --> 00:33:27.040 This privet is really invasive. 00:33:27.040 --> 00:33:29.040 It takes over very quickly. 00:33:29.040 --> 00:33:30.720 It crowds out everything else. 00:33:30.720 --> 00:33:38.480 And so none of the native vegetation has an opportunity to compete with that. 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 00:33:45.240 --> 00:33:47.040 vegetation. 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 00:33:53.680 --> 00:34:02.120 problems with the invasive plant reoccurring, that they would continue to try to tackle 00:34:02.120 --> 00:34:03.120 that. 00:34:03.120 --> 00:34:04.120 Got it. 00:34:04.120 --> 00:34:05.120 Thank you. 00:34:05.120 --> 00:34:06.120 Commissioner Pruitt. 00:34:06.120 --> 00:34:11.380 Thank you, Chair. 00:34:11.380 --> 00:34:21.920 So I wasn't able to fully understand exactly what catchment area this is draining into 00:34:21.920 --> 00:34:23.680 this period. 00:34:23.680 --> 00:34:29.860 But it looks like basically there will be under the roadbed, there would be buried pipe 00:34:29.860 --> 00:34:39.480 that's carrying water flow from the north down into the increased region of the riparian 00:34:39.480 --> 00:34:40.480 isa. 00:34:40.480 --> 00:34:41.480 Is that correct? 00:34:41.480 --> 00:34:42.480 Correct. 00:34:42.480 --> 00:34:43.480 Okay. 00:34:43.480 --> 00:34:44.480 And the... 00:34:44.480 --> 00:34:45.480 Yes. 00:34:45.480 --> 00:34:46.480 Right now... 00:34:46.480 --> 00:34:51.720 Really, I just want to understand the triangle shown, usually those are for, you know, slowing 00:34:51.720 --> 00:34:53.080 down effluent. 00:34:53.080 --> 00:34:54.600 It looks fairly small. 00:34:54.600 --> 00:34:55.600 Triangle. 00:34:55.600 --> 00:35:02.200 Sorry, on the... 00:35:02.200 --> 00:35:06.200 It's hashed in sort of the pinkish color on the full report. 00:35:06.200 --> 00:35:10.740 It's basically at the base of right after the pipe, right? 00:35:10.740 --> 00:35:11.740 Right there. 00:35:11.740 --> 00:35:12.740 Right here? 00:35:12.740 --> 00:35:13.740 Yeah. 00:35:13.740 --> 00:35:14.740 Oh. 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 00:35:18.480 --> 00:35:19.480 bit more? 00:35:19.480 --> 00:35:20.480 Sure, sure. 00:35:20.480 --> 00:35:26.160 There will be a portion of this stream is already underground to the north of Hickory 00:35:26.160 --> 00:35:27.160 Creek. 00:35:27.160 --> 00:35:28.160 Okay. 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. 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 00:35:40.960 --> 00:35:46.080 from under Hickory Creek Road and under the new residential road. 00:35:46.080 --> 00:35:49.080 And what you're seeing there, that little hash mark is riprap. 00:35:49.080 --> 00:35:50.080 Okay. 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. 00:35:59.240 --> 00:36:02.360 There will be additional riprap at the outfalls. 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 00:36:09.320 --> 00:36:10.320 the south. 00:36:10.320 --> 00:36:16.600 And then there's another one over on the southwest corner of the ESAs. 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 00:36:21.200 --> 00:36:24.680 environmentally sensitive areas because they were pulled it back just a little bit. 00:36:24.680 --> 00:36:25.680 Got it. 00:36:25.680 --> 00:36:26.680 Okay. 00:36:26.680 --> 00:36:27.680 Thank you. 00:36:27.680 --> 00:36:33.480 Anything else for Christy at this time? 00:36:33.480 --> 00:36:34.480 Thank you. 00:36:34.480 --> 00:36:35.480 Okay. 00:36:35.480 --> 00:36:36.480 Okay. 00:36:36.480 --> 00:36:42.680 Our next public hearing is 5B DCA 230009. 00:36:42.680 --> 00:36:47.480 We'll let Haley give us a quick summary on that. 00:36:47.480 --> 00:36:48.480 Hi, Haley. 00:36:48.480 --> 00:36:49.480 Good evening. 00:36:49.480 --> 00:36:52.600 Haley Zygursky, Assistant Planning Director. 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 00:36:56.440 --> 00:36:59.280 can go through at the regular meeting. 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 00:37:04.520 --> 00:37:07.600 Code, which is our preliminary plat regulations. 00:37:07.600 --> 00:37:11.100 The change to the section of the code is to make preliminary plats optional for properties 00:37:11.100 --> 00:37:15.240 developing within the city limits rather than a strict requirement. 00:37:15.240 --> 00:37:19.120 The reasoning for this, if you recall our last work session, we talked about House Bill 00:37:19.120 --> 00:37:24.680 3699 that updated the shot clock legislation. 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 00:37:29.200 --> 00:37:30.840 part of a plat application. 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 00:37:34.360 --> 00:37:39.200 lot of supplementary information that went along with it, like utility studies, drainage 00:37:39.200 --> 00:37:40.200 studies. 00:37:40.200 --> 00:37:43.780 So all of those pieces we have relocated to other points of the process. 00:37:43.780 --> 00:37:45.400 So there's no loss of information. 00:37:45.400 --> 00:37:49.720 They've just been shifted to different points in our review process. 00:37:49.720 --> 00:37:54.040 So with that, the preliminary plat would have become essentially a redundant step in the 00:37:54.040 --> 00:37:55.040 development process. 00:37:55.040 --> 00:37:59.280 So rather than having every application go through that, we're requiring all of those 00:37:59.280 --> 00:38:02.780 materials on the front end with their zoning compliance plan and saying preliminary plats 00:38:02.780 --> 00:38:05.200 could be optional moving forward. 00:38:05.200 --> 00:38:08.120 They would still have to go through the final plat process before they could get building 00:38:08.120 --> 00:38:11.600 permits to develop, so we're just streamlining a little bit by taking out some redundancy 00:38:11.600 --> 00:38:16.600 that would be created by shifting those studies to the zoning compliance plan. 00:38:16.600 --> 00:38:18.400 So happy to answer any questions. 00:38:18.400 --> 00:38:21.280 Otherwise, I can go into more detail at our regular meeting. 00:38:21.280 --> 00:38:23.440 Commissioner Perot. 00:38:23.440 --> 00:38:27.400 Yeah, just in looking through the backup, I couldn't find it. 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 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 00:38:42.840 --> 00:38:43.840 all at once. 00:38:43.840 --> 00:38:44.840 Does that make sense? 00:38:44.840 --> 00:38:45.840 Sure. 00:38:45.840 --> 00:38:46.840 So everything... 00:38:46.840 --> 00:38:51.600 Typically, if there's a preliminary plat, those roadway alignments are shown and there's 00:38:51.600 --> 00:38:53.200 time to get that worked out. 00:38:53.200 --> 00:38:54.200 Sure. 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 00:38:57.040 --> 00:38:59.040 our zoning compliance plan. 00:38:59.040 --> 00:39:02.520 So every bit of that same review will occur a step earlier in the process. 00:39:02.520 --> 00:39:03.520 Got it. 00:39:03.520 --> 00:39:04.520 Thank you. 00:39:04.520 --> 00:39:10.840 Haley, do you think this is going to add time to the whole process? 00:39:10.840 --> 00:39:14.560 For some developments, it will remove a step. 00:39:14.560 --> 00:39:17.160 So actually, let me see if I've got... 00:39:17.160 --> 00:39:20.480 I put together a slide just in case there was process questions. 00:39:20.480 --> 00:39:28.040 So as it stands today, the multifamily and non-residential developments do have two steps. 00:39:28.040 --> 00:39:30.680 They do a zoning compliance plan and then a preliminary plat. 00:39:30.680 --> 00:39:32.080 This would remove that step for them. 00:39:32.080 --> 00:39:35.420 For residential, it just shifts all the stuff that we get with the preliminary plat now 00:39:35.420 --> 00:39:37.160 into a different application type. 00:39:37.160 --> 00:39:43.440 So for some developments, it reduces review time because there's one less step. 00:39:43.440 --> 00:39:44.800 But overall, probably not a significant change. 00:39:44.800 --> 00:39:48.840 It just seems like the staff is getting, I guess, more information possibly all at once. 00:39:48.840 --> 00:39:53.600 So I was just wondering if that's where it was going to lag maybe. 00:39:53.600 --> 00:39:55.300 We see all the same information either way. 00:39:55.300 --> 00:39:58.600 So for us, it's just a different time at which we touch it. 00:39:58.600 --> 00:39:59.600 Gotcha. 00:39:59.600 --> 00:40:00.600 Thanks, Haley. 00:40:00.600 --> 00:40:13.280 Okay, 5C DCA 230010, I think Angie's got the presentation on this one. 00:40:13.280 --> 00:40:16.000 Hi, everyone. 00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:18.520 Good evening. 00:40:18.520 --> 00:40:20.560 Angie Manglars, senior planner. 00:40:20.560 --> 00:40:24.520 I will pull up my quick presentation. 00:40:24.520 --> 00:40:29.160 Okay, this is DCA 230010. 00:40:29.160 --> 00:40:33.400 It is DDC amendments related to agricultural and animal uses. 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 00:40:37.760 --> 00:40:39.720 for our public hearing this evening. 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 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 00:40:54.760 --> 00:40:56.660 and animal businesses. 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 00:41:01.120 --> 00:41:03.480 at our last meeting when we had our workshop. 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 00:41:12.860 --> 00:41:15.000 agricultural uses within the city limits. 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 00:41:19.120 --> 00:41:21.760 of those amendments may be occurring as well. 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 00:41:26.640 --> 00:41:29.060 going to put a pause on those animal uses. 00:41:29.060 --> 00:41:33.480 But for tonight's purposes, we are going to focus on the agricultural uses. 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. 00:41:37.400 --> 00:41:43.100 So House Bill 1750 prohibits a city from imposing any governmental requirement that applies to 00:41:43.100 --> 00:41:45.240 agricultural operations. 00:41:45.240 --> 00:41:49.940 Governmental requirements includes regulations, zonings, permitting, licenses, and prohibitions 00:41:49.940 --> 00:41:56.120 on generally acceptable practices, which could include the use of pesticides, limitation 00:41:56.120 --> 00:41:58.520 of number of livestock you could have, et cetera. 00:41:58.520 --> 00:42:01.760 It does include some exceptions, so it's not quite a free-for-all. 00:42:01.760 --> 00:42:05.640 It does allow cities to establish regulations that protect adjacent property owners from 00:42:05.640 --> 00:42:08.080 imminent danger. 00:42:08.080 --> 00:42:13.120 Cities can also base regulations on the finding of a report that is commissioned to protect 00:42:13.120 --> 00:42:14.120 public health. 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 00:42:19.320 --> 00:42:26.080 Manual, which will give guiding principles as to the best agricultural practices. 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 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 00:42:36.440 --> 00:42:44.160 which House Bill 1750 specifies regulations regarding agriculture can come from. 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 00:42:49.220 --> 00:42:52.720 definitions of agricultural operations. 00:42:52.720 --> 00:42:57.680 They were expanded to include the commercial sale of animals, production of livestock and 00:42:57.680 --> 00:43:04.400 vegetation for livestock forage, as well as veterinary services that are related to the 00:43:04.400 --> 00:43:07.760 keeping of livestock and poultry on site. 00:43:07.760 --> 00:43:11.720 So staff has gone through and made a number of suggested amendments that includes allowing 00:43:11.720 --> 00:43:17.720 agriculture uses to be permitted in all zoning districts in accordance with House Bill 1750 00:43:17.720 --> 00:43:22.440 in the forthcoming Texas AgriLife Extension Manual, and then also some modifications to 00:43:22.440 --> 00:43:30.180 our definitions for both agricultural general and animal uses to accommodate the new definitions 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 00:43:34.600 --> 00:43:36.800 and what we have in our code. 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. 00:43:40.880 --> 00:43:46.500 Angie, do you know when the AgriLife Manual is going to be published? 00:43:46.500 --> 00:43:47.800 I do not. 00:43:47.800 --> 00:43:53.200 I have checked a few times on the Texas A&M's AgriLife Extension Manual. 00:43:53.200 --> 00:43:58.480 We have reached out to the, I believe it's their Denton County office. 00:43:58.480 --> 00:44:00.240 I don't have a date for that. 00:44:00.240 --> 00:44:03.880 Yeah, I look pretty regularly at this point because I'm interested to know. 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, 00:44:08.880 --> 00:44:11.160 which isn't printed yet. 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. 00:44:15.200 --> 00:44:20.800 The House bill does specifically call out that this manual is to be published and is 00:44:20.800 --> 00:44:21.800 forthcoming. 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 00:44:26.480 --> 00:44:28.640 that manual to be published soon. 00:44:28.640 --> 00:44:29.920 Shortly thereafter? 00:44:29.920 --> 00:44:30.920 Just don't know when yet. 00:44:30.920 --> 00:44:33.400 They just don't give a specific date in the legislation? 00:44:33.400 --> 00:44:34.880 There is not one yet, no. 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 00:44:39.480 --> 00:44:44.960 why we've included language in the proposed ordinance to also cite back to the amendments 00:44:44.960 --> 00:44:50.440 that are made in the text of the agriculture code, particularly those items related to 00:44:50.440 --> 00:44:57.080 the imminent danger, basically, Angie's dubbed it the list of dangerous things, right? 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. 00:45:01.680 --> 00:45:07.000 So there are provisions within the state statute that offer some protection, and then once 00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:13.080 this AgriLife report gets published, then we'll know better best practices, and we will 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 00:45:16.240 --> 00:45:17.240 debt and development code. 00:45:17.240 --> 00:45:20.680 So that reference would be the safety net until you're sure that this is published? 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 00:45:26.360 --> 00:45:28.520 be able to go back and look at that safety net. 00:45:28.520 --> 00:45:29.520 Gotcha. 00:45:29.520 --> 00:45:30.520 Thanks. 00:45:30.520 --> 00:45:31.520 Anything for Angie on this? 00:45:31.520 --> 00:45:32.520 Commissioner Cole? 00:45:32.520 --> 00:45:33.520 Thank you, Chair. 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 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 00:45:47.120 --> 00:45:48.120 the Ag manual? 00:45:48.120 --> 00:45:49.120 Correct. 00:45:49.120 --> 00:45:52.000 Which comes from the legislation. 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 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, 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 00:46:10.280 --> 00:46:14.640 contractor to commission a report to determine the public health impacts. 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 00:46:18.160 --> 00:46:23.720 surrounding chickens because that's a hot topic, it would have to come from that manual. 00:46:23.720 --> 00:46:28.000 The guiding and leading experts is what the intent is, I think, of these bills. 00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:29.000 Thanks. 00:46:29.000 --> 00:46:30.000 Right. 00:46:30.000 --> 00:46:31.000 So I would say to expand on her example. 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 00:46:35.480 --> 00:46:40.820 you ideally need two acres, then we could include in our ordinance that in order to 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? 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? 00:46:50.040 --> 00:46:55.480 If we're going to have agricultural operations happening on someone's property, then it would 00:46:55.480 --> 00:46:56.480 give us that guidance. 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 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 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 00:47:12.080 --> 00:47:13.760 because that would be consistent with that. 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. 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 00:47:21.200 --> 00:47:24.360 the AgriLife Extension Office in providing that guidance. 00:47:24.360 --> 00:47:29.040 So we've tried to put some stopgap measures in our ordinance, at least referring back 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 00:47:33.480 --> 00:47:36.280 those protections in place. 00:47:36.280 --> 00:47:37.280 Okay. 00:47:37.280 --> 00:47:39.080 Thank you, Angie. 00:47:39.080 --> 00:47:40.080 Thank you guys. 00:47:40.080 --> 00:47:41.080 Thank you, Tina. 00:47:41.080 --> 00:47:42.080 Okay. 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 00:47:46.760 --> 00:47:52.320 in council chambers as we can. 00:47:52.320 --> 00:47:56.680 Thanks. 00:47:56.680 --> 00:47:59.560 Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for 00:47:59.560 --> 00:48:03.560 Wednesday, September 13th, 2023. 00:48:03.560 --> 00:48:07.760 With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 646 p.m. 00:48:07.760 --> 00:48:09.600 Thank you for your patience. 00:48:09.600 --> 00:48:12.200 We are having a late start time. 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. 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 00:48:25.080 --> 00:48:32.280 which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 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. 00:48:45.880 --> 00:48:48.880 Thank you. 00:48:48.880 --> 00:48:54.040 First item on our agenda for consideration is approval of the minutes for August 23rd 00:48:54.040 --> 00:48:56.080 P&Z meeting. 00:48:56.080 --> 00:48:57.080 Commissioner Villarreal. 00:48:57.080 --> 00:48:58.700 So moved. 00:48:58.700 --> 00:48:59.700 Commissioner Cole. 00:48:59.700 --> 00:49:00.700 Second. 00:49:00.700 --> 00:49:01.700 Okay. 00:49:01.700 --> 00:49:02.700 We've got a first and a second for approval discussion. 00:49:02.700 --> 00:49:03.700 Okay. 00:49:03.700 --> 00:49:11.960 Let's vote on the board, please. 00:49:11.960 --> 00:49:15.080 That motion carries 7-0. 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 00:49:20.960 --> 00:49:25.280 on item 3E. 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 00:49:33.040 --> 00:49:34.040 by the commission. 00:49:34.040 --> 00:49:35.040 Commissioner Villarreal. 00:49:35.040 --> 00:49:42.800 I move to remove item 3E from consent and move to items for individual consideration. 00:49:42.800 --> 00:49:46.840 And anything with regard to the rest of consent? 00:49:46.840 --> 00:49:51.000 And then I move to pass consent as written. 00:49:51.000 --> 00:49:58.040 So you're going to approve the consent agenda by removing item 3E? 00:49:58.040 --> 00:49:59.040 That's right. 00:49:59.040 --> 00:50:00.040 That's exactly right, yes. 00:50:00.040 --> 00:50:01.040 Okay. 00:50:01.040 --> 00:50:02.040 Clarifying that. 00:50:02.040 --> 00:50:03.040 Thank you. 00:50:03.040 --> 00:50:04.040 Commissioner Smith. 00:50:04.040 --> 00:50:05.040 Second. 00:50:05.040 --> 00:50:06.040 Okay. 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 00:50:10.840 --> 00:50:14.280 that on individual consideration this evening. 00:50:14.280 --> 00:50:15.280 Commissioner Pruitt. 00:50:15.280 --> 00:50:24.940 Just for clarity given that sometimes we have comments that refer to more than one item, 00:50:24.940 --> 00:50:29.480 would you be okay with removing 3D and 3E? 00:50:29.480 --> 00:50:32.320 I accept that as a friendly amendment, yes. 00:50:32.320 --> 00:50:33.320 Commissioner Smith. 00:50:33.320 --> 00:50:34.320 Second. 00:50:34.320 --> 00:50:35.320 Okay. 00:50:35.320 --> 00:50:41.960 Amended motion would be approve consent agenda removing items 3D and E and placing those on 00:50:41.960 --> 00:50:46.520 individual consideration. 00:50:46.520 --> 00:50:56.600 Seeing no questions, let's vote on the board, please. 00:50:56.600 --> 00:50:58.880 That item carries 7-0. 00:50:58.880 --> 00:51:05.920 That will take us then to item formally 3D, FP230020B. 00:51:05.920 --> 00:51:13.620 Julie, I will have you come up here. 00:51:13.620 --> 00:51:14.620 Thank you. 00:51:14.620 --> 00:51:15.620 Good evening. 00:51:15.620 --> 00:51:18.180 Let me get to that. 00:51:18.180 --> 00:51:19.400 All right. 00:51:19.400 --> 00:51:25.040 So first we have FP230020B. 00:51:25.040 --> 00:51:31.180 This is phase 1A of the Kingsway subdivision. 00:51:31.180 --> 00:51:32.580 It is a final plat. 00:51:32.580 --> 00:51:36.200 It's consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved. 00:51:36.200 --> 00:51:41.880 It meets all of the technical requirements for a final plat and therefore staff recommends 00:51:41.880 --> 00:51:42.880 approval. 00:51:42.880 --> 00:51:46.880 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 00:51:46.880 --> 00:51:48.480 I don't see any questions here. 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 00:51:52.700 --> 00:51:55.360 I can have Mr. Ferring come up. 00:51:55.360 --> 00:51:56.440 Absolutely. 00:51:56.440 --> 00:52:01.020 So this is FP230021B. 00:52:01.020 --> 00:52:04.640 This is phase 1B of the Kingsway subdivision. 00:52:04.640 --> 00:52:12.680 It is consistent with that preliminary plat and it meets the technical requirements of 00:52:12.680 --> 00:52:14.680 a final plat. 00:52:14.680 --> 00:52:19.200 I should mention both of these are single family residential developments and it is 00:52:19.200 --> 00:52:20.960 consistent with the zoning as well. 00:52:20.960 --> 00:52:23.440 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 00:52:23.440 --> 00:52:25.640 Thank you, Julie. 00:52:25.640 --> 00:52:27.240 I don't see any at this time. 00:52:27.240 --> 00:52:28.240 Thank you. 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 00:52:35.560 --> 00:52:36.560 action. 00:52:36.560 --> 00:52:37.560 Good evening. 00:52:37.560 --> 00:52:38.560 Hello. 00:52:38.560 --> 00:52:39.560 Thank you. 00:52:39.560 --> 00:52:40.560 I'm Reed Ferring. 00:52:40.560 --> 00:52:46.800 I live at 4572 Coyote Point, just northeast of this plan development. 00:52:46.800 --> 00:52:51.480 I've been here before to speak with you all. 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 00:52:59.440 --> 00:53:05.880 the table in my mind a really comprehensive long-term plan for how Northeast Denton is 00:53:05.880 --> 00:53:08.700 going to be developed. 00:53:08.700 --> 00:53:14.040 In addition to this development where we have a pending proposal for 1,900 apartments on 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. 00:53:22.280 --> 00:53:27.640 All of those activities are going to converge right here at the intersection of Kings Row 00:53:27.640 --> 00:53:30.080 and Loop 288. 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 00:53:34.780 --> 00:53:41.080 possible to turn left and go south on the Loop from Kings Row. 00:53:41.080 --> 00:53:42.080 That would be a nightmare. 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 00:53:48.200 --> 00:53:51.320 the way to Silverdome Road. 00:53:51.320 --> 00:53:54.400 I had to make a U-turn and find another way out. 00:53:54.400 --> 00:54:00.840 I couldn't wait for six light changes to get through that intersection. 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 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 00:54:15.320 --> 00:54:19.920 of Denton have to travel heavily twice a day. 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. 00:54:26.880 --> 00:54:28.000 I love this city. 00:54:28.000 --> 00:54:36.240 I care about its growth, but I worry that the intense, dense development along the Loop 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 00:54:42.880 --> 00:54:47.160 all of our friends, and you, have enjoyed here for decades. 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 00:54:53.640 --> 00:54:59.360 each of you to ask yourself, would you buy a home in this development? 00:54:59.360 --> 00:55:03.040 What would this mean for your lifestyle? 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' 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? 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 00:55:24.440 --> 00:55:30.180 comprehensively the impact of this kind of development on our part of Denton. 00:55:30.180 --> 00:55:32.600 I appreciate the hard work you all do. 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 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 00:55:44.160 --> 00:55:45.840 your listening to me. 00:55:45.840 --> 00:55:46.840 Thank you. 00:55:46.840 --> 00:55:47.840 Thank you, Mr. Frayron. 00:55:47.840 --> 00:55:52.120 Dr. Frayron, appreciate it. 00:55:52.120 --> 00:56:00.000 Julie, I do have a question that I did not ask in work session. 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 00:56:10.280 --> 00:56:12.160 FHIR's take on this? 00:56:12.160 --> 00:56:14.880 Surely, you consulted them. 00:56:14.880 --> 00:56:15.880 Yes. 00:56:15.880 --> 00:56:23.200 FHIR reviewed it, and it's consistent with their regulations, and so they did not have 00:56:23.200 --> 00:56:29.280 any objection to this project. 00:56:29.280 --> 00:56:30.280 Thank you, Julie. 00:56:30.280 --> 00:56:31.280 I appreciate it. 00:56:31.280 --> 00:56:32.280 Commissioner Smith? 00:56:32.280 --> 00:56:36.360 Make a motion to approve. 00:56:36.360 --> 00:56:39.080 We've got to take these one at a time. 00:56:39.080 --> 00:56:43.960 They are separate on our agenda, so we are on FP230020. 00:56:43.960 --> 00:56:49.000 We have to approve them one by one. 00:56:49.000 --> 00:56:50.000 Correct. 00:56:50.000 --> 00:56:51.200 So make a motion to approve item D. 00:56:51.200 --> 00:56:52.200 Very good. 00:56:52.200 --> 00:56:53.200 Thank you. 00:56:53.200 --> 00:56:54.200 You're welcome. 00:56:54.200 --> 00:56:55.200 I appreciate it. 00:56:55.200 --> 00:57:03.560 We have a first on the floor for approval. 00:57:03.560 --> 00:57:04.560 Commissioner Cole? 00:57:04.560 --> 00:57:05.560 Second. 00:57:05.560 --> 00:57:06.560 Okay. 00:57:06.560 --> 00:57:13.000 We've got a first and a second for approval of this final plot. 00:57:13.000 --> 00:57:15.280 I guess I just want more clarity. 00:57:15.280 --> 00:57:17.440 Commissioner Pruitt, I'll let you have the floor. 00:57:17.440 --> 00:57:19.240 Thank you, Chair. 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 00:57:26.740 --> 00:57:35.560 standard subdivision plot, nothing strange about it other than the fact that it is vested 00:57:35.560 --> 00:57:39.780 before we had the two points of access requirement. 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 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 00:57:55.600 --> 00:57:59.880 have been in different places or not there yet when it was built. 00:57:59.880 --> 00:58:03.200 So I understand the concern. 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 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 00:58:20.720 --> 00:58:24.320 transportation concerns. 00:58:24.320 --> 00:58:25.320 Commissioner Villarreal? 00:58:25.320 --> 00:58:26.320 Yes. 00:58:26.320 --> 00:58:31.560 I appreciate staff's comments and the backup material. 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 00:58:40.360 --> 00:58:45.440 adverse impacts to both surrounding property and adverse fiscal impacts, and I agree with 00:58:45.440 --> 00:58:51.840 Commissioner Pruitt that there are some road concerns as well, so I'll be voting no. 00:58:51.840 --> 00:58:53.240 Commissioner McDade? 00:58:53.240 --> 00:58:54.240 Thank you, Chair. 00:58:54.240 --> 00:58:59.200 Yeah, I just want to say that I also agree with Commissioner Villarreal and Commissioner 00:58:59.200 --> 00:59:03.760 Pruitt on this subject. 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 00:59:08.760 --> 00:59:15.400 for some reason, I just can't go ... I just can't buy into it. 00:59:15.400 --> 00:59:16.400 I don't know what it is. 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 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. 00:59:29.740 --> 00:59:32.080 Thank you, Commissioner McDade. 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 00:59:36.960 --> 00:59:40.480 session and that others brought up in work session as well. 00:59:40.480 --> 00:59:47.200 Yes, knowing plats are ministerial, we've heard that so many times, unless we can point 00:59:47.200 --> 00:59:55.400 to specifics, and so Commissioner Villarreal, Commissioner Pruitt did point to specifics. 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 01:00:03.800 --> 01:00:09.640 done our due diligence on saying that this is not going to have adverse impacts. 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 01:00:17.720 --> 01:00:23.720 happens, before any construction trucks end up trying to navigate through that intersection. 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 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 01:00:36.980 --> 01:00:39.600 said it before, I am really sorry that we couldn't get that done. 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 01:00:47.480 --> 01:00:53.280 if the items are valid. 01:00:53.280 --> 01:00:57.680 So I'll start, and I'm not sure I caught everybody's citation. 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 01:01:04.640 --> 01:01:07.640 get that correct? 01:01:07.640 --> 01:01:08.640 2.4.5.E. 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? 01:01:16.200 --> 01:01:19.560 I believe his also fell under that section. 01:01:19.560 --> 01:01:21.080 Commissioner Pruitt? 01:01:21.080 --> 01:01:28.560 Yes, but specifically it was the 11A transportation requirements for driveway spacing. 01:01:28.560 --> 01:01:36.720 I just, there aren't any other collectors that intersect with an access road. 01:01:36.720 --> 01:01:39.080 It's a very different situation. 01:01:39.080 --> 01:01:44.160 Okay, and Commissioner McDade, I just want to make sure I understood. 01:01:44.160 --> 01:01:48.640 So you mentioned that you agree with Commissioner Villarreal and Pruitt with respect to the 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 01:01:53.480 --> 01:01:54.640 taking issue with? 01:01:54.640 --> 01:02:01.480 Okay, I just want to make sure I understood, because given the state statute requirements, 01:02:01.480 --> 01:02:05.280 if persons are voting in opposition, then we're interested in knowing what section of 01:02:05.280 --> 01:02:09.040 the code or criteria manuals that you believe that the project does not comply with. 01:02:09.040 --> 01:02:11.640 So Commissioner Ellis, back to your questions. 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 01:02:16.600 --> 01:02:20.640 final plat that is consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved that has bested this 01:02:20.640 --> 01:02:24.880 project and done so in accordance with the existing zoning. 01:02:24.880 --> 01:02:27.440 The applicant has submitted traffic impact analysis. 01:02:27.440 --> 01:02:32.280 The traffic impact analysis submitted does illustrate that the proposed project does 01:02:32.280 --> 01:02:37.520 comply with our development standards, hence why staff's recommendation for approval for 01:02:37.520 --> 01:02:38.840 this final plat. 01:02:38.840 --> 01:02:44.360 So with this particular project, as Ms. Wyatt reported in the work session, the applicant 01:02:44.360 --> 01:02:51.200 will be doing some restriping with respect to King's Row, and that is consistent with 01:02:51.200 --> 01:02:54.720 what we've approved and what is in our development requirements. 01:02:54.720 --> 01:03:01.720 All of the roadway improvement offerings that were offered by the applicant when the planned 01:03:01.720 --> 01:03:06.960 development request was submitted previously, those are no longer on the table, and unfortunately, 01:03:06.960 --> 01:03:10.840 with this project, we will not be able to receive those improvements. 01:03:10.840 --> 01:03:16.040 But as Commissioner Ellis did indicate, the challenge we have here is state law does say 01:03:16.040 --> 01:03:22.400 that if a plat meets the city's requirements for its development regulations, hence why 01:03:22.400 --> 01:03:24.680 we should be in a position of approving the plat. 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 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 01:03:33.800 --> 01:03:36.160 or hence why the commission should be approving it. 01:03:36.160 --> 01:03:42.760 But I appreciate the commissioners who anticipate voting in opposition of you citing the particular 01:03:42.760 --> 01:03:45.080 provision within the code. 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 01:03:53.400 --> 01:04:00.080 criterion numbers, these are all from 2.4, .5, .e, correct? 01:04:00.080 --> 01:04:03.640 Is that where we're getting all of this from? 01:04:03.640 --> 01:04:07.160 Yes, I believe, yes. 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, 01:04:12.680 --> 01:04:18.120 and that's what originally my question was, of what is technical about item 8a. 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, 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 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 01:04:39.280 --> 01:04:40.280 is it met? 01:04:40.280 --> 01:04:41.280 Okay. 01:04:41.280 --> 01:04:43.320 Do you want to address that or do you want me to? 01:04:43.320 --> 01:04:54.920 Well, I can start, and the concern is adverse impacts and the compatibility of the proposal. 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 01:05:03.240 --> 01:05:07.320 was established with the citywide rezoning in 2002. 01:05:07.320 --> 01:05:13.240 That was consistent with the comp plan that was adopted prior to the 2002 Denton Development 01:05:13.240 --> 01:05:18.400 Code, and it was rezoned because it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and consistent 01:05:18.400 --> 01:05:22.880 with the vision in the surrounding context. 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, 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 01:05:42.200 --> 01:05:46.280 in place, it was anticipated that it would be compatible with the surrounding development 01:05:46.280 --> 01:05:47.280 pattern. 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 01:05:59.560 --> 01:06:01.760 with the 2002 Denton Development Code. 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 01:06:06.040 --> 01:06:12.440 compatible with the surrounding development pattern and would not create adverse impacts. 01:06:12.440 --> 01:06:17.080 We also have development standards in our Denton Development Code. 01:06:17.080 --> 01:06:26.840 We have landscaping standards, we have architectural design standards, we have minimum lot sizes, 01:06:26.840 --> 01:06:32.440 and so those standards have to be met with any development, and those are the minimum 01:06:32.440 --> 01:06:38.360 standards that were adopted by the city as to indicate quality development, and so this 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 01:06:43.800 --> 01:06:48.640 of meeting the requirements in the Denton Development Code, it is compatible with the 01:06:48.640 --> 01:06:50.640 surrounding property. 01:06:50.640 --> 01:06:55.720 If this were a commercial development, they would have to meet buffering requirements, 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 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 01:07:08.320 --> 01:07:09.400 standards. 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 01:07:17.280 --> 01:07:23.160 a result of this development so that there's a sufficient width within that existing right 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 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 01:07:35.280 --> 01:07:36.280 hand turn. 01:07:36.280 --> 01:07:41.720 That will hopefully at least provide some relief at that intersection, so really that 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 01:07:45.760 --> 01:07:46.760 to that. 01:07:46.760 --> 01:07:50.940 Yeah, I would just add that based upon what was included in the traffic impact analysis 01:07:50.940 --> 01:07:55.640 associated with this development, that the restriping is the proportionate responsibility 01:07:55.640 --> 01:08:00.960 that the developer has associated with for this project. 01:08:00.960 --> 01:08:09.280 In the comment from our speaker, Mr. Farring, we know that in the Northeast Denton area, 01:08:09.280 --> 01:08:14.400 there is concern regarding how development will play out over time. 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 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 01:08:23.600 --> 01:08:25.360 the work that we've done thus far. 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 01:08:30.440 --> 01:08:35.400 residents have expressed concern in the past regarding the mobility options that are available 01:08:35.400 --> 01:08:40.640 within Northeast Denton given how the area is starting to develop. 01:08:40.640 --> 01:08:45.260 The project before us, like I said earlier and as Julie explained, it meets our requirements 01:08:45.260 --> 01:08:49.040 for developing the property under the existing zoning that's in place. 01:08:49.040 --> 01:08:53.600 The applicant is proposing to do their proportionate responsibility with respect to improvements 01:08:53.600 --> 01:09:00.520 at Kings Row, but as we continue to experience development within this area, hence why we 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 01:09:06.720 --> 01:09:12.200 so that as development does occur, then it ideally would be in accordance with that plan 01:09:12.200 --> 01:09:18.880 and including any mobility improvements that would be required as part of that plan should 01:09:18.880 --> 01:09:20.920 it get adopted. 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 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 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 01:09:41.560 --> 01:09:46.000 reads adequate road capacity shall exist to serve the uses permitted under the proposed 01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:50.320 development and the proposed uses shall be designed to ensure safe ingress and egress 01:09:50.320 --> 01:09:55.720 onto the site and safe road conditions around the site, including adequate access onto the 01:09:55.720 --> 01:09:59.360 site for fire, public safety, and EMS services. 01:09:59.360 --> 01:10:06.640 So knowing that we have a road that is rated E, I believe. 01:10:06.640 --> 01:10:08.120 The intersection at Kings. 01:10:08.120 --> 01:10:09.120 Currently. 01:10:09.120 --> 01:10:13.640 Well, that's pretty much where this is, at the intersection. 01:10:13.640 --> 01:10:16.920 How did we determine? 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 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, 01:10:34.040 --> 01:10:36.480 and that's what this says. 01:10:36.480 --> 01:10:43.880 So can you enlighten me on how we got there? 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. 01:10:50.120 --> 01:10:55.040 I understand from the developer's perspective that they have every right to be doing what 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 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 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 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, 01:11:24.760 --> 01:11:27.200 so help me understand that. 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 01:11:31.680 --> 01:11:34.360 is that they cannot worsen the conditions. 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 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 01:11:41.400 --> 01:11:48.160 the impacts, which is the re-striping that they've agreed to do. 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 01:11:56.480 --> 01:11:57.480 make it worse? 01:11:57.480 --> 01:11:58.480 Correct, it's part of the traffic impact analysis. 01:11:58.480 --> 01:11:59.720 That's just part of that analysis. 01:11:59.720 --> 01:12:00.720 Right. 01:12:00.720 --> 01:12:04.560 So they would do analysis of the existing conditions, and they're doing analysis based 01:12:04.560 --> 01:12:09.080 upon the proposed conditions as it relates to this development. 01:12:09.080 --> 01:12:15.760 And with transportation engineers doing the work, they have submitted a report to the 01:12:15.760 --> 01:12:16.760 city. 01:12:16.760 --> 01:12:21.440 The city's transportation team has reviewed that report and has determined that, based 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 01:12:26.240 --> 01:12:30.800 the level of service E. Again, their proportionate responsibility is to do some re-striping at 01:12:30.800 --> 01:12:37.840 that intersection, and so they're proposing to do that in hopes to continue to alleviate 01:12:37.840 --> 01:12:42.720 any additional concerns and to maintain the service level, at least at a level of service 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. 01:12:50.400 --> 01:12:55.760 And it's taken collectively, the way that was looked at, as this phase 1A and... 01:12:55.760 --> 01:12:56.760 Yes, ma'am. 01:12:56.760 --> 01:12:57.760 Yes. 01:12:57.760 --> 01:12:58.760 Next one. 01:12:58.760 --> 01:12:59.760 Okay. 01:12:59.760 --> 01:13:00.760 Commissioner Anderson. 01:13:00.760 --> 01:13:01.760 Yes, ma'am. 01:13:01.760 --> 01:13:02.760 Thank you, chair. 01:13:02.760 --> 01:13:08.120 Currently, how many lanes is Kings Road? 01:13:08.120 --> 01:13:11.840 I believe it's just two lanes, one east and one west. 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 01:13:17.040 --> 01:13:18.040 a road... 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 01:13:23.160 --> 01:13:24.160 a left turn. 01:13:24.160 --> 01:13:27.200 And how are they going to get a east road? 01:13:27.200 --> 01:13:30.080 So it does flare out at the intersection. 01:13:30.080 --> 01:13:36.680 It would actually be the left-hand turn and the through would share in a lane. 01:13:36.680 --> 01:13:41.760 So it would be two on the westbound and then one coming in. 01:13:41.760 --> 01:13:46.780 So there is sufficient, we checked with Karina, there is sufficient right-of-way there to 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 01:13:53.000 --> 01:13:54.000 the west. 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 01:14:00.920 --> 01:14:01.920 cars. 01:14:01.920 --> 01:14:05.400 Because it narrows back in on Kings Road, so you're not going to get... 01:14:05.400 --> 01:14:07.640 That's not going to really help a whole lot. 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 01:14:14.880 --> 01:14:18.480 or 800 cars a day, because if we're going to... 01:14:18.480 --> 01:14:23.680 Just this one little neighborhood here, you're going to have at least 40 cars. 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 01:14:27.480 --> 01:14:29.680 one in and out. 01:14:29.680 --> 01:14:35.600 I don't know how that's not inadvertently affecting the traffic pattern. 01:14:35.600 --> 01:14:36.600 I don't get it. 01:14:36.600 --> 01:14:37.600 I don't. 01:14:37.600 --> 01:14:41.600 But that's not for me, it isn't. 01:14:41.600 --> 01:14:43.680 Go ahead, Haley, if you have something, please. 01:14:43.680 --> 01:14:48.120 Well, not directly related to transportation, but I did want to bring up something. 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 01:14:53.600 --> 01:14:58.560 resubmits these plats in the future under House Bill 3699, we would be obligated to 01:14:58.560 --> 01:15:02.160 approve them, because state law now has three criteria for what a plat must contain. 01:15:02.160 --> 01:15:05.880 And if it has those three things, the city shall approve it. 01:15:05.880 --> 01:15:11.800 And that's a meets and bounds description of the property, tying that to a surveyed 01:15:11.800 --> 01:15:15.860 corner and ensuring that it shows property lines and roadways. 01:15:15.860 --> 01:15:16.860 That's it. 01:15:16.860 --> 01:15:19.720 So, Hillary can probably chime in more. 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, 01:15:28.200 --> 01:15:37.520 a segment of the code that basically specifically constrains us from adding additional requirements. 01:15:37.520 --> 01:15:40.680 So effectively, all this criteria that we're using is going away. 01:15:40.680 --> 01:15:41.680 Correct. 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 01:15:46.160 --> 01:15:49.400 1, we would be obligated to follow that section of state law. 01:15:49.400 --> 01:15:53.440 So effectively, this could get denied, get resubmitted, and we're looking at a whole 01:15:53.440 --> 01:15:54.440 different. 01:15:54.440 --> 01:15:55.440 Correct. 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 01:15:59.360 --> 01:16:03.880 constraints on any requirements for roadway improvements. 01:16:03.880 --> 01:16:10.200 So we are even further limited as a result to any additional roadway improvements. 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 01:16:16.640 --> 01:16:22.920 of trying to improve the lane configurations with re-striping at Kings Row and Loop 288. 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 01:16:28.240 --> 01:16:33.120 filed right now in light of the changes in the state statute. 01:16:33.120 --> 01:16:34.960 Sure. 01:16:34.960 --> 01:16:35.960 Commissioner Anderson. 01:16:35.960 --> 01:16:36.960 Okay. 01:16:36.960 --> 01:16:37.960 Thank you, Chair. 01:16:37.960 --> 01:16:40.120 Haley, thank you for your statement, because basically, if we don't approve it tonight, 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 01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:47.680 way, with or without them striping pretty much. 01:16:47.680 --> 01:16:51.000 I mean, so that's a little bit of a benefit if we pass it tonight. 01:16:51.000 --> 01:16:52.000 Correct. 01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:53.000 Correct. 01:16:53.000 --> 01:16:54.000 Okay. 01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:55.000 Thank you. 01:16:55.000 --> 01:16:59.400 Any other questions? 01:16:59.400 --> 01:17:00.400 Commissioner Pruitt. 01:17:00.400 --> 01:17:01.400 Real quick. 01:17:01.400 --> 01:17:07.000 Schedule check, are we at the 30-day limit? 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 01:17:11.480 --> 01:17:15.960 it run through the 30-day shot clock law and be automatically approved? 01:17:15.960 --> 01:17:16.960 Correct. 01:17:16.960 --> 01:17:20.160 It's already exhausted, the extension, yes, sir. 01:17:20.160 --> 01:17:21.160 Okay. 01:17:21.160 --> 01:17:22.160 Thank you. 01:17:22.160 --> 01:17:23.160 Any other questions? 01:17:23.160 --> 01:17:24.160 Okay. 01:17:24.160 --> 01:17:34.560 We've got a first and a second for approval of FP23-0020B. 01:17:34.560 --> 01:17:43.320 Not sure why that went away, but I think that it was Commissioner Smith and Commissioner 01:17:43.320 --> 01:17:45.360 Cole on a second. 01:17:45.360 --> 01:17:46.360 Okay. 01:17:46.360 --> 01:17:47.360 Any other discussion? 01:17:47.360 --> 01:17:48.360 Okay. 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. 01:17:52.640 --> 01:17:56.580 I personally think all of them were valid. 01:17:56.580 --> 01:17:58.640 We have valid concerns over this area. 01:17:58.640 --> 01:18:03.160 We have had valid concerns for quite some time that we've spoken up. 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 01:18:10.280 --> 01:18:14.880 that this is a bit of a lesson in what a PD can do. 01:18:14.880 --> 01:18:19.160 It can do really good things. 01:18:19.160 --> 01:18:20.280 We can codify things. 01:18:20.280 --> 01:18:24.640 We can hold the developer accountable to do things. 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 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. 01:18:37.600 --> 01:18:39.600 We don't have a whole lot of choice. 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 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 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 01:18:56.200 --> 01:19:00.800 Kingsrow, possibly. 01:19:00.800 --> 01:19:05.600 At any rate, it needs to be addressed sooner than later. 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, 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 01:19:16.520 --> 01:19:17.600 we can do for this. 01:19:17.600 --> 01:19:19.360 This has already been zoned. 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 01:19:23.640 --> 01:19:28.480 the area that is unknown. 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 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 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. 01:19:48.880 --> 01:19:52.000 We make this decision a parcel at a time. 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. 01:20:01.880 --> 01:20:10.000 Let's see, that motion will carry 4-3. 01:20:10.000 --> 01:20:18.840 Then we've got item formerly 3E, FP23-0021B, now individual consideration. 01:20:18.840 --> 01:20:19.840 Commissioner Pruitt. 01:20:19.840 --> 01:20:21.840 Thank you, Chair. 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, 01:20:28.680 --> 01:20:33.360 because it was mostly ingress and egress of that other plat. 01:20:33.360 --> 01:20:34.360 Commissioner Anderson. 01:20:34.360 --> 01:20:35.360 Second. 01:20:35.360 --> 01:20:38.800 We've got a first and a second for approval of this plat. 01:20:38.800 --> 01:20:40.720 Any discussion? 01:20:40.720 --> 01:20:41.720 Commissioner Villarreal. 01:20:41.720 --> 01:20:42.720 Yes. 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 01:20:49.480 --> 01:20:54.120 2.4.5.E. Thank you. 01:20:54.120 --> 01:20:55.120 Any other discussion? 01:20:55.120 --> 01:20:56.120 Okay. 01:20:56.120 --> 01:21:06.160 Let's vote on the board, please. 01:21:06.160 --> 01:21:09.120 That motion will carry 6-1. 01:21:09.120 --> 01:21:19.640 That will further us into our individual consideration items, and we are now at FP23-0023. 01:21:19.640 --> 01:21:20.640 Hello, Ashley. 01:21:20.640 --> 01:21:21.640 Good evening. 01:21:21.640 --> 01:21:25.280 Ashley Eckstead, Assistant Planner, City of Denton. 01:21:25.280 --> 01:21:29.500 This is FP23-0023, Barrel Strap Residential. 01:21:29.500 --> 01:21:34.280 This is a final plat for 50 residential lots on approximately 14 acres at Hickory Creek 01:21:34.280 --> 01:21:36.160 in 2499. 01:21:36.160 --> 01:21:39.800 At this time, staff recommends denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension 01:21:39.800 --> 01:21:42.160 until October 11th, 2023. 01:21:42.160 --> 01:21:43.160 Happy to answer any questions. 01:21:43.160 --> 01:21:44.160 Thank you, Ashley. 01:21:44.160 --> 01:21:45.160 I do not see any questions. 01:21:45.160 --> 01:21:46.160 Appreciate it. 01:21:46.160 --> 01:21:47.160 Commissioner Smith. 01:21:47.160 --> 01:21:51.960 Make a motion to approve the date certain extension of date certain of October 11th, 01:21:51.960 --> 01:21:52.960 2023. 01:21:52.960 --> 01:21:53.960 Commissioner Anderson. 01:21:53.960 --> 01:21:54.960 Second. 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 01:21:58.280 --> 01:22:00.400 11th, 2023. 01:22:00.400 --> 01:22:01.400 Any discussion? 01:22:01.400 --> 01:22:02.400 Okay. 01:22:02.400 --> 01:22:03.400 Seeing none. 01:22:03.400 --> 01:22:10.920 Let's vote on the board, please. 01:22:10.920 --> 01:22:12.920 That motion will carry 7-0. 01:22:12.920 --> 01:22:15.760 That will take us to PP23-0019. 01:22:15.760 --> 01:22:18.200 Hello, Mia. 01:22:18.200 --> 01:22:23.800 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, Associate Planner. 01:22:23.800 --> 01:22:28.640 This item is a preliminary plat for Jefferson Mayhill Addition located just west of Mayhill 01:22:28.640 --> 01:22:34.480 Road, approximately 850 feet south of Roy Road. 01:22:34.480 --> 01:22:38.160 Right now, this preliminary plat does not meet our criteria for approval, and so we 01:22:38.160 --> 01:22:42.560 are recommending denial, but we have no objection to the requested extension, which can be granted 01:22:42.560 --> 01:22:44.080 to October 11th, 2023. 01:22:44.080 --> 01:22:47.760 At this time, I'll take any questions you have. 01:22:47.760 --> 01:22:48.760 Thanks, Mia. 01:22:48.760 --> 01:22:50.040 I do not see any questions. 01:22:50.040 --> 01:22:51.040 Thank you. 01:22:51.040 --> 01:22:52.040 Commissioner Smith. 01:22:52.040 --> 01:22:56.800 Make a motion to approve the extension request to date certain October 11th, 2023. 01:22:56.800 --> 01:22:57.800 Thank you. 01:22:57.800 --> 01:22:58.800 Second. 01:22:58.800 --> 01:22:59.800 Second. 01:22:59.800 --> 01:23:00.800 Okay. 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 01:23:03.640 --> 01:23:06.440 11th, 2023. 01:23:06.440 --> 01:23:09.120 Any discussion? 01:23:09.120 --> 01:23:10.120 Okay. 01:23:10.120 --> 01:23:15.720 Let's vote, please. 01:23:15.720 --> 01:23:17.840 That motion carries 7-0. 01:23:17.840 --> 01:23:22.160 That will take us to FP23-0022A. 01:23:22.160 --> 01:23:23.160 Julie again. 01:23:23.160 --> 01:23:24.160 Hello again. 01:23:24.160 --> 01:23:25.160 Hello. 01:23:25.160 --> 01:23:26.160 Julie Wyatt. 01:23:26.160 --> 01:23:30.080 This is a final plat for Townsend Green Phase 2. 01:23:30.080 --> 01:23:34.760 The site is located on the east side of town, south of McKinney. 01:23:34.760 --> 01:23:37.920 It's a single-family residential subdivision. 01:23:37.920 --> 01:23:40.280 Phase 1 is under construction. 01:23:40.280 --> 01:23:43.560 Phase 2, they'd like to start on. 01:23:43.560 --> 01:23:46.800 We are recommending approval with a condition. 01:23:46.800 --> 01:23:53.560 They have been coordinating with parks regarding the lot at the south side of the development 01:23:53.560 --> 01:23:55.520 to dedicate that property to parks. 01:23:55.520 --> 01:24:00.620 It's part of Parks Master Plan, and they want to have it for trail development. 01:24:00.620 --> 01:24:06.580 A development agreement is moving forward to council in the upcoming weeks, and so our 01:24:06.580 --> 01:24:11.840 condition is that that development agreement must be approved by City Council. 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. 01:24:17.040 --> 01:24:19.120 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 01:24:19.120 --> 01:24:20.120 Thanks, Julie. 01:24:20.120 --> 01:24:25.240 And obviously, if it doesn't get cleared, I mean, well, come to us regardless, right? 01:24:25.240 --> 01:24:26.240 Right. 01:24:26.240 --> 01:24:27.240 Whether it gets cleared or doesn't. 01:24:27.240 --> 01:24:28.240 Okay. 01:24:28.240 --> 01:24:29.240 Very good. 01:24:29.240 --> 01:24:30.240 Thanks. 01:24:30.240 --> 01:24:31.240 Commissioner Smith. 01:24:31.240 --> 01:24:35.160 Make a motion to approve the staff conditions. 01:24:35.160 --> 01:24:36.160 Commissioner Pruitt? 01:24:36.160 --> 01:24:37.160 Second. 01:24:37.160 --> 01:24:38.160 Okay. 01:24:38.160 --> 01:24:41.360 We've got a first and a second for approval as presented by staff. 01:24:41.360 --> 01:24:43.600 Any discussion? 01:24:43.600 --> 01:24:44.760 Okay. 01:24:44.760 --> 01:24:48.360 Let's vote, please. 01:24:48.360 --> 01:24:53.600 That motion will carry 7-0. 01:24:53.600 --> 01:24:56.200 We'll take us to our public hearings for this evening. 01:24:56.200 --> 01:25:02.680 First is 5A, AESA 22-0004A. 01:25:02.680 --> 01:25:13.360 Christy's making her way up, and I will open the public hearing. 01:25:13.360 --> 01:25:19.080 Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and tonight I'll be presenting the Alternative 01:25:19.080 --> 01:25:25.680 ESA Plan for Cyrene at Hickory Creek, also known as Barrel Strap Residential. 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 01:25:34.360 --> 01:25:42.800 buffer and undeveloped floodplain, and a restoration of that remainder of the ESA complex to improve 01:25:42.800 --> 01:25:47.440 the ecological services, and staff recommends approval. 01:25:47.440 --> 01:25:54.800 The preliminary plot was approved on June 22, 2022, and since then staff has been working 01:25:54.800 --> 01:26:05.120 with the property to develop this plan for the 14.176 acres of the residential development, 01:26:05.120 --> 01:26:12.960 and this Alternative ESA Plan to allow for the configuration. 01:26:12.960 --> 01:26:18.780 There was an ESA field assessment that confirmed that there was a riparian buffer, and the 01:26:18.780 --> 01:26:27.000 1% floodplain is considered undeveloped, and these provide ecological services such as 01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:33.200 providing habitat, bank stabilization, and improved water quality. 01:26:33.200 --> 01:26:38.280 The impacts to the environmentally sensitive areas will include a residential road that 01:26:38.280 --> 01:26:45.240 aligns with the median opening at Hickory Creek Road, and there will be retaining walls 01:26:45.240 --> 01:26:54.720 to help support that roadway, and the residential roadway that will be overlaid on that stream, 01:26:54.720 --> 01:27:00.160 outfalls to the structure, including riprap, and trails on the east side of the remainder 01:27:00.160 --> 01:27:08.800 of the ESA that is intended to be dedicated to the Parks and Recreation Department. 01:27:08.800 --> 01:27:14.080 The mitigation plan is to improve the current habitat conditions in the remainder space 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 01:27:22.300 --> 01:27:26.600 in its place to help outcompete that privet in the future. 01:27:26.600 --> 01:27:31.520 Next construction, there will be an inspection of trees that are in the environmentally sensitive 01:27:31.520 --> 01:27:32.520 area. 01:27:32.520 --> 01:27:39.120 If those trees are found to have been damaged or destroyed during the construction of the 01:27:39.120 --> 01:27:46.280 development, then the applicant has agreed to mitigate at the ratio that is in the development 01:27:46.280 --> 01:27:47.280 code. 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 01:27:53.960 --> 01:28:03.080 in allowing for the property, the applicant, to make disturbances within that area with 01:28:03.080 --> 01:28:11.480 mitigation afterwards to allow for that development to move forward, considering FEMA's approval 01:28:11.480 --> 01:28:16.680 of their floodplain modifications. 01:28:16.680 --> 01:28:25.160 There were notifications made in the mailers, we received three opposition letters in return, 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. 01:28:34.280 --> 01:28:41.360 And staff is recommending approval of the mitigation plan with the conditions outlined 01:28:41.360 --> 01:28:47.240 in your backup material and described in this presentation. 01:28:47.240 --> 01:28:51.600 And with that, I'll take any questions. 01:28:51.600 --> 01:28:52.600 Thank you, Kristi. 01:28:52.600 --> 01:28:56.160 Any questions for Kristi at this time? 01:28:56.160 --> 01:28:57.160 Commissioner Smith? 01:28:57.160 --> 01:28:58.160 Thank you, Chair. 01:28:58.160 --> 01:29:00.320 Kristi, sorry I missed your presentation and work session. 01:29:00.320 --> 01:29:05.240 Just to get clarification, presentation and the backup, everything was very thorough. 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 01:29:09.200 --> 01:29:12.240 over the existing culvert and waterway that runs through there. 01:29:12.240 --> 01:29:14.080 Is that correct, am I understanding that? 01:29:14.080 --> 01:29:15.080 This right here? 01:29:15.080 --> 01:29:16.080 Correct. 01:29:16.080 --> 01:29:19.680 That parallel road there is essentially, it's just going to, because Hickory Creek works 01:29:19.680 --> 01:29:24.080 as a bridge for the waterway, the pathway that runs through north and south on Hickory 01:29:24.080 --> 01:29:27.520 Creek, that parallel road will just be essentially a bridge. 01:29:27.520 --> 01:29:30.240 We're not stopping up that waterway flow, correct? 01:29:30.240 --> 01:29:31.240 Yes. 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 01:29:34.800 --> 01:29:35.800 underneath, correct? 01:29:35.800 --> 01:29:36.800 Right, right. 01:29:36.800 --> 01:29:37.800 Yeah, it's an extension of the culvert. 01:29:37.800 --> 01:29:38.800 Gotcha. 01:29:38.800 --> 01:29:39.800 I don't think we can necessarily call it bridge. 01:29:39.800 --> 01:29:44.640 Bridge, yeah, you know what, potato, potato, no one's a potato, but yeah, cool. 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 01:29:49.320 --> 01:29:50.320 the north, yes. 01:29:50.320 --> 01:29:55.240 Culvert, got it Kristi, thanks. 01:29:55.240 --> 01:29:57.440 Any other questions at this time for Kristi? 01:29:57.440 --> 01:30:00.640 Okay, thank you very much. 01:30:00.640 --> 01:30:03.240 I don't have any cards in front of me, but this is a public hearing. 01:30:03.240 --> 01:30:10.120 Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? 01:30:10.120 --> 01:30:16.280 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open this for a motion or discussion. 01:30:16.280 --> 01:30:17.280 Commissioner Smith? 01:30:17.280 --> 01:30:20.860 Make a motion to approve as staff present. 01:30:20.860 --> 01:30:21.860 Commissioner Anderson? 01:30:21.860 --> 01:30:22.860 Second. 01:30:22.860 --> 01:30:29.360 Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval as presented by staff. 01:30:29.360 --> 01:30:30.360 Any discussion? 01:30:30.360 --> 01:30:44.600 Okay, let's vote on the board please. 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 01:30:52.680 --> 01:30:57.880 this evening, 5B, DCA 23-0009. 01:30:57.880 --> 01:31:09.320 Hayley is making way up to present, and I will open the public hearing. 01:31:09.320 --> 01:31:10.320 Good evening, commission. 01:31:10.320 --> 01:31:14.400 Hayley Zagorski, assistant planning director. 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 01:31:20.200 --> 01:31:23.760 DDC is in response to House Bill 3699. 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 01:31:28.040 --> 01:31:32.800 will need to come before you all, possibly additional ones to clean up subchapter 2 of 01:31:32.800 --> 01:31:35.940 our debt and development code as well as our subdivision regulations to make them compliant 01:31:35.940 --> 01:31:38.320 with these changes to state law. 01:31:38.320 --> 01:31:40.680 So the request before you tonight is fairly limited in scope. 01:31:40.680 --> 01:31:44.040 We are simply looking to make preliminary plats an optional step in the development 01:31:44.040 --> 01:31:48.360 review process rather than a requirement for properties in the city limits. 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 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. 01:31:57.400 --> 01:31:59.840 So this is in keeping with those changes. 01:31:59.840 --> 01:32:06.000 But to give a little bit of background, HB 3699 prohibits any sort of supporting study 01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:10.360 or analysis being required as part of a plat application for us that would include our 01:32:10.360 --> 01:32:15.880 traffic impact analysis, drainage studies, utility studies, as well as our tree preservation 01:32:15.880 --> 01:32:19.760 plans and our environmentally sensitive area assessments. 01:32:19.760 --> 01:32:23.440 So those can no longer be part of the plat application itself, therefore we have updated 01:32:23.440 --> 01:32:28.040 all of our checklists effective September 1 to relocate those requirements to either 01:32:28.040 --> 01:32:32.360 the zoning compliance plan or the civil engineering plan steps in the process, whichever was most 01:32:32.360 --> 01:32:35.320 appropriate based on the application type. 01:32:35.320 --> 01:32:39.800 So with that, as we now require that zoning compliance plan for all developments, if we 01:32:39.800 --> 01:32:43.720 were to keep preliminary plats as a requirement, it would be redundant for most applications. 01:32:43.720 --> 01:32:46.800 We would gain no new information with the preliminary plat than what we're seeing at 01:32:46.800 --> 01:32:48.320 those other steps. 01:32:48.320 --> 01:32:52.520 So therefore we are requesting approval of this amendment to make those an optional step 01:32:52.520 --> 01:32:57.280 in the event that a developer needs that preliminary plat for some sort of financing mechanism, 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 01:33:00.600 --> 01:33:04.960 benefit to that, then we would keep that option available to them. 01:33:04.960 --> 01:33:08.280 So that would streamline our development process, and as I mentioned, avoid that redundancy 01:33:08.280 --> 01:33:13.400 based on where we've moved those studies that we otherwise require. 01:33:13.400 --> 01:33:17.300 So with that, staff is recommending approval of this amendment, and I'm happy to answer 01:33:17.300 --> 01:33:18.960 any other questions. 01:33:18.960 --> 01:33:19.960 Thank you, Haley. 01:33:19.960 --> 01:33:23.340 Any questions for Haley? 01:33:23.340 --> 01:33:24.340 I have one. 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 01:33:28.840 --> 01:33:34.000 be something you suggest that would help them, or is that not allowed? 01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:36.400 We could certainly make the suggestion. 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 01:33:41.480 --> 01:33:45.640 as I mentioned before, if it meets those very limited criteria, we would be obligated to 01:33:45.640 --> 01:33:47.840 bring it forth for approval. 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 01:33:51.680 --> 01:33:53.280 keep that option open. 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, 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 01:34:01.040 --> 01:34:02.040 they follow. 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 01:34:05.480 --> 01:34:06.480 be entirely optional. 01:34:06.480 --> 01:34:07.480 Yeah. 01:34:07.480 --> 01:34:08.480 Good. 01:34:08.480 --> 01:34:09.480 Thank you. 01:34:09.480 --> 01:34:10.480 Any other questions? 01:34:10.480 --> 01:34:11.480 Okay. 01:34:11.480 --> 01:34:12.480 Thank you. 01:34:12.480 --> 01:34:13.480 This is a public hearing. 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? 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 01:34:21.080 --> 01:34:25.920 hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion. 01:34:25.920 --> 01:34:26.920 Commissioner Smith. 01:34:26.920 --> 01:34:28.280 Make a motion to approve. 01:34:28.280 --> 01:34:29.280 Commissioner Cole. 01:34:29.280 --> 01:34:30.280 Second. 01:34:30.280 --> 01:34:34.080 We've got a first and a second for approval. 01:34:34.080 --> 01:34:35.080 Is there any discussion? 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 01:34:43.320 --> 01:34:44.760 McDade's screen. 01:34:44.760 --> 01:34:48.720 We'll wait for that to get fixed. 01:34:48.720 --> 01:34:51.160 You're still on her screen. 01:34:51.160 --> 01:34:52.160 Okay. 01:34:52.160 --> 01:34:53.160 Are you back? 01:34:53.160 --> 01:34:54.160 All right. 01:34:54.160 --> 01:34:55.160 Okay. 01:34:55.160 --> 01:35:05.400 Seeing no discussion, let's go ahead and vote, please. 01:35:05.400 --> 01:35:07.560 That motion carries seven is zero. 01:35:07.560 --> 01:35:13.680 That will take us to 5C, DCA 23-0010. 01:35:13.680 --> 01:35:16.920 Angie's here for presentation, and I will open the public hearing. 01:35:16.920 --> 01:35:17.920 All right. 01:35:17.920 --> 01:35:22.640 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglars, Senior Planner. 01:35:22.640 --> 01:35:29.000 This is a code amendment to address agricultural and animal use amendments due to recent state 01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:30.000 legislation. 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 01:35:35.600 --> 01:35:39.120 were adopted that regulate agricultural uses. 01:35:39.120 --> 01:35:43.560 Specifically, this one goes on to state that a city may not impose a governmental requirement 01:35:43.560 --> 01:35:47.320 on any agricultural use within its corporate limits. 01:35:47.320 --> 01:35:52.680 Governmental requirements includes zoning, permitting, licensing, any sort of standards. 01:35:52.680 --> 01:35:57.640 It cannot adopt any requirement that would prohibit general best practices of agricultural 01:35:57.640 --> 01:36:02.920 operations, the use of certain pesticides. 01:36:02.920 --> 01:36:07.600 Overall this is a pretty broad bill, it does allow cities to retain some authority. 01:36:07.600 --> 01:36:11.520 Specifically, cities can still regulate the height of vegetation, specifically where an 01:36:11.520 --> 01:36:16.960 agricultural use is adjacent to a public road or a neighboring residence, where a city can 01:36:16.960 --> 01:36:21.520 require a written management plan to be commissioned by their city health official or other consultant 01:36:21.520 --> 01:36:25.040 to determine any impacts on public health. 01:36:25.040 --> 01:36:32.560 And the Texas AgriLife extension has been charged by passing of this bill to develop 01:36:32.560 --> 01:36:36.040 a manual that outlines best agricultural practices. 01:36:36.040 --> 01:36:40.640 Any regulations that cities are wanting to impose upon agricultural operations within 01:36:40.640 --> 01:36:43.400 its city limits must be derived from that manual. 01:36:43.400 --> 01:36:48.940 So from a finding that comes from this report that's forthcoming, we could derive regulations 01:36:48.940 --> 01:36:50.840 from that report. 01:36:50.840 --> 01:36:53.800 So what that means is we have to make a few amendments to our DDC. 01:36:53.800 --> 01:36:57.940 One of those is where we allow agricultural uses. 01:36:57.940 --> 01:37:03.040 So general agriculture, commercial stable, community gardens and urban farms had not 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 01:37:07.160 --> 01:37:13.200 1715 as our recommendation that we do allow these uses in all zoning districts as part 01:37:13.200 --> 01:37:16.800 of governmental requirements does include zoning. 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 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 01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:32.180 regulate agricultural operations. 01:37:32.180 --> 01:37:36.560 That includes an extensive list they have on practices that could create imminent danger 01:37:36.560 --> 01:37:38.140 to adjacent properties. 01:37:38.140 --> 01:37:42.960 It also references the report that a city could ask either their health official or 01:37:42.960 --> 01:37:47.440 a consultant to commission and also the AgriLife extension report that's forthcoming. 01:37:47.440 --> 01:37:52.520 So both of these rather than having our own specific use standards, use specific standards 01:37:52.520 --> 01:37:56.800 which would regulate livestock or agricultural or commercial stables, it's just going to 01:37:56.800 --> 01:38:00.120 refer back to that bill. 01:38:00.120 --> 01:38:03.600 Likewise, sale of produce and plants. 01:38:03.600 --> 01:38:07.480 We can't establish our own regulations as a city on agricultural operations. 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 01:38:12.340 --> 01:38:17.360 out of the Texas A&M AgriLife extension report and go off of those. 01:38:17.360 --> 01:38:22.000 Those are some of the amendments being proposed due to House Bill 1750. 01:38:22.000 --> 01:38:27.040 We also saw House Bills 2308 and 2947. 01:38:27.040 --> 01:38:28.420 These are more limited in scope. 01:38:28.420 --> 01:38:32.360 They do both look at the definition of agricultural operations. 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 01:38:38.240 --> 01:38:44.280 operations as well as makes additions to addition, including veterinary services for livestock 01:38:44.280 --> 01:38:46.460 and poultry specifically. 01:38:46.460 --> 01:38:50.520 So we've recommended some minor amendments to our current definition of agriculture and 01:38:50.520 --> 01:38:54.540 animal uses to capture some of the language that comes out of this bill. 01:38:54.540 --> 01:38:58.680 One of those was including accessory structures that are meant to support agricultural uses, 01:38:58.680 --> 01:39:02.880 now do fall under the general umbrella term of agricultural operations. 01:39:02.880 --> 01:39:04.620 So we've included that. 01:39:04.620 --> 01:39:08.480 And then we have matched the definition or staff is proposing to match the definition 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 01:39:13.200 --> 01:39:17.520 with what state law is and what is being referenced in these bills. 01:39:17.520 --> 01:39:22.040 I think that staff is recommending approval as this does meet our criteria for approval 01:39:22.040 --> 01:39:24.960 in Section 274D of the DDC. 01:39:24.960 --> 01:39:28.840 And the next step will be city council next week on September 19th. 01:39:28.840 --> 01:39:33.600 With that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. 01:39:33.600 --> 01:39:35.560 >> Any questions for Angie? 01:39:35.560 --> 01:39:39.560 I do not see any. 01:39:39.560 --> 01:39:41.080 Thank you very much. 01:39:41.080 --> 01:39:42.160 This is a public hearing. 01:39:42.160 --> 01:39:45.280 I do not have any cards in front of me. 01:39:45.280 --> 01:39:48.100 Or do I see anyone here in council chambers? 01:39:48.100 --> 01:39:54.420 So I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. 01:39:54.420 --> 01:39:57.720 And I will open the floor for a motion or discussion. 01:39:57.720 --> 01:39:58.720 Commissioner Smith. 01:39:58.720 --> 01:40:00.920 >> Make a motion to approve. 01:40:00.920 --> 01:40:01.920 >> Commissioner Pritz. 01:40:01.920 --> 01:40:02.920 >> Second. 01:40:02.920 --> 01:40:03.920 >> Okay. 01:40:03.920 --> 01:40:05.260 We've got a first and a second for approval. 01:40:05.260 --> 01:40:07.260 Any discussion? 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 01:40:16.240 --> 01:40:19.680 things on council agenda, that this is only a week apart. 01:40:19.680 --> 01:40:22.680 So maybe that was already put in place. 01:40:22.680 --> 01:40:26.200 But I'll just throw that out there. 01:40:26.200 --> 01:40:30.060 >> And the reason for the scheduling is due to the effectiveness of the state statutes. 01:40:30.060 --> 01:40:32.280 So hence why we're fast tracking this to council. 01:40:32.280 --> 01:40:33.280 >> Thank you. 01:40:33.280 --> 01:40:34.280 Okay. 01:40:34.280 --> 01:40:35.280 Any discussion? 01:40:35.280 --> 01:40:36.280 Further? 01:40:36.280 --> 01:40:37.280 Okay. 01:40:37.280 --> 01:40:44.200 Let's vote on the board, please. 01:40:44.200 --> 01:40:46.920 That motion carries 7-0. 01:40:46.920 --> 01:40:50.360 That will bring us to our planning and zoning matrix. 01:40:50.360 --> 01:40:54.560 And I will give the floor to Tina. 01:40:54.560 --> 01:41:01.400 >> Thank you, Chair Ellis. 01:41:01.400 --> 01:41:06.920 So the matrix has been updated to take into consideration the legislative update that 01:41:06.920 --> 01:41:07.920 we had given previously. 01:41:07.920 --> 01:41:10.920 So we removed that. 01:41:10.920 --> 01:41:12.920 That was done at the end of August. 01:41:12.920 --> 01:41:14.960 Just kind of a quick run down on some of the items. 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 01:41:20.560 --> 01:41:22.720 parking requirements item, which is on the matrix. 01:41:22.720 --> 01:41:32.080 So the DCRC has been working on parking, and after some extensive discussion with the DCRC, 01:41:32.080 --> 01:41:38.240 we have chosen to pause the amendments to the parking section, particularly as it relates 01:41:38.240 --> 01:41:40.760 to no minimum parking requirements. 01:41:40.760 --> 01:41:46.000 The city is actually undertaking a citywide parking study to address a lot of parking 01:41:46.000 --> 01:41:50.000 management challenges and issues that have surfaced within the community. 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 01:41:56.320 --> 01:42:00.400 adopting no minimum parking requirement and allowing more or less the market to determine 01:42:00.400 --> 01:42:06.200 what might be appropriate for development, hence why we are including the evaluation 01:42:06.200 --> 01:42:08.680 no minimum parking within that citywide parking study. 01:42:08.680 --> 01:42:14.480 So this will allow the consultant that is retained to do a comprehensive analysis associated 01:42:14.480 --> 01:42:20.360 with our parking regulations and how we manage parking, and particularly parking on our public 01:42:20.360 --> 01:42:26.680 streets, and be able to provide some recommended practices associated with that for council's 01:42:26.680 --> 01:42:31.640 consideration and ultimately provide some better direction for us as it relates to addressing 01:42:31.640 --> 01:42:34.600 that particular topic. 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 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 01:42:44.400 --> 01:42:50.200 to allow us to do some public engagement as it relates to that particular code amendment. 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 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 01:43:02.720 --> 01:43:03.720 that survey. 01:43:03.720 --> 01:43:07.920 So staff is currently working through the results of the survey, and we'll be bringing 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 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 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 01:43:25.240 --> 01:43:27.800 that forward. 01:43:27.800 --> 01:43:37.060 As it relates to our area planning, so we've kicked off the downtown update plan. 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 01:43:40.720 --> 01:43:41.720 and move forward. 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 01:43:46.640 --> 01:43:48.880 will be doing that. 01:43:48.880 --> 01:43:51.760 We've already started some public engagement efforts, really trying to get the word out 01:43:51.760 --> 01:43:52.760 on the project. 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 01:43:56.960 --> 01:43:57.960 secret sauce. 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 01:44:02.040 --> 01:44:04.880 we get the parents to talk. 01:44:04.880 --> 01:44:08.200 But nonetheless, they started receiving some great feedback. 01:44:08.200 --> 01:44:12.160 One of the things that was interesting in talking with our consultant is, he's like, 01:44:12.160 --> 01:44:14.200 people in Denton love their downtown. 01:44:14.200 --> 01:44:16.840 He's like, you'd be surprised with some of the projects that they work on. 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 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 01:44:25.040 --> 01:44:26.320 point. 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 01:44:30.040 --> 01:44:32.920 Autos, and we will be doing additional engagement. 01:44:32.920 --> 01:44:35.960 We have parking day that's this Friday down on the square. 01:44:35.960 --> 01:44:37.720 Hopefully it doesn't get rained out. 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 01:44:41.160 --> 01:44:46.080 will be present at parking day as well as the Blues Festival, and seeking comments from 01:44:46.080 --> 01:44:48.240 the public on that. 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 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 01:44:58.200 --> 01:44:59.200 important. 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 01:45:02.740 --> 01:45:06.520 to the work that we're doing on that downtown plan, I would really appreciate it. 01:45:06.520 --> 01:45:10.920 Southeast, we continue to progress with our analysis and work on that. 01:45:10.920 --> 01:45:15.760 We are looking at trying to schedule another public engagement event associated with that 01:45:15.760 --> 01:45:16.840 particular project. 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 01:45:20.400 --> 01:45:22.200 we're doing that. 01:45:22.200 --> 01:45:26.960 And in coupling that with the information that we presented, that engagement event, 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 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 01:45:36.480 --> 01:45:41.600 of our efforts thus far in having over 100 respondents. 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 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 01:45:51.680 --> 01:45:55.960 good feedback from the community as it relates to our Southeast Denton project. 01:45:55.960 --> 01:46:00.000 Our Northeast Denton project, we also continue to do the work on that. 01:46:00.000 --> 01:46:04.920 For your benefit, so we're working through making some modifications to our project schedule, 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 01:46:08.760 --> 01:46:12.480 the steering committee, was an implementation workshop with our partners, so we're no longer 01:46:12.480 --> 01:46:16.200 doing that, and staff will be doing the work as it relates to that. 01:46:16.200 --> 01:46:20.640 And really with that discussion that was meeting with our partners in terms of evaluating the 01:46:20.640 --> 01:46:25.920 action items that might be put forth, and responsible parties for implementation associated 01:46:25.920 --> 01:46:26.920 with that. 01:46:26.920 --> 01:46:30.640 So we as staff will be taking that task on. 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, 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. 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 01:46:46.280 --> 01:46:51.320 the Planning and Zoning Commission before we do a work session with council in leading 01:46:51.320 --> 01:46:55.520 into our adoption phase, and of course we have one additional steering committee meeting, 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. 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 01:47:03.440 --> 01:47:05.680 that are still left in that project. 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 01:47:11.280 --> 01:47:12.560 report on that to the group. 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 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 01:47:24.880 --> 01:47:31.400 applications go before the council since that time, and so I have nothing to report from 01:47:31.400 --> 01:47:32.400 that aspect. 01:47:32.400 --> 01:47:34.520 But happy to answer any questions you may have. 01:47:34.520 --> 01:47:35.520 Thank you, Tina. 01:47:35.520 --> 01:47:36.520 Commissioner Pruitt. 01:47:36.520 --> 01:47:37.520 Thank you, Chair. 01:47:37.520 --> 01:47:41.120 I just have something else for the matrix. 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 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 01:47:55.160 --> 01:47:58.320 restrictions and that sort of thing came. 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 01:48:08.560 --> 01:48:13.280 requirements and the plat specific requirements that we have in our code, and separate them 01:48:13.280 --> 01:48:15.640 into three different buckets. 01:48:15.640 --> 01:48:22.080 So one bucket would be the requirements that we believe are technical in nature and already 01:48:22.080 --> 01:48:23.760 enforceable. 01:48:23.760 --> 01:48:29.680 The second bucket would be the requirements which we believe are not enforceable, not 01:48:29.680 --> 01:48:36.600 technical, and because of some case law or other legal proceedings that have happened 01:48:36.600 --> 01:48:42.020 over the last two years, we believe that they could not be made legally enforceable. 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 01:48:49.840 --> 01:48:55.520 now could not be legally enforceable because they are not technical, however, amendments 01:48:55.520 --> 01:49:05.280 to said items for the same intended purpose could render them legally enforceable. 01:49:05.280 --> 01:49:07.320 So that was a lot of words. 01:49:07.320 --> 01:49:11.960 Any questions from staff on that? 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 01:49:17.040 --> 01:49:24.940 a longer work session on discussing how we want to respond to the separation of those 01:49:24.940 --> 01:49:33.040 items and come up with a recommendation together to counsel about what a future actions would 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, 01:49:40.880 --> 01:49:43.040 if that makes sense. 01:49:43.040 --> 01:49:44.040 Okay. 01:49:44.040 --> 01:49:46.880 Do you get it? 01:49:46.880 --> 01:49:47.880 Yes. 01:49:47.880 --> 01:49:48.880 Okay. 01:49:48.880 --> 01:49:49.880 Okay. 01:49:49.880 --> 01:49:50.880 Thank you. 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 01:49:54.920 --> 01:49:57.920 upon our friends at DTV, so I go back and watch your video. 01:49:57.920 --> 01:50:00.320 But I understand the point that you're making, though. 01:50:00.320 --> 01:50:01.320 Thank you. 01:50:01.320 --> 01:50:02.320 Commissioner McDade. 01:50:02.320 --> 01:50:03.880 Thank you, Chair. 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 01:50:10.800 --> 01:50:12.800 this question is coming from the neighborhood. 01:50:12.800 --> 01:50:18.880 I know you said you're having your first meeting soon, and they're still concerned 01:50:18.880 --> 01:50:21.920 about the boundaries. 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 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, 01:50:31.280 --> 01:50:37.080 or will you go through the southeast area steering committee, or will you actually come 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 01:50:41.360 --> 01:50:44.880 for the downtown area plan? 01:50:44.880 --> 01:50:47.800 Yes, all of the above. 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 01:50:52.680 --> 01:50:54.720 the plan are. 01:50:54.720 --> 01:51:01.360 We are in our initial stages on that project, and those boundaries have not been drawn. 01:51:01.360 --> 01:51:05.600 We will definitely be communicating with the Southeast Denton steering committee. 01:51:05.600 --> 01:51:10.000 Also, we will be communicating with the Southeast Denton Neighborhood Association, because I 01:51:10.000 --> 01:51:12.720 know they're very interested in that as well. 01:51:12.720 --> 01:51:16.840 We'll also be communicating out with any of our public engagement efforts to let folks 01:51:16.840 --> 01:51:19.780 know when we have those conversations. 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 01:51:23.280 --> 01:51:27.720 community, is what do they consider Southeast Denton? 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 01:51:33.960 --> 01:51:36.360 the geographic area also associated with it. 01:51:36.360 --> 01:51:40.920 We're trying to navigate through all of that, but we will definitely be communicating with 01:51:40.920 --> 01:51:44.360 the public on any information we put out related to that. 01:51:44.360 --> 01:51:45.600 I know that's an area of concern. 01:51:45.600 --> 01:51:46.600 All right. 01:51:46.600 --> 01:51:47.600 Thank you. 01:51:47.600 --> 01:51:48.600 Sure thing. 01:51:48.600 --> 01:51:49.600 Anything else for the matrix? 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 01:51:56.240 --> 01:51:59.720 all the boxes that I need done, so looking forward to that work session item. 01:51:59.720 --> 01:52:04.240 Also, with regard to Commissioner Pruitt, just making sure somebody took notes that 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 01:52:08.840 --> 01:52:09.840 happens. 01:52:09.840 --> 01:52:10.840 Okay. 01:52:10.840 --> 01:52:15.720 Seeing nothing else for the matrix, do we have any concluding items? 01:52:15.720 --> 01:52:17.560 Okay. 01:52:17.560 --> 01:52:20.360 With that, I will adjourn our meeting at 7.50 p.m. 01:52:20.360 --> 01:52:20.800 Thank you, everyone.